I definitely plan om seeing this in theater after the initial rush dies down. Likely sometime in mid-January. I'm a big Eggers fan, as well as a fan of Gothic horror.

quote:

Nosferatu (2024)

Apparently in color although the dark and cast lighting seems to be perfect.
I love BW especially the horror era of the 30-40's.
It is a shame when horror movies especially ones of the 60-70's in FULL color that makes them unrealistic (I know that term is an oxymoron).
However, this seems to be something I can get into.
Thanks for the info.

I am always wary of things getting a lot of promotion, which this has.

Have there been any comparisons drawn to the Francis Ford Coppola film? I used to like that one a lot, and would think that it has many gothic aspects, though I am not well-versed in what makes something gothic.

Despite vampires lending themselves to dark and moody productions, I love dark and moody, I've never had any interest in any vampire movie ever. Even zombies are scarier than vampires.

Saw it today and really liked it.
Dark and moody.

I am a fan of Eggers and am looking forward to seeing this as soon as the kids are back in school.

quote:

Originally posted by Anubismp:
I am a fan of Eggers and am looking forward to seeing this as soon as the kids are back in school.

Yup, if Eggers is involved, I'm gonna check it out. He's one of the few directors out there who has a clue about how to make a movie, tell a story, doesn't rely on exposition or gratuitous CG.

My girlfriend surprised me with tickets this afternoon, so I got a chance to see it earlier than anticipated.

I though it was very good, but not amazing. 8/10


For those who don't know, this is based on a pioneering 1922 silent film that was itself an unlicensed adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula novel. But the original diverged from the Dracula story in several ways, such as character names and the setting, and this new version diverges even a bit further.

I like that Eggers took inspiration from the original Nosferatu without making an exact copy/remake. There are some shots that are near-copies of iconic shots in the original, but he added his own take on it in a number of ways, including a new demonic pact/possession angle to a portion of the story that was unexpected. It's also more overtly sexual than the original.

The creature design is excellent, being inspired by the original iconic Count Orlok look but from a more historically-grounded angle. He looks exactly what you'd expect the decaying corpse of a 15th century Slavic nobleman to look like, down to the hairdo. (And thankfully he didn't fall into the trap of trying to create some CGI man-bat hybrid thing that so many vampire films have done. Not that I'd expect Eggers to even consider doing that anyway.)

And this is one of the best vampires put to film. He's not a sparkly shiny happy vampire. He's not a sexy seductive vampire in fashionable clothing. He's clearly a predatory, animalistic undead creature. His movements and even the way he breathes are reminiscent of a large predator. Bill Skarsgard does a fantastic job bringing Orlok to life, without ever crossing the line into it being campy/cheesy.

But one of my faults with the film is that I wish we saw Orlok a bit less. I honestly think that the extended scenes with the camera fully showing the creature detracts from the film a little bit, especially towards the end. They did such a good job of teasing us with glimpses and shadowy figures in early scenes. I wish they had stuck more with that as the film went on, but instead we end up with extended scenes of him holding entire conversations while on camera.

For those who like dark and moody, this definitely doesn't disappoint! It's atmospheric as hell, though still a bit less so compared to Egger's earlier films like The Witch or The Lighthouse. As with his most recent prior film The Northman, you can tell that as Eggers gain fame and starts making bigger films, he's trying to balance his trademark artsy/atmospheric style with a more accessible mainstream-friendly approach as well. This film ends up striking about as good as balance as can be expected, with the understanding that on either end of the spectrum there will be folks who don't like it, from diehard Eggers fanboys who are disappointed because it is more mainstream than they like, to casual filmgoers who are disappointed that it's still too "artsy" and "slow".

And it is slow, compared to most modern films. I personally like that. But if you have ADHD, this isn't the film for you, and I can see how some folks will consider it "boring". Despite some jump scares, this isn't a JJ Abrams/Michael Bay adrenaline-fueled, edge of your seat, thrill ride with lots of snap cuts, explosions, CGI, and funny quips from the sidekick as the plot hurtles along at a breakneck pace. Instead, it's about deliberately building the tension-filled dreadful atmosphere as the story plays out.

The cinematography is definitely one of the film's strong points. While it's not black and white like the original, much of the film takes place at night with minimal lighting, and even in daytime shots most of the film's palette is just blacks, whites, and grays. So much of the film is effectively treated as a black and white movie, with heavy emphasis on contrasting light and shadows.

I will say that if you're interested in seeing the film and do not have a high quality TV setup like an OLED that can faithfully reproduce deep blacks, you will want to see this in theater rather than wait for home release. This is not a film that's going to play well on cheaper LCD TVs with their muddied greyish blacks, especially in a well-lit living room. Once it hits streaming I foresee a lot of negative reviews from the general public along the lines of: "This movie sucked... I couldn't see anything half the time, just a bunch of dark blurs."

The acting is generally excellent. As mentioned earlier, Skarsgard's turn as Orlok is great. Lilly Rose-Depp and Nicholas Hoult do an good job as the leading actress and actor. And Willem Dafoe is surprisingly subdued in his supporting role, with only one late scene where he lets his usual manic self peek out and you go "Ah, THERE he is!"

All in all, I think that the film starts strong but finishes not quite as strong. Still definitely worth seeing though.

I can't put my finger on what exactly it's missing, other than the aforementioned overexposure to the creature being one factor. I suspect it'll take a few more viewings to really nail down my complete thoughts on it.

Like many of his other films its going to take a bit to unpack. I very much like it, and while it appears to be a close remake to the Max Schreck version, it has some very interesting things to say. Upon some reflection I am quite high on it but will need a few more go arounds to really flesh everything out.

Sadly I'm going after Rogues thorough and well written evaluation so my response looks dumb but I am very glad I saw it in theater. I am also just starting Jungs Man and his Symbols so that may make an interesting companion to Eggers movies.