Nosferatu is, beyond being a very good movie, one of the best examples of how you can improve a movie by simply leaning a bit harder on the female perspective. Adding more agency to the trope of the innocent maiden, as well as adding depth and complexity to her relationship with Nosferatu elevates the material far beyond any of the past iterations. Just a fantastic piece of cinema all around.
While Eggers made some odd choices here and there, I really did appreciate how he approached developing the main conflict of the story being Orlok's (Dracula) obsession and twisted love for Ellen (Mina). The stuff he brought to this adaptation really were refreshing and works well here. I absolutely feel this film lingers in my mind. And I can't wait to see this in IMAX again to ring in 2025.
It's interesting that you think Egger's style in this film was bland. I found it absolutely enrapturing and engrossing. Every frame of the movie is gorgeous and helped immerse me in the world.
That’s the one thing I was missing in the movie. I wanted to feel immersed in it and I really didn’t. I love Eggers style too, but I wasn’t half as immersed here as I am with The Lighthouse.
Robert always was a big fan of Nosferatu. He even made a play when he was only 17 years old. So answer to your question "Why now?" is basically "He just really wanted to".
Having only watched the 1920's film and not this new one(yet), that part about entire scenes using only one color and minimalistic, camera work framing some admittedly pretty shots sounds like EXACTLY the reason this movie is called Nosferatu and not Dracula. Old Nosferatu would literally tint the entire film in one color since color film wasn't really a thing yet. It would hold on a static, symetrical shot just because it was beautiful and/or could be used to build dread. Can't say i remember any Dracula movie with that same approach to it's cinematography or presentation. It sounds from your description like Eggers *specifically* wanted to try his own hand at Nosferatu(1922)'s style of filmmaking.
I have a suspicion that the constant changing between the black, white and reddish orangish shots may be a reference to the alchemical purification process, which the film heavily dabbles in.
I honestly loved this nosferatu more than any other, for years I wanted to see a Dracula film that makes me feel like I did reading the book. This film does that completely and utterly, it finally brought the book’s story to life on film, even with the additions from the other 2 Nosferatu films.
@@diegovargasdiego have you seen “Bram Stoker‘s Dracula” from the 90s with Winona Ryder? That one definitely gives the feelings like reading the book at least for me.
While I personally still have a particular love of the original german expressionist film, I understand why people would consider this the best adaptation.
@@bebop2523 sometimes it feels like the book, but then Dracula gets hot and is revealed to really be a tragic romantic instead of the horrible grimy r*$&ist he is in the book. In this Nosferatu, they explore how Dracula is like a plague, always eating and lusting without giving anything in return
@@diegovargasdiego I get that, but for me the supporting characters in Bram Stoker’s Dracula feel much more like the book, for example, Van Helsing and Lucy are portrayed much more accurately to the book in the 90s movie than in this one. I was really hoping in the mausoleum scene that Aaron Taylor Johnson would open the coffin to find that Emma Corin had become a vampire like Lucy in the book but then it just went nowhere. And even though I liked Willem Dafoe, I thought that the characterization of Van Helsing in this one was not great and that he was so much cooler in the book and in other movies.
I think the four main adaptations have different angles: the Murnau one is Dracula through an expressionist lense; the Herzog one is a materialist, almost documentary-style take; the Coppola one is a hyper-romantic Dracula, almost an opera; and this one, in conformity with Egger's project (which encompasses all of his films), wants to be a time capsule, taking us back straight to the XIX Century. He doesn't question the existence of Dracula, he doesn't approach him "artistically" - he tries to show us things according to the perceptions of the people from the time. Hence the rigid, "neutral" techniques he uses. Does it work? Not sure. In my opinion, the only film of his that REALLY works is "The Witch". But I like him. You can see he's very passionate and, definitelly, very commited.
Eggers is meticulous about historical accuracy in his movies because these stories all have deep historical resonance. The original Nosferatu also featured real occultist influence based on Murnau's own practices, and the historical setting is meant to illustrate the political and class dimensions of Germany in 1922, through the lens of 1838. The true horror of Count Orlok is not his supernatural agency in the form of magic, but his political agency as an aristocrat with noble privilege and accounts. He has centuries of experience in ruling class refinement, expressed through the overpowering projection of superiority and demands for its recognition. He overpowers his victims primarily through intimidation because by the rules of the contracts which define his existence they must on some level consent to their exploitation. His later agency in which he mass murders the people of Wisborg, is most likely a power granted to him in the terms of his occult contracts with Thomas & Ellen. An intimidation method to guarantee their compliance.
Find myself agreeing with a lot of your opinions here. I liked the movie but wanted to like it more. Kept waiting for it to really do something big and it doesnt really, but remains good throughout.
It’s called nosferatu and not Dracula because it’s almost a scene for scene remake of the 1920’s German expressionist film nosferatu. So it would make sense that it’s called nosferatu and not Dracula, because it is literally a remake of nosferatu (uses nosferatu’s character names vs Dracula character names, follows the nosferatu plot the closest, etc.) its very true to that version of the story vs. the original Dracula.
The whole time watching the movie I kept thinking about what “well…” would mean after I finished it and turned on your video. I agree on the pacing issues, but I loved it otherwise. Your observations about the camerawork were super insightful though. I wouldn’t have thought to criticize it but I agree that your mileage may vary on that style. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion!
I think if you're a fan of Ingmar Bergman, Herman Melville and enjoy Greek Mythology, you should definitely watch The Lighthouse. It was honestly my favorite of the 2010's. I'll be checking Nosferatu out tonight!
The thing about Dracula adaptations is that I wish more of them centered Mina Harker. She is a central character in the novel and a ripe opportunity for an adaptation to dig into story elements around gender now vs the Turn of the Century, but I have not encountered any adaptations that do. Honestly, the film that best hits the novel's tone and themes is "The Lair of the White Worm" which is based on an entirely different Stoker story.
My video bugged out and played an all black screen when I first booted up and I thought this was some clever meta commentary on the lighting of the film.
eggers is my favorite director right now, and this is without a doubt his most reserved film in a lot of ways. he does always play with very precise camera work, which i like, but i do think it's employed much better in the lighthouse especially. the northman and the witch a slightly more "loose" as far as i remember. i think if you enjoyed the drama and plot of this movie you'd be a fan of his others, as his strong suit (imo) are his characters.
Honestly I get the feeling it’s because he didn’t want to disrespect the source material, because this is his biggest and most relatively well known story to date. I think that he felt more comfortable taking creative liberties in his other movies that had lesser known source material
Yeah, I was way-underwhelmed! Maybe the theater I was in was overlit, but I thought all the dark scenes were so dull- and muddy-looking. Did not feel iconic like Herzog's.
I too was underwhelmed. Every person I see who feels this way always references the Herzog one (which I love), I wish more people have seen that one, imo its just so much better in every department compared to Eggers (and I also generally love Eggers films)
This was very similar to Herzog's film, in a way where I don't fully get the point of doing this remake - Herzog's film had good atmosphere but slow pacing and this new one had more of a modern spin. But both of them didn't really do it for me, which may be that I may not be a big fan of this story in itself. Nosferatu (2024) was more like The Northman than The VVitch or The Lighthouse - which is one of the strongest piece of media that has come out in our modern time + those two films are more in tune with the historical sense you're seeking. 6:39, agreed. To a point where some ''snap pans'' didn't really fit the tone.
I also felt what you were describing of Eggers rigid camerawork watching The Northman. The visualization there made it a constantly frustrating experience. But I really struggled to verbalize the issue; thank you for expressing it so perfectly here!
I find Robert Eggers to be a fairly hit an miss director, an opinion I know is fairly unpopular. I really didn't care for The Witch and I found The Northman to be just alright, but I think I've watched The Lighthouse more than any other movie in the past decade as it's just so much fun. I say this to express how happy I am that Nosferatu is as great as it is.
I've seen the Lighthouse about 5 times since it came out, and it's my favorite Eggers film by far. With that being said, I still haven't seen Nosferatu(going on Monday,) but I am very nervous about it. Seems like it is a very divisive film, with some saying it's a huge disappointment, and a terrible film, and others saying it's a masterpiece, and some others just saying that it's alright. Hard to know who's opinion to trust.
@@Dartanyooglesif u have huge expectations like I did, u feel underwhelmed at first but the scenes end up sticking with u. I’ll say though the atmosphere wasn’t as suffocating as The Nor Th man or his first 2
'Why this, why now' - because Robert Eggers wanted to do his version of Nosferatu forever. He finally got to realize his dream project. There's some great interviews with him on what gave him a strong impression of Nosferatu and how he's been chasing trying to realize the character as an otherworldly embodiment of something cosmic and primal since then.
The symmetry was really nice to me. The aesthetics of i was incredibly pleasing and the contents were interesting enough that the camera didn't have to do a whole lot
Lily Depp is talented for sure But any mainstream movie that makes you Think , or want to see it again ... is a win in my opinion. I would like to see Eggers have the confidence to make some mistakes though. I think Talented creatives have gotten to a point where they'd rather make something Solid or non offensive rather than let their creativity takeover and risk Mistakes to achieve Greatness
Disagree pretty strongly on the cinematography and framing points. J felt this was a perfect blend of Eggers own style of camera work mixed with just enough of that homage to black and white framing of the original. It really gripped me basically from that scene of Thomas standing in the road as the chariot comes to bring him up to that castle. From that point on word I was just wowed and completely engrossed.
I'm personally a fan of gothic vampire films so I'll probably like this adaptation of Nosferatu. It doesn't bother me whether they are fast-paced or slow-paced. Dracula in the novel had a mustache so I'm glad this film incorporated it. The 1992 film Bram Stoker's Dracula should have been called Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula. It's a very unashamedly indulgent film. That film is the second most faithful adaptation of the novel, while still deviating from the novel in big ways. The prologue origin story, portraying Dracula to be a sympathetic vampire, and most importantly the Dracula/Mina romance were all added for the 1992 film adaptation. The most faithful adaptation is the British made-for-television film Count Dracula which was released in 1977.
If this was your first and only Eggers film, then you might get the impression that he is more rigid and conventionally correct than the rest of his filmography. I implore you to watch The Witch and The Lighthouse to get a taste of his more adventurous style.
The camerawork repeats a lot of movements, which makes the already rich atmosphere more hypnotic. You already have an intuition of where the camera or lighting may go based on the first half, and that makes you feel more connected to that atmosphere.
Robert Eggers is one of my favorite modern directors. I've been looking forward to this movie ever since I headd that he was making it. I'm definitely going to watch it. Seriously though, watch his other films. He may be divisive, but you could end up finding some of them really enjoyable. You'll never know unless you try.
Recommend The Witch for sure, it’s a tragedy above all else imo. Vampire media I’d go Midnight Mass; not Dracula, closer to Salem’s Lot than anything but just absolutely amazing
Midnight mass had some good, but ultimately spent too long indulging in reflections on pretty surface level ideas. It felt like it just needed to fill out runtime with a lot of its dialogue.
This was my least favorite of Eggers’ films so far. I love love love everything about The VVitch, the Northman, and The Lighthouse, but this one was disappointing to me. Imo the best part was the scenes in Transylvania between the carriage showing up and the escape from the monastery, the carriage scene is sooooo creepy and beautifully shot and the scenes in the castle where Nosferatu is introduced are so atmospheric and Bill Skarsgård’s performance is great and I love the way he’s shot out-of-focus to heighten our dread, and the monastery scene is well-done too but after Thomas leaves and went to back to Germany the movie never is as good again, at least for me. Nicholas Hoult is the outstanding performance in this movie for me and the best part of his performance were the scenes at the castle where he does one of the best acting portrayals of fear and dread that I’ve ever seen. I agree with your comment about the visuals, I felt like the only exception was the visuals in Transylvania specifically of the carriage scene and the castle escape scene, that was so cool and then we just never see anything like that again once the story moves back to Germany. Also hard agree that the movie severely underutilized Willem Dafoe, he only showed up halfway through and he should’ve had way more presence in the film and been there earlier so they could’ve leaned into the silly/campy side more, plus his character really got the plot moving, and I felt like it was kinda dragging in the part between Transylvania and the introduction of his character and could’ve been shorter if he had shown up sooner
As a guy born this century and hearing you talk about all the previous big adaptations of dracula, would you recommend an order to watch those films in? Should i just watch the Eggers movie first and then watch these other films later?
In my opinion, you should always start with Murnau's Nosferatu (the 1922 one?) because everyone later had either been inspired by it or attempting at reimagining it. Murnau's Nosferatu is also an incredible film for early cinema
Wife and I just saw it and we loved it. We’re both big Eggers fans, particularly loved The Witch. And it’s funny because the things you didn’t like about it were the things we were gushing about while watching 😂 We loved the slow stable camera moves, and many of the symmetrical shots (though I’ll admit I had the same thought about is this a Wes Anderson horror film?). And I just loved all the historical details and accuracy. Really immersed me in the time period, which is also why I loved Witch. I think that’s a unique thing that Eggers does, is basically make historical folklore dramas, but with a dark horror edge. It feels like truly experiencing dark folk tales as they’re being written. And the performances were all out of the park. I too never cared much for Aaron Taylor Johnson, but he was a fun character to watch. With that said, I can see how it could be visually tiresome after a while. A bit more visual variation in the shots/colors wouldn’t hurt. But overall a great Eggers movie and I think an excellent addition to the Dracula library.
I found the camera and lighting to be engaging because of how it added to the oppressive atmosphere and dread. By no means my favorite Eggars movie, but I still thoroughly enjoyed it. The Lighthouse is still my all time favorite of his
I rly like herzog, but his version feels more like a herzog film more than dracula film, and not one of his best film imo (but ofc a mediocre Herzog film is miles above Eggers). Curious for this one, think the lighthouse is pretty overrated(still quite good though), but the northman was just epic.
havent seen the film myself yet, but i agree about the point with the very precise way of framing scenes, sometimes when the camera is steady and so perfectly arranged, symetrical almost, it doesn't feel as emotionally connecting to the film, to the opposite if camera was more shaky or just handheld, less perfect so, then it feels more personal, almost intimate with the characters, thrilling, but when going for that arthouse look and framing, theres a big distance drawn between delivering and immersing fully in, at least in my opinion
Trounces the original, and most other vampire movies. Absolutely needed with all these other unnecessary remakes today, especially bc this one is 100 years old (50 if u count Herzog)
trounces is nuts and herzog sorta washes eggers here. I love eggers movies and i dont hate this one, but its the weakest nosferatu by a p wide margin imo (not really an insult considering the other 2 are some of the greatest ever).
I may be jaded from seeing so many movies, but I thought it was good but not great. If I hadn't seen 100 years' worth of interpretations of this story, I would have probably loved it.
You have described his work. If you liked that you will love The Lighthouse and The Witch. Personally, I love it. It’s such a fresh approach that is much needed in today’s film makers.
I really liked how Lily-Rose Depp's character was connected to Orlok in this adaptation in comparison to other Dracula adaptations. There's this really interesting connection being made with patriarchal societal norms and Orlok's curse; How they are both used to subdue and oppress women for male desire and ego. Once you understand the parallels and see how Ellen is able to destroy Nosferatu, it makes the ending all the more tragic.
It is Dracula, but it’s based on the Nosferatu version and aesthetic. The look of Orlok as well as the shadow things and so on. By the way, the scene were you can see the shadow hand moving above the town is amazing..
The film just can't escape the inherent fact that it doesn't need to exist. We've done this story to death time and time and time again for about 100 years and if you're not going to bring anything substantially new to it then why do it at all?
I honestly think the weakest link in this movie was Aaron Taylor Johnson, because man his acting took me out of the movie everytime. And I know he can be a good actor but this time it was so stilted and I didn’t really find myself believing any line that he delivered.
Vusual masterpiece aside, If it had been an hour and a half silent film it may have become the greatest vampire film of all time Instead we got a mangled limony snicket Jim Carrey looking vampire no one asked for A painfully slow epic failure
I actually think there were some comedic moments in the movie i laughed a few times. Like when the count said "we will be neighbors" also when willem defoes character was first introduced. I also lauged when the counts follower bites the head off the pigeon and the doctor was like "now why would you do that sir?"
Might I suggest Frame Voyagers video on the films production/cinematography? Maybe the camera movements were a bit static, but the shots themselves took great inspiration from the artwork of the time. 🙂 My personal favorite was the one of the children praying by candlelight, pulling out from left to right. The lighting is so 19th century realism.
I feel like the framing and lack of camera work in the cinematography is an homage to the original Murnau film (which, obviousy due to its time of production, also looks very static and relies on its expressionist shot compositions to evoke atmosphere).
I completely understand what you're saying with the camera work, but i would have used a different example. If Wes Anderson made a horror film you know the sets, costumes and little details would be captured beautfully There's so much attention to detail in those films everything is meticulously frame so that we as the audience understand the setting, in relation to the characters, and the history of the story. Wes Anderson in conjunction with his cinematographer Robert Yeoman use simple camera movements to frame complex visual ideas. So, while it would be quirky, I would love to see a horror movie filmed like that.
11:28 Spoilers for Nosferatu, people who are not carrying things So what you mean to tell me is that the Billy & Mandy Dracula is no longer the only Dracula to actually have the mustache that Bram Stoker apparently wrote him with?
I saw The Northman in theaters, and while I could admire its craft, something about it left me absolutely cold. It seems that Nosferatu would give me the same reaction, which is why I ultimately decided not to see it. I'll just re-watch the 1979 remake.
Since you said you haven't seen any other Aaron Taylor-Johnson movies, I must recommend Nocturnal Animals (2016). I think that one is right up your alley, just don't get scared away by the opening credits scene, as scary as it might be...
That’s me. I am telling you to watch the witch and the lighthouse 😂 Robert Eggers is one of my favorite working directors. I thought Nosferatu was really good! But it is my least favorite of his movies.
I think you feeling torn between really liking it, OR hating it is actually a testament to the Movie, and often times, the best Art falls in that category initially… I’d be curious to see how you feel about it when you rewatch it… The movie to me did feel very “German expressionist”, and the compositions and framing weren’t “modern dynamic’, instead, leaned towards the kinds of compositions the best black and white movies used to have, great framing, and not a ton of movement, and in general, this tends to be Eggers’ wheelhouse, and part of why he’s a bit divisive.
I am completely at loggerheads with you on this. I love 90% of the film and its really the only last 10-20 minutes that I have a problem with. There is so much build up and rising action only to kind of just stop at the end. If you've seen the original, it is that way in that film as well. I think the point of the film that I kind of lost some of the feeling was when a main character dies. His character just kind of gives up and his arc just stops, and from then on out I felt like this feeling that nothing really mattered and that everything is just going to stop suddenly and well low and behold it did. The characters ended up not having much agency and apart from one sacrifice (that btw didn't really feel that earned) nothing any character did really amounted to all that much. All that said, the first hour and a half of the film I absolutely loved and would recommend.
Interesting comments. I haven’t seen it yet, and I’m trying to temper my expectations. I have seen The Witch, The Lighthouse, and The Northman. Loved, LOVED, liked a lot (more than expected). So I figure Nosferatu will likely appeal to me but I’m not going in expecting The Witch or The Lighthouse. I appreciated your comments on the formal aspects. I would imagine Eggars indeed felt some anxiety of influence and that may have pushed him in a more formal direction.
The actors were phenomenal, and the movie well made. The biggest problem is that I'm just so familiar with the story. I liked how it ended. Ellen having such a large role in the denouement. I liked him being such a demon possession. Felt like notes of Possession in fact.
I think that you need to see Eggers other movies before you judge Nosferatu on it's look. Eggers has a very particular style, his movies are slow, deliberate, and dreadful. I personally love it. Nosferatu the Vampyre is also one of my favorite movies, but I also thought this one was great. I also haven't seen tons of Dracula movies though, only the Nosferatu ones because I think it's cool for some reason
I just got out of the theater after watching and I came to a few conclusions. I really liked the film, it was very artistic and very book accurate, it was also legitimately frightening, unlike many “Dracula” based stories. One reason I feel that they explicitly chose Count Orlok over Count Dracula was that they had different themes to explore. Dracula’s themes are staunchly Tech v Faith and Modernity v Tradition. Nosferatu (name meaning “plague-bringer”) has themes of Contagion, Disease, Corruption and anything that could be considered health (phys or mental) related. Ct Orlok is also definitely disgusting and revolting to look at, while Ct Dracula is just an unsettling older gentleman. Most things in this movie seemed to be explicitly chosen to be the most disgusting the original Dracula tale could be and also the most open to the guilt/sexuality themes tossed in. Iv never been a fan of [Dracula] stealing away [Mina] as a lover in most adaptations and this one didn’t change my mind, but at least there were noticeable themes or allegories to real life situations around such topics. The artists, writers, and actors did amazing jobs, but I guess there are just a few points where I would have reworked the script. There are few moments of hope and joy to deepen the sadness in comparison and there are seldom few symbolic presentations of story elements (either lighting or set or shot or props) for the audience to feel accomplished in identifying. You’re right that it feels like a movie made *right now* and not its own proud, solitary depressing gothic horror style in this era of homogenous filmmaking TLDR: it’s good in a lot of ways and had very intentional choices but it falls short in certain aspects
Also my first Eggers film, but I honestly thought it was nearly perfect. I also disliked the color palette, but enjoyed the cinematography. Overall, Nosferatu felt like a return to classic, folklore-type vampire stories, as opposed to the last few decades of Twilight-esque, "naturalistic" vampire tales.
If were being super true to historical accuracy do rich aristocratic families usually bury their dead immediately the morning upon discovering their deceased? That felt incredibly jarring.
i think i disagree with the whole "it's closer to dracula" while similar fs it differs in theming and characterization, the one thing that made me mad abt herzogs' versions was the fact that he saw it as an extension of dracula. while yes it was originally meant to be a retelling, the difference made to the story aren't only for that purpose. themes of nosferatu aren't that similar to dracula, and i think herzogs' changes are interesting it's not true to what the original. meanwhile that's the highest praise i can give eggers' version, it takes all the things the original couldn't say and makes them text and it's so good at doing it too.
When I first saw The Witch I was blown away by how flatly it refused to do a modern twist. No "what if the witch was good" or "what if the real witch was paranoia" but instead there's a lady in the woods, signed the devil's book, steals babies, flies on a broomstick.
@@PauLtus_B Of course. I can rewatch focusing on the language, or the sibling relationship (that conversation about glass? love it), or how the Devil's offer compares to Thomasin's other path of working in someone's house... but that's all from me. It's not the movie overexplaining it to me.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Why are you raising your son instead of watching The Lighthouse right now?
Heck, why not both? This could be a formative experience for Child Carrying Thing! Or therapy fodder. Or, again, both.
@@thebigshep Because he doesn't want to spill his beans....
People are going to tell you to see the Witch and the Lighthouse and they’re right.
The Witch is amazing but The Lighthouse is his best film hands down
The Northman is also really good.
The Lighthouse throws everything at the wall. Plus Willem Dafoe is in it!
Why’d y’spill yer beans?
@@Whocares1987I feel like I’m the only person who didn’t care for the lighthouse
somewhat shocked that you've never seen the lighthouse or the northman
same
@@womancarryingman ur gonna love the lighthouse
@@womancarryingman ur gonna hate the northman
You're gonna love The Northman!
@@womancarryingman The Northman is really good
“Why do this now?”
Cuz Robert Eggers reaaaaaaally wanted to lmfao
Man carrying woman carrying man (man carrying love for his family)
Nosferatu is, beyond being a very good movie, one of the best examples of how you can improve a movie by simply leaning a bit harder on the female perspective. Adding more agency to the trope of the innocent maiden, as well as adding depth and complexity to her relationship with Nosferatu elevates the material far beyond any of the past iterations. Just a fantastic piece of cinema all around.
Have you even seen "past iterations"...
@@joerileijdsman3279 yes this was more enjoyable
Which is why any other female in the movie is bland and one dimensional.
While Eggers made some odd choices here and there, I really did appreciate how he approached developing the main conflict of the story being Orlok's (Dracula) obsession and twisted love for Ellen (Mina). The stuff he brought to this adaptation really were refreshing and works well here. I absolutely feel this film lingers in my mind. And I can't wait to see this in IMAX again to ring in 2025.
I thought this film is female sexuality (along with bad relationships).
It's interesting that you think Egger's style in this film was bland. I found it absolutely enrapturing and engrossing. Every frame of the movie is gorgeous and helped immerse me in the world.
BLAND!? Every frame of the movie is gorgeous and helped immerse me in the world.
BLAND!? Every frame of the movie is gorgeous and helped immerse me in the world.
Why is this a comment chain?
That’s the one thing I was missing in the movie. I wanted to feel immersed in it and I really didn’t. I love Eggers style too, but I wasn’t half as immersed here as I am with The Lighthouse.
Couldn't agree more, every frame of that movie was like a painting
"I've abandoned my child" nice There Will Be Blood reference
A BASTARD FROM A BASKET
MY BOOOOOOOOOOY!
Man carrying milkshake
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE. I DRINK IT UP.
Robert always was a big fan of Nosferatu. He even made a play when he was only 17 years old. So answer to your question "Why now?" is basically "He just really wanted to".
personally still waiting for nosferaone
You mean Dracula?
Sure, but I bet nosferathree is the one that's really going to blow up
nosferak tuah
Nice
Hot take: I think _Nosferausted_ will be better.
Having only watched the 1920's film and not this new one(yet), that part about entire scenes using only one color and minimalistic, camera work framing some admittedly pretty shots sounds like EXACTLY the reason this movie is called Nosferatu and not Dracula. Old Nosferatu would literally tint the entire film in one color since color film wasn't really a thing yet. It would hold on a static, symetrical shot just because it was beautiful and/or could be used to build dread. Can't say i remember any Dracula movie with that same approach to it's cinematography or presentation. It sounds from your description like Eggers *specifically* wanted to try his own hand at Nosferatu(1922)'s style of filmmaking.
Wow, I might have to go watch it again to pay attention to the colors! Holy shit!
I have a suspicion that the constant changing between the black, white and reddish orangish shots may be a reference to the alchemical purification process, which the film heavily dabbles in.
I honestly loved this nosferatu more than any other, for years I wanted to see a Dracula film that makes me feel like I did reading the book. This film does that completely and utterly, it finally brought the book’s story to life on film, even with the additions from the other 2 Nosferatu films.
@@diegovargasdiego have you seen “Bram Stoker‘s Dracula” from the 90s with Winona Ryder? That one definitely gives the feelings like reading the book at least for me.
They even kept Dracula's (well, Orlok's) spiffy moustache!
While I personally still have a particular love of the original german expressionist film, I understand why people would consider this the best adaptation.
@@bebop2523 sometimes it feels like the book, but then Dracula gets hot and is revealed to really be a tragic romantic instead of the horrible grimy r*$&ist he is in the book. In this Nosferatu, they explore how Dracula is like a plague, always eating and lusting without giving anything in return
@@diegovargasdiego I get that, but for me the supporting characters in Bram Stoker’s Dracula feel much more like the book, for example, Van Helsing and Lucy are portrayed much more accurately to the book in the 90s movie than in this one. I was really hoping in the mausoleum scene that Aaron Taylor Johnson would open the coffin to find that Emma Corin had become a vampire like Lucy in the book but then it just went nowhere. And even though I liked Willem Dafoe, I thought that the characterization of Van Helsing in this one was not great and that he was so much cooler in the book and in other movies.
I think the four main adaptations have different angles: the Murnau one is Dracula through an expressionist lense; the Herzog one is a materialist, almost documentary-style take; the Coppola one is a hyper-romantic Dracula, almost an opera; and this one, in conformity with Egger's project (which encompasses all of his films), wants to be a time capsule, taking us back straight to the XIX Century. He doesn't question the existence of Dracula, he doesn't approach him "artistically" - he tries to show us things according to the perceptions of the people from the time. Hence the rigid, "neutral" techniques he uses. Does it work? Not sure. In my opinion, the only film of his that REALLY works is "The Witch". But I like him. You can see he's very passionate and, definitelly, very commited.
I mean it's no kraven
A new standard has been set.
I wish I had seen kraven instead.
@@k-nun Kraven is on my top 5 favorite films of 1996!!
Nosfera2
NOS4A2
Transylvania Drift
Eggers is meticulous about historical accuracy in his movies because these stories all have deep historical resonance. The original Nosferatu also featured real occultist influence based on Murnau's own practices, and the historical setting is meant to illustrate the political and class dimensions of Germany in 1922, through the lens of 1838.
The true horror of Count Orlok is not his supernatural agency in the form of magic, but his political agency as an aristocrat with noble privilege and accounts. He has centuries of experience in ruling class refinement, expressed through the overpowering projection of superiority and demands for its recognition. He overpowers his victims primarily through intimidation because by the rules of the contracts which define his existence they must on some level consent to their exploitation. His later agency in which he mass murders the people of Wisborg, is most likely a power granted to him in the terms of his occult contracts with Thomas & Ellen. An intimidation method to guarantee their compliance.
“I didn’t love it.”
It’s okay, you can be wrong.
This needs more upvotes
@@Shimbot1323 Damn. So, it's actually that good?? I love Eggers, but can't see it until Monday.
You’re wrong
I watched it with my brother, two cousins, and my uncle. You can probably guess how that went...
I can’t no…. How did it go?
As Spongebob would saay:
"TELL ME THE STOOORY !!!!"
Find myself agreeing with a lot of your opinions here. I liked the movie but wanted to like it more. Kept waiting for it to really do something big and it doesnt really, but remains good throughout.
Same.
It’s called nosferatu and not Dracula because it’s almost a scene for scene remake of the 1920’s German expressionist film nosferatu. So it would make sense that it’s called nosferatu and not Dracula, because it is literally a remake of nosferatu (uses nosferatu’s character names vs Dracula character names, follows the nosferatu plot the closest, etc.) its very true to that version of the story vs. the original Dracula.
The whole time watching the movie I kept thinking about what “well…” would mean after I finished it and turned on your video.
I agree on the pacing issues, but I loved it otherwise. Your observations about the camerawork were super insightful though. I wouldn’t have thought to criticize it but I agree that your mileage may vary on that style.
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion!
Dang..... Really loved this one. Surprised you didn't too much.
Agreed with the Lighthouse recommendations. Solid film.
I loved this movie, gonna go see it again tonight
I like you.
I think if you're a fan of Ingmar Bergman, Herman Melville and enjoy Greek Mythology, you should definitely watch The Lighthouse. It was honestly my favorite of the 2010's.
I'll be checking Nosferatu out tonight!
The thing about Dracula adaptations is that I wish more of them centered Mina Harker. She is a central character in the novel and a ripe opportunity for an adaptation to dig into story elements around gender now vs the Turn of the Century, but I have not encountered any adaptations that do. Honestly, the film that best hits the novel's tone and themes is "The Lair of the White Worm" which is based on an entirely different Stoker story.
My video bugged out and played an all black screen when I first booted up and I thought this was some clever meta commentary on the lighting of the film.
eggers is my favorite director right now, and this is without a doubt his most reserved film in a lot of ways. he does always play with very precise camera work, which i like, but i do think it's employed much better in the lighthouse especially. the northman and the witch a slightly more "loose" as far as i remember. i think if you enjoyed the drama and plot of this movie you'd be a fan of his others, as his strong suit (imo) are his characters.
Honestly I get the feeling it’s because he didn’t want to disrespect the source material, because this is his biggest and most relatively well known story to date. I think that he felt more comfortable taking creative liberties in his other movies that had lesser known source material
Yeah, I was way-underwhelmed! Maybe the theater I was in was overlit, but I thought all the dark scenes were so dull- and muddy-looking. Did not feel iconic like Herzog's.
I too was underwhelmed. Every person I see who feels this way always references the Herzog one (which I love), I wish more people have seen that one, imo its just so much better in every department compared to Eggers (and I also generally love Eggers films)
This was very similar to Herzog's film, in a way where I don't fully get the point of doing this remake - Herzog's film had good atmosphere but slow pacing and this new one had more of a modern spin. But both of them didn't really do it for me, which may be that I may not be a big fan of this story in itself. Nosferatu (2024) was more like The Northman than The VVitch or The Lighthouse - which is one of the strongest piece of media that has come out in our modern time + those two films are more in tune with the historical sense you're seeking.
6:39, agreed. To a point where some ''snap pans'' didn't really fit the tone.
Man hopefully soon carrying a blu ray of the Lighthouse
Robert Eggars was a big fan of the original film, he even made a stage play adaptation of Nosferatu when he was 17 years old
We're gonna need a Lighthouse video
I also felt what you were describing of Eggers rigid camerawork watching The Northman. The visualization there made it a constantly frustrating experience. But I really struggled to verbalize the issue; thank you for expressing it so perfectly here!
The witch, the lighthouse, and his two short films “Brothers” and “The Tell Tale Heart”
I find Robert Eggers to be a fairly hit an miss director, an opinion I know is fairly unpopular. I really didn't care for The Witch and I found The Northman to be just alright, but I think I've watched The Lighthouse more than any other movie in the past decade as it's just so much fun. I say this to express how happy I am that Nosferatu is as great as it is.
I've seen the Lighthouse about 5 times since it came out, and it's my favorite Eggers film by far. With that being said, I still haven't seen Nosferatu(going on Monday,) but I am very nervous about it. Seems like it is a very divisive film, with some saying it's a huge disappointment, and a terrible film, and others saying it's a masterpiece, and some others just saying that it's alright. Hard to know who's opinion to trust.
@@Dartanyooglesif u have huge expectations like I did, u feel underwhelmed at first but the scenes end up sticking with u. I’ll say though the atmosphere wasn’t as suffocating as The Nor Th man or his first 2
'Why this, why now' - because Robert Eggers wanted to do his version of Nosferatu forever. He finally got to realize his dream project. There's some great interviews with him on what gave him a strong impression of Nosferatu and how he's been chasing trying to realize the character as an otherworldly embodiment of something cosmic and primal since then.
The symmetry was really nice to me. The aesthetics of i was incredibly pleasing and the contents were interesting enough that the camera didn't have to do a whole lot
Lily Depp is talented for sure
But any mainstream movie that makes you Think , or want to see it again ... is a win in my opinion.
I would like to see Eggers have the confidence to make some mistakes though.
I think Talented creatives have gotten to a point where they'd rather make something Solid or non offensive rather than let their creativity takeover and risk Mistakes to achieve Greatness
Disagree pretty strongly on the cinematography and framing points. J felt this was a perfect blend of Eggers own style of camera work mixed with just enough of that homage to black and white framing of the original. It really gripped me basically from that scene of Thomas standing in the road as the chariot comes to bring him up to that castle. From that point on word I was just wowed and completely engrossed.
I'm personally a fan of gothic vampire films so I'll probably like this adaptation of Nosferatu. It doesn't bother me whether they are fast-paced or slow-paced.
Dracula in the novel had a mustache so I'm glad this film incorporated it.
The 1992 film Bram Stoker's Dracula should have been called Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula. It's a very unashamedly indulgent film.
That film is the second most faithful adaptation of the novel, while still deviating from the novel in big ways. The prologue origin story, portraying Dracula to be a sympathetic vampire, and most importantly the Dracula/Mina romance were all added for the 1992 film adaptation.
The most faithful adaptation is the British made-for-television film Count Dracula which was released in 1977.
If this was your first and only Eggers film, then you might get the impression that he is more rigid and conventionally correct than the rest of his filmography. I implore you to watch The Witch and The Lighthouse to get a taste of his more adventurous style.
I think youd really enjoy the lighthouse it has some more interesting shots.
The camerawork repeats a lot of movements, which makes the already rich atmosphere more hypnotic. You already have an intuition of where the camera or lighting may go based on the first half, and that makes you feel more connected to that atmosphere.
Guys this whole movie is beat for beat the exact same story as King Kong, literally the same ending too.
@@space_1073 Are you trying to be funny? I can't tell.
@@Dartanyoogles I'm spreading the truth.
Robert Eggers is one of my favorite modern directors. I've been looking forward to this movie ever since I headd that he was making it. I'm definitely going to watch it.
Seriously though, watch his other films. He may be divisive, but you could end up finding some of them really enjoyable. You'll never know unless you try.
Recommend The Witch for sure, it’s a tragedy above all else imo. Vampire media I’d go Midnight Mass; not Dracula, closer to Salem’s Lot than anything but just absolutely amazing
Absolutely agree on midnight mass. Holy shit that was good
Midnight mass had some good, but ultimately spent too long indulging in reflections on pretty surface level ideas. It felt like it just needed to fill out runtime with a lot of its dialogue.
Great review. Subbed.
Dafoe gives scritches to a cat in this movie, makes this movie an automatic 10/10 for me
This was my least favorite of Eggers’ films so far. I love love love everything about The VVitch, the Northman, and The Lighthouse, but this one was disappointing to me. Imo the best part was the scenes in Transylvania between the carriage showing up and the escape from the monastery, the carriage scene is sooooo creepy and beautifully shot and the scenes in the castle where Nosferatu is introduced are so atmospheric and Bill Skarsgård’s performance is great and I love the way he’s shot out-of-focus to heighten our dread, and the monastery scene is well-done too but after Thomas leaves and went to back to Germany the movie never is as good again, at least for me. Nicholas Hoult is the outstanding performance in this movie for me and the best part of his performance were the scenes at the castle where he does one of the best acting portrayals of fear and dread that I’ve ever seen. I agree with your comment about the visuals, I felt like the only exception was the visuals in Transylvania specifically of the carriage scene and the castle escape scene, that was so cool and then we just never see anything like that again once the story moves back to Germany. Also hard agree that the movie severely underutilized Willem Dafoe, he only showed up halfway through and he should’ve had way more presence in the film and been there earlier so they could’ve leaned into the silly/campy side more, plus his character really got the plot moving, and I felt like it was kinda dragging in the part between Transylvania and the introduction of his character and could’ve been shorter if he had shown up sooner
Nosfera 1, Nosfera 2, and finally, Nosfera 3. Now the trilogy is complete.
Watched it this evening. Was mid. 5/10.
I couldn't help but think the film is like a boringly shot Andrei Rublev visually.
As a guy born this century and hearing you talk about all the previous big adaptations of dracula, would you recommend an order to watch those films in? Should i just watch the Eggers movie first and then watch these other films later?
In my opinion, you should always start with Murnau's Nosferatu (the 1922 one?) because everyone later had either been inspired by it or attempting at reimagining it. Murnau's Nosferatu is also an incredible film for early cinema
Wife and I just saw it and we loved it. We’re both big Eggers fans, particularly loved The Witch. And it’s funny because the things you didn’t like about it were the things we were gushing about while watching 😂
We loved the slow stable camera moves, and many of the symmetrical shots (though I’ll admit I had the same thought about is this a Wes Anderson horror film?). And I just loved all the historical details and accuracy. Really immersed me in the time period, which is also why I loved Witch. I think that’s a unique thing that Eggers does, is basically make historical folklore dramas, but with a dark horror edge. It feels like truly experiencing dark folk tales as they’re being written.
And the performances were all out of the park. I too never cared much for Aaron Taylor Johnson, but he was a fun character to watch.
With that said, I can see how it could be visually tiresome after a while. A bit more visual variation in the shots/colors wouldn’t hurt. But overall a great Eggers movie and I think an excellent addition to the Dracula library.
Excellent review. I am a huge Eggers fan, and your criticisms are valid. You pointed out some things that pulled me out of the story.
I found the camera and lighting to be engaging because of how it added to the oppressive atmosphere and dread. By no means my favorite Eggars movie, but I still thoroughly enjoyed it. The Lighthouse is still my all time favorite of his
I rly like herzog, but his version feels more like a herzog film more than dracula film, and not one of his best film imo (but ofc a mediocre Herzog film is miles above Eggers). Curious for this one, think the lighthouse is pretty overrated(still quite good though), but the northman was just epic.
havent seen the film myself yet, but i agree about the point with the very precise way of framing scenes, sometimes when the camera is steady and so perfectly arranged, symetrical almost, it doesn't feel as emotionally connecting to the film, to the opposite if camera was more shaky or just handheld, less perfect so, then it feels more personal, almost intimate with the characters, thrilling, but when going for that arthouse look and framing, theres a big distance drawn between delivering and immersing fully in, at least in my opinion
The witch and the lighthouse are some of my favourite films ever, absolutely recommend. The northman is also amazing and also would highly recommend.
Trounces the original, and most other vampire movies. Absolutely needed with all these other unnecessary remakes today, especially bc this one is 100 years old (50 if u count Herzog)
trounces is nuts and herzog sorta washes eggers here. I love eggers movies and i dont hate this one, but its the weakest nosferatu by a p wide margin imo (not really an insult considering the other 2 are some of the greatest ever).
I may be jaded from seeing so many movies, but I thought it was good but not great. If I hadn't seen 100 years' worth of interpretations of this story, I would have probably loved it.
"I'VE ABANDON MY CHILD, I ABANDON MY CHILD!"
You have described his work. If you liked that you will love The Lighthouse and The Witch. Personally, I love it. It’s such a fresh approach that is much needed in today’s film makers.
I really liked how Lily-Rose Depp's character was connected to Orlok in this adaptation in comparison to other Dracula adaptations.
There's this really interesting connection being made with patriarchal societal norms and Orlok's curse; How they are both used to subdue and oppress women for male desire and ego. Once you understand the parallels and see how Ellen is able to destroy Nosferatu, it makes the ending all the more tragic.
In my opinion this really felt like Eggers wanted to do a film where he could focus on the form.
You should totally watch the Lighthouse... Fantastic film with two incredible lead performances!
It is Dracula, but it’s based on the Nosferatu version and aesthetic. The look of Orlok as well as the shadow things and so on.
By the way, the scene were you can see the shadow hand moving above the town is amazing..
The film just can't escape the inherent fact that it doesn't need to exist. We've done this story to death time and time and time again for about 100 years and if you're not going to bring anything substantially new to it then why do it at all?
I honestly think the weakest link in this movie was Aaron Taylor Johnson, because man his acting took me out of the movie everytime. And I know he can be a good actor but this time it was so stilted and I didn’t really find myself believing any line that he delivered.
Yes. Please watch his other movies. Lighthouse. Watch that one brother
Vusual masterpiece aside, If it had been an hour and a half silent film it may have become the greatest vampire film of all time
Instead we got a mangled limony snicket Jim Carrey looking vampire no one asked for
A painfully slow epic failure
0:07 I like her persistence.
"catcher in the rye" copy on the right confirms it: man is carrying gay similarity to a serial killer, specifically Kemper
I actually think there were some comedic moments in the movie i laughed a few times. Like when the count said "we will be neighbors" also when willem defoes character was first introduced. I also lauged when the counts follower bites the head off the pigeon and the doctor was like "now why would you do that sir?"
Might I suggest Frame Voyagers video on the films production/cinematography? Maybe the camera movements were a bit static, but the shots themselves took great inspiration from the artwork of the time. 🙂 My personal favorite was the one of the children praying by candlelight, pulling out from left to right. The lighting is so 19th century realism.
I feel like the framing and lack of camera work in the cinematography is an homage to the original Murnau film (which, obviousy due to its time of production, also looks very static and relies on its expressionist shot compositions to evoke atmosphere).
Based on your review of this movie, I believe The Lighthouse is the best recommendation. The Lighthouse is a pure fever dream.
lighthouse his best movie by a long shot
8:20 except germany wasnt called germany in the time period its set despite the subtitle saying such in the film
It wasn’t one country but it was definitely called Germany. The name for the region dates back to the Romans.
I completely understand what you're saying with the camera work, but i would have used a different example.
If Wes Anderson made a horror film you know the sets, costumes and little details would be captured beautfully There's so much attention to detail in those films everything is meticulously frame so that we as the audience understand the setting, in relation to the characters, and the history of the story. Wes Anderson in conjunction with his cinematographer Robert Yeoman use simple camera movements to frame complex visual ideas. So, while it would be quirky, I would love to see a horror movie filmed like that.
11:28 Spoilers for Nosferatu, people who are not carrying things
So what you mean to tell me is that the Billy & Mandy Dracula is no longer the only Dracula to actually have the mustache that Bram Stoker apparently wrote him with?
I saw The Northman in theaters, and while I could admire its craft, something about it left me absolutely cold. It seems that Nosferatu would give me the same reaction, which is why I ultimately decided not to see it. I'll just re-watch the 1979 remake.
I gotta get down there on Tuesday (that's when Marcus Cinema has cheaper seats)
Since you said you haven't seen any other Aaron Taylor-Johnson movies, I must recommend Nocturnal Animals (2016). I think that one is right up your alley, just don't get scared away by the opening credits scene, as scary as it might be...
That’s me. I am telling you to watch the witch and the lighthouse 😂
Robert Eggers is one of my favorite working directors. I thought Nosferatu was really good! But it is my least favorite of his movies.
I just remembered there was another Dracula film that was made last year. Voyage of the Demeter.
I think you feeling torn between really liking it, OR hating it is actually a testament to the Movie, and often times, the best Art falls in that category initially… I’d be curious to see how you feel about it when you rewatch it… The movie to me did feel very “German expressionist”, and the compositions and framing weren’t “modern dynamic’, instead, leaned towards the kinds of compositions the best black and white movies used to have, great framing, and not a ton of movement, and in general, this tends to be Eggers’ wheelhouse, and part of why he’s a bit divisive.
I am completely at loggerheads with you on this. I love 90% of the film and its really the only last 10-20 minutes that I have a problem with. There is so much build up and rising action only to kind of just stop at the end. If you've seen the original, it is that way in that film as well. I think the point of the film that I kind of lost some of the feeling was when a main character dies. His character just kind of gives up and his arc just stops, and from then on out I felt like this feeling that nothing really mattered and that everything is just going to stop suddenly and well low and behold it did. The characters ended up not having much agency and apart from one sacrifice (that btw didn't really feel that earned) nothing any character did really amounted to all that much. All that said, the first hour and a half of the film I absolutely loved and would recommend.
would love to see you talk about all his films
Interesting comments. I haven’t seen it yet, and I’m trying to temper my expectations. I have seen The Witch, The Lighthouse, and The Northman. Loved, LOVED, liked a lot (more than expected). So I figure Nosferatu will likely appeal to me but I’m not going in expecting The Witch or The Lighthouse. I appreciated your comments on the formal aspects. I would imagine Eggars indeed felt some anxiety of influence and that may have pushed him in a more formal direction.
The actors were phenomenal, and the movie well made. The biggest problem is that I'm just so familiar with the story. I liked how it ended. Ellen having such a large role in the denouement. I liked him being such a demon possession. Felt like notes of Possession in fact.
I think that you need to see Eggers other movies before you judge Nosferatu on it's look. Eggers has a very particular style, his movies are slow, deliberate, and dreadful. I personally love it. Nosferatu the Vampyre is also one of my favorite movies, but I also thought this one was great. I also haven't seen tons of Dracula movies though, only the Nosferatu ones because I think it's cool for some reason
I just got out of the theater after watching and I came to a few conclusions. I really liked the film, it was very artistic and very book accurate, it was also legitimately frightening, unlike many “Dracula” based stories. One reason I feel that they explicitly chose Count Orlok over Count Dracula was that they had different themes to explore. Dracula’s themes are staunchly Tech v Faith and Modernity v Tradition. Nosferatu (name meaning “plague-bringer”) has themes of Contagion, Disease, Corruption and anything that could be considered health (phys or mental) related. Ct Orlok is also definitely disgusting and revolting to look at, while Ct Dracula is just an unsettling older gentleman. Most things in this movie seemed to be explicitly chosen to be the most disgusting the original Dracula tale could be and also the most open to the guilt/sexuality themes tossed in.
Iv never been a fan of [Dracula] stealing away [Mina] as a lover in most adaptations and this one didn’t change my mind, but at least there were noticeable themes or allegories to real life situations around such topics.
The artists, writers, and actors did amazing jobs, but I guess there are just a few points where I would have reworked the script. There are few moments of hope and joy to deepen the sadness in comparison and there are seldom few symbolic presentations of story elements (either lighting or set or shot or props) for the audience to feel accomplished in identifying.
You’re right that it feels like a movie made *right now* and not its own proud, solitary depressing gothic horror style in this era of homogenous filmmaking
TLDR: it’s good in a lot of ways and had very intentional choices but it falls short in certain aspects
Also my first Eggers film, but I honestly thought it was nearly perfect. I also disliked the color palette, but enjoyed the cinematography. Overall, Nosferatu felt like a return to classic, folklore-type vampire stories, as opposed to the last few decades of Twilight-esque, "naturalistic" vampire tales.
If were being super true to historical accuracy do rich aristocratic families usually bury their dead immediately the morning upon discovering their deceased? That felt incredibly jarring.
i think i disagree with the whole "it's closer to dracula" while similar fs it differs in theming and characterization, the one thing that made me mad abt herzogs' versions was the fact that he saw it as an extension of dracula. while yes it was originally meant to be a retelling, the difference made to the story aren't only for that purpose. themes of nosferatu aren't that similar to dracula, and i think herzogs' changes are interesting it's not true to what the original. meanwhile that's the highest praise i can give eggers' version, it takes all the things the original couldn't say and makes them text and it's so good at doing it too.
I highly reccommend The witch, don’t know if you’ll love it but I’m pretty sure you’ll like it
If you haven't seen Bullet Train, you'll love Aaron Taylor Johnson in that as well.
When I first saw The Witch I was blown away by how flatly it refused to do a modern twist. No "what if the witch was good" or "what if the real witch was paranoia" but instead there's a lady in the woods, signed the devil's book, steals babies, flies on a broomstick.
I do hope you got a bit more out of that movie…
@@PauLtus_B Of course. I can rewatch focusing on the language, or the sibling relationship (that conversation about glass? love it), or how the Devil's offer compares to Thomasin's other path of working in someone's house... but that's all from me. It's not the movie overexplaining it to me.