Robert Eggers' Nosferatu

[Mandible]

Have to say Coppola's movie never did much for me either. Was far too overly-stylized for me to find any of it that scary.

Agreed. Oldman's performance(s) were the only thing that held it together for me.

Was somewhat looking forward to this, but seeing a few ho-hum comments is making me think I'll wait for streaming.

 

[Dark_Knight_89]

Agreed. Oldman's performance(s) were the only thing that held it together for me.

Was somewhat looking forward to this, but seeing a few ho-hum comments is making me think I'll wait for streaming.

Negativity here is a guarantee, regardless of the actual quality of something. I wouldn't let comments here put you off seeing a movie.

 

[newapelles]

This is both a retelling of the 1922 film and an ode to a century of Dracula adaptations. I think people who are steeped in vampire lore and media will appreciate it far more than the average moviegoer. The story itself is relatively simple, so I can see why people might be left wanting more. Some of the dialogue reminded me of Hammer Horror productions. The visuals are the best I've seen in quite some time- that final shot is insanely beautiful. Eggers always delivers the goods when it comes to aesthetics. The film is faithful to the Nosferatu story, but also manages to provide a new perspective. In Murnau's original film, Orlok was simply a vampire preying on an innocent woman, whereas Herzog's 1979 version made Orlok a somewhat pitiable figure longing for affection. Eggers' Orlok is both a demon and a product of Ellen's psyche, which makes the overall narrative more compelling, imo. Re-centering the film around Ellen was a really good choice.

 

[Rotfish]

Saw it a second time and liked it even more.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Orlock comes across more as a creepy old man with a bushy mustache than the all powerful Prince of Darkness.

That's massively disappointing. Eggers is a stickler for detail so I imagine the moustache is true to the source, but the truth-in-visual sometimes doesn't work.

 

[jye4ever]

That's massively disappointing. Eggers is a stickler for detail so I imagine the moustache is true to the source, but the truth-in-visual sometimes doesn't work.

 

[HyperDrive]

That's massively disappointing. Eggers is a stickler for detail so I imagine the moustache is true to the source, but the truth-in-visual sometimes doesn't work.

The credits stated: Inspired by the screenplay Nosferatu by Henrik Galeen and inspired by the novel Dracula by Stoker.

He mashed both sources together and Dracula is described to have a mustache in the novel characterization.

I also hoped Nosferatu’s design was bit more of a ghoulish pale-skinned Vampire physical looking thing, but I still appreciate what they were going for.

 

[davejames]

That's massively disappointing. Eggers is a stickler for detail so I imagine the moustache is true to the source, but the truth-in-visual sometimes doesn't work.

I suppose it's true to the period since every man on the planet felt obligated to have a mustache back then. But even without the stache I didn't find the character design to be all that memorable.

 

[davejames]

I get what you mean. I liked it for the visuals and some moments stick with me, I don’t think you'll find a scary adaptation to the Dracula story besides maybe this film but they all lack the dread I imagine of a vampire film.

I haven't seen it in ages, but I seem to remember thinking Dafoe's Shadow of the Vampire was pretty great. Probably because it was approaching the story in a fresh and different way.

 

[Luisenigma1]

I suppose it's true to the period since every man on the planet felt obligated to have a mustache back then. But even without the stache I didn't find the character design to be all that memorable.

I did see an interview with Edgers where he says He's going based on the folklore of the people of the time on Vampires and wondered what a dead nobleman would have looked like. As he wanted to portray the Vampire as a roting corpse since they are of course undead or coming back from their grave to feed on people. While watching the film I heard the word "Strigoi" mentioned by the Gypsy granny a few times. The word is another term for undead or Vampire so I get what he wanted still makes it look off to me honestly.

 

[Rotfish]

This vampire is based on the Strigoi of Eastern European folklore. Not a beast, not a seductive gentleman, not even the Prince of Darkness himself, but a corpse possessed by an evil spirit from beyond. It could be anyone of any lineage, in this case a count whose time should have ended several hundred years ago. When communicating telepathically, he speaks an approximation of Dacian, an ancient language that predates Romanian. Not much of the language is still known, so the gaps are filled with Latin and other archaic words from the region.

I definitely get the impression of great supernatural power from his ability to curse or blind individuals and large populations alike, compel others to do his bidding without uttering a word, and manipulate his victims' perceptions of time and space. Despite being a vessel more than the source of evil itself, he still feels omnipresent, seemingly able to phase in and out of the physical plane. His very presence sickens people before he even bites them. A far cry from Herzog's vampire having to carry his own coffins around at night (though that might have been cool to see here if done right).

I was also expecting something closer to the 1922 original, but in hindsight, what can really be done that we haven't seen before? It could easily have turned out like this...

...which is a great makeup worn by the very talented Doug Jones, but it also looks like something you'd see opening any Halloween mask catalog in the last 20 years. After Schreck, Kinski, Oldman (in his bat form), and Dafoe, there's not much left to do that wouldn't have felt generic in a different way.

I'm not surprised Eggers decided on something more rooted in history; it's the only unused strategy for telling a story that, well, is very much used.

 

[HyperDrive]

This vampire is based on the Strigoi of Eastern European folklore. Not a beast, not a seductive gentleman, not even the Prince of Darkness himself, but a corpse possessed by an evil spirit from beyond. It could be anyone of any lineage, in this case a count whose time should have ended several hundred years ago. When communicating telepathically, he speaks an approximation of Dacian, an ancient language that predates Romanian. Not much of the language is still known, so the gaps are filled with Latin and other archaic words from the region.

I definitely get the impression of great supernatural power from his ability to curse or blind individuals and large populations alike, compel others to do his bidding without uttering a word, and manipulate his victims' perceptions of time and space. Despite being a vessel more than the source of evil itself, he still feels omnipresent, seemingly able to phase in and out of the physical plane. His very presence sickens people before he even bites them. A far cry from Herzog's vampire having to carry his own coffins around at night (though that might have been cool to see here if done right).

I was also expecting something closer to the 1922 original, but in hindsight, what can really be done that we haven't seen before? It could easily have turned out like this...

View attachment 747109

...which is a great makeup worn by the very talented Doug Jones, but it also looks like something you'd see opening any Halloween mask catalog in the last 20 years. After Schreck, Kinski, Oldman (in his bat form), and Dafoe, there's not much left to do that wouldn't have felt generic in a different way.

I'm not surprised Eggers decided on something more rooted in history; it's the only unused strategy for telling a story that, well, is very much used.

I would’ve preferred the same design but without the hair in the back and mustache lol. Slight changes would’ve gone a long way, imo. I loved how decayed he looked.

 

[Rotfish]

View attachment 747119

I would’ve preferred the same design but without the hair in the back and mustache lol. Slight changes would’ve gone a long way, imo. I loved how decayed he looked.

On my second viewing I actually found myself wondering what he'd look like with longer recessed hair. Shoulder length like Vlad the Impaler, but temples way back. Oily and stringy like Meg Mucklebones.

I suppose if we ever get a figure of him, we can customize his noggin to our hearts' content.

 

[Wor-Gar]

After Schreck, Kinski, Oldman (in his bat form), and Dafoe, there's not much left to do

Don't forget Buffy's The Master.

 

[Luisenigma1]

Regardless of the design it was pretty much a good film though I agree I'd have preferred the more traditional Nosferatu design with some slight changes overall what they went for made sense in the film and the period. I did like the way the clothes he wore looked it was definitely a very worn nobleman outfit. But yeah the overall look of him is certainly different and also didn't have fangs more so jagged teeth. This is art done by someone on FB.

 

[Mandible]

Soooo, he just looks like a creepy old dude with no unique (or cliched) signs of being a vampire other than pointy ears?

 

[Wor-Gar]

That drawing looks like a hairy pirate.

 

[Luisenigma1]

Soooo, he just looks like a creepy old dude with no unique (or cliched) signs of being a vampire other than pointy ears?

He was pretty much a roting corpse. He didn't have fangs but his teeth were broken or jagged which looked like fangs. He did have boney hands with sharp nails and yes pointy ears.

 

[Rotfish]

Don't think he has eyebrows in the movie. Nose should be pointier too.

I like the drawing though, very expressive lines.

 

[Wor-Gar]

I found him...

Spoiler: Nosfertu