- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25795062/NOSTERATU_FP_00628_R1731371104.jpg)
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Robert Eggers’ Nosferatu is everything that’s beautiful and horrifying about classic vampire stories.
Robert Eggers’ Nosferatu is everything that’s beautiful and horrifying about classic vampire stories.
I just watched this movie earlier today and I don’t get the hype. I was really looking forward to it but I ended up dozing off 2 or 3 times.
True. It is not really scary, but personally I don’t think I’ve ever found any adaptation of DRACULA to actually be scary except maybe for a few moments in SALEM’S LOT but that was only slightly a Dracula story and I was a little kid when I saw it on television.
My favorite adaptation is the Coppola DRACULA film, and it was much more entertaining and more of a Gothic Romantic adventure - like the novel - than a horror movie. In fact, watching NOSFERATU, I felt it was much more similar to Coppola’s film than either the Murnau original from the silent era or the 70’s remake by Herzog.
In the end, it felt more tragic and melodramatic than horrifying and though Orlock might be the most disgusting and possibly dreadful depiction of a vampire on film, he was far from the most frightening. Nevertheless, it was a compelling performance and all the actors played their parts well - especially Depp and Dafoe.
I think my biggest issue was how cartoonishly evil Count Orlok seemed. That accent they gave him made me think more of Boris Badenov than the prince of darkness. Also a lot of the characters seemed kind of one dimensional and I couldn’t really get invested in any of them. I agree it had a lot in common with the Coppola version but just more stripped down and monochromatic. By the time Nosferatu ended I just wanted to go watch the Coppola one again. I agree Depp and Dafoe were the best parts of the film.
Yeah, that is interesting about Orlock. He was cartoonish or poorly fleshed out at least in what was shown and heard on screen. Klaus Kinski’s version in the Herzog film was more interesting - even Willem Dafoe’s version in SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE was more entertaining.
An interesting take on the character but not a compelling one. Also, confusing in the sense that he seemed to understand himself in ways that would be impossible if it were true. Like when he says that he is only an appetite. If that were true, then how would he be able to understand that? Is anything he says the truth? Did Ellen essentially conjure him from the darkness? So, in a way, his motivations must be deeper than that.
In general, I felt like there was a much more well developed world behind the story and the film only displayed its surface.
I thought it was a good movie that succeeded at what it was trying to do with the horror/drama/theatrics, but I don’t want to watch it again. It did drag a few times, especially at the beginning.