Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror

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.

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.

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.

I've read a couple of bad reviews on this, and I feel like they don't get the aesthetics the director was going for. Everything in this screamed as an homage to the original, but with updated flair. Was the dialogue over the top, yes, but wasn't the dialogue cards in the original, also yes! The shots were highly stylized black and white and the use of red was well placed.

The original left us viewers with questions and surmising. This one takes a stronger stance and feels like it fills in the gaps and fleshes out these characters. It elevates it from the vaudeville feeling silent original to a more modern piece that highlights the original story.

It's definitely worth a watch. Just keep in mind that it is an aesthetic- much like Wes Anderson films; might not be for everyone, but dang it's a piece of art!

And besides everything, it's DOUG JONES! He's a legend and anything he is in, is worth a look-see. Trust me!

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.