ظل مصاص الدماء

I waited for a long time to see this movie. I missed seeing it when it was in the theather maybe that would have helped it some. I saw the movie on video and I could not read the few subtitles. I think that the movie should have went into more detail about the director and his dealings with the vampire before they made the movie that he was making. And I think that it would have been more interesting if there was more about the vampire. The only insite we had was when the vampire said he read the book about Dracula and it was sad. I think that you could find a better vampire movie to watch than this one. I liked the movie Interview With A Vampire-I wished I rented that one instead. I do not think this movie is worth your time or money. I rate it 1 star.

Simply the most pathetic vampire film of all time. I could have done better with my dad's video camera and a pair of plastic fangs. No plot, no excitement, no thrill, no horror - it had nothing. The first film that I have wanted to leave the cinema for.

I read a good few reviews/comments about this film on IMDb and although many of them were slightly negative, I disregarded them simply due to the score being 6.8/10 and having read the plot, it seemed highly interesting and entertaining. Having watched it, expecting this to be an excellent piece of filmography with the likes of Dafoe, Malkovich and Kier playing lead roles(and Nick Cage as producer in there for kicks) I was extremely disappointed. In fact, I fell asleep just after Dafoe came waltzing in onto the screen. This must be one of the most boring and over rated films of all time! I wasn't expecting a gorish horror film, but nor was I expecting a film with an intro lasting several minutes long panning around a piece of colourless art! It's not artistic, it's boring! Oh, and did anyone else notice the German accents the actors used fading towards the end? Maybe they got bored too. HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT.

I had looked forward to seeing this movie for years, ever since I heard that one of my favorite actors - Willem Dafoe - was up for an Academy Award due to his performance in the film. I knew little about it, but soon learned that it proposed "Nosferatu's" (1922) vampire, played in "real life" by Max Schrek, was *truly* a vampire. Ingenius, maybe, but poor execution. The usually-brilliant John Malkovich resorts to camp acting as director Murnau, and Dafoe, as much of a scene stealer as he is, can't help save this film. Nothing memorable and truly disappointing, despite some unique ideas and good atmosphere. I commend the filmmakers but wish the outcome had been better. 2.5/5.

I watched Shadow of the Vampire twice before I saw Nosferatu. Though I liked it both times, I didn't think it was anything special. Having watched it a third time after watching the 1922 classic, however, I find it a much more rewarding film. The concept is brilliant. Rather than remake the classic, Merhige remakes the making of the classic. The locations and the characters are recognizable (some of the scenes are breathtakingly recreated), so it feels familiar without being redundant. Shadow of the Vampire isn't a vampire movie. It's a historical piece with vampire moments. Dafoe is brilliant at making Max Schreck/Count Orlock his own while remaining true to the archetype. I strongly urge viewers to watch Nosferatu before they watch Shadow of the Vampire. You will get so much more out of it. Still, a good film on its own.

F.W. Murnau (John Malkovich) is filming Nosferatu (1922), but isn't reclusive star Max Schreck (Willem Dafoe) taking his role of the vampire way too seriously? In some ways it's a curate's egg of a film. It certainly helps if you are a lover of old classic film and have some knowledge of the source material at the film's core. It's a fabulous concept that the screenplay is based around, that the star of the film may actually be a real vampire, and the whole production is executed with consummate skill (Dafoe was deservedly Oscar nominated as were make-up artists Ann Buchanan & Amber Sibley). But come the end it fizzles out and proves to not have delivered on its devilishly intriguing premise. Fun, though, and tech credits all round keep one well involved. 6/10

The film has a clever and intriguing concept, but unfortunately takes itself far too seriously. The script would not have to have been changed considerably to give this a lighter edge - - just have all of the actors tone down the intensity a little. The opening credits have a sleek deco look that is at first eye catching. However, the credits drag on far too long, and the art loses its appeal. [For the record, I HAVE seen the original Nosferatu, I do know quite a bit about the film making process, and I did catch the "jokes" that are in the film (there just weren't enough of them).]

While this film was well acted by most of its protagonists - Eddie Izzard stood out - it seemed to me ultimately rather pointless. There was insufficient humour for a comedy and insufficient spookiness for a horror film. It started well, but once the crew were established on location, the plot seemed to go nowhere. The overall impression for me was of an idea in search of a film, and I kept thinking "Why"? As a huge fan of old horror films and all the lore that goes with them, I found the liberties the film took with the truth rather irritating. As all the critics have said, Willem Dafoe's performance was undoubtedly skillful and well-judged. However, the whole thing struck me as tedious and likely to appeal to a very limited audience. I can't understand why it got such rave reviews. Three out of ten.