I also have criticisms concerning the end of the film. I agree that it seemed sort of tacked on, however that did not bother me terribly as I found most of the film to be quite enjoyable.

This movie, I must stress, is multifaceted. There are those scary parts and there is dark humor, but it is also a fascinating psychological study and a theory concerning one of the most important pioneering movies. I found it to be very thought provoking and I believe it would be beneficial to view this film multiple times.


Holy... this is some freaky stuff...   May 7, 2001
 7 out of 9 found this review helpful

This movie is one of the freakiest thing I've ever seen. I think Willem Dafoe plays one of the chilling characters ever on screen. He plays with romantic view of vampires that is played up in all other films. We see a very lonely, miserable vampire that has seen the centuries drag on until he is confronted with playing this roll in Murnau's creepy classic, Nosferatu. The last scene of the movie is one of the most uncomfortable things I've ever seen. Murnau's attempt to capture as much realism as he can makes the entire audience shift in their seats. I also liked the way the 35mm movie would transform into the older 16mm from that time.


Not what I had hoped for   June 11, 2001
 6 out of 7 found this review helpful

I wanted badly to love this film, and all the elements were in place: I love the original Nosferatu, I loved the remake which starred Klaus Kinski. I adore Willem Dafoe and am always riveted by John Malkovich. The film co-starred the insanely brilliant Eddie Izzard, as well as Udo Keir, Ronan Vibert and Cary Elwes, all of whom did their best with what they had to work with. SotV is beautiful to watch, the idea fascinating. So what went wrong? Why, in the end did it remain so uninvolving?

In spite of performances which are almost universally wonderful - even brilliant in some cases - character development is, at best, heavy-handed. In some cases, it's non-existent; poor Cary Elwes has so little to do it's almost embarrassing. The pacing and editing all serve to create a kind of silent film within a talkie atmosphere which never quite works. We listen for story clues that are not found in the dialogue, look for them in the visual shorthand which is as strange as it is unexpected, and the tension between the two flattens this film pretty comprehensively.

Perhaps this requires more than one viewing, I don't know. I just know that as much as I looked forward to it, I found it impossible to love this film. And given the talent and the ideas here, that's just a pity.


What if a classic horror film was made with a real monster?   June 9, 2001
 5 out of 5 found this review helpful

Early on in "Shadow of the Vampire," when director F. W. Murnau (John Malkovich) tells the cast and crew of his 1922 horror classic "Nosferatu" that he has hired unknown actor Max Schreck to play Count Orlock, he explains that Schreck has been studying with Stanislavski in Russia and is one of those actors who gets subsumed by his role. This is an intriguing enough conceit, but Steven Katz's script takes this film's conceit a bit further by having "Schreck" turn out to be a real vampire. This explains not only the need to shoot all of his scenes at night but also why he keeps attacking crew members, biting their necks and drinking their blood. The producer (Udo Kier), the writer (Aden Gillett), the new cameraman (Cary Elwes) and the film's star (Eddie Izzard) are getting increasingly nervous about people dying while making this film, but Murnau is totally consumed with getting his vision immortalized on celluloid. Since he would be willing to make a deal with the Devil to do so, coming to an arrangement with a vampire with regards to the life's blood of his leading lady (Catherine McCormack) is a relatively trivial matter.

"Shadow of the Vampire" has an obvious affection for the way in which silent movies were made, and key sequences of the film emulate the style of the time (shot in black & white, iris in & iris out, etc.). Both Schreck and Murnau are interested in immortality, albeit of different sorts, and it is not surprising that by the end of the film there is the question of which character is the real monster is quite debatable. Dafoe's performance as the title character was certainly worthy of an Oscar nomination, one of those grand disappearances beneath the make-up reminiscent of John Hurt in "The Elephant Man." Malkovich is at the stage in his career where it is difficult to notice how good he is because of how good he is (he improvised a lot of the dialogue during the final scene). Producer Nicholas Cage certainly deserves credit for getting E. Elias Merhige to direct another film. It had been almost a decade since Merhige wrote and directed "Begotten," and he was threatening to become the J. D. Salinger of contemporary American cinema. "Shadow of the Vampire" is destined to become a beloved little horror film, if not a cult classic.

Given the subject matter, the DVD extras are pretty sparse this time around. Merhige does the audio commentary alone and there are brief interviews with him, Dafoe and Cage. However, the featurette is standard Hollywood fare when what I was really expecting was a documentary-style look at the original "Nosferatu" with film historians or horror writers holding forth on its greatness. While having seen the original "Nosferatu" is not necessary to understanding "Shadow of the Vampire," it certainly would enhance your enjoyment of this film, and since "Shadow" is only 93 minutes long, you can easily do a double feature on a Friday night when the moon is full. Finally, please remember this is a film that requires the willing suspension of disbelief and do not get sidetracked by how a vampire who casts no reflection in a mirror can be captured on film. Just enjoy the ride.


What, no zeros?   September 26, 2001
 5 out of 9 found this review helpful

Excellent lighting, great photography and editing, fantastic makeup, brilliant acting and still it's a zero. John Malkovich turns in a memorable performance. Willem Dafoe as Max Schreck is at times truly chilling. In spite of that, if you leave wondering "what the hell was that about", you're with the majority of moviegoers who feel there should also be some sort of plot as well. This is "Porky's Revenge" masquerading as art.