The pacing of this movie was HORRENDOUSLY slow - people were falling asleep where I went to see it. TECHNICAL aspects of the movie are PERFECT, but the storytelling/pacing was painfully slow.
6:05 this is where a quick Google search comes in. The original Nosferatu was never a legally authorized Dracula film and this lead to a couple lawsuits, so they had to change the name of all of the characters including the titular character. Thus Count Orlok was born, and Nosferatu went on to be one of the most influential vampire horrors films of all time. It was actually lost for 7 years after release due to the lawsuit, but eventually they restored. It looks BEAUTIFUL on blu ray
Yeah, I just recently watched it for the first time and had heard a little about it when it was released on VHS back when I worked at Blockbuster, but never delved into the history.
They were sued by Bram Stokers family I believe, since his estate held ownership of the IP of Dracula and they pretty much made a movie based on his novel, was most likely one of the 1st if not the 1st lawsuit regarding copyright infringement of a movie taking from a book.
@@order42show FAVORITE VAMPIRE MOVIES 1) Let the Right One In (2008) - Swedish with English caption #6 2) Interview with the Vampire (1994) #30 3) Nosferatu (2024) #76 4) Dracula (1931) with Bela Lugosi #86 5) Nosferatu (1922) #95 6) Love at First Bite (1979) #189 7) Shadow of the Vampire (2000) #297 8} Hunger (1983) 9} Near Dark (1987) 10) Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) 11) From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) 12) Morbius (2022) 13) Once Bitten (1985) 14) Thirst (2009) Korean with English caption Only the top 7 made my top 375 movies list. The old version is the oldest movie in my favorite movies list and made the top 100 favorite, so it is a great movie for a silent movie. TOP TEN FAVORITE MOVIES OF 2024 1) Nosferatu (2024) #76 2) The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare (2024) #160 3) Dune: part 2 (2024) #169 4) Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes (2024) #352 5) Fly me to the Moon (2024) 6) The Fall Guy (2024) 7) Challengers (2024) 8} Reagan (2024) 9) Bob Marley: One Love (2024) 10) Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin. (2024) Only top 4 made top 375 movies of all time, but the others listed here were worth watching in 2024. FAVORITE OLDER MOVIES in my top 375 list 1) It's a Wonderful Life (1946) #3 2) The Prince who was a Thief (1951) #4 3) The Scarlet Pimpernel (1934) #15 4) Notorious (1946) #27 5) The Wizard of Oz (1939) #56 6) Dracula (1931) #86 7) Nosferatu (1922) #95 8} Scrooge: A Christmas Carol (1935) #132 9) I wonder who's Kissing her Now? (1947) #190 10) It happens every Spring (1949) #252 11) How Green was my Valley (1947) #280 12) Jane Eyre (1943) #294 13) We Live Again (1934) #302 14) Robin Hood (1938) #328 15) You Can't Take It With You (1938) #362
I also found the pacing quite lacking. A beautiful film in many ways, great acting, but I just can't understand the amount of positive reviews it's getting that say it's a masterpiece, the best vampire movie ever, etc.
I think people are really drawn in by the aesthetic of the whole thing. It’s beautifully made, but I’m with you. There just isn’t enough plot to warrant the runtime.
I'm very surprised not one reviewer here has brought up the fact that children on scene were "killed" in this film. It's very rare to see a visual of child death and often implied when children get killed in movies, but Hollywood finally went there.
Yuck. Thanks for the warning. I think I want to see it anyway, but I put down the book after the baby scene, and the book is beautifully written. I love a good slow burn, psychological thriller, but I don’t like disturbing.
@@order42show Yes, after seeing Nosferatu I agree. I think I missed what was going on in that scene from the Bram Stoker movie (I know, dumb, but the atmosphere and wives were distracting) but I didn’t miss it in the book because the mother was outside sobbing. Just like Harding was so broken which also bothered me much more than the child (looked like a doll) scene.
For me it was less about it being slow and more about a lot of time passing without the story progressing. How many dream sequences/possession things were there were it didn’t really change anything?
The movie got some positive early reviews that hyped it up, along with the mysterious marketing that built anticipation, and so now anyone who's opinion is not aligned with that positivity is being treated as though they don't understand good film. And a lot of the defense I'm seeing for the movie and it's portrayal of Orlok is that it's "historically accurate". Okay ... but does that mean it's good? Orlok's character design was completely ineffective and not scary at all, and there are definitely other issues as well, such as cringey dialogue, bad pacing, lack of impactful soundtrack (especially compared to Dracula's), and an ending in which the protagonist group succeeds passively for the most part. As a huge Eggers fan who adores his other 3 films, I'm not going to blind myself to criticism of his work, and imo Nosferatu was a huge miss and left me feeling empty as I left the theater. Dull and disappointing for sure.
I think any time that people try to elevate their stance on a piece of art - well, that’s just weird. I think the way you describe your problems with the film is the perfect way to combat that. It’s all subjective, right? People seem to take criticism on something they’ve attached themselves to as a personal attack. 🤷🏻♂️
I’ve been wrestling with my feelings on it all day after seeing it yesterday. I’m a big Robert Egger’s fan and I was looking forward to this all year. I was profoundly depressed all day lol. Beautiful and boring is a great way to describe it. There’s a lot to appreciate in Robert Eggers’s take on Nosferatu, but I didn’t enjoy the movie for what it was. Still a fine film, but it’s not my thing.
It’s redundant to the Frank Langella Dracula, to the Francis Ford Coppola Dracula, to the Warner Herzog Nosferatu, all of those already did this kind of beautiful visual style. Edgar’s didn’t bring anything new. Also, this is the least interesting version of the Dracula character when compared to those other three.
Of those you listed, I’ve only seen Coppola’s! Need to remedy that… Always room for another, but…it’ll be interesting to see how time favors Eggers’ take.
I really enjoyed this movie. I can understand what you were saying about some of the shots feeling “slow“. Almost like I was expecting something to jump out and scare me. In particular, the scene where Lily Rose Depp pops up behind her friend out of nowhere or when the coach comes to pick up Nicolas holt. A couple of things I really appreciated about the movie was the depiction of count orlock and how they decided to end the movie.. It feels like they really went against type with how they kept him so shrouded in shadow and unanimated. Different enough from the 1922 version and Pretty much the exact opposite of Bela Lugosi,, Christopher Lee, and Gary Oldman‘s performances. I got very strong Rasputin vibes from the character, which I feel works very well because he’s almost a mythical figure in his own right. And the end. I won’t go into detail for the sake of others, but very different as far as the character choosing to defeat him. Not exactly how it plays out in other vampire movies. I’ll definitely need a rewatch to when it comes to home media to see how much I like it, after the excitement of a new movies wears off.
One thing I didn’t say in the review…about halfway through, I was thinking, “I’m excited to watch this again from the 4K disc” because it was just gorgeous…but yeah, by the end, I still appreciated it, but I just have no desire to see it again. Orlok was SOO different to anything we’d seen previously, absolutely. There’s just so many things the movie did perfectly.
Definitely an effective scene. I think one of the things that Eggers’ does better than almost anyone is this visceral tangible feeling to all his movies - you can really feel the dankness (is that even a word?) of the castle, and in that scene you can almost FEEL the cut. Super impressive!
Disagree about Depp on some levels. She had some nice moments (some weak ones as well) but there was not enough emoting with her eyes, which were basically the same throughout. Helena Bonham Carter’s doppleganger. Solid film though. Skarsgard killed it.
I absolutely loved it. My favorite horror experience in theaters. Beautiful, scary, infinite dread, great sound, perfect music. All that said, my wife was so bored. She liked the witch, and Barbarian was her favorite film last year. I think she thought it took itself too seriously maybe? Yeah its a rights thing. The Krauts could not get the rights in the 20s, despite changes they were sued by Stokers widow. Almost all copies destroyed.
Yeah, I think it may be aesthetics - like, I know many who can’t stand the original Blade Runner, but although I get why some think it’s slow, I absolutely love it because I connect so much to the world-building. Maybe I just couldn’t connect to Nosferatu as well.
@@order42show I completely agree with this comparison. I could pretty much watch Blade Runner on repeat but I almost fell asleep during Nosferatu. It felt way longer than it was. It was all slow not a lot of burn.
Yes, changed because of intellectual property belonging to Stoker's widow. All existing prints of the 1922 version were ordered to be destroyed, as far as I know.
I'm not exclusively an "Eggers fan" and I loved it; I found your points to be valid for someone who doesn't like Gothic-style filmmaking, which is slower to create drama and tension. If you're a moviegoer who needs fast-paced, this isn't it, but I'd argue it builds its pace throughout and then moves quickly at the finale. Not an unpopular one but just a very narrow one that, I think, really misses the film style and can't get past "modern movies" and the requirement for fast-paced. Dune suffered with the same style of opinions.
There’s slow, but this felt intentional to me. There are plenty of movies among my favorites that are slow to many others. I didn’t miss the style - in fact, I praised it!
@@order42show It was intentional, so if you don't get that, then you've missed part of the style of the film and the building of tension, which if you don't have, Nosferatu isn't really scary or a force; he'd come off as gimmicky.
Oh, I get it - I just think that movies are almost a guide walking you through a story. Ever been on a tour through a museum where the guide takes forever to move on to the next beautiful painting?
Well, I mean…you may be right. But I guess the more frustrating thing is I obviously appreciate the technical craft side of the movie - I just wish I was more entertained by it.
Yess; we all have an opinion I found it boring and not scary . Plus too dark’ ‘ I mean the cinematography’ in parts I couldn’t see , the 1979 remake directed by herzog ‘ in my opinion is superior to this one ; another very good take on this subject is The shadow of the vampire, 2001 ‘where Willem Defoe plays count orlock, a very good film….
I enjoyed Last Voyage of the Demeter MUCH more than this slog. Yeah it's artsy fartsy, and some of the scenes where Orlock is depicted as a shadow on the wall were kind of cool but man. Second half of the movie everyone is yelling. William Dafoe teleports from his pyromania to the bedroom out of nowhere. Orlock and Depps weird sexual tension was just weird. I thought Demeter's depiction of Dracula was way more effective. Sad that movie did not do well and we''ll never get the sequel the story clearly set up.
I actually wanted to see Demeter when it came (and went), but still haven't gotten around to it. There definitely were some...strange choices. Technically great. As a complete package? Man...some people REALLY love it, I just couldn't connect with it. (AND the slowness...)
The Werner Herzog version, which has some really good stuff in it, he has a static shot of the mountains with music playing that lasts for many minutes, talk about slow!
@@order42show Everyone does, it really holds up quite well. I have been waiting for Eggers version, ever since he started talking about making it, like ten years ago. I've waited ten years, so I'm waiting for the dvd. Thanks my friend.
As a HUGE fan of both the original and 1979 version I can't wait to see this new take especially since Eggers is such an interesting film maker. Not bothered with the idea of it being "slow", Werner Herzog's 1979 version is extremely slow as well but I love that about it. I actually prefer my vampire/Dracula films slow and moody as opposed to loud and flashy which is one big reason I don't much care for the Coppolla version. Good video.
Thanks! I actually still need to see Herzog’s version. I really enjoyed the 1922 version, so…I don’t know, I guess it just seemed like Eggers was TRYing to make it slow. Since you’ve seen both of the previous versions, I’d love to hear what you think after you’ve seen this one.
@@order42show Hey, yes can't wait to check it out! Maybe Eggers WAS making it slow and plodding quite deliberately but even if that is the case I doubt it is as slow as Herzog's version! As much as I love it I freely admit it's not for everyone, definately a weird slow burn art house film.
There was this pacing issue and related to this I think there was too much explaining going on, too much setting up of the final scenes. The atmosphere building though was great. And I agree about how great Stoker's Dracula is. If you think Keanu and Winona are a bit week in this movie then just revel in the over-the-top performance of Anthony Hopkins.
Right! Keanu and Winona’s performances are the reasons which many don’t like it, which I get, but MAN that movie drips with style. Some of the shots are so cool, too, like the one where, after Dracula and Mina are interrupted, Van Helsing is holding up a cross in the foreground and Dracula (as a bat) stomps and the cross ignites and then says “look what your God has done to me”! There wasn’t much in Nosferatu that reached those same heights.
Great review ..I didnt like it at all .I do appreciate the acting and how it was filmed well done ...BUT the vampire looked bad he was not scary the 3 guys who burn his coffin were useless not needed in the movie .There was not one confrontation with the vampire not one not even to try and save his wife .The first 25% of the movie was very good after that All down hill bore .But thats how that director told this story ok i guess ...Man if i was directing id have you at the edge of your seat not sleeping in it . Happy Holidays
Happy holidays to you as well! I totally understand where you’re coming from, but I also get why so many are praising it - it’s got style for days, and someone who really digs that may overlook some of the pacing issues because everything works for them so well.
Good review and comments. I saw it yesterday and said to my friend that younger audiences will be impatient, find it too slow. NOSFERATU, by the way, is a Romanian word for vampire. Eggers changed a major thing: Ellen is haunted by Orlok long before her husband is sent to meet him in this movie. I think Skarsgard's look is less impressive than that of Max Schreck in the 1922 film, a look that I still find very creepy. Here Orlok is an exhumed corpse--it's fine and I like this film in every other way and plan to see it again on video. Lily Rose Depp gives an astonishing performance. We were wowed!!!
For those who are fans of slow pace gothic vampire films you'll probably like this adaptation of Nosferatu. Dracula in the book had a mustache so I'm glad this film will incorporate it. The 1992 film Bram Stoker's Dracula should have been called Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula. That film is the second most faithful adaptation of the Dracula novel while still deviating from the novel in big ways particularly with Dracula being portrayed as a sympathetic monster and the Dracula/Mina romance being added for the Coppola film. The most faithful adaptation being the British made-for-television film Count Dracula which was released in 1977.
THE PROBLEM = NO 🚫 PLOT, NONE😖 The story is (1) little girl pledges herself to a demon, (2) pissed the demon off by getting married, (3) demon is gonna kill folks unless she married/sleeps with/etc him, (4) so she takes one for the team. THE END. Oh, and she died. And also the demon dies. Why? Dunno. Because of her sacrifice as a virgin? Well, she wasn't a virgin...so...well, anyhow, they're dead. And that finally ends a plague, so she probably should have boinged the vamp earlier. In the meantime, there's 2.5 hrs of pointless drama that goes nowhere. She goes into lots of spasms, her husband goes on a long pointless trip, the guy who sent him on the trip is a madman who runs around naked a lot and gets killed, and there's this crazy vampire scientist who helps destroy Nosferatu's coffin for no apparent reason (because apparently that doesn't kill this vampire). Oh, and also there's a whole family that the main characters are close friends with. They all die. Very sad. Some sailors die. There's some gypsies too.
@@order42show Thanks 🙏 just saw the original. Eggers added in more visuals, more sex and more skin. In the original Orlock just sees Ellen's pic and wants that "beautiful neck." Eggers really took his liberty with that element 🤔
Seeing it tonight. Hoping it will show the reactions of the local townsfolk at the beginning, as I lived this part in the book (beautifully written, by the way).
I've read the book a couple of times. It'll be interesting to see what you think - I definitely think that it you're interested, you need to see it for yourself!
@@order42show I did see it - thanks for the review! The townsfolk were wonderful, loved it. Would have enjoyed a longer (and awkward) ride to the castle. I thought the movie could have made more of Hutter’s disbelief in the “peasant customs” and Harding’s disbelief in Ellen’s condition, and then their (the townsfolk and Ellen) turning out to be right. But it did a good job of making the men and Mrs Harding naive (but decent and kind).
They botched Orlock to me, Mustaches aren't remotely scary, about as scary as Burt Reynolds in Smokey, and the bandit, lmao! To me that look is a cop out so the writer don't have to think up a actual scary look. The fake AI art made looked better. Atleast Coppala used the mustache when Dracula was not in scary mode. cause he new it does not look scary.
I’m actually a bit disappointed that when Van Helsing and the others interrupted Mina and Dracula, Dracula didn’t yell at the top of his lungs, “ENGAGE SCARY MODE!” when he turned into that man-bat thing. Think that would’ve put that movie over the edge! 😂
The Nosferatu remake is another example of visuals overloading viewers who are not looking for anything in depth, I blame Tim Burton. There are some major problems with the movie, the ending not the least of them. As someone below mentioned the death of the children, always a risky move for a horror movie, was it really needed? Good review, this is another example of early reviewers claiming a movie is the bestest ever with no real analysis of what is working and what isn't. Got your point on the slow shots, some weird filming there that once again has no real merit. A slow burn is a slow burn, works when used correctly for the right movie, party tricks are simply party tricks, example a lens flare, example b some of the shots in this movie that for no apparent reason are glacial, guess reference to the far better original.
Yeah, I mean - I love plenty of movies that are “slow” to some. I didn’t really feel the depth to warrant the pacing. But the thing is - I’m also guilty of liking movies that really work for me aesthetically. Some of the early reviewers just may really dig the style and it helps them to overlook its shortcomings. But you know, that’s why art is so subjective, and can be really fun to sort of dissect why you like or don’t like a movie!
I saw Northman, didn't enjoy it or "get it", and it caused me to lose interest in Eggers sadly. I'm not against surrealism, which I assume is art and parcel of Eggers work, but the way it was used in Northman really did zilch for me. I won't be investigating Nosferatu!
I enjoyed Northman on a base level, but didn’t LOVE it - actually still waiting for that, because I think he’s really great at building out the world the story takes place in. But I totally get what you’re saying - there are some movies that almost dare you to like them, and I get how that could be off-putting.
I think it was slow in one specific part when they were devising a plan to defeat him but otherwise does what it sets out to do. I was not that impressed with Orlok's visual...hiding him from the audience had a more horrifying effect as it spurred my imagination. Bram Stoker's Dracula is still the gold standard. Egger's Nosferatu stands uniquely from all efforts and stands in a class by itself, but as a story and impact Cappola's effort works better for me. Vampires generally have been nuanced and conflicted but in this effort there is nothing but evil and no remorse.
I think you touched on something that may have been my mean reason for not connecting with it - impact. There were some genuinely chilling moments, but the impact was missing for me - and maybe that’s on me!
To answer rob's question yes the name change the characters et cetera All had to do with the rights To Bram stoker's Dracula They didn't have the right so they change everything they could so they could Make the film Or the story or whatever So yeah it was a right issue they didn't have the right rights
Nope. It's has slower pacing but the story and the characters are nicely moving along. At no point are you just waiting for things to happen. Or waiting cause nothing is happening. It's action packed with visuals and awesome sound that it's never dull and boring. I politely disagree. A second watch may change your feeling. You just need to settle in.
While I love the world-building and the visuals, because I know the story so well, I was impatient with how long it took to get anywhere. The original movie that I watched recently was 94 minutes - this is much of the same story, but in 132 minutes. I'm happy you liked it - it's just not for me.
Plodding is a great word to describe it. I was really hoping it'd be the entire package, because as much as I love Coppola's take, it's REALLY cheesy in places.
Trust your instincts. I felt the same way on my first viewing. Have to disagree on Coppola's Dracula. He comes close at times and it is beautifully shot. The love story aspect is not from the novel and dare I say, corny. "Take me away from all of this death". Really? JT
Oh, Coppola's take is FAR from perfect. It's just more enjoyable of a movie to me, even WITH all the corny aspects to it. I think it's Keanu's scene where he's like "Music?! Those ANIMALS..." and the way he tries to do a British accent...yikes!
Man, you should google stuff before talking about something. The original silent movie did indeed have names changed (Orlok etc.), that was kind of the point because they didn't have the rights for the book.
Oh boy, you really don’t know anything about the original “Nosferatu,” eh? F.W. Murnau failed to get approval for the movie from Stoker’s estate, so he absolutely did change the names, characters, and setting, hoping to get away with doing a knockoff. But it didn’t work. He was found liable for copyright infringement and the court granted the extraordinary remedy of ordering all copies of the movie destroyed. By luck, some copies were found stashed away years later and the original movie was restored. So this new Nosferatu does use all the names and stuff that Murnau came up with.
Um…no, I didn’t know about the history of the original! It was a deficiency in my movie history knowledge that I had never looked into before. Thanks for the info, though!
@@order42showwell this history is almost more well known than the movie itself, but it’s also not hard to find out. It’s all in the Wikipedia article. The part about the copyright infringement is in the introduction of the article and the information about the changes in the names and setting has its own subheading.
Coppola's Dracula is IMHO the WORST of the worst. What an overindulgent mess of bad accents, uneven performances, and melodrama. There are supernatural events in the film that are clearly seen by the audience, and the main characters over and over again with absolutely zero reaction as if it actually did not occur or wasn't occurring right in front of their faces. It is so ridiculous. Each time I wanted to scream . . Didn't you just see X y or z ?? Isn't that unusually strange and weird?? Why in hell are you ignoring it?? Wow ! It happened again . . . . Ok, now this is silly. I was not scared or frightened of Gary Oldman's Dracula a single time regardless of some wonderful FX . . .and like you I saw this originally in a theater . . . compared to Nosferatu where there were times I was gripping my chair and was swept away with the horror . . . . especially during the reveal . . . wow . . . what a monster . . . . yikes.
Well, I mean - I get it! There’s a weird operatic nature to Coppola’s film that I really enjoy. Seriously, I’m happy you enjoyed Nosferatu. Wish I connected to it like you did.
This movie sucked. I spent two days wondering why. Great acting. Great visual. My movie theater needed to turn the volume up. The real problem is it needed more vampires. Not big boss. Regular vampires
Well, I guess in that sense, it was more following that original version of the movie. I actually think that my theater had it a bit TOO loud, but sound quality wasn’t an issue for me. Pacing…maybe a bit more levity.
I get that - I mean, vampires and in particular this story have been done so many different ways. I think Eggers’ is worthy, even if I couldn’t connect with it completely.
I have seen at least 100 vampire movies and Robert Eggers Nosferatu is on the top of my list. I was blown away by this movie. I never seen such a dark and evil vampire movie before.
What? The Last Voyage of the Demeter had a much more menacing, evil vampire. He toys with his victims and was creepy as F to look at. Orlock in this film looks stupid with his big mustache lol.
It is not any slower than other classic movies that were enjoyed before America's attention span went out the window. It's art...deal with it like a big boy.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
The pacing of this movie was HORRENDOUSLY slow - people were falling asleep where I went to see it. TECHNICAL aspects of the movie are PERFECT, but the storytelling/pacing was painfully slow.
Wow, falling asleep? 😬
Watched it twice, slept twice, actually perfect for sleep, very dark, very very dark.
Haha, wow! I have a really hard time sleeping in any movie, but…I can see how if someone was a bit sleepy…
6:05 this is where a quick Google search comes in. The original Nosferatu was never a legally authorized Dracula film and this lead to a couple lawsuits, so they had to change the name of all of the characters including the titular character. Thus Count Orlok was born, and Nosferatu went on to be one of the most influential vampire horrors films of all time. It was actually lost for 7 years after release due to the lawsuit, but eventually they restored. It looks BEAUTIFUL on blu ray
Yeah, I just recently watched it for the first time and had heard a little about it when it was released on VHS back when I worked at Blockbuster, but never delved into the history.
They were sued by Bram Stokers family I believe, since his estate held ownership of the IP of Dracula and they pretty much made a movie based on his novel, was most likely one of the 1st if not the 1st lawsuit regarding copyright infringement of a movie taking from a book.
Yeah, that aspect of it makes the whole story behind it really interesting (at least to me). I really should delve into that!
@@order42show FAVORITE VAMPIRE MOVIES
1) Let the Right One In (2008) - Swedish with English caption #6
2) Interview with the Vampire (1994) #30
3) Nosferatu (2024) #76
4) Dracula (1931) with Bela Lugosi #86
5) Nosferatu (1922) #95
6) Love at First Bite (1979) #189
7) Shadow of the Vampire (2000) #297
8} Hunger (1983)
9} Near Dark (1987)
10) Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)
11) From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)
12) Morbius (2022)
13) Once Bitten (1985)
14) Thirst (2009) Korean with English caption
Only the top 7 made my top 375 movies list.
The old version is the oldest movie in my favorite movies list and made the top 100 favorite, so it is a great movie for a silent movie.
TOP TEN FAVORITE MOVIES OF 2024
1) Nosferatu (2024) #76
2) The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare (2024) #160
3) Dune: part 2 (2024) #169
4) Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes (2024) #352
5) Fly me to the Moon (2024)
6) The Fall Guy (2024)
7) Challengers (2024)
8} Reagan (2024)
9) Bob Marley: One Love (2024)
10) Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin. (2024)
Only top 4 made top 375 movies of all time, but the others listed here were worth watching in 2024.
FAVORITE OLDER MOVIES in my top 375 list
1) It's a Wonderful Life (1946) #3
2) The Prince who was a Thief (1951) #4
3) The Scarlet Pimpernel (1934) #15
4) Notorious (1946) #27
5) The Wizard of Oz (1939) #56
6) Dracula (1931) #86
7) Nosferatu (1922) #95
8} Scrooge: A Christmas Carol (1935) #132
9) I wonder who's Kissing her Now? (1947) #190
10) It happens every Spring (1949) #252
11) How Green was my Valley (1947) #280
12) Jane Eyre (1943) #294
13) We Live Again (1934) #302
14) Robin Hood (1938) #328
15) You Can't Take It With You (1938) #362
I also found the pacing quite lacking. A beautiful film in many ways, great acting, but I just can't understand the amount of positive reviews it's getting that say it's a masterpiece, the best vampire movie ever, etc.
I think people are really drawn in by the aesthetic of the whole thing. It’s beautifully made, but I’m with you. There just isn’t enough plot to warrant the runtime.
Depp's performance was laughable.
Hmm…I didn’t have a problem with any of the performances. 🤷🏻♂️
She's awful.
I'm very surprised not one reviewer here has brought up the fact that children on scene were "killed" in this film. It's very rare to see a visual of child death and often implied when children get killed in movies, but Hollywood finally went there.
Yuck. Thanks for the warning. I think I want to see it anyway, but I put down the book after the baby scene, and the book is beautifully written. I love a good slow burn, psychological thriller, but I don’t like disturbing.
@@lanazak773 agreed, I liked the movie up until that scene. It blows me away that it's not a #1 topic of discussion anywhere.
Well, it's kind of a spoiler - but I guess you haven't seen Bram Stoker's Dracula. It's even MORE disturbing in that one.
It was shown in a quick silhouette. They never showed kids being killed.
@@order42show Yes, after seeing Nosferatu I agree. I think I missed what was going on in that scene from the Bram Stoker movie (I know, dumb, but the atmosphere and wives were distracting) but I didn’t miss it in the book because the mother was outside sobbing. Just like Harding was so broken which also bothered me much more than the child (looked like a doll) scene.
I was bored to death., no pun intended.
That made me chuckle! Sorry you didn’t like it.
For me it was less about it being slow and more about a lot of time passing without the story progressing. How many dream sequences/possession things were there were it didn’t really change anything?
I agree, and for me, since I knew the story so well, it felt inexplicably stretched out.
@ I can only imagine! I didn’t know the story at all, and it was really not engaging, so knowing what will happen must have been even worse.
Well, it’s sort of what Roger Ebert said - it’s not what a movie’s about, it’s HOW it’s about it. And this…well, style can only get you so far.
The movie got some positive early reviews that hyped it up, along with the mysterious marketing that built anticipation, and so now anyone who's opinion is not aligned with that positivity is being treated as though they don't understand good film. And a lot of the defense I'm seeing for the movie and it's portrayal of Orlok is that it's "historically accurate". Okay ... but does that mean it's good? Orlok's character design was completely ineffective and not scary at all, and there are definitely other issues as well, such as cringey dialogue, bad pacing, lack of impactful soundtrack (especially compared to Dracula's), and an ending in which the protagonist group succeeds passively for the most part. As a huge Eggers fan who adores his other 3 films, I'm not going to blind myself to criticism of his work, and imo Nosferatu was a huge miss and left me feeling empty as I left the theater. Dull and disappointing for sure.
I think any time that people try to elevate their stance on a piece of art - well, that’s just weird. I think the way you describe your problems with the film is the perfect way to combat that. It’s all subjective, right?
People seem to take criticism on something they’ve attached themselves to as a personal attack. 🤷🏻♂️
I also felt disappointed with the monster’s design. I thought it resembled Daniel Day Lewis at some point.
Huh…now that I think about it…
I’ve been wrestling with my feelings on it all day after seeing it yesterday. I’m a big Robert Egger’s fan and I was looking forward to this all year. I was profoundly depressed all day lol. Beautiful and boring is a great way to describe it. There’s a lot to appreciate in Robert Eggers’s take on Nosferatu, but I didn’t enjoy the movie for what it was. Still a fine film, but it’s not my thing.
I’m glad I’m not the only one! It’s such a bummer considering how perfect everything else is.
I did not find it slow at all.
I’m glad you enjoyed it!
It’s redundant to the Frank Langella Dracula, to the Francis Ford Coppola Dracula, to the Warner Herzog Nosferatu, all of those already did this kind of beautiful visual style. Edgar’s didn’t bring anything new. Also, this is the least interesting version of the Dracula character when compared to those other three.
Of those you listed, I’ve only seen Coppola’s! Need to remedy that…
Always room for another, but…it’ll be interesting to see how time favors Eggers’ take.
I really enjoyed this movie. I can understand what you were saying about some of the shots feeling “slow“. Almost like I was expecting something to jump out and scare me. In particular, the scene where Lily Rose Depp pops up behind her friend out of nowhere or when the coach comes to pick up Nicolas holt.
A couple of things I really appreciated about the movie was the depiction of count orlock and how they decided to end the movie.. It feels like they really went against type with how they kept him so shrouded in shadow and unanimated. Different enough from the 1922 version and Pretty much the exact opposite of Bela Lugosi,, Christopher Lee, and Gary Oldman‘s performances. I got very strong Rasputin vibes from the character, which I feel works very well because he’s almost a mythical figure in his own right.
And the end. I won’t go into detail for the sake of others, but very different as far as the character choosing to defeat him. Not exactly how it plays out in other vampire movies.
I’ll definitely need a rewatch to when it comes to home media to see how much I like it, after the excitement of a new movies wears off.
One thing I didn’t say in the review…about halfway through, I was thinking, “I’m excited to watch this again from the 4K disc” because it was just gorgeous…but yeah, by the end, I still appreciated it, but I just have no desire to see it again.
Orlok was SOO different to anything we’d seen previously, absolutely. There’s just so many things the movie did perfectly.
What did you guys think of the scene where he cuts himself at the table? That stood out to me.. it made me freeze and catch my breath.. unreal!
Definitely an effective scene. I think one of the things that Eggers’ does better than almost anyone is this visceral tangible feeling to all his movies - you can really feel the dankness (is that even a word?) of the castle, and in that scene you can almost FEEL the cut. Super impressive!
Disagree about Depp on some levels. She had some nice moments (some weak ones as well) but there was not enough emoting with her eyes, which were basically the same throughout. Helena Bonham Carter’s doppleganger. Solid film though. Skarsgard killed it.
Yeah, I really can't fault the acting at all - I'm glad you liked it! Wish I could've connected with it more.
I absolutely loved it. My favorite horror experience in theaters. Beautiful, scary, infinite dread, great sound, perfect music.
All that said, my wife was so bored.
She liked the witch, and Barbarian was her favorite film last year. I think she thought it took itself too seriously maybe?
Yeah its a rights thing. The Krauts could not get the rights in the 20s, despite changes they were sued by Stokers widow. Almost all copies destroyed.
I was disappointed by Barbarian. Only half of the movie was good. Nosferatu was amazing from start to finish.
@@stevemuzak8526i absolutely agree with you about barbarian. My exact thought
Yeah, I think it may be aesthetics - like, I know many who can’t stand the original Blade Runner, but although I get why some think it’s slow, I absolutely love it because I connect so much to the world-building. Maybe I just couldn’t connect to Nosferatu as well.
I also agree!
@@order42show
I completely agree with this comparison. I could pretty much watch Blade Runner on repeat but I almost fell asleep during Nosferatu. It felt way longer than it was. It was all slow not a lot of burn.
Yes, changed because of intellectual property belonging to Stoker's widow. All existing prints of the 1922 version were ordered to be destroyed, as far as I know.
Ah, interesting! Good thing some of them survived.
I'm not exclusively an "Eggers fan" and I loved it; I found your points to be valid for someone who doesn't like Gothic-style filmmaking, which is slower to create drama and tension. If you're a moviegoer who needs fast-paced, this isn't it, but I'd argue it builds its pace throughout and then moves quickly at the finale. Not an unpopular one but just a very narrow one that, I think, really misses the film style and can't get past "modern movies" and the requirement for fast-paced. Dune suffered with the same style of opinions.
There’s slow, but this felt intentional to me. There are plenty of movies among my favorites that are slow to many others. I didn’t miss the style - in fact, I praised it!
@@order42show It was intentional, so if you don't get that, then you've missed part of the style of the film and the building of tension, which if you don't have, Nosferatu isn't really scary or a force; he'd come off as gimmicky.
Oh, I get it - I just think that movies are almost a guide walking you through a story.
Ever been on a tour through a museum where the guide takes forever to move on to the next beautiful painting?
Love Coppola's Dracula but it's the YA graphic novel of Dracula movies in which everyone is miscast. Egger's film is an out-and-out masterwork.
Well, I mean…you may be right. But I guess the more frustrating thing is I obviously appreciate the technical craft side of the movie - I just wish I was more entertained by it.
YA - young adult?
Yes, everyone except Lucy.
You are allowed to use the word boring. Because I´ve seen other reviews use it.
Well, I don’t think “boring” hit it for me. I wasn’t bored, I was just frustrated. I wanted to love it because it checks a lot of boxes for me.
@order42show I haven't seen it. But you're not the first who criticized that the movie drags.
Yess; we all have an opinion I found it boring and not scary . Plus too dark’ ‘ I mean the cinematography’ in parts I couldn’t see , the 1979 remake directed by herzog ‘ in my opinion is superior to this one ; another very good take on this subject is
The shadow of the vampire, 2001 ‘where Willem Defoe plays count orlock, a very good film….
I haven’t seen either of those but I want to!
I enjoyed Last Voyage of the Demeter MUCH more than this slog. Yeah it's artsy fartsy, and some of the scenes where Orlock is depicted as a shadow on the wall were kind of cool but man. Second half of the movie everyone is yelling. William Dafoe teleports from his pyromania to the bedroom out of nowhere. Orlock and Depps weird sexual tension was just weird.
I thought Demeter's depiction of Dracula was way more effective. Sad that movie did not do well and we''ll never get the sequel the story clearly set up.
I actually wanted to see Demeter when it came (and went), but still haven't gotten around to it.
There definitely were some...strange choices. Technically great. As a complete package? Man...some people REALLY love it, I just couldn't connect with it. (AND the slowness...)
The Werner Herzog version, which has some really good stuff in it, he has a static shot of the mountains with music playing that lasts for many minutes, talk about slow!
Yeah, I still need to see that version.
@@order42show Everyone does, it really holds up quite well. I have been waiting for Eggers version, ever since he started talking about making it, like ten years ago. I've waited ten years, so I'm waiting for the dvd. Thanks my friend.
No, thank you! And I also heard that there will be an extended version when it comes out for home release. 😮
As a HUGE fan of both the original and 1979 version I can't wait to see this new take especially since Eggers is such an interesting film maker.
Not bothered with the idea of it being "slow", Werner Herzog's 1979 version is extremely slow as well but I love that about it. I actually prefer my vampire/Dracula films slow and moody as opposed to loud and flashy which is one big reason I don't much care for the Coppolla version.
Good video.
Thanks! I actually still need to see Herzog’s version. I really enjoyed the 1922 version, so…I don’t know, I guess it just seemed like Eggers was TRYing to make it slow.
Since you’ve seen both of the previous versions, I’d love to hear what you think after you’ve seen this one.
@@order42show Hey, yes can't wait to check it out! Maybe Eggers WAS making it slow and plodding quite deliberately but even if that is the case I doubt it is as slow as Herzog's version! As much as I love it I freely admit it's not for everyone, definately a weird slow burn art house film.
Well, now you’ve got me wanting to compare them all! Thanks again!
@@order42show By all means check it out but remember I warned you about it not being for "everyone", LOL!
A slow camera gets us better in touch with what eternity feels like 🎥
You know what? That’s beautifully said.
Thanks. Glad to find your channel ☮️ I ❤🎥
Appreciate that!
It was a rights thing. Bram Stoker's widow sued.
Ah, that makes sense!
There was this pacing issue and related to this I think there was too much explaining going on, too much setting up of the final scenes. The atmosphere building though was great. And I agree about how great Stoker's Dracula is. If you think Keanu and Winona are a bit week in this movie then just revel in the over-the-top performance of Anthony Hopkins.
Right! Keanu and Winona’s performances are the reasons which many don’t like it, which I get, but MAN that movie drips with style.
Some of the shots are so cool, too, like the one where, after Dracula and Mina are interrupted, Van Helsing is holding up a cross in the foreground and Dracula (as a bat) stomps and the cross ignites and then says “look what your God has done to me”! There wasn’t much in Nosferatu that reached those same heights.
Great review ..I didnt like it at all .I do appreciate the acting and how it was filmed well done ...BUT the vampire looked bad he was not scary the 3 guys who burn his coffin were useless not needed in the movie .There was not one confrontation with the vampire not one not even to try and save his wife .The first 25% of the movie was very good after that All down hill bore .But thats how that director told this story ok i guess ...Man if i was directing id have you at the edge of your seat not sleeping in it . Happy Holidays
Happy holidays to you as well!
I totally understand where you’re coming from, but I also get why so many are praising it - it’s got style for days, and someone who really digs that may overlook some of the pacing issues because everything works for them so well.
Good review and comments. I saw it yesterday and said to my friend that younger audiences will be impatient, find it too slow. NOSFERATU, by the way, is a Romanian word for vampire. Eggers changed a major thing: Ellen is haunted by Orlok long before her husband is sent to meet him in this movie. I think Skarsgard's look is less impressive than that of Max Schreck in the 1922 film, a look that I still find very creepy. Here Orlok is an exhumed corpse--it's fine and I like this film in every other way and plan to see it again on video. Lily Rose Depp gives an astonishing performance. We were wowed!!!
Thanks for the kind words! I have lots of patience when it comes to movies - I guess I just couldn’t connect with it. Happy that you enjoyed it!
For those who are fans of slow pace gothic vampire films you'll probably like this adaptation of Nosferatu.
Dracula in the book had a mustache so I'm glad this film will incorporate it.
The 1992 film Bram Stoker's Dracula should have been called Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula.
That film is the second most faithful adaptation of the Dracula novel while still deviating from the novel in big ways particularly with Dracula being portrayed as a sympathetic monster and the Dracula/Mina romance being added for the Coppola film.
The most faithful adaptation being the British made-for-television film Count Dracula which was released in 1977.
His look in Nosferatu is based on 16 century nobleman. Rotting living corpse nobleman. His costume, hair style etc is historically accurate.
There was definitely personality to Coppola’s. I have never seen the British made-for-TV one.
Some will say Coppola's Dracula had too much personality.
Not wrong! 😁
THE PROBLEM = NO 🚫 PLOT, NONE😖
The story is (1) little girl pledges herself to a demon, (2) pissed the demon off by getting married, (3) demon is gonna kill folks unless she married/sleeps with/etc him, (4) so she takes one for the team. THE END.
Oh, and she died. And also the demon dies. Why? Dunno. Because of her sacrifice as a virgin? Well, she wasn't a virgin...so...well, anyhow, they're dead. And that finally ends a plague, so she probably should have boinged the vamp earlier.
In the meantime, there's 2.5 hrs of pointless drama that goes nowhere. She goes into lots of spasms, her husband goes on a long pointless trip, the guy who sent him on the trip is a madman who runs around naked a lot and gets killed, and there's this crazy vampire scientist who helps destroy Nosferatu's coffin for no apparent reason (because apparently that doesn't kill this vampire). Oh, and also there's a whole family that the main characters are close friends with. They all die. Very sad. Some sailors die. There's some gypsies too.
This should be the official synopsis on IMDb. 😂
@@order42show Thanks 🙏 just saw the original. Eggers added in more visuals, more sex and more skin. In the original Orlock just sees Ellen's pic and wants that "beautiful neck." Eggers really took his liberty with that element 🤔
Seeing it tonight. Hoping it will show the reactions of the local townsfolk at the beginning, as I lived this part in the book (beautifully written, by the way).
I've read the book a couple of times. It'll be interesting to see what you think - I definitely think that it you're interested, you need to see it for yourself!
@@order42show I did see it - thanks for the review! The townsfolk were wonderful, loved it. Would have enjoyed a longer (and awkward) ride to the castle. I thought the movie could have made more of Hutter’s disbelief in the “peasant customs” and Harding’s disbelief in Ellen’s condition, and then their (the townsfolk and Ellen) turning out to be right. But it did a good job of making the men and Mrs Harding naive (but decent and kind).
Nice! I’m glad you enjoyed it!
I definitely prefer Bram Stoker’s Dracula. I pretty much walked away from Nosferatu with the same vibe. It just didn’t grab me.
There’s DOZENS of us! 😂
They botched Orlock to me, Mustaches aren't remotely scary, about as scary as Burt Reynolds in Smokey, and the bandit, lmao! To me that look is a cop out so the writer don't have to think up a actual scary look. The fake AI art made looked better. Atleast Coppala used the mustache when Dracula was not in scary mode. cause he new it does not look scary.
I’m actually a bit disappointed that when Van Helsing and the others interrupted Mina and Dracula, Dracula didn’t yell at the top of his lungs, “ENGAGE SCARY MODE!” when he turned into that man-bat thing. Think that would’ve put that movie over the edge! 😂
The Nosferatu remake is another example of visuals overloading viewers who are not looking for anything in depth, I blame Tim Burton. There are some major problems with the movie, the ending not the least of them. As someone below mentioned the death of the children, always a risky move for a horror movie, was it really needed? Good review, this is another example of early reviewers claiming a movie is the bestest ever with no real analysis of what is working and what isn't. Got your point on the slow shots, some weird filming there that once again has no real merit. A slow burn is a slow burn, works when used correctly for the right movie, party tricks are simply party tricks, example a lens flare, example b some of the shots in this movie that for no apparent reason are glacial, guess reference to the far better original.
Yeah, I mean - I love plenty of movies that are “slow” to some. I didn’t really feel the depth to warrant the pacing. But the thing is - I’m also guilty of liking movies that really work for me aesthetically. Some of the early reviewers just may really dig the style and it helps them to overlook its shortcomings.
But you know, that’s why art is so subjective, and can be really fun to sort of dissect why you like or don’t like a movie!
I saw Northman, didn't enjoy it or "get it", and it caused me to lose interest in Eggers sadly. I'm not against surrealism, which I assume is art and parcel of Eggers work, but the way it was used in Northman really did zilch for me.
I won't be investigating Nosferatu!
I enjoyed Northman on a base level, but didn’t LOVE it - actually still waiting for that, because I think he’s really great at building out the world the story takes place in. But I totally get what you’re saying - there are some movies that almost dare you to like them, and I get how that could be off-putting.
I think it was slow in one specific part when they were devising a plan to defeat him but otherwise does what it sets out to do. I was not that impressed with Orlok's visual...hiding him from the audience had a more horrifying effect as it spurred my imagination. Bram Stoker's Dracula is still the gold standard. Egger's Nosferatu stands uniquely from all efforts and stands in a class by itself, but as a story and impact Cappola's effort works better for me. Vampires generally have been nuanced and conflicted but in this effort there is nothing but evil and no remorse.
I think you touched on something that may have been my mean reason for not connecting with it - impact. There were some genuinely chilling moments, but the impact was missing for me - and maybe that’s on me!
Yes, Coppola’s version told a wonderfully complex and haunting story but was miscast (except for Lucy), much like Interview with the Vampire.
Looking forward to seeing Egger’s version tonight😃
Ooh, I disagree there - I enjoyed Interview a lot!
Would love to hear what you think of it!
Maybe my favourite opening to any video you've ever done. 6 stars!
That’s high praise. I had no idea it would be so well received when I was doing it!
@@order42show I lolled out loudly out loudly!
To answer rob's question yes the name change the characters et cetera All had to do with the rights To Bram stoker's Dracula They didn't have the right so they change everything they could so they could Make the film Or the story or whatever So yeah it was a right issue they didn't have the right rights
You always need the right rights! 😂
(And thanks!)
I haven't seen it yet, but the 1970's version was way too slow as well.
Yeah, I heard that it’s…not for everyone! 😁
Lol, thats the point
Nope. It's has slower pacing but the story and the characters are nicely moving along. At no point are you just waiting for things to happen. Or waiting cause nothing is happening. It's action packed with visuals and awesome sound that it's never dull and boring. I politely disagree. A second watch may change your feeling. You just need to settle in.
While I love the world-building and the visuals, because I know the story so well, I was impatient with how long it took to get anywhere. The original movie that I watched recently was 94 minutes - this is much of the same story, but in 132 minutes. I'm happy you liked it - it's just not for me.
Yes , it is painfully slow ! Beautiful but plodding ! And yes I still adore the Gary Oldman Dracula
Plodding is a great word to describe it. I was really hoping it'd be the entire package, because as much as I love Coppola's take, it's REALLY cheesy in places.
Hey yo! Was looking for this one
YEAH! Um…yeah.
It was a boring mess. I dont understand all the positive reviews.
Well, it’s all subjective, right? I think some people just really love that dark and gothic aesthetic, and it helped them forgive its shortcomings.
This is probably my favorite vampire movie.
Wow, that’s some big praise! It certainly might be the most beautiful.
I think its definitely the best dracula adaptation, and the best horror movie ive ever seen in theaters. It never let up.
Clearly you have not seen Vampire in Brooklyn.
It’s one of those movies you know you’ll really like, the only question is how much. Not many of those these days. I’m stoked to see it.
Ok, this made me laugh! 😆
Trust your instincts. I felt the same way on my first viewing.
Have to disagree on Coppola's Dracula. He comes close at times and it is beautifully shot. The love story aspect is not from the novel and dare I say, corny. "Take me away from all of this death". Really?
JT
Oh, Coppola's take is FAR from perfect. It's just more enjoyable of a movie to me, even WITH all the corny aspects to it. I think it's Keanu's scene where he's like "Music?! Those ANIMALS..." and the way he tries to do a British accent...yikes!
Man, you should google stuff before talking about something. The original silent movie did indeed have names changed (Orlok etc.), that was kind of the point because they didn't have the rights for the book.
Yeah, I know that. I just wasn’t sure of the details. But…yeah, cool.
Oh boy, you really don’t know anything about the original “Nosferatu,” eh? F.W. Murnau failed to get approval for the movie from Stoker’s estate, so he absolutely did change the names, characters, and setting, hoping to get away with doing a knockoff. But it didn’t work. He was found liable for copyright infringement and the court granted the extraordinary remedy of ordering all copies of the movie destroyed. By luck, some copies were found stashed away years later and the original movie was restored. So this new Nosferatu does use all the names and stuff that Murnau came up with.
Um…no, I didn’t know about the history of the original! It was a deficiency in my movie history knowledge that I had never looked into before. Thanks for the info, though!
@@order42showwell this history is almost more well known than the movie itself, but it’s also not hard to find out. It’s all in the Wikipedia article. The part about the copyright infringement is in the introduction of the article and the information about the changes in the names and setting has its own subheading.
Visually it was good, but I did not like orlok's look.
Completely understandable. My issues were just story/pacing related, so I forgave the design of Orlok.
Coppola's Dracula is IMHO the WORST of the worst. What an overindulgent mess of bad accents, uneven performances, and melodrama. There are supernatural events in the film that are clearly seen by the audience, and the main characters over and over again with absolutely zero reaction as if it actually did not occur or wasn't occurring right in front of their faces. It is so ridiculous. Each time I wanted to scream . . Didn't you just see X y or z ?? Isn't that unusually strange and weird?? Why in hell are you ignoring it?? Wow ! It happened again . . . . Ok, now this is silly. I was not scared or frightened of Gary Oldman's Dracula a single time regardless of some wonderful FX . . .and like you I saw this originally in a theater . . . compared to Nosferatu where there were times I was gripping my chair and was swept away with the horror . . . . especially during the reveal . . . wow . . . what a monster . . . . yikes.
Well, I mean - I get it! There’s a weird operatic nature to Coppola’s film that I really enjoy.
Seriously, I’m happy you enjoyed Nosferatu. Wish I connected to it like you did.
Loving this comment, thanks! This makes me even more excited to see it!
This movie sucked. I spent two days wondering why. Great acting. Great visual. My movie theater needed to turn the volume up. The real problem is it needed more vampires. Not big boss. Regular vampires
Well, I guess in that sense, it was more following that original version of the movie. I actually think that my theater had it a bit TOO loud, but sound quality wasn’t an issue for me. Pacing…maybe a bit more levity.
The depp lady ruins it. So cringe.
Yeah, I didn’t have any problem with the performances, just the pacing/editing.
I might go see it today
I may be in the minority with this one - you may love it!
@order42show Couldn't bring myself to see it..just not interested 😕 I'll stick with my Hammer Horror films
I get that - I mean, vampires and in particular this story have been done so many different ways. I think Eggers’ is worthy, even if I couldn’t connect with it completely.
I have seen at least 100 vampire movies and Robert Eggers Nosferatu is on the top of my list. I was blown away by this movie. I never seen such a dark and evil vampire movie before.
I get it - the movie just oozes style, and Eggers’ visceral direction makes you feel everything. Happy you enjoyed it!
@@order42show I have seen it 4 times already. Brilliant
Whoa, really?! Wow.
What? The Last Voyage of the Demeter had a much more menacing, evil vampire. He toys with his victims and was creepy as F to look at. Orlock in this film looks stupid with his big mustache lol.
@@alcovitch The Last Voyage of the Demeter was a horrible movie.
One of the worst movies Ive ever seen. Totally unnecessary remake.
Wow, that’s the harshest review I’ve seen yet! Sorry you didn’t like it!
invest in some editing my friend, it goes.a long way.
What do you mean? Too long?
its a movie
That it is!
Movie was boring.
I mean…I read you!
Theater house beer that was served was good.....at least.
😂
Instant classic. And yes, it's a X-Mas movie.
Hahaha, I knew it was coming! Glad you liked it though!
Best vampire movie ever made
High praise! Glad you enjoyed it!
😂😂
It is not any slower than other classic movies that were enjoyed before America's attention span went out the window. It's art...deal with it like a big boy.
Well…I disagree with that. Art is subjective, and my subjective opinion is that I found it slow.