Customer Reviews
Nosferatu (BFI Version) - By: Wayne Jefferies, 08 Oct 2007 
Despite the changein title, character's names, & location/setting, F.W. Murnau's: 'Nosferatu', is clearly based on Bram Stoker's 'Dracula', so much so that his widow sued for copyright infringement, which eventually resultedin the existing prints of the film being destroyed, But fortunately, not before a print of the film was sold overseas, which is why it is still with us today. The story is setin Bremmen, & instead of Count Dracula, we have Count Orlok. In place of Harker we have Hutter, Ellen instead of Mina, Professor Bulwer instead of Van Helsing, & Knock instead of Renfield.
I first saw Nosferatu when the BFI dvd release came out a few years ago. I'd been put off seeing it for a long time, thinking that i wouldn't enjoy a silent movie, butin actual fact i warmed to it quite quickly, so watching it again tonight was certainly no chore. Positively the most striking thing about this film, aside from the gothic architecture, is Nosferatu/Count Orlok himself, & yet one of the first people we seein the film, the character of 'Knock', is also a very strange, odd looking bloke!
The film begins to really get moving about 20mins in, when we get our first tantalizing glimpse of Orlok driving the coach & horses, & then shortly afterwards when he arrives with Hutter at the castle. Murnau cleverly keeps Max Shrek's full make-up hidden underneath a hat for the first few scenes at the castle, but it's clear that he's not your ordinary looking fellow! At the dining table with Hutter, we are again treated to a few more glimpses of a rather astonishing looking man with deep sunken eyes, & huge bushy eyebrows. When Hutter accidently cuts himself, you can really notice just how big Orlok's hands are, with their long fingers tapering away to long pointed nails..... And the actor Max Shrek himself, really does have very demonic looking eyes!
The full effect is acheived a few minutes later when Hutter is exploring the castle, & we see Orlok, firstin a distant shot, & then closer, without his hat & collar hiding his face. In a splendid scene which is highlighted brilliantly by James Bernard's score, Hutter wrenches open a door, & we see the almost bat-like head & face of Orlok, complete with pointed ears. I really do think the next moment is truly eerie, as we see Orlok slowly advance through the door, with his hands straight down by his sides...... It just looks so damn freaky! As the Count leaves the room, we see for the first time, the mis-shapen skull, & the 2 long pointed teeth as we get our first real close up shot of Orlok. We can see now just how inhuman he actually looks, & the effect is doubledin the next scene when Hutter finds the vampirein his coffin, & we realize that this truly is a 'creature', rather than a 'man'. As effective as Orlok is, he is quite different from the vampire depicted by Bram Stoker. Orlok has an almost skeletal appearance, & resembles a corpse, rather than the demonic, but well groomed Count Dracula.
Some of most unnerving scenes of this film, take place on the ship, as the Count is being transported to Bremmen. Possibly my favourite moment of the whole movie, is the scene below decks where Orlok rises from his coffin from horizontal to verticalin one long languid movement. The extraordinarily large hands still fixed firmly down by his sides, & the wide eyes staring fixedly ahead. I can't recall seeing it done quite so effectivelyin any Dracula movie since. Even the smooth & aristocratic Dracula portrayed by Christopher Lee is seen to be clambering out of his coffinin a rather ungainly fashion on at least one occasion. But yes, the scene of Orlok walking across the ship,in that perculiar animated fasion of his, & the deserted ship then arrivingin Bremmen on the river, are very effective scenes.
As you can probably tell, Max Shrek/Count Orlok totally dominates this film for me. As the film reaches it's climax, the most striking images of the Count are used to great effect; I love the bit where he's staring through the window of the house with his hands splayedin a strange upwards clawing gesture, & then of course there's the famous scene which everyone remembers where we see the Shadow of the vampire scuttling up the stairs, through to the final scenes where we see him crouched at Ellen's beside, sucking from her throatin the darkened room, just before he fades away leaving a wisp of smoke as he is destroyed by the dawning sun. Brilliant stuff!
The other characters don't get that much of a look-in. Apart from Hutter of course who has quite a big rolein the story, & to a lesser extent, Ellen. But after Orlok, the most memorable performance for me is that of 'Knock', who is Renfield's counterpartin this version. Also, unlike Stoker's book, & all the other subsequent Dracula movies, one of the most important characters, that of Van Helsing, (or Professor Bulwer as the character is called here) is barely featuredin this film at all. He has nothing to do with Orlok's destruction, which has all been worked out by Ellen, who tricks Orlok into losing all sense of time when she offers her blood to him freely.
Also totally omitted from Stoker's novel are the 3 vampire brides that try to seduce Harker at castle Dracula. In fact, all of the overtones of the Count as a sensual, (or even sexual?) being which are strongly hinted atin Stoker's descriptions are totally absent from this film, & would only appearin future films. Perhaps it was just a 'no no'in Germanyin 1922, to portay the Count or his female victims as deriving any sensual pleasure from their activities.
Nevertheless, 'Nosferatu' is a very expressionistic film of it's time, & i think it's a powerful & effective work. Though for me, it's largely because of Max Shrek's unique representation of Count Orlok. I find 'Nosferatu'an enjoyable experience, & strangely enough, even though it's a silent movie, In many ways i find it considerably less dated than the next Dracula movie from Universal studio's, which would not appear for another 9 years after 'Nosferatu'.
All things considered, i would give the 1922 'Nosferatu' a rating of 7.5/10, based on overall enjoyability factor. This version gaining an extra half point for James Bernard's superb music, alone.
what are they talking about - By: Stephen D. Kutos, 25 Sep 2007 One reviwer has compared this release to the masters of cinema release. As of today, September 26 2006, the Masters of Cinema version hasn't been released yet, so they haven't even seen it yet, & the comment about the "modern" score on the MoC version, is completely inaccurate. The MoC release uses the original score play with the filmin the 20's. The Bfi version uses a newly recorded score.
a better score - By: Dirk De Bruyne, 10 Sep 2007 
I don't know what the previous reviewer is talking about when he says that the "other" 2-disc release (the EUREKA release) has a shorter version & that this BFI version has 15 minutes more ...nothing of the kind...I have both versions & the EUREKA release runs 1 hour 32 minutes & the BFI release runs 1 hour 28 minutes..;this is mostly due to the intertitles which differ slightly & are presented on screen somewhat longer & more elaborate on the EUREKA print than on the BFI print.
As for the quality of the print : the BFI one is the best, because it indeed uses the original day for night tinting when Max Schreck first appears & because the grain of this particular print is somewhat softer, more focused & on the whole more agreeable to the eye than the more garish & brighter print of EUREKA. Both are eminently watchable though...none have perfect damage free image, but then you wouldn't expect that would you ?
The main reason for buying this version of BFI is the score by James Bernard. It is grand, classical & all you expect from a lush classic score. The modern score used by EUREKA is an acquired taste : it has its admirers & I can well understand why...it is innovative & eerie...but ultimately I enjoy this film much more with the wonderfull & equally eerie score of the late mr. Bernard.
So both companies, both with good reputations concerning silent film releases , have put out a good release of this classic movie(EUREKA has especialy gone to town on the animated menu's & such frills..) but BFI wins on points.
Perfect - By: D. Q. RAMOS, 17 Jan 2004 If youre a fan of Nosferatu & want to see the original uncut version with the best quality out there (restored by the Munchner Filmmuseum & the Cineteca del Comune di Bologna - It replicates the tints & tones revealedin the nitrate ORIGINAL)..... then this is the BEST release of Nosferatu out there.
The soundtrack is great, music score by James Bernard (who scored many horror movies including 58s Dracula).
The DVD also includes a film essay by Professor Sir Frayling, Bio of Murnau & Bernard & DVD-ROM notes on the restoration of the film.
There are other versions out there, one including 2 dvds & a NOT COMPLETE version of the movie, with lousy misplaced soundtrack.
This is the only version you need if you want the REAL thing.
BFI version is the best available - By: , 23 Oct 2003 The BFI version of this film is the best version available. Do not get tempted to buy other versions of this classic because they are either cheaper or boast an additional disc with audio commentary. These version have either scenes missing or have terrible music.
The BFI version on the other hand has:
1. Brilliant music by James Bernard - the same man who scored the classic hammer horror films. It is quite simply the best music that has accompanied this film & really adds to the atmosphere.
2. The nights scene are actually tinted blue when it is night time. This makes the story easier to understand, after all the hole point of the story is that Nosferatu will diein day light.
3. The picture quality is pristine given the films age.
4. A really interesting documentary by Christopher Frayling on the films origins & restoration.
5. The film is restored by Photoplay Productions - which should be recommendation enough.
This film should be added to any DVD fans collection, but please, please make sure that you buy the BFI version, you will not bw sorry.
