As a huge fan of the originalwhich I have seen more than a dozen timesI greeted Fisher's remake with great enthusiasm. I too attended the screening and Q & A at Two Boots Pioneer Theater, and came away with a deep impression of a director obsessed with this extraordinary and legendary film. While the dialogue at times seems insipid, it is precisely the American diction and its quirkiness that gives meaning to this silent film re-shot on the green screen, who breathe new life into the two-dimensional expressionist sets that wildly zig and zag. Precisely because it seems so utterly improbably to hear a bunch of tongue-twisted Americans speak the rephrased German silent titles does Fisher achieve success. I relished this fresh new- millennium perspective of the world of a madman seen in various contexts ranging from the insane asylum to the carnival with hurdy gurdy player. And in re-reading theorists such as Lotte Eisner and Siegfried Kracauer, it makes all the more sense that Americans are reprising these Weimar-era roles. Recall Decla's original release "You must become Caligari" posters of 1920; that's precisely what Daamen Kraal so vividly achieves.
14 Reviews
Conrad Veidt wouldn't be pleased.
joshtanner13 March 2007
First and foremost i love the original to bits, it was the first silent film i ever watched so you can imagine a feature length movie without dialogue was pretty strange to watch for me then.
So what does a version with talking bring? Not really much at all. I was pretty pumped for this, the trailer didn't look all too bad and at first I was excited to hear that they were using the background from the original 35mm print.
The backgrounds are composited pretty badly in a lot of scenes, especially my favorite shot of Cesare creeping along the wall, which Is a disaster and he doesn't look like he's touching the wall at all! (They should have built this set!) Doug Jones is a pretty good actor, but he doesn't even touch Veidts performance. He's just simply not scary, the terrifying shot where Cesare opens his eyes for the first time in the original film was severed here.
The dialogue is really bad in a lot of places, sure its interesting to see it with dialogue if only for a minute, but comon! Overall id say average, it has a lot of faults but it also is pretty OK in some spots, the new shots are pretty cool. David Lee Fischer obviously didn't love this film enough to leave it THE HELL ALONE!
So what does a version with talking bring? Not really much at all. I was pretty pumped for this, the trailer didn't look all too bad and at first I was excited to hear that they were using the background from the original 35mm print.
The backgrounds are composited pretty badly in a lot of scenes, especially my favorite shot of Cesare creeping along the wall, which Is a disaster and he doesn't look like he's touching the wall at all! (They should have built this set!) Doug Jones is a pretty good actor, but he doesn't even touch Veidts performance. He's just simply not scary, the terrifying shot where Cesare opens his eyes for the first time in the original film was severed here.
The dialogue is really bad in a lot of places, sure its interesting to see it with dialogue if only for a minute, but comon! Overall id say average, it has a lot of faults but it also is pretty OK in some spots, the new shots are pretty cool. David Lee Fischer obviously didn't love this film enough to leave it THE HELL ALONE!
Black Eyeliner Galore!
donaldricco7 January 2019
I'm not sure if this was just a lark, or if I really did like it! So, I guess I liked it! It's cool that they used the original for background, and it did have the feel of an old time film. The makeup and lighting are phenomenal! But the acting is bad, and I think it's supposed to be. Still, it's bad. The plot of the movie is trippy, and it feels odd the whole time, making it a spooky/silly viewing. Still, it unnerved me a bit, especially the Dr. calling for "Cesare" in such creepy ways. Weird as heck movie!
Very poorly executed remake.
Adam_P_L21 December 2006
First of all, I'd like to state unequivocally that I have nothing against remakes. Many people seem to feel that great films are "untouchable," and any attempt to remake them is tantamount to sacrilege. I don't feel this way at all. A remake can be nearly shot-by-shot (like Gus Van Sant's Psycho) or have a very different story (like Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead), and still--I think--stand on its own merits, be enjoyable if it is well-made, and do nothing to diminish the existence of the original. That said, David Lee Fisher's remake of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is a very, very bad film. The dialogue is poorly written, the acting is amateurish, and the superimposing of actors over scenes from the original film is not well executed. I was really interested to see this film based on the premise--original scenes from the silent version were rendered by computer, allowing modern actors to move across the old silent film scenery, along with dialogue and music--but the final product is painful to watch. Even though a lot of effort clearly went into making this film, the actors simply do not meld with the background most of the time. The famous scene where Cesare slides along a long white wall now looks silly, because it's clear that he's not touching it, and the digital shadows that have been created simply do not look natural. Another problem is the dialogue. It adds nothing new to the film, except to make slightly more explicit things that were fairly obvious in the original. I saw this film in New York (at Two Boots Pioneer Theatre), and the screening was followed by a Q & A session with the director. He admitted that he's never been able to watch the original film at regular speed in his DVD player, and he always fast-forwards through it because he finds it "slow moving," and figured he could improve on it. I believed him when he said that he's never been able to sit through the original at regular speed, since he also seemed confused about some very basic plot points and themes of the original. I think to remake a film, you should actually have seen it a few times, and have something new or interesting to offer. Anyway, the only positive thing I can say about this film is that the actor who plays Dr. Caligari (Daamen Kraal) was pretty good in his role, and Doug Jones makes an effective Cesare. Unfortunately, everyone else involved in making the film (especially the director) left a lot to be desired.
Dreadful at it's best.
ScienceKilledSilence16 April 2008
Ah, what film could possibly surpass the wonders of the original Cabinet of Dr. Caligari? Not many, I can tell you that. The haunting Conrad Veidt, dazzling Lil Dagover, and just plain creepy Werner Krauss, brought life to this classic horror.
It's a shame to see such beauty tarnished by a downright terrible remake.
The dialogue seemed to be forced at the best of times, and the actors had no connection with the set, mainly because it wasn't there when they filmed. On top of all that the cast of this abomination lacked in both charm and appeal. They used awkward, jerky movements in a vain attempt to seem 'spooky'.
When a film is remade it should at least express the same concept in a different way. This film failed to do that in anyway.
It's a shame to see such beauty tarnished by a downright terrible remake.
The dialogue seemed to be forced at the best of times, and the actors had no connection with the set, mainly because it wasn't there when they filmed. On top of all that the cast of this abomination lacked in both charm and appeal. They used awkward, jerky movements in a vain attempt to seem 'spooky'.
When a film is remade it should at least express the same concept in a different way. This film failed to do that in anyway.
A darker and eerier remake
jay-dobrow25 October 2005
The remake of "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" has all the poles holding it up. We have plenty of shadows, plenty of new camera angles, and more tension than the original masterpiece. Of course you are going to see some scenes which mirror the original. This just proves the love which went into the making of this soon to be classic. The most remarkable parts of this film are the reprisals of the original flick's backgrounds, and a fantastic series of performances, especially the new Caligari who is even more bad tempered and crazier than ever. The new film focuses even more on the sanity of the tortured Francis, who seems to be losing his grip with his own world as the film progresses. The actor who portrays the killer Caesare is eerily similar to the first film's sleepwalking stabber. The black and white flavoring really gives you the impression that this film might have been made in the late 30's than the new millennium. All in all, a terrific remake and a film no horror purist can resist.
Pale Comparison of the Original
gavin694210 October 2011
How can a film with Doug Jones be bad? Well, easily, but not due to Doug Jones. Though filling the shoes of Conrad Veidt is a tough thing to do!
There is nothing wrong with remaking a film if it is done right, but there are some flaws to this that just make it a weak reinterpretation. First, they seem to have the film set in the original time (1920s), but the actors are clearing modern men with their language and mannerisms.
The biggest problem is the attempt at German expressionism. They have the contrast, they have the odd shapes... but they just do not have the heart or soul of the movement. It is like painting a Van Gosh with paint-by-numbers. Sure, you can make it look similar, but you do not have the technique or passion behind it. The film would have been better off adapting the story to a modern setting than to pay homage to the original if they did not have the ability to pull it off.
There is nothing wrong with remaking a film if it is done right, but there are some flaws to this that just make it a weak reinterpretation. First, they seem to have the film set in the original time (1920s), but the actors are clearing modern men with their language and mannerisms.
The biggest problem is the attempt at German expressionism. They have the contrast, they have the odd shapes... but they just do not have the heart or soul of the movement. It is like painting a Van Gosh with paint-by-numbers. Sure, you can make it look similar, but you do not have the technique or passion behind it. The film would have been better off adapting the story to a modern setting than to pay homage to the original if they did not have the ability to pull it off.
I didn't really care for it
jonah_begone31 October 2010
1.) Is it marks or dollars? What's the currency in use in Hostenwall? Both? That's unsatisfactory and looks like an oversight.
2.) It would help if everyone pronounced "Ceasare" the same way.
I can see that the directory and writer took some care with the original... but... fleshing out the plot points were a mistake, in my opinion.
The original production seemed mad because things were explained so partially - it seemed disjointed. This production attempts to clean things up, which was a mistake.
A nice try, but artistically no triumph.
2.) It would help if everyone pronounced "Ceasare" the same way.
I can see that the directory and writer took some care with the original... but... fleshing out the plot points were a mistake, in my opinion.
The original production seemed mad because things were explained so partially - it seemed disjointed. This production attempts to clean things up, which was a mistake.
A nice try, but artistically no triumph.
I loved it!
georgi1181117 April 2008
I have just finished watching The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Why this film has not won more awards and is not better known, is beyond me! This film, when one considers its technical achievements alone, is a milestone in ingenuity. In its handling of the concepts of the original film, it is a heartfelt homage. In its re-imagining of the original film, it is chilling. As one who normally doesn't like re-makes, I have got to say, "I love this film and will watch it over and over again!" Kudos to the director for making a great film that any fan of the original German expressionist film should love. Thank you David Lee Fisher! Kudos to Daamen Krall for bringing a palpable villainy to Dr. Caligari. While watching the film, the voice of Caligari reminded me of Vincent Price. A voice of gentle yet refined menace. Kudos to Doug Jones with his masterful performance of Cesare! His performance rivaled that of Conrad Veidt. Everyone involved in this film is to be congratulated on a work masterfully crafted and acted! Thank you.
Maybe next time...
EdgarST16 May 2013
Around eight years ago when «Batman Begins» was released, I wrote that in future releases we would finally «know why Daffy Duck is mean, learn of the dysfunctional family of Charlie Brown, or discover the psychological traumas suffered by Olive Oyl in her youth», due to the tendency of some filmmakers to explain everything and, in these cases, to turn icons of American pop culture into celluloid «human beings». I did not know that also in 2005, a few months later, David Lee Fisher had released his remake of the German Expressionistic classic, «Das Kabinett des Doktor Caligari» (1919), directed by Robert Wiene. I have finally seen it and I can assert that, if there is a clear illustration of that fixation, that wrecks propositions and turns them into a mishmash palatable to the minimum common denominator, it is «The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari» (2005). Nothing could be farther than this from the intentions of the German filmmakers in early 20th century.
As it is outlined in Fisher's new adaptation, the protagonist, Francis (played by Judson Pearce Morgan, with trite tics and annoying manias learned from the Method), constantly blocks the flow of his own subjective world, as it was proposed by Expressionism. Francis spends the whole film trying to find explanations to everything, taken from Psychology 101, a habit that perhaps he acquired from his work in the field of statistics, as he tells his best friend Alan. In the Expressionist subjectivity there are elements of irrationality, but in this exasperating rereading they have no place: Francis resists to open his heart and mind to them, to passion and excess, and above anything he fails to recognize (as suggested by her «beloved» Jane) the strong homo-erotic content in his relation with Alan.
However, if there is an elemental opportunity that Fisher lost, almost a century after the release of Wiene's film, was to stick to the tale of that demented summer in Holstenwall and suppress the explanatory frame that producer Erich Pommer imposed, to «tame» the original story by Carl Mayer and Hans Janowitz. But even in this form, Wiene's original went along with Caligari's and all the other characters' madness, submerged in a distorted and oblique world, without the abundant close-ups that have been added to this retelling, following the so-called «zero degree style» of filmmaking.
In this explanatory strategy in cinema, many American filmmakers have chosen to believe that their products, enunciated in the particular way Americans speak English language, will be accepted, when what really happens is that these works are self-betraying concoctions that evidence a lazy vulgarity that makes no effort to enrich the films with the understanding of diversity. Everything is uniformed by common ways of American culture (which, obviously, is fine and correct to the average American), to make everything seem as «American as apple pie», be it a vampire story in Romania, of Mayan chiefs in Yucatán or German folks in Holstenwall. The people in this village rent tents in their yearly town fair in dollars, and they relax their t's as if they had their mouths full of peanut butter. This «Americanization» of the Other has become so common, that most spectators no longer question it. It may be fine for entertainment or for stories about Americans, but for those who, perhaps as Fisher, pretend to make art and tell stories in foreign places, many results are cheap, coarse, and ugly. In this line of thought, it seems logical that research of the «Expressionist acting method» was not considered too seriously by anyone in the cast. In particular, this affected badly a key character of the story: the somnambulist Cesare. From the terrifying and virile creation Conrad Veidt made in the original, we were left with Doug Jones' Cesare that, sorry to say, reminded me of Polly Bergen, as if she had had a very bad day, with a cheap wig and make-up.
In the end one has to admit that this «Cabinet» was, above anything else, a technical exercise in which contemporary actors were skilfully placed among the Expressionist sets creates in 1919 by Walter Röhring, Hermann Warm and Walter Reinamm, whose names do not appear in the credits, and the roles of production designer and art director are taken by two persons whose work must have been quite limited. On the artistic side, the exercise had no impact. If anything distinguishes the 1919 film is that it inaugurated the horror film, that it set a trend in fantastic cinema. And that in terms of lightning, composition and design it had an influence beyond the obvious genres (horror and film noir), that still manifests in some films, not always with good results. As in this one.
As it is outlined in Fisher's new adaptation, the protagonist, Francis (played by Judson Pearce Morgan, with trite tics and annoying manias learned from the Method), constantly blocks the flow of his own subjective world, as it was proposed by Expressionism. Francis spends the whole film trying to find explanations to everything, taken from Psychology 101, a habit that perhaps he acquired from his work in the field of statistics, as he tells his best friend Alan. In the Expressionist subjectivity there are elements of irrationality, but in this exasperating rereading they have no place: Francis resists to open his heart and mind to them, to passion and excess, and above anything he fails to recognize (as suggested by her «beloved» Jane) the strong homo-erotic content in his relation with Alan.
However, if there is an elemental opportunity that Fisher lost, almost a century after the release of Wiene's film, was to stick to the tale of that demented summer in Holstenwall and suppress the explanatory frame that producer Erich Pommer imposed, to «tame» the original story by Carl Mayer and Hans Janowitz. But even in this form, Wiene's original went along with Caligari's and all the other characters' madness, submerged in a distorted and oblique world, without the abundant close-ups that have been added to this retelling, following the so-called «zero degree style» of filmmaking.
In this explanatory strategy in cinema, many American filmmakers have chosen to believe that their products, enunciated in the particular way Americans speak English language, will be accepted, when what really happens is that these works are self-betraying concoctions that evidence a lazy vulgarity that makes no effort to enrich the films with the understanding of diversity. Everything is uniformed by common ways of American culture (which, obviously, is fine and correct to the average American), to make everything seem as «American as apple pie», be it a vampire story in Romania, of Mayan chiefs in Yucatán or German folks in Holstenwall. The people in this village rent tents in their yearly town fair in dollars, and they relax their t's as if they had their mouths full of peanut butter. This «Americanization» of the Other has become so common, that most spectators no longer question it. It may be fine for entertainment or for stories about Americans, but for those who, perhaps as Fisher, pretend to make art and tell stories in foreign places, many results are cheap, coarse, and ugly. In this line of thought, it seems logical that research of the «Expressionist acting method» was not considered too seriously by anyone in the cast. In particular, this affected badly a key character of the story: the somnambulist Cesare. From the terrifying and virile creation Conrad Veidt made in the original, we were left with Doug Jones' Cesare that, sorry to say, reminded me of Polly Bergen, as if she had had a very bad day, with a cheap wig and make-up.
In the end one has to admit that this «Cabinet» was, above anything else, a technical exercise in which contemporary actors were skilfully placed among the Expressionist sets creates in 1919 by Walter Röhring, Hermann Warm and Walter Reinamm, whose names do not appear in the credits, and the roles of production designer and art director are taken by two persons whose work must have been quite limited. On the artistic side, the exercise had no impact. If anything distinguishes the 1919 film is that it inaugurated the horror film, that it set a trend in fantastic cinema. And that in terms of lightning, composition and design it had an influence beyond the obvious genres (horror and film noir), that still manifests in some films, not always with good results. As in this one.
Missed chance at complete stylization
pearlstonsteven26 October 2020
The sets, props, and lighting are all copies of the originals, but most of the performances make no attempt at expressionism, or any other kind of stylization. They sound like modern Americans reading a modern script, which of course they are and it is, although the script would allow for more imaginativeness. The result is discordant, and just seems silly. It leads me to wonder what a Johnny Depp would have done with any of these roles.
A worthy homage
gbazalo31 December 2014
First, like most people who might take an interest in this film, I am a huge fan of the 1920 original, so I'll take a chance with anything related to it. I was hooked right from the beginning with the opening scene where Francis begins to relate his story to the old man. Listening to the dialog between the two and then seeing the new Jane walk down the path, pushing aside the tree branches, was amazing. At first I felt the acting was overwrought and stilted, but this is actually more true to the original than more restrained acting would be. I have just watched the new Blu-ray of the original and the 2005 remake back to back. I thoroughly enjoyed them both.
Dr. Caligary (actor Daamen Krall) is the best
gsanders-430 October 2006
Great fun to see this old film re-worked. Daamen Krall as Dr. Caligary is excellent. He's creepy, manipulative and sensitive, all at once. By sensitive, I mean you can see his wheels turn. He's a very, very interesting actor, and matched the stylization of this film. Mr. Krall's turn around at the end is also very well executed. The director took on a great task re-working this film, and for the most part, he succeeds. The technical blending of the old and new is nearly imperceptible. However, at times, the dialogue and acting of some of the second leads takes on a very 21st Century twist, which throws off the "feel" of the film. Neil Hopkins is very handsome, and I like to see more of him (in other things), but he was guilty of throwing off this film with his contemporary style.
Excellent movie!!
chipthump2723 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was excellent. The acting was great. Dr. Caligari was the best, I want to see him in more movies. I hope it wins at scream fest. Did anyone else see it? What did you think? I did not see the original but, now I want to. Daamen Krall is a superb actor, has anybody ever heard of him before. I took my boys to see it, and they loved it too. It was pretty creepy though. The man in the cabinet was spooky, the way his eyes looked. I was disappointed though that the only African American person in this movie was the first to be murdered. Why is it always the African Americans are murdered first? I liked how after the film, you could ask questions for the cast and crew of the film.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
