So Jonathan spends 4 weeks to reach Count Dracula's house so he can sell Count a new house but when Jonathan finally arrives, he sees a bald, pale white guy with long claws and Jonathan has zero reaction to those long claws on Count's fingers. Hmm, interesting.Jonathan is sleeping in Count's house and Count walks inside the room and tries to... scare Jonathan? Or something. Their acting is HILARIOUSLY awful. They act with zero emotion. I was not buying anything they were doing.Oh and you got to give credit to the makeup artists. I love how Count's face is pale white but his neck is much darker than his face.And when Count is inside a coffin, how the fvck does he get all those men to transport all the coffins when Count is inside one of the coffins the entire time? After Lucy gets bit in the neck by Count and Count dies from sunlight, Van Helsing goes upstairs with a stake to make sure Count is dead and Jonathan shouts out "Help!" inside the house and some cop shows up. Hmm, I guess that cop had some super hearing ability or something. The cop says to Van Helsing "Did he kill the Count?" Van Helsing says "Yes." Cop says "Arrest this man." LMAO! That is some top notch acting right there.And omfg, that short guy who would laugh nonstop like a goddamn retard is so fvcking annoying. I really wanted to stop watching the film because I could not stand his laugh. I really don't know why this movie is considered to be a "classic" or even "beautiful" lol. I guess people have weird tastes.

I'm not a film buff or anything like that, so I feel completely unqualified to talk about this beautiful movie at length. I'm sure there are a lot of interesting details relating to its production, actors and shooting locations - things infinitely more compelling than who is sleeping with who in Hollywood, which is what people seem to be more interested in.The scenes in the countryside and the mountains seem so real that they might be a documentary - not actors, but Werner Herzog knocking on the door of a building he thought was beautiful in a remote village somewhere in Romania or Bulgaria and filming the lives of the people who happened to open the door.The scenes in Dracula's - uhh... I mean Orlock's - no wait this is the movie where they actually call him Dracula - Dracula's castle are eerie as anything I've ever seen. Imagine being trapped in the middle of nowhere in that stone ruin, at the mercy of that *thing* that dwells there...Which brings me to Klaus Kinski. What an actor! I've seen him play Jack the Ripper and Aguirre besides Dracula, and he is always menacing, always a real presence, but in this movie he is hideous, inhuman, an albino bat that truly threatens your life. The scene where he approaches Jonathan after he accidentally cut himself gives me chills - Dracula's inhibition, Jonathan's terror, the shadows...The movie is spectacularly beautiful. The sea is a presence, as are the mountains, and the beautiful European city of Delft where the movie was shot - though it is said to take place in Wismar - but most of all the darkness and the shadows. The vampire sits in the shadows, unmoving, for a long time, until the shadows move and reveal his pale face, a face out of nightmares.

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.

"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.