Sunday, November 17, 2013

Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht (Nosferatu the Vampyre) 1979

Today's film is Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht, which is a remake of Nosferatu (1922). I usually do not like remakes and this is no exception.  This was an almost shot-for-shot remake of the first one.  I don't care if it's some "homage".  However, Herzog actually could afford to use elements from the real Dracula story.  For example, this one had Dr. Van Helsing in it and the Count is named Dracula, not Orlok.

Since Dracula brought in the plague rats, wouldn't that ultimately affect him as well?  His victim's deaths are blamed on the plague.  But what if the villagers all really did come down with the plague, wouldn't he catch it too after drinking their blood?  Aren't there a whole host of diseases he could catch from drinking blood?

Johnathon's diary says that Dracula can transform into a wolf or a bat.  So why are his teeth exactly like a vampire bats?  The vampire movies of today have fangs that are simply larger, sharper versions of our eye teeth.  I think that is better to grab onto something.  A vampire bat's teeth is used to gently poke a hole and lap up the blood while the victim sleeps.  That doesn't sound scary at all.

Another question: What is the difference between the first light of day and the rest of the day?  Because it seems a lot brighter in the afternoon than in the morning.  However, Lucy (meaning "light" of all things) sacrifices herself to make sure Dracula is killed by the morning light. I thought killing the original vampire would cure the other vampires created by him.  But, Johnathon stays a vampire and rides off into the daylight.  The daylight.  Okay, only one vampire is able to handle the daylight and that is Blade.  My husband loves vampire films over any others so I have to watch a lot whether I like to or not.  I don't like a film that breaks the laws of vampirehood and this is one of them.

I can't say anything about the acting because everyone was just mimicking the style of the original actors of the film.  Dracula was exactly 100% like Count Orlok.  Had no style of his own, no interpretation, just like he was told to watch Orlok and copy him.  If you are going to make a remake of something, at least bring your own interpretation into it.  I feel like I just watched the same movie twice.  I rated the last one 4/10 so it is really only fair that I give it the same grade.  I have to.  Even if it was better made with better production values, if you really want to carbon copy a film, you deserve it.

No comments:

Post a Comment