Nosferatu

Is this film perfect? Absolutely not.

Is the acting the best you'll ever see? Most certainly not.

Is this film enjoyable? You better believe it is.

This is a far better film than the 'big budget' effort released recently. It's far less convoluted, and stays true to the original 1922 film.

I really love the fact the sets are stripped bare, much like the original. Only the essential props are used, and i think that is a beautiful touch. The use of light, and shadow is done brilliantly, again, just like the 1922 original.

The way they have characters enter shot from behind the camera, and have them remain in the periphery of the shot is another lovely touch to the way so many of the old films were shot.

I love the quirkiness of this film, their attempt to create something old in the modern world is bold, and for me, it's paid off big time. As i initially mentioned, perhaps the only thing i'd change would be the ability of the actors, though they really weren't terrible in all honesty. I perhaps think it was an extension of the 'old time feel' of the film, mimicking verbally, what at one point could only be expressed physically.

Overall, i really enjoyed this film, it was brilliantly made, and a real homage to the original film. If you have the choice of watching the big budget effort, or this, then in all honesty, i would strongly suggest watching this. It's far more fun, doesn't take itself anywhere near as seriously, as is a far better tribute to the original 'Nosferatu'.

The whole point of this "remix film" was that it was supposed to utilize the old backdrops from the original 1922 feature, and green screen in new actors with actual dialogue.

However, director David Lee Fisher obviously changed his plan along the way, as what we get is instead a film where every backdrop seems to have been recreated with cgi (which explains why it took 10 years to complete).

And what you're left with is just a youtube-level fan production with embarrassingly bad actors lost in an uncanny valley. Even the ever lovable Doug Jones is like an intentional a parody of over acting, and the whole thing is just a sad imitation of the original.

Last night I had a serendipitous event: I viewed the David Lee Fisher version of Nosferatu, A Symphony of Horror. I haven't seen this movie, released in 2023 mentioned anywhere and imagined it has been overshadowed by this year's Bill Skarsgård/Nicholas Hoult production and thus had been largely ignored, though Amazon Prime Video and Tubi features it. It's been panned by some but I found it surprisingly well-done. Yes, it begins with some slightly stilted and occasionally bombastic scenery-chewing but settles in when one decides to watch it as if actually set in the period of the story. Then, both cast, dialogue and viewer adjust accordingly. The story blends scenes crafted to copy exactly some from the original 1922 Nosferatu, and occasional dialogue from Lugosi's version. There are some little jewels of cinematic moments, such as the backdrops appearing a combination of painting and projection giving it the primitive cinematic effect of the original. Stylish, artistic, surreal, and gothic, done in black and white. Except for the occasional bright red slash of blood or the golden lick of flames as when the Demeter burns.

As a whole, even with the "high school play" elements another viewer has panned, I much preferred this one over the 1979 Kinski Nosferatu which simply mirrored the original with dialogue and added nothing new (and believe me, at 82, I've seen a LOT of vampire/Dracula movies to compare it to). I thoroughly enjoyed it and look forward to the latest Nosferatu so I can add it to my very long list.

So...we all have our opinions and though my seem to swim against the majority...that's my opinion and I"m sticking to it.

With the recent hype surrounding Robert Eggers' «Nosferatu», I was curious to see the remake of Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau's 1922 expressionist classic. This version was released in 2023, with the same original title, «Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror», directed by David Lee Fisher, who had previously made a version of another expressionist classic, Robert Wiene's «The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari» (1920).

Fisher's film was shot in 2016, with most takes recorded against a green screen by cinematographer and visual effects specialist Christopher Duddy, and then images taken from the 1922 original were added and colorized. Post-production took seven years, until the finished work was released on November 11, 2023, to mixed reviews. Almost all critics praised Doug Fisher's performance as the vampire protagonist.

In truth, I was surprised to find that this movie, made and released without fanfare, is more effective in some ways than Eggers' proposal, who aspires to the title of new "master of horror cinema." To begin with, Fisher's film is more measured, restrained and direct (it lasts 92 minutes, that is, half an hour less than Eggers'), Jones' performance is indeed excellent and surpasses Bill Skarsgård's, and the story contains details that are more faithful to Bram Stoker than any other adaptation of his novel «Dracula.» For example, there is a moment in the novel where Stoker alludes to Dracula's terrifying gaze from a great distance. His gaze burns like two embers. Here, the woman victim and victimizer perceives the force of his eyes from her window to the ruined slaughterhouse that the vampire bought to live in, where he is watching her. And above all, it is a reserved film, without the gory effects of Eggers' film.

Both films suffer from the same thing: impertinent dialogue worthy of a soap opera (which Murnau was spared from, as he preferred silent films and narrating only with images and music). However, Fisher does stumble in the selection of the performers of the young real estate salesman and his wife (Jonathan and Lucy Harker in the novel and Werner Herzog's version; Thomas and Ellen Hutter in Henrik Galeen's script for Murnau's film, which inspired Eggers and Fisher). Emrhys Cooper has a bad start as the greedy young man that Fisher describes, playing Thomas Hutter as a frivolous guy, whose love for his wife Ellen is unconvincing. And Sarah Carter is a voluptuous blonde who conflicts with Stoker's idea of the pale, fragile and languid antiheroine (whose ideal interpreter to date has been Isabelle Adjani).

The visual work is plausible and it is surprising that not even the American Saturn Awards for horror and fantasy films have considered the film in their annual nominations and awards. Curiously, like Eggers' movie, Fisher's film does not inspire fear or shock. However, his respect for Murnau's work grants it a certain distinction and admiration that I find praiseworthy.

I was amongst the first to see a screening of this movie and I thought it was very good. The acting was good and everything thing about it I enjoyed. I thought it was an enhanced version of the original with all the same scares but modernized. I think they perfectly accomplished what they wanted to. I felt like the the enhanced original scenes were fantastic. Maybe it was because it was viewed different on the big screen. Too bad it wasn't more widely released in the theaters. The added dialogue was good. I thought the acting was good. I thought Doug Jones as Orlok was fantastic. He is truly a master of that type of role. His movements tell a story with no words and is terrific. He should have been Orlok in the Eggers film. He would have made it so much better. Watch this movie for what it is and you will enjoy it while rediscovering the original greatness.