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
Last night I had a serendipitous event: I viewed the David Lee Fisher version of Nosferatu, A Symphony of Horror. I haven't seen this movie, released in 2023 mentioned anywhere and imagined it has been overshadowed by this year's Bill Skarsgård/Nicholas Hoult production and thus had been largely ignored, though Amazon Prime Video and Tubi features it. It's been panned by some but I found it surprisingly well-done. Yes, it begins with some slightly stilted and occasionally bombastic scenery-chewing but settles in when one decides to watch it as if actually set in the period of the story. Then, both cast, dialogue and viewer adjust accordingly. The story blends scenes crafted to copy exactly some from the original 1922 Nosferatu, and occasional dialogue from Lugosi's version. There are some little jewels of cinematic moments, such as the backdrops appearing a combination of painting and projection giving it the primitive cinematic effect of the original. Stylish, artistic, surreal, and gothic, done in black and white. Except for the occasional bright red slash of blood or the golden lick of flames as when the Demeter burns.
As a whole, even with the "high school play" elements another viewer has panned, I much preferred this one over the 1979 Kinski Nosferatu which simply mirrored the original with dialogue and added nothing new (and believe me, at 82, I've seen a LOT of vampire/Dracula movies to compare it to). I thoroughly enjoyed it and look forward to the latest Nosferatu so I can add it to my very long list.
So...we all have our opinions and though my seem to swim against the majority...that's my opinion and I"m sticking to it.
As a whole, even with the "high school play" elements another viewer has panned, I much preferred this one over the 1979 Kinski Nosferatu which simply mirrored the original with dialogue and added nothing new (and believe me, at 82, I've seen a LOT of vampire/Dracula movies to compare it to). I thoroughly enjoyed it and look forward to the latest Nosferatu so I can add it to my very long list.
So...we all have our opinions and though my seem to swim against the majority...that's my opinion and I"m sticking to it.
I've read a couple of bad reviews on this, and I feel like they don't get the aesthetics the director was going for. Everything in this screamed as an homage to the original, but with updated flair. Was the dialogue over the top, yes, but wasn't the dialogue cards in the original, also yes! The shots were highly stylized black and white and the use of red was well placed.
The original left us viewers with questions and surmising. This one takes a stronger stance and feels like it fills in the gaps and fleshes out these characters. It elevates it from the vaudeville feeling silent original to a more modern piece that highlights the original story.
It's definitely worth a watch. Just keep in mind that it is an aesthetic- much like Wes Anderson films; might not be for everyone, but dang it's a piece of art!
And besides everything, it's DOUG JONES! He's a legend and anything he is in, is worth a look-see. Trust me!
The original left us viewers with questions and surmising. This one takes a stronger stance and feels like it fills in the gaps and fleshes out these characters. It elevates it from the vaudeville feeling silent original to a more modern piece that highlights the original story.
It's definitely worth a watch. Just keep in mind that it is an aesthetic- much like Wes Anderson films; might not be for everyone, but dang it's a piece of art!
And besides everything, it's DOUG JONES! He's a legend and anything he is in, is worth a look-see. Trust me!
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.
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'.
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.
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