Current Events > Has anyone seen the new Nosferatu? (Possible spoilers)

(+) Yeah! (+)

Cause its reviewing well but I hated it. I thought parts of it dragged on, reviews called it seductive but the sexual parts seemed overdone and cheesy, outside of Dafoe I thought the performances were pretty weak, and I thought the horror elements were pretty bad. All the scares felt predictable and boring.

like I dont get how its reviewed so well

Yeah i liked it

I liked the first half of the movie but i felt the 2nd half was pretty weak despite Dafoes performance.

We saw it yesterday. I enjoyed it, but I knew going in that old monster movies weren't super scary, so I wasn't expecting tons of horror.

I4NRulez posted...

Cause its reviewing well but I hated it. I thought parts of it dragged on, reviews called it seductive but the sexual parts seemed overdone and cheesy, outside of Dafoe I thought the performances were pretty weak, and I thought the horror elements were pretty bad. All the scares felt predictable and boring.

like I dont get how its reviewed so well

Welcome to prestige horror.

I liked it for it's imagery and it's cinematography. Once characters not played by Willem Dafoe and Pennywise started talking I checked out instinctually.

hawksferatuah

Yes, it was good. As are all of Eggers films.

People shouldn't go into this expecting a horror movie. Maybe the marketing is wrong?

I mean, it objectively is a horror movie. It's just not very scary.

Ar0ge posted...

Yes, it was good. As are all of Eggers films.

People shouldn't go into this expecting a horror movie. Maybe the marketing is wrong?

Who da hell would think a Nosferatu remake is a horror film doe?

I thought it was amazing.

I think people going in expecting a "horror" film and not like a classic horror film would go away being very disappointed. I thought the movie was at it's strongest at his castle. The cinematography was amazing, the overwhelming atmosphere of Count Orlok in his keep using his powers of suggestion and bewitchment was just superb.

The performances were fantastic, the menace and abilities of Orlok were shown off really well, and it was steeped in a somewhat more grounded idea of what a vampire is, rather than it being overly fantastical and bombastic. He was almost more a force of nature without a means to rationalize with rather than a "monster".

I think it ran maybe about 20 minutes longer than it needed to and that once you got the return to Wisborg the film could have moved more quickly to a finale, but otherwise it was brilliant.

I loved it. Dearly and utterly love it, Gothic horror masterpiece

Im gonna say the same thing I said in the movie board. The first act was great. It was dreamlike, surreal, made you wonder what was real and what was dream.. and then it became the standard Dracula movie after that. I wanted it to continue being weird. I wanted it to continue being unique. If youre going to call yourself nosferatu and use count orlock I feel like you can get away by straying further from the source material.

VRX3000 posted...

Im gonna say the same thing I said in the movie board. The first act was great. It was dreamlike, surreal, made you wonder what was real and what was dream.. and then it became the standard Dracula movie after that. I wanted it to continue being weird. I wanted it to continue being unique. If youre going to call yourself nosferatu and use count orlock I feel like you can get away by straying further from the source material.

I mean, Nosferatu existed to plagiarize Dracula to begin with

LightSnake posted...

I mean, Nosferatu existed to plagiarize Dracula to begin with

yeah but then why not just call the movie Dracula? Its already public domain. If youre going to go the extra effort to change the names, then why not take more daring changes with the story as a whole?

it just seems like a half-measure to me.

I gave it a 9 / 10:

Heavily based in folklore and exuding pure evil and skewed romanticism, this is Gothic horror at its most extreme. Cinematography, production design, makeup and score are all on point, and Bill Skarsgard is fully committed (even if I have mixed feelings on the design).

The mustache did a number on me. It felt so out of place. Other than that, I enjoyed the movie. Was hoping for more of a horror/thriller vibe, but it was good for what it was.

I thought it was great. The more I think about it, the more I like it.

I've heard the "it's not really a horror movie" take a few times, and I'm honestly baffled by that. What else could it be? Even by modern horror standards, it has gore and jump-scares!

TheOnionKnight posted...

I thought it was great. The more I think about it, the more I like it.

I've heard the "it's not really a horror movie" take a few times, and I'm honestly baffled by that. What else could it be? Even by modern horror standards, it has gore and jump-scares!

Well, despite some naysayers, it is the highest rated 2024 horror movie on Letterboxd. The Substance is #2.

VRX3000 posted...

yeah but then why not just call the movie Dracula? Its already public domain. If youre going to go the extra effort to change the names, then why not take more daring changes with the story as a whole?

Because the original already made changes to the Dracula story like having Orlok look inhuman, having him die in the sunlight while draining his obsession as opposed to being decapitated and staked since Dracula is only weak in sunlight, Ellen offering herself as a sacrifice so the creature could be killed, and the plague spreading across the city when Orlok arrives, to name a few examples.

bsp77 posted...

I gave it a 9 / 10:

Heavily based in folklore and exuding pure evil and skewed romanticism, this is Gothic horror at its most extreme. Cinematography, production design, makeup and score are all on point, and Bill Skarsgard is fully committed (even if I have mixed feelings on the design).

Pretty much my opinion, though you also gotta mention Willem Dafoe putting out yet another banger of a performance and Lily Rose Depp as well, straight up channeling shit from The Exorcist in some scenes.

VRX3000 posted...

yeah but then why not just call the movie Dracula? Its already public domain. If youre going to go the extra effort to change the names, then why not take more daring changes with the story as a whole?

it just seems like a half-measure to me.

What "daring changes?" Eggers wanted to remake Nosferatu and did

dancing_cactuar posted...

Pretty much my opinion, though you also gotta mention Willem Dafoe putting out yet another banger of a performance and Lily Rose Depp as well, straight up channeling shit from The Exorcist in some scenes.

Agree. My Letterboxd "reviews" are often quite lazy

I think that a lot of people who think of Horror think of "Modern Horror", whereas I think Classic Gothic Horror best describes Nosferatu.

If you went in expecting a modern Vampire film, I could see this being very different from what you were expecting. But holy shit if you just came in expecting "Classic Horror" it was amazing.

Jeff_AKA_Snoopy posted...

If you went in expecting a modern Vampire film, I could see this being very different from what you were expecting.

But what does that actually mean? If people think this isn't a horror film, then what else could it be?! I'm seriously dumbfounded. I just don't get it. There's no other genre except "horror" that fits for this movie. And it's got tons of horror staples.

I guess I need to watch other horror movies to see what "modern" means. Any recommendations?

Great performances but I don't know. I felt it could have been a lot scarier. I don't feel they used atmospheric horror elements as well as I hoped they would have. I will say, though, that I think I will think better of this movie on a repeated viewing.

Look, I like the original film. I like classic black and white horror movies, and have a 50 film dvd set of them with tons of classics like white zombie, nosferatu, the vampire bat, and the silent phantom of the opera (it also has attack of the giant goal monster and the killer shrewd)

as far as radical changes. I dont know. The first act was great. Just do more of that and less of acts 2 and 3.

I prefer the fighter jet.

Or Castlevania.

TheOnionKnight posted...

But what does that actually mean? If people think this isn't a horror film, then what else could it be?! I'm seriously dumbfounded. I just don't get it. There's no other genre except "horror" that fits for this movie. And it's got tons of horror staples.

I guess I need to watch other horror movies to see what "modern" means. Any recommendations?

Well, Jeff didn't say it's not a horror film. He said it's not a modern vampire horror, but a classic horror. So it's horror. It's just about the seasoning, you could say. It has different seasoning compared to many modern horror movies. Like, take comedy for instance. You could have two movies that are comedies, but one could be a Mel Brooks slap stick comedy, while the other could be a romantic comedy with more realistic stuff. There's different kinds of horror. Nosferatu feels like classic, Victorian horror, and many modern audiences don't vibe with that.

You thought Lily Rose Depp's performance was weak? Way off base, imo. She was great.

It's a fantastic movie. I feel like the people who called it boring need to do themselves a favor and look into movies and directors a bit more before they go see them.

Villain_S_Fiend posted...

You thought Lily Rose Depp's performance was weak? Way off base, imo. She was great.

It's a fantastic movie. I feel like the people who called it boring need to do themselves a favor and look into movies and directors a bit more before they go see them.

Agree on both counts. And I adjusted my mini review above to point out how great Lily-Rose Depp was.

spanky1 posted...

Well, Jeff didn't say it's not a horror film

Yeah but I've heard other people say that. Both online and in real life! One of my friends has a trainer who insisted Nosferatu is not a horror movie. Like what does a "modern" horror movie have that Nosferatu is missing? Is it just the fact that the pace is a little slower?

I don't understand the argument that it's not really a horror movie. The overarching theme is the emotional horror of desperation, regret and entrapment/violation, and unquenchable, eternal, monstrous appetite. Then you have the tone of nothing but increasing stress and dread in every character.

And speaking strictly for scenes in the movie - the opening scene, Thomas' introduction to the Count and his schlong, Knock in the asylum, Anna and the rats, Orlok and the girls, the entire Demeter sequence... Horror.

It's a horror film, no mistaking it. Just because it's not Terrifier or whatever, that doesn't change anything.

I'm not saying I agree with the sentiment in the least.

I think what it is, is that there are different expectations depending on what you expect from "horror". For example I loved Hereditary in terms of horror films, but my friends (who love horror films like classic slasher flicks and whatnot) hated it and wished people weren't hyping it up as this amazing "horror" film cause that gives them a different expectation.

It's silly but I feel like Horror invites that sort of odd reaction more than a lot of genres do because what gives you that "horrific" feeling can be MANY different things. Comedy, for example, as long as it makes you laugh that's comedy? I dunno, I think it'd ridiculous but lots of people are ridiculous.

"Horror" does not necessarily have to be "scary" in the sense it makes you hang on the edge of your seat, orr have anticipation. A slow, atmospheric build of dread is just as valid

The genre is very diverse and what works for some people may not work for others. I don't often get 'scared' per se by horror films anymore, but I totally enjoy atmosphere and dread

I guess what I'm curious about is how people are defining horror nowadays. Like what plot elements or cinematic techniques do they have in mind? I understand the difference between sub-genres like "slasher" and "thriller" and "torture porn," but this is the first time I've run into this "modern horror" discussion. Nosferatu is SO gory and violent that it strikes me, personally, as very modern. Older "classic horror" movies aren't nearly as graphic.

If the Terrifier franchise is the new benchmark for "modern horror," maybe I should just watch those. I haven't seen any of them yet.

Terrifier's great for people who like slasher stuff, but honestly that's the horror genre that bores me the most (aside from entries like Texas Chainsaw Massacre or early Michael/Jason/Freddy).

I want tension. I want to feel unnerved. I want to turn off the TV after it's over and feel uneasy in the quiet aftermath of what I watched.