"_There is a devil in this world and I have met him._" There are parts of this movie I really like. It is almost like gothic poetry painted onto the screen and in a way it is beautiful. Another part of me was a little disappointed with a certain look Nosferatu had. I thought he would looke more like the classic but once I put that aside I truly enjoyed this movie. Lily Depp's physical performance actually surprised me and she deserves some recognition for it.

<em>'Nosferatu'</em> didn't quite hook me, but there is enough about it that I can consider it as a good film. The visuals are splendid, as are the gothic horror elements. On the cast, Lily-Rose Depp impresses, as does (more minimally) Emma Corrin and I'm always happy to see Willem Dafoe. I do continue to feel quite nonplussed by Nicholas Hoult. I did like him in fellow 2024 release <em>'Juror #2'</em>, but in this I've kinda reverted to feeling unmoved by him onscreen. I'm not entirely sure why as he seems a likeable chap, yet his performances just don't really register - which admittedly sounds harsher than I intended. Bill Skarsgård as Count Orlok is also a part of this flick that I'm unsure on. Does he look the real deal? Absolutely, no complaints there, but I particularly found the dialogue with him to be a borderline bumbling mess. I found the scenes directly with Count to be the least interesting. I would also say that the movie goes on for a bit too long, though I admit that probably is more of a personal shout than one that is to be set in stone; because if you love this, it'll be the perfect length I'm sure. For me, I feel like they went around the houses a tad. With that said, I did highly enjoy that final scene with Depp - very good! Those last paragraphs make it sound like I have a dislike for this film. I do not. It just has some noteworthy points that I felt the need to mention. As I type, having not looked at how this has been received, I'd be shocked if this wasn't rated high. Either way, this is worth a watch. This is my third Robert Eggers film. I loved <em>'The Northman'</em> (9/10) but I, honestly, hated <em>'The Lighthouse'</em> (4/10). Safe to say this falls exactly down the middle, in terms of how I think of it. Quite a stark contrast even so, kinda fascinated to see how <em>'The Witch'</em> hits me when I get around to that at some point.

Incredible acting. No one outshined anyone. Nicholas Hault’s interpretation of genuine fear and loss of faith and strength is commendable. Lily rose depp’s performances over all I see as true sport. I’m inspired. The costuming was splendid. Eggers is great in his choices.

"Tom" (Nicholas Hoult) is lovingly married to "Ellen" (Lily-Rose Depp) but they haven't much money. That could change, though, as his boss "Knock" (Simon McBurney) charges him with a very special mission. He must travel from his German home to the mountains of Carpathia where he must facilitate the sale of a ruined manor house to the reclusive "Count Orlok" (Bill Skarsgård). His journey is riddled with portents of suspicion and doom; those he encounters warm him to turn back - but on he goes until he arrives at the castle and is greeted by his enigmatic host. What he thinks is the contract to seal the deal on the house is anything but, as he is soon tormented in his dreams. Many hundreds of miles away, his wife is also suffering - and that causes his best friend "Friedrich" (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) to call in "Dr. Sievers" (Ralph Ineson) who in turn looks to the scientifically ostracised "Prof. von Franz" (Willem Dafoe) for some answers. There are no tangible causes, and the professor quickly concludes that it is evil that's at work and that the continuing and inexplicable absence of her husband, his employer and a recently arrived plague of rats are all part of the supernatural causes of her melancholy. There might be a solution, but that requires an act of supreme sacrifice on the part of the young "Ellen", or can her husband and his friends find another way? I'm not really a fan of two-parters, but I think in this case that might have been a better solution for Robert Eggers. We have a brief historical introduction to the Count and to the underlying cause of all of the troubles for "Ellen" but for the first hour of the film we don't really develop the characters enough, nor sow the seeds for the mysticism especially well. He relies too heavily on our knowledge of the Galeen story of "Nosferatu" (as opposed to the Bram Stoker "Dracula" one). I could have done with more depth to that chronology. Once "Orlok" is on his voyage and afterwards in the town where his merciless behaviour causes misery and panic, we seem to hit the accelerator and rush to the conclusion as if the cock really were about to crow any minute. There simply isn't time to allow the menace to accumulate. Though the visuals are impressively bleak, most of the acting is remarkably bland. Hoult manages to exude some decent terror now and again, but ATJ is really wooden; it takes too long for Depp to show us what she can bring to this under-exposed character and we just don't see anywhere near enough of the ghoulish "Orlok" to understand what this story is essentially all about. It's a gothic, dark, gloomy love story. A story of deceit and betrayal and I wanted more. I wanted to feel a little more invested in the characters: to sympathise, to pity, to fear, even. Perhaps a director's cut is in the offing? It's a great watch on a big screen, but I have to admit to being just a little disappointed.

Visually interesting. Fun to see hands venture over towns. It failed to hold my interest the whole runtime...it's long. It's kind of boring. It's fine. You could probably write an essay about it and be revered if you so desired.

One of the greatest horror films in my opinion. Between the cinematography, cast/acting and the story sticking to original lore; Everything about this movie was masterful. I would go watch it again in theaters if I had the opportunity.

> Standing Before Me Was Death, But I'd Never Been So Happy \- Ellen Hutter **Nosferatu** is a chilling gothic horror with top-tier acting and a beautiful set design. The film uses colour and sound better than any other film I've seen recently, and does an incredible job of setting the scene. The movie will scare you, disgust you, and keep you on edge throughout the over two hour runtime. While it isn't something everyone will enjoy, if you think you might enjoy this you shouldn't miss it.

Was pretty decent movie with beautiful visuals. I mean the atmosphere was perfect - cold, dark, gloomy winter. Story was good too. Recently we have been getting some decent horror movies about vampires, like "The Last Voyage of the Demeter" which was another great vampire movie.

"Nosferatu" tries far too hard to be something, it could more readily have been, with a lighter touch. You can see what they are going for, a creepy noir, horror fantasy. The problem is, it feels obsessively over stylised, to the point of leaden Gothic oppressiveness. Its a quality that infects the characterisations, as well. They feel over stated, too much larger than life (or is that death) and as a a result, at times, farcical. The story itself, to those who have read Bram Stoker's "Dracula", is mostly familiar. A few amendments have been made to bring it more in line with the original "Nosferatu" directed by F. W. Murnau, way back in 1922. Count Dracula has been replaced by Count Orlock, for example. I did feel the ending (which also departs from the novel) was a "bit thin" and somewhat underwhelming. I will say, in spite of its limitations, I don't hate this film. Its clear a lot of effort and care has been invested into its creation. I think too, certain dramatic and visual aspects of the Gothic film noir approach, are creepily memorable. In summary, "Nosferatu" is a valiant effort that would have been markedly better with gentler handling. A balance of the dark aspects of the film with a more subtle, lighter approach would have led to a superior final product. Ultimately a rather emotionally and visually, cumbersome watch, you might want to spread over a couple of evenings.

Nosferatu (2024) marks the third remake of the original 1922 film, and at this point, you have to wonder, how many times do we need to see this story retold? It’s also part of a ridiculously long list of Dracula-related films, with nearly 95 adaptations floating around. While this version brings fresh cinematography and a chilling atmosphere, it doesn’t reinvent the story in any significant way. The plot follows the familiar beats of Count Orlok’s eerie presence and growing obsession, but it takes its time getting anywhere. The directing leans heavily into gothic horror, which works for setting the mood, but sometimes it feels more focused on aesthetics than storytelling. Visually, the film is stunning. The cinematography is easily its strongest aspect, with haunting lighting, deep shadows, and eerie textures that create a cold, unsettling world. The acting is another highlight, with Bill Skarsgård delivering a terrifying and tragic performance as Orlok. The rest of the cast holds their own, adding depth to the horror. However, the script is where things get shaky. Some moments shine, but others feel drawn out or unnecessarily stiff, making the film drag in parts. The score does a solid job of building tension, though it doesn’t always hit as hard as it could. One of the strangest creative choices is the inclusion of an oud and belly dancing in Transylvania during Thomas Hutter’s arrival. The scene is heavily choreographed, with villagers giving him a grand welcome that feels eerie and almost ritualistic. It’s a visually striking moment, but the film never explains its purpose. The oud and dance are Middle Eastern cultural elements, not something tied to Transylvania’s history, and after this elaborate introduction, they are never mentioned again. A single question about it is quickly dismissed, making it feel like the filmmakers threw it in for exoticism without considering whether it made any sense. Nosferatu (2024) is a visually impressive and well-acted film, but its slow pacing, script issues, and odd cultural inaccuracies hold it back. If you’re a fan of classic vampire horror, it’s worth a watch, but it doesn’t do much to stand out from the dozens of Dracula films that came before it.

**_Basically, Robert Eggers’ version of Coppola’s “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”_** In 1838, a newlywed couple living in a town on Germany’s coast on the Baltic Sea are challenged by the troubling dreams of the wife (Lily-Rose Depp) and the husband’s long business trip to Transylvania (Nicholas Hoult). The excursion to the castle of Count Orlok (Bill Skarsgård) takes an utterly frightening turn, but the worst is yet to come when the Count makes it to his decrepit manor in Wisburg. “Nosferatu” (2024) was written & directed by Eggers, who was inspired by Henrik Galeen's screenplay for the 1922 film, as well as Bram Stoker's 1897 novel. There are also bits borrowed from “Suspiria” (1977), "Castle Freak" and various possession flicks, like “The Exorcist.” However, I was most reminded of Coppola’s 1992 version of the story. All the main characters are in both movies, just with different names and the Eastern Europe locale switched from London to the fictional Wisburg, Germany. Instead of Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing you have Willem Dafoe as von Franz; in place of Tom Waits as Renfield, there’s Simon McBurney as Knock; instead of Sadie Frost as Lucy, there’s Emma Corrin as Anna; and so on. Like Coppola’s movie, the production quality is first-rate. Yet this is way scarier and unsettling and, definitely, the creepiest version of the Dracula I’ve seen on film. But it’s not as lush, sexy or entertaining as “Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” not to mention Frank Langella’s 1979 version and many of the Hammer flicks. While this lacks the infamous love story that Coppola & writer James Hart added to Stoker’s tale, it still has something akin to that with Orlok’s attraction to Mina, um, I mean Ellen (Depp). It kept my interest for the first half, but started losing it in the second (Coppola’s film had the same issue, just not as much). Yet I liked the ending; and the real European locations are preferred over Coppola’s studio-bound sets (which were top-of-the-line; I just favor real locations). The film runs 2 hours, 12 minutes, with the Extended Cut running four minutes longer (which is the version I saw). It was shot in the Czech Republic at Barrandov Studios in Prague with location shooting done at Rožmitál pod Třemšínem Castle and Pernštejn Castle, as well as Prague's Invalidovna complex. In addition, some exterior shots were done in Corvin Castle in Romania. GRADE: B/B-

Well, it's not woke, so it gets points for not screaming POLITICS! POLITICS! POLITICS! at you at the top of it's lungs. And honestly, that's enough of a novelty to make it passable. It's so rare these days that when you see a movie that's not about pushing a political message, you sort of like it out of principal. None of the characters are race-swapped, and the audience is so used to seeing period films set in Europe's past with openly Gay characters and Black leads for established white characters, that seeing people who look like they fit the demographics for the location and time the film was set in is... refreshing. It's just made to entertain, it tries to keep true, visually, character-wise, to what the source material said, and we need more of that. We want more of that. But then, it's not exactly good either. The pacing is off, I mean it's really off. It seems to all come too fast to really set in as a story. It needs to take it's time a bit more. It needs to let the setting and characters settle more... but unfortunately it doesn't. It just moves from one beat to the next at lightening speed and, honestly, that sort of kills it on a story perspective. The plot suffered from it too, the fast pace took away from the establishment, so even the Velma information dumps didn't have time to settle. I have to give a shout out to Lily-Rose Depp, she did try and sell the character. She was actually better than Willem Dafoe, who needs a Razzy for this. His performance was a little too silly for a horror movie. It was like he was intent not to play it straight and over-acted a bit too much, so much it wouldn't have even played on the stage. Bill Skarsgård wasn't bad, but again, a little over the top. Let's face it, in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s this would have been considered bad. The ratings would have been lower, but it's the 2020s, and the fact that it was just made to tell a story, just made to entertain, made with no lectures, no politics, that redeems it, that sets it apart. People like it more because it left out the crap that they are tired of having rubbed in their faces every day. Ultimately, though, there are better movies, better vampire movies, and this one only feels good because, unlike "The Last Voyage of the Demeter," they made a vampire move set in the 19th Century, without adding and overwhelming injection of modern day politics.