"Nadja" falls into a category of films I would describe as 'vampire movies for adults.' Viewers seeking an action-packed gorefest along the lines of "From Dusk Till Dawn" (1996) or "Blade II" (2002) should bypass "Nadja". Moody, opiated, and dreamily ethereal, it is similar in this respect to Guy Maddin's more recent "Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary" (2002) and not most other modern vampire flicks. Its emphasis on the emotional and evocative rather than physical aspects of the genre puts it in the company of Tony Scott's "The Hunger" (1983) and Po-Chih Leong's "Immortality" (aka "The Wisdom of Crocodiles") (1998). Shot on black-and-white film, a dying art form, with a good musical score by Portishead, it avoids sinking into pretentiousness with occasional, self-parodying irony (example: "He says he's dying ... for a cigarette."). A major drawback to the film is director Michael Almereyda's overuse of the Pixelvision camera, a technology he has used in the past and should have left there. The acting is spotty, but that's of little importance in a film emphasizing atmosphere over character portrayal. Elina Lowensohn in the title role and Peter Fonda as Dr. Van Helsing (played as he has never been played before) do stand out from the rest of the cast. I'd rate this as 'must see' for aficionados of vampire films, if only to take a break from the less imaginative schlock that overwhelms the genre. Rating: 7/10.
51 Reviews
Grew on me the 2nd time around
runamokprods14 August 2016
I liked this very odd, surreal and somewhat camp vampire film much better on 2nd viewing, when I was prepared for its David Lynch like lack of naturalism, strange rhythms and odd blend of silly humor and almost melodramatic drama. (It's not surprising that Lynch executive produced this, and appears briefly in the film).
The black and white, stylized photography, the music, and parts of the dialogue are terrific; original and compelling. And setting a modern vampire tale in the nightlife of young hip 90s Manhattan yields some very interesting results. But at other times it can't seem to make up it's mind about what ratio of camp to reality it wants to be.
In the end, it's not as strong as its recent spiritual offspring: "A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night", but it's still worth seeing -- as is any work from the always inventive, ahead of the curve Michael Almereyda.
The black and white, stylized photography, the music, and parts of the dialogue are terrific; original and compelling. And setting a modern vampire tale in the nightlife of young hip 90s Manhattan yields some very interesting results. But at other times it can't seem to make up it's mind about what ratio of camp to reality it wants to be.
In the end, it's not as strong as its recent spiritual offspring: "A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night", but it's still worth seeing -- as is any work from the always inventive, ahead of the curve Michael Almereyda.
Atmospheric and moody independent vampire movie...
dwpollar6 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
1st watched 10/2/2011 -- 7 out of 10(Dir-Michael Almereyda): Atmospheric and moody independent vampire movie that does a lot of different things with camera techniques and shading that makes for a unique experience for the viewer. The movie is basically about the siblings of a formidable and well-known vampire that is un-named, but is obviously referring to Count Dracula -- adding the special famous shot of Bela Lugosi in the role for one brief moment. The female sibling is mourning her father's death, who was killed by a vampire hunter -- played by Peter Fonda in a very quirky role. Nadja(the daughter) is the main focus of the movie and is displayed as weak and misunderstood initially, but as the movie goes forward her evil is revealed. She becomes obsessed with a young wife, who is discontent with her husband and her life -- she goes home with her after a visit at a bar, and then puts her into a zombie-like state after having sex with her. The husband and wife then get the help of the vampire killer and the twin brother, as they try to put away Nadja. The twin brother's nurse(whom he is in love with) is taken hostage by Nadja -- giving him a reason to take his sister out. Despite the horror movie storyline, this is really more a quirky vampire drama than a scary movie. Fonda is given some really strange dialogue that I believe was added to give the movie some humor, but it's very tongue-in-cheek. There is also some very corny dialogue, but the unique feel of the movie lets you forgive them because you're glued to the screen trying to figure out what direction the movie is going next. Overall, this is a very unique and sometimes sexy movie that shouldn't be missed.
Subtle, noir-esque reworking of the Dracula theme
davidcnel7 January 2003
A striking departure from the Wes Craven/Tarantino vampire treatment of vampirism of late, Almereyda's artful black and white piece gives us intimate psychological portraits of the count's wayward son and daughter, and their sexual exploits - specifically as they involve a married couple whose terminal ennui is exploded by the entrance of Nadja - dracula's twin daughter, who falls in love with Galaxy Craze's (am I the only one who finds this name a little disturbing, and slightly reminiscent of porn-names)character and abducts her to Transylvania.
Peter Fonda does a brilliantly and comically paranoid Van Helsing and Dracula himself. David Lynch, whose wife Mary Sweeney produced the film, has a cameo and much of the film's heady cutting and profusion of cigarette-smoke seems to echo Lynch's work - definitely qualifies for an amazon.com-style "Customers who bought "Blue Velvet" also bought "Nadja".
Criticisms would include a slight over-reliance on fairly blatant visual puns (Martin Donovan's character is asked "can you picture that" and responds "yes, I can picture that" to visual accompaniment, and this device is repeated), and perhaps gratuitous use of smoke machine technology, but on the whole a fresh, artful evocation of one of the more encrusted thematic territories in film.
Peter Fonda does a brilliantly and comically paranoid Van Helsing and Dracula himself. David Lynch, whose wife Mary Sweeney produced the film, has a cameo and much of the film's heady cutting and profusion of cigarette-smoke seems to echo Lynch's work - definitely qualifies for an amazon.com-style "Customers who bought "Blue Velvet" also bought "Nadja".
Criticisms would include a slight over-reliance on fairly blatant visual puns (Martin Donovan's character is asked "can you picture that" and responds "yes, I can picture that" to visual accompaniment, and this device is repeated), and perhaps gratuitous use of smoke machine technology, but on the whole a fresh, artful evocation of one of the more encrusted thematic territories in film.
A good watch mostly.
Boba_Fett113814 November 2011
Seems that yet again this movie is a case of you'll either love it or hate it. It's a movie that takes a more unusual and artistic approach to its story, which makes this clearly not a movie for just everyone.
As it often turns out, I don't mind movies taking a bit of a more artistic and unusual approach to its story. It often makes the movie a very compelling watch, even when you don't really fully understand what is going on.
But as far as somewhat more artistic movies go, this movie is mostly perfectly understandable and easy to follow, since it might be somewhat pretentious with its style at times, it isn't with its story luckily. It makes this a pretty accessible movie, so also don't let the name David Lynch scare you off. His name got mostly put on the cover to cash in on it but his involvement with this movie was very minimal, though you could still really tell that director Michael Almereyda really admires David Lynch and his style.
Basically you could see this movie as a modern take on the Dracula story, or rather said the story of the official Dracula sequel "Dracula's Daughter", from 1936, which isn't that well liked but was a movie I still absolutely loved. Perhaps that's also who I still really liked this movie as well. It strays away from the original Dracula story but I really don't mind that. There are so many different versions and interpretations of the original Dracula story out there, so I'm glad that this movie is featuring a story of its own, with still all of the familiar characters in it, such as the count himself (though very shortly), Van Helsing and Renfield.
But even though the movie is mostly a compelling watch, it still isn't that interesting of a movie. I mean, it's one you could easily do without and one that even makes a bit of a pointless impression. It sounds strange, since I was still definitely enjoying it while watching. Perhaps it also was because I was starting to loose a bit interest at times, especially toward its end. You could say that the movie keeps building up to a climax or satisfying conclusion, that just never comes.
It's not a movie that's not only heavy on its style but also really on its atmosphere. I though that the movie did a great job at creating a sort of old fashioned horror atmosphere, even though never anything scary or anything else horror related ever really happens in the movie itself.
It was also real great to see Peter Fonda in this. He played a great Van Helsing and he even plays Dracula as well, while he was at it. He plays both parts quite differently, so some people might not even realize it's the same guy.
A very stylish and atmospheric movie but I can understand if you don't like it.
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
As it often turns out, I don't mind movies taking a bit of a more artistic and unusual approach to its story. It often makes the movie a very compelling watch, even when you don't really fully understand what is going on.
But as far as somewhat more artistic movies go, this movie is mostly perfectly understandable and easy to follow, since it might be somewhat pretentious with its style at times, it isn't with its story luckily. It makes this a pretty accessible movie, so also don't let the name David Lynch scare you off. His name got mostly put on the cover to cash in on it but his involvement with this movie was very minimal, though you could still really tell that director Michael Almereyda really admires David Lynch and his style.
Basically you could see this movie as a modern take on the Dracula story, or rather said the story of the official Dracula sequel "Dracula's Daughter", from 1936, which isn't that well liked but was a movie I still absolutely loved. Perhaps that's also who I still really liked this movie as well. It strays away from the original Dracula story but I really don't mind that. There are so many different versions and interpretations of the original Dracula story out there, so I'm glad that this movie is featuring a story of its own, with still all of the familiar characters in it, such as the count himself (though very shortly), Van Helsing and Renfield.
But even though the movie is mostly a compelling watch, it still isn't that interesting of a movie. I mean, it's one you could easily do without and one that even makes a bit of a pointless impression. It sounds strange, since I was still definitely enjoying it while watching. Perhaps it also was because I was starting to loose a bit interest at times, especially toward its end. You could say that the movie keeps building up to a climax or satisfying conclusion, that just never comes.
It's not a movie that's not only heavy on its style but also really on its atmosphere. I though that the movie did a great job at creating a sort of old fashioned horror atmosphere, even though never anything scary or anything else horror related ever really happens in the movie itself.
It was also real great to see Peter Fonda in this. He played a great Van Helsing and he even plays Dracula as well, while he was at it. He plays both parts quite differently, so some people might not even realize it's the same guy.
A very stylish and atmospheric movie but I can understand if you don't like it.
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
Dire Art House Crap
Theo Robertson28 October 2005
" Derek Jarman meets David Lynch " is how presenter Bill Bailey described NADJA . If I was a presenter I would have described as a big pile of art house crap but " Derek Jarman meets David Lynch " is the same difference . I've nothing against art house horror , I thought THE ADDICTION was okay while I loved the visual style of THE KEEP but there has to be a limit and NADJA goes way beyond that limit and ends up unwatchable for those of us who aren't obsessed with pretentious nonsense
The story follows eponymous vampire Nadja who steps foot in America in a bizarre remake of DRACULA'S DAUGHTER . Everything in the narrative is sacrificed for the visual style and more often than not it's impossible to understand what the hell is going on since the picture fades to pixellated shots that are out of focus , cross fades , slow motion sound fade outs and other directorial tricks from Michael Almereyda . No doubt the director thought he was being clever but it makes the story unfathomable and isn't helped by some very poor performances indeed . It's impossible to believe that any of the cast - Including Peter Fonda - are professional actors
A very poor film that will only appeal to art house junkies and if it wasn't for the great soundtrack by Portishead , My Bloody Valentine and The Verve this steaming pile of ostentatious excrement would have received even less than three out of ten
The story follows eponymous vampire Nadja who steps foot in America in a bizarre remake of DRACULA'S DAUGHTER . Everything in the narrative is sacrificed for the visual style and more often than not it's impossible to understand what the hell is going on since the picture fades to pixellated shots that are out of focus , cross fades , slow motion sound fade outs and other directorial tricks from Michael Almereyda . No doubt the director thought he was being clever but it makes the story unfathomable and isn't helped by some very poor performances indeed . It's impossible to believe that any of the cast - Including Peter Fonda - are professional actors
A very poor film that will only appeal to art house junkies and if it wasn't for the great soundtrack by Portishead , My Bloody Valentine and The Verve this steaming pile of ostentatious excrement would have received even less than three out of ten
Fisher Price people...hello!
seanderson-547329 June 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Love this film! Saw it twice at River Oaks Theatre. It cracks me up how some reviewers complain about the quality in some parts of the film...the director actually used a Fisher Price video camera for the scenes where Nadja seduces her victims.
I knew about this going in to the theatre thankfully, or perhaps I would have been disgruntled about the quality too. I wish I owned it, seems difficult to obtain, just like many of my favorite art house vampire movies.
Terrible art house vampire movie
preppy-38 February 2012
I'm one of the very few people who saw this back in 1994 at an art house cinema. It's basically about a VERY strange family which includes a vampire named Nadja (Elina Lowensohn). She's being hunted down by Van Helsing (Peter Fonda).
Pretentious and boring "horror" film. If there is a point to it it totally escapes me. Also some of it is shot in a pixilated (or something) way. This adds nothing to the film and you can't make out a thing when they shot that way. Seriously, what was the point of that? Acting doesn't help. With one exception everyone is pretty bad--especially Lowensohn and an "actress" named Galaxy Craze (seriously). Only Fonda is good. He briefly jump starts the film. He's having lots of fun with his performance and it helps but not enough. When I saw it the audience was quiet at first. Then it got restless and there was actually some muffled laughter during the stupider sequences (the one that got the most reaction was Nadja's psychic link with her brother--which comes out of NOWHERE!). People walked out muttering about how boring and stupid this was. If you're a true horror fan avoid this like the plague. A 1 all the way.
Pretentious and boring "horror" film. If there is a point to it it totally escapes me. Also some of it is shot in a pixilated (or something) way. This adds nothing to the film and you can't make out a thing when they shot that way. Seriously, what was the point of that? Acting doesn't help. With one exception everyone is pretty bad--especially Lowensohn and an "actress" named Galaxy Craze (seriously). Only Fonda is good. He briefly jump starts the film. He's having lots of fun with his performance and it helps but not enough. When I saw it the audience was quiet at first. Then it got restless and there was actually some muffled laughter during the stupider sequences (the one that got the most reaction was Nadja's psychic link with her brother--which comes out of NOWHERE!). People walked out muttering about how boring and stupid this was. If you're a true horror fan avoid this like the plague. A 1 all the way.
The most misunderstood Vampire film ever made
dstilley-114 October 2006
I've just read all of the reviews on this film on this site and nobody even mentions what this film is really about. Like any "good" horror story it works on different levels. Like the Zombie films of George Romero there's an underlying message to this film that has nothing to do with it's horror exterior. But you have to think about what Michael Almereyda is trying to say with this story. This isn't just true of this film, but of all good horror. Dr. Jeckyle and Mr.Hyde-Addiction to substances, Frankenstein-Man playing at being God, Dracula-Hate poisoning the mind and soul. The main theme of this film is wanting to change your life but not being able to escape your old habits and break loose. It's even mentioned outright several times during the film by different characters. There's a lot of philosophical discussions by different characters on this through the film.
This film has black humor, meaning of life philosophy, camera work that serves a purpose to enhance the story and heart felt dramatic performances by all of the actors and actresses.
One of the things that I really like about this film, (and one of the things that many people didn't understand or like) was the use of the toy camera pixel-vision effect. I found it to be a perfect way of economically expressing the intoxicating effect of being under the influence of a vampire. If you watch the film and think about the scenes where it's employed it will be obvious. It isn't just a random attempt to be arty as many of the reviewers seem to think. It's a visual depiction of the impaired state of mind that you might experience if a vampire was psychically manipulating a mortal. And it enhances the film it doesn't detract from it. Whether you like it or not, film-making is an art. Just like painting, drawing, writing or any other form of expression. Some filmmakers just don't have any sense of art, they only wish to mindlessly entertain. That's why people say things like TV rots your mind. Well, I guess that if you watch anything in a mindless manor that could be true. But film that has something to say, something to think about is a worthwhile use of time and intellect.
I have a fairly large collection of "horror" films and "Art House" and I can tell you that Nadja is one of my all time favorites. Every time I watch it I see something new, get a different little joke or notice different connections that I didn't get before. I also enjoy many of the "Mindless entertainment" variety of Vampire films,and so a quote from the writer David Goyer who wrote the screenplays for Blade, "Sometimes you just want to see somebody kick some ass!".
Most people don't realize how huge the genre of Vampire Cinema really is. Dracula is the definitely the most filmed character in film history, and the greater tree of Vampire films in world cinema is so big that it almost impossible to accurately list. Of the Art House and Vintage, comedy and Vampire Hunter categories I would recommend checking out some of my favorites. Many Vampire films are a hybrid of two or more of these categories,but they all have different points that I find attractive,humorous, exciting, entertaining and thought provoking. Again, I haven't seen but a small selection of the huge list of Vampire cinema, so it's likely that I'll be leaving out many excellent selections and maybe some of your favorites in this list. I'm giving this list because the film Nadja could very well be enjoyed if you like some of the films that I like and have been entertained by.
Art House and Vintage: Nosferatu 1922 (The original granddaddy Vampire film from the silent era. The Kino Version is worth paying for with an excellent soundtrack option featuring musicians from Art Zoid), Nosferatu the Vampyre (Werner Herzog), Shadow of the Vampire (a fun comedy-fictional story based around the making of F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu-1922), Vampyr (Carl Theodor Dreyer's atmospheric masterpiece, even though part's of the film were created by accident!),Dracula (1931), The Hammer Dracula series (feartuing the great Christopher Lee), Dracula-Pages from a Virgin's diary (a modern silent film of a Canadian Ballet company filmed by Guy Madden), Blood for Dracula (also known as Andy Worhol's Dracula), Immortality, Ganja and Hess, Habit, Near Dark, Salem's Lot (Based on the novel by Stephan King-the original mini-series, I haven't seen the newer remake) Bram Stoker's Dracula (The love it or hate it classic by F. Coppola).
Some of my favorites from the Vampire Hunter sub-genre: The Blade Series (Again one of those "Love it or hate it" series for some.), John Carpenter's Vampires (This one is hard to classify, lots of comedy too.), The Captain Kronos-Vampire Hunter films by Hammer studios, The Forsaken, and the British TV series "Ultraviolet" (an X-Files type mini-series). Also worth mention is the Japanese-Anime films Vampire Hunter D-Bloodlust (You'll forget that you're watching a cartoon, the story's that good!), and Blood-The last Vampire (A short but well done film).
Some of the comedy genre: Innocent Blood, Modern Vampires, The Breed, Dusk to Dawn (I've only seen the first one, a hybrid of Tarantino's crime style and Robert Rodriguez's horror style), Vampire's Kiss, and Interview with the Vampire (I find this Ann Rice film quite comedic), and Lost Boys (A local favorite being that I live in Santa Cruz).
Nadja is one of the jewels of my collection because it is truly a multi-faceted piece of film-making that defies categorization.
This film has black humor, meaning of life philosophy, camera work that serves a purpose to enhance the story and heart felt dramatic performances by all of the actors and actresses.
One of the things that I really like about this film, (and one of the things that many people didn't understand or like) was the use of the toy camera pixel-vision effect. I found it to be a perfect way of economically expressing the intoxicating effect of being under the influence of a vampire. If you watch the film and think about the scenes where it's employed it will be obvious. It isn't just a random attempt to be arty as many of the reviewers seem to think. It's a visual depiction of the impaired state of mind that you might experience if a vampire was psychically manipulating a mortal. And it enhances the film it doesn't detract from it. Whether you like it or not, film-making is an art. Just like painting, drawing, writing or any other form of expression. Some filmmakers just don't have any sense of art, they only wish to mindlessly entertain. That's why people say things like TV rots your mind. Well, I guess that if you watch anything in a mindless manor that could be true. But film that has something to say, something to think about is a worthwhile use of time and intellect.
I have a fairly large collection of "horror" films and "Art House" and I can tell you that Nadja is one of my all time favorites. Every time I watch it I see something new, get a different little joke or notice different connections that I didn't get before. I also enjoy many of the "Mindless entertainment" variety of Vampire films,and so a quote from the writer David Goyer who wrote the screenplays for Blade, "Sometimes you just want to see somebody kick some ass!".
Most people don't realize how huge the genre of Vampire Cinema really is. Dracula is the definitely the most filmed character in film history, and the greater tree of Vampire films in world cinema is so big that it almost impossible to accurately list. Of the Art House and Vintage, comedy and Vampire Hunter categories I would recommend checking out some of my favorites. Many Vampire films are a hybrid of two or more of these categories,but they all have different points that I find attractive,humorous, exciting, entertaining and thought provoking. Again, I haven't seen but a small selection of the huge list of Vampire cinema, so it's likely that I'll be leaving out many excellent selections and maybe some of your favorites in this list. I'm giving this list because the film Nadja could very well be enjoyed if you like some of the films that I like and have been entertained by.
Art House and Vintage: Nosferatu 1922 (The original granddaddy Vampire film from the silent era. The Kino Version is worth paying for with an excellent soundtrack option featuring musicians from Art Zoid), Nosferatu the Vampyre (Werner Herzog), Shadow of the Vampire (a fun comedy-fictional story based around the making of F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu-1922), Vampyr (Carl Theodor Dreyer's atmospheric masterpiece, even though part's of the film were created by accident!),Dracula (1931), The Hammer Dracula series (feartuing the great Christopher Lee), Dracula-Pages from a Virgin's diary (a modern silent film of a Canadian Ballet company filmed by Guy Madden), Blood for Dracula (also known as Andy Worhol's Dracula), Immortality, Ganja and Hess, Habit, Near Dark, Salem's Lot (Based on the novel by Stephan King-the original mini-series, I haven't seen the newer remake) Bram Stoker's Dracula (The love it or hate it classic by F. Coppola).
Some of my favorites from the Vampire Hunter sub-genre: The Blade Series (Again one of those "Love it or hate it" series for some.), John Carpenter's Vampires (This one is hard to classify, lots of comedy too.), The Captain Kronos-Vampire Hunter films by Hammer studios, The Forsaken, and the British TV series "Ultraviolet" (an X-Files type mini-series). Also worth mention is the Japanese-Anime films Vampire Hunter D-Bloodlust (You'll forget that you're watching a cartoon, the story's that good!), and Blood-The last Vampire (A short but well done film).
Some of the comedy genre: Innocent Blood, Modern Vampires, The Breed, Dusk to Dawn (I've only seen the first one, a hybrid of Tarantino's crime style and Robert Rodriguez's horror style), Vampire's Kiss, and Interview with the Vampire (I find this Ann Rice film quite comedic), and Lost Boys (A local favorite being that I live in Santa Cruz).
Nadja is one of the jewels of my collection because it is truly a multi-faceted piece of film-making that defies categorization.
Unique film in the Vampire genre
samxxxul26 April 2020
"Nadja" a film by Michael Almereyda, Produced by David Lynch and featuring two of Hal Hartley's regulars, Elina Löwensohn as Nadja and Martin Donovan as Jim.
Think Guy Maddin, Jim Jarmusch, and Hal Hartley meets David Lynch- deadpan noir-ish ode to Vampire films shot in PixelVision with possible Lynchiest cameo ever as a Morgue Attendant. It also features songs from My Bloody Valentine, Portishead, The Verve on the soundtrack.
Think Guy Maddin, Jim Jarmusch, and Hal Hartley meets David Lynch- deadpan noir-ish ode to Vampire films shot in PixelVision with possible Lynchiest cameo ever as a Morgue Attendant. It also features songs from My Bloody Valentine, Portishead, The Verve on the soundtrack.
Crappy art-house vampire trash
The_Void17 June 2009
Nadja is hands-down one of the worst films I've ever had the misfortune of sitting through. The film is basically a different take on the classic vampire story. It's shot in black and white and features a contemporary soundtrack. Director Michael Almereyda obviously thought all this was very cool; but in reality it's extremely dull. The plot actually makes the film sound like it might be worth watching and focuses on Dracula's death, and the resulting plight of his dysfunctional family, who are also being hunted by Dracula's nemesis, Van Helsing. The film reminded me of something that could have been directed by Jim Jarmusch, although it's only a cheap imitation. The plot runs really slowly and it wasn't long before I was starting to get bored with it. It's all very arty, though unfortunately the artiness isn't used in the best way possible. Sure, there are a few memorable images; but not enough considering what the film was trying to achieve. The director shows his experimental side by shooting some of the film with a Fisher Price Pixelvision camera, but to me it just came off as arrogant and pointless. Overall, Nadja is a very disappointing and boring attempt at a vampire film and I'd recommend everyone avoids it.
Blood Suckers Were Never So Hip
narcpress10 April 2000
A strange, disarming feeling sits over this film, as if everyone is in a semi-comatic haze. That's a good thing. While a bizarre mix of humor, horror flick, and psychodrama, it also draws from (and pokes fun at) the vampire flick tradition. Full of highlights, not the least of which is a ratty haired Peter Fonda.
Romanian Stake
ferbs5410 October 2009
What "West Side Story" did for the oft-told tale of Romeo and Juliet--updating it and setting it on the harsh streets of NYC--Michael Almereyda's 1994 offering, "Nadja," does for the story of Dracula. "I'm not really good for much of anything," Nadja, the 200-year-old daughter of the late count, tells a bar pickup when we first meet her, but as this film proves, the gal IS more than adept at following in daddy's footsteps and procuring a nice blood nosh for herself. During the course of the film, we see Nadja find a new girlfriend (played by the wonderfully named Galaxy Craze), look up her estranged twin brother in the wilds of Brooklyn, and tangle with a descendant of Dr. van Helsing. The film has three main selling points that make it a must-see for fans of modern-day horror. The first is Peter Fonda, portraying van Helsing as a long-haired hippy type in a wonderfully charismatic manner. Then there is the picture's absolutely gorgeous B&W photography, which transforms "Nadja" into a genuine work of art; DOP Jim Denault and his crew are to be commended for a splendid bit of work here. Indeed, the film looks so very impressive that its oft-discussed pixel FX (which are used seemingly at random and only to ratchet up the disorientation factor) struck this viewer as a mere distraction. And then there is Nadja herself, played, appropriately enough, by Romanian actress Elina Lowensohn, a woman with a striking accent, a distinctive way of emphasizing her lines, and a decidedly off-kilter beauty. Elina has been perfectly cast here (and looks terrific in a cowl!). "Nadja" also features bits of well-integrated humor (as when Nadja refers to her dad as a "night bird"), and although its story line is a bit too dependent on (double) coincidence, it remains enthralling nonetheless; a significant contribution to the Dracula legend.
Pretentious, Artsy, Boring Crap
MetalGeek4 December 2010
I had never heard of "Nadja" until it turned up on a 4-film budget priced "Vampire Collector's Set" DVD that I recently purchased, where it shared space with three other low budget bloodsucker films. I'll be honest, from the package description "Nadja" didn't sound like my cup of tea from the get-go, so I wasn't expecting much from it to begin with. Sometimes when I go into such films with my expectations lowered, I am pleasantly surprised, but not this time. "Nadja" was 90 minutes of plodding, occasionally irritating "art house" crap disguised as a vampire film.
I pretty much knew I was in trouble as soon as I saw the words "DAVID LYNCH PRESENTS..." flash across the screen (though he can't be fully blamed for how badly "Nadja" turned out as he was only a producer on this film), because to a B-Movie kinda guy like me, David Lynch's name is pretty much Kryptonite. I've got nothing against Lynch, I know he's got a lot of fans, but he just doesn't make "my" kind of movies. So knowing he had a even a small hand in this thing was already one strike in my book.
Anyway, getting to the story (what little there is of it) as I understand it: "Nadja" transplants the Dracula myth to present day New York, with the famed bloodsucker's daughter prowling around Greenwich Village looking for a random hookup. She meets "Lucy," a depressed, bisexual night owl, who soon falls under Nadja's spell, much to the dismay of Lucy's drunken doofus of a husband. Fortunately hubby's Uncle (Peter Fonda, who appears to be the only cast member having fun in this film) happens to be Van Helsing himself, and he of course knows how to handle a vampire problem. From there...well, there's a whole lot of pseudo-philosophy, endless talking, a lot of cigarettes being smoked, a lot of self important dialogue, and not much else. Eventually Nadja's estranged twin brother hooks up with Hubby and Helsing and they travel to Nadja's lair in Romania, where... awww the hell with it, I'm not even going to bother describing the rest of this nonsense. Let's just say if you can make it to that point in the film without feeling an urge to drift off to sleep (or change the channel), I salute you.
At first I thought the film being made in stark black and white might be distracting in this day and age, but I'll admit the B&W photography in "Nadja" is really cool...for a while. Then along came numerous segments where, for no discernible reason whatsoever, the picture would suddenly go grainy and pixellated for minutes at a time. At first I thought something was wrong with my DVD, but it turns out that director Michael Almerayda shot those particular scenes (which turn up randomly throughout the film) with a Fisher-Price kids' toy camera. He's probably got some artsy fartsy explanation for why he did those scenes that way, but to me it only served to antagonize an already bored audience.
Ultimately "Nadja" comes off like one of those 1990's Calvin Klein commercials stretched out to feature length, complete with its hip (for the time period) soundtrack (The Verve, Portishead, My Bloody Valentine, etc.). It's nice to look at (occasionally, when it's not pixellated) but doesn't have an ounce of soul.
I'll (grudgingly) give "Nadja" two stars for two reasons: Number one, the lesbian seduction scene between Nadja and Lucy was pretty cool, (though it's got nothing on the Catherine Deneuve/Susan Sarandon scene in "The Hunger," its obvious inspiration) and number two, the song "In the Meantime" by Spacehog plays over the end credits, and I've always liked that song. Otherwise, I can't recommend this one at all. Judging from the other reviews on this site, "Nadja" appears to be a film that people either love or hate. I guess it's obvious which side I'm on. Avoid!!!
I pretty much knew I was in trouble as soon as I saw the words "DAVID LYNCH PRESENTS..." flash across the screen (though he can't be fully blamed for how badly "Nadja" turned out as he was only a producer on this film), because to a B-Movie kinda guy like me, David Lynch's name is pretty much Kryptonite. I've got nothing against Lynch, I know he's got a lot of fans, but he just doesn't make "my" kind of movies. So knowing he had a even a small hand in this thing was already one strike in my book.
Anyway, getting to the story (what little there is of it) as I understand it: "Nadja" transplants the Dracula myth to present day New York, with the famed bloodsucker's daughter prowling around Greenwich Village looking for a random hookup. She meets "Lucy," a depressed, bisexual night owl, who soon falls under Nadja's spell, much to the dismay of Lucy's drunken doofus of a husband. Fortunately hubby's Uncle (Peter Fonda, who appears to be the only cast member having fun in this film) happens to be Van Helsing himself, and he of course knows how to handle a vampire problem. From there...well, there's a whole lot of pseudo-philosophy, endless talking, a lot of cigarettes being smoked, a lot of self important dialogue, and not much else. Eventually Nadja's estranged twin brother hooks up with Hubby and Helsing and they travel to Nadja's lair in Romania, where... awww the hell with it, I'm not even going to bother describing the rest of this nonsense. Let's just say if you can make it to that point in the film without feeling an urge to drift off to sleep (or change the channel), I salute you.
At first I thought the film being made in stark black and white might be distracting in this day and age, but I'll admit the B&W photography in "Nadja" is really cool...for a while. Then along came numerous segments where, for no discernible reason whatsoever, the picture would suddenly go grainy and pixellated for minutes at a time. At first I thought something was wrong with my DVD, but it turns out that director Michael Almerayda shot those particular scenes (which turn up randomly throughout the film) with a Fisher-Price kids' toy camera. He's probably got some artsy fartsy explanation for why he did those scenes that way, but to me it only served to antagonize an already bored audience.
Ultimately "Nadja" comes off like one of those 1990's Calvin Klein commercials stretched out to feature length, complete with its hip (for the time period) soundtrack (The Verve, Portishead, My Bloody Valentine, etc.). It's nice to look at (occasionally, when it's not pixellated) but doesn't have an ounce of soul.
I'll (grudgingly) give "Nadja" two stars for two reasons: Number one, the lesbian seduction scene between Nadja and Lucy was pretty cool, (though it's got nothing on the Catherine Deneuve/Susan Sarandon scene in "The Hunger," its obvious inspiration) and number two, the song "In the Meantime" by Spacehog plays over the end credits, and I've always liked that song. Otherwise, I can't recommend this one at all. Judging from the other reviews on this site, "Nadja" appears to be a film that people either love or hate. I guess it's obvious which side I'm on. Avoid!!!
A little too arty and pretentious but otherwise inventive and interesting
bob the moo11 January 2004
In New York City Nadja, her brother and their slave come to terms with the murder of their father by Van Helsing. Meanwhile the girlfriend of Helsing's nephew, Jim, is taken as a drone by Nadja. Jim and Van Helsing set out to stop the reign of the Dracula family and stop their blood lust.
I didn't even know this was about the Dracula legend when I sat to watch it, just the title drew me and the cast sounded quite promising. The black and white, shaky shots, post modern slant and grainy camera work were both a draw and a turn off for me. On one hand it was very arty, deliberately sticking a finger up to the mainstream. I dislike this feeling - one that the multiplex crowd are unworthy of any film and that the director wouldn't care to have their film be successful and hence uses such things with abandon. However it also made the film much more imaginative and interesting if it had all been full Technicolor with steadicam and nicely framed shots, it was pretty hip and I enjoyed it even if I felt like it was aimed at the art crowd rather than just being a film for anyone or everyone.
The story is quite good, albeit just a twist on the old story of Dracula. The script is where the main difference lies. It is quite talky a film but it is better for it. The dialogue is a little pretentious at times but it is interesting and involving. In terms of characters I'm afraid it falls down quite badly - the grainy images and dialogue that is far from `down to earth' stop the characters from ever being real people or even characters that I felt deeply involved in - but happily it wasn't to the point that I was completely disinterested in them. That's not to say it was great - but it was different enough to keep me interested, even if I wasn't gripped by it at any point. Likewise with the direction, I felt there was imagination but that it went too far to the point of just being experimental and arty for the sake of it. If you are making a film with as good a cast as this had then why on earth would you use a child's camera unless you were trying to be arty? This mindset did feel through the whole film and it was, as I've already said, a pretty big turn off for me.
The cast is great on paper but they struggle with the pretentious dialogue and the fact that the film loses them in a grainy black & white world. I will always watch Donovan but that doesn't mean he's any good. Here he is alright but has precious little to actually do! Fonda is better and plays his character with a sense of humour that the wider film could well have benefited from - I wonder if the director got annoyed by Fonda not playing it straight when he clearly had arty aspirations. Lowensohn is not only beautiful but acts well in the title role but the astonishingly named Galaxy Craze was pretty much cardboard as Lucy.
Overall this is an interesting movie but it struggles under the weight of it's own pretensions. I found it to be different enough visually and script-wise to be interesting and even I found the apparent concerted effort to alienate the mainstream to be slightly off putting. An interesting effort but one that will irritate far more viewers than it will please.
I didn't even know this was about the Dracula legend when I sat to watch it, just the title drew me and the cast sounded quite promising. The black and white, shaky shots, post modern slant and grainy camera work were both a draw and a turn off for me. On one hand it was very arty, deliberately sticking a finger up to the mainstream. I dislike this feeling - one that the multiplex crowd are unworthy of any film and that the director wouldn't care to have their film be successful and hence uses such things with abandon. However it also made the film much more imaginative and interesting if it had all been full Technicolor with steadicam and nicely framed shots, it was pretty hip and I enjoyed it even if I felt like it was aimed at the art crowd rather than just being a film for anyone or everyone.
The story is quite good, albeit just a twist on the old story of Dracula. The script is where the main difference lies. It is quite talky a film but it is better for it. The dialogue is a little pretentious at times but it is interesting and involving. In terms of characters I'm afraid it falls down quite badly - the grainy images and dialogue that is far from `down to earth' stop the characters from ever being real people or even characters that I felt deeply involved in - but happily it wasn't to the point that I was completely disinterested in them. That's not to say it was great - but it was different enough to keep me interested, even if I wasn't gripped by it at any point. Likewise with the direction, I felt there was imagination but that it went too far to the point of just being experimental and arty for the sake of it. If you are making a film with as good a cast as this had then why on earth would you use a child's camera unless you were trying to be arty? This mindset did feel through the whole film and it was, as I've already said, a pretty big turn off for me.
The cast is great on paper but they struggle with the pretentious dialogue and the fact that the film loses them in a grainy black & white world. I will always watch Donovan but that doesn't mean he's any good. Here he is alright but has precious little to actually do! Fonda is better and plays his character with a sense of humour that the wider film could well have benefited from - I wonder if the director got annoyed by Fonda not playing it straight when he clearly had arty aspirations. Lowensohn is not only beautiful but acts well in the title role but the astonishingly named Galaxy Craze was pretty much cardboard as Lucy.
Overall this is an interesting movie but it struggles under the weight of it's own pretensions. I found it to be different enough visually and script-wise to be interesting and even I found the apparent concerted effort to alienate the mainstream to be slightly off putting. An interesting effort but one that will irritate far more viewers than it will please.
Ouch! What did I just sit through?
selfdestructo21 December 2021
First of all, I'm supposed to believe the exotic, beautiful daughter of Dracula immediately falls in love with THIS plain jane? (one "Galaxy Craze"). Also, what was Peter Fonda doing? (my guess from his performance, mentally cursing out his agent). Wow. The MPAA rated this movie R, and promised a real wild ride in its reasoning. I think we watched two different films. (oh yeah, they're thoroughly clueless, shrouded in mystery... never mind subjective as all get-out). One thing this vampire does I've never seen in a vampire movie (or any other movie, for that matter). Does it live up to the MPAA's billing? No, it's just gross. This movie is real amusing, only I'm not sure where it falls on the intentional/unintentional scale. I mean, the worst kind of babbling goth/hipster dialogue, coupled with Peter Fonda acting all dopey. All filmed in B&W, and the Nadja-vision with a toy! This is just the kind of pretentious claptrap that critics would love (and they did, AND David Lynch's name is associated. Slam dunk!).
Artsy Dracula's Daughter
Cineanalyst9 July 2018
I've been viewing a bunch of Dracula-related movies since reading Bram Stoker's novel, and I'm not disinclined towards highly-stylized and artistic adaptations. My favorite Dracula film, after all, is a postmodern silent-film ballet, "Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary" (2002). Not exactly mainstream fodder. But, "Nadja" is merely artsy; it throws the entire book of arthouse gimmicks onto the screen and pretends to art.
It's filmed in black and white, with many scenes photographed with a toy camcorder, there's lots of cigarette smoking, there are scenes where indie music blares in some attempt to cover with emotionality images of nothing happening, there are other strange sound effects, voiceover narration, hardly-motivated canted and obscured angles, slow motion, jump cuts, negative images and deadpan delivery regarding daddy issues, narcissistic self wallowing and sophomoric philosophizing. At worst, this is very annoying and hard to watch, with the best parts--all of the violent vampire vestiges--obscured by the lousy pixelated images of the toy camcorder and the scenes that are in crisp black-and-white come off as some young Goth woman incessantly smoking, hanging out at bars and ranting about herself.
At best, the ironic distance comes off as some kind of joke--like an intentionally so-bad-it's-good movie. I was laughing at delivery of such lines as, "She's dying... for a cigarette," or "Her emotions are like big storms," and I strongly suspected we had been taken for a ride when the Lucy character, in a zombie state, starts listing what she ate, including her discrimination of M&M'S colors, with the scene photographed in an absurdly arty fashion, still in black-and-white, and with over-dramatic blocking. Plus, this is the kind of humor one would expect from David Lynch, who produced and has a cameo in this one. In this light, Peter Fonda as Van Helsing seems to be the only one letting the joke slip. In the narrative, he's supposedly the crazy one, but his character is the only one that isn't almost-entirely a nuisance. It helps that, unlike the other characters, except for, sort of, Nadja in the end, his character has some motivation to action instead of just sitting around like everyone else saying stupid stuff, waiting for the next blurry, pixelated action to barely be seen.
Past the artsy ostentation and inane dialogue, the story is a simple updated melding of bit parts of Stoker's book with a retelling of Universal's sequel "Dracula's Daughter" (1936). Nadja's hood is a reference to the one Gloria Holden wore in the predecessor. The parts from the novel mostly consist of character names and traits: Dracula dies, but Van Helsing is still nutty, Lucy falls under the vampire curse again and must be saved, and Renfield is always a slave. Basically, "Nadja" follows the plot of "Dracula's Daughter." She feeds off men and women (the sex being more explicit in this '94 film compared to the '36 one, expectantly), burns her dead father, renounces him and tries to forge a new path, some men try to stop her, she goes back home--completing the circle of where Stoker's Dracula began. Some of the particulars are different this time, including the inclusion of characters from Stoker's book and the addition of a twin brother. The brother is a rather unnecessary character except that it adds to a doubles theme that the movie develops late and becomes potentially incestuous in the end. And Lucy's conversion plays out as a bad episode of the menses. This isn't art. Art is beautiful and intelligent; artsy is pretentious.
(Mirror Note: Van Helsing and son look at some photographs that Lucy, apparently, took of her night with Nadja. Contrary to some other vampire films, this vampire's image can be captured on camera, but, as the pictures are said to reveal, her image isn't reflected in a mirror. There's the horror-film jump-scare cliché when Lucy hallucinates Nadja's image in a mirror. And Van Helsing uses the reflections off his sunglasses several times to confirm vampirism.)
It's filmed in black and white, with many scenes photographed with a toy camcorder, there's lots of cigarette smoking, there are scenes where indie music blares in some attempt to cover with emotionality images of nothing happening, there are other strange sound effects, voiceover narration, hardly-motivated canted and obscured angles, slow motion, jump cuts, negative images and deadpan delivery regarding daddy issues, narcissistic self wallowing and sophomoric philosophizing. At worst, this is very annoying and hard to watch, with the best parts--all of the violent vampire vestiges--obscured by the lousy pixelated images of the toy camcorder and the scenes that are in crisp black-and-white come off as some young Goth woman incessantly smoking, hanging out at bars and ranting about herself.
At best, the ironic distance comes off as some kind of joke--like an intentionally so-bad-it's-good movie. I was laughing at delivery of such lines as, "She's dying... for a cigarette," or "Her emotions are like big storms," and I strongly suspected we had been taken for a ride when the Lucy character, in a zombie state, starts listing what she ate, including her discrimination of M&M'S colors, with the scene photographed in an absurdly arty fashion, still in black-and-white, and with over-dramatic blocking. Plus, this is the kind of humor one would expect from David Lynch, who produced and has a cameo in this one. In this light, Peter Fonda as Van Helsing seems to be the only one letting the joke slip. In the narrative, he's supposedly the crazy one, but his character is the only one that isn't almost-entirely a nuisance. It helps that, unlike the other characters, except for, sort of, Nadja in the end, his character has some motivation to action instead of just sitting around like everyone else saying stupid stuff, waiting for the next blurry, pixelated action to barely be seen.
Past the artsy ostentation and inane dialogue, the story is a simple updated melding of bit parts of Stoker's book with a retelling of Universal's sequel "Dracula's Daughter" (1936). Nadja's hood is a reference to the one Gloria Holden wore in the predecessor. The parts from the novel mostly consist of character names and traits: Dracula dies, but Van Helsing is still nutty, Lucy falls under the vampire curse again and must be saved, and Renfield is always a slave. Basically, "Nadja" follows the plot of "Dracula's Daughter." She feeds off men and women (the sex being more explicit in this '94 film compared to the '36 one, expectantly), burns her dead father, renounces him and tries to forge a new path, some men try to stop her, she goes back home--completing the circle of where Stoker's Dracula began. Some of the particulars are different this time, including the inclusion of characters from Stoker's book and the addition of a twin brother. The brother is a rather unnecessary character except that it adds to a doubles theme that the movie develops late and becomes potentially incestuous in the end. And Lucy's conversion plays out as a bad episode of the menses. This isn't art. Art is beautiful and intelligent; artsy is pretentious.
(Mirror Note: Van Helsing and son look at some photographs that Lucy, apparently, took of her night with Nadja. Contrary to some other vampire films, this vampire's image can be captured on camera, but, as the pictures are said to reveal, her image isn't reflected in a mirror. There's the horror-film jump-scare cliché when Lucy hallucinates Nadja's image in a mirror. And Van Helsing uses the reflections off his sunglasses several times to confirm vampirism.)
a most entertaining and original movie
giovanni15124 February 2002
Nadja is a very refreshing version of the redundant vampire movies out there. It had beautiful and intriguing cinematography that at times seemed like a livening photograph. Although the average viewer that is used to watching "spoon-fed" movies that do not require any viewer intellect or imagination may find this movie to abstract for their taste, It will Certainly be their loss for this movie is a must see if you are any kind of a movie aficionado. I am very happy to have added this movie to my movie history repertoire. Enjoy.
maddeningly pretentious
Jonny_Numb7 October 2005
"Nadja" is a woefully pretentious music-video style gloss on the early Universal vampire films (it's even photographed in black-and-white) crossed with modern-day nihilism and a more-hip-than-thou attitude that's painful to watch. An experienced cast of indie-film veterans (including Martin Donovan and Peter Fonda) and David Lynch in the executive-producer's chair does little to help what is, at heart, a stylish yet poorly calculated gloss on an ages-old premise. The use of black-and-white film stock, combined with the utterly random inclusion of pixellated images, does nothing but accentuate "Nadja"'s shallow, showy pretentiousness.
A modern masterpiece.
Happycat15 March 1999
This film received its fair share of support from critics and fans alike. However, despite good reviews and a loyal following it is still a vastly underrated film. Michael Almereyda has crafted a film which will have to endure time to receive the appreciation it deserves.
A Dracula-esque modern day myth with subtle humor and shades of Poe this film is truly a work of genius. The story is remarkably tight and the characters around which it revolves are rendered in incredible depth. Wry humor lends to the tale with brilliance. At one point a title card reads: "Transylvania" and to illustrate the location a small boy hops around with a Mickey-Mouse hat on his head. Not quite the wolf-ridden moors you expected, but still...
Elina Löwensohn shines as the title character, it is not every actor who can so elegantly work with dialogue such as this. She delivers with a candor that is almost absent from films of the last few years, the major ones at least. Galaxy Craze shines brightly opposite Martin Donovan. Peter Fonda is perfect as the Van Helsing character. Suzy Amis, Jared Harris, and Karl Geary do not fail to impress.
Look for Jim Denault's lush 35mm cinematography. He deals out light sparingly to accomplish with sheen and brilliance what most cinematographers dream of. An image so seeped in mood that any one still-frame contains such power as to function independently from the whole.
"Nadja" transcends the limitations of its medium to become something that is truly rare in the modern cinema landscape... A work of art.
A Dracula-esque modern day myth with subtle humor and shades of Poe this film is truly a work of genius. The story is remarkably tight and the characters around which it revolves are rendered in incredible depth. Wry humor lends to the tale with brilliance. At one point a title card reads: "Transylvania" and to illustrate the location a small boy hops around with a Mickey-Mouse hat on his head. Not quite the wolf-ridden moors you expected, but still...
Elina Löwensohn shines as the title character, it is not every actor who can so elegantly work with dialogue such as this. She delivers with a candor that is almost absent from films of the last few years, the major ones at least. Galaxy Craze shines brightly opposite Martin Donovan. Peter Fonda is perfect as the Van Helsing character. Suzy Amis, Jared Harris, and Karl Geary do not fail to impress.
Look for Jim Denault's lush 35mm cinematography. He deals out light sparingly to accomplish with sheen and brilliance what most cinematographers dream of. An image so seeped in mood that any one still-frame contains such power as to function independently from the whole.
"Nadja" transcends the limitations of its medium to become something that is truly rare in the modern cinema landscape... A work of art.
Utterly boring. Genius?? Hel-lo...??
macabro35722 June 2003
Did I see the same movie as the positive reviewers, below?
I didn't know a Dracula film could be this boring. I needed 10 cups of coffee just to stay awake for 90 minutes. This film makes Abel Ferrara's THE ADDICTION (1995) look like unmitigated horror classic, and that's not saying much since I almost slept through that one, too.
I can put up with a b/w film for 1994, but watching this with the pixelvision camera parts is enough to make one go blind. There's also a lot of philosophical, boring talk about the meaning of life, but do I really give a sh#t?
It meanders on and on and on...
2 out of 10
I didn't know a Dracula film could be this boring. I needed 10 cups of coffee just to stay awake for 90 minutes. This film makes Abel Ferrara's THE ADDICTION (1995) look like unmitigated horror classic, and that's not saying much since I almost slept through that one, too.
I can put up with a b/w film for 1994, but watching this with the pixelvision camera parts is enough to make one go blind. There's also a lot of philosophical, boring talk about the meaning of life, but do I really give a sh#t?
It meanders on and on and on...
2 out of 10
Frightening, funny and stylish at the same time.
adam-694 January 1999
I saw Nadja at the Vancouver Film Festival, and was struck by its freshness. The use of the toy camera with the pixelated (fuzzy) image during the more violent scenes added a nightmarish quality, making it more frightening. Good performances, especially from Peter Fonda who played a wacked-out Dr. Van Helsing character.
One of the more original vampire movies of late. Not just for the goths.
One of the more original vampire movies of late. Not just for the goths.
"Blood is like chewing gum to these creatures." Absolutely awful & no there's nothing wrong with your TV it's meant to look like that.
poolandrews29 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Nadja starts in New York one night as a Vampire named Nadja (Elina Lowensohn) talks to a man (Nic Ratner) in a bar & explains that she & her slave Renfield (Karl Geary) have travelled to New York from her homeland of Transylvania because her Father Count Dracula (Peter Fonda) is dead & that it is hard to find good food in New York after 10 O'Clock. Shortly after in a car Nadja drinks his blood. Meanwhile Van Helsing (Peter Fonda again) is tracking Nadja down with the intention of killing her & he enlists the help of his friend Jim (Martin Donovan) to aide him. Jim's wife Lucy (Galaxy Craze, yeah right that has to be a false name) has met Nadja & taken her back to her apartment where Nadja & Lucy engage in a bit of lesbianism & blood drinking. Van Helsing & Jim become aware that Lucy is under the control of Nadja & in another bizarre coincidence Van Helsing's Sister Cassandra (Suzy Amis) is looking after Nadja's ill Brother Edgar (Jared Harris) who Nadja intends to visit, both Van Helsing's & Jim's desperation to kill Nadja becomes even greater as the people they care for the most are in danger because of Nadja's blood drinking activities...
Written & directed by Michael Almereyda I hated just about every second of this supposed film. The script is slow & boring, nothing memorable really happens & is a bit of a chore to sit through. There are only a few character's in the film & I didn't care one bit for any of them, I've heard of minimalist but this is just ridiculous. As a whole Nadja doesn't make a lot of sense & just didn't grip, engage or entertain me in any way whatsoever. So the story & character's are crap can the film deliver in other areas, well no because Nadja is one of the worst looking films I've sat through. If black and white is your thing then fine & I have no problem watching black and white films but Nadja just looks so dark, bland & uninteresting. Then there's the shots which look like they were shot on a faulty camcorder, I'm sorry but they are incredibly annoying as the screen becomes an absolute mess of pixelation & blocks. To add insult to injury director Almereyda uses various irritating techniques to try & convince the viewer that their watching 'art' like soft focus, blurring, slow motion, shots where the background action runs at a different speed to the foreground, jerkiness, skipping frames & bizarre scene transitions. I hated how Nadja looks & was literary praying it would finish within the first 30 minutes but never let it be said I don't give a film a chance & I (just about) stuck it out to the end which was also crap. With a pretty reasonable budget of about $1,000,000 Nadja is a poor show, very few character's, no effects & a cheap feel throughout & I have to ask myself where all the money went exactly. There is no atmosphere, scares or tension & while I accept some people may like this black and white art-house nonsense I don't & that's all that matters to me, I simply cannot see how anyone could gain any sort of viewing pleasure from such a film as this & I certainly didn't. There is not one single aspect of Nadja that I can say I enjoyed apart from the central performance by Romanian actress Lowensohn who makes for a striking & seductive female Vampire. Fonda just looks stupid sporting long hair & reflective shades. Forget about any special effects or any proper blood or gore. If you like this sort of bizarre boring, black and white art-house stuff then Nadja is probably right up your street so I can recommend it to you but if your looking for a proper film with decent horror & an actual story then avoid this piece of crap like the plague, that's just my opinion & I'm sure there is an audience out there for a film like Nadja but it's not for me.
Written & directed by Michael Almereyda I hated just about every second of this supposed film. The script is slow & boring, nothing memorable really happens & is a bit of a chore to sit through. There are only a few character's in the film & I didn't care one bit for any of them, I've heard of minimalist but this is just ridiculous. As a whole Nadja doesn't make a lot of sense & just didn't grip, engage or entertain me in any way whatsoever. So the story & character's are crap can the film deliver in other areas, well no because Nadja is one of the worst looking films I've sat through. If black and white is your thing then fine & I have no problem watching black and white films but Nadja just looks so dark, bland & uninteresting. Then there's the shots which look like they were shot on a faulty camcorder, I'm sorry but they are incredibly annoying as the screen becomes an absolute mess of pixelation & blocks. To add insult to injury director Almereyda uses various irritating techniques to try & convince the viewer that their watching 'art' like soft focus, blurring, slow motion, shots where the background action runs at a different speed to the foreground, jerkiness, skipping frames & bizarre scene transitions. I hated how Nadja looks & was literary praying it would finish within the first 30 minutes but never let it be said I don't give a film a chance & I (just about) stuck it out to the end which was also crap. With a pretty reasonable budget of about $1,000,000 Nadja is a poor show, very few character's, no effects & a cheap feel throughout & I have to ask myself where all the money went exactly. There is no atmosphere, scares or tension & while I accept some people may like this black and white art-house nonsense I don't & that's all that matters to me, I simply cannot see how anyone could gain any sort of viewing pleasure from such a film as this & I certainly didn't. There is not one single aspect of Nadja that I can say I enjoyed apart from the central performance by Romanian actress Lowensohn who makes for a striking & seductive female Vampire. Fonda just looks stupid sporting long hair & reflective shades. Forget about any special effects or any proper blood or gore. If you like this sort of bizarre boring, black and white art-house stuff then Nadja is probably right up your street so I can recommend it to you but if your looking for a proper film with decent horror & an actual story then avoid this piece of crap like the plague, that's just my opinion & I'm sure there is an audience out there for a film like Nadja but it's not for me.
This bloated corpse is guaranteed to nod'ja off
helpless_dancer21 February 2003
What was the purpose of this gibberish unless to aggravate all lovers of vampire film. Amateur hour performances, exhausted dialogue, totally ridiculous use of the camera, and then there was the big finale [a concoction as stale as last week's salad]. Two fangs down to this empty casket.
My personal favorite movie of all time
jschoneboom12 July 2000
It's a gorgeous film. Elina Lowensohn is amazing, Peter Fonda has to be seen to be believed--all the performances are excellent--and the dialogue is somehow equal parts profound and hilarious. It's profound in an almost but not quite tongue-in-cheek way that makes it cool rather than cheesy. And it's hilarious in a highly intelligent way rather than a wacky way. Every scene is a treat. The pixellated scenes are done with a toy Fisher Price camera and they look great. The music is powerful, moody, perfect. Smart, interesting, compelling, beautiful, cool--what more do you want? Genius!
I saw this in the theater and completely loved it from the first three seconds into it, and it never let me down after that. I'll admit I'm on the obsessive end of the spectrum with this film--I went back and saw it seven more times that week. I've been waiting for the DVD for three years and my prayers have recently been answered.
I saw this in the theater and completely loved it from the first three seconds into it, and it never let me down after that. I'll admit I'm on the obsessive end of the spectrum with this film--I went back and saw it seven more times that week. I've been waiting for the DVD for three years and my prayers have recently been answered.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
