Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror

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.

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'.

Review of Nosferatu.

A Sinister Homage Rating: 7/10

The 2024 Nosferatu film, starring the inimitable Doug Jones as Count Orlok, offers a stylish and visually striking reimagining of the 1922 classic. With a graphic novel-inspired aesthetic akin to Sin City, the film leans heavily into its moody, stylized visuals, creating an atmosphere that feels both fresh and nostalgic.

Doug Jones, a master of physical acting, perfectly channels Max Schreck's original performance, capturing the eerie, unsettling presence that made the character iconic. The modern makeup effects pay faithful homage to Orlok's original design, updating it with subtle enhancements that emphasize his grotesque charm without losing the character's vintage horror appeal. Jones' movements and expressions are mesmerizing, making him a worthy successor to Schreck's legacy.

The narrative, while not groundbreaking, stays true to the tone and spirit of the original, offering a faithful tribute rather than an outright reimagining. The Director clearly crafted the film with reverence, focusing on evoking the same primal unease the 1922 film instilled in audiences nearly a century ago.

While some critics have dismissed the film for its perceived lack of innovation, it's important to watch it for what it is: an homage. As a modern love letter to one of horror's most enduring films, it succeeds admirably. The graphic novel-inspired visuals may not be to everyone's taste, but they create a distinctive look that sets this Nosferatu apart from more traditional horror films.

In the end, this Nosferatu isn't trying to reinvent the wheel-it's a celebration of its cinematic roots, elevated by Doug Jones' haunting performance and a uniquely stylized visual approach. For fans of the original or those who appreciate atmospheric, graphic novel-inspired horror, it's worth a watch. Just embrace it for what it is, and you'll find it to be a perfectly fine (and at times chilling) homage.

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.