Nosferatu

This film did nothing that Coppola's 1992 Bram Stoker's Dracula didn't already do. Coppola's film both thematically, and visually broke ground (costumes, creature design, set pieces, etc.), and had a far more expository, but also sinister and apprehensive feel. Not to mention it was also far more carnal. Nosferatu on the other hand, just felt like a tamer, "nothing new to see here" re-make, with nothing remotely original in any depictions. Maybe if Nosferatu looked scarier than a bald Vlad Teppish ("The Impaler", "Dracul"), that might've helped. I give it a 5-6 with a "I wouldn't watch it again" rating.

I usually love Robert Eggers' work - his films have this unique ability to pull you into eerie, unsettling worlds that linger with you long after the movie has finished. But his take on Nosferatu just didn't land for me.

The pacing was painfully slow, to the point where it felt like it was dragging for the sake of atmosphere rather than tension. And while I can appreciate deliberate storytelling, this just felt uninspiring, like it was going through the motions without that signature spark Eggers usually brings to his projects.

To make matters worse, I couldn't stop seeing Dr. Robotnik from Sonic the Hedgehog every time Nosferatu was on screen. It's probably not fair to the film, but the resemblance was so distracting that I found myself more amused than unsettled.

Ultimately, Nosferatu lacked the sharp, visceral energy that made Eggers' previous work so compelling. Instead of feeling haunted, I left the theater feeling underwhelmed.

The previews looked promising and the cast made this movie look like a must see! Both I and my husband love vampire movies. So many different ones have been made from the ancient to the modern, drama (Interview with a Vampire), to horror (Dawn of the Dead) - even dark dramadies (like Fright Night) - some carrying the theme better than others. Needless to say, we were excited to watch this - especially seeing the cast lineup.

Initially it felt like an attempt to slightly reimagine Bram Stokers' Dracula)...and if it was in anyway, it was poorly done!

While the costuming and set were compelling, the actors, great in their artistic craft, were left with a slow, droll script that was slow and lackluster. The actors did their best with what was provided. And then there was the ending, which felt like an attempted "pretty bow" wrap up to shift to "love conquers all."

We had such hopes for this movie - as there hasn't been much for quite some time that felt worthy of the "investment" of going out to see it on the big screen. We so rarely go to the theater to watch a movie...we trudged out into the bitter cold and sadly it took a bite out of our wallet wasting $50 and two hours... I wish we would've read the reviews and not just looked at the rating!

Robert Eggers made a significant impression with his 2015 directorial debut "The Witch", and has continued to impress me since. A reimagining of "Nosferatu" at his helm seemed like a dream come true, and after many years, it finally came to fruition with somewhat mixed results.

As with the original 1922 film and Werner Herzog's surreal 1979 remake, Eggers mostly honors the source material here. The original film itself was a blatant derivative of "Dracula," so anyone who knows the bones of that classic story will more or less already have the lay of the land in terms of what happens in "Nosferatu".

Firstly, the attention to detail here is impeccable; the period costumes and sets are dazzling, and the cinematography is top-notch, with repeated uses of muted grey nighttime sequences that border on black-and-white (intentional I'm sure, as an ode to the Murnau original). In the latter act, as rats and plague take over the streets, there is a palpable sense of rot that is highly effective. Given that Eggers has proven his excellence in these departments with his previous films, it is no surprise that the finer details and visuals are uniformly stunning.

As far as performances are concerned, we have a strong cast here. Lily-Rose Depp (whom I'd never seen in anything prior to this) gave a formidable performance as the haunted Ellen Hutter, who is pursued by Count Orlok (Bill Skarsgard), a malevolent vampire whose connection to her is emboldened when her husband Thomas (Nicholas Hoult) is assigned to handle estate matters for the Count. Willem Dafoe is as spunky as ever here as an occult expert who attempts to help the Hutters, and Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Emma Corrin give effective performances as the Hardings, friends of the Hutters who oversee the troubled Ellen while Thomas travels to Orlok.

All of these aforementioned elements give the film a real leg up, and approximately the first half of it (largely consisting of Thomas's travels into Transylvania and first encounter with Orlok) are engrossing and beautifully contrasted with Ellen's "melancholic" (and eventually possession-like) episodes back in urban Germany. However, once the story returns its focus to the city, the film seems to stall its momentum. One of the notable differences in this reimagining is that the focus revolves more around the Ellen character (aptly named "Lucy Harker" in Herzog's version) and the Hardings, but the unfortunate thing is that it never feels like the audience gets to know them any better for it. This is especially so in the case of Ellen, whose character has a slightly different spin in Eggers's screenplay, specifically in terms of her relationship to Orlok. The result feels like something of a missed opportunity, and the proverbial stake is driven in even further when one considers the film's running time, which is considerably longer than both the 1922 and 1979 versions, and yet those films often feel more involved. There is a strange amorphousness about the 2024 version's latter half that left it feeling enervated, especially against the ominous and suspenseful first hour.

The film's conclusion will hold no surprises for those who already know the previous films, but Eggers's staging of it is nonetheless spectacular and visually effective--and this is a fact that remains true about the film as a whole. Unfortunately, it does stumble a bit in the latter half as it seems to attempt to expand the material without ever fully reaching a satisfactory fever pitch. All that being said, the film is a gothic visual marvel in its own right, upheld by stunning cinematography and uniformly solid performances. It is imperfect, but it is a showstopper in more ways than one. 7/10.

The movie doesn't quite live up to the hype it has built over time. While the cinematography, costumes, and sound design are impressive, the film falls short where it matters most-delivering real horror. Lily shows promise as an actress, but her tendency to over-exaggerate certain scenes takes away from the immersion. The slow pacing and lack of genuine scares make you double-check if you're even watching a horror movie. Despite a few good moments, it ends up feeling underwhelming and forgettable. Nosferatu felt less of a creepy vampire but more of a old man with a deep and weird voice. Not the worst, but definitely not memorable.