Nosferatu

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.

The 1922 film masterfully manages to touch on themes such as death, impermanence, innocence, sacrifice, inevitability, eroticism, love... The 2024 film is just a vampire movie. Nothing less, nothing more. It has a good start. Or, rather, the aesthetics manage to favor a novel, immersive experience for a while. But as time goes by, the aesthetics lose their novelty, and the film becomes tedious, boring, ridiculous and a little cringe-inducing. I don't regret having seen it, but I wouldn't watch it a second time. I would recommend the original even to those who don't like horror or vampire movies. The 2024 film, no. It can be entertaining to watch at home, on cable, without expectations, on a night when there's nothing to do.

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.

Perhaps it was the lofty expectations or Robert Eggers' (until now, in my opinion) unbroken string of masterpieces, but Nosferatu feels like a bit of a disappointment.

All of the ingredients are there. Nosferatu deserves accolades for incredible costumes and sets, the dialog is poetic and period appropriate, and the cinematography is GORGEOUS. We've come to expect this from Eggers and cinematographer Jarin Blaschke, who has worked on all of Eggers' past films. The visuals are truly striking and memorable; the shadowy hand across the German town of Wisburg where it takes place or the image of Nicholas Hoult's Thomas walking in a snow forest.: impeccable.

The performances are - mostly - fantastic. I was struck by how likable Aaron Taylor Johnson was here; he gives perhaps the best performance of his career in this movie. Willem Dafoe, Nicholas Hoult, Ralph Ineson, Emma Corrin...are all great.

Lily Rose-Depp delivers a star making performance in this film for sure, but is she really THAT much better than Nell Tiger-Free in this year's First Omen? They do very similar things, but one movie came out in April and is a horror prequel and the other is a prestige December release from acclaimed director Robert Eggers. I wouldn't normally bring up a "comparative" performance, but given how similar these are, I can't help it.

And the reason I do that is...her character - Ellen - is not written particularly well. Rose-Depp can do a mean possession, but there isn't much to her character beyond that, as opposed to what I saw from Free in The First Omen.

I also feel mixed things about Bill Skarsgård's Count Orlock. As usual, Skarsgård is incredible from a purely performative aspect and truly melts away into the role. However, the movie's interpretation of Orlock didn't work for me at all; his goofy accent and moustache, his copious screen time, and overbearing dialog was more funny than intimidating. You can't have a character deemed "worse than evil," and have him give off Count Chocula vibes. I'm sorry. This is one scenario where less is decidedly more and the amount of time we see Orlock actively hurts the film.

But the worst thing about Nosferatu is its pacing, editing, and storytelling. The film has a nightmarish, disorienting vibe in the beginning - which makes sense - and then completely abandons this tone by the second half, becoming far more conventional. In a sense, I kind of wish this movie stuck to its weirdness a bit more; it really should've gone HARDER, but I'm fairly certain studio interference got in the way.

It also doesn't really convey information all too well, with confusing editing that puts scenes out of place and lines of - already somewhat hard to understand - dialog intended to convey MAJOR plot points. (Two scenes stick out to me: one where Ellen and Tom are arguing only for it to cut in a way that implies she's going with him to Romania, but they just go his friend's house, and another where his "night" at Count Orlock's house is just bereft of any tension or intrigue, because the shots are compiled so confusingly).

The film starts off shockingly quickly, giving us no moment to breathe and soak in the world we're seeing on screen. It hits the ground running yet feels simultaneously too long and too rushed.

We barely learn anything about our characters and as such, I struggle to see what this Nosferatu is even supposed to be about. The subject matter as presented is ripe for themes like female emancipation, sexual desire, the darker aspects of humanity (stuff that's mentioned), but the movie never gets a chance to really explore any of this.

So, while I don't think Nosferatu is a BAD movie by any means, it doesn't accede to anything beyond "just fine" to me right now. A technically brilliant, well acted, but ultimately, kind of tepid story.