The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

The remake of "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" has all the poles holding it up. We have plenty of shadows, plenty of new camera angles, and more tension than the original masterpiece. Of course you are going to see some scenes which mirror the original. This just proves the love which went into the making of this soon to be classic. The most remarkable parts of this film are the reprisals of the original flick's backgrounds, and a fantastic series of performances, especially the new Caligari who is even more bad tempered and crazier than ever. The new film focuses even more on the sanity of the tortured Francis, who seems to be losing his grip with his own world as the film progresses. The actor who portrays the killer Caesare is eerily similar to the first film's sleepwalking stabber. The black and white flavoring really gives you the impression that this film might have been made in the late 30's than the new millennium. All in all, a terrific remake and a film no horror purist can resist.

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.

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.

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.

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.