Amazing how this film has stood the test of time and still achieves in making audiences uncomfortable and scared. A great masterpiece of movie making which is an essential part of cinema history.
I wouldn't call it horrifying (though the scene where Hutter cuts himself and some of the scenes on the ship qualify) but haunting. The movie lingers in the mind and stirs every now and then. Who can forget the weird Ellen and her sinuous neck or the Count Orloc writhing in the sunlight? Not I!
Still possibly the most horrific version of Stoker's classic novel. Max Schreck gave the quintessential vampiric performance here and still can raise goosebumps some 90 years later. Atmospheric, haunting, chilling ; a true symphony of horror. Many classic cinematographic moments; the rising from the coffin, the ghost ship, shadowplay and the classic closing scene. It doesn''t get much better than this,
Perhaps cinema's greatest example of Gothic horror, NOSFERATU, the first screen adaptation of Bram Stoker's DRACULA, remains one of the most potent screen versions of the classic vampire tale. Masterfully directed by F.W. Murnau, the film features striking use of light and shadow, creating a powerful and evocative atmosphere of dread. Count Orlock is quite possibly cinema's most frightening vampire.
One of the greatest and most influential films ever. Murnau is a master of suspense, and Schreck creates one of the scariest and most disconcerting characters of all time in Count Orlok. For an example of its wide influence, SpongeBob SquarePants has a running gag involving Orlok.
The most iconic horror film made during the silent era; one of the first vampire films, based loosely on B. Stoker's Dracula. Murnau was a pioneer for the German cinema; this is his considered his most famous film. Max Schreck as Count Orlok was significant for sinking deep within his character, as if he were a real vampire, giving a supernatural sense. Murnau was experimenting with light to create a dark mood.
Excruciatingly simple in its style, this is a film that depicts beauty but cannot create it. I understand the thinking behind its acclaim (it is pretty, it is iconic), but utterly disagree with this reverence and feel that it is based on exaggerated notions of the primitivity of a medium that had existed in some form for nearly half a century.