Recensioni degli utenti

The premise of "Shadow of a Vampire" is simple, what if Max Schreck was really a vampire posing as an actor playing a vampire in the Murnau's masterpiece, "Nosferatu?" Well, the result is both slightly scary and pretty funny. Director E. Elias Merhige and writer Steven Katz create a fairly creepy mood, and inhabit the picture with some real interesting characters.

John Malkovich plays famous silent film director F.W. Murnau. This is perhaps the funniest performance of the bunch, especially when he is giving audible instructions to the "actors" while the camera is rolling. Then, there is Willem Dafoe who plays Max Schreck/ the vampire. It is incredibly fun to watch an almost unrecognizable Dafoe play this oddball, Max Schreck. Unfortunately for Murnau, Schreck starts doing what vampires tend to do... bite people. The original photographer dies along with a few others at the mouth of Schreck. After seeing this movie, it is quite easy to see why Dafoe was nominated for best supporting actor at the Oscars. His performance is worth the price of admission.

This is a film which is hard to classify, sense it is a fictional account of an actual film with real people. Yet this horror-comedy does have its moments of wonderful macabre humor along with great performances to help make it an enjoyable movie. A 7 out of 10. I highly recommend watching this as part of a double feature. First, watch Murnau's original 1922 masterpiece, "Nosferatu", then watch "Shadow of a Vampire." You will appreciate "Shadow of a Vampire" a lot more (or maybe vice versa).

It is the age of the silent movie, and German expressionist director F.W. Murnau (John Malkovich) is determined to film his version of the Dracula story, whatever the cost to his cast and crew.

I've never really been a big fan of Nosferatu nor a particular admirer of Willem Dafoe, but this bizarre little movie has made me appreciate both much more. A fictionalised account of the making of F.W. Murnau's 1922 silent horror classic, Shadow of the Vampire toys with the notion that Nosferatu's star Max Schreck (played here by Dafoe) was actually a bona fide member of the undead.

This fanciful idea plays out a little too slowly, perhaps, but offers plenty of opportunity for dark humour, the cast delivering suitably offbeat performances that prove strangely intoxicating, with Dafoe's mesmerising turn as Shreck being the film's strongest suit, the actor's mannerisms and expressions played to perfection.

Casual movie fans who haven't seen Murnau's classic will probably wonder what the hell is going on, so I recommend seeing Nosferatu beforehand, just so that one can fully appreciate the magic of certain scenes and the brilliance of Dafoe's performance.

This movie is a true relief for everyone who thought the genre of horror and mystery was dead and buried. It feels good to see that it's still possible to create movies like this. Even though the plot is rather simple, the movie seems to be very original and innovating. The basic idea behind this movie is so simple that it is - in fact - brilliant and it makes me wonder why nobody has thought about this earlier. The movie is completely based on the very early horror milestone "Nosferatu, ein symphony des grauens". Legendary actor Max Schrek is portrayed here like a REAL vampire who regularly takes a bite out of his crew. Director F.W. Murnau knows about this but finishing his movie is a higher priority to him than to sacrifice a few people.

This theme makes it of course a must for the ancient horror fans. Lots of footage and trivia of the 1922 masterpiece are shown and that's a real extra value for true cinema buffs ! But of course, this movie reaches far above average thanks to the brilliant performances. A totally disguised Willem Dafoe is absolutely amazing in his role of Max Shreck. It's like looking at the real Schrek...the resemblance is terrific. His appearance (especially the long nails) give you the creeps whenever he's on screen and his voice haunts your head every time he says something. Dafoe never gives away a bad performance but this one is extraordinary. And of course,the same can be said about John Malkovich...his portrayal of director F.W. Murnau is extremely realistic and believable. He plays Murnau as the man who slowly goes insane because he tries to be too perfect. An amazing performance !!

There aren't many shock effects to detect in this movie but that's rather normal, right ? After all, it's more like a costume-drama than it is horror. The lack of exiting scenes is made up by the constant presence of tension and an extremely appropriate atmosphere. Also, a perfect image of Eastern Europe in the 1920's is presented to the audience. All these aspects make a much better movie then just some ordinary slashing and slicing throats. A must see !!

An entertaining "what if?" homage to Silent Film Director Murnau who is best remembered for his iconic Vampire Film Nosferatu (1922). For most enjoyment of this quirky send-off, see that Film first, not only for grounding, but it is truly a seminal work and is quite a capturing experience and Max Schreck's Vampire has become a Horror Movie symbol.

This is a beautiful film with sumptuous cinematography, wardrobe, and sets. The performances range from static to sensational with an unrecognizable Willem Dafoe stealing the show. Although, there is a lot left to embrace even when he leaves the frame.

It is an offbeat movie to say the least and will be a tough swallow for some. It does wallow in its own craziness but not to the point of distraction. There are some rough inconsistencies to the story but are swept away in the fun and creepiness of it all.

For those willing to imagine the absurd this is quite a conceit to behold. It is all believable in a world gone mad sort of way and it is presented in such a reverential and dutiful way that it can't help but be admired.

Back in 1924, the silent movie Nosferatu was released. At the time (as now) it was the definitive expression of the timeless story of Count Dracula. There have been, of course, endless renditions of the 1896 Bram Stoker tale; however, Nosferatu was unique in that the medium of cinema was extremely new in 1924, and the maker had to deal with prejudices against this newfangled form of entertainment, which had to compete with the written word. Now, of course, a new Dracula film need not compete with the original story; it only needs to compete with earlier versions on film. This movie explains the story of how Nosferatu was produced. The director, F. W. Murnau (John Malkovich), is filming his masterpiece in Germany (the widow of the story's author refused to sign the rights to the story, so they couldn't film in Transylvania or use any of the names in the book). His choice to play the part of the vampire Nosferatu is Max Schreck (Willem Dafoe), a beastly, hideous man who will appear to the cast and crew only in character (an early example of Method acting, to be sure). Shreck will not travel or bunk with the company; he will live only in the cave dwelling that the film's protagonist, Count Orlac, calls his home. With a leading man that eccentric, it's no wonder trouble appears on the set. People get sick, others appear listless and not quite into their work. Still, the tenacious Murnau pushes on. He must get his shot! His film must be completed! And as it progresses, he slips a little further into his own world, and Schrek - who, it has been said, played perhaps the ugliest vampire in film history - assumes more and more control over the direction of the movie (although not literally). Dafoe is unrecognizable in makeup, but the sinister creepiness he brings to most of his roles is evident here. It's an accomplished actor who can play a part in full makeup and still make the role distinguishable from... well, from some chump in a lot of makeup. Dafoe's excellent here, and his interplay with Malkovich is galvanizing. Their scenes together are like an actor's class on How To Emote and Project. There are times when each actor appears to ham it up slightly (or, in the case of Malkovich, more than slightly), but the two of them together constitute a casting coup. This is a wonderful little film, yet another that didn't quite get the acclaim it deserved. The atmosphere is both rich and compelling, both essential qualities for a film that's all about vampires from long ago. This is not a movie that's high on special effects, either; don't expect to see a lot of flash and fancy. It's also a homage to silent movies and to old-time horror films in general. It's a minimalist film in terms of set itself, but much is done with so little.

The movie centers the fastidious director Murnau (John Malkovich) who is shooting the famous film ¨Nosferatu¨ a classical silent German film. He is helped by a team formed by Eddie Izzard (the main actor) , Gary Elwes (director assistant), Udo Kier and a quirky as well as creepy actor named Max Schreck played by Willem Dafoe who steals the show . But the shooting goes wrong and is really hampered by the fact that its main actor is taking the character of the vampire far more seriously than seems humanly possible . An Unspeakable Horror !. A Creative Genius !. Captured For Eternity !.

In the picture there is spooky and creepy atmosphere and being slightly slow-moving and that's why it results to be a little tiring . The film is based on real deeds , because of the people lived actually , and the regard to Max Schreck is a mystery , he made that picture only and we don't know anything about his life. Will he be truly a vampire?. The motion picture achieved a moderated success, in United States achieved a flop, in Europe got more boxoffice than America . It's a production of various countries: EEUU, England (BBC) and Louxemburg and Nicholas Cage appears as producer, too. Top-notch interpretation by main players , John Malkovich is excellent, Willem Dafoe is magnificent but gives an extreme gesticulation , the make-up on his face is awesome, he looks like the authentic Nosferatu .Willem Dafoe's portrayal of Max Schrek was nominated for Oscar , this is the only time anyone has been nominated for their portrayal of a vampire. The motion picture was slow but competently directed by Elias Merighe . The movie has got some Oscar nominations , but obtained none. The black and white flashbacks staging the original silent film are fascinating , it's the best part of the film.

Rating : 6.5/10 . Good . Well worth watching.

Every once in a while, a movie comes along that completely and maybe consciously defies categorization, and "Shadow of the Vampire" is a great example. It is at once a black comedy, a horror movie with a unique setting, and a biting sendup of the art and business of moviemaking. And the fact is that it wears each of these hats quite well, although not necessarily at the same time.

The movie asks us to imagine: What if Max Schreck, the mysterious guy who gave what is still considered one of the best vampire performances ever, did so well because, well, he really was a vampire? The skulking creature, we are to imagine, was finagled into performing in "Nosferatu" for legendary cinema pioneer F.W. Murnau. The story then follows as the crew makes the movie dealing with all sorts of difficulties, not the least of which is the star's habit of snacking on cameramen.

Among the film's many virtues is its portrayal of filmmaking in what was really its dawn as a form of art and commerce. People like me, who have trouble with silent movies may gain an additional appreciation for the work and craft that went in to them, and realize that while they may seem hokey and stylized to us now, they had a beauty and substance that was all their own, and still is.

John Malkovich turns in a great performance as the visionary Murnau (who, while tortured, must be a genius because he always gets it in one take). It is a characteristic Malkovich role, a rationalist given to bouts of fury, and it is as much fun to see him discourse pretentiously on the science and art of the moving image as it is to see him pitch a fit ("Albon, a NATIVE has wandered into my FRAME!").

The core of this movie, however, and deservedly so, is Willem Dafoe's unforgettable portrayal of Schreck. This is not your slick-talking Anne-Rice undead-Vogue kinda vampire. Schreck is the next thing up from a rat, squatting in filth and clicking his claws, and Dafoe is able to inspire laughter as well as fear, and even pathos. He makes us imagine what a rotten existence it must be, to have eternal life alone in a rotting ruin and a withered body. He and Malkovich have some great scenes together, including a sick, hilarious moment when Schreck and Murnau try to hammer out who on the crew may or may not be snacked upon (the cinematographer is necessary, it seems, but the script girl is negotiable).

The movie functions best as a sendup of moviemaking, as the harried Murnau must deal with temperamental actors, unfriendly locals, blood-sucking undead, and other hazards of the movie trade. At one point, Murnau must leave to calm the investors, a scene I really wish had been included. Some of the best moments are those of the age-old creature of the night attempting to take direction and find his "motivation." Everyone is afraid of Schreck, but admire the dedication that keeps him in character all the time (he's a Method actor, explains Murnau, he studied with Stanislavsky). The movie makes its point rather neatly, that filmmakers, and by extension filmmaking itself, have a way of sucking the life and blood out of you. Anyone who has ever had to shoot a movie on location will attest to this.

If I have a complaint about the movie, it is only that after its extreme cleverness, it settles for a somewhat straightforward horror-style denouement. Myself, I would have thought the vampire would end up moving to Berlin and getting an agent, a swimming pool, and a meeting with Ovitz. Still, the movie clearly makes its point: an auteur driven by a mania for artistic perfection can be more of a monster than something that just lives in a cave and drinks blood from your neck.

This film is about another film, portraying, very fictionally, the filming of the iconic silent film "Nosferatu" (1922). The logic of the film rests on an urban myth, whereby Friedrich Murnau (the film's director) hired a true vampire to the main role. The problem with this movie is that, unless you're a total movie buff, you'll hardly know "Nosferatu" well enough to know the existence of this urban myth, and this will make this movie a bit illogical and meaningless. The secret to understanding the film also goes through one or two questions that are implicitly posed. The first is easy: how far should we go in the name of art? Is the perfection of the finished work worth any sacrifice? The second question is who is the worst monster? Orlock, driven by his lust for blood, or Murnau, driven by his artistic blindness? I really enjoyed the performance of Willem Defoe, who gave life to the vampire-actor. He not only was able to recreate the gestures and affected manners of the character we see in the silent movie, as he made him mysterious and a little fatalistic in the way he thinks and behaves. John Malkovich also shone in the role of an obese filmmaker, and has a few phrases in the dialogue that are true homages to the cinematographic art. The cinematography and visual beauty of the opening credits, in shades of black and sepia, are other positive aspects of a film unable to please the general public but perfectly able to please the most skilled and knowledgeable audiences.

A fictionalized account of the making of the classic vampire film Nosferatu, directed by F. W. Murnau, 'Shadow of the Vampire' is an interesting yet creepy film, but above all, its Willem Dafoe's Magnificent Performance as Max Schreck, that makes this film unmissable!

'Shadow of the Vampire' Synopsis: The filming of Nosferatu is hampered by the fact that the star is taking his role far more seriously than what seems humanly possible.

'Shadow of the Vampire' is a fictionalized account, so you shouldn't take this one too seriously. This Horror film, is creepy, atmospheric & yet funny. The Entire Story, The Entire Execution, in fact, is very convincing, even though, it won't work for the faint-hearted.

Steven Katz's Screenplay is superb. It's scary, creepy, atmospheric, funny & VERY innovative. E. Elias Merhige's Direction is as Eerie as it gets! Cinematography by Lou Bogue is fabulous. Editing by Royinba Onijala is crisp. Music by Dan Jones is good. Make-Up is Marvelous.

Performance-Wise: Willem Dafoe is Truly Magnificent, in an Oscar-Nominated Performance! His performance as Max Schreck, who plays Count Orlok/Count Dracula, is an astonishing embodiment, that's an Actor-Study. This is a Performance that deserves to be seen by each & every actor! John Malkovich as Frederich Wilhelm Murnau, is competent. Udo Kier as Albin Grau, is first-rate. Udo Kier as Albin Grau, is impressive. Catherine McCormack as Greta Schroeder, is worth a mention.

On the whole, 'Shadow of the Vampire' is an interesting film, but Willem Dafoe's Performance is its greatest merit.

Strange but true(?) movie about the making of the classic Nosturfura vampire movie. Malkovich, the director, has his movie set to go but nobody seems to know anything about the mysterious actor that will be playing the vampire. When Max Schreck (DeFoe) is introduced, he sends a shock through the set. Is he REALLY a vampire? You'll have to rent it to find out. This movie works on two levels. First, you get to see how they made silent films back in the day. Second, you get to watch a creepy movie. If you dig your teeth into this one (ha ha), it is scarier than most gore fest movies out there today. It works because it has suspense, sly humour, and is thick with atmosphere. Being set in an old European castle helps here. This movie is for fans who like classic suspense genre rather than 'scary' slasher flicks.

First off, this is a much better movie if you have seen Murnau's expressionist masterpiece, "Nosferatu". There are a number of scenes from this movie that draw on "Nosferatu", and it makes a lot of the scenes more enjoyable. The movie is done in very much an expressionist vein it itself, the kind of film F.W. Murnau would certainly have appreciated.

The concept here is incredibly intriguing - what if a horror movie was a horror to film? Once the film kicks into gear, it establishes a rather creepy mood, especially in the sets, most of which mirror those of "Nosferatu" (the writer's bed, for instance, looks exactly like Hutter's).

As the film progresses, the actors take over the film, and it's interesting to see how they stack up to their precursors from 70 years ago. Eddie Izzard is an interesting Hutter (the Jonathan Harker analog), as (pretend) silent acting is well-tailored to his overbearing antics. Udo Kier is quite good as reserved producer Albin Grau. Alas, Cary Elwes, one of Hollywood's most underappreciated actors, is typecast as a kind of roguish, free-spirited Fritz Wagner, a real cinematographer (and the main one throughout all of "Nosferatu") and one of the stalwarts of German cinema into the 50's.

Malkovich is ideal for this role. He does a good job of being a manic, desparate for everything on his film to go right. His Murnau is a control-freak, a guy who keeps his crew in the dark, and adds to the generally creepiness.

The most curious thing about Murnau's "Nosferatu" is the vampire himself. The rest of the characters are pretty direct analogs of "Dracula". But instead of a suave, cool vampire of the Christopher Lee/Gary Oldman mold (later roles, of course), Murnau's vampire was a stiff, cold, violent monster. Willem Dafoe is absolutely brilliant in portraying this. He has some moments of comedic relief, bickering harmlessly with Malkovich, and generally being a fish out of water. Soon, however, his character becomes undeniably creepy, and Dafoe does a great job of making Count Orlok seem like the kind of guy who makes your skin crawl. In some way, this Orlok is less of a monster - he's portrayed a bit more sympathetically, sorrowing in his loneliness and never getting to see light. Murnau's vampire was almost always shot from below, making him appear huge and menacing; Dafoe's Orlok isn't monstrous so much as he just makes your skin crawl.

I do have a couple beefs, though, mainly technical. On a purely nitpicky level, Murnau is mentioned as a comtemporary of Griffith and Eisenstein, despite the fact that Eisenstein didn't make a movie until two years after "Nosferatu". On a less petty level, the characters seem a bit dumb. They have no problem accepting the fact that Orlok is an actual vampire once Malkovich tells them, but can't seem to figure it out on their own, despite seeing, among other things, Orlok pulling a bat out of the air and sucking the blood out of it.

The film, in general, does not end well. The penultimate scene is horribly contrived, a lot of silly reminiscing to to advance the plot a little. The ending itself isn't necessarily bad, just a bit ambigous. You don't come away with a clear sense of who (if anyone) was wronged amongst the main characters, and we leave a couple of them in limbo. A couple of technical details are odd, too. Murnau's Nosferatu has a shadow and a reflection, but this one only a shadow. Also, in the final scene they are supposedly filming, there's a wooden stake that's nowhere to be found in "Nosferatu".

A quick note, by the way - while the movie they are filming actually exists, rest assured the story is pure fantasy. Max Schreck went on to make more movies, as did the rest of the actors in this film, and no actors were bitten during the filming of the original movie.

A thououghly enjoyable film, especially if you're familiar with the subject matter.

When this first started, I thought I was in for one of those films-about-film, maybe a biopic in the style of ED WOOD or at least something similar. Instead what I got was an offbeat, unique little fantasy piece, featuring a 'what if?' scenario: what if Max Schreck, the star of the silent horror classic NOSFERATU, really was a vampire in real life? He wasn't, of course, but the ensuing movie has a ball with the premise. Some of the highlights include top-dollar period atmosphere and a never-better turn from Willem Dafoe, playing Schreck with just the right mannerisms. His vampire is sympathetic and repulsive, amusing yet sinister, and it's the kind of performance that helps re-establish Dafoe in my mind as one of Hollywood's greats (what a surprise then that producers don't know how to use him and end up typecasting him as villain for much of the time).

Elsewhere, the film supports flamboyant turns from John Malkovich, cult star Udo Kier and Eddie Izzard, sporting the kind of exaggerated German accents that would make an 'ALLO 'ALLO cast member blush. Catherine McCormack (BRAVEHEART) is alluring as one of the leading actresses, and Cary Elwes shows up as an amusingly overblown pilot hero type. Seeing the silent film that inspired this one is a must, of course, and genre fans will probably find much to amuse them here, even if the whole film turns out to be rather minor and forgettable when it comes down to it.

This is a film whose script and direction is so confused that it is very difficult to figure out what the film makers even intended to make. The story and acting careens from being a homage to old silent movie making, to high camp, to something like a skit from Saturday Night Live. It is a pity because the movie is beautifully shot and the art direction is terrific -- also the stars have proven themselves excellent acting when they have something to act. You come out of this movie shaking your head saying, 'what the heck was THAT all about?'

In 1922 filming of Murnau's movie `Nosferatu' has begun. Murnau has recruited the mysterious Max Shreck to play the lead role. Crew fall ill and Shreck never appears out of character or during the day. Fellow actor Gustav believes Shreck is an intense method actor – however Shreck is a real vampire and has agreed to star in the film in exchange for the neck of the leading lady when filming finishes. However Shreck's lust for blood continues to grow throughout the shoot.

This is an inventive film that looks at how far art will go to create. The director Murnau seems as driven by the creative process as Shreck is by his lust for blood. This comparison is carried through the whole film until the inevitable showdown between the two drives. The setup itself is fascinating but the comparison between the two men makes it even better.

The film is well shot and uses the different cameras well. It looks really good and mixes bright shots with shadowy darkness really well. It also benefits from a good cast. Malkovich is excellent as the driven director who easily becomes a monster himself but Dafoe is even better. Despite being almost unrecognisable under the make up, Dafoe manages to bring humanity to his monster – he also brings some humour without making his a comedy role. Elwes is underused, but Izzard is great as a bad 1920's actor!

Overall this may not inspire interest in everyone but it has a great cast and a good central story. The comparisons drawn between Murnau and Shreck only improve what is already a very enjoyable film.

There's no doubt that I had fun watching this movie, it's really entertaining and really well done. The acting is good as well. John Malkovich never ceases to please and Willem Dafoe makes an amazing transformation (with an outstanding makeup job) into the blood-sucking star of the F.W. Murnau classic "Nosferatu." His performance is quite good, though I expected him to get more screen time. Since the Oscars are long gone, I'm not sure if he got nominated for Best Actor or Best Supporting Actor. Though his performance is poignant and very impressive, and you can barely recognize Dafoe--not only through the copious makeup, but also through the accent and mannerisms, I can't measure it up to an "Oscar-worthy" level.

The premise is original and quite fun to play with. This is a fictional account, and it's interesting how the screenwriter conjured up the idea--after indulging the brutal realism of the classic vampire flick--of making the star, Max Shrek, an actual vampire. This spawns some darkly comic moments, like the scene where the bloodthirsty ghoul murders the cameraman and Malkovich as Murnau screams out, "Why did you have to murder the cameraman!!! Why couldn't you murder the....script girl!!!" Shrek replies, "Oh...I'll eat her later." The whole film has that amusing mixture of horror and black comedy, reminiscent of Tim Burton's style of filmmaking. The German accents are a little cheesy, but it's not a film meant to be taken with utter seriousness.

It's also nice how the director plays around with the idea of Murnau's unstoppable ambition, as he would picture it. The kind of ambition that would coax him to do--literally--whatever it takes to complete this work of art, even if numerous people have to get killed in the process. The ending perfectly demonstrates this raw ambition. So it brings out a good sense of irony. By the time the film is over, you start to realize that the "real" monster is not Shrek; it's Murnau. But he's a monster with a dream. A monster with a mission. I'm sure there are few--if any--directors in history who've shared the exact thirst for the art form as Murnau in "Shadow of the Vampire." I don't know any directors who'd sacrifice their cast and crew for a movie. Correct me if I'm wrong. But it's meant to be an exaggerated account of how far a director would go. And this exaggeration is the best way to express the idea.

I love the musical score. Along with the vivid art direction, the score helps accentuate the creepy mood to the point where it almost invades your subconscious.

I was, however, surprised by the running time. I didn't anticipate a 90-minute film. Yes, it's pretty snappy, and though I'm not sure how it would've been better if it were longer, I was still left with an "Is that all?" feeling.

"Shadow of the Vampire" is a smart, original, funny, entertaining, haunting piece. It's well done, though I can't say it's a film that will stick in my mind for years to come. For some reason, I just felt that it could've lived up to more. Maybe they could've played around with the character of Shrek more frequently. It was missing a tiny bit of something that I can't quite point out. But I'm not going to lose sleep over it. It's a good movie and definitely worth renting.

My score: 7 (out of 10)

Everyone knows F.W. Murnau's 1922 classic "Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens". But probably not many people know about the theory that star Max Schreck may have actually been a vampire. Specifically, he was in character even when not filming. "Shadow of the Vampire" portrays the filming of that movie, and how Schreck (Willem Dafoe) apparently got a little too much into character.

As Schreck - FYI, "Schreck" in German means "scare" - Dafoe looks creepy as ever, even more menacing than the Green Goblin. John Malkovich is his usual intense self as director Murnau. Determined to complete the movie, he goes to some pretty extreme lengths. The only other cast member whom I recognized was Eddie Izzard, as the actor who played Jonathan Harker (I really liked the scene where he cuts the bread; you may never want to cut bread again after watching that).

All in all, this is a pretty interesting "what if" story. I don't know for certain whether or not Max Schreck was a vampire, but "SOTV" makes a pretty convincing case. So watch it. It might just save your blood.

Shadow of the takes the viewer to 1921 to "witness" the making of F. W. Murnau's silent classic vampire film Nosferatu. Shadow of the Vampire does not pretend to be a documentary; it is a highly stylized, fictional work that delves into its very own imaginative speculations about a filmmaker's creative process.

Having assembled his crew, Murnau (John Malkovich) travels to a small town in Czechoslovakia, where he intends to recreate before his camera the story of Bram Stoker's "Dracula". Set on creating the most realistic vampire film, Murnau secretly recruits a real vampire (Willem Dafoe), promising to recompense the creature with leading lady Greta (Catherine McCormack). Murnau cautiously introduces the vampire to his producer Albin Grau (Udo Kier) and scriptwriter Henrick Galeen (John Gillet) as "Max Schreck", a truly professional "method actor" trained by Stanislavsky. Schreck performs his scenes suspiciously well, only appearing on the set at night and in character, keeping his end of the bargain with the director. Soon, however, his blood thirst takes over and he fearlessly threatens to eliminate, one by one, Murnau's most dispensable crew members.

Shadow of the Vampire stems from the premise that its protagonist, the fictional Murnau (Malkovich), must hire a real vampire in order to ensure a truly authentic representation of the vampire character, "Count Orlock", for his film Nosferatu. The viewer who seeks a more accurate portrayal of the making of the real Nosferatu may find this premise strained and far-fetched, and may even consider the film's ensuing humor a bit aimless. However, Shadow of the Vampire integrates the humorous premise to its metaphorical exploration of the artistic process and of the inevitable struggle between the star, the director and the crew. (In one scene, Schreck tries to secure his interests --a new victim-- by negotiating with Murnau. He reflects: "I don't think we need the writer any longer.") Aside from the film's complex treatment of the film within the film and of the character within the character (where Shadow of the Vampire re-presents Nosferatu, and Shadow's cast plays Nosferatu's cast), the film's most enjoyable aspect is its careful reconstruction of specific Nosferatu scenes. When demonstrating how Murnau shoots these well-known scenes, Shadow's own shots shift between black & white and color; from a full-frame to one enclosed by an iris. Shadow's recreation of the classic scenes are often accompanied by Murnau's off-screen voice-over instructions to the actors, who in turn stop in mid-shot, enter, or exit the frame. These choices offer a fantastic depiction of silent film technique, and they as well add new life and a sort of magical dimension to the original Nosferatu scenes. Undoubtedly, Shadow of the Vampire may be most fully appreciated by the viewer that has already developed a sensitive appreciation for Nosferatu's unforgettable images. Still, Shadow of the Vampire may be enjoyed as well by those fascinated by filmmaking or --as Shadow's Murnau put it-- by "the science of the creation of memory."

1921 Germany--F.W. Murnau hires a real vampire to play Count Knock (Dracula) in his "Nosferatu". Or that's the premise of this movie. An interesting idea--but a really strange execution. The movie looks good and there are very good recreations of scenes from the original "Nosferatu", but the script has real problems. It wavers uncomfortably between satire and surrealism (especially the end which is horrible). However sometimes, it works--more as comedy though. The acting is equally uneven--John Malkovich is terrible as Murnau...he overplays and underplays horribly. How does he keep getting jobs? Willem Dafoe is excellent as the vampire--a VERY good performance. Also there are strong performances in minor roles by Udo Kier (who, ironically, played Dracula back in a 1972 movie), Eddie Izzard (very amusing) and Cary Elwes (buff, handsome and doing a perfect German accent). An OK movie--no great shakes. Good thing it's only 90 minutes.

I just don't know what to say about this. A deeply strange film that is almost a comedy, almost a horror, almost nothing. Very funny in places - although not so as you would laugh out loud - this film is really made by some top-notch acting. William Dafoe and especially Eddie Izzard - in a role made for him - are superb, and all the performances and characterisations are pitched just right. The idea is also wonderful, full of in-jokes and period charm.

So why aren't I raving about this, then? I guess because the film is, fundamentally, very slight, short, and just missing a little depth that would make it one of the best films of the year. We could do with a little more time to spend on the characters, and just a little more tension. As it is it's over almost before we've begun - but what's happened to all the people - like Gustav - that we met before? Are they dead, or just not on the set?

This is certainly worth seeing, and very good fun, but ends just a little short of the masterpiece they were shooting on the set.

What if the lead character in the film Nosferatu really was a vampire? Shadow of the Vampire explores this unusual concept as it follows the story of the filming of the 1921 silent film classic. Malkovich plays the role of Murnau, the German director who makes the bargain from hell to provide realism to his Dracula knock-off, only to find that he has unleashed a monster. This is a horror film that is really a psychological drama -- the true horror lies in the man who decides no price is too high for the making of his movie. At the same time, there's a lot of humor, as well as an intriguing glimpse of Berlin in the decadent 1920s.

Dafoe is definitely an Oscar nominee with this performance (and the film should get an Oscar for his make-up, too): especially powerful scenes include his describing his reaction to reading the novel Dracula, by Bram Stoker; and a confrontation with Murnau near the end of the film, when Murnau finally is forced to recognize what he has done. Strong acting performances from the supporting actors as well -- Elwes' accent wanders, as does Malkovich's, but the cast (including native Germans) is generally strong. Some really nice cinematography and editing.

It adds to the experience to have seen the silent film first, by the way; it is well worth viewing in any case. It's available in a remastered print with a good soundtrack. "Shadow" takes a few liberties with the original film, but not important ones (those night scenes were obviously not shot at night, for example).

I loved this film -- two thumbs up!

Dafoe's acting prowess was well wasted on this movie. Very dull as there were so many scenes that dragged on agonizingly. This movie is not for movie fans, but rather for movie actors, critics, directors and the like. You can easily find a better thing to do than watch this movie.