J.C. Reviews: Nosferatu Was…Pretty Good, I Guess
by James Coulter
Chances are, if you’re familiar with Nosferatu, it’s for two reasons:
1) It’s one of the most iconic silent horror movies of all time, and
2) Because the titular character has become a recurring character on SpongeBob SquarePants. (No, I’m dead serious!)
In all seriousness, the original 1922 silent film is one of the most notable horror movies of the silent era, what with its German expressionist visuals, its haunting use of shadows, and, of course, the nightmarish design of the vampire character.
So, nearly a century later, acclaimed direction Robert Eggers has taken on the task of directing a reboot of this horror classic. But was it worth bringing this film back from the dead? Or does it need to be warded off with a crucifix and garlic?
The year is 1838. The place is Wisborg, Germany. A young real estate agent name Thomas Hutter has been sent to the castle of the Count Orlok to sign the deed for a new home. However, to no one’s surprise but Thomas’, this enigmatic count living in a country infamous for vampires turns out to be a vampire!
Count Orlok eventually moves to his new home in Wisborg, where his arrival unleashes a deadly plague that…well…plagues the town. Even more troubling, Orlok seeks to hunt down Thomas’ newlywed wife Ellen to feast on her blood and…uh, do other things. Can Thomas stop the vampire with the help of a vampire hunter? Or will Orlok take more than Ellen’s blood?
I never watched any of Egger’s other films. But I have heard they are good: The Lighthouse, The Witch, The Northman. So, unsurprisingly, his Nosferatu remake turned out to be…pretty good.
If you’re familiar with the original silent movie, Nosferatu essentially follows the exact same story. However, now that a century has passed, Eggers is able to do much more with this movie than the original was able to accomplish, both technically and artistically.
From a technical standpoint, this movie has the benefit of being filmed in color, with sound and spoken dialogue, and with much better and more elaborate special effects. Furthermore, perhaps the most notable upgrade is with the inclusion of sex and violence.
Yes, while the original film was undoubtedly hampered by the puritanical censors and moral standards of its day, what with the aversion toward gory violence and explicit sex and nudity, the 2024 remake, in all of its R-rated glory, leans real hard into the gratuitous blood, gore, and sex. Because aside from wanting to drink Ellen’s blood, now, Count Orlok has a great desire to…eh, do her!
While the movie, in contrast to the original film, is shot in color, it maintains a rather muted color tone that essentially makes it feel like a black-and-white movie.
Bill Skarsgård plays the eponymous Count Orlok, and to no one’s surprise, the actor chilled audiences with his performance of Pennywise the Clown in the It remakes absolutely killed it with his equally chilling performance as the infamous vampire.
And while most of the other acting is rather stifled, William DeFoe provides a breath of fresh air with his almost operatic performance of the eccentric vampire hunter, Prof. Albin Eberhart Von Franz.
If I have a nitpick to make…well, I have several. Because while the movie was good, there were a few notable “odd” choices that Eggers made.
For example, Count Orlok has a mustache now. And a bushy one at that! Eh, I don’t think anyone was ever intimidated by a Ron Swanson stache but…I guess Eggers has a thing for mustaches. Also, Orlok sleeps in his coffin naked. Why did we need to see the vampire’s dick? Who but Eggers knows. But I guess it was a choice.
Also, while this film has no scruples with leaning into its R-rating with nudity, some of the choices for nude and sex scenes were…questionable.
For example, at the start of the film, Thomas spies on a group of villages leading a naked woman on a horse to the grave of a vampire. Why is she naked? Well, you’d assume it’s to lure the vampire out. But, no. The villagers just exhume his corpse and drive a stake into his chest no problem. So, why bring along the naked chick? You know, aside from having a naked chick on screen?
There’s also a sex scene that’s…well, curious. It’s between Thomas and his wife Ellen. Thing is, he decides to do it with her right after she suffers an epileptic fit with her ranting gibberish and with vomit running still down her cheek. Then he decides to do it with her…fully clothed. (Eh, kinky?)
Look. I’m not saying this movie was bad. It’s just one of those movies that I can agree was good but that I didn’t personally jive with. Aside from the odd filmmaking choices, the overall film was more than two hours long…and it certainly felt longer watching it.
Overall, if you’re a horror fan who’s into the classics, then you’ll certainly get some enjoyment watching this remake of a horror classic. For me, though, I feel like I need to watch something with more excitement and less…old vampire dong.
