User Reviews

F.W. Murnau's "Nosferatu" has always been one of my favorite horror movies, mainly because it's one of the few that really seems to take itself seriously. Often, even the best horror films, classics like "Psycho" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", include moments of leavening humor. Even "The Exorcist" had Father Karras' film discussions with Detective Kinderman. Not "Nosferatu". This is a film that spends every moment of its running time shuddering along with the audience in fright and disgust at its beastly vampire and the plague he visits upon the innocent people of Bremen. E. Elias Merhige's intensely imaginative "Shadow of the Vampire" offers an intriguing explanation of the film's creepy hold.

It's 1921, and Murnau (John Malkovich), a kinky martinet obsessed with creating films as authentic as breathing, drags his crew to a moldering castle in Czechoslovakia for the filming of his vampire epic. There, the surprised crew meets Max Schreck (Willem Dafoe), the actor playing the vampire, who, to say the least, has taken method to a new height. He is, in fact, a real vampire, who has made a bargain with Murnau. He will appear in the film, giving the director the realistic horror experience he so desires, if he is permitted to drink the blood of the leading lady in the final scene. Murnau grows increasingly obsessed with feeding his muse while Schreck settles for feeding himself, the body count mounting inexorably as Murnau struggles to finish his masterpiece while his leading man is finishing off the crew.

Steven Katz' script could likely have gotten by on its strikingly original premise alone, but fortunately, he turned what could have just been a corking black comedy into a surprisingly deep meditation on the dark power of the movies and the sacrifices one is willing to make, of oneself and others, in order to create art. Schreck is seen as a dessicated shambles, the ultimate embodiment of an actor past his sell-by date still clinging to his past glory, who, in a remarkable scene, talks about the sadness of reading "Dracula" and seeing how thoroughly his special hell has been misinterpreted and popularized. Of Of course, all the crew can say to this is, "What an actor." To them, Schreck is just another old hambone who can no longer distinguish fantasy from reality.

In one of the film's most poignant sequences, Schreck, who earlier expressed his yearning to once again see the light of the sun, watches film footage of a sunrise through a projector, staring right into the lens so the celluloid sunlight can wash over his face. It's a beautiful visualization of the powerful hold movies exert; everyone can remember memorable experiences that we've had through the motion picture camera, things we've done and places we've been to that we could not have gotten to any other way. Just because these experiences were only on film does not make them any less real to us.

Murnau, meanwhile, begins to emerge as the film's true monster, willing to do whatever it takes to see his vision fulfilled, sacrificing his crew, his cast, and his own humanity in the name of achieving immortality through art. Directors are often compared to God, and "Shadow of the Vampire" is one of the most effective variations on that theme that I have come across. Murnau, you see, is one of the old gods, and like those archaic deities, he demands blood.

Merhige helms this material marvelously, conveying a sense of menace and impending doom that make this a genuine horror film in addition to a clever meditation on the form. The film, for its low budget, has the feel of a true epic, with its castle looming up over the black hills, mossy brown-and-green cinematography, and heavy, ominous music. The supporting cast does a uniformly fine job, particularly Udo Kier, who invests "Nosferatu"'s producer, Albin Grau, with unspoken secrets that exist only behind his haunting eyes.

This film, however, is really a showcase for Malkovich and Dafoe, who deliver two knockout performances. Malkovich is the perfect control-freak director, calm and cajoling one moment, barking angry orders the next. He's even willing to shout down a bloodsucking beast if it will get him what he wants for his film. Dafoe, buried under a ton of makeup, projects a real character through his fangs and hissing, making Schreck pitiable, powerful, and frightening all at once. Dafoe received a much deserved Oscar nomination for his work here, and if Malkovich had been nominated as well, you would have heard no complaints from me.

"Shadow of the Vampire" gets a bit muddled in its final act, when Murnau finally confronts the vampire with his most powerful weapon. However, the final moments are so powerful, the last shot so chilling when you consider its implications, that the script's imperfections are subordinated by the power of the film's message. "Shadow of the Vampire" is a provocative picture that explores the depths to which creative people will sink, the cost in lives and their own soul they are willing to pay, just for a taste of immortality. One must beware. The taste is a lasting one. And sometimes bitter.

E. Elias Merhige's 2000 film "Shadow of the Vampire" is a very strange and interesting film. I walked into this film thinking it was a 'making of' film, like "My Week With Marilyn" or "Hitchcock," except this time it was the making of the 1922 silent horror classic "Nosferatu." It looks and feels like that kind of film at first, but it is not.

There are real people being portrayed. John Malkovich plays a drug addicted F.W. Murnau and Willem Dafoe brilliantly plays the method actor Max Schreck. I'm not sure if Murnau was a drug addict or if Schreck was obsessed with embodying Count Orlock, but I don't think this film really cares about the facts. It doesn't really have to since it is a movie.

The story is about the making of "Nosferatu," but instead of concerning itself with what happened, Merhige focuses on the filmmaking process and why filmmakers do what they do, whether it is the director, actor, cinematographer, and so on. "Shadow of the Vampire" makes us look at what silent filmmakers had to do in order to make a movie and how much passion can be put into a project. Sometimes that passion can become just as horrific as the movie itself.

Because of this focus on the filmmaking process, character development kind of gets left behind. Sometimes things don't feel like they have context. The movie is more about ideas of filmmaking than telling a true account of what happened on the set of "Nosferatu." I don't know exactly why they added the dug addiction part, because it takes away from the main theme of the movie and it isn't really explained. Maybe you can interpret the film in different ways because of it. I guess it's the audience's decision.

"Shadow of the Vampire" seems to be one thing at first and then turns into something else by the end. It's a film that probably deserves a second viewing in order to be fully appreciated. There are great performances and it gives an interesting look at the filmmaking process and why filmmakers do what they do.

Shadow of the Vampire starts at 'Jofa Film Studios, Berlin 1921' where acclaimed German director Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau (John Malkovich) is filming various indoor scenes for his latest production, an unauthorised adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel Dracula here called Nosferatu with the lead vampire name changed to Count Orlock to get around copyright. After the scenes are shot Murnau & his small crew travel to the small town of Wismar where they prepare to begin filming scenes with Max Schreck (Willem Dafoe) the actor who is to play the part of Count Orlock the Vampire, however there is a great air of mystery surrounding him as none of the cast know of him & Murnau says he lives the character's he play. When he finally makes an appearance Schreck is tall & thin, has long fingernail's, fangs & is completely bald. Schreck also has the unnerving habit of telling everyone that he is a real Vampire which creeps everyone else on set out, the mood doesn't improve when Schreck unexpectedly attacks the cameraman & bites his neck in the middle of a shot...

This American, British & Luxembourg production was directed by E. Elias Merhige & I thought it was a really good film that I really enjoyed watching. The script by Steven Katz is a rather fun lighthearted concept that doesn't take itself too seriously & is a fictional idea based upon the filming of the classic 1922 horror film Nosferatu, so basically it's a fictional film based on the filming of a fictional film, got that? Good. The first thing to say is that I don't think it has much historic accuracy which means the filmmakers can have fun here with the supposed myth that actor Schreck was a real Vampire which he obviously wasn't but I think it's a fascinating film to watch, a great idea, something a bit different & a very engaging & entertaining film. The character's are all brilliantly written with great care & attention right down to the lesser ones, the dialogue is good & at less than 90 minutes in length it moves along at a good pace & is never boring. I consider myself a huge horror film fan & as such maybe I'm a wee bit biased about a film which sets itself around the filming of an absolute classic horror film such as Nosferatu but I genuinely liked Shadow of the Vampire as a film in it's own right, I honestly didn't think I would as I thought it was going to be a dull factual biopic but as it turns out it's a throughly charming, watchable & likable film. I didn't think I would but I really liked it.

Director Merhige does a fantastic job, the look & feel of the film is brilliant with evocative 20's production design. Shadow of th Vampire could have become bogged down with trying to portray how good Murnau, Schreck & the film Nosferatu itself are & I'm sure that would have made for a very dull time but this has a clear individual story of it's own & thankfully it doesn't seemed to bothered by sticking to every last historic detail.

With a supposed budget of about $8,000,000 Shadow of the Vampire has immaculate production values & I love the outfits that the film-crew wear, they end up looking like scientists with their white-coats & dark goggles although I'm not sure why they wore them, apparently it's either because of debris flying from the camera or the fact that they had to light the sets of these really old films so brightly it was almost literally blinding. They both sound false to me... The acting here is top-notch from a great cast including Dafoe, Malkovich, Eddie Izzard, Cary Elwes & the ever fantastic Udo Kier pops up as well.

Shadow of the Vampire was on of those unexpected gems, one of those films I thought I was going to hate, I ended up loving it. As with most things in life & cinema I'm sure there will be people who disagree with me & to be fair I could see how someone may not like it but, well, I don't care as I thought it was great. Definitely worth watching, in my opinion anyway.

This movie was truly disturbing... ...but not in graphics and horror. This movie was disturbing in how it captured the true evil of the legendary vampire and the unsettledness of a set that has been portrayed by a perfectionist. A movie that captures such evil and psychosis possesses the true, dark, nightmarish atmosphere that even the best of horror films lack.

Willem Dafoe has given his best in this film. His dark aura that gave life to another villain he would later play -- the Green Goblin -- was perfect for the part of a deranged vampire who yearns from loneliness and hatred of his decomposing body. A being who is haunted by the loss of his past. Of his inability to make others like him, and be lonely no more. And yet, he is also a being that is always one step ahead of his demise, and manages to evade death and prevent his victims from escape with the same cunningness that would give him the part of one of the most evil of comic-book villains.

Though I've seen little of Malkovich, I thought that he played perfectly the part of the perfectionist. A perfectionist that is possessed by the desire of the perfect film that captures great evil and makes it's audience actually experience the feeling of a great dark presence. A film that 'doesn't make people say 'You should have been there', but that 'We have been there.'" A director whose desire of perfection puts the lives of even his most loyal of crew in the path of Death itself. A Death that has desires nowhere near as dark as the being that called upon it.

Such a film is nightmarish and heart-throbbing just by Shrek stepping from the hallow hallway and into the moonlight to welcome his 'guest'.

Overall: perfection...

Rating: 9 out of 10. A truly disturbing film with atmosphere that remains dark, even during the day...