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.

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.

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.

Nadja: I'm such an idiot. I think I'm in love. Rensfield: Why do you say that? Nadja: Because I feel terrible."Nadja" is not like any other vampire movie ever made.It is creepy, thoughtful, and very funny. You can tell by other comments that this movie has viewers divided. Obviously the people who hate it did not get the humor, which is subtle and dark.Nadja is the daughter of Dracula living in modern day New York. She describes her father as "a cruel and distant man." For the most part, this film is about the psychological damage caused by growing up in a single parent household with a vampire as the parent. She says things like "the pain I feel is the pain of fleeting joy." Instead of saying "I want to suck your blood," she says "I want to change my life" in a heavy Transyvanian accent.Like all Dracula films, the arch nemesis is Van Helsing. In this film, he is the crazy uncle. He rides a bicycle and sleeps in a piano.Nadja's crazy sidekick is Renfield, but we do not find that out until a third the way through the movie.If you liked films like "Blade" and "Underworld," you are going to hate "Nadja." "Nadja" is for people who normally hate vampire films and looking for great dialog, stylish camera work, and have a quirky sense of humor.This is easily my all time favorite vampire movie.