Truly the worst movie I've ever seen in a theater

Just perfect...

Disturbing yet enthralling

Best movie ever!

Werner Herzog's Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht is a visually stunning film. The story and scenes are clearly a homage to the original Nosferatu:A Symphony Of Horror. It is a beautiful homage to F. W. Murnau's 1922 film.Klaus Kinski plays Count Dracula, (in the 1922 movie, the rights to Bram Stoker's book Dracula could not be obtained so the Count's name was changed to Orlok.) He is very much like Max Schreck, the same gaunt appearance, the same long fingernails and rat-like features.Kinski is brilliant in the role of the lonely nobleman who is doomed to an eternity of existing on the edges of society rather than being able to fully take part in it. Kinski brings a pathos to the role and you can feel a sympathy with him even though he is a rodent-like, repellent creature. Isabelle Adjani is a standout as Lucy Harker. Her lovely yet fragile presence is perfect to play the beautiful wife of Jonathan Harker, played perfectly by Bruno Ganz. Roland Topor as Renfield was a good choice as well. His crazed laugh was almost as good as Dwight Frye who played Renfield in Tod Browning's Dracula.What makes this film a classic are the lyrical, almost dreamlike scenes that show the slow but steady buildup to horror as Lucy sees her beautiful town being destroyed by the Count and the thousands of rats that he unleashed to spread disease, panic and despair. The last supper scene with the dying diners was breathtaking in it's restrained beauty and despair.This truly is a beautiful film, slow but ultimately rewarding. The musical score as perfect in setting the mood.The only gripe I have about the film was the treatment of the animals used. Apparently, the rats that were used were badly treated and so underfed that they had started to eat each other. They were also dipped into boiling water as part of a process to dye them gray and many of them died as a result. There were also allegations of other animals being mistreated as well.But despite this, it is a wonderful film and a truly unique experience to watch.

This movie has a lot of rough edges and no decent climax. Kinski as Dracula works well, as does Isabel Adjani as Lucy. But the blocking of the camera is amateurish, the perspective is confused, and worst of all, it's the only vampire movie that doesn't scare anyone. (Oh by the way, if you are on the way to driving a stake into a vampire's heart, don't appear in the next scene with the stake in your hand; you are supposed to leave it in.)Herzog has said that this movie was an attempt to show the highest values of his own culture. I have no idea whether he succeeded, but as a movie, this is a failure.

This a remake of Dracula. And it very disappointing movie. 1922 version of Nosferatu is very scary movie. It is one of the scariest movie ever made. And this is not scary at all. Nosferatu 1922 is a remake. Because there was a movie based on Dracula in 1921 called Dracula. I have never seen this movie. I am told it is lost. Nosferatu (1922) is such a good movie I don't know if the original Dracula could be better. I can believe that is it is better then crap. It is badly written and has an awful ending. You have to be under 7 to really get scared of this movie. Which it disappointing considering that the 1922 version is one of the scariest movies ever made. Do not see this movie. See the 1922 version. This movie is a wast of time and money.

"Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht" is a movie over 35 years old written and directed by German filmmaking legend Werner Herzog. This is his proof that he can also succeed with remake as this is obviously very heavily based on Murnau's silent film classic from 1922. You could basically split Herzog's movie into three parts. The first third belongs to Bruno Ganz, the second to Klaus Kinski and the third to Isabelle Adjani. This last segment is probably also why she agreed to star in the movie as her character was a bit of a nothing role until then and she already was an Academy Award nominee at that point.This film is also the only one that had Ganz and Herzog work together. So far, I shall say. It would be amazing to see them reunite at some point. Of course, Herzog worked so many times with Kinski in his career and they brought up the best in one another, especially Herzog in Kinski. The latter got lots of awards recognition for his work here and it's easy to see why. He basically redefined the modern vampire in this movie. Man was he scary. Of course, a lot of it also had to do with the excellent makeup, but let's not look down on Kinski's mesmerizing performance here. I can't deny that Ganz looked a bit pale beside him (no pun intended!) Still I love the guy and it's nice to see him in some of his earlier roles long before his career-defining performance as Adolf Hitler. Kinski made an Italian sequel to this one, almost 10 years later. I have not seen that one, but looking at the rating and the absence of Herzog, Adjani and Ganz, I am not too eager to see it, even if I like Pleasence and Plummer.Back to this one here, it's a pretty good film. I can't say that it is among my very favorite Werner Herzog films, but all in all it is 107 minutes certainly worth a watch, especially for people with an interest in older German movies or films about vampires. There actually have been tons of them in the past already, featured so frequently in film, and this is easily among the better efforts about this subject.