To me, this movie is perfection.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Wooden acting, low production, poor editing, emotionless, not even funny.. High ratings that had been given to this movie have no real foundations. Not worth of watching.

Spoilers Warning Elaborated: Review contains spoilers for "Nosferatu" (1922), as well as for this film, "Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht."Werner Herzog's remake of the 1922 silent film "Nosferatu," a loose adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula," is a laborious effort. F.W. Murnau's 1922 film was an interesting adaptation—altering the story considerably (although not enough to avoid a lawsuit from Stoker's widow for copyright infringement). It replaced the subtext of vampirism as venereal disease in Stoker's late-nineteenth-century tale with the plague and reset it to earlier in the century. Herzog does the same thing, but he largely abandons the naturalizing of the supernatural that went with the 1922 version. Instead, he makes Dracula lovesick... which isn't especially compatible with plague rats.In the 1922 film, the Van Helsing character was a pseudoscientist who explained vampirism as a natural phenomenon, and, in the end, he found himself powerless over it; in this 1979 version, the same character, instead, is a skeptic until he sees the supernatural for himself— after which, he drives a stake through it. Other character changes include Jonathan Harker not beginning as the happy-go-lucky chap he was in Murnau's classic, and the names of Stoker's Lucy and Mina are inexplicably switched around. As in the 1922 version, the main points of these female leads are combined in one character while the other one is just vestigial. Meanwhile, Klaus Kinski plays Max Schreck's part with sad eyes and slack-jawed heavy breathing between the slow movements and slow line delivery characteristic of the entire cast and production. And the makeup job is impressive, but as an obvious makeup job—and it's clownish.The film's slow pace wouldn't necessarily be a burden if, as in the 1922 version and a few other "Dracula" adaptations, it'd done something more interesting and cohesive with the narrative. Instead, we're left to mostly awe at the drab cinematography, admire the stilted acting, and wonder at the excess of Herzog's insertion of many shots of bats and rats. The 1979 film has a more mobile camera than the 1922 one, but it's at the expense of quicker editing. The average shot lasts ≈20 seconds here, whereas it was ≈8 seconds in Murnau's "Nosferatu" (as per the cinemetrics website). Herzog has done better; perhaps, part of the reason his "Aguirre, the Wrath of God" (1972) is truly a masterpiece is due to its average shot length being nearly half that of his "Nosferatu."The 1979 version also maintains a bit more of Stoker's novel, including borrowing some of the dialogue (such as the "children of the night" line). It also expands on the doppelgänger theme between Dracula and Jonathan, which was only hinted at in the book. Here, there's an allusion to Dracula, after his death, transmigrating into Harker's body. Unfortunately, this, along with the laughable Van Helsing ordeal, also drags the pace out even more; in 1922, the Nosferatu just vanished from exposure to sunlight and that was that.(Mirror Note: the mirror scene is the best part here, as it combines the shadow of the vampire from the 1922 "Nosferatu" with the absence otherwise of a reflection from Stoker (whereas he did cast a reflection in the 1922 film). Only Dracula's shadow is seen in Lucy's mirror, which announces his arrival in the shot before he stalks up beside her.)

There are not many films that give you the "creeps" in true horror fashion but Klaus Kinski is a weird guy in real life and even weirder in the movies and in all of Herzogs movies he is masterful although my favourite is Fitzcarraldo this is the definitive vampire film from the photography and direction even down to the creepy movements of the Nosferatu.I visited the actual location of the movie and would encourage everyone to visit Orrava Castle in Slovakia - From the very entrance gates with their massive Iron Dragons on the doors to the winding staircase up into the castle (many people cannot make it to the top tower and have to stop half way) it truly gives you the vampire experience above and beyond any castle with the exception of perhaps Cachtice castle (Elizabeth Bathory) above the village of Visnove!The dread and true horror of this movie entranced me as a kid and I literally couldn't take my eyes off as its that visually perfect for a horror film. There are very few horror films now that give you that tingling up your back and fear to watch them in the dark but this is a masterpiece of the bizarre as are a lot of Herzogs movies and one definitely not to be missed by any serious horror fan!

at the first sigh, the version of Dracula by Herzog. in fact, a fascinating parable, in which the Georgian music, the rats, the performance and face of Isabelle Adjani and Klaus Kinski remind old fashion manner to create the mystery and tension, the streets, the people, the homage to Murnau masterpiece , the delicate science to create and explore the details. in essence, an impeccable show. like an embroidery. because this is its purpose - to tell a story, to use all the opportunities of a meet, to remind recent history, to put the known symbols in a new context, to use slices of romance and horror for rehabilitation of Gothic literature. it is not a film of a story but the film of mysterious, seductive, almost hypnotic images.