Featured Audience Ratings

• Chris W

  
  This film holds a special place in my heart because it was my first exposure to Werner Herzog and his films. I loved it when I first saw it, and that was just on a general level. Now that I am actually a fan of Herzog, and know things about him I can appreciate this even more. But,… More
  This film holds a special place in my heart because it was my first exposure to Werner Herzog and his films. I loved it when I first saw it, and that was just on a general level. Now that I am actually a fan of Herzog, and know things about him I can appreciate this even more. But, looking at it from just my original perspective, this is a very impressive, spellbinding, and masterful horror film. It's a remake of the Murnau classic, and it takes even more liberties with the original source material than Murnau did, but this is nevertheless a wonderful vampire movie. It's hands down one of the top 5 creepiest and unnerving films I've ever seen. The atmosphere, mood, and tone are hauntingly unnerving, and I've never been so filled with dread during an opening credits sequence like I am with this one. Kinski as Dracula is one of the scariest things ever. He's ugly, creepy, and, despite being more restrained than usual, is quite memorable as a chilling bloodsucker. Isabelle Adjani is the epitome of seductive, pale, gothic beauties, and she

• Lee ?

  
  A remake of the silent classic courtesy of director Werner Herzog. It is very slow and some may find it boring, but the dark creepy atmosphere is constant and Klaus Kinski is great in the lead role as the Vampire. It's not a blood drenched film, but if you're in the mood for… More
  A remake of the silent classic courtesy of director Werner Herzog. It is very slow and some may find it boring, but the dark creepy atmosphere is constant and Klaus Kinski is great in the lead role as the Vampire. It's not a blood drenched film, but if you're in the mood for something a little slow paced and atmospheric then check it out!

• AJ V

  
  A remake of the classic 20s film. It's pretty good, but I'd rather watch the original.

• Drew S

  
  Hypnotic in a way that I haven't experienced from a film in a long time...not since There Will Be Blood, I'd be so bold as to say. It's so beautiful, but in an utterly simple and unshowy way, without lighting tricks or long lingering shots, well-represented as the work… More
  Hypnotic in a way that I haven't experienced from a film in a long time...not since There Will Be Blood, I'd be so bold as to say. It's so beautiful, but in an utterly simple and unshowy way, without lighting tricks or long lingering shots, well-represented as the work of a man who KNOWS he is an artist and does not have to prove it to anyone. Also like There Will Be Blood, there's an odd little feint at black humor that keeps the movie from feeling totally self-serious, though it works better at some junctures than others, such as that dick playing Renfield. So annoying, and definitely not in a good way...more like a "shrill, affected, embarrassing" way. He really interferes with the mood of the piece, but even setting him aside, I don't think the movie is perfect. The thin, unfocused plot is sort of a distraction, and though I understand that the style is the main draw here, why not go full-blown surrealist? There's obviously a commercial hook to consider here, and as bizarre as it is to think about, this was probably an event of some magnitude back in the late 70s. Ah, remember when auteurs not named Quentin Tarantino could actually draw a crowd? Klaus Kinski is an odd, tragic Dracula, possessed of both silence and carnality. His pain is apparent but it makes him no less of a monster. Isabelle Adjani is ravishing, a presence so luminous that her purpose as a Dracula beacon seems only too clear. There's an interesting protagonist structure going on in Dracula where Lucy, Jonathan and Dracula all seem to take turns being the movie's center of attention. Though it does contribute to the movie's odd focus problem, it gives the movie the chance to re-lens itself through the perspectives of each of its characters. Jonathan is an explorer in the savage wilds of Transylvania, Dracula a shadow lurking in the night to sow the seeds of plague, Lucy a frightened but resolute heroine. The movie's tone is so diverse and captivating. A definite horror classic.

• Conner R

  
  Not only does this completely surpass the original Nosferatu, it surpasses every other Dracula film ever made. Werner Herzog's dark vision of this classic story is perfect in every way. The lighting is glossy, bizarre and unique. The shots are composed in a way that is… More
  Not only does this completely surpass the original Nosferatu, it surpasses every other Dracula film ever made. Werner Herzog's dark vision of this classic story is perfect in every way. The lighting is glossy, bizarre and unique. The shots are composed in a way that is frightening to the viewer, but beautiful none the less. The acting is wonderful, Klaus Kinski is too perfect for the the Count. He physically and mentally embodies the character in a way that no actor ever could. Isabelle Adjani is also great as Lucy, I could honestly not think of someone who fits better than her either. This is Bram Stoker's Dracula the way it was meant to be seen, both accurate in content and tone.

• Arash X

  
  Nearly as great as Murnau's Nosferatu,A bleak & creepy tone, A few memorable surrealistic sequences like the boy who plays violin or the dancing sequence, A few touches of dark humour and a good twist in the end, All in all Herzog's Nosferatu is a memorable & unique… More
  Nearly as great as Murnau's Nosferatu,A bleak & creepy tone, A few memorable surrealistic sequences like the boy who plays violin or the dancing sequence, A few touches of dark humour and a good twist in the end, All in all Herzog's Nosferatu is a memorable & unique experience with a fine main cast, Kinski, Ganz & Adjani

• Anthony L

  
  Another great collaboration between Kinski & Herzog and a loving remake/retelling of a story loved by both men. Hard to watch if you don't like rats though!

• Kylie B

  
  A brief warning to Stoker purists: this takes even more liberties with the original story that the first Nosferatu, and it doesn't even bother to pretend it's a different story by changing the names of characters, though it does switch their relationships and roles around.… More
  A brief warning to Stoker purists: this takes even more liberties with the original story that the first Nosferatu, and it doesn't even bother to pretend it's a different story by changing the names of characters, though it does switch their relationships and roles around. As a stand alone, it's not a bad film. It's a work of art, with beautiful scenery and set pieces, a haunting score and atmosphere coming off in waves. Isabelle Adjani is so beautiful you could cry. The film also offers the female character a larger role in the dispatching of the vampire, rather than simply being prey. So, you ask, why have you only given it three stars if it's so good? I wanted to love it, I really did. The truth is that I was bored. For all its slow, haunting atmosphere there's no tension (at least, I didn't discern any), and scenes last at least twice as long as they really should. In some ways it's refreshing compared with the recent MTV influenced film editing where they cut too quickly for you to gather what's happening. But in terms of entertainment value, which is what I tend to look for most when I rate films, I found this film too slow - and by the time we finally got to the more interesting last 45/30 min, where it really divulges from the original source, I was too far gone to really give it the attention it deserved. Verdict: watch as art, not entertainment. Or else, ogle Adjani in her voluminous nightdress.

• Elvira B

  
  Klaus Kinski = frightening!! This is a beautiful, haunting gothic horror story by Werner Herzog. Bruno Ganz, Klaus Kinski and Isabelle Adjani are beyond outstanding in their performances. Kinski is especially heartbreaking and most certainly creepy as the languid Count Dracula. The… More
  Klaus Kinski = frightening!! This is a beautiful, haunting gothic horror story by Werner Herzog. Bruno Ganz, Klaus Kinski and Isabelle Adjani are beyond outstanding in their performances. Kinski is especially heartbreaking and most certainly creepy as the languid Count Dracula. The Rembrandt/ Caravaggio- inspired photography is one of the most awe-inspiring I have ever seen in a movie, as is the almost psychedelic symphonic score. The composition of each and every shot is aesthetically perfect, and not without the ability to stir up all sorts of emotions with only the strategic placing of the shadowy characters. In short, Nosferatu is a masterpiece of cinema and has really impulsed me to seek out more Herzog movies with urgency. It's a visual and emotional experience not to be missed.

• Antony S

  
  A largely pointless endeavour, Herzog crafted Nosferatu, his second picture with Kinski, as an homage to orginal silent great, and allegedly to parallel Nazism. Though the subject is obviously close to Herzog's heart, he seems to direct with indifference, making the whole affair… More
  A largely pointless endeavour, Herzog crafted Nosferatu, his second picture with Kinski, as an homage to orginal silent great, and allegedly to parallel Nazism. Though the subject is obviously close to Herzog's heart, he seems to direct with indifference, making the whole affair rather slow and uninvolving. Conversely, this does actually work on some level in making the film more of a tragic romance than a horror. The triumph of the show (and the main reason for watching) is that Kinski is more or less incredible as the cursed ghoul, offering us painful insight into his private world without ever resorting to pandering. He is especially chilling in the scene where he comes for Lucy, his reflection missing in her bedroom mirror, filling the scene with cold, dripping dread. Nosferatu is an adequate work, probably the least of the Herzog-Kinski pictures, but well worth a look for the madman's full-on acting work.

• Matthew Y

  
  Staying faithful to the style and tone of F.W. Muranu's 1922 classic Herzog adds little to the story except for some eloquent dialog and a fine performance from the delightfully unstable Klaus Kinski. I would say that the film is important for modern American audiences to… More
  Staying faithful to the style and tone of F.W. Muranu's 1922 classic Herzog adds little to the story except for some eloquent dialog and a fine performance from the delightfully unstable Klaus Kinski. I would say that the film is important for modern American audiences to experience the grandeur of the story without having to sit through an old silent film but considering its also spoken in German its just another great genre pic that I frustratingly can't get people to watch.

• Ryan M

  
  **** out of **** You know a classic film is close to somebody's heart when, to the Americans, it is foreign; but to the person describing the film, it is native - and yet the person goes on to describe it as the best motion picture ever to come out of their home country. In… More
  **** out of **** You know a classic film is close to somebody's heart when, to the Americans, it is foreign; but to the person describing the film, it is native - and yet the person goes on to describe it as the best motion picture ever to come out of their home country. In the case of Werner Herzog - that daring ground-breaker of a filmmaker - F.W. Murnau's "Nosferatu" is the best German production ever to grace the silver screen. Nobody just says something like this for the hell of it; Herzog especially must have his good reason for loving the classic, spectacularly spooky (and loose) adaptation of Bram Stoker's "Dracula"; just as we all do. Given his admiration for the original film, you know where he's going with "Nosferatu the Vampyre", which serves as a very close, faithful, and highly successful remake of the Murnau film rather than another old adaptation of the age-old story. Since the original, 1922 "Nosferatu" was celluloid terror written in Gothic black-and-white visuals and architecture, make-up effects that were decidedly way ahead of its time, and a unique take on a classic tale of vampirism; there were indeed things that were in need of updating, as well as things that probably should have been left alone. Luckily, Herzog sees everything; from the world to the movies that he watches, and he knew what had to be done. What he offers up is a visual update of the story, filled with his own stylistic touches. He also provides a more emotionally resonant vampire than that of the original "Nosferatu". I cannot say whether it improves on the Murnau film or not; all I know is that it certainly doesn't dishonor it, and that's all that matters. Sure enough, not much has changed plot-wise; although this time, Herzog is able to avoid the copyright issues that Murnau faced when making the original; thus, he's able to use the character names brought up in Bram Stoker's classic novel. Most of the time, the story is familiar (given that some stuff differentiates; but not too much), but Herzog laces it with enough spectacle and atmosphere to make up for any form of déjà vu. A real-estate agent, Jonathan Harker (Bruno Ganz), is sent from his native land of Wismar, Germany to the obscure and mountainous regions of Transylvania. It is there that he shall meet a client interested in purchasing a new home in Wismar; Count Dracula is his name. The journey is long and complicated; but Jonathan is able to make it to the Count's large-but-creepy castle in one piece. He arrives at night; which is, as we learn, a good time for the Count (Klaus Kinski), as he seems to resent the daytime hours. He allows Jonathan to stay in his home for a few days and a few nights so that the proper paperwork can get dealt with; and also so that the two can get more properly acquainted. As we've been brought up to expect from this legendary story; the Count is a vampire. But Jonathan does not believe in such creatures; regardless of the various warnings given to him by a few gypsy-types on his way to the estate. His beliefs will be put to the test when the classic clichés and tropes of vampirism will come alive when he observes the Count's behavior and actions from a distance. Think of it: nobody knows where he sleeps; he never shows during the day; his skin is pale, his head bald; his teeth resemble that of a rat, and his ears a bat; and his fingernails are long and slender. If that isn't enough to convince Jonathan that his newest customer is a bloodsucking devil, then I haven't a single idea what is. Here is what happens from then on: the Count samples the blood of Jonathan, becomes entranced by a photograph of his beautiful wife (who is at home) whose name is Lucy (Isabelle Adjani), locks him in the house the next morning, and stows away onto a ship headed for Wismar via coffin, his favorite method of transportation next to the boat the delivers him. And when the boat enters the harbor of Wismar; Herzog is at his prime. The image of the ship containing Count Dracula yet again coming into contact with land and bringing death-by-plague - not to mention an entire rat infestation - to wherever it may anchor. Above all, I think that Herzog displays his affection for storytelling through the imagery of his films; which often takes the place of narrative conventions and plot. If anything, I think the film is visual storytelling at its finest. Aside from the suitably intoxicating scenes taking place inside the remarkably Gothic castle of Count Dracula; what gives the film its beauty is the humanity in the Dracula character himself. I think it's rather surprising how, when looking at horror movie history, the most humanity comes not from actual human beings; but rather the creatures - however humanoid they may be - which are labeled by society as monsters. Kinski portrays the Count as lonely, loveless, and unable to die; a horrible combination of the three. He cannot ease his pain as the mortals of the world can; he sees his vampirism as a curse, and one that he cannot uplift. I didn't see such depth in the original film; although perhaps I saw something more all-together and therein lays the magic of Herzog's "Nosferatu" remake. It isn't Murnau's "Nosferatu"; it is purely Herzog's movie, and he makes that known through scenes that depict a sort of spiritual connection with nature, architecture, and location. Then again, maybe that's just Herzog's own relationship with his style of filmmaking. I recognize that this is an impossible bond to break; the sign of a true artist, more or less.

• Daniel P

  
  <i>"There are things more horrible than death."</i> Herzog's retelling of the Nosferau/Dracula story is a sublime piece of work. Obviously different from the silent original expressionist piece, it does however have a pervading sense of atmosphere, and a… More
  <i>"There are things more horrible than death."</i> Herzog's retelling of the Nosferau/Dracula story is a sublime piece of work. Obviously different from the silent original expressionist piece, it does however have a pervading sense of atmosphere, and a similarly masterful use of shadow. Klaus Kinski's hypnotic performance as the Count is arguably the finest portrayal of the character to date - it is certainly one of the most sympathetic - it is very easy to overcome suspension of disbelief when there is such flawless work on screen. The film takes its time but is almost joyous to watch whilst gradually imbuing the viewer with a quiet dread, particularly from the loading of the ship onwards. The dialogue often has a poetic feel which added to the dreamy visuals sucks you into this world of pestilence, plague and death. Sublime.

• Quinto W

  
  Werner Herzog had a rather difficult task remaking one of the most important films in cinema history, but not only does he succeed, he may even better the original. The screenplay approaches Count Dracula with a human sensitivity not seen before, and Klaus Kinski's stellar… More
  Werner Herzog had a rather difficult task remaking one of the most important films in cinema history, but not only does he succeed, he may even better the original. The screenplay approaches Count Dracula with a human sensitivity not seen before, and Klaus Kinski's stellar performance breaks your heart more than he terrorizes it. With spectacular music, lighting and atmosphere, this is truly one of the best vampire movies ever.

• Adam M

  
  Great 70's old school style vampire movie. This follows Dracula's story of Jonothan Harker visiting Transylvania to sort out a deal with Count Dracula who wants to buy a house in England. The difference with the Dracula in Werner Herzog's version is that his… More
  Great 70's old school style vampire movie. This follows Dracula's story of Jonothan Harker visiting Transylvania to sort out a deal with Count Dracula who wants to buy a house in England. The difference with the Dracula in Werner Herzog's version is that his Dracula/Nosferatu is a very lonely man/vampire, tired of living for centuries, not some evil blood sucker but an ugly blood sucker none the less and deep down he needs blood to survive and eventually causes havoc on his move to England. A brilliant performance from Klaus Kinski as Dracula and a must see for vampire fans.

• Marion R

  
  So boring, artsy and long. I was laughing at things that aren't intentionally suppose to be funny. In parts it was just so silly.

• Eduardo C

  
  Why remake a film that was not only flawless to begin with, but easily one of the best and most influential in the history of motion pictures? I don't know. All I can do is experience the final product and gush. <p> Herzog is one of the undeniable, certifiable geniuses of… More
  Why remake a film that was not only flawless to begin with, but easily one of the best and most influential in the history of motion pictures? I don't know. All I can do is experience the final product and gush. <p> Herzog is one of the undeniable, certifiable geniuses of the past 30-35 years. As the writer-director-producer here he crafts a film that is, first and foremost, haunting and evocative. It carries with it many of the qualities of a dream. Not a nightmare, but a dream. He is famous for his 'voodoo of location' axiom, and it is rarely in display more so than here. The atmsphere that he generates simply by shooting on locations is astounding, but he also makes the locations themselves feel like sets. His shots are tight, sharp, rarely moving. The town feels more like a series of sets than a living, breathing place. This dichotomy makes the film exist on a different plane from most others. I have already called it a dream, but I cannot stress that enough. <p> Herzog is very respectful of the original and many of the subsequent retellings of the Dracula mythos. There are references to Lugosi ("Children of the night..."), Hammer's Draculas (the muted, pastel colors, some of the wardrobes, the stagey feel and Isabel Adjani looks like a long-lost Hammer scream-queen) and, of course, to Nosferatu itself. Much of the shadowplay not only references the original, but is staggeringly beautiful and effective in its own right. The film's photography, in general, is spectacular. There are shots here, and sequences of shots, that should go down into genre history. <p> The consistent, subdued score goes a long way toward establishing the ambience from frame 1, and the film's first shot, while completely unrelated to the rest of the film, immediately draws you into this unique world. <p> Kinski is certainly the saddest of all Draculas (or Orlock's). His performance is so gentle, fragile, moving that all thoughts of the larger-than-life, force of nature performances (Aguirre, Fitzcarraldo) he is more known for dissapear. He generates considerable empathy for the Count, and his can enter the very short list (Max Shrek, Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee, Frank Langella) of completely original performances as the character. <p> Is the film better than Murnau's "Nosferatu"? No. Even if it were, it couldn't be. It is not nearly as important, innovative or influential, but it is completely different, reverential, and uses many of the ideas in the original to create a startling new vision. It is a truly great film, surprisingly unknown, that bears experiencing. <p>

• Marcus W

  
  If there's one thing Herzog exceeds at it's photographing nature (possibly why he took on Grizzly Man). He always seems to let the camera linger longer than is usual on any such shot evidently loving the unscripted and unpredictable. And there's plenty of it here -… More
  If there's one thing Herzog exceeds at it's photographing nature (possibly why he took on Grizzly Man). He always seems to let the camera linger longer than is usual on any such shot evidently loving the unscripted and unpredictable. And there's plenty of it here - especially with the hundreds of white rats that invade the town. The rest of the film is good - and certainly better than Coppola's overblown version, but whether Herzog isn't the right director to properly do this story justice or whether the story is simply unfilmable, this is a case of (much) style over substance.

• James B

  
  Amazing! Kinski breathes eerie life into the Dracula character. Combine this with Herzog's beautifully sweeping camera shots and seemingly random bits of the bizarre and you have quite a film!

• Sean L

  
  Slow in places but it sucks you in with the beautiful photography and Herzog's natural weirdness. Klaus Kinski is a mad genius and several scenes were genuinely scary. One scene involving a mirror is particularly spectacular. Not for everyone, but a good remake nonetheless.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings