The absence of love is the most abject pain.

The scariest part of Nosferatu the Vampyre by far, was the opening shots of mummified babies and whatever the hell Gollum is.  Interestingly enough, these mummies are very real and located in Guanajuato. Mexico.  A long way from Transylvania, but still strange why a vampire would decide to keep all these dried up and leathery cadavers around after drying them of blood.  To deter intruders for decor?  Freak.  The rest of the film is not so much scary but rather wonderfully composed.

 I will posit that the reason the film is not centered on scares is that we already know the story of Nosferatu and Dracula.  By 1979, there had been many iterations of Bram Stoker's  story projected on the screen.  Speaking of Stoker, the copyright to his novel Dracula had at this point expired and so Werner Herzog could use the names of Dracula, Harker and Lucy without having to worry about any lawsuits, such as Murnau did after releasing the original Nosferatu. It's a good thing too because this version holds up much better than the original 1922 film which I wrote about here.  For one thing, this s tory has better character development as Lucy is not the whiny brat she is in the original. In fact, in this version she is smart, brave and ends up saving the day (more or less) which was refreshing to see.  

This film was treated like a period piece with the locations really standing out.  Whether it was the moors, a waterfall, inside a castle or the local streets, special attention was paid in capturing these places beautifully. the location scout and set decorator are the MVP's of this production. The characters also have different arcs than in the original film which s makes for a more interesting story.  As I mentioned, there is only so many things that can be changed while still calling this a Nosferatu or Dracula film.  the characterization of the main three protagonists was done in a way where it is faithful to the source material yet bring something new.  Harker starts out as a hero but eventually is no match for the powers of Count Dracula who himself is different from his predecessor.  In this film he is creepier and his voice does not sound like Willem Dafoe's voice in Shadow of the Vampire which admittedly is a silly expectation.  However, the Count's voice was surprising as it walked a line between weak and overly effeminate. The way he glares at Harker when he arrives and how he pounces on him to suck him off, I mean his blood off his hand, seems to be done on purpose. I don't recall a version of Dracula where the vampire actually lunges to suck off the blood from Harker's hand. The Count is also lacking his hypnotic powers in this version nut boy does he make up for that in the amount of rat friends he has.  Droves of rats, or should I say a mischief of rats, probably more than you have ever seen on screen before.

In the end, the girl saves the boy and the monster is killed, and the hero taken to jail only to leave the protagonist alive but with the same goofy teeth as Dracula, presumably the new master.  he even rides off during the sunlight implying sunlight is no longer a weakness, maybe he is a super vampire now.  A small detraction from this film is the overuse of the word "mustn't" which we don't hear now a days.   In fact, the last time I heard it was from Ariana Grande during that strange interview.  Overall, this film was shot really well, watch out for the gorgeous half black and white, half color shot when Harker is first attacked by Dracula, a great call back to the original. Also, Dracula has a creepy yet cool grandfather clock with skeletons and skulls that I really want.  Please get it for me. Anyway, I would recommend this film to anyone who is already familiar with the Dracula story so they can be taken away by the artistry of this film. I would even go as far to say that this film is superior to the original and should be watched before Murnau's classic by the uninitiated.  I really do want that clock though, check out a clip of it here.