User reviews

Maybe there was a good idea to make a sound update of Nosferatu in the tinted monochrome style of the original but the execution is truly dreadful.

The acting is about what you might expect from a high school play. Apparently it was shot on empty sets and the backgrounds were added later. They look like AI images generated from screengrabs from the 1922 original.

Doug Jones has just a few scenes as the vampire, behind very heavy makeup. He brings the only point of interest but it's not enough to justify slogging through this sleepwalking snoozefest.

There are no real scares in this alleged horror film and it adds nothing to the original.

The whole point of this "remix film" was that it was supposed to utilize the old backdrops from the original 1922 feature, and green screen in new actors with actual dialogue.

However, director David Lee Fisher obviously changed his plan along the way, as what we get is instead a film where every backdrop seems to have been recreated with cgi (which explains why it took 10 years to complete).

And what you're left with is just a youtube-level fan production with embarrassingly bad actors lost in an uncanny valley. Even the ever lovable Doug Jones is like an intentional a parody of over acting, and the whole thing is just a sad imitation of the original.

Doug Jones was great as usual, the movie however was a different story. The cinematics looked like something a couple of high school kids would have done on an iPhone 2. The director may have been trying to go for a specific "feel", but he failed miserably. It looked almost like an animated comic book. If that was the feel they wanted then they got it, but personally I did not like it at all. Most of the cast did an adequate job but they where wasted on this movie. I love Doug Jones and love vampire moves, but honestly just watch the original 1922 version or even the remake from 1979, both are far superior.

Maybe not a very kind word to use, but this was pretty pathetic. Two stars only because Doug Jones is always great - but there was really very little he was called upon to do.

Not a respectful tribute to Dracula OR Nosferatu. It omits plot points that would make it make sense. The writing is horrendous. How does a German in Germany address a married german woman as Fraulein Hutter? Can't believe I wasted 92 minutes on this. Trash.

I guess it's supposed to be cool that they superimposed new digital content onto old backgrounds, but it just looks like somebody was playing around in iMovie. I cannot overstate how bad this movie was.

Review of Nosferatu.

A Sinister Homage Rating: 7/10

The 2024 Nosferatu film, starring the inimitable Doug Jones as Count Orlok, offers a stylish and visually striking reimagining of the 1922 classic. With a graphic novel-inspired aesthetic akin to Sin City, the film leans heavily into its moody, stylized visuals, creating an atmosphere that feels both fresh and nostalgic.

Doug Jones, a master of physical acting, perfectly channels Max Schreck's original performance, capturing the eerie, unsettling presence that made the character iconic. The modern makeup effects pay faithful homage to Orlok's original design, updating it with subtle enhancements that emphasize his grotesque charm without losing the character's vintage horror appeal. Jones' movements and expressions are mesmerizing, making him a worthy successor to Schreck's legacy.

The narrative, while not groundbreaking, stays true to the tone and spirit of the original, offering a faithful tribute rather than an outright reimagining. The Director clearly crafted the film with reverence, focusing on evoking the same primal unease the 1922 film instilled in audiences nearly a century ago.

While some critics have dismissed the film for its perceived lack of innovation, it's important to watch it for what it is: an homage. As a modern love letter to one of horror's most enduring films, it succeeds admirably. The graphic novel-inspired visuals may not be to everyone's taste, but they create a distinctive look that sets this Nosferatu apart from more traditional horror films.

In the end, this Nosferatu isn't trying to reinvent the wheel-it's a celebration of its cinematic roots, elevated by Doug Jones' haunting performance and a uniquely stylized visual approach. For fans of the original or those who appreciate atmospheric, graphic novel-inspired horror, it's worth a watch. Just embrace it for what it is, and you'll find it to be a perfectly fine (and at times chilling) homage.

Initially I was sort of thrilled to get to the 2023 take on the classic "Nosferatu" movie, especially since it had Doug Jones portraying Count Orlok.

However, I have to say that I found it really, really difficult to get into the movie. I just had an issue with the visual presentation of the movie. First of all, the lack of color was not pleasing, and the fact that it was mostly shot in front of a green screen just didn't work for me either. It looked too ridiculous, and it ruined the movie for me.

It was, of course, a storyline that I was familiar with, but it had some changes to it, here and there. But the feeling of this movie being a fully and wholly unnecessary remake just permeated too strongly.

Of the entire cast ensemble, I was only familiar with Doug Jones. The acting performances in the movie were fair, no doubt about that.

Visually then the movie was a swing and a miss. The laughable green screen sets just didn't work out one bit. And in all honesty, as much as I usually like Doug Jones, then the way they made him as Count Orlok just wasn't menacing or disturbing, it was actually feeling like something a bit of a travesty and a joke. I couldn't really take his appearance serious.

I found director David Lee Fisher's 2023 version of "Nosferatu" to be a brutally disappointing movie, to say the least.

My rating of "Nosferatu" lands on a generous two out of ten stars.

Last night I had a serendipitous event: I viewed the David Lee Fisher version of Nosferatu, A Symphony of Horror. I haven't seen this movie, released in 2023 mentioned anywhere and imagined it has been overshadowed by this year's Bill Skarsgård/Nicholas Hoult production and thus had been largely ignored, though Amazon Prime Video and Tubi features it. It's been panned by some but I found it surprisingly well-done. Yes, it begins with some slightly stilted and occasionally bombastic scenery-chewing but settles in when one decides to watch it as if actually set in the period of the story. Then, both cast, dialogue and viewer adjust accordingly. The story blends scenes crafted to copy exactly some from the original 1922 Nosferatu, and occasional dialogue from Lugosi's version. There are some little jewels of cinematic moments, such as the backdrops appearing a combination of painting and projection giving it the primitive cinematic effect of the original. Stylish, artistic, surreal, and gothic, done in black and white. Except for the occasional bright red slash of blood or the golden lick of flames as when the Demeter burns.

As a whole, even with the "high school play" elements another viewer has panned, I much preferred this one over the 1979 Kinski Nosferatu which simply mirrored the original with dialogue and added nothing new (and believe me, at 82, I've seen a LOT of vampire/Dracula movies to compare it to). I thoroughly enjoyed it and look forward to the latest Nosferatu so I can add it to my very long list.

So...we all have our opinions and though my seem to swim against the majority...that's my opinion and I"m sticking to it.

Is this film perfect? Absolutely not.

Is the acting the best you'll ever see? Most certainly not.

Is this film enjoyable? You better believe it is.

This is a far better film than the 'big budget' effort released recently. It's far less convoluted, and stays true to the original 1922 film.

I really love the fact the sets are stripped bare, much like the original. Only the essential props are used, and i think that is a beautiful touch. The use of light, and shadow is done brilliantly, again, just like the 1922 original.

The way they have characters enter shot from behind the camera, and have them remain in the periphery of the shot is another lovely touch to the way so many of the old films were shot.

I love the quirkiness of this film, their attempt to create something old in the modern world is bold, and for me, it's paid off big time. As i initially mentioned, perhaps the only thing i'd change would be the ability of the actors, though they really weren't terrible in all honesty. I perhaps think it was an extension of the 'old time feel' of the film, mimicking verbally, what at one point could only be expressed physically.

Overall, i really enjoyed this film, it was brilliantly made, and a real homage to the original film. If you have the choice of watching the big budget effort, or this, then in all honesty, i would strongly suggest watching this. It's far more fun, doesn't take itself anywhere near as seriously, as is a far better tribute to the original 'Nosferatu'.

I came for Doug Jones and couldn't even stomach sticking around for that long. It pains me to say I'll never make an effort to see this version of Count Orlok due to the absolute insult of a "movie" this is. What a travesty. How did this get the okay? I've never witnessed such absolutely tragic acting in any film before. I've seen more convincing performances in the likes of Sharktopus. Actually laughable. So bad, it takes you completely out of the movie and wondering who is scoring this so highly and what type of character can actually sit down and stick around for the full 92 minutes run time. Avoid like the plague.

With the recent hype surrounding Robert Eggers' «Nosferatu», I was curious to see the remake of Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau's 1922 expressionist classic. This version was released in 2023, with the same original title, «Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror», directed by David Lee Fisher, who had previously made a version of another expressionist classic, Robert Wiene's «The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari» (1920).

Fisher's film was shot in 2016, with most takes recorded against a green screen by cinematographer and visual effects specialist Christopher Duddy, and then images taken from the 1922 original were added and colorized. Post-production took seven years, until the finished work was released on November 11, 2023, to mixed reviews. Almost all critics praised Doug Fisher's performance as the vampire protagonist.

In truth, I was surprised to find that this movie, made and released without fanfare, is more effective in some ways than Eggers' proposal, who aspires to the title of new "master of horror cinema." To begin with, Fisher's film is more measured, restrained and direct (it lasts 92 minutes, that is, half an hour less than Eggers'), Jones' performance is indeed excellent and surpasses Bill Skarsgård's, and the story contains details that are more faithful to Bram Stoker than any other adaptation of his novel «Dracula.» For example, there is a moment in the novel where Stoker alludes to Dracula's terrifying gaze from a great distance. His gaze burns like two embers. Here, the woman victim and victimizer perceives the force of his eyes from her window to the ruined slaughterhouse that the vampire bought to live in, where he is watching her. And above all, it is a reserved film, without the gory effects of Eggers' film.

Both films suffer from the same thing: impertinent dialogue worthy of a soap opera (which Murnau was spared from, as he preferred silent films and narrating only with images and music). However, Fisher does stumble in the selection of the performers of the young real estate salesman and his wife (Jonathan and Lucy Harker in the novel and Werner Herzog's version; Thomas and Ellen Hutter in Henrik Galeen's script for Murnau's film, which inspired Eggers and Fisher). Emrhys Cooper has a bad start as the greedy young man that Fisher describes, playing Thomas Hutter as a frivolous guy, whose love for his wife Ellen is unconvincing. And Sarah Carter is a voluptuous blonde who conflicts with Stoker's idea of the pale, fragile and languid antiheroine (whose ideal interpreter to date has been Isabelle Adjani).

The visual work is plausible and it is surprising that not even the American Saturn Awards for horror and fantasy films have considered the film in their annual nominations and awards. Curiously, like Eggers' movie, Fisher's film does not inspire fear or shock. However, his respect for Murnau's work grants it a certain distinction and admiration that I find praiseworthy.

I've read a couple of bad reviews on this, and I feel like they don't get the aesthetics the director was going for. Everything in this screamed as an homage to the original, but with updated flair. Was the dialogue over the top, yes, but wasn't the dialogue cards in the original, also yes! The shots were highly stylized black and white and the use of red was well placed.

The original left us viewers with questions and surmising. This one takes a stronger stance and feels like it fills in the gaps and fleshes out these characters. It elevates it from the vaudeville feeling silent original to a more modern piece that highlights the original story.

It's definitely worth a watch. Just keep in mind that it is an aesthetic- much like Wes Anderson films; might not be for everyone, but dang it's a piece of art!

And besides everything, it's DOUG JONES! He's a legend and anything he is in, is worth a look-see. Trust me!

I was amongst the first to see a screening of this movie and I thought it was very good. The acting was good and everything thing about it I enjoyed. I thought it was an enhanced version of the original with all the same scares but modernized. I think they perfectly accomplished what they wanted to. I felt like the the enhanced original scenes were fantastic. Maybe it was because it was viewed different on the big screen. Too bad it wasn't more widely released in the theaters. The added dialogue was good. I thought the acting was good. I thought Doug Jones as Orlok was fantastic. He is truly a master of that type of role. His movements tell a story with no words and is terrific. He should have been Orlok in the Eggers film. He would have made it so much better. Watch this movie for what it is and you will enjoy it while rediscovering the original greatness.

Well, I'm paraphrasing the director's words. I came across this film by accident, as it was (just about) released with very little fanfare and no real distribution. If you're expecting 'name' actors and big studio effects, you've come to the wrong place. If you're looking for an updated homage to the original, then this film is for you. Other reviewers have referred to the graphic novel feel to the film, and I'd say there's something of the dreamlike atmosphere of the original 'Nosferatu' and Dreyer's 'Vampyr'. There are a few minor flaws- as someone has commented, even as a non-German speaker I noted the use of 'fräulein' to address a married woman- but the film overall is very well made on a tiny budget. Well worth an hour and a half of your time.