This is the original review of Nosferatu The Vampyre by Siskel & Ebert on "Sneak Previews" in 1979. All of the segments pertaining to the movie have been included.
They filmed each scene “twice” once in German, and once in English. I watched the English version about a year or so ago, and it’s definitely one of the best vampire films.
I disagree with their opinion that they should take out 20 min. of the movie. The slower paced scenes are all really beautiful to look at, and the acting is superb. Still glad Gene and Roger both appreciated the movie a lot.
It's amazing that this film had two final takes for every speaking scene. One where the actors speak German and one where they speak English! That's actually quite amazing!! Also fun fact. Klaus Kinski played Renfield in the 1970 Jesus Franco version of Dracula. Talk about graduation!
I saw this first broadcast and it made that kid (me) want to see Nosferatu. Now 43 years later I still haven’t gotten around to it, though I have seen many of Herzog’s films. .
This and the 1922 Nosferatu are the only Dracula adaptations that are brilliant. Dracula in this picture is portrayed as a victim of a force of nature.
I'm a little offended at the suggestion that this movie will go over the heads of horror fans. I've never met a horror fan who doesn't love this movie.
I think they were right on the money with that one. Horror fans are some of the stupidest bastards I've ever met in my life. They wouldn't recognize true horror it came at them wielding a chainsaw and wearing their mother's pantyhose. Most horror movies just aren't that frightening anyway. Apocalypse Now is a million times more horrifying than any horror movie ever made because it's based on something that really happened and is still happening right now in some isolated parts of the world. Michael Meyers and Freddy and Jason can't compete with that.
I love the film and consider it the last truly great Eurohorror film, despite some minor quibbles. I don't like the resolution concerning Jonathan and I wish Herzog had used the character names from the Murnau film (Orlock instead of Dracula, Hutter instead of Harker) instead of the Stoker ones.
I have to admit, I came to this film with some prejudice because I loved Murnau's version so much. I was blown away by this movie. Yes, it is a little draggy, but it is a wonderfully atmospheric and tragic film. Klaus Kinski was fantastic, and there are some beautifully haunting scenes in this film that will stay with you.
They probably hadn't heard of the original at that time. They were movie critics, not scholars, the hadn't really seen a silent film at the theatre till Francis Ford Coppola presented Gance's Napoleon. They really didn't watch silent cinema. That of course is no excuse for at not knowing that this film is a remake, most people watching this review at the time, probably have heard of the original.
@@naysayer1238 Why is that goofy? They had never seen a silent film at the theatre before Napoleon. They were clearly not silent film buffs, and for all we know not old film buffs.
@@plasticweapon Well, yeah, true, or a version thereof. Apparently the Stoker family wasn't keen on a movie of Dracula or them using the names from the novel, etc. No apparatus back then to have an "authorized version" or get the family ongoing royalties for permissions or clearances, I"m assuming.
@@thiscorrosion900 When you read Dracula, you can see why they wouldn't have wanted a film adaptation. An Epistolary novel is basically impossible to do on film loyally so one has to get away from the source material.
