Guest ShamRock Report post Posted April 10, 2003 In my German class, we just finished watching Shadow of A Vampire. I liked the movie a lot. John Malkovich so totally carried the movie. I didn't understand the end. It confused me. Anyone know? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ravenbomb Report post Posted April 10, 2003 nah, DaFoe carried the movie, the performance was the best of the year. And the end, IMO, was Spoiler (Highlight to Read): FW had slowly gone crazy, the death of the actress and the two guys pushing him over the edge Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Nevermortal Report post Posted April 10, 2003 I thought the movie was a little hokey. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Downhome Report post Posted April 10, 2003 It was pretty much meant to be hokey, that's how I looked at it. This is one of my favorite films of all time. It was just awesome in every aspect, especially Malkovich and DaFoe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Youth N Asia Report post Posted April 10, 2003 I thought the ending was to get the death to look legit. I thought the movie was slow and a little boring Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Bruiser Chong Report post Posted April 10, 2003 I thought the movie was a little hokey. It was supposed to be. Although I haven't seen it, from what I can gather, it starts out seemingly as a behind-the-scenes look at the making of the 1922 silent classic Nosferatu. A while into the film, reality is tossed out the window and it becomes a bit of a satire of the theory that Max Shreck (the actor who played Count Orlock in Nosferatu) was in fact, a real vampire. From there, he begins to actually bite/kill members of the cast and so forth. Personally, I would like to see some sort of film or documentary that focuses on the events surrounding Nosferatu's controversial days (this film seems to be that for a while before the fiction comes in). There was actually quite a bit of interesting stuff going on in real life with the movie being distributed and Bram Stoker's greedy and bitchy widom doing everything she could to have the film destroyed because she felt that the movie was a rip-off of Stoker's novel, Dracula (which it basically was, but a very good one). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest C.H.U.D. Report post Posted April 10, 2003 If you take out the incredibly long opening credits, this movie is only about 68 minutes, and it still felt like 3 hours. I loved Dafoe, but he wasn't in it enough for me to be entertained. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Lethargic Report post Posted April 10, 2003 CHUD summed that up perfectly. God I couldn't believe how long the opening credits were. I was looking SO forward to seeing that movie, but then I had to sit through all those credits. By time they were over I was completely out of the mood to watch it and the movie wans't good enough to recover from that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
