a_chinn German expressionist vampire picture is not as great as Murnau's "Nosferatu," but it is far more surreal, atmospheric, and creepy. This was director Carl Theodor Dreyer's first talkie and is for the most part a silent film with a few moments of dialogue. Dryer still primarily uses title cards to and visuals to tell his story of a man who discovering a vampire is stalking a small town. The plot is rather thin, but in terms of style, the film is a visual feast. Some of the film surrealness includes unsettling reverse film shots, shadows not corresponding to their corporeal bodies, frightening dream sequences, astral projections, POV shots from a dead man, strange looking actors talking directly to the camera (ALA David Lynch), and many many more. The film's undoing is heavy handed symbolism and the lack of a strong plot, but I'm not sure that was really the focus of the filmmakers. Photographed by Rudolph Maté, this is a must see for fans of German expressionism.

willcundallreview Ah films about Vampires, you either get your blood thirsty crazy looking vampires or your calculated vampires whose thirst for blood is much more creepy than scary. Vampyr the film from Carl Th. Dreyer is really the creepy kind with its weird looking sets, surreal events and just characters whose emotions are conveyed through body language much more than by words. Dreyer somehow manages to get that dark underlying feeling all successful horror movies must have but in my opinion does not create any kind of masterpiece here, good, but not as perfect for me as some say this is. The story revolves a young man who is introduced to the world of vampires and the supernatural, as the plot moves on we see more about what they are and what they can do.Dreyer uses a cast not very well known if not in some cases at all and puts Nicolas de Gunzburg in the lead role as Allan Gray the young man whose fascination with the supernatural takes him to a small inn in the village of Courtempierre. For me the best character is the village doctor played by Jan Hieronimko who was found on a Paris metro train of all places and cast into the film among many other amateurs. I feel that Hieronimko's performance is similar to others in this too, I mean the acting here is not exactly great, don't get me wrong it's not bad at all but sometimes they just move around a little sluggishly, reactions are sometimes over the top. Dreyer knows though how to use his actors well though, even if they aren't too believable, he does this in a spooky way and although they move around just a little strangely, at times that strange movement can be kind of freaky and used to nice effect.Dreyer co-writes the film with Christen Jul and the script but in more specifics the dialogue is very well, not much there, but that is one reason this movie works so well. At such a short running time that this film is you can't be adding too much small talk, in fact this film dives into the plot very quickly indeed and it works well because it makes this so much more interesting, straight away you are hooked in on the story and that makes this at least very watchable. The film was not exactly met with positivity when it was first released and was considered a low point in Dreyer's career, the thing about this film though is that although I feel this is a little too clunky to be anything better than good, it is still well as I said, good, a must see for any fan of cinema or horror.Vampyr is not the best horror film but it is as I can see considered a classic among it so I can't finish this review without recommending it. It won't make you jump, in fact it won't probably make you feel scared at all but that I feel is not what Dreyer is trying to convey, it is the surrealism of it that he tries to make you see and tells a story that is highly original and a very smart yet weird story. All the characters Dreyer creates are well done and although I mentioned the acting before it is fair to say they all do a pretty decent job at least all together as a cast. Oh and one more thing and this is pretty important really, the camera angles, Dreyer works extremely well with Rudolph Mate and they create a film that looks not just creepy, but also looks extremely surreal as well.

roddekker To be totally honest - I didn't exactly hate 1932's "Vampyr" - But, with that said, it was definitely the sort of vampire movie that actually made the likes of 1972's "Blacula" look almost Oscar-worthy by comparison.This was certainly one of those dismal horror pictures that was just too wacky and nonsensical to be taken seriously. But, due to it being a German production, the viewer was actually expected to sit there awestruck, believing that what they were viewing was, indeed, superior film-making.Unfortunately, there just wasn't enough happening (action, drama, interesting situations) in Vampyr's story to hold this viewer's attention for more than just a few brief moments at a time.Vampyr's weak storyline, literally, has its main character running around (all bug-eyed) in an old, country inn, encountering one forgettable character after another until the whole situation turns into a somewhat blurred (and decidedly silly) nightmare.

LeonLouisRicci A movie with no where near the sophistication of the Director's Passion of Joan of Arc (1928), this one seems almost a side-effort with little scope. It is though he could have made this with his eyes shut. Maybe that is where the dreamlike quality came from.A partially successful film that suffers from a reticent to be really powerful. The imagery is surreal, but surprisingly slim and the claustrophobic sets and cramming the frame for effect wears thin after a while. When it does cut to an expansive shot it is a relief. If that be the desired effect it is only partially successful.The playful, yet ominous shadow work is impressive and some of the camera tricks are nice but can't make the experience more than a glancing effort when it should have been an absorbing and frightening experience. The movie just seems that it is dying to be let out of its coffin-like restraint. A minimalist effort that succeeds in that respect, but one can not but sense that there was more there than meets the eye and that leaves the viewer with a hunger. So for that, it just feels like an appetizer before a feast that is never served.