I'm a very avid follower of your videos (Since 2016) and this is the first time I will have to strongly disagree with you here. I know that originally both Nosferatu and Dracula have mustach (and hair overall) but the mustach not only is very distracting it make it look human, a human turned into a weird vamypre that is not here nor there. Mind you, I saw your retrospective and your 4k Remaster of the original, both are top notch content. I know that Orlok may better be a human that got possesed by the demon belial, but if it's undeniable that the 1922's original had made a mark in pop culture to this day -Not only the way Orlok looks, but as well as how he acts-. He acts as if he's not a person, as if it is (and always being) a creature of the night, a dark demon. Eggers made him look as a zombie russian aristrocrat with that mustach and an accent. I was extremly angry the way Orlok died because the trope of vampires dying at sunlight was from the original version. Eggers's version is not bad as in terrible, but it has flaws, it does have. Is no masterpiece by any strech of the imagination. It's full of jumpscares and not scarry things that could leave a mark on the mind. Ellen's character keeps getting possed every 2 minutes and the way it's done make her look funny instead of scary. Side note: My friend was laughing his ass off because of that. There are so many things that this film lacks like the way Orlok is introduce here is forgetable (I thought it was the carriage driver guiding him) in the original is FAR better than this film. Overall is as a good film as any Conjuirng film. Is good, is entertaining, it has interesting visuals, but... it explains things that doesn't need to be explain and distracts from the main theme of the film. - burning the coffin was an absurd thing, is well explain but it doesn't need to be explain at all-. Anyway... This as far of my rant of this film is. I was so disappointed with it I don't know if I even want to see again. Maybe some time. Cheers mate.
I loved the way Skarsgard deliberately and heavily breathed in before he talked. It emphasised that that the Count was dead and required deliberate thought to undertake what is an automatic function for the living human body.
@@puzzlebawce795 Gary Oldman did it better 30 years ago imo. But hey, one can argue Gary Oldman was ripping off the original Nosferatu actor, and Bill was ripping them BOTH off, so.........
I thought that through the whole film. People are saying this is a masterpiece. But it was and is a rip off of Dracula. So it failed really badly for me. @@hayleylongster4698
Two points: 1. The Max Schreck's appearance can not be duplicated. Kinski looks like he is in make-up, while Schreck looks like he can be his look naturally. However good the actor or make-up crew, it will only be a poor copy. 2. So Eggers went back to the original appearance of Dracula as described in Stoker's novel as being tall, and having a huge mushtache. It is not as frightening, but Murnau and Schreck created something unique.
About halfway through I realized that there were no unnecessarily hammed in black or gay characters in the story, and my enjoyment of the movie became more solidified.
@@mygrandpasayshesd.b.cooper6200 Subjective statement, but alright. I thought he looked great (in a grotesque and horrifying way). He looked like the description of Dracula in the novel (who had a mustache) crossed with qualities of vampires from traditional lore.
The big mustache was an awesome addition to Orlok's look. It's a very obvious reference to the real life Vlad Dracula, who was notorious for his long mustache.
This is what I took from it. Stoker refers very explicitly to Dracula's appearence in 'young form' and of course, this mirrors the real life Count Vlad. Nosferatu was a Dracula rip off at heart, really, so, it follows that a tache might make an appearance somewhere- either in the original and/or this new version.
1:25 Seriously? There's aspects of the film I'm somewhat conflicted on, but the depiction of the Count himself was flawless. In fact, after over a century of films, this is the most accurate adaptation of Dracula's appearance from the book, and it's how I will forever imagine the character.
funny thought: herzog had the mustache! ..which made me think, adding the mustache in the 70s version would have been funnily counterproductive, because everybody had a mustache in the 70s
The bigger issue was giving Lily Depp's character a bigger role than she should have. Half her dialogue was that of a delusional woman with a mental illness. Her entire arc was to be crazy and bang a vampire to death in the end. Dumb. Film should have been better, but fell off a cliff once Orlock got to Germany.
I think Orlok's look was fantastic. The one thing that ruined the movie was Lily-Rose Depp. With somebody else in the Hutter role, it would have been an easy eight, or even nine out of ten, sadly we had Depp. She should stick to stuff like Yoga Hosers, or if she really wants to push her 'acting' ability, perhaps a school play or two.
@@hayleylongster4698 Eggers doesn't cast weak links. If he's gotten someone you didn't care for before, they'll give a revelatory performance. Like Lily Rose Depp did.
The movie was a fail mostly: because the Director fixated on scenes that needed less time and roamed quickly in areas of the film that detractors would have like more exposition. Example the summoning of Count Orlok.
I'm glad to see the wife and I are not alone. I know a lot of people like it and that doesn't bother me. I was expecting to love it and am actually very disappointed not only in how bad to mid it was, but in the fact I wasn't able to like it like I expected. Not going to go into all the reasons, but it's overdramatic, overloud, overlong. The music distracts. Beautifully shot film, but just not scary at all and the characters were very thin.
I thought all the elements associated with Orlok were great as far as his presence, what he represented and so forth. He was like an ethereal being. Everytime he was on screen, the movie shined, it grabed my attention in a big way. But all the other actors or characters left me cold. At the same time, the fact that Orlok did not have his familar look just made me think that this Orlok was a great take on Dracula rather than Nosfeeratu.
Personally, I like my Draculas without a mustache, but I will not fault productions that strive to be more accurate to the book. It didn't hurt my enjoyment of the new Nosferatu. I like that he's more obscured by heavy clothes and shadow this time around.
I hated the movie. I thought it was written as if by a schizoid schoolchild, and I’m not sufficiently depraved to enjoy necrophilia. Sucks. The movie looked great and I usually like what Eggers makes. Nosferatu was the biggest disappointment of 2024 for me, and I watched Arcane S2.
Nah, I love the addition of the mustache. This version of Nosferatu is presented through a historical lens, (an element Robert Eggers is very well known for bringing into his movies). As others have pointed out already, it's a reference to the real life inspiration for both Dracula and Orlok: Vlad the Impaler of Wallachia. Beyond that, this is just a near perfect film in general. It's Bram Stoker's Dracula, but without the wooden acting of Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder bogging it down
I have watched your Ultimate Retrospective Nosferatu three times. I get more out of it each time, in different aspects and perspectives. Thank you for all the time and effort you put into it.
I wasn’t a fan of the mustache either. I get its era appropriate, but it strikes me as a bit comical for some reason. When you have two absolutely iconic designs, like The original, and the Herzog version. For some reason, it disappoints me. On another note, the casting left a lot to be desired as well.
Eggers' Nosferatu has become one of my favorite movies EVER. I would argue that It's not a remake of Murnau's "Nosferatu", not really. It only takes a couple of cues from it, including, of course, the ending. It's a MAGNIFICENT adaptation of Dracula, though. It's much more faithful to the book than most versions, despite not sharing the names of the characters. The atmosphere is pitch perfect, as it is the tone of the whole movie and the handling of its themes. The villain looks exactly as Dracula as described by Stoker. I liked it way more than Herzog's version and I've always liked that one.
Exactly. He actually looks a lot like how Dracula is described in the novel. When I read it a while back I was surprised when he was described with a mustache lol.
I don't mind the new approach making Orlok more authentically Eastern European but despite that great concept I am somewhat disapointed in the execution and final effect that IMHO lacks the kind of visceral intensity of the original. Not to say it "ruins" the film or anything.
When the reviewer said "modern update," we knew exactly what his problem was. 🤣I believe Herzog's response to this guy's review (and you have to hear his accent when you read this), "You know nothing of my work." What you say here is so true, regarding Herzog's version, as Herzog ALSO went back to using Stoker's characters' names in his film; Harker, Mina, Dracula, et al. Great video Andre. I plan to do a lengthy discussion on Herzog's Nosferatu in a couple weeks on our channel, and would love to play ME's videos, if that is all right? 👏👏👏👏👏
When Count Orlok was talking at the table when Hutter met him all I could hear was Mater Splinter from The Ninja Turtles Movie. It's clear they didn't record his voice at that time and did it in post with a lot of effects on it so it not only sounded unnatural, it was comical. The toned it down later on but it's not a good way to introduce your villain.
I didn't mind the mustache, I thought the pacing could have been tighter though. I actually got a little sleepy during it. Overall, I really liked the movie, but I didn't love it. I want to see it again before I've made up my mind about it. Visually it's stunning, and it stays for the most part true to the original, the performances of the actors are really good, Skaarsgard's in particular. I love the 22 original and Eggers version is a fine tribute to it, but something about it left me wanting just a little bit.
So why give him a mustache, but no eyebrows? The way the hair is done just doesn't make sense. And its a well trimmed mustache on top of that. If the movie implied that orlok was able to manipulate his form like in Coppola's, it would make sense. But he doesnt, hes meant to be this undead corpse that for some reason cant grow eyebrows, but cant sport a massive trimmed stache. I wrote the story for a game called wallachia reign of dracula on switch and ps4 that is based on the real history. I spent years researching vlad. I understand as much as anyone what Dracula should look like. But this version of Orlok is inconsistent with it's own logic. Also why does he sleep in the coffee nude? So he gets up every night and puts on pounds of clothing? It makes no sense. It was just a cheap reason for him to pop out of the coffin with his schlong out. It was an added jump shock scare that murnua would probably hate if he saw it. Dont get me wrong the movie wasnt bad. But its the weakest version of Nosferatu. i had been following this movie since like 2016 and i definitely expected better from the genius who made The Witch.
I agree with the critic. Anybody could have been under that suit - there was nothing done by skaarsgard here that stood out apart from the voice. And I just found the new design repulsive. Not scary; not endearing; not even interesting. Just kind of gross. I found the movie itself pretty interesting up until Orlok was on the ship. After that it just did not work for me. Especially the ending. I didn't find her sacrifice poignant or moving at all. Idk. It just didn't work for me. I loved Herzogs version and will just stick with that
@@StBindo I'm the opposite. I didn't care for Herzog's version at all and I really wanted to. Dracula being sympathetic didn't work for me, the movie itself was just boring, and the Renfield character was outright comical.
I did love that they made him actually repulsive,like a rotting corpse for once. And I will have to disagree about Skarsgard. He does a good job bringing across the physicality and gravitas of Orlok when it is needed. The lack of that talent would be noted, by his success is so easy that it seems immaterial. The voice was fantastic. Personally I have loved all four versions of Nosferatu (including Shadow of the Vampire), in different ways.
The arc of Ellen is her lust and desire for the mustached Clunt to the point it’s driving her mad. If anything, it’s Orlok who doesn’t love her because he’s physically not capable. He’s a a creature of pure animalistic lust and desire. He says so himself when he agrees with Ellen that he cannot love. The trick is paying attention to the dialogue between Orlok and Ellen film. Ellen herself never denies her love for him. Just his love for her. He understands her soul in her own words. It’s an intimacy that transcending a human understanding. With Thomas she has love, with Orlok she has understanding. Two things integral to Ellen, to be loved and understood, split between two men who have a piece of her soul and body. Lilly Rose Depp and Robert Eggers even further elaborated on this in their commentary of the film. It’s a Gothic dark forbidden romance. It’s a staple of vampire culture and in their own mythos. It’s why vampires have always had a large female audience and they could probably articulate much better than I the nuance of the how and why they’ve been written like this from way before our time to the days of Anne Rice to Robert Eggers today.
The movie works on a number of levels.You can read Ellen as having a death wish due to society's repression and her own otherworldly nature, you can read it as Orlok being a twisted birth of her own suppressed and maligned sexual desires, you can read it as an externalization of the darkest and most selfish desires of a person to be loved and hurt until annihilation, you can read it as just an undead monster going after a girl, you can read it as an alchemical process or a mystical parable. That's the beauty of it. The text of the gothic text might be horrific and tragic, but the subtext is what lends it its particular charm and why it can explore transgressive situations that would seem repulsive in a naturalistic novel, or in real life. Thus, Heathcliff and Catherine are a love story, Tamara and the demon is a love story, and Orlok and Ellen most certainly are a love story.
The only thing that bothers me about the mustache is that Its too alive, to dark. I think It should look more decrepit and gray. I would even prefer to See a decrepit long and blood stained beard to be honest
Totally agree with the reviewer. It wasn't the mustache itself, a mustache might have worked. It was the _implementation_ that made him look like undead Freddy Mercury with a Homer Simpson comb-over which really ratcheted the goof-meter to 11 and beyond. In a movie that relies so fully on its monster, making the monster look ridiculous completely hamstrung the movie.
I thought the movie was disappointing. It was visually well done but everything else didn't work for me. I almost fell asleep which even in Renfield and the Demeter film I didn't.
I was at times bored, frustrated, and unintentionally laughing and no one I went with liked the movie. Eggers feels like he's dipped into his same old bag of tricks too many times. I keep seeing the same timing and shots in every movie and I'm tired of it.
That was very interesting, I had no idea about Count Orlok being born a vampire in the 1922 version of Nosferatu. I’ve never watched the original 1922 version or the 1979 version. I did watch Egger’s version of Nosferatu on New Years Day and thoroughly enjoyed it.
Wow. What a great essay! I learned a lot (as per usual on this channel), and can’t wait to learn even more on your sister channel in that retrospective. BTW, the mustache (and maybe you said this) is explicitly mentioned in the original novel. So that too, is a nod to the source material.
And ironically, the new Nosferatu Orlok look of the character is much closer to the description of Dracula in Bram Stoker's novel than Bela Lugosi's appearance.
I remember seeing the ending shot with Defoe staring out into the sun and I thought, "now that's a beautiful ending shot." and then they dropped THAT particular shot scene at the end lol
Well, when a director makes a very obvious bad decision, it draws attention to the inevitable other more subtle bad decisions in a movie. It's a tell that the director has bad instincts, and nobody close to him who is willing to challenge him on them.
Actually, the movie had a preview screening premiere in the Netherlands first, before Berlin, due to the unability to secure a proper release date, thanks the backlog of movies waiting to be released thanks to the complications from WW1.
The movie had pacing issues. The tension rose leading up to Orlok's appearance, and then just sort of stayed at the same level for the rest of the movie. There needed to be some changes to make certain Dracula events make more sense in the German setting, like taking a boat from Transylvania to Germany, which is a tad absurd given the distance needed to circumvent southern Europe. Ellen's whole thing was undercooked. We don't know if she is actually a changeling or whatever, just a few vague references. Thomas' contract with Orlok violates the typical deal with the devil tropes. He wasn't manipulated into it, he was just straight up lied to while under magical horror stress. I felt that that lessened the impact of the entire plot. For a movie about bonds and oaths, they were incredibly vague and flighty about all of them. Characters also have knowledge, or at least have been told, that crucifixes repel him, and that he cannot enter a House of God, and yet that information is never relayed to anyone else and nothing is done of it. There was some superb acting from Taylor-Johnson, and Hoult, but Dafoe was kind of a miss for me. I know he was supposed to be eclectic, but he came across as weirdly modern in sensibility.
I liked the mustache, even if it seemed a bit out of place during some shots, it does well to "hide" his fangs, which im assuming cant possibly be hidden easily because he's so large. Very beautifully dark film
The only flaw for me is that if the characters have done absolutely nothing it would have ended the same way, he drinking Ellen's blood and dying soon after. Maybe Von Franz could have done something? maybe a potion? some prayer, just something so they get that final outcome.
Not really. The sunlight killed him, no one knows if they'd have managed it by destroying his tomb. Also, this is a theme-driven movie, not a plot-driven one. The issue was the internal arc of Ellen (and Thomas).
@@kostantza1 Right! I forgot about his sarcophagus being destroyed, thanks! Sure they did establish she has more blood than other people but it just seems strange. I guess it doesn't help people knowing how Dracula dies by being stabbed in the heart. Maybe I was just hoping maybe Ellen stabbing him while having sex or something.
You don't seem to mention the Doug Jones as Orlok version that came out a couple of months before the Eggers movie. I understand that they copied the Max Schreck silent film but added dialog. Please review that version too. It can currently be found on Tubi as of 1/15/25.
I was with the movie until the last act. It was a lil confusing how William Defoe's character purposely misled everyone to an empty coffin, and I didn't like how Ellen just gave Nosferatu what he wanted. I was hoping that she was luring him in so she could stab him in the heart herself. I understand that the ending was true to the original, but it was still depressingly underwhelming, like all the struggle was for nothing. Mayb had she not seemed to enjoy it so much & had Nosferatu burst into flames while in the bed with her as she gave her husband one final tearful look when the sun rose would've at least made it all a lil more poetic. 🥀
DeFoe's character knew the only way to stop Orlok was by sacrifice and Ellen was the only person who could make that sacrifice - she knew that too. So he had to manipulate everyone in order to give the opportunity to destroy Orlok, which gave her both the closure and redemption she'd earned.
@johnscott6984 Thank u for the clarification. I knew that she had to make the sacrifice, but Nosferatu was kind of dumb to go to her so close to dawn, all she had to do was hold him there for a few extra seconds. Still would've been cooler had she just stabbed him herself instead of giving him what he wanted, which was her body and soul.
I had such high hopes particularly after the early reviews were so over the top. Which I now believe many were paid shills. When the audience score came out as B- I knew these early reviews were bunk. So when I watched it I found it incredibly slow and boring, comedic acting and he looked like Freddie Mercury and Omar Sharif. I give it a C-
Like Sikhs and the significance of the beard, certain cultures see facial hair and the mustache, specially, as sign of power and age. Hairless males are considered boys by some societies. When watching the 2024 Nosferatu, take note of which males have hair in eastern Europe and western Europe.
Eggers actually gives a very interesting explanation for why Orlok maintains the moustache. Like everything in his movies, the historical research has actual bearing on the characters and/or plot, it's not there as window-dressing, but casuals won't ever learn.
Not only was the mustache cool, but I dug the way Count Orlock spoke. He sounded like Sauron from "Lord Of The Rings." I was so waiting for him to say, "Build me an army worthy of Mordor!" 😆😄
Nosferatu’s look is more what Upir (Vampire) looks like in Eastern European movies or how he is described in various Slavic books. I thought people would complain about Lily Rose Depp performance😅
the only issue i had with the film, which was more hilarious than anything was Aaron Taylor Johnson's muscles fighting with everything they had to not rip the period clothing lol.
One of those I can go both ways on but I understand the criticism. While I like and have no real problems with Eggers' Orlok, the "traditional" Orlok design is arguably the greatest defining aspect of the Nosferatu version vs official Dracula adaptions. He did keep the wild claw hands at least. =P
Personally, I think that this is a valid criticism for the new Nosferatu. The original Nosferatu look is cinematically iconic for his bald, rodent like look, something that Herzog kept also and even in games like Vampire in the World of Darkness rpg series Nosferatu is a clan of Vampires that look exactly like the original Count Orlok. So until Eggers movie when you hear Nosferatu you have the iconic look flashing in your head. The Eggers change (though historically valid) makes him more of a Dracula variation. Not bad but not iconic.
The One Major Flaw that RUINED Nosferatu 2024 was the casting of Lily Rose Depp .. she was absolutely annoying in every way .. She was trying to hard the whole time.. other than her being in the film , I liked it ..
I guess I could be convinced by a particularly stunning movie but I think one of the essential elements of a Dracula (and therefore Nosferatu) rendition is good triumphing over evil, an evil that is unrepentant and unyielding. It's kind of the core tenant of the book, otherwise it kind of breaks down. Many have a tragic end but essentially evil is defeated. I think maybe that is what Robert Eggers refers to as the "fairy tale" aspect of the Dracula book yet the grim and dark retelling of Nosferatu (even his version) have the same essential ending. Also, OG Dracula had a moustache so eat your heart out haters.
Imagine being angry at a mustache... the change is welcome; yes the 1922 and 1979 films are excellent, but let's face it, the 1979 Orlok does look a bit... cartoonish. Eggers' Orlok looks WAY more menacing, and especially in the castle when we first see him with that Boyar hat, he looks so wonderfully authentic to the historical Transylvanian nobility that it's eerie... you feel like it's some guy who's been sitting in the castle for 600 years due to being undead. It works amazingly well.
I… am a bit ambiguous on the look; it was very unnerving in the sense that he really looked like a reanimated Romanian Nobleman come to life but the scene that was struck in my mind was the feeding scene on Hutter squatting like a diseased and rotting walking corpse and that horrible sucking motion like a mosquito 🦟 That Nosferatu took away and resemblance of humanity on Orlok and made him a truly loathsome monster Quite refreshing given the “romantic Dracula” or pretty boy “Twlight” troupes
The film was outstanding, and Orlok was the best part of it. The voice, look and demeanor were sublimely creepy. Best depiction of a vampire on film, period. This reviewer is perfectly emblematic of why most Hollywood product is skippable bilge these days - no taste whatsoever, and most studios are banking on precisely that.
Myself I had zero issue with film and I recently saw the 1979 film and while both were moody and had great atmosphere I felt the Edgar's version is the better of the two.
To be honest, I don't care about vampire movies. There have been way too many made over the last century. This could have been the best movie ever made but it's still just a crappy vampire movie.
I totally see where you're coming from. While not that way about vampire films, fantasy movies just turn off my brain and make me immediately dissociate.
Whilst I understand Eggers decision for the Borat 'tache, the film, for me, would have worked better if the Count at least transformed into the Nosferatu creature at 'feeding' times. A bit like Gary Oldman was able to do in Coppola' s Dracula...p.s. contrary to most comments here I thought Lily Rose Depp gave a sterling performance and actually carried this movie- imho.
The mustache didn’t bug me at all. I liked the movie, but it did get a bit sluggish somewhere around the 2/3 mark, and I just wanted to get on with it already… coulda easily tightened it up to hit the 2 hour mark
Yeah it's almost ridiculous to think that this needs or even intended the "modern audiences/update" treatment (as that reviewer seemed to indicate at 4:55 ), since that is not something that Eggers does. Eggers brings his work back to their origins, not just to references to other references like some postmodern convolution of obscuring referents (like referencing the 1992 Dracula via the 1979 Nosferatu), which has become the popular method lately. That means that Eggers looked at who was actually being referenced by the Nosferatu archetype originally by Stoker and the Nietzsche-inspired Murnau. That being so, you have to ask what was being thematically examined in 1922 (Murnau) and 1897 (Stoker). Those works were examining the result of rationalism failing to address the "evil" of the time, which came in the form of infiltration and subversion from the East. Re-establishing archetypes allows audiences to re-recognize "evil", whereas a "modern update" could easily fail with devices such as making vampires "sexy" or "misunderstood".
@@StBindo That represents a category error and is not even literally correct, given that origins do not need to be absolute and the language used by Nosferatu was often NOT English. There's a good metaphor used by Valve-gaming's Gabe Newell for that kind of fallacious thinking. "Realism"-focused gamers think that games need to be "realistic" (e.g., Tarkov, DayZ/Arma), but this is entirely wrong. In practice, games need a feedback loop that allows the viewer to understand its mechanics and become immersed despite its limited medium (e.g., screen size, graphics limitations, spacial cues). "Reality" and "origin" simply cannot be *fully* realized when looking at a screen - but they can be *communicated*. (In the case of cinema, this same lesson is observed in 2003's "The Five Obstructions", where Jørgen Leth disproves the "realism" theory of director Lars von Trier.) Similarly, Eggers is NOT going for full "realism" - since that would be an incommunicable absurdity which would require audiences to step into a literal time machine and learn German since subtitles themselves are "not realistic". Instead, filmmakers have to use the medium to communicate as best as they can with the intended audience, which means *communicating* realism and origin rather than showing "reality" and origin itself. In other words, a filmmaker has to decide which methods best communicate across these limitations of "realism" to show a potentially incommunicable theme as "reality" (its portrayal). The referent (what is intended to be referred to) is never going to be the thing actually shown. So, for many English-speaking audiences, having German characters speaking English is a very good way to communicate "familiarity", whereas having Nosferatu often speaking a foreign language communicates the "strange/foreign" and unfamiliar.
To even imply Eggers intended for this or anything the "modern audience" treatment - he doesn't do modern anything. If anything, Eggers will take you before the inspirations of the original, and good for him too.So much of the modern art journalism is more uneducated than what I read in the average youtube comment. And it sadly goes together with the people who have forgotten how to read the gothic.
@kostantza1 Yeah, it's hilarious how these "journalists" all just assume that everything has to be for "modern audiences". You'd think they'd eventually get tired of being walking clichés.
I honestly hated every second of this film. The acting from Johnson, Hoult and Ineson is strong but Depp is woeful. Her performance, along with Skarsgard's, perfectly reflects this film's general tone, which is OTT in every sense of the phrase. There's screaming, wailing and crying abound with all the restraint of a Pride march. As for Orlok, his design is about as creepy as a fried egg, and his booming vocal further removes tension and replaces it with unnecessary spectacle. I am a fan of both previous versions of Nosferatu and I particularly missed the slow, calm stillness and Klaus Kinski's performance in the 1979 version so much I rewatched it recently and the difference is colossal. All in all, this current iteration is a bloated, loud, and un-scary mess.
I found the acting to be overdone. All the big emotional outbursts worked for the original. Because it was a silent movie and they needed the over the top acting to show the "dialogue." Here they kept the over the top style, but this time with the actual dialogue. And it was distracting. Much like Orlock's breathing. It became a very silly gimmick that seems to be in the movie just to eat up time. I bet you could cut the movie down by a percent or two by just removing the breathing. I still somewhat liked the movie. Not great. Not good. But decent enough to not dislike it but I won't be watching it again any time soon.
I agree with OP. There's no getting away from the fact that a vampire film simply has to have some kind of menace. Eggers Nosferatu is turgid, boring and terribly overacted with the titular character design being risible. Took me right out of the story. And all the palaver about contracts, wtf was it supposed to be an episode of Suits??
Nosferatu was an enjoyable watch but was a parody of a vampire film and unworthy of its 7.7 IMDB score. I gave it a five for its accidental comedic value. A combination of a terminally asthmatic vampire and a victim similarly afflicted who also behaves like Regan from The Exorcist. As for the Count feeding through someone's chest where they would have to get past the sternum and ribs was farcical, was the Count an idiot? I think so as he heard the cock crow in the morning, knew it was getting light and still went back to feeding. How could anyone killed by light live that long with such a risible modus operandi.
Eggar's movies aren't really made for general audiences - I know that sounds a bit elitist and condescending but it's not meant to, he appears to adhere to the " I'm making the movie I want to see" school. And I'm good with that, I may not like everything he does - I thought The Lighthouse was a huge miss - but I respect his vision and dedication to movie making. When Nosferatu 2024 comes out on disk I'll be buying a copy. And I'll be in the theater for his next movie too.
I've been called elitist and condescending for not praising his movies to high heaven. He makes good looking films but is handcuffed to his own style, the writing and pacing are often glacial and stiff, his "artsy" sequences can make the scenes suffer from Tryhard Syndrome. Plus: LOUD NOISES aren't scary they're annoying. Those scenes have been played out since the '00s.
Check our brand new Ultimate Retrospective on Werner Herzog and Klaus Kinski's Nosferatu:
ua-cam.com/video/75cwFvkT1VI/v-deo.html
I'm a very avid follower of your videos (Since 2016) and this is the first time I will have to strongly disagree with you here.
I know that originally both Nosferatu and Dracula have mustach (and hair overall) but the mustach not only is very distracting it make it look human, a human turned into a weird vamypre that is not here nor there.
Mind you, I saw your retrospective and your 4k Remaster of the original, both are top notch content. I know that Orlok may better be a human that got possesed by the demon belial, but if it's undeniable that the 1922's original had made a mark in pop culture to this day -Not only the way Orlok looks, but as well as how he acts-. He acts as if he's not a person, as if it is (and always being) a creature of the night, a dark demon.
Eggers made him look as a zombie russian aristrocrat with that mustach and an accent.
I was extremly angry the way Orlok died because the trope of vampires dying at sunlight was from the original version. Eggers's version is not bad as in terrible, but it has flaws, it does have. Is no masterpiece by any strech of the imagination. It's full of jumpscares and not scarry things that could leave a mark on the mind.
Ellen's character keeps getting possed every 2 minutes and the way it's done make her look funny instead of scary. Side note: My friend was laughing his ass off because of that.
There are so many things that this film lacks like the way Orlok is introduce here is forgetable (I thought it was the carriage driver guiding him) in the original is FAR better than this film.
Overall is as a good film as any Conjuirng film. Is good, is entertaining, it has interesting visuals, but... it explains things that doesn't need to be explain and distracts from the main theme of the film. - burning the coffin was an absurd thing, is well explain but it doesn't need to be explain at all-.
Anyway... This as far of my rant of this film is. I was so disappointed with it I don't know if I even want to see again. Maybe some time.
Cheers mate.
Time for you to stfu about this movie.
I loved the way Skarsgard deliberately and heavily breathed in before he talked. It emphasised that that the Count was dead and required deliberate thought to undertake what is an automatic function for the living human body.
Ellen makes it clear she hates Orlok for raping and abusing her through out the years.
Star Wars did it 40 years ago…
@@puzzlebawce795 Gary Oldman did it better 30 years ago imo. But hey, one can argue Gary Oldman was ripping off the original Nosferatu actor, and Bill was ripping them BOTH off, so.........
The sheer idea of having to push air into rotten diseased lungs in order to speak, it made everything that much so delightfully dreadful.
I thought that through the whole film. People are saying this is a masterpiece. But it was and is a rip off of Dracula. So it failed really badly for me. @@hayleylongster4698
Two points: 1. The Max Schreck's appearance can not be duplicated. Kinski looks like he is in make-up, while Schreck looks like he can be his look naturally. However good the actor or make-up crew, it will only be a poor copy. 2. So Eggers went back to the original appearance of Dracula as described in Stoker's novel as being tall, and having a huge mushtache. It is not as frightening, but Murnau and Schreck created something unique.
About halfway through I realized that there were no unnecessarily hammed in black or gay characters in the story, and my enjoyment of the movie became more solidified.
I was on tenterhooks for the first half hour. Then I remembered The Northman didn't have DEI signalling either, and so I relaxed. And was rewarded.
But how are modern audiences going to appreciate this movie otherwise?!
@ oh! The despair!
Wtf this has got to be the saddest way to watch a movie lmaoo
@EdwardHohenheim Hollywood after 2010 ruined movies for me!
Paraphrasing Eggers' own words - He was once a Hungarian nobleman... You'd be hard pressed to find one of those without a mustache!
Sure. But it just looked stupid. A bit of artistic freedom should be allowed.
@@mygrandpasayshesd.b.cooper6200 Subjective statement, but alright. I thought he looked great (in a grotesque and horrifying way).
He looked like the description of Dracula in the novel (who had a mustache) crossed with qualities of vampires from traditional lore.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for this comment!!! 👍👍👍
Except Vlad Dracula wasn't Hungarian - he was Wallachian (Romanian);
@@Transilvanian90 Eastern Europe :P
Slight change in this adaption.
I thought the mustache made him look more like Vlad the Impaler.
I kept thinking of the Kasabian music video of the same name.
Exactly. It does.
that's a positive and negative. in that it's a good representation of Dracula. But it does not look like Nosferatu.
The moustache is fantastic,people just can't take the awesomeness.
Stoker’s character was not meant to be Vlad Tepes, himself. He placed him as an official ancestor, instead.
The big mustache was an awesome addition to Orlok's look. It's a very obvious reference to the real life Vlad Dracula, who was notorious for his long mustache.
Exactly. Dracula has a moustache in the novel as well.
what is a mustache? a miserable pile of secrets?
I found it distracting from the monstrous appearance.
But this isn’t Dracula. This movie was an opportunity to set orlok apart from Dracula, and elevate nosferatu to more than a rip off
This is what I took from it. Stoker refers very explicitly to Dracula's appearence in 'young form' and of course, this mirrors the real life Count Vlad. Nosferatu was a Dracula rip off at heart, really, so, it follows that a tache might make an appearance somewhere- either in the original and/or this new version.
Biggest flaw is that it is a completely unnecessary film.
The OG is scary enough.
1:25 Seriously? There's aspects of the film I'm somewhat conflicted on, but the depiction of the Count himself was flawless. In fact, after over a century of films, this is the most accurate adaptation of Dracula's appearance from the book, and it's how I will forever imagine the character.
Is there no nuance anymore? Are we really at a point where we can either love or hate things? Where ONE element can RUIN the entire film?
Yes
I say the same thing about children.
I think ME is genuinely operating on as a rage bate grift at this point
😂@@jeggsonvohees2201
@@zerocore_ The title of the video isn't about THEIR opinion.
funny thought: herzog had the mustache! ..which made me think, adding the mustache in the 70s version would have been funnily counterproductive, because everybody had a mustache in the 70s
Nobody can top Kinski. He was a real life monster on coke.
The bigger issue was giving Lily Depp's character a bigger role than she should have. Half her dialogue was that of a delusional woman with a mental illness. Her entire arc was to be crazy and bang a vampire to death in the end. Dumb. Film should have been better, but fell off a cliff once Orlock got to Germany.
Ex FUCKIN' Xactly!!!
So basically they are saying trash Dracula look like boat
Trash Dracula Looks Like Boat was the alternate title for The Voyage of The Demeter
I think Orlok's look was fantastic. The one thing that ruined the movie was Lily-Rose Depp. With somebody else in the Hutter role, it would have been an easy eight, or even nine out of ten, sadly we had Depp. She should stick to stuff like Yoga Hosers, or if she really wants to push her 'acting' ability, perhaps a school play or two.
I dunno, I was kinda impressed with her. I was expecting her to be the very pronounced weak link, but I appreciated her performance.
@@hayleylongster4698 Eggers doesn't cast weak links. If he's gotten someone you didn't care for before, they'll give a revelatory performance. Like Lily Rose Depp did.
Some of her acting has quality but in those moments she's undercut by her bad dialogue
The movie was a fail mostly: because the Director fixated on scenes that needed less time and roamed quickly in areas of the film that detractors would have like more exposition.
Example the summoning of Count Orlok.
I thought it was incredibly mid.
Shave about thirty minutes off the running time and I'd be a lot nicer to it but I still wouldn't think it's very good.
I'm glad to see the wife and I are not alone. I know a lot of people like it and that doesn't bother me. I was expecting to love it and am actually very disappointed not only in how bad to mid it was, but in the fact I wasn't able to like it like I expected. Not going to go into all the reasons, but it's overdramatic, overloud, overlong. The music distracts. Beautifully shot film, but just not scary at all and the characters were very thin.
It was the Frank Zappa mustache, wasn’t it?
I dug it, personally.
I thought all the elements associated with Orlok were great as far as his presence, what he represented and so forth. He was like an ethereal being. Everytime he was on screen, the movie shined, it grabed my attention in a big way. But all the other actors or characters left me cold. At the same time, the fact that Orlok did not have his familar look just made me think that this Orlok was a great take on Dracula rather than Nosfeeratu.
Personally, I like my Draculas without a mustache, but I will not fault productions that strive to be more accurate to the book. It didn't hurt my enjoyment of the new Nosferatu. I like that he's more obscured by heavy clothes and shadow this time around.
The Stache is awesome! A nod to The Impaler?
I hated the movie. I thought it was written as if by a schizoid schoolchild, and I’m not sufficiently depraved to enjoy necrophilia.
Sucks. The movie looked great and I usually like what Eggers makes. Nosferatu was the biggest disappointment of 2024 for me, and I watched Arcane S2.
Nah, I love the addition of the mustache. This version of Nosferatu is presented through a historical lens, (an element Robert Eggers is very well known for bringing into his movies). As others have pointed out already, it's a reference to the real life inspiration for both Dracula and Orlok: Vlad the Impaler of Wallachia.
Beyond that, this is just a near perfect film in general. It's Bram Stoker's Dracula, but without the wooden acting of Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder bogging it down
I have watched your Ultimate Retrospective Nosferatu three times. I get more out of it each time, in different aspects and perspectives. Thank you for all the time and effort you put into it.
Glad you enjoy it!
Damn bro would’ve hated the book Dracula cuz Dracula literally has one in the book
it's fine for Dracula but not for Orlok. the movie is named Nosferatu
@@johnnyskinwalker4095Nosferatu is literally just dracula fan fiction that was legitimised lmao
@ that precisely why Orlok needs to look different
@@johnnyskinwalker4095 Nosferatu is literally an adaptation of Dracula that changed things so they wouldn’t get sued but they got sued anyway
I wasn’t a fan of the mustache either. I get its era appropriate, but it strikes me as a bit comical for some reason. When you have two absolutely iconic designs, like The original, and the Herzog version. For some reason, it disappoints me. On another note, the casting left a lot to be desired as well.
Completely agree. I want my Nosferatu to look like Nosferatu. And I didn't care about any of the other characters and actors.
I thought the mustache did not make him look like Vlad the Impaler, but rather more like Orlock the Hulkmaniac! 😆
🙄
@ whatyougonnado when Nosferafumanchu runs wild on your Blood!
There's a lot of moments that feel unintentionally funny.
Eggers' Nosferatu has become one of my favorite movies EVER. I would argue that It's not a remake of Murnau's "Nosferatu", not really. It only takes a couple of cues from it, including, of course, the ending. It's a MAGNIFICENT adaptation of Dracula, though. It's much more faithful to the book than most versions, despite not sharing the names of the characters. The atmosphere is pitch perfect, as it is the tone of the whole movie and the handling of its themes. The villain looks exactly as Dracula as described by Stoker. I liked it way more than Herzog's version and I've always liked that one.
Exactly. He actually looks a lot like how Dracula is described in the novel. When I read it a while back I was surprised when he was described with a mustache lol.
@@OrthoLou I even expected him to have hair in the palm of his hands, lol
If you are going to remake Dracula, remake Dracula. Don't vandalize a hundred year old classic in the process.
That is my biggest issue with it: it's Dracula! It's a Great take on the Dracula from the novel but it's not Nosferatu.
@@johnnyskinwalker4095 But Nosferatu IS an adaption of Dracula...
I don't mind the new approach making Orlok more authentically Eastern European but despite that great concept I am somewhat disapointed in the execution and final effect that IMHO lacks the kind of visceral intensity of the original. Not to say it "ruins" the film or anything.
As soon as I saw the title I knew it was about the stache.
When the reviewer said "modern update," we knew exactly what his problem was. 🤣I believe Herzog's response to this guy's review (and you have to hear his accent when you read this), "You know nothing of my work."
What you say here is so true, regarding Herzog's version, as Herzog ALSO went back to using Stoker's characters' names in his film; Harker, Mina, Dracula, et al.
Great video Andre. I plan to do a lengthy discussion on Herzog's Nosferatu in a couple weeks on our channel, and would love to play ME's videos, if that is all right?
👏👏👏👏👏
I thought Orlock looked too much like Stalin with that mustache. Kinda' took the horror element out for me and added a comedic element.
Stalin killed 60 million people, bro…
Looked like Stalin, Talked like Sauron. He even says "Mordor" with a rolling R. That was my first unintentional laugh of the movie.
When Count Orlok was talking at the table when Hutter met him all I could hear was Mater Splinter from The Ninja Turtles Movie. It's clear they didn't record his voice at that time and did it in post with a lot of effects on it so it not only sounded unnatural, it was comical. The toned it down later on but it's not a good way to introduce your villain.
@@noobandfriends2420 there were no effects added to the voice.
That was Skarsgard's actual voice.How was it clear when it didn't even happen?
I didn't mind the mustache, I thought the pacing could have been tighter though. I actually got a little sleepy during it. Overall, I really liked the movie, but I didn't love it. I want to see it again before I've made up my mind about it. Visually it's stunning, and it stays for the most part true to the original, the performances of the actors are really good, Skaarsgard's in particular. I love the 22 original and Eggers version is a fine tribute to it, but something about it left me wanting just a little bit.
So why give him a mustache, but no eyebrows? The way the hair is done just doesn't make sense. And its a well trimmed mustache on top of that. If the movie implied that orlok was able to manipulate his form like in Coppola's, it would make sense. But he doesnt, hes meant to be this undead corpse that for some reason cant grow eyebrows, but cant sport a massive trimmed stache. I wrote the story for a game called wallachia reign of dracula on switch and ps4 that is based on the real history. I spent years researching vlad. I understand as much as anyone what Dracula should look like. But this version of Orlok is inconsistent with it's own logic. Also why does he sleep in the coffee nude? So he gets up every night and puts on pounds of clothing? It makes no sense. It was just a cheap reason for him to pop out of the coffin with his schlong out. It was an added jump shock scare that murnua would probably hate if he saw it. Dont get me wrong the movie wasnt bad. But its the weakest version of Nosferatu. i had been following this movie since like 2016 and i definitely expected better from the genius who made The Witch.
I agree with the critic. Anybody could have been under that suit - there was nothing done by skaarsgard here that stood out apart from the voice. And I just found the new design repulsive. Not scary; not endearing; not even interesting. Just kind of gross.
I found the movie itself pretty interesting up until Orlok was on the ship. After that it just did not work for me. Especially the ending. I didn't find her sacrifice poignant or moving at all.
Idk. It just didn't work for me. I loved Herzogs version and will just stick with that
@@StBindo I'm the opposite. I didn't care for Herzog's version at all and I really wanted to. Dracula being sympathetic didn't work for me, the movie itself was just boring, and the Renfield character was outright comical.
I did love that they made him actually repulsive,like a rotting corpse for once. And I will have to disagree about Skarsgard. He does a good job bringing across the physicality and gravitas of Orlok when it is needed. The lack of that talent would be noted, by his success is so easy that it seems immaterial. The voice was fantastic. Personally I have loved all four versions of Nosferatu (including Shadow of the Vampire), in different ways.
And he was talking like Sauron
The arc of Ellen is her lust and desire for the mustached Clunt to the point it’s driving her mad. If anything, it’s Orlok who doesn’t love her because he’s physically not capable. He’s a a creature of pure animalistic lust and desire. He says so himself when he agrees with Ellen that he cannot love.
The trick is paying attention to the dialogue between Orlok and Ellen film. Ellen herself never denies her love for him. Just his love for her. He understands her soul in her own words. It’s an intimacy that transcending a human understanding.
With Thomas she has love, with Orlok she has understanding. Two things integral to Ellen, to be loved and understood, split between two men who have a piece of her soul and body.
Lilly Rose Depp and Robert Eggers even further elaborated on this in their commentary of the film. It’s a Gothic dark forbidden romance. It’s a staple of vampire culture and in their own mythos. It’s why vampires have always had a large female audience and they could probably articulate much better than I the nuance of the how and why they’ve been written like this from way before our time to the days of Anne Rice to Robert Eggers today.
Indeed. Even Twishite is a Mills and Boon rendering of the original BSD for tweens. Vampires are sexy demons for ladies ;oP
The movie works on a number of levels.You can read Ellen as having a death wish due to society's repression and her own otherworldly nature, you can read it as Orlok being a twisted birth of her own suppressed and maligned sexual desires, you can read it as an externalization of the darkest and most selfish desires of a person to be loved and hurt until annihilation, you can read it as just an undead monster going after a girl, you can read it as an alchemical process or a mystical parable. That's the beauty of it. The text of the gothic text might be horrific and tragic, but the subtext is what lends it its particular charm and why it can explore transgressive situations that would seem repulsive in a naturalistic novel, or in real life. Thus, Heathcliff and Catherine are a love story, Tamara and the demon is a love story, and Orlok and Ellen most certainly are a love story.
The only thing that bothers me about the mustache is that Its too alive, to dark. I think It should look more decrepit and gray. I would even prefer to See a decrepit long and blood stained beard to be honest
Totally agree with the reviewer. It wasn't the mustache itself, a mustache might have worked. It was the _implementation_ that made him look like undead Freddy Mercury with a Homer Simpson comb-over which really ratcheted the goof-meter to 11 and beyond. In a movie that relies so fully on its monster, making the monster look ridiculous completely hamstrung the movie.
That's what Hungarian noblemen looked like. Haircut and all.
I thought the movie was disappointing. It was visually well done but everything else didn't work for me. I almost fell asleep which even in Renfield and the Demeter film I didn't.
I was at times bored, frustrated, and unintentionally laughing and no one I went with liked the movie. Eggers feels like he's dipped into his same old bag of tricks too many times. I keep seeing the same timing and shots in every movie and I'm tired of it.
That was very interesting, I had no idea about Count Orlok being born a vampire in the 1922 version of Nosferatu. I’ve never watched the original 1922 version or the 1979 version. I did watch Egger’s version of Nosferatu on New Years Day and thoroughly enjoyed it.
Was the ship journey from eastern Europe to Germany ever explained? Maybe best not to think about it.
Wow. What a great essay! I learned a lot (as per usual on this channel), and can’t wait to learn even more on your sister channel in that retrospective.
BTW, the mustache (and maybe you said this) is explicitly mentioned in the original novel. So that too, is a nod to the source material.
And ironically, the new Nosferatu Orlok look of the character is much closer to the description of Dracula in Bram Stoker's novel than Bela Lugosi's appearance.
Am I the only one who really didn't like the almost fetishistic sexual content of the film? Especially the wtf ending.
Welcome to vampires, thats the whole thing
No, you're not.
@@OnceAgainTheCharmingScoundrel It's so weird that I hardly hear anyone talking about it.
I remember seeing the ending shot with Defoe staring out into the sun and I thought, "now that's a beautiful ending shot." and then they dropped THAT particular shot scene at the end lol
The ending is the same in the original story.
Well, when a director makes a very obvious bad decision, it draws attention to the inevitable other more subtle bad decisions in a movie. It's a tell that the director has bad instincts, and nobody close to him who is willing to challenge him on them.
Actually, the movie had a preview screening premiere in the Netherlands first, before Berlin, due to the unability to secure a proper release date, thanks the backlog of movies waiting to be released thanks to the complications from WW1.
The movie had pacing issues. The tension rose leading up to Orlok's appearance, and then just sort of stayed at the same level for the rest of the movie. There needed to be some changes to make certain Dracula events make more sense in the German setting, like taking a boat from Transylvania to Germany, which is a tad absurd given the distance needed to circumvent southern Europe. Ellen's whole thing was undercooked. We don't know if she is actually a changeling or whatever, just a few vague references. Thomas' contract with Orlok violates the typical deal with the devil tropes. He wasn't manipulated into it, he was just straight up lied to while under magical horror stress. I felt that that lessened the impact of the entire plot. For a movie about bonds and oaths, they were incredibly vague and flighty about all of them. Characters also have knowledge, or at least have been told, that crucifixes repel him, and that he cannot enter a House of God, and yet that information is never relayed to anyone else and nothing is done of it. There was some superb acting from Taylor-Johnson, and Hoult, but Dafoe was kind of a miss for me. I know he was supposed to be eclectic, but he came across as weirdly modern in sensibility.
Casting RDJ as Doom is a backdoor way to sneak a Tony return into the movie, calling it now.
This movie was not for me. I don't understand why it was so widely praised.
Ditto.
Well it won't be for everyone.
@@bulldogsbob Im not saying it was terrible or anything. It was just praised so much by everyone and it was just ok. I felt kind of let down.
@@imaxinsertnounherex...no it was terrible.
Eggers Koolaid
I liked the mustache, even if it seemed a bit out of place during some shots, it does well to "hide" his fangs, which im assuming cant possibly be hidden easily because he's so large. Very beautifully dark film
I saw no issue with Count Orlock. I just saw it as a visual nod to Gary Oldman, and his version of Dracula in Bram Stoker's Dracula.
The only flaw for me is that if the characters have done absolutely nothing it would have ended the same way, he drinking Ellen's blood and dying soon after. Maybe Von Franz could have done something? maybe a potion? some prayer, just something so they get that final outcome.
Not really. The sunlight killed him, no one knows if they'd have managed it by destroying his tomb. Also, this is a theme-driven movie, not a plot-driven one. The issue was the internal arc of Ellen (and Thomas).
@@kostantza1 Right! I forgot about his sarcophagus being destroyed, thanks! Sure they did establish she has more blood than other people but it just seems strange.
I guess it doesn't help people knowing how Dracula dies by being stabbed in the heart. Maybe I was just hoping maybe Ellen stabbing him while having sex or something.
You don't seem to mention the Doug Jones as Orlok version that came out a couple of months before the Eggers movie. I understand that they copied the Max Schreck silent film but added dialog. Please review that version too. It can currently be found on Tubi as of 1/15/25.
I understood the new design, but lament the loss of Murnau's original creature design. It just want Nosferatu to me without it.
It was actually Max Schreck's design. He did his own makeup.
I was with the movie until the last act. It was a lil confusing how William Defoe's character purposely misled everyone to an empty coffin, and I didn't like how Ellen just gave Nosferatu what he wanted. I was hoping that she was luring him in so she could stab him in the heart herself. I understand that the ending was true to the original, but it was still depressingly underwhelming, like all the struggle was for nothing. Mayb had she not seemed to enjoy it so much & had Nosferatu burst into flames while in the bed with her as she gave her husband one final tearful look when the sun rose would've at least made it all a lil more poetic. 🥀
DeFoe's character knew the only way to stop Orlok was by sacrifice and Ellen was the only person who could make that sacrifice - she knew that too. So he had to manipulate everyone in order to give the opportunity to destroy Orlok, which gave her both the closure and redemption she'd earned.
@johnscott6984
Thank u for the clarification. I knew that she had to make the sacrifice, but Nosferatu was kind of dumb to go to her so close to dawn, all she had to do was hold him there for a few extra seconds. Still would've been cooler had she just stabbed him herself instead of giving him what he wanted, which was her body and soul.
It was dark, boring, slow, and over all hard to understand. Movies are meant to entertain, and this one fails mostly.
So you want a marvel film
My all-time favourite movie is Lawrence Of Arabia, which is slow and over 3 hours long, yet I also found myself bored to tears watching Nosferatu.
@@bulldogsbob go back to huffing RLM gas
YES!!! It was trying to be something.... but it was not at all entertaining.
I had such high hopes particularly after the early reviews were so over the top. Which I now believe many were paid shills. When the audience score came out as B- I knew these early reviews were bunk. So when I watched it I found it incredibly slow and boring, comedic acting and he looked like Freddie Mercury and Omar Sharif. I give it a C-
In the novel, Dracula had a moustache. So....
Like Sikhs and the significance of the beard, certain cultures see facial hair and the mustache, specially, as sign of power and age. Hairless males are considered boys by some societies. When watching the 2024 Nosferatu, take note of which males have hair in eastern Europe and western Europe.
Eggers actually gives a very interesting explanation for why Orlok maintains the moustache. Like everything in his movies, the historical research has actual bearing on the characters and/or plot, it's not there as window-dressing, but casuals won't ever learn.
Literally naked Dracula ruined it for me. Looked comical.
Not only was the mustache cool, but I dug the way Count Orlock spoke. He sounded like Sauron from "Lord Of The Rings."
I was so waiting for him to say, "Build me an army worthy of Mordor!" 😆😄
Hahaha great comment!
@@christian39000 Thank you.
He even says "mordor" during one of those speeches lol
I was surprised over the updated appearance of Orlok but I quite liked it too, moustache included!
Nosferatu’s look is more what Upir (Vampire) looks like in Eastern European movies or how he is described in various Slavic books.
I thought people would complain about Lily Rose Depp performance😅
the only issue i had with the film, which was more hilarious than anything was Aaron Taylor Johnson's muscles fighting with everything they had to not rip the period clothing lol.
One of those I can go both ways on but I understand the criticism. While I like and have no real problems with Eggers' Orlok, the "traditional" Orlok design is arguably the greatest defining aspect of the Nosferatu version vs official Dracula adaptions. He did keep the wild claw hands at least. =P
The movie I saw wasn't "ruined" - it was damn good.
Personally, I think that this is a valid criticism for the new Nosferatu. The original Nosferatu look is cinematically iconic for his bald, rodent like look, something that Herzog kept also and even in games like Vampire in the World of Darkness rpg series Nosferatu is a clan of Vampires that look exactly like the original Count Orlok. So until Eggers movie when you hear Nosferatu you have the iconic look flashing in your head. The Eggers change (though historically valid) makes him more of a Dracula variation. Not bad but not iconic.
Yea it was essentially one of the best representation of Dracula from the book. But it wasn't Nosferatu.
The One Major Flaw that RUINED Nosferatu 2024 was the casting of Lily Rose Depp .. she was absolutely annoying in every way .. She was trying to hard the whole time.. other than her being in the film , I liked it ..
Heaven forbid journalists do some actual research before writing something about the subject in question.
I liked the movie but Orlok looked like Jim Carrey and I couldn't unsee it.
I guess I could be convinced by a particularly stunning movie but I think one of the essential elements of a Dracula (and therefore Nosferatu) rendition is good triumphing over evil, an evil that is unrepentant and unyielding. It's kind of the core tenant of the book, otherwise it kind of breaks down. Many have a tragic end but essentially evil is defeated. I think maybe that is what Robert Eggers refers to as the "fairy tale" aspect of the Dracula book yet the grim and dark retelling of Nosferatu (even his version) have the same essential ending. Also, OG Dracula had a moustache so eat your heart out haters.
Imagine being angry at a mustache... the change is welcome; yes the 1922 and 1979 films are excellent, but let's face it, the 1979 Orlok does look a bit... cartoonish.
Eggers' Orlok looks WAY more menacing, and especially in the castle when we first see him with that Boyar hat, he looks so wonderfully authentic to the historical Transylvanian nobility that it's eerie... you feel like it's some guy who's been sitting in the castle for 600 years due to being undead. It works amazingly well.
I feel like this article is more of a misdirect attempt, distract from people's legit problems with the movie
I… am a bit ambiguous on the look; it was very unnerving in the sense that he really looked like a reanimated Romanian Nobleman come to life but the scene that was struck in my mind was the feeding scene on Hutter squatting like a diseased and rotting walking corpse and that horrible sucking motion like a mosquito 🦟
That Nosferatu took away and resemblance of humanity on Orlok and made him a truly loathsome monster
Quite refreshing given the “romantic Dracula” or pretty boy “Twlight” troupes
Thought orlock was well done. Problem is perception of horror has wildly changed over the last thirty years.
I think this film proves one thing, people have awful taste in films.
For A better representation of the ending of Nosferatu, watch Midnight Mass.
The film was outstanding, and Orlok was the best part of it. The voice, look and demeanor were sublimely creepy. Best depiction of a vampire on film, period.
This reviewer is perfectly emblematic of why most Hollywood product is skippable bilge these days - no taste whatsoever, and most studios are banking on precisely that.
Myself I had zero issue with film and I recently saw the 1979 film and while both were moody and had great atmosphere I felt the Edgar's version is the better of the two.
To be honest, I don't care about vampire movies. There have been way too many made over the last century. This could have been the best movie ever made but it's still just a crappy vampire movie.
I totally see where you're coming from.
While not that way about vampire films, fantasy movies just turn off my brain and make me immediately dissociate.
Looks like the article creator just fear a powerful, masculine mustache. That is all. I guess. ⭐⭐⭐
I loved the look of Orlok, he was based on Vlad the Impaler... Even his castle was.
I think this is much more a consequence of a “journalist” needing to fill a daily quota: Why feed the machine by commenting on this?
Is it that it was a vampire movie released in December?
I knew what they were going for as soon as I saw it even if it was unexpected.
You're talking about the mustache, so it must have been a good choice. Personally, I don't care. The 1922 version is perfect and never needed remakes.
Whilst I understand Eggers decision for the Borat 'tache, the film, for me, would have worked better if the Count at least transformed into the Nosferatu creature at 'feeding' times. A bit like Gary Oldman was able to do in Coppola' s Dracula...p.s. contrary to most comments here I thought Lily Rose Depp gave a sterling performance and actually carried this movie- imho.
It's a reason for them to snub the movie during awards season 😠
Please more of videos like this, please!!!
The mustache didn’t bug me at all. I liked the movie, but it did get a bit sluggish somewhere around the 2/3 mark, and I just wanted to get on with it already… coulda easily tightened it up to hit the 2 hour mark
Yeah it's almost ridiculous to think that this needs or even intended the "modern audiences/update" treatment (as that reviewer seemed to indicate at 4:55 ), since that is not something that Eggers does.
Eggers brings his work back to their origins, not just to references to other references like some postmodern convolution of obscuring referents (like referencing the 1992 Dracula via the 1979 Nosferatu), which has become the popular method lately. That means that Eggers looked at who was actually being referenced by the Nosferatu archetype originally by Stoker and the Nietzsche-inspired Murnau. That being so, you have to ask what was being thematically examined in 1922 (Murnau) and 1897 (Stoker). Those works were examining the result of rationalism failing to address the "evil" of the time, which came in the form of infiltration and subversion from the East. Re-establishing archetypes allows audiences to re-recognize "evil", whereas a "modern update" could easily fail with devices such as making vampires "sexy" or "misunderstood".
If he "brings works back to their origins," then why the heck was everyone speaking English??
@@StBindo That represents a category error and is not even literally correct, given that origins do not need to be absolute and the language used by Nosferatu was often NOT English.
There's a good metaphor used by Valve-gaming's Gabe Newell for that kind of fallacious thinking. "Realism"-focused gamers think that games need to be "realistic" (e.g., Tarkov, DayZ/Arma), but this is entirely wrong. In practice, games need a feedback loop that allows the viewer to understand its mechanics and become immersed despite its limited medium (e.g., screen size, graphics limitations, spacial cues). "Reality" and "origin" simply cannot be *fully* realized when looking at a screen - but they can be *communicated*. (In the case of cinema, this same lesson is observed in 2003's "The Five Obstructions", where Jørgen Leth disproves the "realism" theory of director Lars von Trier.)
Similarly, Eggers is NOT going for full "realism" - since that would be an incommunicable absurdity which would require audiences to step into a literal time machine and learn German since subtitles themselves are "not realistic". Instead, filmmakers have to use the medium to communicate as best as they can with the intended audience, which means *communicating* realism and origin rather than showing "reality" and origin itself.
In other words, a filmmaker has to decide which methods best communicate across these limitations of "realism" to show a potentially incommunicable theme as "reality" (its portrayal). The referent (what is intended to be referred to) is never going to be the thing actually shown. So, for many English-speaking audiences, having German characters speaking English is a very good way to communicate "familiarity", whereas having Nosferatu often speaking a foreign language communicates the "strange/foreign" and unfamiliar.
To even imply Eggers intended for this or anything the "modern audience" treatment - he doesn't do modern anything. If anything, Eggers will take you before the inspirations of the original, and good for him too.So much of the modern art journalism is more uneducated than what I read in the average youtube comment. And it sadly goes together with the people who have forgotten how to read the gothic.
@kostantza1 Yeah, it's hilarious how these "journalists" all just assume that everything has to be for "modern audiences". You'd think they'd eventually get tired of being walking clichés.
Some people will have mix opinion on this version of Nosferatu but me I enjoyed it.
Necrophilic "Disgusting-core" porn for modern western women and 'cinephiles' (whatever that means nowadays), lmfao. I'm with the writer on this one.
I honestly hated every second of this film. The acting from Johnson, Hoult and Ineson is strong but Depp is woeful. Her performance, along with Skarsgard's, perfectly reflects this film's general tone, which is OTT in every sense of the phrase. There's screaming, wailing and crying abound with all the restraint of a Pride march. As for Orlok, his design is about as creepy as a fried egg, and his booming vocal further removes tension and replaces it with unnecessary spectacle. I am a fan of both previous versions of Nosferatu and I particularly missed the slow, calm stillness and Klaus Kinski's performance in the 1979 version so much I rewatched it recently and the difference is colossal. All in all, this current iteration is a bloated, loud, and un-scary mess.
Lighten up Francis.
I found the acting to be overdone. All the big emotional outbursts worked for the original. Because it was a silent movie and they needed the over the top acting to show the "dialogue." Here they kept the over the top style, but this time with the actual dialogue. And it was distracting.
Much like Orlock's breathing. It became a very silly gimmick that seems to be in the movie just to eat up time. I bet you could cut the movie down by a percent or two by just removing the breathing.
I still somewhat liked the movie. Not great. Not good. But decent enough to not dislike it but I won't be watching it again any time soon.
I agree with OP. There's no getting away from the fact that a vampire film simply has to have some kind of menace. Eggers Nosferatu is turgid, boring and terribly overacted with the titular character design being risible. Took me right out of the story. And all the palaver about contracts, wtf was it supposed to be an episode of Suits??
I'm so exhuasted by, "Mustachegate." It's the goth equivalent of the Superman trunks argument. It's shallow and tiresome.
True. If a review devotes more than three lines to it negatively,I stop reading.
i didn't mind Orlok. Lily Rose Depp nearly ruined the movie for me. She was horrible to look at and watch
Nosferatu was an enjoyable watch but was a parody of a vampire film and unworthy of its 7.7 IMDB score. I gave it a five for its accidental comedic value. A combination of a terminally asthmatic vampire and a victim similarly afflicted who also behaves like Regan from The Exorcist. As for the Count feeding through someone's chest where they would have to get past the sternum and ribs was farcical, was the Count an idiot? I think so as he heard the cock crow in the morning, knew it was getting light and still went back to feeding. How could anyone killed by light live that long with such a risible modus operandi.
Definitely Eggers' weakest film.
@@thesupremeatheistintellect64 I think that easily goes to the Witch. I saw it in theaters and felt... Essentially nothing.
let me guess... its woke
I heard the BR will have something like a Dir. Cut
Eggar's movies aren't really made for general audiences - I know that sounds a bit elitist and condescending but it's not meant to, he appears to adhere to the " I'm making the movie I want to see" school. And I'm good with that, I may not like everything he does - I thought The Lighthouse was a huge miss - but I respect his vision and dedication to movie making. When Nosferatu 2024 comes out on disk I'll be buying a copy. And I'll be in the theater for his next movie too.
I've been called elitist and condescending for not praising his movies to high heaven. He makes good looking films but is handcuffed to his own style, the writing and pacing are often glacial and stiff, his "artsy" sequences can make the scenes suffer from Tryhard Syndrome.
Plus: LOUD NOISES aren't scary they're annoying. Those scenes have been played out since the '00s.