Astrobiologist00

Yet another example that Hollywood is bankrupt with talent. The purpose of a narrative is not only to tell a story, but also provide reasons why things happen.

This Petri dish of shlock (like so many films over the past 15+ years) figured there was no need for that, and instead just had things happen because apparently, reason was just too difficult to portray.

Not only that, the music didn't help either. For lack of better words, it was just irritating, ill-fit, and...dumb.

It's not a high concept movie by any stretch. But, it is an entertaining flick. And, it's the first time Wahlberg has played an actual bad guy since 1996's Fear. And not to give anything away, but damn, his character gets taken to task to say the least.

Topher Grace is...Topher Grace in this movie. His character really could've been played by any number of actors. The same could be said for the actress who played the FBI agent. But in reality, none of the characters actually required in depth character study or to be standout. It was just a matter of getting actors to sign onto the film who could competently pull off the scenes.

So again, it's a decent film overall. I don't think anyone will walk out feeling disappointed or angry about spending their time or money watching it. And as run of the mill as it is, it's still better than what's being nominated for an Academy award this year.

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.