Vampire Count Orlok expresses interest in a new residence and real estate agent Hutter's wife.Vampire Count Orlok expresses interest in a new residence and real estate agent Hutter's wife.Vampire Count Orlok expresses interest in a new residence and real estate agent Hutter's wife.
Eddie Allen
- Knock
- (as Edgar Allan Poe)
Featured reviews
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 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 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.
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.
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'.
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'.
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaUses the character names from the original Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror (1922), rather than the names from the novel "Dracula". The 1922 original was pulled from cinemas upon its release in 1923, after Bram Stoker's widow filed for copyright infringement. The first remake, Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979), did use the character names from the novel, as the case was barred by the time of its production.
- ConnectionsReferenced in WatchMojo: Top 10 Upcoming Horror Movie Remakes (2019)
- How long is Nosferatu?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 32m(92 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.78 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content