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.

F. W. Murnau's (illegally adapted) 1922 film Nosferatu presented the vampire as a sickly, batlike elf. In the new 'Nosferatu,' Robert Eggers introduces an off-putting new look for Count Orlok, but Nosferatu (2024) is an unnecessary retelling of Murnau's original film wrapped in mediocrity. It reflects a trend of nostalgia and reboots. Innovation takes a backseat to reverence in the foreground. This is an exercise in indulgence that only the MMXXV Generation will enjoy. Visually, the film is overblown in its impressionistic palette. Coppola's Dracula was visually more imposing, combining opulent gothic imagery with operatic intensity. Herzog's Nosferatu (1979) had more haunting, austere beauty. And Carl Dreyer's Vampyr (1932) was more dreamlike.

It is boring. The acting is way too much and ridiculous overacting. The crying, the terrified faces and behaviour all felt so overplayed and unnecessary. The scenes, images and costumes are very impressive but that's about it. I didn't like any of the characters, Lily Rose Depp and her husband are not my definition of beautiful or handsome. The count's "breathing" is very annoying too.

The scenes as individual images were really well-made. I like historical settings in movies but overall, the film felt pretentious and self-indulgent, trying too hard to impress without delivering real meaning or a real story.

Lushly beautiful with fine period costumes, lovely cinematography, and a hard-working Lily-Rose Depp in thrall to the vampire, this adaptation of Nosferatu ultimately falls flat by too many hypnotized fits by Depp, too much exposition, and a villain that grows less interesting with every appearance until he finally appears looking like an undead Ringo Starr on a stretch-rack. Nicholas Hoult is commanding in the Jonathan Harker role and it's clever to cast Willem Dafoe in the Van Helsing role since he played Count Orlock in 1999's much better Shadow of The Vampire, but this ultimately lacks bite.

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.