With Robert Eggers remake coming out on Christmas the home video market is being flooded with reissues of the original FW Murnau classic with new music and tinting. Additionally, there have been a couple of other versions including one version that alters the original film via A.I. manipulation and this film which is essentially a shot for shot remake of the original film with actors speaking the lines.
I’m mixed on this film. The performances, including Doug Jones as Orlock, make this film actually worth trying. The actors are not phoning it in which makes it worth seeing.
The problem with the film is that the use of green screen for compositing makes it look unreal. While the use of composited images allows for the film to exactly mirror the original, it also results in images that are flat. There is no depth to any of the backgrounds. I suspect that this is the result of shooting in a confined space with no distance between the background and the actors. It feels stage bound. The result is a film that feels like it’s the wrong sort of cheap… which it really isn’t.
Let me restate that problems with the compositing aside this film is very good. I was shocked that so much of this film worked since a shot for shot remake of a silent film shouldn't work but it does.
Is this worth seeing?
If you can forgive its short comings, yes. Is it as good as the original? No, but the way the film was done raises some interesting issues about recreating films this way, as well as the strength and power of the original. Watching the film I understand why, beyond Max Shreck that the film has survived 102 years.
(ADDENDUM - a review of the remake from Robert Eggers will run closer to that films release on Christmas Day.)
No comments:
Post a Comment