Nosferatu (2024) Dir: Robert Eggers
Instagram post:
It will come as no surprise, for those who know my taste in films and literature, to know that I adore 'Dracula'. This love extends to the 1922 adaptation by F.W. Murnau. And now, a century-or-so later, I got to see the film based on a film based on the most famous vampire novel of all-time on the big screen. The moment this was announced, and with Robert Eggers as director, my excitement levels went through the roof.
There were a lot of aspects of this film that I absolutely loved, but, equally, a number of them that I very much did not. The soundtrack, for example, was incredibly sinister and atmospheric. It complimented the film's visuals perfectly. To that end, a lot of the cinematography was exquisite, for the most part, albeit there were a few janky looking shots here and there.
The lighting wasn't as poor as I expected it to be, but it would be a lie to say that there weren't some scenes that were painfully dark. That said, I loved the use of darkness and dark blue tones - it gave the film a feel similar to that of the 1922 original, though certainly a modernised one. The costume design was immaculate for all except, funnily enough, Count Orlock himself, who looked a bit like a mouldy 'Dr. Robotnik'.
The narrative was, understandably, quite loyal to both Murnau's 'Nosferatu' and Stoker's 'Dracula', albeit with the inevitable Eggers eccentricities. I didn't mind the alterations for the most part, although, there was something to be said about the true agency of the film's protagonist, in that, she arguably didn't have too much, when it came to the film's climax. That said, it worked for the film, and it was certainly in-keeping with the eroticism and horror of the vampire genre.
I have seen some people saying that they didn't like Lily-Rose Depp's performance in this film, but I personally thought that she did a superb job. Her expression of vulnerability, desperation, fear and, ultimately, defiance, was excellent, and her dialogue delivery was truly eloquent. For my money, she was the best actor in the film by some distance.
Having just said that, I also thought that Nicholas Hoult was very, very, good. Rarely have I felt the sheer terror of an actor permeate the screen as I did with Hoult during the first half of this film. His performance wained a little in the second half, though that had as much to do with the slightly stagnant writing as anything else, in fairness.
Bill Skarsgård's physical acting and voice work was clearly something he committed to greatly, and while I appreciated the vast majority of it, some of it came across a tiny bit cartoonish. However, I can't fault his presence - he was very sinister. I wish I'd liked his character design more, but it just wasn't quite as creepy and haunting as it should've been, in my opinion.
Of the supporting cast, it was very clear to me that Willem Dafoe provided the best of the acting, while Ralph Ineson also deserves a mention for his very decent performance. However, while I didn't mind the acting of both Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Emma Corrin, their characters lacked the depth required to make their characters feel as well-rounded as their importance to the plot warranted.
Overall, my emotions towards this film have changed a lot just in the time it has taken me to write this review. It would be fair to say that it is a film that has decreased in my estimations, since the credits initially rolled. First, I loved it, then I kind of hated it, now I find myself leaning more towards liking it a fair bit, but not as much as I had hoped I would. It was a good adaptation of a classic, but didn't quite do it for me, in regards to certain features. It could've gone even further with the horror aspects, for one thing.
Comments