Highly Overrated But Still Good

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

If you're seriously looking for a "horror" movie that contains more "WTF!?" moments in it than David Lynch's "Eraserhead", then this truly absurd and eccentric, little vampire flick (from 1932) may just be what you're hankering for.Unfortunately - For me to say that "Vampyr" could have been a helluva lot better (on all counts) would definitely be an understatement.But, with that said, "Vampyr's" creepy, grungy, grainy visuals did, at times, tend to have a nonsensical appeal to them (that was all their own). And, this, in turn, was what kept me watching this film even though I knew damn-well I should be shutting this sh*t off, like pronto! Anyway - I will tell you one thing for certain - Had "Vampyr" been an American production (instead of a German one) nobody, I'm sure, would be giving a flying f*ck about it, one way, or the other. Nope. If that was the case, "Vampyr" would be dismissed without a second thought.

Slow pans, suffused lighting, sparse dialogue, and indelible imagery, elevate this vampire movie, a complete opposite to the bloody neck-biters of Hammer Films Inc. It's not a movie for everyone. Too slow for some, too actionless for others, Vampyr does carry the stamp of a master, Carl Dreyer. The overall effect is to unnerve rather than frighten. Images collect rather than jolt, passing through to the subconscious where the film lingers long after a last flickering frame. Not a ghost movie, the effect is nevertheless ghostly and dreamlike, with daylight apparitions gliding through some nightless nether nether world. A counterpart perhaps closest in effect is 1962's Carnival of Lost Souls, minus adagio pacing. In some weird sense, the film manages a glimpse beyond the limits of conventional horror. In short, it's a masterpiece.

Liminal, evasive; a cinematic tone poem of light and shadow; the vertex of the ideas of the so-called German expressionist movement; a memento mori; wildly unpolished; a rumination on the fantastical in cinema and ultimately, even on the sacrifice of Christ (as pointed out by Guillermo del Toro on the commentary track available on the Masters of Cinema DVD) — this is Dreyer at his most experimental, adventurous, hallucinatory, and his best. As its German subtitle suggests, this film is a dreamworld not only free of expectations of conventional narrative, it's adventurously lyrical and purely cinematic in its cogitation.The film exists in the atmosphere. By this I don't mean the banal idea that atmosphere is only a stylistic device separate from the plot but instead that atmosphere is the fabric of cinematic experience and narrative. Had Dreyer done no other films at all, I would rank him among the greatest based on this film alone: the eye is remarkably dimensional, moving spatially and lucidly, shocking considering the medium was only some 30 years old at the time. The editing is disconcerting, and in the words of Tony Rayns, "this is cutting that has no rational explanation. These shots are not commenting on each other, they don't materially implicate each other in any conceptual way at all, they simply add a certain rhythm, a certain tone to the film as a whole." It has a marvelous effect on the viewer: we know the elementary story but the way it presents itself is so delirious we're in constant stupefaction because the film evades our formal expectation. No wonder why the film was badly received during the Berlin premiere in 1932 — it's a free film, not adhering to prevailing norms of form and narrative, springing from a film tradition but swerving, ever swerving from the customary orbit.The most frightening images in the film are the ones that are burnt in the memory, take on a new shape in our minds and feed on our nostalgia; whereas the real vampire in the film is time, it's the images themselves that live off this symbiotic existence.I would love to know whether Mizoguchi saw this film or not — the scene toward the end in the fog at the lake is reproduced in "Ugetsu monogatari" (1953) to a startling effect.

After reading all the reviews on this film, I considered it a 'must watch' event. However, I can honestly say that I was not as impressed as others.The story was good, the action was great and the feeling of horror was extreme. But I found the film hard to follow.It seemed that Allan Grey was going from one situation to another without explanation. One scene he is in an inn and the next scene he appeared to be following shadows in another building. He sat on a bench and the next thing we see is an out-of-body experience that seemed to be crucial but we are not sure of the reason.Carl T Dreyer, in my opinion, is one of the best directors in early cinema. But this film appears that he might have been holding onto the 'old-ways' too long. By 1932, films had somewhat good sound and the use of lighting excellent. But this film, or at least the copy I saw, reverses all the tends of film making. The appearance of the film felt more like 1922 than 1932.The film does stir strong emotions of evil and doom. The camera is used to let the viewer feel like they are part of the events on the screen. But at times we have to guess at the event.It's a good film and an fair watch. But be prepared to say "What just happened" during parts of the movie.