Nosferatu

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.