When the annual fair comes to town, murder, madness and mayhem creep in its shadows. Dr. Caligari, a mysterious hypnotist, appears to control every move of his bizarre, clairvoyant sleepwalk... Read allWhen the annual fair comes to town, murder, madness and mayhem creep in its shadows. Dr. Caligari, a mysterious hypnotist, appears to control every move of his bizarre, clairvoyant sleepwalker, but does he?When the annual fair comes to town, murder, madness and mayhem creep in its shadows. Dr. Caligari, a mysterious hypnotist, appears to control every move of his bizarre, clairvoyant sleepwalker, but does he?
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 4 wins total
Frank Bettag
- Organ Grinder
- (as Dr. Frank Bettag)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
5.6847
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Featured reviews
Pale Comparison of the Original
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.
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.
It works for many viewers, not all
I will call attention to the extremely divided reactions. And I think that this is because a lot of people reasonably and rightfully can't get into this talking version. The characters speak like video game characters. There's also an erratic and unpredictable tone in the conversations, with a lot of what seem like full notes and irrational responses.
I like the way the shots are set up. Different focal lengths, random changes in the height of the camera, lots of extreme close-ups. I also like the way that the scenes kind of drag on. It's very theatrical.
My advice would be to click off if you find yourself hating it. It's working for me.
I like the way the shots are set up. Different focal lengths, random changes in the height of the camera, lots of extreme close-ups. I also like the way that the scenes kind of drag on. It's very theatrical.
My advice would be to click off if you find yourself hating it. It's working for me.
Black Eyeliner Galore!
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!
fascinating and insightful remake
As a huge fan of the originalwhich I have seen more than a dozen timesI 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.
Conrad Veidt wouldn't be pleased.
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!
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!
Did you know
- TriviaShot entirely on green screen. Some exact shots from the original The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) were superimposed to properly replicate the original.
- ConnectionsEdited from The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
- How long is The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Кабінет доктора Каліґарі
- Filming locations
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime
- 1h 16m(76 min)
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content


