Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (Nosferatu, a Symphony of Horror) (Nosferatu the Vampire) Reviews and Ratings


  • abbicabanding
    September 22, 2008
    abbicabanding
    The most memorable Dracula film ever made. Amazing cinematography and Schreck's performance is unforgettable. This is truly on of Germany's finest films ever.
  • neuroticelmo1
    September 6, 2008
    neuroticelmo1
    This is a great vanpire movie and an excellent silent film. It intruduces us to a new kind of vampire that does not look human but more like a rodent. Max Schreck is such a convincing actor that many people in his time truly believed him to be a vampire. This is a great alternati...( read more)ve to Bela Lugosi's Count Dracula.
  • EarthlyAlien
    September 4, 2008
    EarthlyAlien
    "Is this your wife? What a lovely throat."

    Nosferatu is one of the most famous horror films of all time. Not only that, it also features one (if not more) of the most iconic scenes in Film history. But how many people have actually sat through the entire film? Less...( read more) than you might think, not least because a definitive version of F.W. Murnau's silent classic hasn't been available to buy until recently, when the film's Ultimate DVD Edition was finally released last year.

    Photobucket

    The film itself loosely follows Bram Stoker's 1897 Dracula novel, carefully avoiding any direct references, but with enough similarity for Stoker's widow to successfully sue the Prana company and insist all copies were destroyed. Thankfully for the world, numerous copies of the film had already been distributed - with a restored release based on a French archive print from 1922, and other prints used to fill in the gaps. Missing storyboards have also been recreated using the same font as the original film. Which means for the first time in over 80 years, we can sit back and watch what the director intended.

    As with all silent films, Nosferatu requires both time and effort - but it is time well spent. The plot revolves around a real estate employee (or estate agent if you prefer) in Wismar, Germany called Hutter, who works for the sinister Knock. Knock receives a mysterious letter from a Count Orlok, who is looking to buy a house in the area - and Hutter is despatched to the Carpathian Mountains to seal the deal. Hutter is discouraged from visiting the castle by the locals and by the hellish tales in a copy of "The Book of the Vampires" he finds in his room at a nearby Inn, but chooses to ignore these warnings, heading off on foot to Orlok's home at first light.

    Orlok welcomes his guest, feeds him and signs for the house in Wismar. But before long, Hutter realises Orlok isn't just an old eccentric - finding him in a coffin, he realises that the warnings were right - Orlok is a vampire. With the house sale agreed, Orlok heads to Wismar, armed with coffins full of plague-ridden rats. Hutter attempts to stop him, but knocks himself unconscious escaping the castle. The plague hits Wismar and Orlok is able to go about his evil business behind the distraction of that plague - until Hutter's wife Ellen finds the "Vampire" book and a way of stopping him.

    I have lost count of the number of vampire flicks I've seen over the years, but for me, Nosferatu is still the most menacing and sinister of them all. No stylised blood-letting, no smart suits and slick-back hair, no women falling at his feet - just a grotesque monster with a desire to bring evil and suffering to the world. And despite its age and its relatively discreet budget, Nosferatu is also one of the most striking vampire films you will ever see, thanks to impressive camera work for the era, well-chosen locations (many of which are still standing today), a solid storyline and strong character portrayals, especially by Max Schreck as Orlok. And a mesmerizing Eduard Erdmann score only adds to the atmosphere.

    In fact, if you want to know more about the lead-up to the film, its locations and about Murnau's early career, the excellent Language of Shadows documentary by Luciano Berriatúa about Murnau and the making of Nosferatu featured in the DVD is pretty much essential viewing. And if that's not enough, the included booklet should give you enough knowledge of the film to sit an exam.

    Copies of Nosferatu have floated around the public domain for years, but none are complete and the majority are of very poor quality both in terms of picture and sound quality. A film of this importance deserves more and it gets more with this release. If you have any interest in horror, European cinema, expressionism or just Film history, this is a film that should definitely be in your memory, and a DVD that should be in your collection.

    "It will cost you sweat and tears, and perhaps... a little blood."
  • LisaMJ
    August 30, 2008
    LisaMJ
    The first silent film I've watched. Pretty good.
  • eupnee
    August 26, 2008
    eupnee
    ahaha, some parts are really funny ("is this your wife? what a wonderful neck!" - and hutter takes no notice of absolutely anything XD), but it surely gets boring, after a while ._.
  • pizzicatoiv
    August 5, 2008
    pizzicatoiv
    this is creepy. it doesnt get any better by the end. ah hollywood happy ending.
  • habs123
    July 24, 2008
    habs123
    This movie is just amazing! It's incredible to think this was made in 1922, I mean, with the numerous fade in fade out, and speed effects, it's hard to believe. Of course, the acting makes you laugh sometimes, but thats whats great about the silent-era movies. Actor couldn't use ...( read more)their voices so it obviously affect their reactions. I had fun watching it and, well, isn't that what matters the most?
  • cam1972aro
    July 16, 2008
    cam1972aro
    THIS SHOW KICKED ASS
  • Tarebear431
    July 14, 2008
    Tarebear431
    a classic totally creepy
  • ImmortalDisciple
    July 13, 2008
    ImmortalDisciple
    Wasn't all that bad. The one big problem I had with this film was the music. At times it was ridiculous and didn't fit the scene. I think the mood was destroyed at times by this.
  • ilmouzer
    July 12, 2008
    ilmouzer
    I still find it hard to write a review for such a well done film that still gives me the creeps, even though it hardly has any frights with no CGI. Over three quarters of a century old and still worth watching, I wonder how many movies will still be this powerful.

    If you haven't...( read more) watch it, try YouTube - before Viacom start fucking up the site. YOU CAN'T MISS THIS MOVIE!
  • Hecatomnus
    July 6, 2008
    Hecatomnus
    Best silent film I've seen.
  • mizdippyblonde
    July 3, 2008
    mizdippyblonde
    CLASSIC!!!!! this is a most see for any film or vampire fan, although old the effec are great for the time and still is a masterclass on how to make an eerie and atmospheric film with little budget and not having blood and guts everywhere 2 try and achieve it goal
  • DragonEyeMorrison
    June 28, 2008
    DragonEyeMorrison
    Iconic movie that hasn't lost a bit of it's enigmatic aura. Aside of an odd moment where Orlok is walking by the streets carrying his coffin, without anyone even noticing that. The rest of the film manages to keep it's creepy atmosphere the entire time.
  • ninjacobra
    June 28, 2008
    ninjacobra
    This was my first silent film, and i enjoyed it. Plus it's a vapire movie. All the images of a silent film just seem so much meanig something. It's quite special. I'l repeat the experience soon, that's for sure.
    The srtory line is of course, Bram Stroker's story of Dracula. An...( read more)d I eared an interesting fact about this film: It was apparently an unauthorized production of Bram Stroker's novel. So a couple years after (1924 - 1929), his Widow wo lawsuits and asked for every copy of this film to be destroyed. What a whore! (it was her right)
    Now, we can still see this film every where and I think that's for Good! Vive the oldest classic ever!
  • columbiatch
    June 26, 2008
    columbiatch
    Despite some impressive visuals and a great performance by Max Schreck, I was bored during most of the film. Also, the protagonist has to be the dumbest schmuck in silent film.
  • darksideofthemoon858
    June 26, 2008
    darksideofthemoon858
    I thought that the ending was too quick and did Ellen die? Cuz I don't want her to die! But it was a good movie and I liked the mood of the movie and I actually felt like Hutter and Ellen loved each other...
  • CoolEthan90
    June 17, 2008
    CoolEthan90
    One of the creepiest things ever commited to film
  • metalrules31
    June 17, 2008
    metalrules31
    Nosferatu by F.W. Murnau, can be considered as being the first classic of cinema history. It dates back to 1922, the early history of the seventh art. If it wasn?t for some serious research in order to obtain a full copy of this movie, then I would have to give this title to anot...( read more)her film.
    It is true, this is the first silent black & white movie I have seen, but it was certainly a good starting point, and also a place I could recommend others to start from.
    Its story is simple; it is basically a summary of Bram Stoker?s Dracula, the backbone of the story. It eliminates secondary characters or diminishing their roles in order to present the movie with few interventions of intertitles.
    It is very fast moving, understandable and even though it dates back more than 80 years, it is still scary. This is mainly due to some great shots by F.W. Murnau and the amazing main character portrayed by Max Schreck. Some of these effects are yellow tinting for day, blue tinting for night, an amazing sound score and the genius negative shot.
    Max Schreck portrays Nosferatu. Murnau considered him quite ugly and just ordered ear and nose tips to be added to his make-up. Schreck does not blink on the whole movie, wears heavy clothes and always creates an aura of darkness and mystery whenever he is on screen. This can be finally seen on one of the final scene where the shadow of the vampire is seen walking up the stairs.
    All these and more, make of this film a great visual experience. This is probably the most significant release on the dark world of vampires since the before mentioned Bram Stoker?s Dracula.
  • enchanted66
    June 15, 2008
    enchanted66
    This was a rare movie that i had to own.This is the ugliest vampire i ever seen in movies.It does have some funniness in the movie.
  • PvtCaboose91
    June 14, 2008
    PvtCaboose91
    "Not so fast, my young friend! No-one can outrun their fate."


    F.W. Murnau's 1922 silent film Nosferatu is a groundbreaking masterpiece of the vampire genre: a truly fascinating film that is the essential blueprint for all vampire movies that were to follow. Mu

    ...( read more)rnau fundamentally gave birth to the horror genre with this silent film from the German Expressionism era of filmmaking. At the time of release, no moviegoers had ever experienced this genre embodied on film. In essence, this film contains all the exemplary vampire components and is still the archetypal vampire movie experience.

    The story is based on Bram Stoker's classic novel Dracula, but director Murnau was unable to get the rights to the novel. Not willing to accept defeat, Murnau made 'cosmetic' changes to pass it off as his own creation. However after the film's release, Stoker's widow perceived that it was a blatant version of her late husband's novel and sued the filmmakers. As a result, the studio went broke (this was the studio's only movie) and the settlement resulted in an instigated court order to have all copies of the film destroyed. Obviously, not all copies of the film were thrown onto the fire. Thankfully, a limited supply of original film negatives actually still exist and can still be exhibited. Said negatives (that is, primary copies of the film that were originally distributed in 1922) that survived the fire are now a prized possession among film buffs and cinema collectors.

    Recently the film underwent a massive restoration effort: missing frames and missing scenes were collected from all over the world to be inserted back into the final film and create the definitive Nosferatu experience. Over the years, cheap cut versions running at 70 or 80 minutes were common. This restored version runs over 90 minutes and is never boring for a second.

    Gustav von Wangenheim plays Thomas Hutter: a successful realtor who works for the town's local real estate agent. Count Orlok (Schreck) from an isolated castle in Transylvania expresses interest in the acquisition of a house in the peaceful town that Hutter inhabits. Hutter is given the overwhelming assignment of travelling to Transylvania to complete the transaction, but as he draws nearer to the castle he begins to comprehend the genuine malevolence he is walking into. Hutter realises that merely mentioning Count Orlok's name is enough to arouse fear and dread in the local townspeople. While Hutter resides at the castle he discovers quite a bit regarding the true identity of Count Orlok...also known as Nosferatu the vampire. Orlok travels to Germany to live in his new house, said journey causing the deaths of all the crew of the ship he was on. As this terror unfolds, Hutter frantically hastens home to save his beloved wife Ellen (Schröder). Little does Hutter realise that Orlok has developed an obsession with Ellen and wants to have her under his spell. To tell you even more would be unimaginable...

    This symphony of horror is the original archetypal film. Over the years it has succumbed to rotten spoofs, remakes and retakes on the story. Nosferatu accurately portrays the potency of the fear of vampires throughout the 19th century. Around this time they were portrayed as seductive and were metaphors for transmitting sexual diseases. These prominent sexual themes sparked controversy at the time of the film's release. In the film there is also frequent mentioning of rats and vampires spreading the bubonic plague. Throughout the 19th century, the plague was a tremendous worry (the last massive outbreak of the plague was as late as the 1890s).

    The film is crafted to perfection by F.W. Murnau. Behind the camera Murnau's determination was palpable. Whenever the camera rolled, everything in his frame was used to great effect. He employed extreme expressionist angles that effectively create anxiety and intrigue in the viewer.

    Max Schreck is one of the most terrifying and ugly screen vampires of all time. Even with modern make-up technology it is an extremely daunting task to replicate the realism of Schreck's animalistic features. When I first saw Schreck walk into frame...I found it difficult to breathe and chills ran down my spine. His appearance is truly terrifying. If you don't find him scary, you're far too familiarised with Hollywood vampires (I'm looking at you, Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise among many others). This brings me onto a myth that quickly circulated in the decades following the film's release. Legend has it that Schreck was, in reality, an actual member of the undead - a genuine vampire! Ostensibly, director Murnau was so committed to producing the definitive vampire experience that he was willing to risk the safety of his cast and crew by using an actual vampire. During the production, the crew had to deal with crew-members turning up dead or going missing. This is a fact. Even despite this evidence people can be naysayers on the issue. Everyone can draw their own conclusions and judgements on the matter. The prolific myth will never be confirmed or invalidated.

    The supporting cast is equipped with a host of talented actors. By today's standard, bored audiences will just laugh at the exaggerated mannerisms and be annoyed at the titlecards which were used for the dialogue. It's very simple: if you think the acting is bad and that silent movies are boring, stick to Hollywood blockbusters please. I'm sick of the usual complaint of "it's just so old" or "it's very boring". Got news for you - you're part of the "four-minute music video generation" and should never watch an actual masterpiece.

    Nosferatu is only for those with the patience to sit through 90 minutes of brilliant cinema history accompanied with a sinister score. Beware: only the recent 2006/2007 restored version contains the actual original music (a new recording of it). All versions before that include the appalling techno version and many other poor orchestral compositions. Do not judge the films score until you've seen the latest restoration!

    The film flaunts visual effects that were state-of-the-art when first released in 1922, but the impact has slowly disintegrated over the decades. In my opinion, Nosferatu is a riveting horror film deserving of the acclaim and accolades that were to follow over the years. Some will love it, some will hate it. Personally I can understand why some contemporary audiences dislike the film because of its age. Be that as it may, this is the best vampire movie ever made. In the decades to follow, imitations were very regular in the form of blockbusters made for a quick buck. Even TV shows use the premise of vampires in which to create a new tale of vampirism.

    Nosferatu will never be tainted in my opinion. Although today it is regarded as clichéd, just remember that this is a film made before the times of clichés: it was the first horror film ever made! Respect its age! On the whole, the film is atmospheric and compelling. It's simple and not complex, but this quote from director Murnau accurately defends this observation: "Real art is simple, but simplicity requires the greatest art". Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (the original German title that commonly translates as Nosferatu, a Symphony of Terror) is true art that is hard to match. I studied this film extensively in school. Despite this broad study of the film, I never grew sick of its brilliance. It only heightened my respect. I am truly waxing lyrical when I discuss this legendary horror film.
  • LyCla
    June 12, 2008
    LyCla
    It was an ok adaptation of Bram Stoker's book.
    I was a bit dissapointed with some things.
    The music did nothing for the mood. When things were happy and the actor was doing a simple thing like walking there was a suspensful tune and when Dracula comes out there's music fit for...( read more) some dancing!
    And if I was dissapointed by Dracula's death in Stoker's book, it's even worst here. It was just so... quick (for lack of a better word).
    It's only worth a watch if your into watching old films if not, skip it.
  • mikesociety
    June 3, 2008
    mikesociety
    Seen parts of it.....
  • catbox9
    June 2, 2008
    catbox9
    This film tells the story of Nosferatu or Dracula, whatever you want to call him. It's basically a Dracula story but they had to change the name to avoid copyright infringement. It didn't matter as they were still sued for copyright infringement and the studio went out of busines...( read more)s after this film - its only film. All copies of the film were ordered to be destroyed which didn't happen obviously.

    Anyways, the plot here was rather dull I thought. It didn't really focus all that heavily on Nosferatu. As typical for a silent film, the plot isn't overly complex and not all that much happens all that quickly. That isn't necessarily a bad thing as it can build drama, etc. but it was a major drawback here. The premise of the story seems decent but this left a lot to be desired.

    This film stars some people that the average person has never heard of. I still don't know how to rate silent acting but this didn't feel all that impressive. Then again it didn't seem bad either. It was probably typical for silent acting.

    Despite the fact nothing ever really happened in this film, you kept waiting for it to happen. I kept getting the feeling that something exciting might happen but it never did. Although the fact that nothing great ever happens is a major drawback, the fact that I could feel something about to happen is probably positive. This film had some moments that were pretty cool. The shadows at the end were quite neat to see and were probably quite creepy for audiences in 1922.

    On a slightly less relevant level, there were two things about this film that really bugged me. First, I don't like tinted film. This film is obviously black and white and that's fine. All the tinted scenes seemed more distracting than anything. The Birth of a Nation makes heavy use of them as well and I don't really think they add much, if anything. Second, the intertitles were written in a terrible font. It was some sort of Gothic font and incredibly difficult to read. I realize this film was set in the 1830s and they wanted a font to match, but it was just awful to try and look at.

    Overall, this film is rather groundbreaking in the horror genre of films but has some major flaws. It established some techniques that are still utilized today and it deserves some credit for that but this just has too many problems to be considered great. While I do appreciate the groundbreaking nature of this film, I will not reward a film all that heavily for groundbreaking work unless the rest of the film is excellent as well. Citizen Kane established a lot of techniques that were quite new at the time but the film was also outstanding so I have no problem rewarding that particular film for its work. This film, groundbreaking filming techniques notwithstanding, is poor at best.
  • lebowski1190
    June 1, 2008
    lebowski1190
    Classic silent horror movie that made a huge impact on the genre.
  • bessjrown
    May 28, 2008
    bessjrown
    YES PLEASE YES PLEASE
  • smcopy
    May 21, 2008
    smcopy
    Really fucking creepy. Fun music too.
  • aaliyah4lyf
    May 14, 2008
    aaliyah4lyf
    The oldest movie i've seen so far...
  • rescueme39
    May 5, 2008
    rescueme39
    Nosferatu is the only silent film I can ever watch. Mainly because this is the type of film that doesn't need a lot of talking in the first place to get its point across. Plus, back in the day the whole point was to be creepy, not gory or overly violent like modern horror films, ...( read more)this is all in the lighting.
    It isn't for everyone, sure, but its definetely the best silent film ever made, and it was a pretty good step in the right direction for film making.
  • witchkingofangmar88
    May 4, 2008
    witchkingofangmar88
    A masterpiece that would set the standard almost impossibly high for all later generations of filmmakers
  • brightand
    April 21, 2008
    brightand
    i dont have anything against the movie, it was great and meant to be silent. the version i watched had Tpye 0 Negative playing through the whole thing. i hate that band! it made the movie seem like a really long music video. other than that, Max Shreck did an awesome job portrayi...( read more)ng the first vampire. his appearance was cool and just smoked the Bela Lugosi Dracula. Nosferatu is an ugly vampire and owns the vampire who is portrayed as a rich playboy type thing.
  • crazyskateboarder78
    April 17, 2008
    crazyskateboarder78
    AMAZING!!!!

    REALLY BAD SPECIAL EFFECTS

    that made it funny
  • DanielPryce
    April 4, 2008
    DanielPryce
    Good stuff. The thing that intrigues me the most about it is the background story - the fact that the studio couldn't get the 'Dracula' right, so changed all the names but more or less ripped of Dracula (yet, in doing so, made a film that is better than any Dracula adaptation I'v...( read more)e seen).
  • pier007
    April 3, 2008
    pier007
    No one does it to you like Max Shreck's horrifying portrayal of the immortal walking corpse Count Nosferatu. Murnau conjures up the supernatural with immeasurable power.
  • placeinthesun455
    March 29, 2008
    placeinthesun455
    a true Expressionist classic. the plot's a bit unusual and is certainly not blatantly creepy or scary, but it has a certain cliched charm that obviously influenced generations of horror films to come. the music itself is strikingly eerie and beautiful. an excellent bit of 1920s ...( read more)German filmmaking.
  • traiskin
    March 23, 2008
    traiskin
    One of the first films I studied in Film class. However, its a very old film and you have to be in the right frame of mind for it.
  • MichaelMyers
    March 23, 2008
    MichaelMyers
    A masterpiece...it's really most of what one can write about this visual curse upon us. This is 1922, and back then, darkness was darker than today, with absolute power to grow absent of light, ensuring that peoples fears stood cold in the depths of their minds.. I can only IMAGI...( read more)NE living back in the twenties and experience this movie.. What I consider one of the greatest fascination here, is the arquetype's representation of the vampire. Flawless. A true incarnation. A cursed soul, damned, abandoned and physically disturbing. The story is well known to the masses - Stoker inspired - and the soundtrack......is just perfect. A dark orquestra mixed with near monochromatic grainy image throughout the entire movie is just enough to collapse the surrounding reality, force fed on banality and ill light. And, as being a "mute" film, your focus always goes to the faces...the looks, the expressions, and they do tell most of the story. It's amazing how verbal silence empowers the language of the flesh. The all concept of the film is simple enough to strike directly into the primal bases of fear, but yet utterly complex on the approach of the actual blood thirst behavior. I know this is VERY old, but seeing this masterpiece nowadays, really impregnates the air with an anti-commercial feeling of honesty, a chronological reverse fist in the face of hollywood whore money making crib, but that's another story... If you are TRULY compelled to primal feelings and dark landscapes, this Symphonie des Grauens is sure to arouse black painted moods in you, and take you back to an "age of legends and fears"...
  • RCCLBC
    March 18, 2008
    RCCLBC
    You will be surprised at just how creepy a silent film can be.

    The "birth of dracula" on film and he's never been scarier.
  • Hexenkult
    March 15, 2008
    Hexenkult
    A classic of silent-era German expressionism.

Summary

Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (Nosferatu, a Symphony of Horror) (Nosferatu the Vampire) Summary