Reviews (73)

An Awesome, Mind-Blowing Film!
Wim Wender's best film is a glorious cinematic experience, a film that dazzles the eye, challenges your mind and touches your heart. In other words, a rarity. No other film that I can think of (save perhaps Woody Allen's Manhattan)better captures the spirit and feel of city than this one's portrait of Berlin does. The film follows two angels who roam around Berlin listening to the thoughts of people and observing, only observing. Except for young children who can sense thier presence, the angels remain invisible to everyone and cannot intervene in earthly matters. When one of the angels (Bruno Ganz) sees a trapeze artist(Solveig Dommartain) in a small circus he becomes entranced and eventually falls in love with her. So much that he yearns to give up the eternal life and become mortal to be with her. Oh, but there's so much more to this film than this sketchy summary. This is also a film about a city, the once divided Berlin and its past. Its about loneliness and alienation, about what it means to be human and so much more. This is just a wonderful film, the best movie released in the 1980's. I've seen this countless times and I never tire of watching it. There are moments in this film that will always stay with me: Ganz's angel perched on the shoulder of a statue, the angels congregating in the Berlin Library, the angels comforting a suicide victim, the brief flashes of color as Ganz becomes more and more human, Peter Falk, Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds, and so much more. This needs to be released on DVD now. A GREAT film.

Poetry In Motion Picture Fairy tale Dream a Rant
This is a beautiful film by Wunderkind directer Wim Wenders... The leading Angel in this film is nothing short of the face of Kindess. And the beautiful cinematography blended with the poetic narrations make this flowing story one of the most beautiful glimpses into film magic you will ever witness. The story almost feels like Hans Christian Anderson's the Little Mermaid only with Angels instead of Fish-Tail Folk. The American Remake of this film is an excellent movie to watch side by side so one can see the difference betwen what film should be and what Hollywood does to poetry... it makes it commerce. Witness the addition of hundreds of Angels instead of two - add flowing trenchcoats, sunglasses , and set it in Los Angeles instead of Berlin... also make your leading lady a Doctor instead of a Circus Carnie(must be politically correct) I have nothing against the strong performances of Meg Ryan and Nicholas Cage... but come on Hollywood - you aint got nothin on Wim Wenders - You'll probably read reviews of WINGS OF DESIRE that mention this Magic Phrase from the ...Critics' box 'o magnetic words... Well it's an "art" film ... and what may I ask is film but anything else? Film is an artform - but Witness City of Angels in comparison to Wings of Desire - We are HOLLYWOOD we have come to turn your German Uber Art into ...COMMERCE - yes that is the true meaning of an ART FILM a film that is true to the beatuty of the media... but alas couldn't possible be understood by the average American spoon-fed Consumer...amen to the Holy Roman Empire - take us Out if you can...and that's all I have to say aboot that.

EXISTENTIALISM MEETS EMOTIONS IN THIS GORGEOUS ROMANCE
What an absolutely haunting delight. With its introspective pacing, which some may find slower than their cinematic taste allows, the film takes its own sweet time setting things up but it is one of the most mind-boggling romantic tropes you will see in cinema.

In the end it's not just about requited loves and hopes, it also carries a heady undercurrent of other notions: displacement and the natural yearning for emotional connections that transcends humans; the unification of a divided Germany and of a divided race; and, probably above all, about the universality of cinema and its ability to allow people to live multiple lives (from multiple cultures) at the movies.

When I first saw this, I thought the film's fatal flaw was its anti-climactic conclusion. Now I realise that it may be the best part of my favourite film of all time.

One caution to buyers about the DVD. Many bits of the film are in German, but my DVD had no subtitles. All the gorgeous imagery (in noir-ish black and white) was thus somewhat frittered away.

But it surely did make me want to see what Berlin must really be like. If you like your movies laid-back and reflective, this comes highly recommended from me.

The ultimate art film
One of the most touching films created by Wim Wenders, Wings of Desire follows two angels, one of whom decides that his love of a woman is worth more than his heavenly life watching over the recently reunified Berlin. Wenders takes you from the black-and-white world of the angels to the multi-colored world of the inhabitants of earth and challenges you to think about life and love and the important things in life. Touching cameo by Peter Falk. A moving film.

The Sky Over Berlin.
It's ironic that so soon after Wenders shot this film in Berlin (a film about seperation and the search for unity), the wall would come tumbling down. The only entities who can transcend the wall in this movie are the angels, who are nothing but pure consciousness. The original German title for this film translates as 'The Sky Over Berlin' and I certainly think it is more apt than the English one that was chosen. For it is only the sky above their city that unites Berliners each side of the wall. The angels imprisonment in the spiritual world is undoubtedly in my mind, a metaphor for the political set-up in Berlin at that time. Whether it be West Berliners imprisoned on all sides by the communist East or the East Berliners imprsioned from the decadent freedoms of West Berlin.

The angels themselves were banished to Berlin in 1945 for questioning God's intentions. As a city at the apex of 2 world wars and a cold war, there is probably no better choice in choosing it as a symbol of our century. Wenders use of documentary footage from the end of the 2nd world war is frightening in its portrayal of a city's damaged past. A past of confusion and despair that still marks the city's people through their ongoing frustrated desires.

In order to retain some sense of his original 'poetic' vision, Wenders refused to finalize a shooting script before he started filming. As a result he relied on a mostly spontaneous film shoot as well as a lot of improvising from his actors. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Like The Passion of the Christ, Luther is the story of a spiritual leader, German monk Martin Luther (Joseph Fiennes), in opposition to the religious orthodoxy of the time (in his case, the 1600s). His goal--to bring God to the people and to take money, fear, and shame out of the equation--made him a reformer to some, a heretic to others. Released around the same time as Mel Gibson's blockbuster, it failed to attract the same degree of attention--or controversy. Granted, it's a different film, but not radically so. Directed by Eric Till (Bonhoeffer: Agent of Grace), Luther isn't always easy to follow or as emotionally involving as it could be. That said, it's a fascinating story and Fiennes receives solid support from Alfred Molina (Frida), Bruno Ganz (Wings of Desire), and the late Sir Peter Ustinov (Spartacus), in his final film role, as Frederick the Wise. --Kathleen C. Fennessy ... Read more

Amazon.com

Italy's magical fantasy of midlife crisis and rebirth in Venice, the city of lovers, swept the Italian film awards and charmed all of Europe. Director Silvio Soldini turns the tourist mecca of piazzas, canals, and stone bridges into a quaint little village out of time and fills the film with the charm of the city and the gentle quirks of his delightful cast. Licia Maglietta is winning as Rosalba, the frustrated and ignored middle-aged mom who impulsively takes a vacation from her family. She hitchhikes to Venice and falls for lonely, suicidal Icelandic waiter-poet Bruno Ganz (whose soulful, sad eyes recall his fallen angel from Wings of Desire), blossoming as she rediscovers her smile and joy for life. Sweetly sexy and beautifully shot, this story of second chances may not be original or surprising (think Shirley Valentine), but it's no less lovely or enchanting for it. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (43)

A romantic comedy set in Venice? Who would have thunk it?
It is bound to happen. A romantic comedy set in Venice is like a Broadway show set in New York. It makes the perfect sense. The pair of love birds might not be your typical young twenty-something in love. In fact, one is a runaway middle-aged mom, Rosalba(Maglietta Maglietta), and the other is an over-the-hill waiter-slash-romantic poet (Bruno Ganz)who is just about to commit suicide the day he meets her. However, it has all the right ingredients to make it a sweet and charming love story, and an award-winning one at that.

If you have never seen Venice in real life, this movie will put you on the narrow streets and alleyways of Venice minus the sewage smell in the summer. As a substitute for the smell, there is a story about the bumbling plumber (Venice does need good plumbers!) who got hired by Rosalba's husband to track her down, and voila, there is your comedic element. The cinematography is breathtaking, as it has become a standard in many top quality European films these days.

It is most likely you won't walk away with the thought that this is one of the best movies you have ever seen. It is a fairly accessible piece that has many of the right elements of a superior movie. One complaint is that the segues between reality and Rosalba's imagination are confusing at times, and in my opinion, do not serve much purpose in the narration. Overall, it is an entertaining film that you should catch one of these days. Especially during those days you miss Venice or want to know what it is like.

A CHARMING ROMANTIC COMEDY - VIVA VENICE!
Forget flurrying pigeons, St. Mark's, Florian's tables, all the standard fare usually delivered by films set in Venice. Silvio Soldini's deftly masterful "Bread and Tulips" is instead an ethereal Venezia, a triptych of shadows, echoes and lights that evoke a city of workers, narrow stone studded streets, mini bridges and interlocking canals.

It is a place that Rosalba (Licia Maglietta) cannot resist. She is an under estimated, unappreciated middle-age housewife and mother of two teenage sons who is on a family vacation to the Adriatic coast. When Rosalba exits the ladies room during a rest stop she sees the back bumper of the tour bus as it trundles down the road without her.

Her husband is Mimmo (Antonio Catania), a self-centered boor who dallies with his mistress and oversees a plumbing business in Pescara. She immediately contacts him by cell phone and is lambasted for being left behind. She agrees to wait there, but evidently ready for a vacation of her own choosing she makes her way to Venice.

After her evening arrival she has dinner at a modest trattoria where she meets Fernando (Bruno Ganz), an Icelander, a despondent waiter who is prone to suicide attempts. (He keeps a noose handy). Ganz's artfully understated portrayal of Fernando is superb.

When Rosalba allows that she is short on funds Fernando invites her to share his lodgings, where she is greeted each morning with a note from him as well as breakfast on a tray. Eventually, she finds work with an elderly florist and becomes friends with her neighbor, Grazia (Marina Massironi), a wide-eyed, other worldly masseuse. The emergence of Rosalba as a confident woman is a joy to watch as her eyes dance and features soften with radiant allure.

When Mimmo's mistress refuses to iron his shirts, he hires Costantino (Giuseppe Battiston), an unemployed wanna be detective to track down his wife. Costantino's arrival in Venice provides some of the film's better comic moments as he searches for a hotel and Rosalba.

When Costantino is able to trace Rosalba to her room, he meets Grazia and falls under her spell. Love's rocky path has more twists and turns when Costantino confesses why he really came to Venice.

Apparently conscience stricken Rosalba returns to her nonchalant sons and indifferent husband. Fernando is left more mournful than ever with only a note and a bouquet of tulips. Or, is he?

"Bread and Tulips" is a charming romantic comedy that leaves one sighing contentedly, hoping for a trip to Venice and maybe even breakfast on a tray.

Dreadfully overrated trash!
Maybe I can't appreciate Bread and Tulips because I am not a middle-aged housewife. I found the film slow, overlong, boring, and pointless. I could not feel any sympathy for the main character, therefore I couldn't like her, which made me dislike the film itself. How can I like someone who leaves her family for no reason to start a new life just for the hell of it. I didn't understand what motivated this character to do what she did or why she didn't even care to find out how her children are doing. Yes, her husband was a pig and didn't deserve her, but what fault do the children have? She was a distant and unlikeable woman who didn't even seem to realize how serious her actions were. The ending was absolutely ridiculous and I was fuming and impatient for the film to end by the time the credits started to roll! Not only does her so-called real love, a man old enough to be her father, drive from Venice to claim her, but he somehow seems to know that she would be at the supermarket in the middle of the day, bringing the film to an end ridiculous even by cheesy American romance standards. This film was recommended to me as a lighthearted comedy, but I didn't laugh once. In fact, I am baffled at all these five star reviews because this film was so awful. The more I think about it, the more I realize how much I hated it. Maybe it was just so overrated that I expected something more, but aside from the gorgeous setting, there is absolutely nothing in this for me to recommend it.

Gently hilarious, humane, and refreshing
"Bread and Tulips," Silvio Soldini's gently hilarious comedy, allows viewers to revel in a lovely story about the renewal of life and hope. It bears some resemblance to "Under the Tuscan Sun," but benefits from a stronger story and more fully realized characters. It also has some similarities to David Lean's "Summertime"--another beloved movie about a middle-aged woman finding romance in Venice--but the mood in "Bread and Tulips" is more sweet than bittersweet. Rosalba (Licia Maglietta), a bored housewife, is left behind on vacation with her crabby family when their tour bus leaves without her. Rather than going straight home to Pescara on the Abruzzi coast, she decides on a whim to head up to Venice, where she has never been. From there on in, the movie is very much about the renewal of the spirit--not only Rosalba's, but also that of Fernando (Bruno Ganz), the romantic restaurateur who falls for Rosalba, and Constantino (Giuseppe Battiston), the tubby, sad-sack plumber who reluctantly spies on Rosalba as a prerequisite for getting a job from Rosalba's bossy husband. These three actors give delightful performances, as do the other players in this quirky romantic comedy. Particularly enjoyable for American audiences is that Soldini places us in a Venice rarely seen in the tourist brochures. San Marco and other wonders are seen only in passing; most of the action takes place in Venice's back streets, among the rainbow-hued houses, tiny fountain-centered courtyards, and toy bridges crossing narrow canals. The photography is lovely, and looks sensational in the DVD transfer. "Bread and Tulips" is a two-hour vacation in a sweeter, gentler world.

Beautiful movie!
This is a beautiful movie. I just love it. I first saw it at the COPIA - The American Center for Wine, Food and the Arts in Napa Valley, CA. After that viewing I ran out and bought the DVD. It is one of the most often viewed DVDs in my collection. ... Read more

Reviews (36)

Thriller with a First-Rate Cast
When the film was made almost a quarter century ago, the concept of "cloning" was the stuff of science fiction, as far as the general public was concerned. However, with the recent developments in the area making headlines worldwide, the idea is not reserved to the imagination. Therefore, the basic premise of Hitler authorizing his own cloning doesn't seem as farfetched as it may have been. Hey, the Germans have given the world the Volkswagen; thus, their scientists could have possibly been working on the cloning process prior and during World War II.

Regardless, the film features excellent work from stars Peck, Olivier, and Mason. Peck went against type by portraying Josef Mengele as a crafty, calculating, and ultimately evil scientist who would go to any length to preserve the Third Reich. Olivier, as the Nazi hunter Lieberman, displays his versatility with accents by doning a very believable Jewish brogue. Mason shows his usual cool as a Nazi hesitant but forced to support the machinations of Mengele.

But, the film has an outstanding group of supporting players whose on-screen time may be brief but is memorable. Uta Hagen as an imprisoned Nazi nurse is captivating; stage veteran Rosemary Harris stands out as the widow of one of Mengele's victims; A young Steve Guttenburg shines as a Nazi hunter; and comedy team member Anne Meara (sans her husband) is great as another "mother" of a Hitler clone.

But, it is Jeremy Black, a young actor who seems to have drifted into obscurity since the release of this motion picture, who is impressive as four of the "boys."

Oh, yeah, the great Michael Gough is "hanging around" in this one, too! Look fast and you will see Prunella Scales from "Fawlty Towers" as Gough's wife.

Peck vs Olivier as the Nazis try to clone Adolf Hitler
Gregory Peck gets about as far away from his Oscar winning role as Atticus Finch as possible with his over-the-top performance as the infamous Nazi doctor, Josef Mengele. Once you learn about the plot of "The Boys from Brazil," based on Ira Levin's novel, Peck's hammy performance makes perfect sense. At a South American summit of Nazis, Mengele announces that over the next couple of years 94 adult males with much younger wives and adolescent sons are to be systematically murdered around their 65th birthdays. Mengele had cloned Hitler, implanted the eggs in all of these women, and now wants to recreate what he believes was the Fuhrer's formative experience as a child. Fortunately young Nazi-hunter Barry Kohler (Steve Guttenberg) overhears the plot and right before he is murdered manages enlists the aid of the legendary Ezra Lieberman (Laurence Olivier) to stop this horrific plot. Just think of this film as a cross between "Jurassic Park" and "Triumph of the Will." The scene where a scientist explains the cloning process in excruciating detail to Lieberman is a textbook lesson on how too much exposition can stop a movie in its tracks. But then there is the final living room standoff between Mengele, Lieberman and one of the Hitler clones with his pack of trained killer Dobermans.

Actually, the actor who impresses me in "The Boys from Brazil" is James Mason, who plays Nazi Eduard Seibert and somehow makes the whole thing seem reasonable. Lilli Palmer, Uta Hagen, Rosemary Harris and Denholm Elliott round out the stellar supporting cast caught up in this madness. Jeremy Black has the interesting role of playing all the young Hitler-Wannabees (Jack Curry, Simon Harrington, Erich Doring, Bobby Wheelock, etc.). Director Franklin J. Schaffner ("Planet of the Apes," "Patton," "Papillion") directs this straight up while Peck spews curses and Olivier trots out his wise old man routine. But to be fair, once we get past the exposition and Olivier tells the scientist that the person who has been cloned is neither Mozart nor Picasso, the story does get into gear. In what other over the top film can you see this much acting talent chewing up this much scenery? "The Boys From Brazil" is a first-class bad movie.

Overdone but chilling
Gregory Peck plays a Nazi doctor who escaped to Brazil as the Third Reich fell, while Laurence Olivier plays a Nazi hunter on Peck's trail. What is the evil doctor involved in? How about the creation of a Fourth Reich led by an Adolf Hitler clone? Will Olivier catch Pevck in time? Will that be enough?

Both of these great actors seem to have either tried too hard to make this movie work, or else treated it as somewhat of a farce. They overplay many of their scenes. Nevertheless, this is an intense, chilling, creepy movie with enough story to capture and maintain the viewer's attention. There is considerable gore at times; you might not want to pet a Doberman for a while after seeing "The Boys From Brazil". You might also find yourself wondering about the genetic background of eerily familiar-looking boys you might see, especially given recent advancements in cloning.

WHAT a movie!
This is so weird to write this, BUT... The first time I saw this film I had a roaring migraine headache, complete with severe nausea. IF you're a migraine sufferer, as I am, YOU understand what it's like to be stricken with one of them- you know what it's like to lay in bed, in misery and bordom trying to escape the pain. Normally, you just want to be left alone in a nice quiet, dark room and hopefully go comatose till it's all over. Anyway, early in that afternoon- BEFORE the headache part of the headache came on- the time where the only symptom is the onset of nausea, I read in my TV guide that "The Boys From Brazil" was going to be airing that evening. "Cool." me thinks, "I've been really wanting to see that film, now's my chance!" (This was Pre-DVD, Pre-VHS; Damn, this was SO long ago that it was even PRE HBO! It was plain-old-time-commercial-break-infested-TV-land; which, truth be known, was kind of a blessing for me what with the nausea and all... That night, one could call them: "hurl-breaks" !) Anyway, to shorten an already way too long story: In spite of BLINDING, COLOR ARCHING, NUCLEAR-MELTDOWN BRAIN PAIN, I was SO thrilled by this film, so completely enteretained and SURPRISED by the thing, that, migraine or no, I watched the whole dog-gone thing!
MERCY! Talk about "association strengthening memory"! THIS is one film I will never, EVER forget by virttue of association... SHOOT, to this day, every time I watch it, my forehead sweats, I get kinda' achy at the base of my scull, and my stomach commences to churn. But it was WORTH it! What a GREAT flick, go ahead, buy it. You'll like it. Heck, watch it with a migraine sufferer YOU love. ;o)

Passionate
The love secenes were especially moving. Watching two sensitive caring people commit themselves to lives of devotion and sacrifice for the benefit of children and the world was wonderfully refreshing. Long live the IV Reich !
(and George Bush!) ... Read more

Reviews (28)

Not as good as "Wings of Desire", but still has charm
"Faraway, So Close" is a sequel to a perfect movie so perfect that perhaps should have been left untainted by a sequel, however, it still captures the magical feel of "Wings of Desire", but this time with a pop-thriller feel.

It cruises along the border of body and mind, and follows the two intellectual angels that have been tackled with the dillema of reality versus eternity.

The film is lengthy and at times moves slow, but offers many interesting and thoughtfull moments, and it generally provokes many thoughts long after the movie's end. A must for Wenders fans. Since a sequel has already been made to WoD, perhaps master director Wenders can cook yet another chapter in the story, but one that captures the essence of Wings of Desire.

An excellent sequel
This is much lighter and easier to follow than its progenitor, "Wings of Desire".

This movie follows Cassiel's desire to be human. While Tariel may have hade a more ideal life (family, child, job, simple pleasures), Cassiel's story is one more of what happens when humans screw up, make bad choices, or live in denial.

Can't forget Peter Falk. He reprises the best role I have ever seen him in. Also, William Defoe the Fallen Angel is something to be remembered.

A truly wonderful companion movie and also wonderful on its own. I wholly recomment buying it today.

Void of meaning; boring enough to put you to sleep
Starts out great, then descends into a horrifying hell of boredom and ambiguity and mixed up wastelands of celluloid. There was no point to this movie and it literally put me out; yep, it put me to sleep. I thought the beginning looked promising but then it turned into one of the most enigmatic wastes of time I have ever watched.

faraway
airheaded new age schtick. feel-good gobbledygook mixing philosophy, social consciousness, art cinema fetishes, international stars, history, noir, and whatnot. it tries to teach, illume, entertain, humor, and inspire. it also tries to be very hip. it just made me wanna puke.

The Berlin Ground.
The success of 'Wings Of Desire' must have prompted Wenders to come up with a sequel. It certainly makes a greater effort at garnishing a wider audience, with the addition of Natassja Kinski, Willem Dafoe & Horst Buchholz to the previous cast. The script also has the novelty of being in 4 different languages.

In 'Wings Of Desire' Bruno Ganz's transformation from angel to human could be seen as a desire by Berliners each side of the wall to overcome their imprisonment from each other. In 'Faraway, So Close', the moral confusion that Otto Sander witnesses when he crashes down from above, mirrors the uneasy turmoil of the new united Berlin. Like an East Berliner untutored in the ways of the West, he stumbles about in an unsophisticated way until his new freedoms begin to overwhelm him and he finds his only refuge in a bottle. Despite all this, he tries to find meaning and do good, but finds that in the new Germany, the only options open to an ex-angel (or an ex-communist) is the criminal underworld.

Although the film starts to lose its way in the final farcical half hour, there are some impressive performances here, especially Horst Buchholz (last seen in 'The Magnificent Seven').

Wenders last great film, his talent has since floundered in making movies with the likes of Mel Gibson. ... Read more

Reviews (82)

Werner Herzog creates the ultimate vampire.
Nosferatu was originally a German expressionist film, much in the style of "The Cabinet of Dr. Calgari. Moody, extremley gothic, and very scary, shot in Germany in 1922. Max Schreck played the part of Nosferatu, aka Count Orlok, the ugliest, scariest Dracula in cinematic history. Orlak is tall and skinny, shriveled, actually, with elongated limbs, and long, sharp claws for hands. He is ancient as well. We have no leading man type here, a la Christopher Lee, who was actually a sex symbol back in the late sixties, or handsome Bela, Frank Langella, or more recently, Gary Oldman. Orlak is the combination of an evil old man, mixed with a rodent. His ears are batlike, his eyes, wide and scary, a beak nose, and his full lips hide long, ratlike fangs. He is bald as well. Klaus Kinski captured Nosferatu to a tee, although Klaus is well, flat out not as ugly as Schrek. the story is virtually Dracula retold, including Harker's trip to Transylvania, the Count buying Real Estate, the Count lusting after Lucy, and Lucy's sacrifice. There is a hidden eroticism in the final scene with Lucy that must be seen to be believed. Lucy, by the way, is portrayed by the ever sexy Isabelle Adjani, and she portays a perfect damsel in distress, who knows what she must do. The contrast in Lucy's beauty, compared to Orlak's hideous repulsiveness, only adds to the erotic chemistry that is on the screen during their scenes together, especially when Lucy is first confronted by the lustful old vampire, and he demands her love. During the famous, final scene, we see Orlak consumate his vampiric love, in full detail. Lucy almost seems to be enjoying it. Orlak must have Lucy, even if it means that his very existance is the price to be paid, so he enjoys his night of bloodlust, and lovemaking to the fullest. The movie is atmospheric, and well acted throughout, although the Van Helsing character seems a bit powerless. Then again, aside from Lucy's sacrificial beauty, what can stop the evil Count Orlak.....Highly recommended.

Cerebral, dream-like horror
Nosferatu unfolds like a languorous, disturbing dream. The images have an hallucinogenic, archetypal quality: mummified human remains in an ancient tomb; the figure of a woman sitting on a beach studded with tombstones; a dead sea-captain lashed to the wheel of a deserted sailing ship.

Like Kubrick's The Shining, Nosferatu is less a standard genre film than a singular expression of a filmmaker's vision. Writer-director Werner Herzog began with F.W. Murnau's expressionist classic, mixed in elements from Bram Stoker's novel Dracula, then set about creating a meditation on the vampire myth. What would it really mean to live forever, and be compelled to feed on the blood of others? What of the unspeakable boredom? The longing for companionship? For normalcy? For death? As played by Klaus Kinski, Herzog's Dracula has spent hundreds, if not thousands of years alone with these thoughts. He is the ultimate poster boy for German angst. If not for the skill of his performance and Herzog's direction, he might have lapsed into self-parody.

There are shots that all but reproduce moments from the silent classic - right down to the overwrought body language. But Herzog, Kinski, and the rest of the cast (including Bruno Ganz as Jonathon Harker and Isabelle Adjani as his wife Lucy) keep it in check and keep it beautifully stylized, so it all works.

Probably due to the involvement of American studio 20th-Century Fox, Nosferatu was shot in both English and German versions. Both are on this double-sided DVD; comparing them is instructive, since there are non-trivial differences in the visual construction of both films. Most critics agree (and I concur) that the German one is superior.

Finally, to get an idea of whether you will like this - or any - Werner Herzog film, take the Armageddon-Matrix test: if you hated Armageddon because it was empty and overblown, but kind of liked The Matrix because of its ideas, then you may like Nosferatu. If, on the other hand, you thought Armageddon rocked, but only kind of liked The Matrix because it was slow in places, then don't even think about it.

Good remake!
Remakes don't get much better that this, lets give a round of applause to the drictor, it's hard to make a remake of a classic film. So the film follows the story of the orignal, some guy goes to see Dracula, who he later bits( the guy goes crazy). Dracula later takes a ship to England and starts a rampage of death. This film does not have as much action as the first but it's still fun to wach. Make-up for Dracula rocked. Worth every penny.

The Classic Art-House Version of Dracula
For our second outing between Kinski and Herzog we find that the director has chosen to remake, or rather retell, his favorite film of all time - 'Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens' by F.W. Murnau (1922), while at the same time adapting more of the original Stoker novel into the remake, using the original name of Count Dracula (Kinski) instead of Orlok and injecting his own take on the story of Dracula (in German), which for all intensive purposes is a story about 'tragedy' and Herzog has correctly identified this main theme that would help levitate this entry to one of the all time great art-house horror films with images of Kinski's vampire often filling many film magazine pages and posters. In fact, it is Herzog's most commercial and accessible film to date. It was this telling of the Dracula story that influenced Coppola to remake the Stoker novel entirely into a film. It was not the first time Coppola had been influenced by Herzog. Coppola learned from Kinski and Herzog in "Aguirre: Wraith of God" that guerilla film making while going up a jungle river would be just what he needed for his version of Conrad's "Hearts of Darkness" (Apocalypse Now).

The usual Kinski/Herzog display of frustration is more subtle in this film than all the others probably because the beautiful Isabelle Adjani keeps Kinski distracted long enough for him not get angry with Herzog's cruel daily shoots to 'get it right' and deliberately making the actors and actresses angry for their performances. Here everyone just looks deathly sick and move extremely slowly. Even Adjani looks paler than Kinski at times. For some reason this has given Herzog a more controlled approach to this film with certainly less improvisation and 'on the spot' acting than any of his other collaborations with Kinski. Here we see a mix of Herzog's favorite - Tarkovsky's slow shooting style while cutting in shots of water (Herzog uses a bat in slow motion) and some sort of strange cinematic art house presence that we would see in many of Andy Warhol's productions. Herzog also gets the lighting just right and the cinematography is sublime - watching Kinski materialize from the darkness is again some of the most memorable images in art house cinema ever. Herzog also brings coffins en masse for display. Black coffins play a major role in the design throughout the film. Later on during a plague thousands of rats covering a city become central to Herzog's eye for capturing horror (a formal dinner takes place among hundreds of rats because the diners have the plague and wish to make the best of it before they die) - again extremely visionary and talented. Adjani puts on an amazing performance while remaining stunning under all the white. In one classic scene where she is confronted by Kinski she looks and acts more scary than Kinski almost performing him off the screen. The ending is an erotic take on the original film with Kinski touching Adjani all over, but the acting is excellent. The final twist comes as a shocker and is a bit funny. The end scene is like something out of a great Western and looks spectacular. Also the strange atmosphere of holiness is found throughout this film more than in any other Herzog/Kinski collaboration. The use of Orchestral sounds makes it all the more eerie while at the same time retaining that spirited electric connection to the presentation of madness that Herzog and Kinski are so well noted for.

'Nosferatu the Vampyre' is probably one of the most original art house horror films ever made even though the subject matter has been beaten to death, however it still ranks up there as one of the best versions of Dracula you can see. The DVD transfer is good and crisp. The aspect ratio is 1.85:1 and there are a lot of extras including director's commentary. By the way you can get the Kinski/Herzog box set of 6 films for a few quid extra than this stand alone DVD. Go look for it.

Belief and Science Clash
Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht (1979)

Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht directed by Werner Herzog, is really a color remake of the 1922 film Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens directed by F.W. Murnau. There are a couple of name changes: Count Orlok became Count Dracula; Jonathan's fiancée Nina became Jonathan's wife Lucy. The original film was silent and in black and white, where the 1979 version is in color and is in German with English subtitles.

However the plot is close to Bram Stoker's book on Count Dracula which has a very similar plot line and story. F.W. Murnau bought the movie rights to the film; however these rights were owned by Bram's widow Florence and she refused to allow the use of the name and storyline. Even though Murnau had changed the major names of the main characters (Count Dracula, Thomas and his wife Ellen) and location enough similarity remained that Florence took the case to court and in July of 1925 the German court ordered all the copies of the movie destroyed. However a few copies did manage to survive.

While the film starts off slow it shows spectacular scenes of an ocean voyage, and waterfalls experienced during Jonathan (Bruno Ganz) Harker's journey to Count (Klaus Kinski) Dracula's castle. The contrast with his return trip is startling, since he was healthy when he started, but on the return is very sickly and barely alive. The Count's journey is very stark, his companions' death and rats board another ship, which glides into port with no one left alive on board except the rats. As the rats depart the ship one reminded of the story of Ben, where the rats were everywhere and out of control.
An interesting dilemma in this film is the direct confrontation of belief in the existence of the supernatural and sacramental with belief in the rationale of science. Science was believed to able to explain away rationally anything that happened out of the ordinary. Yet here it could not produce an answer for Lucy (Isabelle Adjani) Harker. The way that this was shown was that after consulting with the town physician, Lucy broke and crumbed the Eucharist around Jonathan to keep him locked into a chair in a corner all night, while she became the sacrificed lamb to save him from the Count and death. While she did this out of her love for Jonathan, her sacrifice resulted in the final demise of Count Dracula and her own death. Yet Jonathan in essence lives on to carry the legacy of the living dead, alive yet not fully. The last that is seen of Jonathan is when he is released from his imposed prison, by the removal of the broken host around him, he declares that he has much work to accomplish he mounts a horse and rides off. ... Read more

Reviews (15)

First half excellent documentary, 2nd half not good
This documentary offers an excellent look at the influence of the arts, and medicine and eugenics on the minds of the hierarchy of the Third Reich. Combined with rare footage, and learned commentary, the film shows the influence of the architecture and style of classical antiquity, and the yearning to create a perfect 'man' in the Greek sense of the word. One of the memorable quotes I remember from the movie is how Hitler wanted his cyclopian buildings and stadiums to stand the test of time, and even when in ruins and covered in ivy, would reflect the greatness of a former civilization. Now that's thinking ahead!

Unfortunately, the second half of the documentary takes a left turn into holocaust propaganda territory, leaving the viewer wondering if two different people wrote the first and second hour, as it has little to do with the overall subject matter, and lacks the objectivity and factual care of the first half.

How A Longing For Beauty Turned Ugly
I've seen a lot of documentaries about Nazi Germany, and this one is as good as it gets. By the end, I definitely had a deeper understanding of that ultimate question: "How could the Holocaust possibly have happened?" This film really shows you how beautiful and exciting the Third Reich was, how easy it must have been to get caught up in its inertia. ... Usually, documentaries such as this show only tiny little clips from Nazi propaganda, but "Architecture of Doom" shows more footage, enough for one to be able to grasp how racism could be encouraged and reinforced via public service announcements about health and hygiene.

This film also opened my eyes to how intelligent and talented Adolf Hitler was. In spite of a critical narrative that described his paintings and the design of the Berghof, you can see from his work that he was not the simple "wallpaper hanger" of popular myth. To understand how the German people could have followed him so loyally into total destruction, I think it is important to be able to see him in this light.

Drink lots of coffee before watching this.
I am a student of third reich history and when I heard of the release of this film I managed to see it at an independent theatre. While there is a great deal of interesting documentary footage and fair analysis this has got to be about the dullest documentary I have ever seen. There is no style to the directing or editing. The narration is even worse. The good points are negated by the overall stale production. This is certainly not a film to even rent let alone purchase. (Unless you are an insomiac.)

NAZISM AN ART? INTERESTING PREMISE, BOGGED BY MONOTONY
Google lists nearly 200 films about Adolf Hitler, most of them documentaries such as Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will and Fuhrer: Rise of a Madman.

The Architecture of Doom was perhaps the first to propose the notion that Hitler embraced the art of politics after failing as a painter, suggesting that Nazism was a reflection of the dictator's perverse aesthetic tastes. In its deconstruction of the Nazi movement, the movie is novel and shows an interesting, perhaps true, perspective.

But what minor grouse I have is with the narrative, which is just shy of 2 hours or so and sports a frequent monotone of showing Nazi art. Yet, thankfully, it doesn't detract substantially from the intriguing perspective that Hitler's whole pet project was perhaps more of a dogged pursuit of an aesthetic.

This documentary is definitely worth a watch if you are interested in the Third Reich in any way.

masterpiece.
This is the best documentry i ve ever seen aboat the Third Reich. It really shows the core, what it is all aboat. A Masterpiece is really a very good name for this movie. ... Read more

Amazon.com

A thriller that's nearly devoid of thrills? That's not a complaint--it's what makes The American Friend one of the most stylish (and, at the time, most expensive) films to emerge from the New German Cinema of the 1970s. Loosely adapting Patricia Highsmith's mystery novel Ripley's Game, director Wim Wenders shifted priority from plotting to character, emphasizing a richly colorful and atmospheric approach to locations in Hamburg, where a picture-framer (Bruno Ganz) is lured into an assassination scheme involving a mysterious Frenchman (Gerard Blain) and the titular American friend, Tom Ripley (played by Dennis Hopper, a far cry from Matt Damon's portrayal of the same character in The Talented Mr. Ripley). The plotting is vague to the point of irrelevance; Wenders prefers to maintain the aura of mystery, as opposed to generating any conventional suspense, and expresses his affection for American movies by casting favorite directors Nicholas Ray and Samuel Fuller in pivotal supporting roles. The result is an intoxicating example of cinematic cross-pollination. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (13)

A Meditative Masterpiece
Despite the casting of a well-known (some would say, "infamous") American actor in the form of Dennis Hopper, Wim Wenders' take on the very American "film noir" style in "The American Friend" was every bit a fit with the work that came before and after. The same thoughtful approach to character and story that animates Wenders' "road movies" is also on display in this adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's novel "Ripley's Game."

"The American Friend" draws the viewer into its web with subtle twists, a captivating atmosphere and excellent performances by Dennis Hopper as the mysterious Ripley and Bruno Ganz (later to star in Wenders' "Wings of Desire") as the ordinary man who gets caught up in Ripley's web. With its exceptionally careful pacing, the film is certainly not for everyone. For those willing to embrace Wenders' unique approach, however, the end result is a truly gripping film that will stay with you long after some more viscerally thrilling movies have faded from memory.

With friends like these. . . .
One of the best adaptations of a Patricia Highsmith novel (*Ripley's Game*) ever filmed, and one of Wim Wenders' best movies, too. But, according to the commentary on this DVD, Ms. Highsmith was originally aghast at Wenders' treatment of the story -- it's a very loose adaptation -- and of the character Tom Ripley (Dennis Hopper in a cowboy hat, a figure radically different from the suave manipulator in the book). As the years passed, she apparently grew reconciled to the movie on its own terms, and why not? -- the themes of the seductiveness of evil and of the abyss yawning below any "normal" person's life are rigorously limned in *The American Friend*. And Wenders brings some ideas of his own to this material, most notably the distasteful spectacle of a dominant world power and culture (e.g., the United States) crassly pirating the leavings of an older civilization (e.g., European): a way of life and thought, even a fraudulent version of it, is available to the highest bidder only. Above and beyond the intellectual stuff, the movie also happens to have several suspenseful stretches. Best example: the scene where the modest picture-framer from Hamburg (a never-better Bruno Ganz), having been roped into being a hitman due to the machinations of an insulted Tom Ripley, ineptly tails an American gangster through the subterranean Paris metro. Ganz needs the money for his family, but he's in bad health (a heart condition), and can barely stay alert while fighting anxiety attacks and physical exhaustion. Great stuff! Also of note is a prolonged and quite humorous assassination attempt aboard a speeding bullet train. (Hopper and Ganz share swigs from a flask and giggle at each other while guarding the murder scene -- the lavatory -- from discovery.) Wenders and his brilliant DP, Robby Muller, add to the atmosphere of malaise with the judicious use of pulpy color, blinding carnival-esque neon, and garish camera filters (blood-red skies at sunset and such). As for the performances: Hopper's Ripley really doesn't come alive until the last stretch, when he's given more time to work through his performance. Part of the problem is that the character -- in this movie -- is more of an idea rather than a fleshed-out human being. This is Bruno Ganz' movie all the way, and he makes the most of it. It's an unforgettable performance. It's a pretty unforgettable movie, on the whole. [The DVD's commentary, by Wenders and Hopper, is almost worth the price of admission on its own. It's enjoyable to listen to two old pros whose careers are full of accomplishments . . . one of which, of course, is *The American Friend*.]

Win Wenders' masterpiece
It's in many ways not fair to entitle this film as just a film noir.
I state that because , first at all remember. we are talking about of Patricia Highsmith , one of the most gifted minds in the north american literatute. If you analyze all her literaries works, as Strangers on a train,(Hitchcock) or A plenn soleil(Rene Clement), you'll find all the characters are envolved in a cosmical trick. It's true that the hopeless who surrounds establishes an anticipated fate in all their actions. But what Highsmith adds in every work, including the american friend is the lack of any kind of feeling or ethical consideration carried to a level that they become in models. I mean, it's very hard for us to find by instance, with a character as Mr. Rippley in any street of any city in the world. These characters are not common.
That's the most remarkable virtue in Highsmith and Wenders so Clement and Hithcock understood and exploited this item like few.
Wenders,one of the three kings of the german filmography in the seventies, (together with Fassbinder, Herzog, and Hauff), knew how to deal with that and make a clever twist in an age where the key works of the neo film noir, a genre that slowly was left and replaced by thrillers with little trascendence.
This film , in my point of view, made grow up to Dennis Hopper, not only as actor, but as a filmmaker. (Remember his best work as director titled Colors).
This film is eternal. And that means just one thing: it's a masterpiece. And obviously, it will resist the years and far of getting old, it will enrich us, every time we watch it.

Neo-noir, the cultural outsider, and the cult of personality
The American Friend is a particularly trenchant example of Wim Wenders' favorite theme--the outsider in a different culture (cf. The Buena Vista Social Club--Ry Cooder in Havana; Until the End of the World--William Hurt's American character in Europe). Only in this case, the outsider, Dennis Hopper--the American friend--ruins the life of the insider, played by Bruno Ganz.

But that's what noir is all about. Based on one of the Ripley novels by American ex-patriate author Patricia Highsmith (no doubt her ex-pat status appealed to Wenders), the film follows Jonathan Zimmermann (Ganz) in his descent into Noirville via Tom Ripley (Hopper) and Ripley's "partner" Minot, a sinister French man. This time out, unlike in the 1960 film Purple Noon (THE best cinematic version of Highsmith's The Talented Mr. Ripley--far better than the recent version with Matt Damon), Ripley is an edgy guy (what else could Hopper be?--especially in 1977 when he was coked to the gills) who deals in art forgeries.

Along the way we meet an artist who does the forgeries, and that's famed director Nicholas Ray in a great role. Ray is one of Wenders' heroes--maybe his biggest hero--and he's here in his glory--sad single eye partnered with his trademark eyepatch, gaunt face and all. Three years later, Ray died of cancer. We also meet a gangster played by another of Wenders' favorite directors, Samuel Fuller. But Fuller's part is smaller than Ray's, which says something...

This is a perfect exemplar of the road to Hell being paved with good intentions. Zimmermann's one desire to take care of his family results in his being coerced into dark deeds that ultimately leave Zimmermann emotionally destitute.

Wenders' focus is on the characters who make things happen, who bring about the downfall of both themselves and of others. While American neo-noirs can occasionally do a great job of focusing on action-driven plots--given a great writer/director team--in this film, Wenders chooses instead to have the story unfold based on personalities.

An unusual and strong neo-noir, The American Friend is a unique film that is a key work in the Wenders oeuvre. Great job (an American expression).

Never slight Mr Ripley - a horror film par excellence
The first chilling moment in this film is when relatively poor and struggling art framer and cultured European (Swiss) Bruno Ganz is introduced to art dealer American (Dennis Hopper)) Tom Ripley at an art auction, and refuses to shake his hand. From that moment, Mr Ganz is more or less doomed. One theme of this film is the clash between two cultures, or at least two attitudes to art, money versus art, the contempt each has for the other. Another theme is how thrilling it would be to kill anyone who makes a fool of us in public. From the moment of the slight, the doomed Mr Ganz is slowly brought to his end - the mis en scene becomes a horror show of ordinary things made threatening, seagulls, art frames he works on he starts bumping into, a television set which is off zaps him with static electricity when he touches it, he stumbles in to objects whilst waiting for a train, the doodling on a piano by a "medical student" gangster becomes an atonal nightmare. The moment when Mr Ganz breathes onto the finest piece of gold leaf we can see him realising the breath of life is so precious, but he's losing it and he knows it.
A stunning cinematic experience. A masterpiece and perhaps the finest transformation of Ms Highsmith's many Ripley adaptations, notwithstanding Mr Hitchcock. ... Read more

Description

It is 1850 in the beautiful town of Wismar. Jonathan Harker is about to leave on a long journey, despite desperate warnings from his wife Lucy.Upon his arrival, he is greeted by a pale, wraith-like figure with deep-sunken eyes, who identifies himself as Count Dracula. The events that transpire convince Harker that he is in the presence of a vampire.What he doesn't know is the magnitude of danger he, his wife and his town face as victims of the Nosferatu. A terrific remake of the 1922 original, "Nosferatu the Vampyre" stars Klaus Kinski as the title character, and the gorgeous Isabelle Adjani as the object of his bloodlust. Directed by Werner Herzog (Aguirre:The Wrath of God), this very unique film is a must-see for horror fans everywhere. ... Read more

Reviews (82)

Werner Herzog creates the ultimate vampire.
Nosferatu was originally a German expressionist film, much in the style of "The Cabinet of Dr. Calgari. Moody, extremley gothic, and very scary, shot in Germany in 1922. Max Schreck played the part of Nosferatu, aka Count Orlok, the ugliest, scariest Dracula in cinematic history. Orlak is tall and skinny, shriveled, actually, with elongated limbs, and long, sharp claws for hands. He is ancient as well. We have no leading man type here, a la Christopher Lee, who was actually a sex symbol back in the late sixties, or handsome Bela, Frank Langella, or more recently, Gary Oldman. Orlak is the combination of an evil old man, mixed with a rodent. His ears are batlike, his eyes, wide and scary, a beak nose, and his full lips hide long, ratlike fangs. He is bald as well. Klaus Kinski captured Nosferatu to a tee, although Klaus is well, flat out not as ugly as Schrek. the story is virtually Dracula retold, including Harker's trip to Transylvania, the Count buying Real Estate, the Count lusting after Lucy, and Lucy's sacrifice. There is a hidden eroticism in the final scene with Lucy that must be seen to be believed. Lucy, by the way, is portrayed by the ever sexy Isabelle Adjani, and she portays a perfect damsel in distress, who knows what she must do. The contrast in Lucy's beauty, compared to Orlak's hideous repulsiveness, only adds to the erotic chemistry that is on the screen during their scenes together, especially when Lucy is first confronted by the lustful old vampire, and he demands her love. During the famous, final scene, we see Orlak consumate his vampiric love, in full detail. Lucy almost seems to be enjoying it. Orlak must have Lucy, even if it means that his very existance is the price to be paid, so he enjoys his night of bloodlust, and lovemaking to the fullest. The movie is atmospheric, and well acted throughout, although the Van Helsing character seems a bit powerless. Then again, aside from Lucy's sacrificial beauty, what can stop the evil Count Orlak.....Highly recommended.

Cerebral, dream-like horror
Nosferatu unfolds like a languorous, disturbing dream. The images have an hallucinogenic, archetypal quality: mummified human remains in an ancient tomb; the figure of a woman sitting on a beach studded with tombstones; a dead sea-captain lashed to the wheel of a deserted sailing ship.

Like Kubrick's The Shining, Nosferatu is less a standard genre film than a singular expression of a filmmaker's vision. Writer-director Werner Herzog began with F.W. Murnau's expressionist classic, mixed in elements from Bram Stoker's novel Dracula, then set about creating a meditation on the vampire myth. What would it really mean to live forever, and be compelled to feed on the blood of others? What of the unspeakable boredom? The longing for companionship? For normalcy? For death? As played by Klaus Kinski, Herzog's Dracula has spent hundreds, if not thousands of years alone with these thoughts. He is the ultimate poster boy for German angst. If not for the skill of his performance and Herzog's direction, he might have lapsed into self-parody.

There are shots that all but reproduce moments from the silent classic - right down to the overwrought body language. But Herzog, Kinski, and the rest of the cast (including Bruno Ganz as Jonathon Harker and Isabelle Adjani as his wife Lucy) keep it in check and keep it beautifully stylized, so it all works.

Probably due to the involvement of American studio 20th-Century Fox, Nosferatu was shot in both English and German versions. Both are on this double-sided DVD; comparing them is instructive, since there are non-trivial differences in the visual construction of both films. Most critics agree (and I concur) that the German one is superior.

Finally, to get an idea of whether you will like this - or any - Werner Herzog film, take the Armageddon-Matrix test: if you hated Armageddon because it was empty and overblown, but kind of liked The Matrix because of its ideas, then you may like Nosferatu. If, on the other hand, you thought Armageddon rocked, but only kind of liked The Matrix because it was slow in places, then don't even think about it.

Good remake!
Remakes don't get much better that this, lets give a round of applause to the drictor, it's hard to make a remake of a classic film. So the film follows the story of the orignal, some guy goes to see Dracula, who he later bits( the guy goes crazy). Dracula later takes a ship to England and starts a rampage of death. This film does not have as much action as the first but it's still fun to wach. Make-up for Dracula rocked. Worth every penny.

The Classic Art-House Version of Dracula
For our second outing between Kinski and Herzog we find that the director has chosen to remake, or rather retell, his favorite film of all time - 'Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens' by F.W. Murnau (1922), while at the same time adapting more of the original Stoker novel into the remake, using the original name of Count Dracula (Kinski) instead of Orlok and injecting his own take on the story of Dracula (in German), which for all intensive purposes is a story about 'tragedy' and Herzog has correctly identified this main theme that would help levitate this entry to one of the all time great art-house horror films with images of Kinski's vampire often filling many film magazine pages and posters. In fact, it is Herzog's most commercial and accessible film to date. It was this telling of the Dracula story that influenced Coppola to remake the Stoker novel entirely into a film. It was not the first time Coppola had been influenced by Herzog. Coppola learned from Kinski and Herzog in "Aguirre: Wraith of God" that guerilla film making while going up a jungle river would be just what he needed for his version of Conrad's "Hearts of Darkness" (Apocalypse Now).

The usual Kinski/Herzog display of frustration is more subtle in this film than all the others probably because the beautiful Isabelle Adjani keeps Kinski distracted long enough for him not get angry with Herzog's cruel daily shoots to 'get it right' and deliberately making the actors and actresses angry for their performances. Here everyone just looks deathly sick and move extremely slowly. Even Adjani looks paler than Kinski at times. For some reason this has given Herzog a more controlled approach to this film with certainly less improvisation and 'on the spot' acting than any of his other collaborations with Kinski. Here we see a mix of Herzog's favorite - Tarkovsky's slow shooting style while cutting in shots of water (Herzog uses a bat in slow motion) and some sort of strange cinematic art house presence that we would see in many of Andy Warhol's productions. Herzog also gets the lighting just right and the cinematography is sublime - watching Kinski materialize from the darkness is again some of the most memorable images in art house cinema ever. Herzog also brings coffins en masse for display. Black coffins play a major role in the design throughout the film. Later on during a plague thousands of rats covering a city become central to Herzog's eye for capturing horror (a formal dinner takes place among hundreds of rats because the diners have the plague and wish to make the best of it before they die) - again extremely visionary and talented. Adjani puts on an amazing performance while remaining stunning under all the white. In one classic scene where she is confronted by Kinski she looks and acts more scary than Kinski almost performing him off the screen. The ending is an erotic take on the original film with Kinski touching Adjani all over, but the acting is excellent. The final twist comes as a shocker and is a bit funny. The end scene is like something out of a great Western and looks spectacular. Also the strange atmosphere of holiness is found throughout this film more than in any other Herzog/Kinski collaboration. The use of Orchestral sounds makes it all the more eerie while at the same time retaining that spirited electric connection to the presentation of madness that Herzog and Kinski are so well noted for.

'Nosferatu the Vampyre' is probably one of the most original art house horror films ever made even though the subject matter has been beaten to death, however it still ranks up there as one of the best versions of Dracula you can see. The DVD transfer is good and crisp. The aspect ratio is 1.85:1 and there are a lot of extras including director's commentary. By the way you can get the Kinski/Herzog box set of 6 films for a few quid extra than this stand alone DVD. Go look for it.

Belief and Science Clash
Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht (1979)

Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht directed by Werner Herzog, is really a color remake of the 1922 film Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens directed by F.W. Murnau. There are a couple of name changes: Count Orlok became Count Dracula; Jonathan's fiancée Nina became Jonathan's wife Lucy. The original film was silent and in black and white, where the 1979 version is in color and is in German with English subtitles.

However the plot is close to Bram Stoker's book on Count Dracula which has a very similar plot line and story. F.W. Murnau bought the movie rights to the film; however these rights were owned by Bram's widow Florence and she refused to allow the use of the name and storyline. Even though Murnau had changed the major names of the main characters (Count Dracula, Thomas and his wife Ellen) and location enough similarity remained that Florence took the case to court and in July of 1925 the German court ordered all the copies of the movie destroyed. However a few copies did manage to survive.

While the film starts off slow it shows spectacular scenes of an ocean voyage, and waterfalls experienced during Jonathan (Bruno Ganz) Harker's journey to Count (Klaus Kinski) Dracula's castle. The contrast with his return trip is startling, since he was healthy when he started, but on the return is very sickly and barely alive. The Count's journey is very stark, his companions' death and rats board another ship, which glides into port with no one left alive on board except the rats. As the rats depart the ship one reminded of the story of Ben, where the rats were everywhere and out of control.
An interesting dilemma in this film is the direct confrontation of belief in the existence of the supernatural and sacramental with belief in the rationale of science. Science was believed to able to explain away rationally anything that happened out of the ordinary. Yet here it could not produce an answer for Lucy (Isabelle Adjani) Harker. The way that this was shown was that after consulting with the town physician, Lucy broke and crumbed the Eucharist around Jonathan to keep him locked into a chair in a corner all night, while she became the sacrificed lamb to save him from the Count and death. While she did this out of her love for Jonathan, her sacrifice resulted in the final demise of Count Dracula and her own death. Yet Jonathan in essence lives on to carry the legacy of the living dead, alive yet not fully. The last that is seen of Jonathan is when he is released from his imposed prison, by the removal of the broken host around him, he declares that he has much work to accomplish he mounts a horse and rides off. ... Read more

Amazon.com

In this poetic tale, acclaimed playwright and director David Hare explores the eternal enigmas of love and desire. An American doctor living in Britain, Lillian (Blair Brown), who is almost 40 and newly single, is romanced by a charming entrepreneur named Raymond (Bruno Ganz) during a European vacation. What seems to be an unlikely coupling blossoms into love as the seductive, spontaneous Raymond teaches guarded Lillian about the joys of pure passion. But is the cryptic Raymond all that he seems to be? Is their whirlwind, fairy-tale courtship simply based on a desire to escape the banality of everyday life? And can independent Lillian truly commit to him with the reality of a looming doctors' strike and her single, freewheeling sister's (Bridget Fonda) pregnancy? Exquisitely photographed by Andrew Dunn, Hare's intelligent film uses subtle flourishes to explore Lillian's fear of commitment, Raymond's obsession with everlasting romantic love, and how his deceptions ultimately transform both their lives. --Bryan Reesman ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Pointless
I have great respect for playwright David Hare, and I'm a big fan of Blair Brown (and Bridget Fonda too, for that matter), but despite the engaging performances of these two actresses, this movie goes nowhere, slowly. Bruno Ganz's character is too cryptic, and his performance too expressionless, to ever provide any suggestion of real love between the two leading characters. Ms. Brown plays a doctor who is smart enough to run from the altar once; but she later goes through with it just because her shiftless sister calls her a coward. Later, when he disappears and she starts paying off his gambling debts, she seems foolish, not loyal. Reviews of this film talk a lot about the political significance of the story and its commentary on Thatcherism and single women, but those writers must have gotten that mumbo-jumbo from a press release, 'cause it ain't on the screen.

the straps might help
This obtuse romantic drama from writer/director playwright David Hare is a major misfire after his debut with Wetherby and the underrated Paris by Night. Anyone that knows Hare as a playwright, knows that he specialises in doomed relationships, which was a feature of both Wetherby and Plenty. It is said that Plenty came out of Hare's real life relationship with actress Kate Nelligan who did the London and Broadway runs but lost the film role to Meryl Streep. It is said too that this film is Hare's paean to Blair Brown who won hearts on her cable TV series The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd. However while Fred Schepisi made Streep look great in Plenty but failed to help her overcome her basic miscasting, Hare as director does the opposite for Brown, by lighting her unflatteringly but still managing to let us see her skill as an actor. Like Susan Traherne in Plenty, Brown's American doctor living in England is meant to be emotionally fragile and therefore vulnerable to the exotic gambler "Mr Forbes" (Bruno Ganz) who urges her to "jump" in his use of horse metaphors. Hare likes his portents, giving Brown a terminal patient, so when Brown meets Ganz gazing at a crucifix with him picking up her dropped handerkerchief, things don't bode well for them, (the handkerchief is a particularly corny touch), and having a sign at a registry office "No rice or confetti is to be thrown on council premises". Hare's screenplay is lumbered with lines that are embarassing for a playwright of his stature, like "I'm totally in love with you and old enough to know I always will be", "I don't have it in me to have a baby", "He was running on empty", "He went to the heart of me", and "You have certain feelings and then you have to pick up the bill". This is the kind of movie where someone flees to a storeroom for solace and gets a succession of visitors, and being set in England, where a cup of tea is the answer to all problems. The setup actually comes across as a conceit that might work better on the stage than in film, highlighted by the explaination of the title with models dressing in hospital curtained spaces. Hare continues his misuse of over-orchestrated music that blighted Wetherby, even beginning the film with Nat King Cole's syrupy version of When I Fall in Love. The best scenes involve Bridget Fonda as Brown's sister, even if Fonda's character is the irresponsible uninhibited free spirit that Brown is not. (Since she is Brown's sister, we know Brown has the potential). It's a pity that Fonda is used as a character obstacle when she is the most likeable of the actors. Hare's only resonant image is a couple to be married, she in yellow and he in blue, each with an arm behind the other, as if the colours will merge into green at any moment. And he even denies us the sight of the models parading their strapless gowns in the fashion show fundraiser that ends the film. Instead he freezes behind the back of someone about to enter the catwalk.

Man wants falling in love to last forever, & his lover.
Hare creates a man who insists on the romance that comes with falling in love to be the essence of BEING in love. His women fail him because, in despair, ``I don't need all these presents. Don't you understand? You've GOT me; we're married''. Hare fails his women because of his extravagant, reckless, obsessive focus on the relationship. Brown finally accepts him as-is, & he rejects falling in love anew and reverses, returning to her. Strapless gowns at a charity benefit are the metaphor for Brown's recognition that their love requires her to stand on her own, to have the strength to accept his love, however unusual. (This was written spontaneously and will be replaced by a more rational review.) The film needs a wider audience. The opening credits triptych is worth the price of admission alone (Nat King Cole's ``When I Fall In Love''). ... Read more

Amazon.com

The riveting subject of Downfall is nothing less than the disintegration of Adolph Hitler in mind, body, and soul. A 2005 Academy Award nominee for best foreign language film, this German historical drama stars Bruno Ganz (Wings of Desire) as Hitler, whose psychic meltdown is depicted in sobering detail, suggesting a fallen, pathetic dictator on the verge on insanity, resorting to suicide (along with Eva Braun and Joseph and Magda Goebbels) as his Nazi empire burns amidst chaos in mid-1945. While staging most of the film in the claustrophobic bunker where Hitler spent his final days, director Oliver Hirschbiegel (Das Experiment) dares to show the gentler human side of der Fuehrer, as opposed to the pure embodiment of evil so familiar from many other Nazi-era dramas. This balanced portrayal does not inspire sympathy, however: We simply see the complexity of Hitler's character in the greater context of his inevitable downfall, and a more realistic (and therefore more horrifying) biographical portrait of madness on both epic and intimate scales. By ending with a chilling clip from the 2002 documentary Blind Spot: Hitler's Secretary, this unforgettable film gains another dimension of sobering authenticity. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (32)

Right to the point
Ill keep this review short and the point. Excellent film, great acting, amazing drama between characters. GO SEE IT, OR BUY THE DVD. IT IS WORTH THE $9.00 ADMISSION AND THE $25.00 POPCORN.

"Your Little Throats Are Being Cut"
"Downfall" is one of the most astonishing movies I have seen this year.I am a little baffled that it hasn't received more attention in the United States.Bruno Ganz should have gotten an Oscar nomination for best actor. But it did get a nomination for best foreign film."Downfall" is easily as good and gripping as the renowned hit "Das Boot".It's probably the case that foreign movies don't get as much attention now as they did in the 1980's.Nevertheless, this fine film should have a long life on DVD.

"Downfall" has caused some controversy because it depicts Adolf Hitler not as a demon, but as a human being who was kind to his young secretaries and his dogs.In fact this makes his evil all the more insidious and monstrous."Downfall" can be seen as an attempt by Germans to come to terms with their part in Hitler's crimes.How could a not-entirely-bad man like Albert Speer or an innocent like Traudl Junge retain their loyalty and admiration for such a diseased figure?We see the terrible events of April 1945 through German eyes.This involves acknowledging the horrible suffering of the German people as they were bombed and smashed into surrender.(Definitely, however, without letting them off the hook for their moral responsibility for the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity.)

We see Berlin turned into an apocalyptic landscape that would not seem out of place in the Book of Revelation.Gangs of murdering Nazis roam the rubble, looking for final victims to lynch.The Volkssturm, the army of old men and little boys recruited for the last defense of the city, is slaughtered by the advancing Russians.Officials of the regime are committing suicide right and left.(Some historians say there were more suicides among the Germans during the end than among the Japanese.) Down in the fuehrer's bunker Hitler's young secretary Traudl Junge (the wide-eyed, pretty, sweet Alexandra Maria Lara) witnesses the death throes of the Reich.Bruno Ganz is amazing as Hitler.The warm, human angel of "Wings of Desire" is entirely gone, replaced by this occasionally lucid, frequently rabid being.For long stretches of the movie, I swear, I entirely forgot there was an actor working up on the screen and it seemed as if I was watching Hitler himself in all his malignancy.

The movie turns the screws of suspense as things get worse and worse, and you get a solemn sense of justice being done at last.(Although there are still crimes that can be committed, like the diabolical murder of Goebbels' small children by their mother, shown in graphic detail.)The key to the movie perhaps can be had in a little speech by Goebbels.An army General protests the wanton slaughter of civilians and the Volkssturm.Goebbels replies, "I have no sympathy.No sympathy!The German people gave us the mandate.And now you cry because your little throats are being cut."It's a chilling moment.And a sobering reminder that politicians must be held accountable, and the people of a nation have to be responsible in their choice of leaders.

A Powerful, Disturbing Movie
This is a recreation of the last days in the Hitler bunker before Germany surrendered. It features a powerhouse performance by Bruno Ganz as Adolph Hitler, ranging from frustrated paranoia, self-delusion, rage and acts of kindness toward some on his staff. Ganz avoids haminess and bulging eyes to give a very unsettling portrait of a rational monster, so charismatic he could still command the loyalty of the Army, the SS and his personal staff, but who also was an increasingly broken, delusional leader subject to almost incoherent rages.

What struck me in this movie was the degree to which the people around Hitler continued to serve him. Increasingly among themselves they questioned his judgment and even his sanity, and certainly worried about their own safety, but they did his bidding. If any case could be made about the evil such concepts as patriotism, honor and loyalty can be put to, this movie is one to study. One of the most disturbing scenes is Magda Goebels with the assistance of an SS doctor giving her children sleeping drafts. She returns later and while her husband waits outside the children's room, she places a cyanide capsule in each mouth and forces her children's jaws shut to crunch open the ampules. She kills each child. She couldn't conceive of a world without National Socialism and didn't want her children to live in a world without it.

Most of the movie takes place in the bunker, to some extent from the vantage point of one of Hitler's secretaries, Traudle Junge. Enough takes place above ground amid the fighting and wreckage of what Berlin had become to give a clear idea of the horrors Hitler visited among Germans. One has to remember the millions who died by Hitler's orders, and that they died largely at the hands of other Germans. Still, pointless deaths of boys and girls scarcely in their teens, lynchings of frightened deserters and grandfathers by Nazi vigilantes is not pleasant viewing.

The Hitler bunker was a situation where fact was far stranger than fiction could ever be. I thought this was a compelling movie.

Scenes from a nightmare
"Downfall" tells the story of the last days of Adolf Hitler's life. The film begins in 1942, when Traudl Junge became Hitler's secretary. Then the scene quickly shifts to April 20 1945 in Berlin, for Hitler's 56th birthday and his final days. Much of the movie is based on Junge's memories, and what she saw and felt as a member of Hitler's immediate entourage. There is a nightmarish quality to this film, but everything shown here is true and really happened. The performances by all of the actors are superb, with an especially powerful performance being given by Bruno Ganz as Hitler. This movie is in German with subtitles, and that aspect gives it an added quality of realism. By April 1945, Nazi Germany was on the verge of total collapse. Hitler and his support staff were staying in a specially constructed bunker beneath Berlin, while above them the city was being pounded into rubble by the advancing Soviet Army. Every day the Russians were coming ever closer to Hitler and his bunker. Despite these facts, Hitler refused to leave Berlin. He continued to try and fight with armies that no longer existed or were in the process of being destroyed. All around him in the bunker there was an air of disintegration and ever growing fear. For Hitler and those that had always followed him, it was finally clear that all was lost. They had come to the time of Hitler's downfall, and faced a dreadful reckoning.There are parts of this movie that are very hard to watch as that reckoning takes place. Joseph and Magda Goebbels were two of Hitler's most ardent and fanatical followers. When it became clear that Hitler would not live, they decided to murder their six children by placing poison capsules in the children's mouths as they slept. They did not want to live; or to let their children live,in a world without Hitler. This is shown in the movie, and it is almost unbearable to see. At the same time, it is an important glimpse into the mind of madness and fanatical belief.There is also the feeling that there is something of immense value within this film; something to learn that might help prevent similar horrors from happening again. That is the hope to be found in a movie like "Downfall". There is a very strong 'you are there' feel to this brutally realistic film, combined with a sense of understanding about the most destructive time in human history.

Der Untergang { Downfall }
Billed as probebley the best war movie ever { a big call } i went and saw Downfall at the cinema.Historically i couldn't fault it and the production was nothing less than awsome. Without a doubt the most realistic war movie i've ever seen.The sound quality was unbelievable - people in the cinema actually were ducking as the russians shelled Berlin !!!Bruno Gantz as Hitler is superb - you could actually believe that you are watching a documentary it's so real.Any WW2 buff needs to see this movie - i can't rate it highly enough - in fact i'll probebly go and see it again next weekend.5 stars isn't enough - i'd give it 10 !!! Absolutely brilliant !!!! ... Read more