CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

steven_mbenga As a huge fan of the original—which I have seen more than a dozen times—I greeted Fisher's remake with great enthusiasm. I too attended the screening and Q & A at Two Boots Pioneer Theater, and came away with a deep impression of a director obsessed with this extraordinary and legendary film. While the dialogue at times seems insipid, it is precisely the American diction and its quirkiness that gives meaning to this silent film re-shot on the green screen, who breathe new life into the two-dimensional expressionist sets that wildly zig and zag. Precisely because it seems so utterly improbably to hear a bunch of tongue-twisted Americans speak the rephrased German silent titles does Fisher achieve success. I relished this fresh new- millennium perspective of the world of a madman seen in various contexts ranging from the insane asylum to the carnival with hurdy gurdy player. And in re-reading theorists such as Lotte Eisner and Siegfried Kracauer, it makes all the more sense that Americans are reprising these Weimar-era roles. Recall Decla's original release "You must become Caligari" posters of 1920; that's precisely what Daamen Kraal so vividly achieves.

joshtanner First and foremost i love the original to bits, it was the first silent film i ever watched so you can imagine a feature length movie without dialogue was pretty strange to watch for me then.So what does a version with talking bring? Not really much at all. I was pretty pumped for this, the trailer didn't look all too bad and at first I was excited to hear that they were using the background from the original 35mm print.The backgrounds are composited pretty badly in a lot of scenes, especially my favorite shot of Cesare creeping along the wall, which Is a disaster and he doesn't look like he's touching the wall at all! (They should have built this set!) Doug Jones is a pretty good actor, but he doesn't even touch Veidts performance. He's just simply not scary, the terrifying shot where Cesare opens his eyes for the first time in the original film was severed here.The dialogue is really bad in a lot of places, sure its interesting to see it with dialogue if only for a minute, but comon! Overall id say average, it has a lot of faults but it also is pretty OK in some spots, the new shots are pretty cool. David Lee Fischer obviously didn't love this film enough to leave it THE HELL ALONE!

Adam_P_L First of all, I'd like to state unequivocally that I have nothing against remakes. Many people seem to feel that great films are "untouchable," and any attempt to remake them is tantamount to sacrilege. I don't feel this way at all. A remake can be nearly shot-by-shot (like Gus Van Sant's Psycho) or have a very different story (like Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead), and still--I think--stand on its own merits, be enjoyable if it is well-made, and do nothing to diminish the existence of the original. That said, David Lee Fisher's remake of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is a very, very bad film. The dialogue is poorly written, the acting is amateurish, and the superimposing of actors over scenes from the original film is not well executed. I was really interested to see this film based on the premise--original scenes from the silent version were rendered by computer, allowing modern actors to move across the old silent film scenery, along with dialogue and music--but the final product is painful to watch. Even though a lot of effort clearly went into making this film, the actors simply do not meld with the background most of the time. The famous scene where Cesare slides along a long white wall now looks silly, because it's clear that he's not touching it, and the digital shadows that have been created simply do not look natural. Another problem is the dialogue. It adds nothing new to the film, except to make slightly more explicit things that were fairly obvious in the original. I saw this film in New York (at Two Boots Pioneer Theatre), and the screening was followed by a Q & A session with the director. He admitted that he's never been able to watch the original film at regular speed in his DVD player, and he always fast-forwards through it because he finds it "slow moving," and figured he could improve on it. I believed him when he said that he's never been able to sit through the original at regular speed, since he also seemed confused about some very basic plot points and themes of the original. I think to remake a film, you should actually have seen it a few times, and have something new or interesting to offer. Anyway, the only positive thing I can say about this film is that the actor who plays Dr. Caligari (Daamen Kraal) was pretty good in his role, and Doug Jones makes an effective Cesare. Unfortunately, everyone else involved in making the film (especially the director) left a lot to be desired.

gsanders-4 Great fun to see this old film re-worked. Daamen Krall as Dr. Caligary is excellent. He's creepy, manipulative and sensitive, all at once. By sensitive, I mean you can see his wheels turn. He's a very, very interesting actor, and matched the stylization of this film. Mr. Krall's turn around at the end is also very well executed. The director took on a great task re-working this film, and for the most part, he succeeds. The technical blending of the old and new is nearly imperceptible. However, at times, the dialogue and acting of some of the second leads takes on a very 21st Century twist, which throws off the "feel" of the film. Neil Hopkins is very handsome, and I like to see more of him (in other things), but he was guilty of throwing off this film with his contemporary style.