Vampyr (1932)
 

what do you guys think about this movie? considering blind-buying it. have been trying to find more good spooky atmospheric horror movies, and that appears to be the strength in Carl Theodor Dreyer's film about a traveler obsessed with the supernatural. as far as i can tell, the general consensus appears to be that it's narrative structure is sort of all over the place... giving it kind of a disconnected nightmare-feel. but given that it's the 4th highest ranked horror film on TSPDT's Top 1000 (#170 overall film), behind only Psycho [1960] (#30), the Shining [1980] (#112), and Nosferatu [1922] (#119), i figure it might be worth a shot.

worth the blind-buy in your opinion?

You can watch it on You Tube to decide. Or right here - the DVD will look and sound better, but this will give you a taste to see how much you like it. I personally think it's on a par with Nosferatu, Haxan and The Phantom Carriage, but I don't rate them that high.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44B07oaEr6g

Re: Vampyr (1932)
 

It's all style and no substance. Surely one of the most atmospheric movies I've ever seen, but terribly weak on plot and character development.

Forget that list.

Wonderful. A film adaptation of Sheridan Le Fanu's "Carmilla," the old doctor's death is one of the most horrifying deaths I have ever seen in a horror film, and it is almost a completely bloodless death.

Re: Vampyr (1932)
 

I think it was solid, certainly not worth buying. Plot and story line were weak Imo

I personally loved "Vampyr" and its a Criterion to get. I love old silent black and white films, they have more depth to them. And the fact that is a foreign film as well.

Re: Vampyr (1932)
 

Two people mentioned plot/characters being a major downside to an experimental film about creating an atmosphere. Someone explain that to me. That's like saying Dog Star Man wasn't funny enough.

I don't think Vampyr was entirely experimental. It seemed at least somewhat concerned with horror conventions, and the fact that it had title cards explaining what was going on every now and then tells me that it's definitely concerned with keeping its audience engaged on a narrative level. Atmosphere is by far the film's greatest strength, but it's not particularly profound or philosophically ambitious either.

Never considered it before, but for what it's worth, it isn't. :)