Simply A Masterpiece

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

From what I understand this movie was originally filmed in German, French and English but for some reason the English version was either lost or destroyed. As a result, the movie I watched was in German but had English subtitles. Now normally this wouldn't be an issue but the director (Carl Theodor Dryer) chose a unique film style which incorporated both silent and sound techniques. Flash cards were used on occasion and what dialogue was available was somewhat minimal. Likewise, the film quality was a little blurry in some areas but surprisingly this tended to blend in with the overall plot rather than detract from it as the director made excellent use of shadows to create a dream-like state. Or in this specific case—something resembling a nightmare. Be that as it may, although I am not particularly fond of silent movies, for some odd reason this film proved to be the exception to the rule as it seemed both artistic and surreal. As a result I have rated this movie accordingly. Above average.

Ah films about Vampires, you either get your blood thirsty crazy looking vampires or your calculated vampires whose thirst for blood is much more creepy than scary. Vampyr the film from Carl Th. Dreyer is really the creepy kind with its weird looking sets, surreal events and just characters whose emotions are conveyed through body language much more than by words. Dreyer somehow manages to get that dark underlying feeling all successful horror movies must have but in my opinion does not create any kind of masterpiece here, good, but not as perfect for me as some say this is. The story revolves a young man who is introduced to the world of vampires and the supernatural, as the plot moves on we see more about what they are and what they can do.Dreyer uses a cast not very well known if not in some cases at all and puts Nicolas de Gunzburg in the lead role as Allan Gray the young man whose fascination with the supernatural takes him to a small inn in the village of Courtempierre. For me the best character is the village doctor played by Jan Hieronimko who was found on a Paris metro train of all places and cast into the film among many other amateurs. I feel that Hieronimko's performance is similar to others in this too, I mean the acting here is not exactly great, don't get me wrong it's not bad at all but sometimes they just move around a little sluggishly, reactions are sometimes over the top. Dreyer knows though how to use his actors well though, even if they aren't too believable, he does this in a spooky way and although they move around just a little strangely, at times that strange movement can be kind of freaky and used to nice effect.Dreyer co-writes the film with Christen Jul and the script but in more specifics the dialogue is very well, not much there, but that is one reason this movie works so well. At such a short running time that this film is you can't be adding too much small talk, in fact this film dives into the plot very quickly indeed and it works well because it makes this so much more interesting, straight away you are hooked in on the story and that makes this at least very watchable. The film was not exactly met with positivity when it was first released and was considered a low point in Dreyer's career, the thing about this film though is that although I feel this is a little too clunky to be anything better than good, it is still well as I said, good, a must see for any fan of cinema or horror.Vampyr is not the best horror film but it is as I can see considered a classic among it so I can't finish this review without recommending it. It won't make you jump, in fact it won't probably make you feel scared at all but that I feel is not what Dreyer is trying to convey, it is the surrealism of it that he tries to make you see and tells a story that is highly original and a very smart yet weird story. All the characters Dreyer creates are well done and although I mentioned the acting before it is fair to say they all do a pretty decent job at least all together as a cast. Oh and one more thing and this is pretty important really, the camera angles, Dreyer works extremely well with Rudolph Mate and they create a film that looks not just creepy, but also looks extremely surreal as well.

Allan Gray is a young traveler obsessed with studying the occult and vampires. During his travels he comes to an small inn in the village of Courtempierre and stays for the night. During the night he is visited by a mysterious man who talks of a young dying woman and leaves Gray a package saying that it should "be opened in the event of my death". Gray, feeling a foreboding doom, heads out and finds himself amongst the horrors of the supernatural. So sets up Carl Theodore Dryer's 1932 horror film, "Vampyr". "Vampyr" is a hard film to talk about because of how strange it is. After I saw it for the first time I was completely baffled. I didn't know what to make of it and I couldn't make sense of what I had just seen. In structure, it is a very unorthodox movie. Shot and edited together in a very bizarre manner. The story is told in a linear fashion but the viewer is required to fend for themselves for much of it. Bridging shots and connecting sequences are almost entirely absent, much of what hear occurs off-screen, and what we do get to see is almost always unexplained. It makes for a really bizarre viewing experience. Despite that, the movie never feels disjointed, it has its own flow that feels as natural to the story as it is unorthodox.What this bizarre flow does for the film is it gives one of the creepiest and chilling horror films from the era. The way the story is told is like that of a nightmare. Nothing is ever certain, shadows bend and play at their will, backgrounds ever so subtly seem to twist and contort, and the evil waits and festers out of sight, but not out of mind. This can be attributed to the film's aesthetic design. Much of the film was shoot on overexposed stock so it has a washed out soft look making it seem as though it is a nightmare. The effects with shadows moving with no physical bodies are some of the finest and most chilling effects from any horror film. Much should be given to the sound design for helping make this movie as creepy as it is. The film was made in 1931, released in '32, so it was a very early talkie. Unlike many films from that period, "Vampyr", features almost no dialogue and makes itself look like the silent horror films. Most of the sound is in the film's score and sound effects, most of which are distorted or off-screen. The score in particular is very good and creepy. It's nice to have when considering many early talkies like the 1931 "Dracula" really didn't have a score. It has an unconventional sound and is major player in the film's nightmarish tone and keeping the story from feeling disjointed. Dialogue is held to a hardcore minimum, shows up very rarely and not for very long. Again, like silent films information is given via inter-titles or as it is later in the film, from the pages of a book.Some people may be turned off by the acting in the film. Most of the stars were not professional actors and some, including lead actor Julian West, only have "Vampyr" to their credit. West spends most of this film in an almost emotionless apathetic state to what is going on. Everyone else puts on more emoted performances but they're subdued and it makes the characters seem more like the vignettes of a nightmare than actual people. Dryer makes good use of it though. The skewered perspectives and strange compositions make the acting effective and additive to the movie's horror."Vampyr" is, at the end of the day, a very creepy and bizarre experience. You should totally watch it now. Do not miss this under-appreciated classic, especially if you are a fan of horror from the 1920s and 30s. Alternate recommendations include F.W. Murnau's "Nosferatu" from 1922 and Tod Browning's "Dracula" from 1931. Both are great vampire movies from the same time period and serve as good entry points into the world of 20s and 30s horror.

When you hear the word " masterpiece " you often have to take cover to the hyperbolic superlatives aimed at that film . Has there ever been any film released that hasn't had someone screaming " MASTERPIECE " . I think someone have said WORLD WAR Z was a masterpiece of Zombie horror . Someone said TRANSFORMERS is a masterpiece of explosions and CGI whilst someone else said PACIFIC RIM was a masterpiece in toilet cleaners . Maybe and why not ? VAMPYR by Carl Thedor Dryer is another film considered a masterpiece in 2013 but a quick internet search will inform you that the film was booed by everyone who saw it 80 years ago and it's easy to see why when you stop to think about it Picture the scene . It's 1932 and you're sat in the cinema a cigarette in one hand and a bag of pop corn in another . Sound is a recent invention and you're still reeling from James Whale's FRANKENSTEIN from the previous year and this film promises to match if not surpass the spine chilling shock of Whale's movie . The film starts and you notice something very strange - hardly anyone talks . Protagonist Allen Grey walks around and insert cards inform us he's an expert academic in the undead . Hold on wait a minute didn't we get caption inserts in silent movies ? Surely we've moved on ? As the story continues we get spooky images of ghost like figures . Slightly impressive but didn't we get that from that French bloke Georges Melies ? What's happening now ? More caption inserts where nobody says anything . Whoa you expect us to pay for a cinema ticket at 1932 prices and what you're doing is showing us a film that looks like it was made 20 years ago ! Surely there is a consumer protection act here somewhere that states if you spend money on a cinema ticket in 1932 then you're entitled to see a film that looks like it was made in 1932 . Pop corn is then thrown at the screen . All together now " BOOOOOOO " When you watch this in 2013 you'll almost certainly be in two minds about it . One is you'll be impressed by the atmospheric mood of VAMPYR that is truly expressionistic . However that's perhaps the only impressive aspect to the film where everything else is lacking . The narrative has an implausible structure , things go unexplained and after the story reaches its natural climax there seems to be another ten minutes added that seem to have come from a different film . The lighting in the film is good but apart from that the camera-work is rather static . No doubt this is a film that is essential viewing in film classes but apart from that you can understand why some people had a very negative reaction to it in 1932