Nosferatu

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.

Lushly beautiful with fine period costumes, lovely cinematography, and a hard-working Lily-Rose Depp in thrall to the vampire, this adaptation of Nosferatu ultimately falls flat by too many hypnotized fits by Depp, too much exposition, and a villain that grows less interesting with every appearance until he finally appears looking like an undead Ringo Starr on a stretch-rack. Nicholas Hoult is commanding in the Jonathan Harker role and it's clever to cast Willem Dafoe in the Van Helsing role since he played Count Orlock in 1999's much better Shadow of The Vampire, but this ultimately lacks bite.

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.

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.

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.