Nosferatu. Anyone Seen It Yet?

[Gorehound 3,784]

I personally love Robert Eggers movies even though they are not for everyone and are more in the realm of ArtHouse, and I thought Nosferatu was absolutely sensational! The stunning visuals, the haunting atmosphere, the meticulous design, the excellent acting from the cast, the sound design and music, the historical accuracy, the seriously clever and artistic cinematography... It's a real gothic horror banger and I hope it does really well.

What did you guys think?

Edited yesterday at 11:01 AM by Gorehound

[buzzkill 4,896]

Perfect movie!!! Love it

[Alvitr 483]

Everything you said I agree on.

However for me, it’s just beautiful and just art. I can appreciate for what it is. The script and story fell flat though. The end had me saying ”That’s it, that’s all?”. With all that crazy weirdness to it, a sort of substance were missing. It did not move me or leave a mark, except some gross scenes lol.
 

 

[MaybeKermit 4,040]

I loved it but I agree with the comment above ; I appreciate it for what it was ! definitely a strong 7/10

 

[PSYCHOSHTICK 2,583]

The Lighthouse is one of my all time favorite movies and I love Eggers' arthouse-style. However, I felt that Nosferatu was way too 'Hollywood' for me.

It's stunning, visually, but it was definitely lacking something. I fully agree with @Alvitr 

[Gorehound 3,784]

21 minutes ago, Alvitr said:

Everything you said I agree on.

However for me, it’s just beautiful and just art. I can appreciate for what it is. The script and story fell flat though. The end had me saying ”That’s it, that’s all?”. With all that crazy weirdness to it, a sort of substance were missing. It did not move me or leave a mark, except some gross scenes lol.
 

 

Oh that's a shame. I guess the story of Dracula is a very simple and well known one, and Eggers wanted to stay very faithful to the original Nosferatu movie, which is basically just an evil Vampire's obsession with a young tortured girl.

I dunno tho, I thought the script was very well written and I was extremely moved by the performances, especially Nicholas Hoult and Lily-Rose Depp. Eggers films often play out more like Shakespearian tragedies so there is an element of artifice and theatricality to them that can be hard to relate to.

Edited yesterday at 11:44 AM by Gorehound

[bpmMonkey 4,159]

22 minutes ago, Alvitr said:

Everything you said I agree on.

However for me, it’s just beautiful and just art. I can appreciate for what it is. The script and story fell flat though. The end had me saying ”That’s it, that’s all?”. With all that crazy weirdness to it, a sort of substance were missing. It did not move me or leave a mark, except some gross scenes lol.
 

 

See, I would have liked it even more if it had less plot, if that makes sense. It’s shot really beautifully and where it felt the strongest to me was when he first entered the castle. The film from the 20s has so much to deal with in the context of in which it was made. Germany just went through a huge plague, then there was WW1 and Nosferatu being less of an actual person and more so force of nature itself. I feel we’re in similar cultural surroundings so leaning into this could have been an avenue as well, but I certainly see the reasons for why they did what they did. Liked it overall quite a lot, definitely felt strong seeing it at the cinema 💜 7/10

[Borislshere 52,688]

It wasn’t for me. Beautifully shot film with an excellent cast but every “twist” or reveal had me yawning. The story definitely was on the weaker side imo. 

[Gorehound 3,784]

13 minutes ago, bpmMonkey said:

See, I would have liked it even more if it had less plot, if that makes sense. It’s shot really beautifully and where it felt the strongest to me was when he first entered the castle. The film from the 20s has so much to deal with in the context of in which it was made. Germany just went through a huge plague, then there was WW1 and Nosferatu being less of an actual person and more so force of nature itself. I feel we’re in similar cultural surroundings so leaning into this could have been an avenue as well, but I certainly see the reasons for why they did what they did. Liked it overall quite a lot, definitely felt strong seeing it at the cinema 💜 7/10

Ye my favourite parts were the scenes in the castle 

[SlowLoris 970]

The discourse on this film is annoying because I've seen so many people say "it's not for everyone because it's slow and gothic"

I personally LOVE a slow burn and gothic imagery, and I thought the movie really delivered on that.  What disappointed me was the story.

While I understand that it's based off the book and the 1922 silent film, I don't think redoing the plot with extra frills was the way to go.  The implications of the story are antiquated, at best.  And even when the film tries to curve a lot of the misogyny by highlighting the absurdity of the time period's sexism (i.e. "she must wear her corset to ease her womb") or by trying to slightly elevate the female lead above "damsel in distress" (i.e. "priestess of Isis"), the story itself doesn't have much to say in the end.  I mean, what really was the message or heart of the story, and how does that message tie into contemporary times?

All in all, the movie tried to be/look/feel smart, but in actuality came out with not much to say aside from "scary vampire in scary castle brings plague and chases after a lady".

[Roughhouse Dandy 8,746]

Phenomenal. Let Eggers do whatever he wants. 

Less scary than I anticipated, but more disturbing. My only critique is the script lets every scene breathe and it's obvious they decided to cut away in the final product to keep it from getting too grotesque. Idk if I'd have the same critique if I didn't read it, but I did and felt a little cheated when scenes were cut short. 

Let the movie be 3 hours long! It would have been justified. 

[Gorehound 3,784]

30 minutes ago, SlowLoris said:

The discourse on this film is annoying because I've seen so many people say "it's not for everyone because it's slow and gothic"

I personally LOVE a slow burn and gothic imagery, and I thought the movie really delivered on that.  What disappointed me was the story.

While I understand that it's based off the book and the 1922 silent film, I don't think redoing the plot with extra frills was the way to go.  The implications of the story are antiquated, at best.  And even when the film tries to curve a lot of the misogyny by highlighting the absurdity of the time period's sexism (i.e. "she must wear her corset to ease her womb") or by trying to slightly elevate the female lead above "damsel in distress" (i.e. "priestess of Isis"), the story itself doesn't have much to say in the end.  I mean, what really was the message or heart of the story, and how does that message tie into contemporary times?

All in all, the movie tried to be/look/feel smart, but in actuality came out with not much to say aside from "scary vampire in scary castle brings plague and chases after a lady".

Well does it really matter if the movie doesn't have anything particularly profound to say in concerns with modern day? Can't it just be an adaptation of a victorian horror story for sake of it? It's very faithful to the original book thematically and I think Eggers was more interested in simply depicting this iconic story in his unique style (which is often style over substance). It's a depiction of a story that is antiquated.

It is very much art for art's sake but I don't see a problem with that. Not everything has to be political. And I think their attempts to curve the elements of misogyny in it were more just tools to help elevate Ellen's heroism at the end rather than to try and make a statement. 

Edited yesterday at 12:39 PM by Gorehound

[Gorehound 3,784]

9 minutes ago, Roughhouse Dandy said:

Phenomenal. Let Eggers do whatever he wants. 

Less scary than I anticipated, but more disturbing. My only critique is the script lets every scene breathe and it's obvious they decided to cut away in the final product to keep it from getting too grotesque. Idk if I'd have the same critique if I didn't read it, but I did and felt a little cheated when scenes were cut short. 

Let the movie be 3 hours long! It would have been justified. 

Oh I didn't know that. That's a shame. Ye if i was to have any criticisms it would be that the scenes get a little too jumbled, especially in the middle of the film. I'd have liked more time aboard the plague ship for example. 

[Gorehound 3,784]

18 minutes ago, Roughhouse Dandy said:

Less scary than I anticipated, but more disturbing.

That's something that really struck me! Especially the concept of sucking blood. Like in most vampire films the act of sucking blood is often romanticised and sexualised, yet in this movie it's so much more brutal and disturbing and I've never seem it been done like that before.

Spoiler

Like Thomas in Orlok's castle; we know he's being fed upon, and we see it mostly from his perspective, under some kind of delirious spell like he's been drugged and it all feels very feverish and dream like; then it suddenly cuts to what's really happening - an unconscious Thomas lying on the floor with a disgusting naked creature straddling him and violently sucking the blood out of his chest. It's so rapey and feral I was genuinely shocked.

 

[The Ew from Judas 592]

Not usually a horror movie person but I’ve heard such good things about it I may have to check it out lol