Dude did a Nosferatu play in school and then again when offered to do a larger production play. He watched the VHS of the original when he was 9. This has probably been brewing in his head for decades.
Robert always was a big fan of Nosferatu. He even made a play when he was only 17 years old. So answer to your question "Why now?" is basically "He just really wanted to".
We also just passed the 100 year anniversary for the original film a couple years ago, and apparently it’s been a movie he’s wanted to do from the beginning. All roads led to here, it seems. I’m glad he got to do a labor of love.
It's interesting that you think Egger's style in this film was bland. I found it absolutely enrapturing and engrossing. Every frame of the movie is gorgeous and helped immerse me in the world.
That’s the one thing I was missing in the movie. I wanted to feel immersed in it and I really didn’t. I love Eggers style too, but I wasn’t half as immersed here as I am with The Lighthouse.
Having only watched the 1920's film and not this new one(yet), that part about entire scenes using only one color and minimalistic, camera work framing some admittedly pretty shots sounds like EXACTLY the reason this movie is called Nosferatu and not Dracula. Old Nosferatu would literally tint the entire film in one color since color film wasn't really a thing yet. It would hold on a static, symetrical shot just because it was beautiful and/or could be used to build dread. Can't say i remember any Dracula movie with that same approach to it's cinematography or presentation. It sounds from your description like Eggers *specifically* wanted to try his own hand at Nosferatu(1922)'s style of filmmaking.
Nosferatu is, beyond being a very good movie, one of the best examples of how you can improve a movie by simply leaning a bit harder on the female perspective. Adding more agency to the trope of the innocent maiden, as well as adding depth and complexity to her relationship with Nosferatu elevates the material far beyond any of the past iterations. Just a fantastic piece of cinema all around.
While Eggers made some odd choices here and there, I really did appreciate how he approached developing the main conflict of the story being Orlok's (Dracula) obsession and twisted love for Ellen (Mina). The stuff he brought to this adaptation really were refreshing and works well here. I absolutely feel this film lingers in my mind. And I can't wait to see this in IMAX again to ring in 2025.
It’s called nosferatu and not Dracula because it’s almost a scene for scene remake of the 1920’s German expressionist film nosferatu. So it would make sense that it’s called nosferatu and not Dracula, because it is literally a remake of nosferatu (uses nosferatu’s character names vs Dracula character names, follows the nosferatu plot the closest, etc.) its very true to that version of the story vs. the original Dracula.
I have a suspicion that the constant changing between the black, white and reddish orangish shots may be a reference to the alchemical purification process, which the film heavily dabbles in.
'Why this, why now' - because Robert Eggers wanted to do his version of Nosferatu forever. He finally got to realize his dream project. There's some great interviews with him on what gave him a strong impression of Nosferatu and how he's been chasing trying to realize the character as an otherworldly embodiment of something cosmic and primal since then.
When I first saw The Witch I was blown away by how flatly it refused to do a modern twist. No "what if the witch was good" or "what if the real witch was paranoia" but instead there's a lady in the woods, signed the devil's book, steals babies, flies on a broomstick.
@@PauLtus_B Of course. I can rewatch focusing on the language, or the sibling relationship (that conversation about glass? love it), or how the Devil's offer compares to Thomasin's other path of working in someone's house... but that's all from me. It's not the movie overexplaining it to me.
My video bugged out and played an all black screen when I first booted up and I thought this was some clever meta commentary on the lighting of the film.
I think the point of his camera work is to not distract with flashy movements and transitions so we're focused more on the subjects in frame, especially when he's using natural lighting and things arent always clearly visible. So I dig it when we have time to really read the details of the set, lighting, costumes, and in this movie the shaaadows. I don't need creative camera work in his movies. Eggers isn't a film student trying to impress anyone by being intricate, instead he's being very deliberate. Watch his other movies and then come back to Nosferatu and maybe do an Eggers video touching on them all.
I think the four main adaptations have different angles: the Murnau one is Dracula through an expressionist lense; the Herzog one is a materialist, almost documentary-style take; the Coppola one is a hyper-romantic Dracula, almost an opera; and this one, in conformity with Eggers' project (which encompasses all of his films), wants to be a time capsule, taking us back straight to the XIX Century. He doesn't question the existence of Dracula, he doesn't approach him "artistically" - he tries to show us things according to the perceptions of the people from the time. Hence the rigid, "neutral" techniques he uses. Does it work? Not sure. In my opinion, the only film of his that REALLY works is "The Witch". But I like him. You can see he's very passionate and, definitelly, very commited.
So interesting, thanks! I'd take the Coppola out of this particular equation: it's definitely adapting "Dracula" (though I have issues with it being called "Bram Stoker's Dracula"). The other three are "Nosferatu", and though "Nosferatu" was an adaptation, and was in legal trouble because of it, there is a major divergence from "Dracula" in terms of Ellen's position, decisions and fate, as well as Orlok's fate, that are substantially different from Mina, Lucy and Dracula; and the stories end up being about very different things.
@melenatorr yeah, you're right. Also, it's the only one that represents the vampire as this handsome, attractive dandy, and not a monstrous, horrific beast. However, they all come from the same source material, right?
@@ffsf739 Yep! They most certainly do! I'm gonna say it's kind of like the children of the same parent being recognizably from that parent, and yet different from the parent and different from each other.
I honestly loved this nosferatu more than any other, for years I wanted to see a Dracula film that makes me feel like I did reading the book. This film does that completely and utterly, it finally brought the book’s story to life on film, even with the additions from the other 2 Nosferatu films.
@@diegovargasdiego have you seen “Bram Stoker‘s Dracula” from the 90s with Winona Ryder? That one definitely gives the feelings like reading the book at least for me.
While I personally still have a particular love of the original german expressionist film, I understand why people would consider this the best adaptation.
@@bebop2523 sometimes it feels like the book, but then Dracula gets hot and is revealed to really be a tragic romantic instead of the horrible grimy r*$&ist he is in the book. In this Nosferatu, they explore how Dracula is like a plague, always eating and lusting without giving anything in return
@@diegovargasdiego I get that, but for me the supporting characters in Bram Stoker’s Dracula feel much more like the book, for example, Van Helsing and Lucy are portrayed much more accurately to the book in the 90s movie than in this one. I was really hoping in the mausoleum scene that Aaron Taylor Johnson would open the coffin to find that Emma Corin had become a vampire like Lucy in the book but then it just went nowhere. And even though I liked Willem Dafoe, I thought that the characterization of Van Helsing in this one was not great and that he was so much cooler in the book and in other movies.
Find myself agreeing with a lot of your opinions here. I liked the movie but wanted to like it more. Kept waiting for it to really do something big and it doesnt really, but remains good throughout.
felt the same way. loved the lighthouse but this one was underwhelming. kinda funny i would have preferred this take to focus on the husband character more than the wife
Well, it's a re-imagining of the Nosferatu story and Eggers seems like the type of guy that doesn't like veering too far away from accuracy or the source material. Anyone expecting more than the story of Nosferatu is gonna be let down.
I enjoy the conversation you're having with the film and while my experience was different, or at least my post film response is different, I can understand why you feel the way you do. One thing though, I think the question why now? is perhaps more central than most people think. Everything about Nosferatu (and the whole Eggers catalog) feels like a direct response to why so many films these days, regardless of genre or creator, feel low calorie. Eggers films are an experience you have rather than a product you consume and then move on to the next. If nothing else The Witch and The Lighthouse and now Nosferatu are reference points in my psyche in a way that very few films are.
Eggers is meticulous about historical accuracy in his movies because these stories all have deep historical resonance. The original Nosferatu also featured real occultist influence based on Murnau's own practices, and the historical setting is meant to illustrate the political and class dimensions of Germany in 1922, through the lens of 1838. The true horror of Count Orlok is not his supernatural agency in the form of magic, but his political agency as an aristocrat with noble privilege and accounts. He has centuries of experience in ruling class refinement, expressed through the overpowering projection of superiority and demands for its recognition. He overpowers his victims primarily through intimidation because by the rules of the contracts which define his existence they must on some level consent to their exploitation. His later agency in which he mass murders the people of Wisborg, is most likely a power granted to him in the terms of his occult contracts with Thomas & Ellen. An intimidation method to guarantee their compliance.
The thing about Dracula adaptations is that I wish more of them centered Mina Harker. She is a central character in the novel and a ripe opportunity for an adaptation to dig into story elements around gender now vs the Turn of the Century, but I have not encountered any adaptations that do. Honestly, the film that best hits the novel's tone and themes is "The Lair of the White Worm" which is based on an entirely different Stoker story.
I think if you're a fan of Ingmar Bergman, Herman Melville and enjoy Greek Mythology, you should definitely watch The Lighthouse. It was honestly my favorite of the 2010's. I'll be checking Nosferatu out tonight!
I actually think there were some comedic moments in the movie i laughed a few times. Like when the count said "we will be neighbors" also when willem defoes character was first introduced. I also lauged when the counts follower bites the head off the pigeon and the doctor was like "now why would you do that sir?"
eggers is my favorite director right now, and this is without a doubt his most reserved film in a lot of ways. he does always play with very precise camera work, which i like, but i do think it's employed much better in the lighthouse especially. the northman and the witch a slightly more "loose" as far as i remember. i think if you enjoyed the drama and plot of this movie you'd be a fan of his others, as his strong suit (imo) are his characters.
Honestly I get the feeling it’s because he didn’t want to disrespect the source material, because this is his biggest and most relatively well known story to date. I think that he felt more comfortable taking creative liberties in his other movies that had lesser known source material
I said this to my 15 year old sons, and they cracked up and thought it was ridiculous: It’s not really one you enjoy while watching it, but it’s an amazing movie. As in, I watched it with a real sense of amazement. Can’t get much better than that, especially considering how familiar the story is.
The whole time watching the movie I kept thinking about what “well…” would mean after I finished it and turned on your video. I agree on the pacing issues, but I loved it otherwise. Your observations about the camerawork were super insightful though. I wouldn’t have thought to criticize it but I agree that your mileage may vary on that style. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion!
Hey jake! Great review! You share so much of my feelings on this movie that i haven't really seen elsewhere (especially the 'Wes Andersons Nosferatu' feelings). So that's cool! I liked it but i wanted to like it more...
👍 to the copy of “Miami Blues” on the end-table. I’m a big fan of Charles Willeford’s books and the handful of odd films that have been made out of them.
I absolutely loved this movie, but completely understand that isn't for everyone. My gripes haven't been with people who didn't have a good time with it, it's been with people who didn't _get_ the movie. There are lots of movies that are objectively great which I do not _enjoy_, but that I still _get_. They just weren't for me. Nosferatu isn't for everyone, but I think folks can _get it_ even if it wasn't for them.
That was a pretty interesting review! I think you did a good job describing the issues with cinematography and lighting in this film. When I was watching I thought that a lot of the movie looked pretty nice, but for some reason I wasn't really grabbed or in love with the look of this film, and thinking about it now the repetitiveness of shot composition and monochrome color scheme which might've been why.
I loved the movie, the movie was just pure dread from start to finish. The movie is just soaked in gloom and bleak, it makes you feel cold. I loved the folklore vampire take on the movie. I’ve seen it twice and I loved it both times, but I think this movie will only be more appreciated as time goes on. Eggers made something really special here.
Disagree pretty strongly on the cinematography and framing points. J felt this was a perfect blend of Eggers own style of camera work mixed with just enough of that homage to black and white framing of the original. It really gripped me basically from that scene of Thomas standing in the road as the chariot comes to bring him up to that castle. From that point on word I was just wowed and completely engrossed.
Robert Eggers is one of my favorite modern directors. I've been looking forward to this movie ever since I headd that he was making it. I'm definitely going to watch it. Seriously though, watch his other films. He may be divisive, but you could end up finding some of them really enjoyable. You'll never know unless you try.
The symmetry was really nice to me. The aesthetics of i was incredibly pleasing and the contents were interesting enough that the camera didn't have to do a whole lot
Might I suggest Frame Voyagers video on the films production/cinematography? Maybe the camera movements were a bit static, but the shots themselves took great inspiration from the artwork of the time. 🙂 My personal favorite was the one of the children praying by candlelight, pulling out from left to right. The lighting is so 19th century realism.
Watching it a second time, I felt the presentation to be dream/nightmare like with the camera transitions. Eggers creates period pieces. As others have said, they’re experiences that want you to feel like you’re there with the characters
Since you said you haven't seen any other Aaron Taylor-Johnson movies, I must recommend Nocturnal Animals (2016). I think that one is right up your alley, just don't get scared away by the opening credits scene, as scary as it might be...
I really liked how Lily-Rose Depp's character was connected to Orlok in this adaptation in comparison to other Dracula adaptations. There's this really interesting connection being made with patriarchal societal norms and Orlok's curse; How they are both used to subdue and oppress women for male desire and ego. Once you understand the parallels and see how Ellen is able to destroy Nosferatu, it makes the ending all the more tragic.
Very much agree with "Eggers doesn't like to be wrong," and I fall into the negative camp with him. I think he's a great technician in cinema and would say that "The Lighthouse" is very nearly an exception to the glaring hole in his entire filmography, which is that he has no voice. I really struggle to find any real pathos in his work; it is conceptual, but it never can overcome the procedure of his aesthetics and folklorist tendencies, and while he is good at those things they are simply not enough to clear the emotional gaps in his work. With Herzog's retelling, there is something formic and structural happening beneath the surface, where he is in conversation with the passage of time from the first one, and so the choice to do Nosferatu feels poignant; with Eggers version, it feels almost like an entirely aesthetic choice to me, not much else. He is obviously not interested in the dynamics of the character, instead seeming to focus purely on "what it would be like if it was real". In spite of how impressive this movie was to me, I found it very dull for those reasons. I don't see how this contributes anything beyond its seriousness and very tactile approach, and certainly think it fails in competition with both original Nosferatus and also Coppola's Dracula.
Loved the movie's seriousness and faithfulness to the Murnau fim-and Stoker's novel (which describes Dracula as moustachioeed). I suspect that the film's unrelenting style and tone-its powerful spell-will seem less boring for you in time. (We all have ADHD in 21st c.) Poe's "Unity of effect."
Eggers said he avoided overly stylized formalism and shed the shackles of German Expressionism because his films are from the perspective of the subjects in its time period and German Expressionism was obviously not a thing back then. Thus the film is very rigid and stoic. It's rooted in the Victorian era
THANK YOU! I thought I was the only one! What’s crazy is that all three of his previous films DO have more variety in their cinematography. This is his first miss IMO. Not a bad film, but it’s fatal flaw is that there are better versions of this story- be in Dracula or Nosferatu.
I also felt what you were describing of Eggers rigid camerawork watching The Northman. The visualization there made it a constantly frustrating experience. But I really struggled to verbalize the issue; thank you for expressing it so perfectly here!
I just got out of the theater after watching and I came to a few conclusions. I really liked the film, it was very artistic and very book accurate, it was also legitimately frightening, unlike many “Dracula” based stories. One reason I feel that they explicitly chose Count Orlok over Count Dracula was that they had different themes to explore. Dracula’s themes are staunchly Tech v Faith and Modernity v Tradition. Nosferatu (name meaning “plague-bringer”) has themes of Contagion, Disease, Corruption and anything that could be considered health (phys or mental) related. Ct Orlok is also definitely disgusting and revolting to look at, while Ct Dracula is just an unsettling older gentleman. Most things in this movie seemed to be explicitly chosen to be the most disgusting the original Dracula tale could be and also the most open to the guilt/sexuality themes tossed in. Iv never been a fan of [Dracula] stealing away [Mina] as a lover in most adaptations and this one didn’t change my mind, but at least there were noticeable themes or allegories to real life situations around such topics. The artists, writers, and actors did amazing jobs, but I guess there are just a few points where I would have reworked the script. There are few moments of hope and joy to deepen the sadness in comparison and there are seldom few symbolic presentations of story elements (either lighting or set or shot or props) for the audience to feel accomplished in identifying. You’re right that it feels like a movie made *right now* and not its own proud, solitary depressing gothic horror style in this era of homogenous filmmaking TLDR: it’s good in a lot of ways and had very intentional choices but it falls short in certain aspects
Yeah, I was way-underwhelmed! Maybe the theater I was in was overlit, but I thought all the dark scenes were so dull- and muddy-looking. Did not feel iconic like Herzog's.
I too was underwhelmed. Every person I see who feels this way always references the Herzog one (which I love), I wish more people have seen that one, imo its just so much better in every department compared to Eggers (and I also generally love Eggers films)
@@guin705That would be pretty boring to just want a rehash of the Herzog version, imo. Why watch Eggers do Herzog when we have Herzog already? I feel like if you're going to make a version of a story that's already been done several times, you should try to make it your own in some way.
Pretty much fully agree with you on this. It needed a little more grime, felt too polished and it took me out of the experience. This is the least “Eggers” film that he’s made yet, I highly recommend The Northman!
This movie and the VVitch are two of the most hopeless, dread-inducing pieces of art I have ever indulged in, and as a massive fan of the doom metal genre that is simultaneously saying a lot and very pleasing to me.
I rewatched the first three Eggers features before Nosferatu. The one I liked the best was The Northman (maybe a controversial take). It's basically a revenge film where the protagonist's whole life is oriented towards revenge. The period accuracy also makes it way more gritty, the medieval world being filthy. Highly recommend The Northman, although it's probably his most divisive film
My biggest issue with the film honestly wasn't the visuals or the inherent emotion, but it was the break-neck changes in perspective and character arcs. (Spoilers) Naturally the main thread of the movie is Ellen and Count Orlok's fated relationship, but what bothers me about that is that we spend relatively little time really digging deep into what that means until late into the film. I found myself most invested in the film during the first act when we were following Thomas' journey to Transylvania and meeting the Count for the first time, and I think the reason for that is that there was a clear thread to latch onto during that period, a consistent character perspective to follow and get invested in. Unfortunately the movie breaks away from that for the second act and (quite literally) throws Thomas and his perspective out a window, to instead put us into the sudden perspective of characters we only vaguely met before along with entirely new characters. I found that these perspectives struggled to gain investment from me over the 2nd act because we met them so late and there were so many of them. The Doctor, Franz, Friedrich and Ellen were all suddenly fighting for the spotlight during this part of the film and this is when my investment plummeted because it felt like everyone was melting into an amorphous blob of a cast rather than individual arcs I could care for. The biggest problem with this is that Ellen was supposed to be the thread of the film, but these sharp switches between so many characters made it so that it felt to me like she got lost in the whirl of it all. In the end her relationship with the Count - which was to me the most important thread to build - felt diluted somewhat by the rest. That being said I actually quite liked the cinematography throughout, I can think of a few shots where the camera had this ethereal gliding ghost-like movement that I appreciated, and the play on silhouettes/shadows was really well done. TL;DR, too many characters and perspective shift with too little focused buildup on our main heart and thread of the film which was supposed to be Ellen and the Count
I agree! The movie looked wonderful, and I loved the accurate clothing and hair. One of my pet peeves in a movie located in the past is seing modern silhouettes and modern hair
Yeah the answer to “why do this now”? Is Robert Eggars has been wanting to do it forever lmao. It’s his childhood passion project come to life. Which I think is where some of the anxiety comes from that you sensed. I’m hoping he lets himself a bit more loose in the next film. But as a faithful adaptation I really enjoyed nosferatu.
Lily Depp is talented for sure But any mainstream movie that makes you Think , or want to see it again ... is a win in my opinion. I would like to see Eggers have the confidence to make some mistakes though. I think Talented creatives have gotten to a point where they'd rather make something Solid or non offensive rather than let their creativity takeover and risk Mistakes to achieve Greatness
This was very similar to Herzog's film, in a way where I don't fully get the point of doing this remake - Herzog's film had good atmosphere but slow pacing and this new one had more of a modern spin. But both of them didn't really do it for me, which may be that I may not be a big fan of this story in itself. Nosferatu (2024) was more like The Northman than The VVitch or The Lighthouse - which is one of the strongest piece of media that has come out in our modern time + those two films are more in tune with the historical sense you're seeking. 6:39, agreed. To a point where some ''snap pans'' didn't really fit the tone.
The Wtich (or "VVitch") was probably filmed very faithfully to it's story's historic circumstances, yet in my memory it was black and white and I best remember the excellent story, not a lot of environments or camera techniques. I am curious to check if and how much Nosferatu is missing what made me forget most technical elements of The Witch.
It is kinda basic but getting to catch a 35mm print of this in my town did feel special. Once knowing how the film is paced, it’s more enjoyable and those two big scenes at the end really pull it over the finish line for a win. 7/10
Also my first Eggers film, but I honestly thought it was nearly perfect. I also disliked the color palette, but enjoyed the cinematography. Overall, Nosferatu felt like a return to classic, folklore-type vampire stories, as opposed to the last few decades of Twilight-esque, "naturalistic" vampire tales.
If this was your first and only Eggers film, then you might get the impression that he is more rigid and conventionally correct than the rest of his filmography. I implore you to watch The Witch and The Lighthouse to get a taste of his more adventurous style.
Thak you for mentioning the Herzog version! I found so much influence from that one in this new one and I guess it hasn't gotten a wide distribution because not a lot of people online I saw were discussing the similarities both in set/dress and relative emphasis given to their versions of Ellen. I love the character of Ellen in the 79 version as well as its more pathetic, desperate (still very physically menacing) Count Orlok and their dynamic. My biggest gripe with the original 22 version is that it only adapts like the first third of the original novel, then just cuts off with a new, dissatisfying ending that takes away any agency of the female protagonist, who of course lives in the novel and is a much more active character in that, and instrumental in chasing Dracula down when he's fleeing London. Besides the German expressionism angle (which the new one doesn't really do too much with), I really wanted to see how Eggers' version reinterpreted/rewrote/responded to the original ending that flattens Ellen's character. But HE KEPT IT THE SAME. At least in the 79 version the I believe Ellen has some power over her choice. It really felt like a noninterpretation, especially since she believed she was fated to do it this time. Literally changing anything would have given her more agency. The mostly lacking critical feminist lens in this version (some of the discussion about her shame at having a sexual appetite/the doctor being a real dumbass when it comes to female bodily health were nice additions that didn't quite do enough) was easily my biggest disappointment, especially given how much nudity/provocative acting the women in the cast were asked to do.
I'm an absolute sucker for whoever Eggers' DP is and that natural lighting look, but I was very surprised at the number of honest to god jumpscares with added scary sound effect. Jumpscares never need the loud added sting and it took me out of the otherwise impeccable verisimilitude of the production. I think my favorite bit of expressionism in the movie is the carriage scene, the way Hatter is forcefully floated the last couple of steps in the carriage and then distributed in front of the castle gate without showing how he got out of it. In general I thought they did a great job showing how powerful yet undefinable Orlok's influence over others is.
The Lighthouse is a god damn masterpiece and I can’t believe you haven’t seen it. It’s his best work. And the Witch is a marvel of a first film. So good. Both of them. The Northman was good too but didn’t quite reach the heights of the others. And I think nosferatu sits firmly in third place below the lighthouse and the witch. But I really loved it.
That’s me. I am telling you to watch the witch and the lighthouse 😂 Robert Eggers is one of my favorite working directors. I thought Nosferatu was really good! But it is my least favorite of his movies.
Wife and I just saw it and we loved it. We’re both big Eggers fans, particularly loved The Witch. And it’s funny because the things you didn’t like about it were the things we were gushing about while watching 😂 We loved the slow stable camera moves, and many of the symmetrical shots (though I’ll admit I had the same thought about is this a Wes Anderson horror film?). And I just loved all the historical details and accuracy. Really immersed me in the time period, which is also why I loved Witch. I think that’s a unique thing that Eggers does, is basically make historical folklore dramas, but with a dark horror edge. It feels like truly experiencing dark folk tales as they’re being written. And the performances were all out of the park. I too never cared much for Aaron Taylor Johnson, but he was a fun character to watch. With that said, I can see how it could be visually tiresome after a while. A bit more visual variation in the shots/colors wouldn’t hurt. But overall a great Eggers movie and I think an excellent addition to the Dracula library.
I'm personally a fan of gothic vampire films so I'll probably like this adaptation of Nosferatu. It doesn't bother me whether they are fast-paced or slow-paced. Dracula in the novel had a mustache so I'm glad this film incorporated it. The 1992 film Bram Stoker's Dracula should have been called Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula. It's a very unashamedly indulgent film. That film is the second most faithful adaptation of the novel, while still deviating from the novel in big ways. The prologue origin story, portraying Dracula to be a sympathetic vampire, and most importantly the Dracula/Mina romance were all added for the 1992 film adaptation. The most faithful adaptation is the British made-for-television film Count Dracula which was released in 1977.
Instead of wondering why certain choices were made in the movie, you could have watched some interviews with Eggers instead of just recording yourself wondering aloud. Some of the questions you're asking have been answered by him, such as why he chose Nosferatu over Dracula.
havent seen the film myself yet, but i agree about the point with the very precise way of framing scenes, sometimes when the camera is steady and so perfectly arranged, symetrical almost, it doesn't feel as emotionally connecting to the film, to the opposite if camera was more shaky or just handheld, less perfect so, then it feels more personal, almost intimate with the characters, thrilling, but when going for that arthouse look and framing, theres a big distance drawn between delivering and immersing fully in, at least in my opinion
This was my least favorite of Eggers’ films so far. I love love love everything about The VVitch, the Northman, and The Lighthouse, but this one was disappointing to me. Imo the best part was the scenes in Transylvania between the carriage showing up and the escape from the monastery, the carriage scene is sooooo creepy and beautifully shot and the scenes in the castle where Nosferatu is introduced are so atmospheric and Bill Skarsgård’s performance is great and I love the way he’s shot out-of-focus to heighten our dread, and the monastery scene is well-done too but after Thomas leaves and went to back to Germany the movie never is as good again, at least for me. Nicholas Hoult is the outstanding performance in this movie for me and the best part of his performance were the scenes at the castle where he does one of the best acting portrayals of fear and dread that I’ve ever seen. I agree with your comment about the visuals, I felt like the only exception was the visuals in Transylvania specifically of the carriage scene and the castle escape scene, that was so cool and then we just never see anything like that again once the story moves back to Germany. Also hard agree that the movie severely underutilized Willem Dafoe, he only showed up halfway through and he should’ve had way more presence in the film and been there earlier so they could’ve leaned into the silly/campy side more, plus his character really got the plot moving, and I felt like it was kinda dragging in the part between Transylvania and the introduction of his character and could’ve been shorter if he had shown up sooner
I rly like herzog, but his version feels more like a herzog film more than dracula film, and not one of his best film imo (but ofc a mediocre Herzog film is miles above Eggers). Curious for this one, think the lighthouse is pretty overrated(still quite good though), but the northman was just epic.
It was called Germany in the same way we call Scandinavia Scandinavia--not politically united, but deep historical/cultural/economic ties that produce a common identity
I think the reason the camera is so rigid is that he's limiting himself to the types of camera moves a 1920s camera can do, which is not a lot cause you need to actually hand crank it
I haven’t seen the 90s version of bram stokers Dracula in years and yet that was the first thing I thought of when watching this movie. The style, the costumes, the story, the themes, this movie was less a traditional film and more an artistic/cinematic interpretation of a century old horror classic.
If silly W. Dafoe hits any sweet spot Lighthouse has to be your next watch! This film did feel quite safe but Eggers said he didn’t get Final Cut approval for the 1st time but it lacked the impact of those classic German expressionism
I found the camera and lighting to be engaging because of how it added to the oppressive atmosphere and dread. By no means my favorite Eggars movie, but I still thoroughly enjoyed it. The Lighthouse is still my all time favorite of his
You have described his work. If you liked that you will love The Lighthouse and The Witch. Personally, I love it. It’s such a fresh approach that is much needed in today’s film makers.
9:17 His cinematographer said they wanted a 19th Century romanticism painting aesthetic, I agree it wasnt there. I still think it looks absolutely amazing, so I'm not disappointed but I agree.
The movie was "eh" for me, mostly because it was so faithful to the story of Dracula, and I had already seen Dracula done so many times, the 2020 Netflix series is a favorite of mine. But I do appreciate this film as a form of public service, in that we now have a modern but faithful rendition of Dracula that wider audiences are seeing,
I feel there are reasons for his choices. He, in fact, did not watch Herzog's version on purpose. He fell in love with the silent film when he was about 8. Also, around the age of 17-19 or so, he made a stage play of Nosferatu. But I get all of your points, his style is not for everyone.
Why are you raising your son instead of watching The Lighthouse right now?
Heck, why not both? This could be a formative experience for Child Carrying Thing! Or therapy fodder. Or, again, both.
@@thebigshep Because he doesn't want to spill his beans....
Say ya like my lobster right?
@Dartanyoogles I've had too much to drink. This cracked me up way too much 😂.
People are going to tell you to see the Witch and the Lighthouse and they’re right.
The Witch is amazing but The Lighthouse is his best film hands down
The Northman is also really good.
The Lighthouse throws everything at the wall. Plus Willem Dafoe is in it!
Why’d y’spill yer beans?
@@Whocares1987I feel like I’m the only person who didn’t care for the lighthouse
somewhat shocked that you've never seen the lighthouse or the northman
same
@@womancarryingman ur gonna love the lighthouse
@@womancarryingman ur gonna hate the northman
You're gonna love The Northman!
@@womancarryingman The Northman is really good
“Why do this now?”
Cuz Robert Eggers reaaaaaaally wanted to lmfao
He's been talking about it for 9 years and chasing it his whole life.
If dude bothered to watch one interview with the man, he would have learned that.
Dude did a Nosferatu play in school and then again when offered to do a larger production play. He watched the VHS of the original when he was 9. This has probably been brewing in his head for decades.
"I've abandoned my child" nice There Will Be Blood reference
A BASTARD FROM A BASKET
MY BOOOOOOOOOOY!
Man carrying milkshake
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE. I DRINK IT UP.
Robert always was a big fan of Nosferatu. He even made a play when he was only 17 years old. So answer to your question "Why now?" is basically "He just really wanted to".
He not only made a play of Nosferatu, but also played Count Orlok in it himself!
We also just passed the 100 year anniversary for the original film a couple years ago, and apparently it’s been a movie he’s wanted to do from the beginning. All roads led to here, it seems. I’m glad he got to do a labor of love.
Man carrying woman carrying man (man carrying love for his family)
It's interesting that you think Egger's style in this film was bland. I found it absolutely enrapturing and engrossing. Every frame of the movie is gorgeous and helped immerse me in the world.
BLAND!? Every frame of the movie is gorgeous and helped immerse me in the world.
BLAND!? Every frame of the movie is gorgeous and helped immerse me in the world.
Why is this a comment chain?
That’s the one thing I was missing in the movie. I wanted to feel immersed in it and I really didn’t. I love Eggers style too, but I wasn’t half as immersed here as I am with The Lighthouse.
Couldn't agree more, every frame of that movie was like a painting
I mean it's no kraven
A new standard has been set.
I wish I had seen kraven instead.
@@k-nun Kraven is on my top 5 favorite films of 1996!!
Not may movies are
@@Dartanyoogles But you only saw 4 films in 1996?
Having only watched the 1920's film and not this new one(yet), that part about entire scenes using only one color and minimalistic, camera work framing some admittedly pretty shots sounds like EXACTLY the reason this movie is called Nosferatu and not Dracula. Old Nosferatu would literally tint the entire film in one color since color film wasn't really a thing yet. It would hold on a static, symetrical shot just because it was beautiful and/or could be used to build dread. Can't say i remember any Dracula movie with that same approach to it's cinematography or presentation. It sounds from your description like Eggers *specifically* wanted to try his own hand at Nosferatu(1922)'s style of filmmaking.
Wow, I might have to go watch it again to pay attention to the colors! Holy shit!
Nosferatu is, beyond being a very good movie, one of the best examples of how you can improve a movie by simply leaning a bit harder on the female perspective. Adding more agency to the trope of the innocent maiden, as well as adding depth and complexity to her relationship with Nosferatu elevates the material far beyond any of the past iterations. Just a fantastic piece of cinema all around.
Have you even seen "past iterations"...
@@joerileijdsman3279 yes this was more enjoyable
Which is why any other female in the movie is bland and one dimensional.
While Eggers made some odd choices here and there, I really did appreciate how he approached developing the main conflict of the story being Orlok's (Dracula) obsession and twisted love for Ellen (Mina). The stuff he brought to this adaptation really were refreshing and works well here. I absolutely feel this film lingers in my mind. And I can't wait to see this in IMAX again to ring in 2025.
I thought this film is female sexuality (along with bad relationships).
It’s called nosferatu and not Dracula because it’s almost a scene for scene remake of the 1920’s German expressionist film nosferatu. So it would make sense that it’s called nosferatu and not Dracula, because it is literally a remake of nosferatu (uses nosferatu’s character names vs Dracula character names, follows the nosferatu plot the closest, etc.) its very true to that version of the story vs. the original Dracula.
I have a suspicion that the constant changing between the black, white and reddish orangish shots may be a reference to the alchemical purification process, which the film heavily dabbles in.
'Why this, why now' - because Robert Eggers wanted to do his version of Nosferatu forever. He finally got to realize his dream project. There's some great interviews with him on what gave him a strong impression of Nosferatu and how he's been chasing trying to realize the character as an otherworldly embodiment of something cosmic and primal since then.
When I first saw The Witch I was blown away by how flatly it refused to do a modern twist. No "what if the witch was good" or "what if the real witch was paranoia" but instead there's a lady in the woods, signed the devil's book, steals babies, flies on a broomstick.
I do hope you got a bit more out of that movie…
@@PauLtus_B Of course. I can rewatch focusing on the language, or the sibling relationship (that conversation about glass? love it), or how the Devil's offer compares to Thomasin's other path of working in someone's house... but that's all from me. It's not the movie overexplaining it to me.
@@jamesarthurkimbellreally enjoy this perspective thanks. One of my favorite movies. The simplicity of the tale is astounding
personally still waiting for nosferaone
You mean Dracula?
Sure, but I bet nosferathree is the one that's really going to blow up
nosferak tuah
Nice
Hot take: I think _Nosferausted_ will be better.
My video bugged out and played an all black screen when I first booted up and I thought this was some clever meta commentary on the lighting of the film.
I think the point of his camera work is to not distract with flashy movements and transitions so we're focused more on the subjects in frame, especially when he's using natural lighting and things arent always clearly visible. So I dig it when we have time to really read the details of the set, lighting, costumes, and in this movie the shaaadows. I don't need creative camera work in his movies. Eggers isn't a film student trying to impress anyone by being intricate, instead he's being very deliberate. Watch his other movies and then come back to Nosferatu and maybe do an Eggers video touching on them all.
I think the four main adaptations have different angles: the Murnau one is Dracula through an expressionist lense; the Herzog one is a materialist, almost documentary-style take; the Coppola one is a hyper-romantic Dracula, almost an opera; and this one, in conformity with Eggers' project (which encompasses all of his films), wants to be a time capsule, taking us back straight to the XIX Century. He doesn't question the existence of Dracula, he doesn't approach him "artistically" - he tries to show us things according to the perceptions of the people from the time. Hence the rigid, "neutral" techniques he uses. Does it work? Not sure. In my opinion, the only film of his that REALLY works is "The Witch". But I like him. You can see he's very passionate and, definitelly, very commited.
So interesting, thanks! I'd take the Coppola out of this particular equation: it's definitely adapting "Dracula" (though I have issues with it being called "Bram Stoker's Dracula"). The other three are "Nosferatu", and though "Nosferatu" was an adaptation, and was in legal trouble because of it, there is a major divergence from "Dracula" in terms of Ellen's position, decisions and fate, as well as Orlok's fate, that are substantially different from Mina, Lucy and Dracula; and the stories end up being about very different things.
@melenatorr yeah, you're right. Also, it's the only one that represents the vampire as this handsome, attractive dandy, and not a monstrous, horrific beast. However, they all come from the same source material, right?
@@ffsf739 Yep! They most certainly do! I'm gonna say it's kind of like the children of the same parent being recognizably from that parent, and yet different from the parent and different from each other.
I honestly loved this nosferatu more than any other, for years I wanted to see a Dracula film that makes me feel like I did reading the book. This film does that completely and utterly, it finally brought the book’s story to life on film, even with the additions from the other 2 Nosferatu films.
@@diegovargasdiego have you seen “Bram Stoker‘s Dracula” from the 90s with Winona Ryder? That one definitely gives the feelings like reading the book at least for me.
They even kept Dracula's (well, Orlok's) spiffy moustache!
While I personally still have a particular love of the original german expressionist film, I understand why people would consider this the best adaptation.
@@bebop2523 sometimes it feels like the book, but then Dracula gets hot and is revealed to really be a tragic romantic instead of the horrible grimy r*$&ist he is in the book. In this Nosferatu, they explore how Dracula is like a plague, always eating and lusting without giving anything in return
@@diegovargasdiego I get that, but for me the supporting characters in Bram Stoker’s Dracula feel much more like the book, for example, Van Helsing and Lucy are portrayed much more accurately to the book in the 90s movie than in this one. I was really hoping in the mausoleum scene that Aaron Taylor Johnson would open the coffin to find that Emma Corin had become a vampire like Lucy in the book but then it just went nowhere. And even though I liked Willem Dafoe, I thought that the characterization of Van Helsing in this one was not great and that he was so much cooler in the book and in other movies.
Find myself agreeing with a lot of your opinions here. I liked the movie but wanted to like it more. Kept waiting for it to really do something big and it doesnt really, but remains good throughout.
Same.
felt the same way. loved the lighthouse but this one was underwhelming. kinda funny i would have preferred this take to focus on the husband character more than the wife
Well, it's a re-imagining of the Nosferatu story and Eggers seems like the type of guy that doesn't like veering too far away from accuracy or the source material. Anyone expecting more than the story of Nosferatu is gonna be let down.
@@jari_428The wife is the central character of the story so it wouldn't really be Nosferatu if they focused more on the husband, ya know?
@Ganbarizer Well the original nosferatu was also like 30 minutes shorter so they obviously don't have a problem with changing things
I enjoy the conversation you're having with the film and while my experience was different, or at least my post film response is different, I can understand why you feel the way you do. One thing though, I think the question why now? is perhaps more central than most people think. Everything about Nosferatu (and the whole Eggers catalog) feels like a direct response to why so many films these days, regardless of genre or creator, feel low calorie. Eggers films are an experience you have rather than a product you consume and then move on to the next. If nothing else The Witch and The Lighthouse and now Nosferatu are reference points in my psyche in a way that very few films are.
I loved this movie, gonna go see it again tonight
I like you.
Hell yeah same
I was riveted throughout. It was a feast for the eyes. Of course, I often enjoy things other people claim to be boring or slow.
Eggers is meticulous about historical accuracy in his movies because these stories all have deep historical resonance. The original Nosferatu also featured real occultist influence based on Murnau's own practices, and the historical setting is meant to illustrate the political and class dimensions of Germany in 1922, through the lens of 1838.
The true horror of Count Orlok is not his supernatural agency in the form of magic, but his political agency as an aristocrat with noble privilege and accounts. He has centuries of experience in ruling class refinement, expressed through the overpowering projection of superiority and demands for its recognition. He overpowers his victims primarily through intimidation because by the rules of the contracts which define his existence they must on some level consent to their exploitation. His later agency in which he mass murders the people of Wisborg, is most likely a power granted to him in the terms of his occult contracts with Thomas & Ellen. An intimidation method to guarantee their compliance.
The thing about Dracula adaptations is that I wish more of them centered Mina Harker. She is a central character in the novel and a ripe opportunity for an adaptation to dig into story elements around gender now vs the Turn of the Century, but I have not encountered any adaptations that do. Honestly, the film that best hits the novel's tone and themes is "The Lair of the White Worm" which is based on an entirely different Stoker story.
#DRCL midnight children, a manga by shinichi sakamoto seems to be. Haven't got all the way caught up on it yet, but tis pretty solid!
Nosfera2
NOS4A2
Transylvania Drift
I think if you're a fan of Ingmar Bergman, Herman Melville and enjoy Greek Mythology, you should definitely watch The Lighthouse. It was honestly my favorite of the 2010's.
I'll be checking Nosferatu out tonight!
I actually think there were some comedic moments in the movie i laughed a few times. Like when the count said "we will be neighbors" also when willem defoes character was first introduced. I also lauged when the counts follower bites the head off the pigeon and the doctor was like "now why would you do that sir?"
The sound of Nosferatu gulping blood is one of the creepiest parts of the movie
My thoughts on the differences was always
Dracula - swave guy in a suit
Nosferatu - monster to the point of not even looking like a human
eggers is my favorite director right now, and this is without a doubt his most reserved film in a lot of ways. he does always play with very precise camera work, which i like, but i do think it's employed much better in the lighthouse especially. the northman and the witch a slightly more "loose" as far as i remember. i think if you enjoyed the drama and plot of this movie you'd be a fan of his others, as his strong suit (imo) are his characters.
Honestly I get the feeling it’s because he didn’t want to disrespect the source material, because this is his biggest and most relatively well known story to date. I think that he felt more comfortable taking creative liberties in his other movies that had lesser known source material
I loved how grim and terror filled it was. That level of foreboding aura the monster emanates was so cool.
“I didn’t love it.”
It’s okay, you can be wrong.
This needs more upvotes
@@Shimbot1323 Damn. So, it's actually that good?? I love Eggers, but can't see it until Monday.
You’re wrong
I said this to my 15 year old sons, and they cracked up and thought it was ridiculous: It’s not really one you enjoy while watching it, but it’s an amazing movie. As in, I watched it with a real sense of amazement. Can’t get much better than that, especially considering how familiar the story is.
Agreed with the Lighthouse recommendations. Solid film.
The whole time watching the movie I kept thinking about what “well…” would mean after I finished it and turned on your video.
I agree on the pacing issues, but I loved it otherwise. Your observations about the camerawork were super insightful though. I wouldn’t have thought to criticize it but I agree that your mileage may vary on that style.
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion!
The witch, the lighthouse, and his two short films “Brothers” and “The Tell Tale Heart”
Hey jake! Great review! You share so much of my feelings on this movie that i haven't really seen elsewhere (especially the 'Wes Andersons Nosferatu' feelings). So that's cool! I liked it but i wanted to like it more...
👍 to the copy of “Miami Blues” on the end-table. I’m a big fan of Charles Willeford’s books and the handful of odd films that have been made out of them.
I absolutely loved this movie, but completely understand that isn't for everyone.
My gripes haven't been with people who didn't have a good time with it, it's been with people who didn't _get_ the movie.
There are lots of movies that are objectively great which I do not _enjoy_, but that I still _get_. They just weren't for me.
Nosferatu isn't for everyone, but I think folks can _get it_ even if it wasn't for them.
That was a pretty interesting review! I think you did a good job describing the issues with cinematography and lighting in this film. When I was watching I thought that a lot of the movie looked pretty nice, but for some reason I wasn't really grabbed or in love with the look of this film, and thinking about it now the repetitiveness of shot composition and monochrome color scheme which might've been why.
I loved the movie, the movie was just pure dread from start to finish. The movie is just soaked in gloom and bleak, it makes you feel cold. I loved the folklore vampire take on the movie. I’ve seen it twice and I loved it both times, but I think this movie will only be more appreciated as time goes on. Eggers made something really special here.
If you haven't seen Bullet Train, you'll love Aaron Taylor Johnson in that as well.
Disagree pretty strongly on the cinematography and framing points. J felt this was a perfect blend of Eggers own style of camera work mixed with just enough of that homage to black and white framing of the original. It really gripped me basically from that scene of Thomas standing in the road as the chariot comes to bring him up to that castle. From that point on word I was just wowed and completely engrossed.
Robert Eggers is one of my favorite modern directors. I've been looking forward to this movie ever since I headd that he was making it. I'm definitely going to watch it.
Seriously though, watch his other films. He may be divisive, but you could end up finding some of them really enjoyable. You'll never know unless you try.
"it's like if Wes Anderson made a horror movie"
I'm already sold on it man, you don't have to sell it more to me
The symmetry was really nice to me. The aesthetics of i was incredibly pleasing and the contents were interesting enough that the camera didn't have to do a whole lot
Might I suggest Frame Voyagers video on the films production/cinematography? Maybe the camera movements were a bit static, but the shots themselves took great inspiration from the artwork of the time. 🙂 My personal favorite was the one of the children praying by candlelight, pulling out from left to right. The lighting is so 19th century realism.
What do you mean uh?
Dracula literally has a moustache in the book.
It's the movie adaptations that have ignored that, not the other way around.
Watching it a second time, I felt the presentation to be dream/nightmare like with the camera transitions. Eggers creates period pieces. As others have said, they’re experiences that want you to feel like you’re there with the characters
Since you said you haven't seen any other Aaron Taylor-Johnson movies, I must recommend Nocturnal Animals (2016). I think that one is right up your alley, just don't get scared away by the opening credits scene, as scary as it might be...
You know the movie is good when Jake basically says "I didn't like this, but I want to watch it again."
I really liked how Lily-Rose Depp's character was connected to Orlok in this adaptation in comparison to other Dracula adaptations.
There's this really interesting connection being made with patriarchal societal norms and Orlok's curse; How they are both used to subdue and oppress women for male desire and ego. Once you understand the parallels and see how Ellen is able to destroy Nosferatu, it makes the ending all the more tragic.
Robert Eggars was a big fan of the original film, he even made a stage play adaptation of Nosferatu when he was 17 years old
ya
Very much agree with "Eggers doesn't like to be wrong," and I fall into the negative camp with him. I think he's a great technician in cinema and would say that "The Lighthouse" is very nearly an exception to the glaring hole in his entire filmography, which is that he has no voice. I really struggle to find any real pathos in his work; it is conceptual, but it never can overcome the procedure of his aesthetics and folklorist tendencies, and while he is good at those things they are simply not enough to clear the emotional gaps in his work. With Herzog's retelling, there is something formic and structural happening beneath the surface, where he is in conversation with the passage of time from the first one, and so the choice to do Nosferatu feels poignant; with Eggers version, it feels almost like an entirely aesthetic choice to me, not much else. He is obviously not interested in the dynamics of the character, instead seeming to focus purely on "what it would be like if it was real". In spite of how impressive this movie was to me, I found it very dull for those reasons. I don't see how this contributes anything beyond its seriousness and very tactile approach, and certainly think it fails in competition with both original Nosferatus and also Coppola's Dracula.
Loved the movie's seriousness and faithfulness to the Murnau fim-and Stoker's novel (which describes Dracula as moustachioeed). I suspect that the film's unrelenting style and tone-its powerful spell-will seem less boring for you in time. (We all have ADHD in 21st c.) Poe's "Unity of effect."
Eggers said he avoided overly stylized formalism and shed the shackles of German Expressionism because his films are from the perspective of the subjects in its time period and German Expressionism was obviously not a thing back then. Thus the film is very rigid and stoic. It's rooted in the Victorian era
I think youd really enjoy the lighthouse it has some more interesting shots.
You should totally watch the Lighthouse... Fantastic film with two incredible lead performances!
THANK YOU! I thought I was the only one! What’s crazy is that all three of his previous films DO have more variety in their cinematography. This is his first miss IMO. Not a bad film, but it’s fatal flaw is that there are better versions of this story- be in Dracula or Nosferatu.
I also felt what you were describing of Eggers rigid camerawork watching The Northman. The visualization there made it a constantly frustrating experience. But I really struggled to verbalize the issue; thank you for expressing it so perfectly here!
Man hopefully soon carrying a blu ray of the Lighthouse
I just got out of the theater after watching and I came to a few conclusions. I really liked the film, it was very artistic and very book accurate, it was also legitimately frightening, unlike many “Dracula” based stories. One reason I feel that they explicitly chose Count Orlok over Count Dracula was that they had different themes to explore. Dracula’s themes are staunchly Tech v Faith and Modernity v Tradition. Nosferatu (name meaning “plague-bringer”) has themes of Contagion, Disease, Corruption and anything that could be considered health (phys or mental) related. Ct Orlok is also definitely disgusting and revolting to look at, while Ct Dracula is just an unsettling older gentleman. Most things in this movie seemed to be explicitly chosen to be the most disgusting the original Dracula tale could be and also the most open to the guilt/sexuality themes tossed in.
Iv never been a fan of [Dracula] stealing away [Mina] as a lover in most adaptations and this one didn’t change my mind, but at least there were noticeable themes or allegories to real life situations around such topics.
The artists, writers, and actors did amazing jobs, but I guess there are just a few points where I would have reworked the script. There are few moments of hope and joy to deepen the sadness in comparison and there are seldom few symbolic presentations of story elements (either lighting or set or shot or props) for the audience to feel accomplished in identifying.
You’re right that it feels like a movie made *right now* and not its own proud, solitary depressing gothic horror style in this era of homogenous filmmaking
TLDR: it’s good in a lot of ways and had very intentional choices but it falls short in certain aspects
Yeah, I was way-underwhelmed! Maybe the theater I was in was overlit, but I thought all the dark scenes were so dull- and muddy-looking. Did not feel iconic like Herzog's.
I too was underwhelmed. Every person I see who feels this way always references the Herzog one (which I love), I wish more people have seen that one, imo its just so much better in every department compared to Eggers (and I also generally love Eggers films)
@@guin705That would be pretty boring to just want a rehash of the Herzog version, imo. Why watch Eggers do Herzog when we have Herzog already? I feel like if you're going to make a version of a story that's already been done several times, you should try to make it your own in some way.
Just saw it yesterday; still processing, but I’m not haunted by it and it seems soulless in retrospect. I’ll have to watch Herzog’s version.
His stories and characters are usually so much richer. Emotionally, thematically, and visually, it didn’t compel me like his others.
Pretty much fully agree with you on this. It needed a little more grime, felt too polished and it took me out of the experience. This is the least “Eggers” film that he’s made yet, I highly recommend The Northman!
This movie and the VVitch are two of the most hopeless, dread-inducing pieces of art I have ever indulged in, and as a massive fan of the doom metal genre that is simultaneously saying a lot and very pleasing to me.
This movie was killer IMO
I rewatched the first three Eggers features before Nosferatu. The one I liked the best was The Northman (maybe a controversial take). It's basically a revenge film where the protagonist's whole life is oriented towards revenge. The period accuracy also makes it way more gritty, the medieval world being filthy. Highly recommend The Northman, although it's probably his most divisive film
My biggest issue with the film honestly wasn't the visuals or the inherent emotion, but it was the break-neck changes in perspective and character arcs.
(Spoilers)
Naturally the main thread of the movie is Ellen and Count Orlok's fated relationship, but what bothers me about that is that we spend relatively little time really digging deep into what that means until late into the film.
I found myself most invested in the film during the first act when we were following Thomas' journey to Transylvania and meeting the Count for the first time, and I think the reason for that is that there was a clear thread to latch onto during that period, a consistent character perspective to follow and get invested in.
Unfortunately the movie breaks away from that for the second act and (quite literally) throws Thomas and his perspective out a window, to instead put us into the sudden perspective of characters we only vaguely met before along with entirely new characters.
I found that these perspectives struggled to gain investment from me over the 2nd act because we met them so late and there were so many of them.
The Doctor, Franz, Friedrich and Ellen were all suddenly fighting for the spotlight during this part of the film and this is when my investment plummeted because it felt like everyone was melting into an amorphous blob of a cast rather than individual arcs I could care for.
The biggest problem with this is that Ellen was supposed to be the thread of the film, but these sharp switches between so many characters made it so that it felt to me like she got lost in the whirl of it all. In the end her relationship with the Count - which was to me the most important thread to build - felt diluted somewhat by the rest.
That being said I actually quite liked the cinematography throughout, I can think of a few shots where the camera had this ethereal gliding ghost-like movement that I appreciated, and the play on silhouettes/shadows was really well done.
TL;DR, too many characters and perspective shift with too little focused buildup on our main heart and thread of the film which was supposed to be Ellen and the Count
I agree! The movie looked wonderful, and I loved the accurate clothing and hair. One of my pet peeves in a movie located in the past is seing modern silhouettes and modern hair
Yeah the answer to “why do this now”? Is Robert Eggars has been wanting to do it forever lmao. It’s his childhood passion project come to life. Which I think is where some of the anxiety comes from that you sensed. I’m hoping he lets himself a bit more loose in the next film. But as a faithful adaptation I really enjoyed nosferatu.
Lily Depp is talented for sure
But any mainstream movie that makes you Think , or want to see it again ... is a win in my opinion.
I would like to see Eggers have the confidence to make some mistakes though.
I think Talented creatives have gotten to a point where they'd rather make something Solid or non offensive rather than let their creativity takeover and risk Mistakes to achieve Greatness
This was very similar to Herzog's film, in a way where I don't fully get the point of doing this remake - Herzog's film had good atmosphere but slow pacing and this new one had more of a modern spin. But both of them didn't really do it for me, which may be that I may not be a big fan of this story in itself. Nosferatu (2024) was more like The Northman than The VVitch or The Lighthouse - which is one of the strongest piece of media that has come out in our modern time + those two films are more in tune with the historical sense you're seeking.
6:39, agreed. To a point where some ''snap pans'' didn't really fit the tone.
Interesting…didn’t think this masterpiece would be so divisive.
The Wtich (or "VVitch") was probably filmed very faithfully to it's story's historic circumstances, yet in my memory it was black and white and I best remember the excellent story, not a lot of environments or camera techniques. I am curious to check if and how much Nosferatu is missing what made me forget most technical elements of The Witch.
It is kinda basic but getting to catch a 35mm print of this in my town did feel special. Once knowing how the film is paced, it’s more enjoyable and those two big scenes at the end really pull it over the finish line for a win. 7/10
Also my first Eggers film, but I honestly thought it was nearly perfect. I also disliked the color palette, but enjoyed the cinematography. Overall, Nosferatu felt like a return to classic, folklore-type vampire stories, as opposed to the last few decades of Twilight-esque, "naturalistic" vampire tales.
If this was your first and only Eggers film, then you might get the impression that he is more rigid and conventionally correct than the rest of his filmography. I implore you to watch The Witch and The Lighthouse to get a taste of his more adventurous style.
Thak you for mentioning the Herzog version! I found so much influence from that one in this new one and I guess it hasn't gotten a wide distribution because not a lot of people online I saw were discussing the similarities both in set/dress and relative emphasis given to their versions of Ellen. I love the character of Ellen in the 79 version as well as its more pathetic, desperate (still very physically menacing) Count Orlok and their dynamic. My biggest gripe with the original 22 version is that it only adapts like the first third of the original novel, then just cuts off with a new, dissatisfying ending that takes away any agency of the female protagonist, who of course lives in the novel and is a much more active character in that, and instrumental in chasing Dracula down when he's fleeing London. Besides the German expressionism angle (which the new one doesn't really do too much with), I really wanted to see how Eggers' version reinterpreted/rewrote/responded to the original ending that flattens Ellen's character. But HE KEPT IT THE SAME. At least in the 79 version the I believe Ellen has some power over her choice. It really felt like a noninterpretation, especially since she believed she was fated to do it this time. Literally changing anything would have given her more agency. The mostly lacking critical feminist lens in this version (some of the discussion about her shame at having a sexual appetite/the doctor being a real dumbass when it comes to female bodily health were nice additions that didn't quite do enough) was easily my biggest disappointment, especially given how much nudity/provocative acting the women in the cast were asked to do.
I'm an absolute sucker for whoever Eggers' DP is and that natural lighting look, but I was very surprised at the number of honest to god jumpscares with added scary sound effect. Jumpscares never need the loud added sting and it took me out of the otherwise impeccable verisimilitude of the production.
I think my favorite bit of expressionism in the movie is the carriage scene, the way Hatter is forcefully floated the last couple of steps in the carriage and then distributed in front of the castle gate without showing how he got out of it. In general I thought they did a great job showing how powerful yet undefinable Orlok's influence over others is.
The Lighthouse is a god damn masterpiece and I can’t believe you haven’t seen it. It’s his best work. And the Witch is a marvel of a first film. So good. Both of them. The Northman was good too but didn’t quite reach the heights of the others. And I think nosferatu sits firmly in third place below the lighthouse and the witch. But I really loved it.
That’s me. I am telling you to watch the witch and the lighthouse 😂
Robert Eggers is one of my favorite working directors. I thought Nosferatu was really good! But it is my least favorite of his movies.
Wife and I just saw it and we loved it. We’re both big Eggers fans, particularly loved The Witch. And it’s funny because the things you didn’t like about it were the things we were gushing about while watching 😂
We loved the slow stable camera moves, and many of the symmetrical shots (though I’ll admit I had the same thought about is this a Wes Anderson horror film?). And I just loved all the historical details and accuracy. Really immersed me in the time period, which is also why I loved Witch. I think that’s a unique thing that Eggers does, is basically make historical folklore dramas, but with a dark horror edge. It feels like truly experiencing dark folk tales as they’re being written.
And the performances were all out of the park. I too never cared much for Aaron Taylor Johnson, but he was a fun character to watch.
With that said, I can see how it could be visually tiresome after a while. A bit more visual variation in the shots/colors wouldn’t hurt. But overall a great Eggers movie and I think an excellent addition to the Dracula library.
I'm personally a fan of gothic vampire films so I'll probably like this adaptation of Nosferatu. It doesn't bother me whether they are fast-paced or slow-paced.
Dracula in the novel had a mustache so I'm glad this film incorporated it.
The 1992 film Bram Stoker's Dracula should have been called Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula. It's a very unashamedly indulgent film.
That film is the second most faithful adaptation of the novel, while still deviating from the novel in big ways. The prologue origin story, portraying Dracula to be a sympathetic vampire, and most importantly the Dracula/Mina romance were all added for the 1992 film adaptation.
The most faithful adaptation is the British made-for-television film Count Dracula which was released in 1977.
Dang..... Really loved this one. Surprised you didn't too much.
Instead of wondering why certain choices were made in the movie, you could have watched some interviews with Eggers instead of just recording yourself wondering aloud. Some of the questions you're asking have been answered by him, such as why he chose Nosferatu over Dracula.
havent seen the film myself yet, but i agree about the point with the very precise way of framing scenes, sometimes when the camera is steady and so perfectly arranged, symetrical almost, it doesn't feel as emotionally connecting to the film, to the opposite if camera was more shaky or just handheld, less perfect so, then it feels more personal, almost intimate with the characters, thrilling, but when going for that arthouse look and framing, theres a big distance drawn between delivering and immersing fully in, at least in my opinion
This was my least favorite of Eggers’ films so far. I love love love everything about The VVitch, the Northman, and The Lighthouse, but this one was disappointing to me. Imo the best part was the scenes in Transylvania between the carriage showing up and the escape from the monastery, the carriage scene is sooooo creepy and beautifully shot and the scenes in the castle where Nosferatu is introduced are so atmospheric and Bill Skarsgård’s performance is great and I love the way he’s shot out-of-focus to heighten our dread, and the monastery scene is well-done too but after Thomas leaves and went to back to Germany the movie never is as good again, at least for me. Nicholas Hoult is the outstanding performance in this movie for me and the best part of his performance were the scenes at the castle where he does one of the best acting portrayals of fear and dread that I’ve ever seen. I agree with your comment about the visuals, I felt like the only exception was the visuals in Transylvania specifically of the carriage scene and the castle escape scene, that was so cool and then we just never see anything like that again once the story moves back to Germany. Also hard agree that the movie severely underutilized Willem Dafoe, he only showed up halfway through and he should’ve had way more presence in the film and been there earlier so they could’ve leaned into the silly/campy side more, plus his character really got the plot moving, and I felt like it was kinda dragging in the part between Transylvania and the introduction of his character and could’ve been shorter if he had shown up sooner
I rly like herzog, but his version feels more like a herzog film more than dracula film, and not one of his best film imo (but ofc a mediocre Herzog film is miles above Eggers). Curious for this one, think the lighthouse is pretty overrated(still quite good though), but the northman was just epic.
8:20 except germany wasnt called germany in the time period its set despite the subtitle saying such in the film
It wasn’t one country but it was definitely called Germany. The name for the region dates back to the Romans.
It was called Germany in the same way we call Scandinavia Scandinavia--not politically united, but deep historical/cultural/economic ties that produce a common identity
I think the reason the camera is so rigid is that he's limiting himself to the types of camera moves a 1920s camera can do, which is not a lot cause you need to actually hand crank it
I haven’t seen the 90s version of bram stokers Dracula in years and yet that was the first thing I thought of when watching this movie. The style, the costumes, the story, the themes, this movie was less a traditional film and more an artistic/cinematic interpretation of a century old horror classic.
If silly W. Dafoe hits any sweet spot Lighthouse has to be your next watch!
This film did feel quite safe but Eggers said he didn’t get Final Cut approval for the 1st time but it lacked the impact of those classic German expressionism
I found the camera and lighting to be engaging because of how it added to the oppressive atmosphere and dread. By no means my favorite Eggars movie, but I still thoroughly enjoyed it. The Lighthouse is still my all time favorite of his
You have described his work. If you liked that you will love The Lighthouse and The Witch. Personally, I love it. It’s such a fresh approach that is much needed in today’s film makers.
The witch and the lighthouse are some of my favourite films ever, absolutely recommend. The northman is also amazing and also would highly recommend.
9:17 His cinematographer said they wanted a 19th Century romanticism painting aesthetic, I agree it wasnt there. I still think it looks absolutely amazing, so I'm not disappointed but I agree.
The movie was "eh" for me, mostly because it was so faithful to the story of Dracula, and I had already seen Dracula done so many times, the 2020 Netflix series is a favorite of mine. But I do appreciate this film as a form of public service, in that we now have a modern but faithful rendition of Dracula that wider audiences are seeing,
Excellent review. I am a huge Eggers fan, and your criticisms are valid. You pointed out some things that pulled me out of the story.
I feel there are reasons for his choices. He, in fact, did not watch Herzog's version on purpose. He fell in love with the silent film when he was about 8. Also, around the age of 17-19 or so, he made a stage play of Nosferatu. But I get all of your points, his style is not for everyone.