Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Harockerce What a beautiful movie!

SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Phillida Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

seanderson-54732 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.

runamokprods 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.

preppy-3 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.

Jonny_Numb "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.