Thankfully, not every actor in Nosferatu is miscast or bad. Taylor-Johnson is a standout in what is a rather thankless role. Friedrich met Thomas at university and came into money fast. The role is just here to exposition dump and complain to or about Ellen. Yet somehow, the actor is the only main character to come across as well-rounded and realistic. He’s so good, and I wish the film were about him and his family. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
Even worse is that the bad isn’t just in the casting. The film takes place in Germany, and yet no one speaks German or even has a German accent (yes, there are a few lines the extras have that are in German, but virtually everyone speaks English). So why is it set there? It is just distracting and awkward. The original film is a silent, German expressionist title, so it made sense being set there. The 1979 version, from Werner Herzog, has one version entirely in German and another entirely in English. But that was also more than 40 years ago. All this English speaking makes one wonder if Eggers ever thought about how the people in Germany would talk. The answer appears to be no. It might seem odd to have an entire paragraph to gripe on this one little thing, but it is another entirely avoidable element that keeps audiences from becoming fully immersed in what’s happening on the screen.
“…the worst thing, by far, about Nosferatu is the direction.”
However, the worst thing, by far, about Nosferatu is the direction. Eggers uses the same style for every scene, no matter how important or mundane it is. Yes, long takes and one-shots are impressive, but they lose their luster when that is all that is on display. Yet the director makes everything, even something as simple as Ellen pleading with Thomas to stay and not go, into a long camera dolly forward, then a pan to either the right or the left. So if this is how the normal moments are captured, then how does the horror juxtapose against it? It doesn’t. Every scene looks and moves the same, so there’s no menace, terror, creep, or scare, as there’s nothing for it to feel like it’s interrupting. That interruption of the everyday by something sinister is where horror lies. By not invoking it, Eggers is literally unable to generate anything more than one jump scare (when Thomas finds Orlok in his crypt).
But not everything here that isn’t Aaron Taylor-Johnson is a total wash. The use of shadow is cool looking. The sets are massive and sprawling, populated by hundreds of extras. The costumes are also very detailed and rich, creating characters the screenplay fails to give dimension to. The score, Robin Carolan, is vibrant and atmospheric in a way the visuals want to be but are not. The focus on the plague brought by Orlok is an interesting angle, but not explored enough to be much more than mildly interesting.
Nosferatu is a dramatic horror romance wherein the romance doesn’t ring true, and scares don’t exist. The cast is full of talented actors, all of whom have been good elsewhere but, with one exception, don’t fit their respective roles here. The direction is samey throughout, no matter the purpose of the sequence. This means the horror is not felt as it’s not rubbing up against the mundane in an eerie fashion. The narrative has one interesting angle but never gets around to fully exploring it, meaning bland characters with no dimension trudge through a story with no stakes. This film is a disaster from start to finish, eliciting unintentional laughter and boredom and little else.
"…[elicits] unintentional laughter and boredom and little else."
I appreciate you giving your honest opinion about the film. I completely disagree with your take on ‘Nosferatu’ and I think it is a very successful piece of cinema that from start to finish made me feel invested in its story, characters, and world-building thanks to its breathtaking visuals, contrasts, and impeccable direction. But that is not the reason why I want to write this comment. I do not mean to defend ‘Nosferatu’, but rather to point out that at least one of the arguments you use against it is simply unconvincing.
You write: “The film takes place in Germany, and yet no one speaks German or even has a German accent (yes, there are a few lines the extras have that are in German, but virtually everyone speaks English). So why is it set there? It is just distracting and awkward.” But you fail to explain why you find the setting problematic. The setting is, as you know, consistent with the original 1922 film, why do you find this unconvincing in Eggers’s film? The argument that you make focuses on the language of the film. But this point seems to imply (following your own words, not mine) that you expect films set in a particular country to either be dubbed or have their actors speaking the language of that country: If you want to watch ‘Call Me By Your Name’, learn Italian. But your paragraph makes another point that I find even harder to understand. You seem to suggest that if the actors had developed a German accent while still speaking in English, that would have been fine in this movie. This has nothing to do with verisimilitude.
You can, of course, feel free to dismiss me as one of the “idiots” you mention in the comments section. But we all know that is not true. I am not putting words in your mouth. I am simply trying to point out (with or without success) that I find your point on setting to be untenable, at least based on the terms you have used to frame it. I agree with you when you write in the comments section that some people are unwilling to “understand what is being said in the dissenting argument”, but reading your comment I am left with the feeling that you are not living up to that standard either. I certainly do not consider you to be an idiot, but I think it is disrespectful to insult your readers who wish to engage in a discussion with you. And yes, some people may have distorted your review, but others may have simply misread it without any ill-will on their part, and in other cases it might be the case that your choice of words has left room for ambiguity or lack of clarity. Disagreeing with someone is not a sign of disrespect. In some cases, people may be trying to offer well-intentioned critiques that are actually meant to help the writer. In my case, I disagree with your assessment of the movie, even as I respect the fact that you gave your sincere opinion, but I find one particular point you make to be mistaken in its framing. Whether you take my point or not, at least I hope you found this exchange productive.
Great review. I’m a huge horror fan and this fell woefully from the mark. There were people laughing in the theater (myself included). The pacing was terrible, the story line was retarded, it was WAY over acted, and it was the only movie I’ve ever wanted to walk out of. It didn’t pull me in at all — hubby and I kept looking at our watches to see how much longer we had left. Lastly, the closing scene, I laughed so hard I was crying….the only thing I could think of as his shriveled corpse lay on her body is that dude forgot to do leg day 🤣
“Eggers is literally unable to generate anything more than one jump scare”
So you are looking for jump scares I guess? Cheap jump scares are so overplayed and done. I appreciated the pace of an actual film instead of a cheap setup to try to make you jump because a scary face jumped into the frame with a really loud sound effect. That’s not scary. This is an amateur review and the response to someone else’s comment kind of says more about you than anything else.
Again, idiots are putting words into my mouth that aren’t there. Yes, jump scares are cheap and overplayed. But the film has one and I am not looking for jump scares, but the single jump scare (when Taylor-Johnson confronts Orlok’s coffin) is the one time the film did anything resembling horror. What I am looking for is atmosphere, tension, characters to root for, and a compelling story. None of which were present in this overly long piece of junk.
As for my attack of the other commenter, he, like you, put words in my mouth. And that is not okay. I don’t care of you loved, hated, or were entirely indifferent to the film. But to infer that you know exactly what the writer (me in this case) is thinking or saying without taking the entirety of the review into consideration (how can I be bragging if it is literally described as a bad thing? Brags are by definition, something to be proud of) shows consumer stupidity that is unfathomable. I would be more charitable, but I am insulted that people don’t understand how a review works. Your response to me “looking for jump scares” says more about how you need to defend a film against any criticism of any kind than understand what is being said in the dissenting argument.
I am not going to be on the same page as you. No, “The Witch” was NOT a bad movie. It was polarizing, yes, as Robert Eggers projects tend to be. But frankly it blew me away. Same for “The Lighthouse” and “The Northman.”
I’ve been following the development of “Nosferatu” from the get-go. The 1922 original still holds up today, Eggers clearly reveres the movie, and when I read that a remake was going to be his next project, I thought to myself, “Who better?”
My score? 8 out of 10 stars. The first half was stronger than the second. Though langorously-paced, it estabished a real sense of dread.The second half got a bit long-winded. There were some plot holes. And Robert Eggers would do well to stick with more original material. Perhaps he was too faithful to the original film for his own good.
THANK YOU.
Although I thought The VVitch was a much better film, I agree with your review of this movie. Including the accents for the German characters!
The backstory given to Orlok and Ellen didn’t work, either – there wasn’t much indication that he could reach people like that from such a far distance even in their dreams.
The lack of chemistry, the poor characterisations, the lack of actual horror… this was a very disappointing film. And yes, it WAS boring.
I think most people love it for the visuals, honestly.
Bit harsh but it is a devisive film. I admired the way it goes full Nosferatu and makes claw shadows scary again but the missus was bored.
Ah, the smooth brained fanbois, sobbing into their frilly cuffs, willing to die on an imaginary graveyard – but for what? The *next* most violently average movie possible, starring more generic and offensively-non-offensive pasty faced act-tors. Pure comedy pyrites. In terms of serious movie making, vampires and their ilk are played out (undead.) Who honestly cares? Come over and watch Blackula with me!
Looking at critics’ reviews on IMDB after watching this tedious film and thanking you for the sanity. The dialogue was laughable. Every moment of ‘horror’ made me guffaw. And no, I’m a 52 year old film and horror fan, with a German degree who loves expressionist cinema. If you’re going for camp, make it high camp. If you’re going for brooding horror, make it tense and scary. If you’re going for expressionist shadows don’t make it look like a glove puppet. Didn’t enjoy one bit – happy for those of you that did.
Great review. The movie was awful and waste of time. I heard laughter in the theater I saw it in and not from teenagers. I am shocked by all the
positive reviews this movie is getting. Watch Werner Herzog’s 1979 version instead, that version is very good.
I agree with this review. Half-way through I was looking at my watch and bored, ready to leave the theatre.
I agree with this review. Half-way through I was looking at my watch ready to leave the theatre.
I assume this review was made just as flame bait. It’s not even clear that the writer has seen the movie enough to discuss it in any kind of detail so most of the complaints amount to “casting bad”, “language bad”, “director’s other films bad.” Too bad. I thought film threat was above that kind of mindless engagement seeking.
I actually thought Aaron Taylor-Johnson was the worst thing about Nosferatu
>The narrative has one interesting angle but never gets around to fully exploring it
Did I miss it or did this review also never get around to exploring the “one interesting angle”? I think it is valid for people to complain about you wasting a paragraph complaining about the lack of German in the movie (???) when you never actually talk about the narrative or the themes and use words like “samey”. It would not shock me if this reviewer was the nephew of the website owner or something. I do appreciate your “hot take” on The Witch though, which is extremely overrated.
Laughing out loud in a crowded theatre while watching a horror film is something a 14 year old would brag about. It was hard to take this review seriously after reading that line.
You don’t seem to know, or understand (both?), how a review of a piece of art works. So, allow me to break it down for you. I will be sure to use small words so you follow along without injuring yourself: a review is to allow the reader what does and does not work within the art in question. Therefore, if it causes laughter when it should not, it is clearly not doing its intended job well. Thus, it was not a brag, and only a simple-minded a*****e would presume it was, but part of the explanation as to why the art in question (in this case, the 2024 remake of Nosferatu) fails to work as a horror title. That you thought it was a brag says something about how you interpret any ideation that doesn’t conform to what you are told to like. I feel sorry for you.
Holy s**t did you resort to ad hominem just cuz somebody didn’t like your review??
Nope. I went so because the person who made the comment put “words in my mouth.” If that person had a brain, which is doubtful, they would realize I was not bragging at all. The review is negative and my laughing out loud was situated as a bad thing. Had that person bothered to look up what brag means, they would have learned that bragging is meant to be a good thing, something to boast or be proud of. I am not happy nor proud that I laughed out loud (more than once) throughout the film. I am mad that the film is so badly done that it caused that reaction. Funnily enough, I know a few other people who also laughed at the some moments (note we did not see the film together), so this isn’t just my problem in terms of not being on the same page as the film. No one gets to disagree someone’s fully statements (in this case, the review) just to make a point to try and defend something they like. Can we disagree? Absolutely. But I will be damned if someone suggests something that is most untrue because they are too dim-witted to understand the context in which the statement they dislike was made/why said statement was made.
Good Lord you’re insufferable, Bobby. It’s wild to see a grown man who is so insecure as to lash out at the slightest critique.
Hahaha you’re so hilariously thin-skinned! A critic who can’t take criticism, who knew? But yeah this was comfortably one of the most ‘try-hard teenager’ movie reviews I’ve ever read.
The response from Bobby says all you need to know about what type of person he is.
nothing says “mature, professional film critic” like writing a full paragraph of personal insults to a reader at 4:01am.