sign in
register
Watch
Screambox Screambox Amazon Channel Criterion Channel
+10
Vampyr
Screambox Screambox Amazon Channel Criterion Channel
+10
JustWatch
Remove ads

Vampyr

1932
Horror
1h 15m
Young traveller Allan Gray arrives in a remote castle and starts seeing weird, inexplicable sights (a man whose shadow has a life of its own) (imdb)
Directed by:
Carl Theodor Dreyer Carl Theodor Dreyer
Written by:
Carl Theodor Dreyer Carl Theodor Dreyer Sheridan Le Fanu Christen Jul
+2 more
Starring:
Maurice Schutz Julian West Rena Mandel Sybille Schmitz Jan Hieronimko Henriette Gérard Albert Bras N. Babanini Jane Mora Georges Boidin
More
Genre:
Horror
Countries:
France, Germany
Language:
German
imdb More information at IMDb
See title update history
Suggest an edit
Show Less
Your probable score
?

Vampyr

1932
Horror
1h 15m
Your probable score
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer
Avg Percentile 64.4% from 1103 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

(1103)
Compact view
clear
Compact view
Show
Sort
barthalenBarthalen
Rated 04 May 2017
80
81st
It starts out very strong; I loved the way the camera and characters move through scenes and the creative effects and wonderful mood got me all pumped up. It can't quite keep that momentum as the story just never really takes off and West seems quite wooden. However, the unsettling atmosphere more than makes up for that and I had a blast just marinating in that proto-Lynchian moodiness for 75 minutes.
Rated 04 May 2017
nathan_sNathan S
Rated 20 Nov 2009
4
74th
This film altogether exists in a strange state, in between silent and sound, the real and the dreamed. Standard character and plot devices largely cease to matter in this hazy procession of the surreal and supernatural. It's poetry in motion, pure atmosphere.
Rated 20 Nov 2009
martintellerMartinTeller
Rated 07 Feb 2007
85
84th
It's got magnificent camerawork and a foreboding air of menace throughout. There's a surreal essence, not just in the content, but also in the storytelling, which always feels slightly off. Creepy and nightmarish.
Rated 07 Feb 2007
icarusIcarus
Rated 21 Oct 2009
88
85th
This is a film that is less about narrative and more about the mood and atmosphere created by the use of light and shadow, sound and silence, close-ups and wide shots. There's a semi-coherent narrative undergirding the film that works well alongside the story of a man woken from his sleep and wandering around in the middle of the night. In other words, Vampyr operates on a level closer to dream logic, so instead of narratival clarity, we get a palpable sense of dread, which works for vampires.
Rated 21 Oct 2009
joojooJooJoo
Rated 23 Jul 2008
6
95th
Dreyer rocks my world, even in dream landscapes, where nothing seems familiar or ordinary.
Rated 23 Jul 2008
alex_watkinsAlex Watkins
Rated 02 Jan 2010
2
15th
I hate to say it, but...yawn. Some nice trick shots and a good score aren't enough to make this anything special. I was utterly bored for most of the film. It doesn't really go anywhere and it takes its time doing so. The supposedly mesmerizing atmosphere failed to draw me in at any point. Really disappointed, I expected much better here.
Rated 02 Jan 2010
paxtonPaxton
Rated 24 Mar 2013
75
80th
The first twenty minutes of this are so good I thought it was going to be the greatest thing I'd ever seen. Unfortunately, the next half hour slowed me down so much I thought I might not ever need to see it again. Thankfully, the last half hour brought it right back up again. Besides, any movie with a giant scythe is worth watching.
Rated 24 Mar 2013
terrymacterrymac
Rated 30 Aug 2013
77
77th
I found this pretty difficult to follow, and I wasn't a huge fan of the expository intertitles, but this really started to get under my skin. Some of the camerawork and imagery was very effective, and the film was successful in creating a dreamlike, unsettling mood. I'd be happy to watch this again, and I'm sure I'll be able to get a better handle on whatever the hell was going on; that said, the non-standard plotting didn't detract from the overall effect. Recommended.
Rated 30 Aug 2013
peaceanarchyPeaceAnarchy
Rated 17 Nov 2007
77
51st
A very interesting film with some haunting images and very good use of limited special effects. The story is rather uneven though, at times it's over explained with lengthy intertitles and at other times it jumps forward with no explanation at all.
Rated 17 Nov 2007
kmcneilKMcNeil
Rated 30 Aug 2009
8
84th
Yet another great movie by Dreyer. The lights, shadows, the tonality range of the grey and dark plus some strange, yet exhilarating compositions (often unbalanced with the point of interest placed to the bottom and/or to the side of the screen) really are way ahead of their time. It's not Nosferatu, but then again - what is?
Rated 30 Aug 2009
teddedonTedDedon
Rated 26 Feb 2008
76
52nd
Though it's certainly creepy and effective by horror standards, Vampyr by Carl Th. Dreyer never managed to hold my attention and keep me engaged thoroughly. On all technical accounts it's quite good, but considering Nosferatu came out before it and how much better that is, this just feels like a wash by comparison. Overall, though, it's a good movie--or at least well made--so it's easy to recommend to fans of Dreyer or that eerie style old films had.
Rated 26 Feb 2008
billkerwinbillkerwin
Rated 24 Dec 2009
97
97th
Disturbing, dreamlike imagery, and an even more disorienting dreamlike structure. This is a great film, probably marred by the lack of money. And yet . . . even the raggedy edges of the narrative and the poor performance of the lead actor serve to enhance the power of this elliptical, surrealistic film.
Rated 24 Dec 2009
djrossdjross
Rated 23 Oct 2017
60
62nd
Not just dreamlike but somnambulistic, with a roving camera that seems at times to itself be wandering according to the rhythm of some kind of mechanical sleep. With strong imagery and clever use of light and shadow, one nevertheless cannot help but feel that this may have been the original "style over substance" movie, and the final product hurt by budgetary compromises. Despite its shortcomings, it is certainly a curiosity with several moments that are still impressive eighty-five years later.
Rated 23 Oct 2017
nobletNoblet
Rated 26 Jun 2014
66
42nd
Lovely atmosphere and camerawork but way too meandering for my liking.
Rated 26 Jun 2014
judge_holdenJudge Holden
Rated 16 Jan 2011
5
69th
Speaking as a big fan of both horror and Dreyer's other films, I was surprised by how little I enjoyed this. I loved the austere photography and the eerie. otherworldly atmosphere, but the film is just so undeniably dull. Even judging it solely on the mood it creates, Vampyr is a disappointment. It's moody but not captivating until the end. Too little, too late.
Rated 16 Jan 2011
glmglm
Rated 29 Dec 2010
87
85th
86.875
Rated 29 Dec 2010
syntheseizurSyntheseizur
Rated 11 Jan 2012
83
75th
A technical masterpiece -- special effects used to invoke the perfectly eerie atmosphere and smooth, beautiful camera movements to contribute to the unsettling aesthetic and to give the film dynamic. The plot and characters are thin, so sometimes it may feel like it's merely a vehicle for its technicality and mood, but it's so masterfully filmed that it hardly matters.
Rated 11 Jan 2012
moribunnyMoribunny
Rated 17 Dec 2007
93
98th
A bona fide masterpiece of horror. Dreyer's directing leaves nothing to be desired. He scares us with patient sincerity, creates an utterly disturbing, oneiric atmosphere where one haunting visual follows another, culminating in nightmarish surrealism. The acting, mostly by amateurs, is simply spectacular, so authentic for its time that it alone is creepy. It's unheard of, but even the main star, a Baron who landed the role because he financed the film, plays superbly. Watch this late at night.
Rated 17 Dec 2007
ribcageribcage
Rated 17 Oct 2014
85
85th
definitely would have liked it to have a pinch more coherence, however it captures the magic of a spooky dream damn near perfectly. effective horror film that leaves a lingering haunted feeling.
Rated 17 Oct 2014
thereeldealthereeldeal
Rated 02 Aug 2017
55
21st
Unlike 1922's Nosferatu, this "classic" is an absolute bore. Dreyer's effects to create shadows in Vampyr are novel and worth seeing, but aren't worth even this 73 minute run-time. Dreyer's lack of commitment to sound films results in a dry narrative with inexplicably pointless spoken dialogue and the lack of it. Obnoxious on-screen cards needlessly break the "show don't tell" rule, and Allan Gray's endless wanderings aren't atmospheric, they're empty and monotonous. No sense of threat or dread.
Rated 02 Aug 2017
abunchofcatsABUNCHOFCATS
Rated 15 Oct 2009
90
85th
I don't know whether this is almost genius or blind luck. The imagery and effects are stunning and everything is just completely surreal and atmospheric. I wish it'd been a more frightening tale than a vampire, but it's ok as it is. There's too much focus on silent frames of text, way too much for a movie with sound, and that's the major downfall of it since they all but destroy the pacing of it and remove you from the movie. This is a must-see though for the amazing nightmare this film is.
Rated 15 Oct 2009
sebbysebby
Rated 07 Oct 2012
85
96th
It's all about the style, which thankfully is fucking out of this world.
Rated 07 Oct 2012
wetwillieswetwillies
Rated 09 Nov 2016
80
37th
Viewed October 28, 2016. A stream-of-consciousness nightmare, as terrifying in the details as it is in the abstract; beautifully composed, high-contrast, soporific horror. It feels remarkably ahead of its time, and the only moments where it falters are those where it feels inescapably old-fashioned, such as the endless title cards. But the atmosphere here still overwhelms, and the images make their mark.
Rated 09 Nov 2016
cosmicmonkeyCosmicMonkey
Rated 17 Nov 2015
83
77th
Vampyr is a strange, mysterious film. Dreyer singlehandedly crafted his own unique film grammar and language for spooky and surreal ends, ultimately creating a film that is both a nightmare and daydream at the same time. It's a beautiful and unique piece of artistry that, like many other aesthetic films, is held back from true greatness by it's difficult to follow narrative and incoherency.
Rated 17 Nov 2015
backwardsuitbackwardsuit
Rated 18 Nov 2015
81
83rd
Strange and surreal tale with magnificent cinematography and wonderfully mysterious atmosphere. The plot is very bare & simple but everything is pierced by an eerie sense of inexplicable dread. Paradoxically I found it both intriguing and sleep inducing (dozed off for a while). A thoroughly dreamlike film that seems to inhabit a weird plane of existence somewhere between this world and the next.
Rated 18 Nov 2015
hotsakehotsake
Rated 08 Jul 2015
66
66th
Great sound effects and music with some inventive and fun Special Fx. Not nearly as good or interesting as I had hoped. An early talkie which still uses a lot of silent picture tropes.
Rated 08 Jul 2015
judo_koalaJudo Koala
Rated 12 Oct 2019
80
75th
As is wont for Dreyer, the cinematography, the performances elicited, the atmosphere -- astounding. Incredible. Truly ahead of its time. Also as is wont for Dreyer: you might struggle to stay awake at times. A terribly heavy reliance upon intertitles only further kills the already glacial pacing, and pacing was already Dreyer's weakest hand.
Rated 12 Oct 2019
tonydaltonydal
Rated 20 Aug 2011
80
74th
Got a bit muddled toward the end. But a nicely eerie, hypnotic style...sort of like the whole thing was this weird crazy dream. Also I liked Dreyer's line (somewhere else) about how a corpse laying in the next room changes the mood and feeling of everything.
Rated 20 Aug 2011
aaaaaaarrgggaaaaaaarrggg
Rated 29 Oct 2010
86
91st
This remains one of the minor masterpieces of '30s horror. Rough going but worth seeing for its atmosphere (a piece of gauze was placed before the camera lens to impart a grainy, dreamlike texture to the photography) and an oft-imitated sequence where the hero imagines himself buried alive.
Rated 29 Oct 2010
mojojoestarMojoJoestar
Rated 07 Oct 2016
75
74th
Beautiful shadows, very suspenseful. Like a nightmare and daydream at the same time.
Rated 07 Oct 2016
pickpocketPickpocket
Rated 10 Sep 2011
7
68th
The atmosphere, settings, cinematography, music and lighting are all great but the story isn't its strongest part and is difficult to follow. The time it was made greatly enhances the creepiness of it all, you couldn't pull off this grainy look today. The title cards were lame, almost like they were trying to save money, and they only confused me/bored me. Could've been better.
Rated 10 Sep 2011
magbMagb
Rated 18 Mar 2007
70
39th
This has a very eerie quality to it, but it never quite captured my attention. Maybe I missed something crucial in terms of the plot that would've made the whole thing come together stronger, but I think the fact of the matter is that it's just an underdeveloped film. The lousy picture and sound quality didn't help, although apparently that's how Dreyer wanted it to be. Still, it was enjoyable enough.
Rated 18 Mar 2007
hiromiyamotohiromiyamoto
Rated 22 Sep 2016
98
91st
I actually fell asleep for a good ten minutes of this movie. However, as pointed out by my film professor, due to the dreamlike quality of this film, I can't help but feel that was the director's intent, so in that regard, this film succeeded in its goals and still managed to be thoroughly entertaining.
Rated 22 Sep 2016
caimancaiman
Rated 16 Jan 2010
95
98th
By using disjointed shots and unsettling imagery, Dreyer creates a feeling of unease and confusion throughout the entire film. From whose perspective are we seeing things? What's real and what's imagined? Full of Gothic images and bizarre events, Vampyr really has the ability to get under your skin. The disconnected shots and sequences are disconcerting, especially on the first viewing, but the movie never fails to create a clear sense of nightmarish dread. One of the all time greats.
Rated 16 Jan 2010
escano777escano777
Rated 19 Aug 2014
9
9th
At times this can be difficult to watch but it is interesting as a historically significant film.
Rated 19 Aug 2014
punqPUNQ
Rated 08 Jan 2013
70
96th
A very dark and avant garde horror movie from Carl Theodor Dreyer. In it's narrative it's very confusing and you spend most of the movie wondering whats going on and trying to get any sense out of the strange way of telling the story. Dreyer uses shadows and angles amazingly and it's that effect that makes the movie as interesting as it is. I didn't get the ultimate experience from Vampyr, but it's still a very curious piece of art that has a lot of value.
Rated 08 Jan 2013
graveyardtangraveyardtan
Rated 21 Sep 2010
80
57th
I appreciate this more than I actually enjoyed it while watching it. Dreyer is pushing the boundaries of narrative, interested in mood more than cohesive plot, and this is a fascinating development, but Vampyr never completely absorbed me the way Joan of Arc was able to.
Rated 21 Sep 2010
optimusmikeOptimus_mike
Rated 27 Oct 2008
80
71st
Incredibly good for its time, the plot made no goddamn sense though.
Rated 27 Oct 2008
scribScrib
Rated 08 Jun 2022
80
78th
It's always interesting watching films around the time we transitioned from silents to talkies. A bit like Chaplin's Modern Times, this is basically a "silent movie" but it still has some dialogue and sound design as well as intertitles. This was director Dreyer's first non-silent film, and part of the reasoning for use of the intertitles was to overcome the obstacle of having to film in multiple languages.
Rated 08 Jun 2022
sellissellis
Rated 28 Oct 2021
80
59th
The trance-like state induced by the beautiful nightmare aesthetic is routinely disrupted by lengthy recurring exposition. The images, as you'd expect, are of much greater interest and effect.
Rated 28 Oct 2021
damildamil
Rated 13 Jul 2014
75
81st
This is an interesting early vampire film. You can tell that sound in film was still a relatively new thing, as the dialogue is sparse and title cards are used to tell some of the story. Despite this, I still found the story a little bit hard to follow. Anyway, the direction is pretty good, and the visual effects are really cool, with some impressive use of shadows. It's a must-see if you're interested in early horror.
Rated 13 Jul 2014
yesistastyyesistasty
Rated 15 Jul 2011
91
72nd
Masterful minimalist supernatural film built up with a series of captivating images.
Rated 15 Jul 2011
overratedoverrated
Rated 06 Oct 2019
51
50th
It's fine in a dreamlike ambient way but Nosferatu it ain't.
Rated 06 Oct 2019
theyshoot07theyshoot07
Rated 01 Mar 2008
90
84th
# 193
Rated 01 Mar 2008
adamj1982adamj1982
Rated 27 Oct 2012
83
83rd
A beautiful, haunting movie. It's a shame the story is choppy and confusing. I wonder if some scenes were lost that would drawn it together better?
Rated 27 Oct 2012
henrikHenrik
Rated 09 Dec 2010
100
99th
The creepiest movie ever made.
Rated 09 Dec 2010
obdurateObdurate
Rated 02 Oct 2011
78
59th
I wasn't as into what was going on as I could have been. Some parts, sure, but not always. However, this is one of those old horror movies that I feel are actually better due to the black and white, grainy film. It just wouldn't be the same shot today in colour. It adds to the creepy atmosphere and due to the fact you spend time reading a book in the movie, it feels like a documentary of SORTS of someone discovering vampires. Plus the soundtrack is awesome and everything is shot well.
Rated 02 Oct 2011
dmcrimsonDMCrimson
Rated 12 Sep 2019
72
17th
This was 1932 disturbing and creepy in the same way Train Pulls Into Station sent people running and screaming.
Rated 12 Sep 2019
agentsands77Agentsands77
Rated 18 Jul 2010
80
82nd
A strange, surreal dreamfilm. Undoubtedly a strong influence on David Lynch.
Rated 18 Jul 2010
yiannosYiannos
Rated 11 Sep 2017
83
95th
Dreyer's complete mastery of light and shadow is on full display in Vampyr, a quasi-avantgarde horror film that subtly subverts genre conventions. His abstraction of space-time is genuinely disorienting: the viewer isn't quite sure where they are, and the use of narrative ellipsis ensures that events are inferred rather than shown, which heightens the overwhelming sense of mystery and dread. The washed out scratchy B+W aesthetic creates a haunting spectral vision rich in texture and mood.
Rated 11 Sep 2017
luna6ixLuna6ix
Rated 16 Dec 2012
72
41st
Dreyer struck the killing blow to this movie in the pre-production stage by accepting West's money with the condition that he stars in this movie. If this movie were a little less enigmatic, and West had relinquished his acting duties, then this would have been a good movie. The only benefit this movie has is a creepy atmosphere, but having only that, I'm hardly surprised that it was a critical and financial failure when it was released.
Rated 16 Dec 2012
johnnydarkjohnnydark
Rated 15 Dec 2010
90
60th
Completely unique, there has never been a movie like it, especially in the early thirties. Carl Theodor Dreyer was a true film genius.
Rated 15 Dec 2010
maM_A
Rated 09 Jul 2011
85
90th
Stunning lighting, cinematography, and imagery. It's astounding that this was made in 1932.
Rated 09 Jul 2011
bownBown
Rated 10 Apr 2023
73
29th
Great as a piece of history, but didn’t do a whole lot for me personally outside of getting me to think “ooh, that’s a nice shot” fairly often. I did like the way it was happy to exist as a mood piece for so long - I can definitely see the influence in many of my favourite horrors.
Rated 10 Apr 2023
jdelbalzo99jdelbalzo99
Rated 28 Feb 2010
25
11th
I simply couldn't follow this movie. I think this was the first time I actually decided that I understand and appreciate what silent film did for the advancement of the art and the technology, but I do not actually need to enjoy the films.
Rated 28 Feb 2010
theyshoot08theyshoot08
Rated 19 Dec 2008
91
82nd
183
Rated 19 Dec 2008
silent_discosilent disco
Rated 18 Dec 2021
75
60th
Its all about the coffin scene. The uncanny vantage point of an encased body, crawling along an upside down sky so rapturously vast that it feels it may open up any minute. Its perspective is of only one distinct possibility, a vessel of the past-tense, faded glimmer of eyes no longer shining. Buildings feel taller than ever before, surely closing in like the megalithic tombstone teeth of a hungry Earth. We aren't meant to see that. God only knows how it tangled the nerves of 1930s audiences.
Rated 18 Dec 2021
rthornhillrthornhill
Rated 03 Jul 2012
94
89th
more of a fascinating dream than a vampire movie. loved the ending!
Rated 03 Jul 2012
hawkinsHawkins
Rated 25 Apr 2023
42
9th
Not convinced by this one. Some creative technical tricks and Dreyer's camera is impressively spirited, but it overindulges in one of the genre's classic lame tropes - reading from the ancient book of plot and lore to demystify the scary bits and figure out which deus ex machina beats them. When that's not happening, it's basically the story of a guy wandering around.
Rated 25 Apr 2023
prowlerprowler
Rated 23 Jan 2010
77
78th
Dreyer proves that he can do horror, and the result is far from your average scary film. The only things keeping it from timeless perfection are anachronisms like the unnecessary intertitles and the less-than-brilliant underlying plot.
Rated 23 Jan 2010
napolenbradynapolenbrady
Rated 21 Feb 2019
88
58th
88.00
Rated 21 Feb 2019
paradiselostParadiselost
Rated 31 Oct 2009
80
74th
I saw this movie with live music, The atmosphere and the other-world-feeling were superb it was great.
Rated 31 Oct 2009
picklemanPickle_Man
Rated 27 Jan 2018
80
55th
Some really interesting effects and a hazy dreamlike quality throughout. It's definitely good, but Nosferatu blows it out of the water as far as silent era vampire movies are concerned.
Rated 27 Jan 2018
glm01glm01
Rated 04 Jan 2013
89
97th
88.500
Rated 04 Jan 2013
spaceflohspacefloh
Rated 16 Nov 2014
60
58th
ger_eng; [vampyr]; ein junger reisender kommt an einem gutshof an und sieht dort seltsame dinge passieren - scheinbar hat sich ein vampir dort eingenistet.;
Rated 16 Nov 2014
fancymikeFancyMike
Rated 17 Nov 2017
4
59th
The slowest nightmare. Surreal and beautiful with ever building dread in the shadows. There's no real scares or specific horror moments, just the constant near-suffocating presence of evil
Rated 17 Nov 2017
spunkieSpunkie
Rated 19 Nov 2008
50
40th
Far too outdated. Only redeeming quality is the lurking shadows as the scare factor.
Rated 19 Nov 2008
ehk2ehk2
Rated 13 Dec 2015
70
88th
interior camera movements and lighting are definitely striking. weak points are still reliance on cards to tell the story and sound.
Rated 13 Dec 2015
frederFreder
Rated 23 Mar 2009
70
54th
Freder has seen this one only in a really lousy VHS copy of a really lousy public domain print, so it hardly seems fair. Under those conditions, it didn't live up to its reputation and was impossible to follow. Even so, there were a couple of really horrific sequences with staying power.
Rated 23 Mar 2009
lady_moeLady Moe
Rated 11 Feb 2013
79
45th
A little on the slow side. The cinematography, though, is fantastic. Great effects for the time.
Rated 11 Feb 2013
nathanbatesNathanBates
Rated 24 Aug 2018
60
35th
Some impressive camera work (especially the shadows of the man digging and the girls playing), but much more atmospheric than scary. Just wondering if most people would invite a complete stranger in and then let him wander around the house and fields with a creepy book that holds all the secrets to what's going on.
Rated 24 Aug 2018
chimpCHIMP
Rated 24 May 2022
75
59th
I loved a lot of the imagery, but it's very much a slightly plotted silent film in execution, and seems far behind what contemporaries were doing in the advent of audio. Also feels pretty glacial for a ~70 minute film; at my screening the last 20 mins or so was soundtracked by snoring behind me and I can't claim surprise
Rated 24 May 2022
lisa_iilisa-
Rated 18 Nov 2013
5
70th
spooky and even surreal most of the time, giving it a good horror mood, but the plotting is a wee bit incoherent. definitely a little disappointing, but the imagery and atmosphere are good enough to make the film definitely worthwhile.
Rated 18 Nov 2013
driscarpindriscarpin
Rated 12 Dec 2017
91
89th
Não sei se é uma influência consciente, mas existe uma óbvia linha que liga Vampyr a algumas obras do Lynch, especialmente Eraserhead e The Return. DVD Versátil A Arte de Carl T. Dreyer.
Rated 12 Dec 2017
thedicemanTheDiceman
Rated 12 Jun 2020
65
73rd
Interesting camera work.
Rated 12 Jun 2020
amerigoamerigo
Rated 12 Oct 2010
70
26th
If you ever wanted to see Mark Twain in a live action film, this is the movie for you!
Rated 12 Oct 2010
mandymandy
Rated 23 Jan 2012
6
44th
Dated and surrealistic. Great imagery and still spooky.
Rated 23 Jan 2012
dean_franzDean Franz
Rated 13 Jun 2008
90
89th
Dark, gripping, ghoulish and dreamlike.
Rated 13 Jun 2008
xacviantxacviant
Rated 19 Feb 2012
79
48th
Stylistically, VAMPYR is quite lovely, with Rudolph Mate's wonderful cinematography, Hermann Warm's striking production design, Wolfgang Zeller's fine score, and Carl Theodor Dreyer's dreamy direction. And the acting, given that most of the cast were non-professionals, is generally fine. What the film lacks is a certain gravitas; there's not much to the story or characters, and as such, not much suspense. But it's still a must for any serious fan of cinema--and for any true vampire aficionados.
Rated 19 Feb 2012
theyshoot10theyshoot10
Rated 13 Jan 2010
91
82nd
183
Rated 13 Jan 2010
snallygastersnallygaster
Rated 16 Mar 2013
62
66th
Photography & atmosphere make the film. The plot & characters are phoned in, which doesn't particularly hurt the film but doesn't elevate it either. The coffin dream sequence is unforgettable.
Rated 16 Mar 2013
bluengreybluengrey
Rated 07 Dec 2017
80
68th
The scene where our hero approaches the vampire lair and encounters disembodied shadows and reflections sent a chill up my spine. Confusing but seriously creepy movie.
Rated 07 Dec 2017
shockularSHOCKULAR
Rated 12 Jun 2022
75
57th
Very good early vampire movie. Some cool effects for the period and some of the imagery, especially closer to the beginning with the shadows, etc, is outstanding, and parts were as close to a nightmare as I have seen depicted in film. I think it loses a bit of steam as it moves along. I wish I could see it in better quality, too. It's a movie from 1932 and has been nicely restored but quite a bit of it is still not in great shape. That's obviously not the film's fault, but was a bit distracting.
Rated 12 Jun 2022
theyshoot11theyshoot11
Rated 30 Nov 2011
91
82nd
#188
Rated 30 Nov 2011
three-questions_ii???
Rated 01 Apr 2013
79
78th
Perhaps the most convincing vampire movie I know. Dreyer must have met one or two.
Rated 01 Apr 2013
karamazovkaramazov.
Rated 31 Oct 2015
58
77th
Inconsistent tonally and the plot is hard to follow and not very interesting, but the photography and editing in parts is astounding.
Rated 31 Oct 2015
rihreyrihrey
Rated 07 Mar 2022
69
92nd
Truly amazing, a visual masterpiece.
Rated 07 Mar 2022
paulofilmopaulofilmo
Rated 01 Nov 2009
78
97th
Naturalist mysticism. Dreyer striving for quiet transcendence.
Rated 01 Nov 2009

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...