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.

I initially found Nosferatu to be an acceptable, if underwhelming watch the first time I saw it. I think when you love a director's work, it's good to rewatch a film, unburdened by expectations, and see how you really feel.

I will say, I found myself liking Nosferatu a lot more the second time around. It's eerie, dreamlike nature is unsettling and really wraps you in. The larger-than-life power of the titular vampire feels like an omnipresent curse upon our characters and the town of Wisburg. Also, if you're a sucker for winter movies, this one does tickle that fancy quite well.

Speaking of which, this film, as expected, looks absolutely phenomenal from beginning to end. Not only is it wonderfully shot, but the costumes and sets just look fantastic. There are little nuances in how the characters act as well that are accurate to the time that I really appreciated as well. How, Nicholas Hault's Thomas Hutter, when confronted with his wife Ellen's (Lily Rose Depp) ravings, his immediate reaction is to ask her not to say these things again, rather than seek help. It's reflective of the repressive, image conscious times, and like many an Eggers film, reflects how deeply he cares about depicting the period accurately.

A lot of this works because of the tremendous performances by the cast, who really sell their period flair. Hoult is fantastic as usual, but naturally, it's Depp's incredibly physical and demanding performance that is the highlight. She is remarkable in this film and dispels any notion that her success comes (entirely) from her parentage.

As much as I loved Depp's performance, I honestly wish we learned more about her character. The depth of her loneliness is never explained outside of one scene, and how she even managed to contact Orlock is a bit confusing as well. I felt like this relationship could've been expanded upon, which would've been legitimately interesting.

Bill Skarsgard truly melts away under unbelievable make up and costuming as Count Orlock. I found him even less recognizable here than as Pennywise. And you have heavy hitters like Willem Dafoe, Ralph Ineson, Emma Corrin, and a surprisingly great turn from Aaron Taylor Johnson as well.

Yet, I still found Nosferatu somewhat hard to connect to. Skarsgard's incredible performance aside, I just found the talk of Orlock being this mythical, terrifying presence a bit hard to square with the somewhat goofy character he ends up being.

I'd honestly rather him have less lines and be seen less. Some horror movies are scarier when the villain isn't present, and some are just better when they are. (I'd argue a Nightmare on Elm Street or Terrifier are examples of the latter). This movie tries to have it both ways, and Orlock is just not scary. It's the moustache for me. And his death is even funnier, when you really think about it. It's such an anticlimactic end to this force that's portrayed as beyond our comprehension for so much of the film.

As it stands, I do have a higher opinion of Nosferatu than I initially did, but I still think it's easily Robert Egger's weakest film. I kind of wish he went weirder and more surreal with it. It's a studio film, I get it, but consequently, it lacks that sense of depicting a world where the belief systems and worldviews were so different from our own.

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.

It wouldn't make much sense to compare this efx heavy remake to the black and white original (an unauthorized rip-off of Dracula). But I couldn't help comparing this to Herzog's 1979 version and would recommend any fan of this movie who hasn't already seen that one to check it out. Here's why:

Unlike Lily Depp, Isabelle Adjani projected a vulnerability that made her sacrifice all the more brave.

Eggers' screenplay basically just dresses up the original with some long-winded dialog, particularly dragging the last half out to annoying lengths. His biggest changes were the addition of shock efx imagery inserted at critical moments to amp up the horror. For me, they had the opposite effect - distracting reminders that we were watching an "artsy" film.

The CGI enhancements add some stunning visuals in places, but by lessening the authenticity they lower the horror aspect. For example, in Herzog's version, seeing thousands of real rats flooding the dock (a marvel of animal wrangling) evokes the utter horror of the moment while the rats in the new version just look like background rats in a video game.

Eggers' biggest strength is his eye for detail. The costumes are gorgeous. The settings as well. The film comes alive when Hoult arrives in Eastern Europe. The gypsy and peasant scenes are the best in the movie.

Ralph Ineson is excellent. The rest of the cast is good. I found Depp too cold and unlikeable from the start. I gave up trying to catch all her whispery dialog, ditto for the garbled rumblings of Nosferatu in a few scenes.

This film will no doubt be more enjoyable to those who haven't previously seen Herzog's, as it will seem more original and the drawn-out scenes less laborious.

I should add I'm a huge fan of The Witch and I appreciated much that was good in this film. It just wasn't a grand slam for me.

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.