are you kidding??
just walking around in make up, it was the silent era!! what did you want him to do??
let's look at the bigger picture here.

nosferatu IS a great film, made so by the story, the acting (yes i say acting) the impressive make up and the superlative use of light and shadow to create a dark, brooding atmosphere.

10 years later how did tod browning improve on this?
a great castle (maybe the best in my opinion, see i do like this film!!), some of THE classic lines ever spoken in cinema history, BUT...
how did he deal with creating dark shadows at various key moments in the film? by leaving a huge piece of cardboard over a table lamp which is clearly in shot as lugosi does his thing. 10 years of progress?? thats laughable you have to admit.

but of course it does take more than one person to make a great film. so what about the rest of the cast?
nosferatu's admittedly is not much to get overly excited about,but they hold their own.
but in browning's dracula the support cast are dreadful with the excepion of Frye.
van helsing is ok, no worries there.
but harker, mina are the worst i've ever seen. (maybe they would have been better playing it silent!!) and whats with the maid and servant? are they supposed to be comedy relief? their performance is the most horrific of the film.

dracula1931 severly lets itself down here.

Well gee, oh god of vampires, maybe some of us enjoy Nosferatu because it was closer to the book than Dracula 1931.

Quit being such a smartass about your opinion, and maybe realize people will have different opinions. All I asked was if you'd read the book, but you had to go into another rant. I'm done trying to have an educated opinion about this matter with you.

i'm with you alky.

both film's are great, i just enjoy them for what they are, innit!!

it's great to here such passionate opinions though.

yeah, i've read the book, still my all time fav.

I'm confused. I thought you had asked me whether I had read the book. Since my reply consisted of two sentences, I don't see how it qualifies as a "rant."

I do feel compelled to point out that, regardless of their relative cinematic qualities, on a plot level NOSFERATU is not closer to the book than the 1931 DRACULA. Much more of Stoker makes it into the Lugosi flm -- although, admittedly, most of it is distorted to suite the film.

No, I'm not kidding. I do find it interesting the actual quality of the film sometimes seems to be secondary in your consideration to the facts behind the film. For example, Lugosi deserves no credit for his performance because he really talked that way; but all praise must go to Max Shreck for stalking around in bald head and rat teeth because... well, because it's a silent movie, so what do you expect?

I'll tell you what I expect: a performance. For a point of comparison, Lon Chaney gives a brilliant one in PHANTOM OF THE OPERA -- and he's not only hidden by makeup but by a mask as well!

I may be willing to give the film some credit for atmosphere, but not for the story. I think it's an impossible challenge to write a plot synopsis that would come close to justifying the film's feature length. There are a handful of memorable moments (the ship, nosferatu rising from the coffin, the sun turning him into a puff of smoke), but mostly nothing happens for very long stretches of time. The film could easily be cut down to under an hour -- and in fact has been, for 16mm prints, whichi s the first way I ever saw the film. Unfortunately for me, the running time has gotten longer every time I've seen it since.

I wholehearditly disagree- please explain.

I have nothing of value to add, but I wanted to say that I have this version on dvd and the only way I can stomach it is on Mute.

ah hollywood, i think we will have to agree to disagree on just about everything.

end of the day its just yours and my opinion, which probably means buggar all to anyone anyway.

i do find it interesting however that while you seemed to find fault with most of my previous thoughts on these films, you seem to make no comment on the last ones i mentioned regarding D.1931.
poor supporting cast, chunks of cardboard sloppily left in shot for whatever reason, of this there can be no denying. (funny how the spanish version filmed at the same time didn't rely on cardboard cutouts to help their special effects, ahem!).

and the other thing you seem to have failed to pick up on is that i have several times mentioned how i feel that both nosferatu and dracula are equally iconic films.
with nosferatu widely acknowledged as a classic, you appear to be unable to find any qualities in this film or give a BALANCED argument for your opinions. at least thats how it seems.
that said, mine may not be the best either, but i have tried to recognise that they do actually have their pro's and con's.

it's just that nosferatu is better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As a general rule, balance is bullshit. In fact, attempts at balance are screwing up a lot of reporting in our mainstream media, because whenever something critical is reported, there is some arbitrary attempt to "balance" it with some opposing viewpoint -- whether it's valid or not.

Ergo, I feel no need to "balance" my comments about NOSFERATU. It is slowly paced, mechanical, dull, and frankly overrated. There may be redeeming virtues, but I see no need to enumerate them -- the film has its defenders, so I'll let you do the work.

As for disagreeing on everything, I should point out that my very first post on this topic acknowledged that DRACULA is flawed, but it survives on the strenth of three performances: Lugois, Frye, and Van Sloan. So when you list a litany of flaws in the film but except those three performances, why should I respond? You're just giving a more detailed account of something I've already acknowledged.

It is never my intent to destroy someone's joy, whatever its source. You and everyone else can go right on enjoying this film. But it is severly flawed in a way that belies its reputation as a masterpiece.

Must admit I'm surprised anyone would challenge me over the fact that more of Stoker's novel makes it into the Lugosi film than into NOSFERATU. I'm afriad a point-by-point comparison would grow anal rentive and boring pretty quickly, so let me just touch on a few obvious issues:

DRACULA has the three vampire brides in Transylvania; NOSFERATU does not.

DRACULA has the vampire turn into a bat and a wolf (the later not shown, sadly); NOSFERATU does not.

DRACULA retains the book's Christian imagery (crosses, Eucharist); NOSFERATU does not (although Herzog's remake, curiously, does restore some of this.)

DRACULA features a Van Helsing character who realizes that Dracula is a vampire and marshall the knowledge to destroy him; NOSFERATU does not (yes, there is a Van Helsing character, but he is useless).

DRACULA features a Renfield character who aids and abets the vampire while incarcerated in an asylum (although what he actually does is vague to the point of non-existance); NOSFERATU does not (yes, there is a lunatic character, but his only real plot function is to send Hutter to visit Orlock).

DRACULA has the Count tempt Renfield with thousands of rats (only described, not shown, sadly); NOSFERATU does not.

DRACULA gives the Count two female victims: Lucy who succumbs and becomes a vampire, and Mina, who is saved from a similar fate; NOSFERATU does not (there is only one girl, and she does not become a vampire from Orlock's bite).

DRACULA has the Count taint Mina by forcing her to drink his blood (again, only described not shown); NOSFERATU does not.

DRACULA has the Count destroyed by being impaled (not quite the same as the book, but at least it's in line with the methods described in the book); NOSFERATU does not (the film invents the idea that vampires go poof in sunlight).

Anyway, you get the idea...