Nosferatu

Overview

A gothic tale of obsession between a haunted young woman and the terrifying vampire infatuated with her, causing untold horror in its wake.

Rating

12 Reviews

• 

  Kali

  8 Jan 25, 2025

  > Standing Before Me Was Death, But I'd Never Been So Happy \- Ellen Hutter **Nosferatu** is a chilling gothic horror with top-tier acting and a beautiful set design. The film uses colour and sound better than any other film I've seen recently, and does an incredible job of setting the scene. The movie will scare you, disgust you, and keep you on edge throughout the over two hour runtime. While it isn't something everyone will enjoy, if you think you might enjoy this you shouldn't miss it.

• 

  Dean

  7 Jan 26, 2025

  Was pretty decent movie with beautiful visuals. I mean the atmosphere was perfect - cold, dark, gloomy winter. Story was good too. Recently we have been getting some decent horror movies about vampires, like "The Last Voyage of the Demeter" which was another great vampire movie.

• 

  MovieGuys

  7 Jan 31, 2025

  "Nosferatu" tries far too hard to be something, it could more readily have been, with a lighter touch. You can see what they are going for, a creepy noir, horror fantasy. The problem is, it feels obsessively over stylised, to the point of leaden Gothic oppressiveness. Its a quality that infects the characterisations, as well. They feel over stated, too much larger than life (or is that death) and as a a result, at times, farcical. The story itself, to those who have read Bram Stoker's "Dracula", is mostly familiar. A few amendments have been made to bring it more in line with the original "Nosferatu" directed by F. W. Murnau, way back in 1922. Count Dracula has been replaced by Count Orlock, for example. I did feel the ending (which also departs from the novel) was a "bit thin" and somewhat underwhelming. I will say, in spite of its limitations, I don't hate this film. Its clear a lot of effort and care has been invested into its creation. I think too, certain dramatic and visual aspects of the Gothic film noir approach, are creepily memorable. In summary, "Nosferatu" is a valiant effort that would have been markedly better with gentler handling. A balance of the dark aspects of the film with a more subtle, lighter approach would have led to a superior final product. Ultimately a rather emotionally and visually, cumbersome watch, you might want to spread over a couple of evenings.

• 

  RalphRahal

  5 Mar 7, 2025

  Nosferatu (2024) marks the third remake of the original 1922 film, and at this point, you have to wonder, how many times do we need to see this story retold? It’s also part of a ridiculously long list of Dracula-related films, with nearly 95 adaptations floating around. While this version brings fresh cinematography and a chilling atmosphere, it doesn’t reinvent the story in any significant way. The plot follows the familiar beats of Count Orlok’s eerie presence and growing obsession, but it takes its time getting anywhere. The directing leans heavily into gothic horror, which works for setting the mood, but sometimes it feels more focused on aesthetics than storytelling. Visually, the film is stunning. The cinematography is easily its strongest aspect, with haunting lighting, deep shadows, and eerie textures that create a cold, unsettling world. The acting is another highlight, with Bill Skarsgård delivering a terrifying and tragic performance as Orlok. The rest of the cast holds their own, adding depth to the horror. However, the script is where things get shaky. Some moments shine, but others feel drawn out or unnecessarily stiff, making the film drag in parts. The score does a solid job of building tension, though it doesn’t always hit as hard as it could. One of the strangest creative choices is the inclusion of an oud and belly dancing in Transylvania during Thomas Hutter’s arrival. The scene is heavily choreographed, with villagers giving him a grand welcome that feels eerie and almost ritualistic. It’s a visually striking moment, but the film never explains its purpose. The oud and dance are Middle Eastern cultural elements, not something tied to Transylvania’s history, and after this elaborate introduction, they are never mentioned again. A single question about it is quickly dismissed, making it feel like the filmmakers threw it in for exoticism without considering whether it made any sense. Nosferatu (2024) is a visually impressive and well-acted film, but its slow pacing, script issues, and odd cultural inaccuracies hold it back. If you’re a fan of classic vampire horror, it’s worth a watch, but it doesn’t do much to stand out from the dozens of Dracula films that came before it.

• 

  Wuchak

  7 Mar 10, 2025

  **_Basically, Robert Eggers’ version of Coppola’s “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”_** In 1838, a newlywed couple living in a town on Germany’s coast on the Baltic Sea are challenged by the troubling dreams of the wife (Lily-Rose Depp) and the husband’s long business trip to Transylvania (Nicholas Hoult). The excursion to the castle of Count Orlok (Bill Skarsgård) takes an utterly frightening turn, but the worst is yet to come when the Count makes it to his decrepit manor in Wisburg. “Nosferatu” (2024) was written & directed by Eggers, who was inspired by Henrik Galeen's screenplay for the 1922 film, as well as Bram Stoker's 1897 novel. There are also bits borrowed from “Suspiria” (1977), "Castle Freak" and various possession flicks, like “The Exorcist.” However, I was most reminded of Coppola’s 1992 version of the story. All the main characters are in both movies, just with different names and the Western Europe locale switched from London to the fictional Wisburg, Germany. Instead of Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing you have Willem Dafoe as von Franz; in place of Tom Waits as Renfield, there’s Simon McBurney as Knock; instead of Sadie Frost as Lucy, there’s Emma Corrin as Anna; and so on. Like Coppola’s movie, the production quality is first-rate. Yet this is way scarier and unsettling and, definitely, the creepiest version of the Dracula I’ve seen on film. But it’s not as lush, sexy or entertaining as “Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” not to mention Frank Langella’s 1979 version and many of the Hammer flicks. While this lacks the infamous love story that Coppola & writer James Hart added to Stoker’s tale, it still has something akin to that with Orlok’s attraction to Mina, um, I mean Ellen (Depp). It kept my interest for the first half, but started losing it in the second (Coppola’s film had the same issue, just not as much). Yet I liked the ending; and the real European locations are preferred over Coppola’s studio-bound sets (which were top-of-the-line; I just favor real locations). The film runs 2 hours, 12 minutes, with the Extended Cut running four minutes longer (which is the version I saw). It was shot in the Czech Republic at Barrandov Studios in Prague with location shooting done at Rožmitál pod Třemšínem Castle and Pernštejn Castle, as well as Prague's Invalidovna complex. In addition, some exterior shots were done in Corvin Castle in Romania. GRADE: B/B-

• 

  GenerationofSwine

  5 Apr 20, 2025

  Well, it's not woke, so it gets points for not screaming POLITICS! POLITICS! POLITICS! at you at the top of it's lungs. And honestly, that's enough of a novelty to make it passable. It's so rare these days that when you see a movie that's not about pushing a political message, you sort of like it out of principal. None of the characters are race-swapped, and the audience is so used to seeing period films set in Europe's past with openly Gay characters and Black leads for established white characters, that seeing people who look like they fit the demographics for the location and time the film was set in is... refreshing. It's just made to entertain, it tries to keep true, visually, character-wise, to what the source material said, and we need more of that. We want more of that. But then, it's not exactly good either. The pacing is off, I mean it's really off. It seems to all come too fast to really set in as a story. It needs to take it's time a bit more. It needs to let the setting and characters settle more... but unfortunately it doesn't. It just moves from one beat to the next at lightening speed and, honestly, that sort of kills it on a story perspective. The plot suffered from it too, the fast pace took away from the establishment, so even the Velma information dumps didn't have time to settle. I have to give a shout out to Lily-Rose Depp, she did try and sell the character. She was actually better than Willem Dafoe, who needs a Razzy for this. His performance was a little too silly for a horror movie. It was like he was intent not to play it straight and over-acted a bit too much, so much it wouldn't have even played on the stage. Bill Skarsgård wasn't bad, but again, a little over the top. Let's face it, in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s this would have been considered bad. The ratings would have been lower, but it's the 2020s, and the fact that it was just made to tell a story, just made to entertain, made with no lectures, no politics, that redeems it, that sets it apart. People like it more because it left out the crap that they are tired of having rubbed in their faces every day. Ultimately, though, there are better movies, better vampire movies, and this one only feels good because, unlike "The Last Voyage of the Demeter," they made a vampire move set in the 19th Century, without adding and overwhelming injection of modern day politics.