Recensioni degli utenti

Directed by F. W. Murnau, in this film Count Oetsch (Lothar Mehnart) arrives uninvited to the castle of Lord von Vogelschrey (Arnold Korff) for a long weekend of hunting and socializing with a group of other high society types. Oetsch had been accused of murdering his brother, but was found not guilty. That dead brother's widow (Olga Tschechowa) has remarried, to the Baron Safferstatt (Paul Bildt), and the couple are also in attendance, making things awkward to say the least. The only thing keeping the Baroness from leaving is the imminent arrival of Father Faramund, a close friend and trusted spiritual adviser. Over the course of the weekend secrets are revealed and the guilty come to light.

My expectations were a bit high for this, based on the title and the director, and I was disappointed that this ended up not being a horror film at all. The acting is fairly typical, if at times overheated, and the story is a bit dull and drawn out, even with a brief ~70 minute running time. The castle set is nice, but there are none of the typical Murnau touches that make things stick in one's memory.

I knew going in this was not a horror film, in spite of the English title: while not uninteresting in itself, it emerges as a very minor Murnau. Little of the director's trademark stylistics are present here; the film does constitute an early use of flashback, as it slowly divulges the events behind a past crime for which the wrong man was accused – but the characters don't exactly set the screen on fire.

The Sinister Cinema edition I watched was a mere 56 minutes in length, as opposed to the restored 74-minute version of the film; not surprisingly, the choppy editing (full of phony-looking transitions and an equally pointless establishing shot of the castle used ad nauseam throughout) made the plot somewhat hard to follow – and the lack of detail in the print itself, not to mention the absence of an accompanying music score, didn't help matters either!

Even so, the film is worth watching for the unethical way the elderly hero goes about discovering the real identity of his brother's killer and for a couple of brief – if irrelevant – dream sequences, one expressionistic (and which can now be seen as a dry run for NOSFERATU [1922]) and the other surreal. Some years back, Image Entertainment had announced a DVD release of THE HAUNTED CASTLE but, for reasons known only to them, it was summarily cancelled and has yet to appear officially on any digital format.

"The Haunted Castle" is one of the lesser known and rather unpopular – judging by the other user comments – earliest accomplishments by the great visual artist F.W. Murnau ("Nosferatu", "Faust", "Der Januskopf"). Personally I fail to comprehend why it's so obscure and neglected, because I watched an ambitious and even convoluted whodunit/mystery thriller with eerily atmospheric set pieces, intriguing characters and a few nicely elaborated moments of suspense. Okay, first and foremost, the English title is misleading and even downright irrelevant. The titular caste isn't haunted or besieged by ghosts whatsoever. It's merely the gathering place of a selected clique of prominent aristocrats on the evening before they go fox-hunting. The cozy ambiance is disturbed when the uncanny Count Oetsch shows up at the castle uninvited. Oetsch is accused, especially by the widow, of murdering his own brother. His former sister-in-law arrives later at the party, together with her new husband, and tension rises among the group. The countess goes to confession with another guest, namely the honorable Father Faramünd from Rome. When he mysteriously vanishes as well, Count Oetsch is suddenly suspected of two murders, especially since he behaves so arrogantly and strange. "The Haunted Castle" certainly isn't the visually astounding and hypnotizing expressionist masterpiece that "Nosferatu" was. It's more of a straightforward thriller relying on plot instead of Gothic atmosphere and experimental choreography. This movie is, in fact, released one whole decade sooner than it should have been released. The script is overly "talkative" and contains more interruptions to display dialog and descriptions than any other silent movie from that era I have seen. And then still it seems as if Murnau needed more opportunities for text, as too many sequences show characters talking without their conversations being translated in writing. I really think that F.W. Murnau craved for sound technology here, more half a decade before it became possible, to let his characters express themselves and to generate the apt mood. Nevertheless, a more than interesting and warmly recommended piece of antique for cinema fanatics to check out.

Several people in a house come face to face with a murder mystery -- and one of them is guilty of the crime! This film has no familiar actors, and something of a misleading title (it is not a literal translation of the German). The phrase "haunted castle" clearly implies a horror film and not a detective story, but there is very little horror here.

Lothar Mehnert stars as Count Oetsch, and although I know absolutely nothing about him, I was very drawn to his performance. He has a striking look that I think makes for a good stage or screen presence. What else has he done? I do not know, but should seek it out.

The film is light on humor, though there is a sequence I will call "the kitchen boy dream" that I found funny. What is it implying? What does it mean? How does it connect to the big story? I have no idea.

The Kino DVD contains a book / film comparison and I would recommend this. It shows how radically different the film is in some ways from the book. While the essence is the same, I would almost have to say they are two different creatures altogether.

Afraid I found this a little stagey. I know it's very EARLY Murnau, and I wouldn't expect the flash and wallop of DER LASZT MANN, but without either expressionist stylisation or nifty camerawork, my attention wandered a bit......but I was brought back to full wakefullness by the appearance of what looks like Max Schreck's Graf Orlock from NOSFERATU - or at least his hand. A sinister taloned hand reaching through a window in a bizarre dream sequence, accompanied by a billowing curtain of the kind soon to cross the atlantic with Paul Leni for THE CAT AND THE CANARY and to appear, a few years later in James Whale's THE OLD DARK HOUSE. And I should add that the scary dream is followed by an equally freaky comedy dream set in the castle kitchen, where a scullery boy dreams of revenge for previous slights...Murnau's comedy relief is always kind of peculiar.

Worth seeing for the dreams!

One character has a dream of a ghoulish hand abducting him, but otherwise, the gobs of eye makeup on the actors, typical then, is as haunting as this film, "The Haunted Castle" (which isn't a literal translation, anyhow), gets. It's more of a mystery picture--a whodunit, fundamentally.

This is an early offering in F.W. Murnau's film-making career, and none of the brilliance of his later films ("Nosferatu", "The Last Laugh", "Faust", "Sunrise") is evident here. "The Haunted Castle" is prosaically filmed, despite the assistance of two competent cinematographers, László Schäffer ("Berlin: Symphony of a Great City") and Fritz Arno Wagner ("Nosferatu" and several of Fritz Lang and G.W. Pabst's films). Additionally, Hermann Warm ("Caligari") was the production designer. The castle interiors are rather rich, at least. But, the miniature used for the exterior views of the castle, as a transition effect, is overused and ineffective. I don't care for the iris openings and closings, either; they're usually too obtrusive for transition editing.

Anyhow, there were some surprises in the plot for me, but that didn't make it worthwhile. Despite having another giant of Weimar cinema, Carl Mayer ("Caligari", "The Last Laugh"), as one of the screenwriters, the plot is slow-paced and never evolves to anything higher than a whodunit--and not even a good one at that. The acting is too obvious and overdone, as well. The talent involved did much better work elsewhere.

The movie may not appear to contain the trademark Expressionistic markings of one of cinema's most influential directors, traits he would be famous for in his future films. But April 1921's "The Haunted Castle" shows wisps of F. W. Murnau's comfort level behind the camera by unfolding a dark mystery murder inside a foreboding mansion.

Born Friedrich Wilhelm Plumpe, the young man who had passion towards film changed his last name to the town he had lived in, Murnau am Staffelsee, Germany. Before he served as a German air pilot during World War One, Murnau was a student of stage director Max Reinhardt, who was a master of naturalistic settings. Reinhardt had introduced new techniques on theater lighting, set designs, and elongated continuity, all of which Murnau eventually transported into his films.

Murnau, once he was comfortable in handling cinematic structure, branched out to revolutionized film aesthetics. The director played an important role in the Expressionistic Movement in which horror, film noir and thrillers all draw a portion of their pictorial look on Murnau's works. Despite "The Haunted Castle" not literally being a horror film, there exists an air of mystery in the recent death of the brother of a hunting party's member gathering at the mansion. The plot thickens when the widow of the diseased shows up at the castle with a new husband. Accusations fly thick as arrows as to who killed the brother, with Murnau heightening the suspense when a man of faith enters the picture.

Was actually on first glance really intrigued by the title, before realising when and after watching the film that the title was misleading and had nothing to do with the film pretty much. My biggest reason for wanting to see 'The Haunted Castle' was FW Murnau. If you are intrigued by early cinema and are interested in getting into silent films and love films that look great, have interesting themes and great atmosphere, Murnau is a very appropriate place to start as his work is full of it.

To me though, don't make 'The Haunted Castle' your first exposure to him. While not a terrible film by all means, it may make one wondering what the fuss with Murnau is and not be too desperate to see more of his films. If so that would be a shame, because he did a lot of fantastic films since and as indicated above was a major talent. 'The Haunted Castle' is not a great or fair representation of him, nice enough for historical, curiosity and completest interests but not an awful lot more. Am not trying to be snobbish here or trying to upset anybody, it's just my thoughts.

It's not a bad looking film, though not one of Murnau's best or most interesting looking films. It is very atmospherically photographed which makes the most of the eerie lighting and extravagant set designs. The last quarter of the film is quite good and where the story finally comes to life, did find it entertaining and quite suspenseful.

Murnau's direction does show flashes of brilliance though not distinctive or distinguished enough. The dream sequences are wonderfully surreal especially with the scullery boy, which was also quite amusing. The way the main character goes about finding out the truth was interesting to watch. Although the acting was not impressive to me, Lothar Mehnert did a good job and had a powerful presence.

Despite a good last quarter, it is a shame that it takes a long time to get there. Although the running time is not long, the story for 'The Haunted Castle' felt like a short stretched out. It takes too long to get going and a vast majority of the film is very sluggish, which makes one finding it difficult to invest in a mystery that was already quite mundane and not very atmospheric.

Furthermore, 'The Haunted Castle' did feel talk-heavy, those verbose and too long intertitles slow the film down and didn't strike me as necessary, and felt too much of a filmed stage play. Am really trying to judge this as a product of the time and not compare it to now, but it's hard not to. Mehnert aside, the acting is both overdone and mannered and that is even for 1921. Have actually seen silent films from before 1921 that had a lot more subtle acting, so sorry for me calling this kind of acting as that of the time is not an excuse. Olga Tschechowa's mannerisms in particular grate.

Overall, worth a one-time look but Murnau is far from at his best here. 5/10

This very personal movie from Murnau sets the precedent for the author´s most notorious movie: Nosferatu the vampire.

Murnau demonstrates his superb command of the camera and the illumination while setting the bases of the expressionism.

The suspense distilled in Haunted Castle is well worth a Hitchcock´s movie and the plot is surprisingly complex for a silent.

Do make sure that you see it in a winter stormy night

This was a movie that I'll be honest, I never heard of until I was looking through Letterboxd for horror movies that were released in 1921 for my Centennial Club episodes on Journey with a Cinephile: A Horror Movie Podcast. What is interesting here is that I recognized the name of the director: F.W. Muranu from Nosferatu and the writer was Carl Mayer, another one that I feel I've seen movies from him. The synopsis here is in the castle Vogeloed, a few aristocrats are awaiting Baroness Safferstätt (Olga Tschechowa). But first, Count Oetsch (Lothar Mehnert) invites himself. He is believed to have murdered his brother and the baroness' husband, but he is there to prove he isn't the murderer.

For this movie, it is pretty much solely taking place in the castle Vogeloed. Schlossherr von Veogelschrey (Arnold Korff) along with his wife of Centa (Lulu Kyser-Korff) are having people over for a hunt. The problem though becomes the weather is not allowing them to go. The people are all staying inside, hoping it will clear. Things get awkward though when Graf Johann Oetsch arrives. This creates a buzz as his former sister-in-law; Baronin Safferstätt is coming soon with her new husband of Baron Safferstätt (Paul Bildt). The scandal here is that the gossip claims Count Oetsch murdered his brother. Von Vogelschrey informs him who is coming and the count declines to leave, determined to prove he isn't the killer.

When the Baronin and her husband arrive, she is quite upset to learn that Count Oetsch is there. The only solace she finds is that his other brother and her former brother-in-law of Der Pater Faramund (Victor Bluetner) is coming up from Rome. He is a priest there and none of them have seen him in some time.

The following day the weather clears briefly, allowing all of the men besides the count to go for a hunt. It is cut short when it rains again and this is when Count Oetsch leaves. In his absence, Pater arrives. He seeks out his former sister-in-law to talk to her about what happened to her former husband, Graf Peter Paul (Paul Hartmann) The house gets quite nervous though when he locks himself in his room and doesn't answer when they call on him. It is even more shocking to what they find when they open the room. With his disappearance and the return of Count Oetsch, can they get to the bottom of what is happening here and to Pater Oetsch?

That is where I'm going to leave my recap and shift over to actually breaking this down. The first thing I noticed before watching this was some people questioning if this movie was really horror or not. Regardless, I was still going to watch this movie and what I will say, it is interesting that this is considered horror. It does have fewer elements than some movies that are questionable today. What I think really drives this is that it takes place in this large castle that is spooky. Der Faramund disappears and then there is also this murder mystery that we're trying to get to the bottom of, even though the murder happened some time ago. It is from really a different time as well.

Where I want to go next would be the character of Count Oetsch. This movie really does a good job at establishing that no one likes him. When it is revealed that he is going to be there, the gossip starts. This works for us to be filled in what they think about him and back-story. We know that his former sister-in-law believes him to be the murderer. He is portrayed to be a jerk in the beginning. No one wants him there, yet he is going to make their lives hell by staying. In his defense though, his name has been drug through the mud without really any evidence aside from he was accused and has the best motive. With how things play out, this is really in the vein of what would become known to be Hitchockian. It is based off a serial novel which also makes sense there as well.

Next I think I want to go to next is the setting. As I was alluding to as to why to put this movie in the horror genre, it would be mostly for the atmosphere. We get that gothic vibe in this castle. It is interesting this movie is from Germany, but it isn't leaning into the German Expressionism that was really popular at this time. It is much more grounded in reality. When Faramund disappears, it makes it creepy. There could be some logical explanations to what happened here, but that doesn't change the fact. There is also a subplot that Count Oetsch has studied the way of the prophecy from India and he predicts that there will be a shot fired for the hunt. He then gets cryptic that more could be more than one as well. This along with the story is what did hold my interest.

I do hate to say this though; I did find the movie to be a bit boring. A big part of this I'm assuming is that we are in early cinema. This being one of the earlier murder mysteries, they don't have to be as different or build the stories in other ways. There is an interesting twist to this that I'll be honest, I didn't see coming. It worked for me and does help me get excited for that final act. I did lose interest for a stretch before that.

What I did think worked though was the acting. Something else interesting here is that we aren't getting as over the top performances as you would expect here. Arnold Korff felt like this host that wants everyone to have a good time and is stressed with the guests that weren't invited showing up. Kyser-Korff, who I'm assuming was Arnold's wife in real life, was solid especially with trying to calm down the Baronin. Mehnert is good as this guest who is constantly trying to defend himself. I would be as mean as he is if I had to I'm sure, which he does well in conveying. Bildt is fine as this quiet guy that I didn't trust from the start. He really seems to be there for his wife. Tschechowa was good as the one who is upset with Count Oetsch being there. It hurts her for him being there for what she believes to be the truth. I also like Bluethner and the rest of the cast to round this out for what was needed.

Then that will take me to the cinematography since being early cinema, we don't get much in the way of effects. We have a lot of static shots, which is fine for the technology. I do like that we get some close-ups of characters that really help to frame them in different ways. The iris effect is used here as well. I think this works for what they needed in order to build who the characters it is used on and focus on their emotions. I did want to comment on this great long shot that is showing multiple levels of the castle by framing the staircase. This works especially since Faramund's room is on the lower level with the baronin's room on the upper level.

The last thing then would be the soundtrack. It is hard for these as I don't necessarily know if what we're hearing matches up to what was originally conceived. The version I saw had this great piano soundtrack done by Neil Brandt. Jaime was in the room reading for a bit and she said the music was good, but it made her anxious. I have to agree there. This is actually one of the stronger parts of this version was how well it fit for me.

In conclusion here, I did like some elements to this silent film. I think that the story is really interesting and that the acting helps bring it to life. The setting of the movie is good and the atmosphere is built from it along with the soundtrack that is synced up to it. I did find it slightly boring and I think that is probably due to early cinema along with being one of the first murder mysteries. Still worth a viewing to see some of the works from the great Murnau in my opinion, but being a silent film that is 100 years old, there are some flaws still. I'd consider this to be an above average movie.

Despite its title. This movie is not about anything being haunted. There is a dream sequence which has about the only thing closely related to its title.. As far as being a horror movie. Well, all I can say is the film has a atmospheric and psychological approach which by it's time era would be considered horror. OF course, films during this time were labeled "SPOOK TALES". So, unless your looking for the usual horror conventions, you might be a little disappointed. THE movie itself is above average. Interesting enough plot, good acting, and a neat little twist at the end.

This is Murnau's 1921 silent horror-mystery in it's full glory. At 5 acts (of varying length) with all the intertitles included, this cut was found intact in a South American archive, and restored by a couple German groups, who re-released it in 2002 with a modern soundtrack.

It tells the story of a wealthy family who are hosting a gathering at their castle home on the evening before their annual hunt. A man named Count Oestch has crashed the party, despite the host attempting to stop him. It is believed that he had murdered his own brother in cold blood, so that he alone could inherit their family fortune. And he refuses to leave, despite the fact that he is well aware the widow of his brother will soon be coming. Though incredibly disturbed by this revelation, the lady of the house does manage to convince the re-married widower to stay- seeing as a Priest from Rome, whom is a relative of her deceased husband, will be rolling in the following night.

The next morning starts out as a beautiful day, and the group heads out on the hunt. But their fun is interrupted by a terrible storm, and they are driven back inside, where they wait for the Father to show up. All except for Oestch, of course, who heads out into the storm to go hunting by himself. The widower takes this oppourtunity to turn to the Father for comfort, as she feels he is the only one who understands her situation.

She recounts her experiences to him in flashbacks. How they fell in love. How she discovered him to be a humble man who wasn't attached to the same aristocratic lifestyle as she was. How this led her to take on a secret lover who would later become her husband. How he wanted to philanthropically donate the family fortune...putting him at odds with his brother. And perhaps how she was privy he was to be murdered? The Father retires to ponder over what has just been revealed to him; while the rest of the group sit down for a great feast, during which they will celebrate and revel about the hunt. Her husband insists he must talk to the Father, though. However, when he tries to call on him, he gets no reply...and they can't get into his room. Now everyone is worried. Where has he gone? When they do, eventually, get into the room...it's empty. Now, not only are they all worried...but they are becoming paranoid as well- barricading their doors and sleeping with their weapons. Although, they can't hide from their nightmares....

The next day, many of their visitors awaken ready to leave...terrified. Those who remain have noticed that the widower has become very silent since the disappearance of the Father. They confront Count Oestch about the rumours relating to his past- thinking he may have something to do with Father's disappearance- but he just laughs it off. A second attempt illicits a more aggressive response, which culminates with the widower's husband being, himself, accused of murder. Was the Count being framed this whole time? This seems to be the case, and (as was foreshadowed earlier) it seems that his wife and her new husband were actually the ones responsible for plotting his death. They can no longer hide their guilt. But in a final attempt to save face, the wife of the deceased fingers the Count as the certain killer.

The rest of group is trying to figure out what to do...when the Father suddenly returns- immediately confronting the widower. She has a plan, though: to confess to the Priest- so that she can get it off her chest in a way that it will remain confidential. She claims that she had become possessed by evil and became obsessed with witnessing a murder. After telling this to her secret lover (her new husband), she continues, he mistakenly took this literally, and acted on it by going out and brazenly murdering him. She persists with the suggestion that he later confessed this to her, and it was only then that she had become aware of this and overcome by guilt. She even goes as far as saying that they only kept quiet about the whole ordeal because the Count escaped conviction; and married only because they were both bound by guilt. But the Father does not seem to be buying it... Inevitably, she admits everything, but demands the Father remain silent. Unfortunately for her...the tricks on them- as there is a clever twist which results in the fulfilment of an earlier prophecy foretold by the Count.

As you may have noticed, each of the above paragraphs corresponds to an act. This is definitely not one of Murnau's best films, but it is a clever little mystery, with a slight horror angle. It starts off slowly, and takes a while to get going, but the end has a nice pace to it. It's very Hollywood, as opposed to cinematic (if you know what I mean), which is a shame. But at least there were some flashbacks and dream sequences thrown in there.

5.5 out of 10.

In this film, a man shows up. He is accused, though never convicted of the murder of a man. The man's widow comes on the scene and is torn apart with distress. There is all kinds of endless gnashing of teeth. One man is so afraid that he leaves after an anxiety attack. There is no haunting and there is no castle, just lots of nondescript characters sitting around worrying. The final part of the film is reasonably entertaining, as a priest comes on the scene. This is probably Murnau experimenting with cinema. Had he put out another movie like this one, there may not have been any more. Most of the dialogue is presented in boxes that seem to lack any soul at all.

I'm not going to give away any of the plot in this review, it's worth simply watching the film and going with it.

However, I did want to address a couple of things in previous reviews.

Firstly there is a review from MARIO GAUCI that isn't exactly complementary. The thing is, the reviewer clearly saw a very inferior print of the movie, likely missing almost 30 minute3s of footage.

Like all movies, you really ought to give the benefit of the doubt to movies that you're seeing in 16mm reductions prints with a third of the film (which, true, at the time the other DVD of this came out, was considered "lost") missing. If you're into silent film, then don't go the cheapo route - spend the money on good restorations, it really pays dividends.

Secondly there is mention of the acting here being "stagey". This is a comment I see often, but i never truly understand it. This was made in 1921! If you're watching a piece of early cinema you can't expect the realism that we see on the screen today. Not only did the rules of cinema not exist at the time these films were made, but the technology available at the tie didn't allow for it. The call this film "stagey" is, if you don't mind me saying, rather ignorant. What did you expect? Instead, approach this for what it is. It is an early mystery film. There are some good performances, but I mostly enjoyed the shots of the rain drenched roads and fields. The dream sequences do a good job of balancing fear and comedy, and while the plot is rather transparent to modern minds, if you can set aside your critique and just allow the film to wash over you, it really works quite well.

Haunted Castle, The (1921)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

An "old dark house" film from director F.W. Murnau about a group of people staying in an (what else?) old dark house. One night the house's owner turns up missing and later in the night his son, who was accused of killing his own brother, shows up. I read somewhere that this is the earliest surviving work from director Murnau but this here doesn't show any of his wonderful visual style that would kick into high gear the following year with Nosferatu. The film, running just under an hour, takes way too time introducing us to the characters and the actual mystery doesn't start until the very end of the movie. There really isn't any visual style either. There's one character that looks like the Karloff character in Whale's The Old Dark House, which makes you think Whale saw this film (especially since the character here leads to a good twist in the story). Another interesting aspect is a scene that uses the hands of Nosferatu to a similar effect that would be seen in the next year's Nosferatu. I had to view an overly dark, 16mm print without a music score.

Nothing all that special in my opinion... just another typical whodunit of the 1920s that lasted until the most of the 1940s. If you are looking for a 'ghost/haunted house' film then you will need to look elsewhere. If you want a murder mystery then you may like this film.

2/10

Nowhere near as good or striking as Nosferatu or Sunrise, it's still a pretty intriguing silent film with a plot and a few moments that did surprise me. It's pretty clear right away that things aren't what they seem, but a creepy performance by the actor who plays the Count helps fuel suspicion in both the characters and the audience. Similarly, the actress playing the Baroness is mysterious and "haunted" enough to let us know that there is more under the surface, but not revealing totally what it is. The scene in which she confesses that she "wanted to see something evil" is genuinely disturbing, in a way that only a silent film can be. Smartly Murneau didn't (or couldn't) depict the actual murder, leaving it up to us to imagine it. But based on the performances of those involved, you gather that it must have been rather grisly.

Not exactly a horror film, but an interesting interpretation of a very generic title that could have been about anything. Definitely kept my attention.