CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
4.8/10
461
TU CALIFICACIÓN
El conde vampiro Orlok expresa su interés por una nueva residencia y por la esposa del agente inmobiliario Hutter.El conde vampiro Orlok expresa su interés por una nueva residencia y por la esposa del agente inmobiliario Hutter.El conde vampiro Orlok expresa su interés por una nueva residencia y por la esposa del agente inmobiliario Hutter.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
Eddie Allen
- Knock
- (as Edgar Allan Poe)
Opiniones destacadas
Maybe not a very kind word to use, but this was pretty pathetic. Two stars only because Doug Jones is always great - but there was really very little he was called upon to do.
Not a respectful tribute to Dracula OR Nosferatu. It omits plot points that would make it make sense. The writing is horrendous. How does a German in Germany address a married german woman as Fraulein Hutter? Can't believe I wasted 92 minutes on this. Trash.
I guess it's supposed to be cool that they superimposed new digital content onto old backgrounds, but it just looks like somebody was playing around in iMovie. I cannot overstate how bad this movie was.
Not a respectful tribute to Dracula OR Nosferatu. It omits plot points that would make it make sense. The writing is horrendous. How does a German in Germany address a married german woman as Fraulein Hutter? Can't believe I wasted 92 minutes on this. Trash.
I guess it's supposed to be cool that they superimposed new digital content onto old backgrounds, but it just looks like somebody was playing around in iMovie. I cannot overstate how bad this movie was.
Maybe there was a good idea to make a sound update of Nosferatu in the tinted monochrome style of the original but the execution is truly dreadful.
The acting is about what you might expect from a high school play. Apparently it was shot on empty sets and the backgrounds were added later. They look like AI images generated from screengrabs from the 1922 original.
Doug Jones has just a few scenes as the vampire, behind very heavy makeup. He brings the only point of interest but it's not enough to justify slogging through this sleepwalking snoozefest.
There are no real scares in this alleged horror film and it adds nothing to the original.
The acting is about what you might expect from a high school play. Apparently it was shot on empty sets and the backgrounds were added later. They look like AI images generated from screengrabs from the 1922 original.
Doug Jones has just a few scenes as the vampire, behind very heavy makeup. He brings the only point of interest but it's not enough to justify slogging through this sleepwalking snoozefest.
There are no real scares in this alleged horror film and it adds nothing to the original.
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'.
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'.
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.
Doug Jones was great as usual, the movie however was a different story. The cinematics looked like something a couple of high school kids would have done on an iPhone 2. The director may have been trying to go for a specific "feel", but he failed miserably. It looked almost like an animated comic book. If that was the feel they wanted then they got it, but personally I did not like it at all. Most of the cast did an adequate job but they where wasted on this movie. I love Doug Jones and love vampire moves, but honestly just watch the original 1922 version or even the remake from 1979, both are far superior.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaUses the character names from the original Nosferatu (1922), rather than the names from the novel "Dracula". The 1922 original was pulled from cinemas upon its release in 1923, after Bram Stoker's widow filed for copyright infringement. The first remake, Nosferatu, vampiro de la noche (1979), did use the character names from the novel, as the case was barred by the time of its production.
- ConexionesReferenced in WatchMojo: Top 10 Upcoming Horror Movie Remakes (2019)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Nosferatu?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 32 minutos
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.78 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
What is the Brazilian Portuguese language plot outline for Nosferatu (2023)?
Responda