I blame the marketing. They have heavily promoted to the general audiences, and released at Christmas, an arty film inspired by a 100 year old silent film set in the 19th century. So they may pull off making it a blockbuster but some are bound to be confused and disappointed because of expectations and being lured to a movie they wouldn't normally go see.
He is here! What an exceptional work of a classic legendary story retold and incredibly performed. Nothing short of phenomenal & a new horror masterpiece in cinematic folklore. Robert Eggers delivers once again. No surprise. An adventure so tense and chilling to the core, staying with you & holding you tightly. Worth the wait & absolutely revisiting, many times again. P.S Did you get that Nosferatu popcorn bucket?😄🍿
Well said! Robert Egger’s vision and execution is always quite remarkable 😍 I did not get the bucket, but I’m considering going back for a rewatch soon and might pick one up 😏
almost walked out . a shaking girl and a count chocula no teeth un scary vampire .Worst Vampire movie i have ever seen .my opinion oh just because there are nice camera angles doe not mean its a great MOVIE just a long bore .I think ole Mustache should of used a 300 sunscreen block so he could of gotten a second date at least .Her husband was a wimpy simp who didnt even try to save his wife at least one confrontation with the Ashma vampire terrible movie
@LindzCzar it's a fascinating journey isn't it? A portrait come to life. Hopefully you're able to get a bucket. It's cool looking. I actually have a Nosferatu figure I put inside mine. Perfect match!🌟😂😂
@@thesilentknight4554 I do at least the Sesame street vampire can count stars this movie gets none .. Ill say this great acting nice camera work the director has a very tasteful way of filming .But that aside after the first 25% of the movie it just fell apart ..nothing happened not one confrontation with count chockula not even to try and save his wife even if he failed if i directed this id have you on the edge of your seat with this cast not sleeping in it .Stay well
For me, the 1922 version of Nosferatu will always be the gold standard. The Nosferatu 1979 remake with Klaus Kinski was good, but I found the Count to be too short and slow, lacking the unsettling presence of its original counterpart. The 2024 version was also underwhelming, as I would have liked to see more of the castle's inner workings and the Count's daily routine, which felt glossed over. I was also distracted by the design choices, particularly the mustache. In terms of romantic portrayals of Dracula, I think the 1979 version with Frank Langella and the 1992 version with Gary Oldman were the most successful in capturing the balance of romance and horror, making them my top choices.
I actually felt it was a tad too rushed, especially with the stuff around the plague. I wanted an extra 15-20 mins in the latter half showing the effect of the plague on the people. That was my favorite part of Herzog's version.
agree.....not having the city "celebrate" while the plague was going on was a missed opportunity. thankfully...its didn't have the awful ending of the Herzog version.
Well one thing's for sure. It's a thousand times better than that piece of crap. Last voyage of the Demeter people say it's boring but if it tells a good story, it's not boring. Nosferatu was not meant to be Terminator 2 judgment Day for f*** sakes people are nuts
I liked your review. I’m a slow burn fan. I mean, heck, I liked Werner Herzog’s 1979 take on it and his filmmaking can be like molasses running uphill in dead winter. So, I can’t wait to see it, you’re well versed, you talk fast and you’re cute AF. I’m going to subscribe. 🙀
Just such a pity its being compared with Murnaus (and to an extent Herzogs) Nosferatu. Eggers has completely changed the entire plot, which would never have worked in the original. Completely changed the characters, and their purposes. Generally made any story event considerably less believeable and woefully over complicated compared with the original, whilst removing the rather poignant beauty of the original. Just the original plot worked so beautifully and everything followed well and was believable (up to the vampire bit). Lucy's connection, why Johnathon went in the first place, her connection, the vampires defeat and how it worked. Eggers really had nothing to do with murnaus Nosferatu, being considerably more akin to stokers, which of course murnau tried to change, just not enough. Murnau's masterpiece, (cinematography aside) makes Eggers version look like it was written and produced by a 14 year old.
Thanks for sharing your perspective here. I like that Eggers took inspirations from the original and still was able to make it his own, but I can definitely understand the frustration and criticism.
@LindzCzar thanks for your nice response. I'm very aware that Eggers Nosferatu hasn't been made for the likes of me, and there's an overwhelming applause for this latest release. Tbh, I find the surrealism is Dreyers 1932 French/German Vampyr considerably better than Murnau's Nosferatu, however there's few that like the poetic imagery in that movie. Just things that are plot essential in Murnau's is The Hutters aren't married, they can't be: as is later revealed in a book given by the Gypsies to Johnathon only a pure woman can delay the vampire until sunrise (she reads this later). The psychic connection isn't with the vampire. It's, and something more akin that can be believable, her intense love for Johnathon, and she senses that he is in great peril. Orlok merely intercepts this psychic telepathy, and it disturbs him. The locals rather believably don't want to have anything to do with Nosferatu or his castle, flatly refusing to go near it, Johnathon having to walk to the castle. Orlok has to drive his own coach, do his own baggage handling, and the washing up after dinner. Orlok has to actually welcome a victim in, otherwise the person can't enter, Murnau's Hutter/Harker walks up to him and this is done. All these things are actually believable to an extent: we think why are the Gypsies so involved with the blood-sucker? Surely they'd want to avoid at all costs. Again, Johnathons reason for going in the first place is for the large real estate commission so he can buy a fancier house for his bride-to-be. Renfield is loopy as he did the same as Johnathon: and came back bananas, that's how he knows of Nosferatu, and vice versa. Even in Herzogs remake: van Helsing, like any local doctor, really doesn't have much idea what's happening or what to do about it. Every other movie gives the impression that van Helsing is so experienced, so informed, it's like he's been killing vampires every weekend. Where did he get all this profound knowledge and why does nobody else come close? All of these things just make a nice, flowing, storyline without being over the top, without being shouty and torch waving etc. Vampyr is a different kettle of fish where Dreyer wanted to portray the experience from the viewpoint of the "hero". In all other movies we know exactly what is happening, everything being portrayed or spelled out. In Vampyr for instance, the hero is asleep in his b&b room, he awakens to see the doorkey unlocking by itself. An old man walks in, places a letter by his bed, then walks out, the hero being rather astonished. We, the viewer, have no idea who he is, a ghost, the protagonist, a dream, nothing (incidentally the letter is entitled to be opened upon my death). Anyway, a boring response to your good response :)
Haha not at all boring! It’s obvious you are very passionate about this, and I love that you’d take the time to share your thoughts, so thank you for that! I’m also going to have to check out some of the things you mentioned- I’ve never seen Vampyr actually, I definitely want to check it out!
THIS DIRECTOR IS GOOD AT CREATING INTERESTING VISUAL DESIGNS...BUT THAT'S WHERE IT STOPS. THE STORY TELLING HOWEVER...LACKS. THE MOVIE FEELS THAT IT STARTS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STORY, AND THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE CHARACTERS AND THEIR FATE. THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH BACKGROUND OR CHANCE TO GET TO KNOW ALL OF THESE PEOPLE. THERE WAS SOME GOOD ACTING BUT IT FELT IRRELEVANT PRECISELY BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET TO KNOW THE CHARACTERS. THE CREATURE LOOKED TOO OVERLY DONE ON MAKE UP EFFECTS, RUBBERY...AND THEN THERE IS THE FINAL PRODUCT....HE LOOKED LIKE A GUY THAT WOULD WORK AS A CAR MECHANIC. NOT SCARY. I DID ENJOY DRACULA'S VOICE AND USE OF THE ROMANIAN LANGUAGE. THE GYPSIES LOOKED GREAT BUT THEIR PART WAS MADE INNEFECTIVE. THE NAKED GIRL ON A HORSE WAS SILLY AND SO WAS WILLEM DEFOE'S ACTING.
Thanks for sharing! I agree that by focussing on the visuals and cinematography, they did slightly overlook some aspects such as the character and plot development!
Nosferatu is a major upgrade to the original one from 1922 which of course was black and white and silent 🤫 I hear that this movie could be a contender for the Oscars 🏆next year. I really enjoyed watching it even if it was a slow burn. Hope you had a Merry Christmas 🎄Thanks for your insightful review 😊
I blame the marketing. They have heavily promoted to the general audiences, and released at Christmas, an arty film inspired by a 100 year old silent film set in the 19th century. So they may pull off making it a blockbuster but some are bound to be confused and disappointed because of expectations and being lured to a movie they wouldn't normally go see.
Yes! 100% agree with this. The movie definitely isn’t for everyone!
Why did the movie have characters with non German accents, with the movie taking place in Germany ?
He is here!
What an exceptional work of a classic legendary story retold and incredibly performed. Nothing short of phenomenal & a new horror masterpiece in cinematic folklore. Robert Eggers delivers once again. No surprise. An adventure so tense and chilling to the core, staying with you & holding you tightly. Worth the wait & absolutely revisiting, many times again.
P.S
Did you get that Nosferatu popcorn bucket?😄🍿
Well said! Robert Egger’s vision and execution is always quite remarkable 😍 I did not get the bucket, but I’m considering going back for a rewatch soon and might pick one up 😏
almost walked out . a shaking girl and a count chocula no teeth un scary vampire .Worst Vampire movie i have ever seen .my opinion oh just because there are nice camera angles doe not mean its a great MOVIE just a long bore .I think ole Mustache should of used a 300 sunscreen block so he could of gotten a second date at least .Her husband was a wimpy simp who didnt even try to save his wife at least one confrontation with the Ashma vampire terrible movie
@LindzCzar it's a fascinating journey isn't it? A portrait come to life. Hopefully you're able to get a bucket. It's cool looking. I actually have a Nosferatu figure I put inside mine. Perfect match!🌟😂😂
@Tdrums8 what the? Bold opinion. Let me guess. You prefer the vampire, from Sesame Street? Which is fine! He's a cool vampire. 🧛♂️ 😂
@@thesilentknight4554 I do at least the Sesame street vampire can count stars this movie gets none .. Ill say this great acting nice camera work the director has a very tasteful way of filming .But that aside after the first 25% of the movie it just fell apart ..nothing happened not one confrontation with count chockula not even to try and save his wife even if he failed if i directed this id have you on the edge of your seat with this cast not sleeping in it .Stay well
For me, the 1922 version of Nosferatu will always be the gold standard. The Nosferatu 1979 remake with Klaus Kinski was good, but I found the Count to be too short and slow, lacking the unsettling presence of its original counterpart. The 2024 version was also underwhelming, as I would have liked to see more of the castle's inner workings and the Count's daily routine, which felt glossed over. I was also distracted by the design choices, particularly the mustache. In terms of romantic portrayals of Dracula, I think the 1979 version with Frank Langella and the 1992 version with Gary Oldman were the most successful in capturing the balance of romance and horror, making them my top choices.
I actually felt it was a tad too rushed, especially with the stuff around the plague. I wanted an extra 15-20 mins in the latter half showing the effect of the plague on the people. That was my favorite part of Herzog's version.
I actually agree! I do think the pace was almost too slow in the wrong places, but too fast in some of the more interesting moments- like the plague!
agree.....not having the city "celebrate" while the plague was going on was a missed opportunity. thankfully...its didn't have the awful ending of the Herzog version.
Well one thing's for sure. It's a thousand times better than that piece of crap. Last voyage of the Demeter people say it's boring but if it tells a good story, it's not boring. Nosferatu was not meant to be Terminator 2 judgment Day for f*** sakes people are nuts
I blatantly did the dj bean flicker move on my wife in the front of the theater while watching this.
Happy Holidays
Just because the lighting and the shots are nice doesn’t mean the movie was good
I liked your review. I’m a slow burn fan. I mean, heck, I liked Werner Herzog’s 1979 take on it and his filmmaking can be like molasses running uphill in dead winter. So, I can’t wait to see it, you’re well versed, you talk fast and you’re cute AF. I’m going to subscribe. 🙀
Just such a pity its being compared with Murnaus (and to an extent Herzogs) Nosferatu.
Eggers has completely changed the entire plot, which would never have worked in the original.
Completely changed the characters, and their purposes.
Generally made any story event considerably less believeable and woefully over complicated compared with the original, whilst removing the rather poignant beauty of the original.
Just the original plot worked so beautifully and everything followed well and was believable (up to the vampire bit).
Lucy's connection, why Johnathon went in the first place, her connection, the vampires defeat and how it worked.
Eggers really had nothing to do with murnaus Nosferatu, being considerably more akin to stokers, which of course murnau tried to change, just not enough.
Murnau's masterpiece, (cinematography aside) makes Eggers version look like it was written and produced by a 14 year old.
Thanks for sharing your perspective here. I like that Eggers took inspirations from the original and still was able to make it his own, but I can definitely understand the frustration and criticism.
@LindzCzar thanks for your nice response. I'm very aware that Eggers Nosferatu hasn't been made for the likes of me, and there's an overwhelming applause for this latest release.
Tbh, I find the surrealism is Dreyers 1932 French/German Vampyr considerably better than Murnau's Nosferatu, however there's few that like the poetic imagery in that movie.
Just things that are plot essential in Murnau's is The Hutters aren't married, they can't be: as is later revealed in a book given by the Gypsies to Johnathon only a pure woman can delay the vampire until sunrise (she reads this later).
The psychic connection isn't with the vampire. It's, and something more akin that can be believable, her intense love for Johnathon, and she senses that he is in great peril. Orlok merely intercepts this psychic telepathy, and it disturbs him.
The locals rather believably don't want to have anything to do with Nosferatu or his castle, flatly refusing to go near it, Johnathon having to walk to the castle.
Orlok has to drive his own coach, do his own baggage handling, and the washing up after dinner.
Orlok has to actually welcome a victim in, otherwise the person can't enter, Murnau's Hutter/Harker walks up to him and this is done.
All these things are actually believable to an extent: we think why are the Gypsies so involved with the blood-sucker? Surely they'd want to avoid at all costs.
Again, Johnathons reason for going in the first place is for the large real estate commission so he can buy a fancier house for his bride-to-be.
Renfield is loopy as he did the same as Johnathon: and came back bananas, that's how he knows of Nosferatu, and vice versa.
Even in Herzogs remake: van Helsing, like any local doctor, really doesn't have much idea what's happening or what to do about it.
Every other movie gives the impression that van Helsing is so experienced, so informed, it's like he's been killing vampires every weekend. Where did he get all this profound knowledge and why does nobody else come close?
All of these things just make a nice, flowing, storyline without being over the top, without being shouty and torch waving etc.
Vampyr is a different kettle of fish where Dreyer wanted to portray the experience from the viewpoint of the "hero".
In all other movies we know exactly what is happening, everything being portrayed or spelled out.
In Vampyr for instance, the hero is asleep in his b&b room, he awakens to see the doorkey unlocking by itself. An old man walks in, places a letter by his bed, then walks out, the hero being rather astonished. We, the viewer, have no idea who he is, a ghost, the protagonist, a dream, nothing (incidentally the letter is entitled to be opened upon my death).
Anyway, a boring response to your good response :)
Haha not at all boring! It’s obvious you are very passionate about this, and I love that you’d take the time to share your thoughts, so thank you for that! I’m also going to have to check out some of the things you mentioned- I’ve never seen Vampyr actually, I definitely want to check it out!
THIS DIRECTOR IS GOOD AT CREATING INTERESTING VISUAL DESIGNS...BUT THAT'S WHERE IT STOPS. THE STORY TELLING HOWEVER...LACKS. THE MOVIE FEELS THAT IT STARTS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STORY, AND THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE CHARACTERS AND THEIR FATE. THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH BACKGROUND OR CHANCE TO GET TO KNOW ALL OF THESE PEOPLE. THERE WAS SOME GOOD ACTING BUT IT FELT IRRELEVANT PRECISELY BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET TO KNOW THE CHARACTERS. THE CREATURE LOOKED TOO OVERLY DONE ON MAKE UP EFFECTS, RUBBERY...AND THEN THERE IS THE FINAL PRODUCT....HE LOOKED LIKE A GUY THAT WOULD WORK AS A CAR MECHANIC. NOT SCARY. I DID ENJOY DRACULA'S VOICE AND USE OF THE ROMANIAN LANGUAGE. THE GYPSIES LOOKED GREAT BUT THEIR PART WAS MADE INNEFECTIVE. THE NAKED GIRL ON A HORSE WAS SILLY AND SO WAS WILLEM DEFOE'S ACTING.
Thanks for sharing! I agree that by focussing on the visuals and cinematography, they did slightly overlook some aspects such as the character and plot development!
Nosferatu is a major upgrade to the original one from 1922 which of course was black and white and silent 🤫 I hear that this movie could be a contender for the Oscars 🏆next year. I really enjoyed watching it even if it was a slow burn.
Hope you had a Merry Christmas 🎄Thanks for your insightful review 😊
For sure an upgrade and quite a unique movie!! Hope you had a great Christmas as well ❤️🎄
I imagine this movie will win an Oscar.