Nosferatu

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.

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.

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.

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!