31 Days of Horror (2021) - The Torment of the Terrible Trios
Trio 8 (Movies 23-25) - Totally not Dracula (aka Nosferatu)
I'm not the biggest fan of the modern leather-clad, sexy vampire, but I'm a sucker for when they are presented as a pathetic or sickly creature. I love the way Christopher Lee's Dracula almost becomes an animal when his fangs come out in
Horror of Dracula. Or Udo Kier's anemic interpretation in
Blood for Dracula. They don't come more pathetic and sickly than that. With his ghoulish appearance, I hope Count Orlok will fulfill my more creature/less gentleman preference for vampires.
23) Nosferatu (Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens) (1922) (Oct 23)
Starting off with the original unofficial adaptation of Bram Stoker's
Dracula, what can you say about
Nosferatu? It's a masterpiece, obviously.
I've never read Stoker's original novel, but I believe using the fear of the plague to mask Count Orlok's killings was conceived for this film, as well as what ultimately causes his demise. Both were fantastic additions, in my opinion.
Visually,
Nosferatu is beautiful. The costumes are exquisite and the use of shadows is memorizing. Count Orlok himself looks as terrifying today as I'm sure he did back in 1922. The design is timeless and Max Schreck disappears under the makeup. It's just an incredible image.
If I were to complain about anything, the English intertitles (which I believe were newly created during the restoration process) could have looked a little better and maybe not so clean. That's honestly my biggest complaint.
It's difficult to score a silent movie like
Nosferatu. Is it as exciting or as complex as a modern movie? No, of course not. But it's survived for 100 years for a reason, and its influence is still felt today.
4.5 / 5
24) Nosferatu the Vampyre (Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht) (1979) (Oct 24)
I try to judge remakes and sequels by their own merits, instead of comparing them to the original. But watching the original
Nosferatu and Werner Herzog's remake back-to-back makes that a little difficult, so I will be comparing them in this review.
Herzog's
Nosferatu the Vampyre is a respectful remake that's beautifully shot. Its most defining characteristic (other than just modernizing
Nosferatu) is the performance from the notoriously difficult (to put it lightly) Klaus Kinski. Kinski's Count Dracula (character names were restored to Stoker's originals, though Mina and Lucy who had their names flipped) is played as a more sympathetic and sad character than Schreck's monstrous Count Orlok. His performance is haunting and easily the highlight of the film. The nosferatu makeup is also quite good, though Kinski's physicality makes for a much different looking vampire. Gone is the emaciated, gaunt look of Orlok, replaced with a pathetic looking creature you'd expect to find hiding under a bridge. It's effective, but I prefer the original 1922 design.
The story is intact with only minor deviations to flesh it out and to include Van Helsing in an expanded finale. Even with the benefit of 57 years of advancements in film making (and
having sound), I think the original 1922 film tells the story better, though. The final act was definitely handled better there. Herzog's ending is honestly, kind of silly.
Overall, on its own,
Nosferatu the Vampyre is another enjoyable version of Bram Stoker's source material, but I definitely think the original
Nosferatu is the superior film.
Good. 3.5 / 5
25) Vampire in Venice (Nosferatu a Venezia) (1988) (Oct 25)
Originally intended to be a sequel to Werner Herzog's
Nosferatu the Vampyre,
Vampire in Venice was seemingly doomed from the start.
Problems began instantly thanks to the return of the temperamental Klaus Kinski, who refused to go though the nosferatu makeup process and appears in the film as a normal looking man with long, messy hair. Further distancing itself from Herzog's film,
Vampire in Venice incorrectly names Kinski's vampire "Nosferatu", instead of Count Dracula.
After 3 directors were removed from the project for varying reasons (and apparently all paid in full), writer/producer Augusto Caminito decided to take up the directorial duties, assisted by Luigi Cozzi as the second unit director. Kinski also demanded to direct some scenes himself, which according to Cozzi, consisted of about 10 hours worth of footage of Kinski walking around Venice. And you better believe they put as much of that in as they could get away with to pad the runtime. It's comically obvious where Kinski's footage was used.
To go into detail about all of Kinski's behavioural problems on the set is a whole other subject itself, and out of the scope I'd like to keep for this review. He comes off like a tyrant and it's probably a miracle the film even managed to get into the shape that it is. That shape however, is not good. It's basically a series of scenes cobbled together with no cohesion or flow. The narrative is fractured, broken and just straight up missing pieces. It's clearly unfinished and pieced together with what they had, which wasn't much.
It does have a few small positives I feel I should mention. Being an Italian horror film, you'd expect some nice visuals and a good score, which it does deliver. Venice is beautiful and makes for a nice backdrop, as do the lavish interior locations. They also somehow managed to find the money to cast Christopher Plummer and Donald Pleasence, who are always a treat. Plummer serves as a Van Helsing surrogate and does his best with the material he was given. However, the film's poor audio quality really robs him a lot of his performance. Donald Pleasence seems to have shown up mostly for free food and he's often shown just munching away on snacks.
You know when someone warns you an object is hot and not to touch it, but out of curiosity you touch it anyway and burn yourself? Do not burn yourself with
Vampire in Venice. You do not need to see how awful it is.
Offensively awful. 0.5 / 5
Up next: The Hammer Frankenstein Series (Beginning)
