Genesplicer

Since I love the works of Charles Dickens, especially "A Christmas Carol", I decided to tune in and watch this latest version of his masterpiece. I can't even finish it. It's a musical. A poorly done musical. The songs are unbelievably poor. The acting is bad. And sadly, probably the worst part for a purist such as myself is the fact that they have added characters and scenes not in the story. Why? The story is great the way it is, why change it?

I was saddened to see how poor this production is. There are many, many good productions. Check out the others.

Go watch Patrick Stewart's version, on stage, if possible.

Or read the book and use your own imagination. Don't waste your time on this one.

This film, while not a "battleship Potemkin", is not a truly rotten film, as many seem to think. It is merely average, as so many other low budget monster flicks of the 50's and 60's were. It is not so much bad as undistinguished. The pink-faced hero does nothing to make himself memorable. Richard Kiel, while great in the role, is limited to being tall... Not a great character. He did his best with what was given. My final analysis. It's not terrible, merely forgettable. If you want bad, check out "The Apple". That was bad...

A vampire is obsessed with blood. A method actor with the role. A director with the film.

Who is the most obsessed? This film attempts to answer this question. In order to fully appreciate this film you must have some knowledge of the original film "Nosferatu", how films are made, and how attached directors can be to their "Vision". If you have this, you will love this film. If not, the film might not make sense. Half the audience in the showing I saw walked out. Granted, they were teens who probably accidentally thought this was something like "Dracula 2000", which was showing in the next auditorium.

Watch "Nosferatu", then watch "Shadow of the Vampire". Enjoy.