Nosferatu (2024)

For those who want to get ready to watch a new Gothic film, I advise you to look at "Nosferatu, a symphony of horror" (1922) by Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau and "Nosferatu: The Ghost of the Night" (1978) by Werner Herzog. I assume that director Robert Eggers will definitely make references to these two projects.

Won't the movie be released?

As for the movie Nosferatu, I didn't have enough Nosferatu, and cinema is a great example of Gothic art.

The cast is great. The film itself is very much in the spirit of classic vampire novels, but there are plot details that add a bit of dirt to the story. I will gladly review it in good quality to once again soak up the gloomy atmosphere, admire the beautiful costumes and the enchanting ending, but this is not a movie that you want to review every year.

An almost literal translation of Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula", except that the names were changed, and there are many different small details, especially the ending. Everything was played very well, the actors were excellent, although Bill Skasgard in makeup and a rakish Cossack moustache is not particularly recognizable. The film turned out to be dark, slow-moving, lasting a little over two hours, and, to my taste, it would be possible to shorten some of the moments. Lily-Rose Depp did an excellent job, and Nicholas Hoult is no stranger to playing a vampire sidekick, although here he was given a slightly different role. Willem Dafoe is incomparable, and Aaron Taylor-Johnson is more for furniture, but he also played the small scenes perfectly. Overall, I liked it, the film turned out to be atmospheric, oppressive and only slightly prolonged, but I will not recommend it. There are practically no horrors here, and no action either. A drama liberally seasoned with mysticism. But the nudes were delivered a little, but there's nowhere to go, that's exactly how the plot was built. I liked it, but I won't review it, and you decide for yourself.

Lily-Rose Depp has grown into a good actress! It's a pity that the film didn't make it into the awards season. At least she deserved a nomination. All the other actors did a great job, too.

the film is definitely atmospheric. real cinema art!
But he's not scary, he is... whatever word to choose... disgusting. no matter how this word sounds, but it came to my mind after the end of the movie.
There's such a disgusting aftertaste at the end, and that's not bad, it's a well-done job by the entire production team.
It looked good in the cinema, but I probably wouldn't review it at home...

the cinematography! the building of the light in the frame! OMG! they did a huge work! as for the plot, we all knew what was coming, but it was cathartic.

Overall, the film is average. it causes a feeling of longing throughout the plot. the gloomy atmosphere with erotic moments makes it not too pleasant to watch. sometimes you even think what it was for right now..
Lilly Rose Depp makes you laugh with her obsession. the rest of the cast is good, the picture of the film itself is beautifully made, but all these unpleasant scenes make watching boring and uncomfortable. after watching it, there was some kind of feeling of abomination..

For people who, like me, have been trying to figure out throughout the film why this film looks like a crookedly plagiarized Stoker's Dracula: Nosferatu is a remake of the 1922 German expressionist film of the same name, which in turn is an unauthorized and unofficial film adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel Dracula (1897).

Atmospheric, but boring. It really turned out to be too classic a story. You still expect something more interesting from Eggers, but the remake of the Lion King and Nosferatu is somewhere on the level between normal and fine.

While I was watching, David Lynch died damn 😥

Eggers, as always, keeps the bar high in terms of vibes, atmosphere, and camera work. I think that in the evening at home with headphones, the movie will be perfect to go in.

The visual range of both the film and the cast is above all praise. But the plot turned out to be some kind of mess. It's as if everything seems to be fine in parts, but it doesn't stick together into a single picture, there is no delight from the film, there is no horror from Nosferatu, there is no love between the main characters, as a result, after watching there was only a feeling of slight disgust.
It's a pity, there were expectations about the movie

The atmosphere, costumes and Gothic vibe are visually good. But the plot itself is very tedious, plus the characters constantly commit ill-conceived and absurd actions. And the picture is very dark for most of the movie (from time to time I was tempted to check if it was possible to turn up the brightness, but I was watching in the aimax, it's probably just going to be even more difficult to perceive from the screen, or I need to turn up the brightness of the monitor to maximum). Despite the fact that most of the time one of the actors was screaming and moaning in convulsions, I almost fell asleep a couple of times - I was just tired of staring at the dark image, plus I was lulled by Nosferatu's hypnotic voice with that harsh Slavic accent.

In general, my main conclusions from the film are that you need to solve all problems with your ex first before getting married, especially if the ex is a bloodsucker. And if you marry a young strange girl, make sure that she did not have a vicious connection with an ancient demonic entity. Well, if you are given a contract in an unknown language, you should not thoughtlessly sign without understanding what exactly you are signing, especially if you work in a law firm yourself. :D

Well, it's clear that this is a remake. However, if you've recently read the original or watched Dracula with Gary Oldman, then Nosferatu will be hard for you to watch.

There is no special scene in the film (

The picture, the staging, the sound, the acting and the makeup are gorgeous

It's long-winded, but very beautiful.
If it were reduced to 1.5 hours, it would be ideal.

"To steal the darkness, you need to admit that it exists"

My inner vampire lover rejoices))
I was pleased with the film, the atmosphere of the film is amazing, the cast is amazing.
Lily Rose played it cool 👏🏼

Eggers is always on top!
It turned out to be a worthy reinterpretation and reincarnation of Murnaun's century-old Nosferatu. The film came out visually beautiful. The director of photography did a great job. The musical range is also beyond praise and probably accounts for half of the total atmosphere. The acting is good for the most part, except for some moments where Lily Rose Depp overplayed her hand too much. Holt did a good job of the role, as did Defoe - it was nice to watch. Skasgard is difficult to assess, since the lion's share of the character is one big job of the makeup artists (who did a great job with their role). The image of Orlak is strikingly different from the previous two classic performances by Max Schreck and Klaus Kinski (the second one does not visually differ from the first one). The current image has become much closer to the living dead, and it is Romanian (hello to the mustache and forelock of Vlad the Impaler). Eggers made the right decision not to show the count in any of the promotional materials for the film, which had a positive effect on the perception of the mystery of the character.

So, a subjective five out of five points and the expectation of an expanded version of the film, which will have to be released on physical media after the theatrical release (as well as the opportunity to watch cut scenes that were missing from the version that was rolled in our cinemas.

As a bonus to the film, I advise you to familiarize yourself with the original painting from 1922 and The Shadow of the Vampire by E.E. Merige, which tells about the adventures of Nosferatu. By the way, Defoe played the main role there.

Weakly. Apart from the entourage, there is nothing to praise.

Camerawork is based solely on centering in the middle, which makes any frame look poor compositionally.

Bill Skarsgard's inappropriate expense is either a cloak or an arm in the frame, any actor could be cast in this role.

Well, the moral of the fable is that from time immemorial a woman has been accustomed to sacrifice, so that in the end she would sacrifice herself for everyone... conveniently.

The film is atmospheric, dark and fascinating in its own way, but because of the old shooting it looks more like an interesting retro story than something frightening.

The movie is very beautiful. Fans of Gothic and mysticism will definitely like it. Personally, I just dragged myself from every frame. The work is good, decent, but devoid of uniqueness. The plot follows strictly the well-trodden paths that we have already seen a thousand times in all other mystical horror films. Not a bit of personality. It has a place to be, but it doesn't surprise you in any way. Just one of many. That's all

It's better to read Stoker's Dracula. There, the hero is not so caricaturally evil, but more complex and ambiguous, evoking even sympathy. It's just a bald, mustachioed uncle who wants to eat. The film didn't even try to delve into the character's depth, focusing entirely on the mystical component. Beautiful wrapper with standard contents

The triumph of visual Art🩸⎛⎝( ' ᢍ `⎠⎞

It's a beautiful movie, beautiful scenery and costumes. Eggers is growing with each film, which is incredibly pleasing and his authorial style is already very recognizable. I was very surprised by Lily-Rose, a great game.

It's drawn out, especially the first hour, but atmospheric, dark and terrifying. It's a good movie, but I'm unlikely to review it on my own initiative.

I liked the Gothic atmosphere of the film, the fascinating actors and the very name "Nosferatu". The image of Dracula immediately appears in my mind. However, with copyright issues, we got a unique interpretation of Dracula, and that makes me happy.

Cool Christmas Gothic movie 🖤

The shots are really beautiful in some places, but everything is so slow and drawn out... Compared to this version, the original Nosferatu is downright megadynamic. I made incredible efforts, but I just couldn't finish watching the last 20 minutes. Considering how I was waiting for the release of this film, I was absolutely disappointed.

well
, it's beautiful, but the plot, the narration, the disclosure of the characters.... Yeah, they put it in the groove 15 times, they barely finished it.

It was beautifully shot, but it was very tedious. Two hours passed like all five

It was shot well, the Gothic atmosphere is wonderful, but GG spoils everything with his acting skills, either overplaying or not finishing

Gothic poetic cinema, beautiful, aesthetically pleasing.
A lot of cool actors, the cast is gorgeous.
But the plot doesn't hold at all, as banal as possible.
6/10 🤝

The film's PR campaign has raised expectations, but the film itself is bland and raw in terms of plot and character motivation. In Coppola's version, you understand why everything happens exactly the way it does, what the characters' motives and methods are for achieving results, what Dracula is guided by, how Renfield lost his mind and fell into complete obedience to Dracula. The book and the 1992 film are naturally ahead of all film adaptations and interpretations of the legend of Vlad the Impaler.
If we take into account the exclusively silent movie Nosferatu, then yes, the new version with Count Orlok simply made a "curtsy" to the original and Yeggers succeeded in his idea, with new details and the ending of the film.
Bill Skarsgard's Count Orlok is the spitting image of our Ukrainian Cossack, "in Tula with an ass"Romanian traditional outfits are much closer to our Ukrainian ones than I might have thought, it's interesting))

After watching it, I felt some kind of despondency and fear for the cinema as a whole. Have the real authentic masterpieces of cinema already been shot, and now all the films will be like this, and it will happen the same as with classical music or literature — all the best was created in the past.

Fighting a vampire without Christianity- no holy water, no crosses, no Bible, not a single mention of Jesus. Even the aspen stake was replaced with an iron one, so as not to remember Judas. It turned out to be, at least, strange. It's not clear why.

The Gothic remake of Friedrich Murnau's cult film Nosferatu certainly boasts its visual meticulousness. Robert Eggers, along with a team of historians and production designers, painstakingly recreates the scenery of England and Romania of the XVIII century. Every frame of the film inspires delight at how well thought out and taken into account every detail: the surroundings of the Romanian Gypsy settlement, the majestic nature without the feeling of chromakey, the attributes of Slavic churches and the very image of Count Orlok, which has become more realistic. The film also works well in a context where girls were stigmatized for their sexual desires, and someone responsible for bringing the virus to the country was necessarily sought for spreading the plague.

But perhaps my main complaint about Eggers personally is his excessive accuracy. It is possible that, having received a large budget, he became a hostage to studio expectations aimed at the mass audience. Here he does not seek to surprise with the story itself – only with its design. Therefore, the narrative is extremely simple in the end. The second problem is the performance of Lily–Rose Depp, whose obsession with places is so caricatured that it causes laughter. Sometimes it looks fake, and therefore moments of tension often come to naught. But we must pay tribute to the director, who skillfully created her visual image. Of all the actors, the one I liked the most in the film is Willem Dafoe with his trademark expression. But even here it's worth admitting that this image is not destined to stick in my head as vividly as his madness in The Lighthouse. Just like Eggers' film itself, it is certainly beautiful and aesthetic, it will most likely work in the moment, but his first two will be truly remembered.

Some more from the visual:

If you watch or review Nosferatu, notice how often Nicholas Hoult's character is surrounded by a cross, shown differently against the background.

An absolutely empty movie that doesn't evoke any emotions at all. The scenery looks cheap, the actors don't play, except maybe Skarsgard, and Defoe, but can you really see behind the makeup? I fell asleep three times, this is my first time. After watching it, there was only one desire - to urgently interrupt it with something, so I went and watched "Dracula" for 92 years and got high.

I'm not the coolest critic, but it was very boring and tedious.
I didn't even finish it.

It's a good movie, atmospheric, just like the headless horseman and the brotherhood of the wolf. The image of orlok as a mustachioed hetman with a forelock seemed a little frivolous. his classic image is somehow more disgusting. It's also ironic that William Defoe played Nosferatu in Shadow of the Vampire;

To begin with, I liked the movie. He has a very beautiful visual, so I just want to take and shake hands with the entire crew responsible for the picture in the frame. I honestly got high from watching it myself, all these lights and shadows, gloomy Gothic, in the spirit of old black-and-white films.

Yes, the movie is not scary. If you're waiting for screeners, lots of blood, and other things to happen, then you don't even have to start watching. The plot can be called sluggish, but that's the beauty of it. It oozes slowly from frame to frame, like thickening blood. It's also not worth expecting any novelty and wow plot twists from a film that openly references the classic 1922 film. This is a good remake of an old classic.

I can't say anything bad about the actors' performance either. We played well. Lily Rose Depp played quite in the spirit of her character, and not the actress of the year, but there's nothing to scold her for. Skarsgard was made up from the bottom of his heart, but he's no stranger to it. 😄

Well, and separately I want to poke at some points) First of all, I was amused by the moment when Thomas gives the horse into the hands of a gypsy camp, and in the morning he's like, where's the horse? Secondly, I don't know about the dubbing, but in the original I was amused by Orlok's mystical recitatives, which in the original resembled Sauron's whispers in Elvish.

In general, what can I say if you are ready for a leisurely narrative, where screamers and bloodshed are replaced by a beautiful video sequence, and you generally have nothing against old horror movies - watch. If you are waiting for an active action, unexpected plot twists or - suddenly! - sexy vampires, conquerors of women's hearts, then you can safely not start, so as not to spit when watching 🙂 For myself, I will consider the film to be successful in this genre, although I'm not sure if I'll review it. But I definitely don't regret watching it.

Lilly didn't believe it at all. Her obsession looked ridiculous.

I haven't seen the original Nosferatu yet, but I like the 78th version primarily for its beautiful picture and melancholic atmosphere of utter hopelessness, taking into account the finale of the picture. The story itself is quite simple, and realizing this, Eggers and his constant cameraman once again gave a decent level in terms of production, so I consider all the Oscar nominations more than deserved (and I hope for at least some kind of victory). The only thing that confused me was how they reinterpreted the image of Orlak. Doubtful, of course, but okay.
I was also pleased that Eggers tried to squeeze something out of Lily-Rose's acting (and it turned out quite successfully, in my opinion), as he once did with Anya-Taylor, in fact, giving a strong boost to her future career.
I will be waiting with great interest for new works by this undoubtedly talented director.

It was boring and unnecessarily long-winded, though atmospheric. There are no questions for the actors, they did a great job, Lily-Rose was pleasantly surprised.

It's a beautiful picture with good actors. That's it)

I thought there would be & # 34; wow!& # 34;, and there...

I can't tell you how much I've loved vampire movies since the last century. This movie is a disappointment. The beginning was promising, then it descended into a chaotic mass. With such material, with such current technologies, and so on.... It's annoying, but okay. I definitely won't review it, and I don't recommend it either.

1.25, what would we do without you

Normally girls had fun with ghouls in the 19th century)))

Lily Rose Depp is beautiful!
And the creators clearly made a reference to the bride's corpse.

Nosferatu looks like Taras Bulba :)

It seemed that in the count's castle, the camera was switching to a first—person view, like in the old Dracula quests. And the movie is good!

Persuaded, I'll take a look

Bill Skarsgard, as always a master of reincarnation!!

I really liked the cast and the quality of the shooting. There was an atmosphere of old horror in this film, with the style of shadows and wooden movements, which added more uniqueness to this film.

Of course, I'm comparing it to Coppola's Dracula. And by all accounts, this movie is losing for me:
the first and most important thing that came to mind when watching MUSIC! In Dracula, it's excellent, it responds to the plot as much as possible, but here the music came to me only from the credits.
The costumes and the picture are very typical in Dracula.
Acting - it doesn't even make sense to compare Depp and Ryder, as well as Bill and Gary, the former just has a make-up artist's triumph.
The plot and the script - Why did the hero of Defoe suddenly decide that this was Nosferatu?! Everything was clear in Dracula - Hopkins' hero watched the patient for a long time, that blood transfusions, etc. ... Immediately out of the blue conclusions) The actions of the other characters are also not supported by anything.
Well, it's just an incredibly boring movie where you don't worry about any character. No one's death touches, no one's love cares. Only Defoe is trying to give charisma, and even that is somehow comical and out of place.
I watched it through nehacha until the end

The Nosferatu promo ruined all my recommendations, so I had to keep an eye on it. The cut scenes were a bit cringe-inducing, and I didn't expect anything at all from the film. But!! Surprisingly, everything looked decent in the movies, everything was in its place. I can't even remember such an atmospheric horror movie in recent years. I was really looking forward to the legendary scene with Lily by the lake, which drove the entire film crew crazy. Finally… Half a second of shaking by the water. Probably, the best had to be cut out. They should have cut out her disgusting wig. I didn't see any replay, as if it should be like this. I still don't understand how everyone knew that Anna was going to have a son. They also repeated it several times, didn't anyone have any questions?…

It was shot atmospherically, the scenery and costumes are gorgeous, the plot is boring, the floor of the film is just arguing with each other like stubborn, Lily Depp's convulsions are only constantly punctured by laughter.

A little historical digression, OK?)
The thing is, Nosferatu and Dracula are the same identical brothers as Pinocchio and Pinocchio, with a few exceptions - Nosferatu did not acquire a literary source. Back in the 1920s, its authors came to Stoker's widow to ask permission for a German adaptation of Dracula, for which they received a beating.
As a result, the movie came out anyway - all the characters just changed their names, the local draculito stopped breeding vampires with bites, but he became afraid of the light (yes, the quality that later began to be attributed to all vampires in the cinema first appeared in the original film of the 20s of the last century), and in the end, the German Mine solved the questions on its own, just fucking a German blood guide to death.
The widow of Bram Stoker looked at this plagiaristic rampage of a cunt, and filed a lawsuit, which ordered the shit to be burned. But a couple of copies survived and for some reason turned into a classic of cinema.
And last year, director Robert Eggers, as a major expert on this very shit (The Witch, the Lighthouse), made a full-fledged remake of the classic. In the role of Nosferatu, moose Bill "Ono" Skarsgard, a well-known lover of steaming in makeup, is now walking around here - he was significantly plastered under the original historical portrait of Vlad Tepes, adding a little rot. Johnny Depp's daughter starred as a woman who, with her pussy suffering, first telepathically woke up Dracula in a coffin, and then forced him to run from Romania to Deutschland with a raised bump. The backup dancers are Nicholas Hoult, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Willem Dafoe - they're all fucking pretentious and desperately overdoing it, as befits German expressionists.
In short, I recommend watching it, because it will be one of the most uselessly wasted two hours of your life. Phew, ha.

It turned out to be a good movie
The Lily-Rose Depp game is just wow

Two hours of very very intense watching.
I bow low to the director.
The painting is a masterpiece!!!

After the movie, the anxiety inside is very strong.

It turned out to be a simple Gothic horror movie. And no more. A flat remake of the first film.

Of course, no one could beat Coppola with his Dracula. After all, it turned out to be a whole poem about eternal love through the ages.

I liked the movie, two hours flew by unnoticed.The shot is very atmospheric, the Gothic aesthetic is simply mesmerizing.Lily-Rose Depp's acting is good, it fits very well into this movie.

It's a beautiful movie, but it didn't surprise me in any way. He didn't give me anything new, he didn't surpass the old. If I want to review, I'll review Dracula, not Nosferatu.

Having a seemingly good cast and a plot already loved by many, the film seems to have nothing to surprise.
Even at the caste level. Taking on the role of a kind of scientist, Willem Dafoe, is already a tradition, almost a meme. I mean, there are no unexpected solutions here. Except for the absolutely vile and unpleasant image of Count Orlok. A kind of mix of images of Nosferatu in 1922 and, in fact, Vlad the Impaler. I think I'm much more impressed with Gary Oldman's Dracula. And having Bill Skarsgard in the cast...
it probably kind of bothers me that the character Lily-Rose Depp, according to the director's idea, has already been in some kind of relationship with the count in the past, and of her own free will. And as if choosing an object of passion would have been more understandable if Orlok had been a little more pleasant. A little less scabs, a little more hair on the head and all that.
Although this whole story of somnambulistic fucking, in my opinion, turned out to be superfluous and only stretches the timing. The final scene of intercourse with a half-decomposed corpse would have been enough for me. By the way, wouldn't this scene be a little less disgusting if a vampire had bitten his maiden in the neck, according to the classics, instead of biting into a persimmon?
And in general, the film causes disgust to a greater extent, but certainly not horror. And maybe he could have hooked me at least a little bit if the characters had aroused my sympathy and sympathy, but for the whole two hours I still couldn't get into it.
Perhaps it was the last frame, Death and Virgo, that impressed me. Beautiful.

Stoically, after waiting not only for the digital release, but also for a better dubbing than the first two options, I finally took on another Nosferatu, this time from Eggers. Undoubtedly, the 1922 film will remain a legend forever, but this is a silent black-and-white classic, so for comparison I focused on the more recent remake of Herzog in 1979, on the Shadow of the Vampire by Marij and, of course, on our beloved Dracula by Coppola. The three best on this subject in the last half century). And at least in my vision, this film did not succeed in pushing them out of position. Although the picture is beautiful, you can't argue with that (everything is true, everything is good! 🙀). And the cast is good, although next to Gary Oldman, Keanu Reeves, Anthony Hopkins, Monica Bellucci, Winona Ryder and others from the Coppola version, it's also not a fire😅 Skarsgard-Orlok was spectacular, but I was also reminded of the hybrid of the classic count with Taras Bulba, I couldn't help myself))). And I'm also one of those who thinks that unfortunately Lily Rose is noticeably overdoing it here. Very. Holt... For some reason, I remembered his role as a zombie, but it was inspired, he played his role perfectly anyway))). But Defoe is always mega good, you can't take that away from him. The musical accompaniment is quite good, not particularly memorable, but it supports the atmosphere very well.

As for the rest, the good words seem to have ended. Especially according to the script. It doesn't hold well on the screen, although I can at least sit down right now to review xs some time with much more pleasure. Not as bad as Demeter's Last Trip, but not much better either. It's kind of depressing. The emotional background is generally OK... well, you get it). The feeling of a certain emptiness in what is happening on the screen. And yes, that's the most unpleasant thing when watching. Not even in the sense of sickening, but just disgusting. So it's in the green zone, but not nearly as good as we would like.

It's a very good movie with an atmosphere.
Everything in the picture is also very beautiful, the costumes and decorations are wonderful.

At the same time, for the most part, I didn't like the cast at all. Subjectively, in my opinion, Lily-Rose is not beautiful and repulsive. Her antics in some of the scenes looked absolutely absurd.
Nicholas Hoult couldn't handle his role either, I think. He already has very little screen time, and he did not take out that moment of glory in Orlovka Castle, he could not convey the horror of the character.
Who I liked was Aaron - he looks organic in his role, plays convincingly and well.

I liked Orlok himself. He is vile, repulsive, his mustache and forelock, which would look comical in any other film, but the antagonists do not add to this comicality. A colorful character.

The Qigans and the Orthodox also came out very well and naturally, for which I was very impressed by the film at those moments.

But the plot is very sad. He's incoherent, illogical, and strained.

Overall, the film turned out to be very controversial. For me, there are both extremely negative and positive aspects here.

It's probably something between 6 and 7, definitely not more.

The Most sexually disturbed Vampire Movie since The Twilight Saga Breaking Dawn;

Judging by the video comparison that I saw, Robert Eggers respected the classics and shot a high-quality remake, preserving all the key scenes of the original. I like Eggers' films for their interesting visual solutions. Nosferatu is no exception in this regard. It's very cool shot in the director's signature style. But the plot didn't get me hooked. The film runs for more than two hours and in many ways repeats a story that many of us have already seen more than once. Because of this, it's not very interesting to follow the plot.

Besides, the choice of Lily-Rose Depp for the role of Ellen Hutter seemed to me unfortunate. Maybe it's a taste, but I don't like it at all and it only causes rejection. There are no questions for the other actors. Nicholas Hoult and Willem Dafoe are as good as ever. And I didn't recognize Bill Skarsgard as Orlok at all. Although the fact that he got a mustache and a forelock like Taras Bulba in the remake looks strange. I wouldn't recommend this movie to everyone, but if you don't know the plot of "Dracula" at all, then you can try it. At least the visual in the movie is great.

Mediocre is the most accurate and succinct description of this film. The budget was spent on an advertising campaign, saving on the elaboration of characters and plots.
On the plus side, the promised atmosphere of gloom was obtained. And that's it.
And you can talk about the cons for a long time.
1. Sobsno Nosferatu. There was no stage here, there was an image of Dracula that everyone already knows + the work of makeup artists. Visually, I have no way, I doubt very much that the Transylvanian nobleman looked like a retired Cossack hetman. This moth-eaten sheepskin coat and flesh scabs caused not a trembling horror, but a desire to bypass the tenth road, like a stinking homeless man, God forgive me.
2. Depp - above, for the most part, has already said everything, she has outplayed herself. The wig was clumsily stuck on her head, and the scenes of obsession did not inspire fear or fright at the unknown, but rather the neighing from the convulsions of a drug addict in withdrawal.
3. Holt is a fresh substance.
4. The others did something, but they couldn't fix the overall impression.

I was especially pleased with the final scene, which is the culmination of Hollywood's inability to show anything between people other than actual sex.

Otherwise, in order to form my own more specific opinion, I had to watch Dracula Coppola for the first time - the case when everything is learned in comparison. There's logic, motivation, and depth to each character. And in the finale, the most important message is that love is eternal.

Lily Rose Depp bangs for two hours from Taras Bulba.
I expected something else, I didn't like the plot, but I liked the cast and the beautiful picture. Emma Corrine 💔
I hardly regret the time I spent

It's a good movie, and the monster in me is very happy.
I saw Lily-Rose Depp play for the first time and how good she is. People who don't like it are clearly watching dubbing and don't know what seizures look like)

Well, it's boring (and even boring(

It's pretty good. Almost canonical and classic.

It's a good dark movie. It keeps you tense. Strong 4/5

The cast is fire, and the film is full of... We haven't even watched it for 20 minutes

2 hours about what sophisticated tastes for men come from pretty-looking young ladies. No matter what kind of freak they lie down with, they just don't go around in girls...

It's very atmospheric, the picture is gorgeous. Lily-Rose's performance here is simply the best of the movie as a whole)

"The fact that you're dead is no reason not to fulfill your marital duty. You don't have a headache, do you?"#34;" said Aaron Taylor Johnson.

Well, the first hour is almost a verbatim quoting of the book. They even talk as if the movie wasn't made in the 21st century.
Visually, it's a buzz. Actors - does exactly what is required of them

It's the most depressing movie I've seen in a long time. 2 hours of thinking about nothing, and at the end of 15 minutes of running. That's all. Anyone who has watched Dracula Koppala will not see anything new here. It is not clear what 50 million was spent on... Some people are able to make more interesting films for 2-3 million dollars.

"Dune" from the world of vampire cinema. Beautiful, dreary, merciless. And it's absolutely not scary. These are not horrors. And the title character is not Nosferatu, not Dracula, not Tepes, it's not like that at all. For all the second-handness, the image of Nosferatu had something of its own, something inhuman, but here, in search of originality, they went completely to some wild steppes, it looks like some kind of parody. The only bright spot of the film is William Defoe, and a couple of finds a la German expressionism.

for grandfather minus

Beautifully shot. After Penny dreadful with Eva Green, everything like that is perceived on a lower level or something 😕

The picture is darkly beautiful, the costumes are gorgeous, the makeup is amazing... well, that's about it.🫤

I had a lot of interest in this movie. And high hopes. But... something didn't really work out for me.☹ The picture is so monotonous that it became boring and even at the moment I began to catch myself thinking that I no longer understand the essence. And then she dozed off. I had to revise it.I haven't watched the old movie, but take the same "Dracula" from 1992 (the theme is +/- the same). I watched it, trying not to miss anything. And here, in order not to fall asleep a second time, I set it to 1.75.

The only good thing here is the wonderful Bill Skarsgard. Well, how good he is! I like him more and more.

I expected more, it was boring at first, but I liked the second half of the film.

It turned out to be a very beautiful film.

Germany means Gothic conservatism in all its grandeur.
Robert Eggers is a director, which means a well—honed atmosphere with unhurried scenes, unitary color selection and, of course, with a careful attitude to antiquity and aesthetics.
Bill Skarsgard is a villain — this means a new vivid image in the piggy bank of a talented Swedish family with an incredible accent (without using AI) and an oppressive face.
One of the roles fell to Willem Dafoe, which means his soul is invested in the picture and he knows what he signed up for.

And I swear to you, this is a story about how a woman wanted sex without commitment, committed a sin and brought disease and death to the city. In fact, I believe that such a story in the 18th century in Germany went from house to house for the sake of scaring aristocratic girls of puberty age. Like, don't you dare go out with Josef, he hasn't married you yet, do you want to repeat the fate of Helen Hutter? From what it seems, the author conveyed the whole story in an extremely authentic and downright meticulously perfect way, which is even difficult to find something new in this, but in the era of remaking everything that lies around, it is good that there are films with canon and sustainability.

🧛‍♂️The music, the shooting angles, the scenery, the costumes, everything is created by the orchestra of the soul, there is no snow, rain and clouds outside the window, and I doubly find myself feeling depressed about the imminent approach of the plague. How can you convey a rich range of feelings — wow, I applaud.
Count Orlok is powerfully built, from his manner of speech to his appearance, it seemed to me that he was only a little, I wanted to get more and more into his philosophy, but his every appearance became a horror and incredible style!

It's just not clear how much Nosferatu, a symphony of horror, is better than this shit.

I've read Bram Stoker's book and watched various Dracula-themed film adaptations, and I really love this subject, but this movie wasn't for me.

Very delayed…

Everything is more or less normal. Except for Orlok. Fuck, how could you shit yourself here, okay? There is already an ideal image from the original source, how could it be made so shabbily compared to the original? I thought that the vampire's appearance was being kept for intrigue, and was not revealed until the very release of the film. It was a great decision! It was very interesting to find out what Orlok looks like. The most terrifying images came to mind, because compared to 1922, technology had made huge leaps forward, and the image of a truly terrifying creature appeared in the mind. But fuck... why does he need a mustache??? What kind of mustache are you fucking wearing? It's understandable why it wasn't shown in trailers or teasers. It's just mediocre... and most importantly, why change such a creepy and perfect image??? Sorry…

A very pleasant reinterpretation of an almost lost classic and a pleasant departure from the usual Dracula story.
Eggers uses harsh sound effects, complex footage, and menacing horror to bring such a dark and evil film to life.
The excellent makeup of Count Orloc, under which Bill Skarsgard cannot be recognized.
Overall, it's a good movie with very good acting.

when I ate the sour marmalade:

The cast, cinematography and scenery are beyond praise. At first, it seemed like I was watching a reboot of a 1920s film, the style and approach to shooting were so accurately reproduced. And closer to the middle, there was a feeling that this was a kind of interpretation of "Viya": Nosferatu suddenly became surprisingly Ukrainian — with features that came out of a folk epic, and the wooden tiles on the roofs reminded of Russia, there was a sense of pagan cold and something native. From the second part, I watched it in rewind anyway, it was too slow for me.

Not such a bad movie turned out, the finale with the naked skeleton of Skarsgard is impressive 🫢 💀

I had high hopes for this film, but alas. I turned it off after half an hour. Yes, there is something Bertonian-Shyamalan, harsh, gloomy about it, but... boring. Well, they changed England to Germany for some reason, and that's not what Dracula was called, that's all. It's better to review Van Helsing or even Dracula with Leslie Nielsen, and even more interesting)

I've been waiting sooo long, since no one has made a vampire movie in a long time. The film turned out to be very beautiful, very aesthetic and melancholically sad. I liked that most of the scenes were shot exactly like in the original film, although I was hoping for a new happy ending, but alas (It must be viewed in the evening!

I thought I was watching a new movie. And this is a Bram Stoker re-shot of Dracula. It's a beautiful picture, but the point is the same. Disappointed.

NETsferatu, or "If I wear a candybober on my head, it doesn't mean I'm a vampire or a Romanian count."

I will not spread my thoughts along the tree. I only have two questions after watching Nosferatu. Nah... me, and most importantly, why? Well, really. Now I would like to shoot a direct film adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel, hiding behind a remake of a century-old painting.

For those who don't know, I'll quickly clarify the situation: a little over a hundred years ago, the Germans wanted to make a film adaptation of Dracula. Stoker's widow refused. Director Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau, who was charged with filming, promptly rewrote the script, replacing Dracula with Count Orlok (and the names of the other actors), the location - from Great Britain to Germany, the time of action - from the end of the nineteenth century to the thirties of the same century, and slightly changed the ending (it was thanks to Murnau that vampires became deathly afraid of the sun light). The silent horror film managed to spread quickly around the world and gain cult status before the widow came to her senses and forced the German film studio to burn all the films with the film by court order. The studio did not survive this, but, of course, not all reels were destroyed. The long arm of the law was not so long. In general, these are nuances. Anyway, the film could have been watched in the middle of the last century, when it was "reassembled", and even more so now. The copyright period for Dracula ended a long time ago, and already in the 1978 version by Werner Herzog called Nosferatu - the Ghost of the Night, all the characters bore the names familiar from the literary work: Dracula, Van Helsing, Jonathan and Mina Harker, etc.

Now imagine that in 2025 you are shown a version of Francis Ford Coppola's "Dracula" starring Gary Oldman, from which the Grinch stole all the colors, all the actors are godlessly overplaying, and for some reason the characters have left-wing names. I hoped that the critically acclaimed Robert Eggers, director of "The Witch" and "The Lighthouse," would bring something new to a familiar story. By the way, in my opinion, of the contemporaries that Mike Flanagan ("Doctor Sleep", "The Fall of the House of Usher", "Ghosts of the House on the Hill"), that Ari Luster ("Reincarnation", "Solstice"), when it comes to horror, everything is much scarier, and this one comes at the expense of "Oh, that's the mainstream slop, and I have an art house here for ultramarine aesthetes!". But the only thing Eggers came up with, besides covering up with names from the original Nosferatu, was to bring Jonathan Harker's wife (sorry, Thomas Hutter) into the spotlight, giving Ellen more screen time, and twist and turn the whole plot around female sexuality and sexual abuse, where the roles of victims and abusers change back and forth.. And it turns out quite well for a while (however, I still didn't understand the prologue - where did this sudden mental connection come from out of nowhere? Answer: from there. Question: why? Answer: patamushta), until Lily-Rose Depp decides that she is up to Isabel Adjani with her acting talents, and for some reason begins cosplaying her scenes from "Possessed" by Polish director Andrzej Zulawski (this film, and specifically the scene in transition, is often quoted in recent times). It's horrible. In a bad way. It's painful to watch. Almost in a physical sense. It would be nice if the topic of sex was new to the genre, but vampires and eroticism almost always went hand in hand. Take the same version of Coppola, where one of Dracula's brides was the whole Monica Bellucci. And, by the way, Ajani did play in the last remake of Nosferatu.

However, Rose is not the only one who is acting strangely. Throughout the second half of the film, it generally gives the impression of a theatrical production in which something went wrong - well, for example, all its participants were drugged with disturbing synthetic substances. Everyone is goggling, yelling, and salivating at the camera. However, Nicholas Hoult (the local Harker) is no stranger to it, as is Willem Dafoe (the local Van Helsing), so they do it more or less organically, but with the help of Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who lost his entire family in the story, you can break your nose with the palm of your hand from a sudden facepalm.

Well, with all due respect to Skarsgard (you need to look at at least fragments in the English version to understand what he did with his voice), outwardly this is also some kind of misunderstanding that causes only laughter. Congratulations to Taika Waititi and Jemaine Clement, who have released more terrifying vampires in the comedy "Real Ghouls" (which is in the feature film, which is in the series). Yes, the TV Nandor of the local Count Orlok. I understand that Oldman's appearance (hairstyle, for example) was mocked at the time. And Mel Brooks, and the Simpsons. And, yes, I understand that the costumers and make-up artists wanted to recreate the image of the Romanian nobleman of the fifteenth (or whatever?) centuries. But here, Grandma and candybober are really sitting in the shadows. Or the heroes of the clips "No more parties" from Cream Soda with the "Star" from the Invisible band (Google it, yes). Is that what I should be afraid of?

Throughout the film, I felt like my time was being stolen (and, apparently, my mental strength, like the energy vampire Colin Robinson). I even said out loud in the middle of watching it, "I don't understand why we're watching this. I don't understand why they took it off. There's a Dracula. And my wife is like, "I thought I was the only one with such thoughts..."

Why retake a hundred thousand times digested story without qualitative changes? Well, that is, it's obvious that no one from modern viewers will be able to watch that very "Nosferatu" in an adequate state (I don't take into account film school students and all sorts of cinephiles), and Coppola's "Dracula" mentioned more than once is already thirty years old, but, damn... Even the actors from the same movie were filmed (some quite recently!) in near-vampire projects that were better. Holt had the comedy "Renfield" with Cage-Dracula (by the way, a great black comedy with good action scenes), Skarsgard had the series "Hemlock Grove", Defoe had how much? - four tapes on this topic? Moreover, Defoe has one of the films, Shadow of the Vampire, with an awesome concept: an alternative version of the story of the filming of Nosferatu, in which director Murnau finds a real vampire to shoot him in his film, which is why Nosferatu came out so frightening and realistic for its time. Isn't it cool? There is, on the one hand, a remake (many frames are accurately reproduced), and, on the other, a great original idea that plays on the semi-legendary status of the painting. In general, in my opinion, Eggers came dangerously close to the approach of Gus Van Sant, who in the nineties decided to retake Hitchcock's "Psycho" frame by frame.

Again, I suspect that Eggers' idea was to make a horror film as close in spirit and tone as possible to those that were filmed in the twenties of the 20th century. And from a visual point of view, everything is wonderful here. In the first half, there is also a pressing feeling of being half asleep. However, then half a nap can be replaced by real sleep and even your snoring. Well, you can't be so straightforward and not play with the Dracula myth in any way, pretending that there were no other films and works before that. The viewer, who has not even watched a single vampire movie, will still feel the torment and lack of ideas of this story. Judge for yourself: recently, for example, "The Journey of Demeter" has been released - a separate film dedicated to one chapter from Stoker's book, about how Dracula sailed to London. I didn't really rate him, but even he looks fresher, and before that, Steven Moffat dedicated an entire episode to this in his Dracula series! Or "Renfield," which takes a new look at Dracula's weak-willed servant, who decides to fight back after all. Or the same "Abigail," who was actually called "Dracula's Daughter" when she was a girl. It all came out not so long ago and is in the field of view of the layman. And the authors of each of these films are at least trying to bring something new - someone more successfully - to the thoroughly studied and well-known vampire world. Yes, take the same "Sinners" of Kugler - it would seem that "From dusk till dawn" is about blacks, but it looks fresh.

In general, Eggers again got into his favorite themes of folklore, myths and costumed fantasy, but slipped on ambition and fell into the cesspool of despondency.

P.S. Perhaps if Anya Taylor-Joy had played in the film instead of Depp, as originally planned, the picture would have turned out better.

Rating: 4 alucards out of 10

An incredibly beautiful movie , that 's the style
What an amazing picture
It looks different from other movies

The worst movie out of this pack is Nosferatu, Dracula, Frankenstein. Even though they're not all masterpieces. They're reshooting it to extend the rights to the film adaptations, probably. The movie has lost its meaning, it's supposed to be scary, not just a dark comic book. Everyone is wildly overdoing it.

A wonderful film adaptation. Yes, this is not a canon, other names, the course of events, etc., as they say, the author's vision. But everything in this film - the plot, the light, the shadows, the sound, the acting, is at the highest level.
I am surprised by the comments that Dracula is not like that and does not look like that at all. People probably keep in mind the sugary, uninteresting Bessonian Dracula. I watched Nosferatu after the creation of Besson and what a breath of fresh air it is. Thanks for the movie.

It's simple, I like the theme, insanely beautiful visuals. The movie is not wow, but it's decent. Bill Skarsgård is wonderful 😍

if you evaluate it as a horror movie, then only the five-year-old will be scared, but you can get an aesthetic thrill from the film.