The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

I'm not sure if this was just a lark, or if I really did like it! So, I guess I liked it! It's cool that they used the original for background, and it did have the feel of an old time film. The makeup and lighting are phenomenal! But the acting is bad, and I think it's supposed to be. Still, it's bad. The plot of the movie is trippy, and it feels odd the whole time, making it a spooky/silly viewing. Still, it unnerved me a bit, especially the Dr. calling for "Cesare" in such creepy ways. Weird as heck movie!

How can a film with Doug Jones be bad? Well, easily, but not due to Doug Jones. Though filling the shoes of Conrad Veidt is a tough thing to do!

There is nothing wrong with remaking a film if it is done right, but there are some flaws to this that just make it a weak reinterpretation. First, they seem to have the film set in the original time (1920s), but the actors are clearing modern men with their language and mannerisms.

The biggest problem is the attempt at German expressionism. They have the contrast, they have the odd shapes... but they just do not have the heart or soul of the movement. It is like painting a Van Gosh with paint-by-numbers. Sure, you can make it look similar, but you do not have the technique or passion behind it. The film would have been better off adapting the story to a modern setting than to pay homage to the original if they did not have the ability to pull it off.

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!

I saw it as beautiful hommage to original. The purpose - a trip in the universe of a classic, with good succes for atmosphere, buildings, the symbol of violet flower, the not bad acting, the fair craft of thrill.

Decent work, difficult to expect more than a form of respect for original, ignoring innovations temptation. Beautiful portrait of Francis . Sure, not the best dialogue when the model is one of the masterpieces of mute cinema but, with indulgence and passion for classics, a reasonable job. Sure, a Cesare reminding more Pierrot and the obsession of explanations, affecting, in unfair manner, the poetry of original. But pretty nice result and powerful image of little flower.

The sets, props, and lighting are all copies of the originals, but most of the performances make no attempt at expressionism, or any other kind of stylization. They sound like modern Americans reading a modern script, which of course they are and it is, although the script would allow for more imaginativeness. The result is discordant, and just seems silly. It leads me to wonder what a Johnny Depp would have done with any of these roles.