User reviews

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.

I was very excited to see this movie and finally went to see it. And it is....... Fine.

I've read other reviews saying it was beautiful and emotional but I honestly didn't feel very connected to these characters.

It also wasn't very scary. Very creepy! But not very scary.

The monster is constantly seen. He doesn't give me the creeps that the old Nosferatu still gives me appearance wise.

The actors are good but overall the majority of the film feels pointless.

The shaking of the characters particularly the lead is incredible and they do seem to show genuine dread. But again it felt like it was building and nothing happens. Also the ending is kind of just whatever. I think if the characters meant more to me by the end it would've been a good ending but also I kind of didn't care about the characters as they tell you intimate details about the characters which is why you should care but do nothing to build the characters so that you do care.

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.

Beautiful is not a word that I enjoy using for a film with such a muted color pallet. However, for Robert Eggers' Nosferatu, after viewing it in it's entirety, it is the only word that comes to mind.

Eggers has constructed this film meticulously, with a precision seen in very few directors these days. Heck, more so than any previous effort he's put to screen. You can tell he enjoys working with a bigger budget and he know what to do with it as well. Lavish, gothic set design and costumes across the board. Wonderful special FX, both CG and practical makeup. The cinematography was insane. Sweeping camera shots and uncomfortable closeups, all framed in a 35mm letterbox format. It was a spectacle worth the wait, especially on the IMAX screen I saw it on.

The acting was phenomenonal. Lily Rose-Depp should win awards for her all out performance. Both horrific and touching all at the same time. Willem Dafoe provided some much needed spice for the second half. Without his character, the film would've slipped a star as the story starts getting a little long winded towards the end. My only gripe with the cast was Bill Skarsgård as Count Orlok. I felt he could've played into the character's sensitivity a bit more. He was cold hearted, yes, but he did still have love in his heart.

The story, adapted from both Dracula and Nosferatu... but mostly Nosferatu, was very well written. With dialog that felt natural and authentic to the time period, another one of Eggers specialty, the film flowed rather nicely and almost transports you to that time and place. Impressively, when the film does eventually start gettint bogged down a bit, Eggers makes sure to pick things right back up again to never keep the audience bored, and with a film like this that could've happened easily.

Overall, a pretty great adaptation of a classic story. Equal parts horror and mystery, and a bittersweet ending that almost made me cry. I loved it, and a nice addition to Robert Eggers' growing filmography.

4 coffins out of 5.

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.

I recently saw the original Nosferatu for the first time. I don't think it would be possible for a modern remake to come closer to capturing that film's sense of dread than Eggers' remake. Eggers has obviously made a dedicated study of the original and was determined to do justice to its legacy. He masterfully manipulates the shot and the sound to construct a world where it is always night. I have not felt so immersed in a movie for a long time, to the point where I felt almost like I myself was hypnotized by the vampire's spell. It's a kind of wordless terror which very, very few horror movies manage to elicit. The closest parallel is the Weimar classics. I think all of the negative reviews I've read were made by people who simply don't understand horror.

Greetings again from the darkness. My first exposure to Count Orlok was in a film class at the University of Texas. We were shown a portion of director FW Murneau's 1922 silent film, NOSFERATU: A SYMPHONY OF HORROR. I was mesmerized with the look of the film and especially with Max Schreck as Orlok. While growing up, I fawned over other vampire movies - Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney Jr, Christopher Lee, and even Frank Langella - but I never again saw anything like Schreck's Orlock. And yes, over the years, vampires have become frequent subjects of movies and even TV shows, and "Nosferatu", based on the original Bram Stoker story from 1897 spawned NOSFERATU THE VAMPYRE (1979, directed by Werner Herzog, starring Klaus Kinski) and NOSFERATU (2023, directed by David Lee Fisher, starring Doug Jones). My anticipation soared when it was announced that the extraordinarily creative filmmaker Robert Eggers (THE WITCH, 2015; THE LIGHTHOUSE, 2109; THE NORTHMAN, 2022) would be basing his version on Henrik Galeen's script from the 1922 original.

At its core, the story is a gothic tale of a woman haunted by the terrifying vampire obsessed with her. The "her" is Ellen Hutter played by Lily-Rose Depp (WOLF, 2021, and yes she's Johnny Depp's daughter). Ellen's husband is Thomas Hutter played by Nicholas Hoult (familiar with the look of this genre via WARM BODIES, 2013, and RENFIELD, 2023). When Thomas' job takes him out of town, friends Friedrich Harding (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Anna Harding (Emma Corrin, DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE, 2024) invite Ellen to stay with them. It turns out the work Thomas is assigned is a real estate transaction with a mysterious recluse named Count Orlok. You may have experienced a bad real estate deal in your life, but it's nothing like this one.

When it becomes apparent that Ellen's trauma is not merely nerves, but rather an evil spiritual presence, the expertise of Professor Albin Eberhart von Franz is sought in an attempt to gain some control. The professor is played by Willem Dafoe, who once portrayed the aforementioned Max Schreck in SHADOW OF A VAMPIRE (2000). Playing Count Orlok this time is Bill Skarsgard, who you likely recall was superb as Pennywise the Dancing Clown in IT (2017) and IT CHAPTER TWO (2019). Skarsgard's actual features are undetectable here, and especially jarring is his voice that truly sounds from another world (supposedly months of training). His Orlok is a true and memorable presence.

Eggers' film looks stunning and gorgeous and creepy. The opening sequence is fascinating and everything one could ask for in how a vampire horror movie appears on screen. He surrounded himself with previous collaborators: Director of Photography Jarin Blaschke, Production Designer Craig Lathrop, Costume Designer Linda Muir, Film Editor Louis Ford, and Composer Robin Carolan. It's an excellent team and one that excels at every step. My only issue with the film comes down to the cast. Lily-Rose Depp has the perfect look for the character, yet her torment never quite works. Aaron Taylor-Johnson and (the usually stellar) Willem Dafoe both seem to be showboating as if attempting to stand out in a movie dominated by a fearsome creature. It pains me to say that the cast (other than Skarsgard) simply take away some of the impact that the film should have had. Despite this, the film is lyrical, mystifying, and absolutely glorious in its look.

Opens in theaters on December 25, 2024.

This movie is very well made, many of the set pieces look absolutely gorgeous, the costumes are beautiful, and the whole vibe of the film captures the early 19th century amazingly well.

And despite how good some of the acting is in this film, it failed completely to connect with me on an emotional level. I cared about none of these characters, and the only one I enjoyed having on my screen was Willem Dafoe.

If this movie had spent more time building up relationships and making stakes matter, I would've rated this way higher. But visuals can carry a movie only for so long until boredom sets in. And this is what I ended up feeling after about halfway through it's runtime.

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.

For the past twenty or so years, there's been an influx of teen series featuring the sexy vampire trope and a lead female character who accepts abuse, coercion and constant threats of being killed. After a while, I found them to be in poor taste, as they seem to normalise abusive and controlling relationships. Worse, some were targeted at young teens.

In this film, the idea of a vampire sucking on you is portrayed as something utterly horrific, ugly, nasty and downright terrifying. As it originally intended.

It's about how one woman's cry to end her loneliness triggers an awaking of a horrifically menacing Nosferatu Count Orlok, which brings about terrible consequences for all those around her. Which also could be applied to anyone seeking comfort in the wrong places, and leads to opening a huge can of worms. Or this case, rats. Lots of them.

Orlok is genuinely one of the most scary movie monsters I've seen in recent years. Not just because of the prosthetics and Bill Skarsgard's brilliant performance, but because he is allowed to simply be evil incarnate with no redeeming features. And for a horror or thriller to work, you need a good, terryfing villain to scare the birdsong out of you.

That's not to say Nosferatu is a bad film. Everything about it is top notch. It is very atmospheric, a little sensual, and had a couple of really good scenes (loved the pigeon scene) but it also drags quite a bit. Coppola's version had more WTF moments. It was more grotesque, more sensual, more messed up, and it even had bestiality in it, which is crazy.

I liked the Anthony Hopkins character more than Willem Dafoe's, but more importantly I liked Gary Oldman as Dracula far more than I liked Bill Skardgard. Nosferatu's Dracula felt 2-dimentional and mostly constipated. Eggers tried to make him more ominous, I get it, but I still liked Coppola's version better. Oh, and I sorely missed Dracula's wives. They were ridiculous in Coppola's film.

If you've never seen Coppola's Dracula, you owe to yourself to watch that before you watch Nosferatu.

Robert Eggers' films clearly have a legion of followers, including myself.

He has a very personal, very auteur-like cinema, but also has some mainstream elements that make it so that every time a film comes out, it is eagerly awaited.

"The Witch", "The Lighthouse" and "The Northman" are works of art for me, so the fact that he was in charge of this adaptation gave me a lot of expectations.

I'm not going to lie, I liked the film, but not that much, maybe I expected more, maybe I had higher expectations. I think the script was quite weak at times.

I feel that we have a first half where the horror represented in the features of Nicholas Hoult shines, which is incredible.

But I also feel that the second half, mainly the whole investigation plot, is a bit unnecessary for me.

The ending seems fine to me, in keeping with the aim of looking for some originality considering that it is about a toxic relationship between a woman with a high libido and a demon with whom she made a pact to satisfy her carnal desires... perhaps that is my biggest problem, going from the initial horror to that final tone.

I am not going to stop appreciating how magnificently set it is, how it involves terminology from the Psychology of the time such as hysteria to explain what happens to Ellen.

The shots are incredible, the colour palette is dazzling. Everything is extremely well taken care of, like the moment when the gypsies speak in a dead ancient Romanian language, it is really crazy.

Bill Skarsgard is sublime in his interpretation as Orlok, we never realise that it is him, his vocal work is beyond absurd in its forms. I also like the appearance, very faithful to a man from that time in the Carpathian region.

Lily-Rose Depp is also very good in her performance, as is Willem Dafoe.

A must-see for lovers of cinema and its technical prowess and the work of its actors. However, don't expect to find Eggers' best work, because no, it isn't.

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.

Don't get me wrong the film is sumptuous and filmically stunning. But that I am afraid that for all this the film is simply dull.

The protagonist Orlok looks like Jim Carrey in Lemony Snickets, with a moustache. He just doesn't fill the film with menace.

The acting is hammy and trying far too hard to be a work of art rather than a slice of entertainment.

Miss Depp however died come out of it with some credit and is definitely one to watch for the future.

Willem Defoe is simply Willem Defoe mar as a box of frogs but always madly watchable.

So as a New Year commences I am hoping that the other films I am waiting for don't disappoint like Nosferatu today.

Every artist should strive to put as much meticulous love and care into their work as Robert Eggers. A melancholy love letter to European painters of old and folklore/horror history from both film and literature. Packaged in a unique kind of visionary treat for the senses. It's time that the horror genre is no longer pushed aside at the Oscars and that this film is given the recognition it deserves.

It was a privilege to experience this, including a beautifully dynamic Dolby Atmos soundtrack mix within in a dead silent audience, on Christmas Day 2024. An authentic and masterfully acted occult drama fairy tale! Next week we will at least go back for the IMAX premiere <3

(Atmos is the highest fidelity experience available until then in the Netherlands.)

10/10.

The cinematography is non pareil. A total feast for the eyes. But then, so are all of Eggers movies.

But the cinematogrphy doesn't justify the boooooring verbosity and poor plot of this turkey.

Bill Skarsgard's makeup and acting are fine. Willem Dafoe's acting is .....yawn.

Simon McBurney as Knock is great. I would never have thought to cast him as such. Well done Mr. Casting Director.

But you'll want to leave halfway through this dud turdkey. Depp's daughter has a great wardrobe but just not compelling as an actress.

There's nothing compelling about this flick other than the cinematography.

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.