Poll

If you've seen the film, please rate it at this poll

If you haven't seen the film but would like to see the result of the poll click here

Rankings

Click here to see the rankings of 2024 films

Click here to see the rankings for every poll done

Summary:

A gothic tale of obsession between a haunted young woman and the terrifying vampire infatuated with her, causing untold horror in its wake.

Director:

Robert Eggers

Writers:

Robert Eggers, Henrik Galeen, Bram Stoker

Cast:

• Lily-Rose Depp as Ellen Hutter

• Nicholas Hoult as Thomas Hutter

• Bill Skarsgaard as Count Orlok

• Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Friedrich Harding

• Willem Dafoe as Prof. Albin Eberhart von Franz

• Emma Corrin as Anna Harding

• Ralph Ineson as Dr. Wilhelm Sievers

Rotten Tomatoes: 86%

Metacritic: 78

VOD: Theaters

Summary:

A gothic tale of obsession between a haunted young woman and the terrifying vampire infatuated with her, causing untold horror in its wake.

Director:

• Robert Eggers

Writer:

• Robert Eggers

Cast:

• Lily-Rose Depp as Ellen Hutter

• Nicholas Hoult as Thomas Hutter

• Bill Skarsgård as Count Orlok

• Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Friedrich Harding

• Willem Dafoe as Prof. Albin Eberhard von Franz

• Emma Corrin as Anna Harding

• Ralph Ineson as Dr. Wilhelm Sievers

• Simon McBurney as Knock

Cinematography:

• Jarin Blaschke

Composer:

• Robin Carolan

Quick Links:

IMDb

Letterboxd

Rotten Tomatoes

Box Office Mojo

Does the Dog Die?

Now that I got your attention with this sensationalist title, let’s debate a different approach to “Nosferatu” (2024) ending.

First, let’s talk “foreshadowing” in this story:

• Ellen’s death: Ellen’s death is foreshadowed throughout the film, and even how happy she is “holding hands with death” and marrying death (“I’ve never been so happy”), and Clara (Anna and Friedrich’s daughter) asks if “aunty Ellen has become a ghost”. Similar to “The VVitch” (2015), Eggers’ “Nosferatu” also has a pair of children which are “foreshadowing” devices in the narrative.

• Ellen rejects God: when walking on the beach alongside Anna, they are talking about a unseen force that commands life. Anna says it’s God, but Ellen rejects this, and calls it “destiny”. She also tells Von Franz "I need no salvation".

• Ellen is compared to supernatural creatures: Herr Knock compares her to a “sylph” (air nymph from 16th century Germanic folklore), her father called her “little changeling girl” (as in the European folklore of children kidnapped by fairies or demons and a substitute being left in their place), Friedrich Harding also compares her to a fairy (“her fairy ways”) and Von Franz said she could have been a “priestess of Isis” in Pagan times. Orlok himself says in the prologue “you are not for the living, you are not for human kind”.

• Ellen has supernatural abilities: Ellen awoke Orlok in the prologue with her summoning prayer ("come to me”). This was confirmed by three characters: Ellen, Orlok and Von Franz. In the 2016 script, it was Herr Knock who summoned Orlok with a ritual in the prologue, but Eggers changed it. This is also similar to what happens in “The VVitch” when Thomasin prays for guidance, and the Devil (Black Phillip) is the one who answers.

• “What is Ellen’s true nature?” This a theme throughout the film as well. “Does evil come from within or from beyond?” This is also the subject of Von Franz and Ellen’s last conversation, when Ellen says she has never done ill but to be true to her own nature, and Von Franz says she must be true to it now, because only her can redeem them. In the 2016 script, Von Franz says there’s no good nor evil (this guy invoked both angels and demons in one of his scenes with Ellen, after all), but that didn’t make to the final script.

I wouldn't call the lilacs (symbolic of first love, remembrance and rebirth) "foreshadowing" because they are more of a visual device to symbolize Ellen and Orlok's connection. We see them throughout the film: in the prologue when Orlok reveals himself to Ellen, when Thomas offers her a bouquet of lilacs (which she associates with death), how the scent of lilacs was strong in her wedding day to Thomas, it’s the scent Orlok recognizes in the heart shaped locket, and in the final scene of the movie, when Ellen and Orlok dead bodies are surrounded by lilacs.

There is no foreshadowing for Ellen to selflessly sacrifice herself to save everyone in this narrative, and so that can’t be the reason why she dies alongside Orlok.

“The Covenant”

Ellen and Orlok’s covenant is the “Chekhov's gun” of the plot. Customary to this narrative device, it’s introduced early in the film (prologue), and it’s fired later (epilogue) when everything is clear, and has fallen into place. The “sacrifice to save them all” is the red herring and a MacGuffin (fake “Chekhov's gun”) in the narrative that doesn’t mean anything (it’s a Easter egg to previous adaptations). How you interpret Orlok and Ellen dynamic is of no consequence here, but Eggers calls it a “demon lover story”.

Ellen and Orlok’s backstory, psychosexual connection and “pact” is something unique to this adaptation of “Nosferatu”, it’s Robert Eggers idea. Having no pay off in the narrative doesn’t make any sense.

Eggers introduces the "Chekhov's gun" in the prologue:

Orlok: “You are not for the living*. You are not for human kind. And shall* you be one with me ever-eternally*. Do you swear it?*”

Ellen: “I swear."

And the “Gun” is fired in the epilogue, as Ellen is wearing her wedding dress (reference to "Bride of Dracula"):

Orlok: “Do you accept this, of your own will*?”*

Ellen: “I do.”

Orlok: “Then the covenant is fulfilled. Your oath re-pledged.”

Ellen: “Yes.”

Orlok: “As our spirits are one*, so too shall be our flesh. You are mine.”

What does this covenant means, and requires?

A “covenant” is a pact, a oath, between a human and a deity. What is Ellen pledging herself to, here, exactly?

We have to look at the other character who also made an covenant with Orlok, Herr Knock, his fanatical servant, who wanted to become Nosferatu too (“I should have been the Prince of Rats – immortal”).

The book with the instructions on how to defeat Nosferatu is found on Knock’s office by Von Franz, which is weird to say the least (and Eggers doesn’t leave anything to chance). Why would this fanatical follower of Orlok have a book with instructions in how to defeat his master in his office?

In previous adaptations, this knowledge was with the "good characters" (and it was Ellen who discovered it, and the reason why she decides to sacrifice herself to save everyone), not with one of the villains of the story. This alone is shady, and should tell the audience this adaptation is different, and something is up.

We saw Knock crawling at Orlok’s feet, begging him to command him and saying how he did everything he asked of him. It's clear: Orlok knows about this book, especially since Von Franz (Eggers self-insert in the film) recognizes it as Şolomonari language.

In the 1922 film, Knock remains loyal to Orlok until the end, and even tries to warn him about the rising sun as he’s feeding off Ellen, but is unable to, and dies as a consequence of his master's death. In the 2024 adaptation, everything suggests it’s the same: Knock is loyal to Orlok, even though he came to resent him because he only cares for his “pretty bride” now.

Knock says to the vampire hunters: “I relinquished him my soul.”

This “covenant” is about “selling your soul” to this demonic deity, Orlok. Which makes sense with what he asks of Ellen in the prologue (“And shall you be one with me ever-eternally”). Which is why she tells him she was “an innocent child", in reference to this oath he's asking of her. She's saying she was young and naïve and had no idea of what she was pledging herself to. 

The next bit of information is when Orlok and Knock have a chat, once he arrives at Wisburg “The compact commands she must willingly re-pledge her vow. She cannot be stolen.” Meaning: this pact has to be made of free will.

Orlok proceeds to force Ellen’s hand into accepting him, the same way Black Philip (The Devil) did in “The VVitch”: by pretty much killing everyone around Ellen and Thomasin, until they are the only ones left (it’s different in “Nosferatu” because it’s a re-interpretation of a previous story).

Orlok gives her three nights to accept him, possibly as a reference to how Dracula feed off Mina Harker (Ellen’s book counterpart) for three nights in the Bram Stoker’s novel (“Nosferatu” and “Dracula” are the same, “Nosferatu” (1922) was an unauthorized adaptation).  

In Knock’s office, Von Franz also discovers a cryptic writing, which he translates: "His thunder roars from clouds of carcasses, I feedeth on my shroud, and death avails me not. For I am his."

This appears to mean something among the lines of “I feed on my shroud because death is of no use to me because I’m his.” A "shroud" is a cloth or garment used to wrap the dead for their burial. In another words; "I don't fear death", and "I feedeth on my shroud" can also mean suicide? Or sacrifice? And appears to be Şolomonari philosophy/theology.

We are told Orlok was Şolomonar in life (a dark sorcerer who rode dragons, controlled the weather and a student of the Devil, from Romanian folklore). The old abbess tells Thomas:

“A black enchanter he was in life. Şolomanari. The Devil preserved his soul that his corpse may walk again in blaspheme.”

Which, Von Franz later confirms:

Von Franz: "Our Nosferatu is of an especial malignancy. He is an arch-enchanter, Şolomonari, Satan’s own learnèd disciple."

Harding: "What say you?"

Von Franz: "Further elucidation leads only to insanity. Hence the misfortune of Herr Knock’s decent*.*"

We know that Herr Knock was practicing Şolomonari black magic in the film; we saw him performing rituals, and devote himself to serve Orlok. Now, this raises another question: who exactly is Count Orlok?  

We have no real backstory on him, other than his connection with the Devil, and his physical appearance being of a Hungarian/Romanian nobleman from the 16th century. Many assume he’s supposed to be Vlad III (“Vlad the Impaler”, the infamous “Dracula”) but we have zero evidence of this in this story. 

During the film he’s referred to as: “death”, “shadow”, “monster”, “devil”, “beast”, “un-dead plague carrier”, “vampyr”, “Nosferatu”, “infernal creature”, “Satanic magician” and “night-daemon”. 

Dr. Sievers says Knock is possessed "with some sort of religious mania":

"He is Infinity... Eyes shining like a jewelled diadem. Putrescence. Asphyxience. Devourence."

"Your Lordship cometh! Sew thy pestilence within them, reap their blood, yet spare me! Bestow thy secret art upon me, and I shall serve by thy side! I have not failed your Lordship... thy promised gift awaits!"

We know Orlok most definitely sold his soul to the Devil, and, according to the abbess, the Devil kept his soul so his corpse would walk again as a vampire feeding off the blood of the living ("in blaspheme"). Whose spirit/soul is walking in that corpse? Orlok’s or the Devil? Or both? Since it's the Devil that has Orlok's soul. Ellen calls him a "deceiver", which is what the Devil is, in Christian tradition. She also compares him to a "serpent". He also has far more power than the (average) vampire (“moroi”  or “strigoi” of Romanian folklore) the Romani people kill in the beginning of the film.

When Thomas, Von Franz and Dr. Sievers go to Grünewald Manor to destroy Orlok’s sanctuary, it’s Knock on the sarcophagus, and Thomas stabs him with the iron spike before he can see him. And he wants to be killed, as he pushes the stake deeper into his body:  

"I should have been the Prince of Rats – immortal... but he broke our covenant... for he cares only for his pretty bride [...] She is his! [...] Strike again. I am blasphemy.

Knock's final words are: "Deliverance." Which is... odd to say the least, because “deliverance” has Christian religious meaning with “salvation”, or even “exorcism” (“deliver us from evil”). But it also means “to be set free”. Interesting enough it’s what Von Franz tells Thomas to do, before they open the sarcophagus: “Go forward Thomas. Set free the daemon’s [demon] body!” 

Why does Knock wants to be killed? Nothing in his character arc suggests he’s seeking punishment or absolution for his servitude of Orlok. On the contrary, he’s inside of his master’s sarcophagus. Doing what? Did he know the “vampire hunters” would come to Grünewald Manor? He’s also embodying Reinfeld (his book counterpart) in this scene, by telling the “vampires hunters” about Orlok/Dracula’s interest in Ellen/Mina.

Can Knock's "dead wish" have something to do with: "His thunder roars from clouds of carcasses, I feedeth on my shroud, and death avails me not. For I am his."? He has sold his soul to Orlok, already, and so he doesn't fear death because he is his, his soul belongs to Orlok. But what is missing to complete the covenant Knock seeks? To eat his own shroud: which means, to physically die.

Von Franz is the one who kills Knock, and orders Thomas and Dr. Sievers to “set fire to it all!”, so there's no "Knock the Nosferatu" in the future.

Summing up, what does this "covenant" is and requires?

• Giving/selling your soul to this demonic entity;

• It has to be done of free will;

• It involves physical death to complete it (blood sacrifice).

In the epilogue, Orlok asks Ellen “Do you accept this, of your own will?”. This suggests there has been a previous conversation we, the audience, didn’t see. Orlok most likely laid out the terms of this covenant to her (as customary in oaths and pacts), and she accepted. Ellen is perfectly aware of what she's signing up here and what fulfilling this covenant implies: she has to physically die.  

Which also makes sense with the “And shall you be one with me ever-eternally" and the “bride of Dracula” theme going on here. In this story, vampires aren’t “made” the usual way, like the “Dracula” novel and every vampire story ever since, where the vampire bites and feeds his blood to another, and that person gets turned into a vampire. Orlok victims aren't turned into vampires, they just die. To be with Orlok “ever-eternally", Ellen needs to die in the physical world, for them to be joined in the spiritual world.  

So, indeed, her “willing sacrifice” (which at no point in this film is described as “selfless” from her part, by the way) indirectly saves the world from “Nosferatu curse”, but this is a collateral, a consequence of her covenant with Orlok, not the goal. Because why would she want to be forever joined with Orlok if all she feels for him is hatred? This story is the demonic version of "Wuthering Heights", according to Robert Eggers:

"It was always clear to me that Nosferatu is a demon lover story, and one of the great demon lover stories of all time is Wuthering Heights, which I returned to a lot while writing this script."

And so, Ellen’s behavior in the final scene of the film also makes sense. She embraces Orlok as the sunlight begins to kill his physical form, silently comforting him, and they die in each others' arms. Which is something that doesn’t happen in the 1922 or 1979 adaptations of this story, where Ellen/Lucy just lies there waiting to die and for the sun to rise and kill Orlok/Dracula. There’s no sex going on either, nor a “wicked wedding” Dracula style.

Now, why would Orlok want to die in the physical world, too? Von Franz answers to that in the film: for his spirit to be set free. As Knock says “Deliverance”. Because not even demons want to be a rotting walking corpse.

The knowledge of how to destroy Nosferatu comes from a Şolomonari book, which means Orlok is not only perfectly aware of this “ritual”, but it being in Knock’s office can suggest it has been his plan all along. He wants to return to the spiritual world, and he wants to take Ellen's spirit with him.

The wording of the “ritual” itself is revealing: 

And so the maiden fair did offer up, Her love unto the beast, and with him lay,/ In close embrace until the first cock crow. Her willing sacrifice thus broke the curse, And freed them from the plague of Nosferatu.

"Freed them" who? Nothing in this quote says anything about the "world" or any "town". It speaks of a "maiden fair" and a "beast", and how her willing sacrifice freed *them both* from the curse of Nosferatu. Which explains why Von Franz places lilacs (the flowers which symbolize their connection) around them.

So, in the end, Ellen's sacrifice freed Orlok, and Thomas, and everyone else from the curse of Nosferatu, and she's forever united in "some celestial sphere**" with Orlok... or the Devil?**

At the end, Ellen embraces her own wickedness, and by accepting Orlok, she accepts herself and her own nature, which is the same ending as “The VVitch” (2015): Thomasin was accused by her family of being a “witch”, a “whore” and have a pact with the Devil and that’s what happens at the end; in “Nosferatu” (2024) Ellen is also seen as “deranged”, “diseased” and “supernatural”, and that’s what she becomes at the end, too. 

Hi,

I just finished watching Nosferatu, the latest one. I never heard of this Gothic tale or aware of the previous iterations. It was all new to me but I didn't get the ending. Why did Orlok died? was it the sunlight? if it was, wasn't he aware that he should move back? or was it something else?

Furthermore, why did Ellen die alongside the vampire? Completely escaped me. And what happened at her childhood? How did he come to know and fell in love with her?

Please if any kind soul could help me understand it.

Your help will be greatly appreciated.

saw nosferatu tonight and i'm not even close to a regular movie critic, but i don't know if i've ever seen a worse movie. i walked out of the theater with my mind absolutely blown, (and possibly destroyed). how did this even make it to theaters, and even more importantly, how does this movie have 87% on rotten tomatoes?? it was disgusting to say the least. wish i could bleach my eyes and my brain.

spoiler alert

edit: i will say that i had pretty much no problem with it until she's possessed and says something about her husband not being able to please her like the vampire could, and then in what seems like an attempt to prove a point, they start aggressively banging? like...who had that idea? at that point the whole movie was pretty much ruined for me, and then it somehow managed to get worse as the movie went on, which ruined it even further. i do think that it started off strange, alluding to her as a child allowing this vampire to come into her soul or whatever, it's pretty weird. but up until that specific scene, and the many ones that would soon follow, having any chance of liking this movie was gone for me.

Spoilers for the movie!

Maybe this is just me, but the ending left a bad taste in my mouth.

In the original movie, Ellen allows the count to drink her blood to trap him under the sunlight. That ending to me was fine. This ending...felt icky to me.

Basically to me it sounds like: "Hey, Ellen you need to have sex with the man that has been spiritually raping you for years because we can't help you. So please bounce on that hundred-plus-year-old d*ck to end his terror because we can't."

And I know that sounds messed up but when Von Franz told Ellen: "Only you can redeem us." in my head I am just thinking, so this is the ONLY WAY? And then to Ellen just dying with that corpse on top of her and naked is just...ugh.

Maybe I am missing something here but did anyone else just have a bitter taste in their mouth after the movie

It wasn’t perfect, but as a modern retelling of an expressionist gothic classic with eggers signature style and some modern horror tropes weaved in, it was pretty incredible

The amount of people on reddit who claim they were bored to tears or walked out of the cinema is insane to me

We’re all entitled to our opinions but i don’t understand how you could call it boring? There was a persistent sense of dread that ramped up throughout until it reached a point where if anything things were happening too quickly to digest

They complain that Count orlock had a moustache and was a hopeless romantic incel… his look was more akin to Romanian nobles at the time plus yeah that’s the entire Dracula / Nosferatu character, it’s a gothic love story after all.

They said the characters weren’t very well developed but I believe that’s a stylistic choice, reflecting the source material.

Others say it wasn’t remotely scary… it wasn’t trying to be a true and pure horror film but to say it wasn’t scary whatsoever seems absurd, I’m a seasoned horror viewer and there were a few scenes that sent chills down my spine.

Almost everyone admits the cinematography and score was incredible at least

I don’t want to invalidate their critiques but it seems a lot were expecting this film to be something that it never intended to be.

As for me it was one of the most captivating films I’ve ever seen and I can’t wait for Werwulf

Nosferatu: Directed By Robert Eggers:

Nosferatu is a tale as old as time, however Robert Eggers manages to make something ive seen so many times something I’ve never seen before. This is definitely Eggers version and it shows from the start of the movie right till the terrifyingly anxiety inducing final shot. When I the film finished I found myself paranoid over the dark corners of my house and jumping when the wind rattled my bedroom window. I was totally afraid to close my eyes to sleep. This film is as suffocating as Count Orlok’s coffin. The movie doesn’t let you rest or breathe for a single moment.

Let’s discuss the performances. Well the standout is clearly Lilly-Rose Depp who put in such a draining (in a good way) performance where I was watching in dreaded horror and wondering if her tiny body would break when she has her seizures. She also manages to make Ellen the most complex and interesting character in a film about a vampire. As well as Lilly-Rose Depp, we have Bill Skarsgard as the haunting and intimidating Count Orlok. I don’t have much to say without spoiling anything but I will say he’s completely humanly unrecognizable, I had no idea there was an actor on screen under the makeup, he transforms himself to the point that will have you guessing if that’s really Bill Skarsgard or an actual vampire that Robert Eggers found in Romania. We also have Nicholas Hoult as Thomas Hutter, this is a career best performance from Nicholas Hoult so far for me. He puts energy, concern and real fight into his performance that I just watch in awe. Willem Dafoe is well and truly having so much in his role as Doctor Von Franz, he brings a different kind of energy to the film, he also portrays his character as man on a mission, a mission to destroy the bringer of death. Emma Corin and Aaron Taylor-Johnson also both star in this and both have more screen time than I thought they would going into this, and they both completely hold their own, and credit to them both for once again proving they’re both the film industry’s top rising talents. Lastly I want to speak on Simon McBurney as Herr Knock. I have a feeling this will be the most underrated performance of the Oscar’s calendar. From the moment we meet Knock you feel uncertain and you’ll shift uncomfortably in your seat. Simon McBurney is truly damn right bone chilling, and he’s not even the vampire!

The film is an absolute classic that will be studied by horror film makers for years and years. The cinematography alone is enough to leave you stunned and glued to the screen. You’ll want to look away but you won’t be able too. Please see this in theaters as late at night as you can as you’ll get the full effect then.

Nosferatu (2024) = 9.8/10

This is my first Reddit post but I can’t find anyone else that has thought about this and I really am curious. So from my understanding, Count Orlok’s main goal is to have some sort of soul tie with Ellen and that’s exactly what he did. He got to die with her and feed upon her just as he wanted. With this it feels as if Thomas’ struggle to return to his wife and his struggle to fight for his wife was ultimately meaningless. Because by the end he walks into the bedroom hoping to save his wife but instead he witnesses the victory of Count Orlok.

I think I’m definitely missing something here and I would appreciate if someone could enlighten me. Thanks!

Last night I saw Nosferatu and I would give it a mediocre 3/5 stars.

What do you say? Did it get you? I was relatively disappointed.

I find the story quite boring anyway, even in Bram Stoker's Dracula. Lilly Rose Depp overacted, that was really exaggerated and partly unpleasant for me. Hoult's performance and Skarsgaard in the costume were what carried the film for me. Great camerawork, an uncanny flair and good lighting.

But no suspense in the film and I kept looking at the clock because it was simply boring.😂😂 but just my opinion.

What do you say?

Robert Eggers Nosferatu sat in a weird place in me once I left the theatre. Everything from the production design, the acting, and the cinematography was beautiful to look at and really helped set the mood of the film. My biggest problem is the direction. This movie seems to only go between two shot choices (static shots, and pans). A friend of mine told me this choice was to make the movie feel like an older film which it is able to do with its lighting, and set design. If this is the case however why is there some sequences Eggers chooses to place the camera at impossible angles like in the castle sequence.(one of my favorite parts in the movie). Along with the some plot details in the script I believe the direction led to pacing issues by not having a sense of style. I am curious to see what the director’s cut will bring.

Got done watching Robert Eggers' Nosferatu. I'm still forming my thoughts about the film, but I wanted to try and pin down what I've understood about it and explore the themes the movie explores.

To me, I think the movie is primarily about two things: the wane of mysticism and spiritualism versus the rise of science and reason, and the difference between the lust for carnal pleasures and true love.

The clash between science and spiritualism is epitomized by the clash between Von Franz and Friedrich Harding. I won't talk much about Von Franz since I think his role in the story on a thematic level is kinda straightforward: he represents the occult, or at least serves as a guide to show us that the world is not purely physical and material, that good and evil are forces emanating from God and Satan. However, I think Harding is more interesting, specifically because of his fate in the movie. Harding is a simple man, a man who believes in the results and virtues of science and reason and yet, isn't a scientist himself. He's a mere shipyard worker. He only believes in the material. When his wife contracts the plague, he ignores Franz's pleas and insists the plague is natural, borne out of the vermin. He lusts after his wife and desires her only as an object for sex. He only values her in the physical sense (this is also why Ellen and Anna have such strong kinship with one another). He's a slave to the material, the physical, the carnal. It's this addiction that leads to his doom in the end. Even in death, he cannot lay his hands off his dead wife. He continues to lust for her, and eventually, this kills him. The blind devotion to science and reason is no better than the blind worship of mysticism.

The second clash is displayed by Ellen, Thomas, and Count Orlok himself. First, I want to broach how and why Orlok desires Ellen so heavily. It's implied throughout the movie by multiple characters and Ellen herself that she's always been downbeat and melancholic. But in addition to her melancholy, she also alludes to a sin she committed in her past, namely lust. Ever since she was a young child, it's implied she's been lustful to a fault, even to the point of seeking the company of others despite being with Thomas. Her desires are unable to be satisfied, and hence, she inevitably calls upon the Count to give her what no one else could. Ellen seeks to die; she is trying to commit suicide, and she asks Orlok to deliver her this mercy. Hence why at the beginning, she describes her "wedding" with Orlok as the happiest moment of her life, despite the obvious death it entails for her and everyone else. Life is not good enough for her, so she seeks its end.

Count Orlok represents her melancholy, but specifically the melancholy that arises out of addiction—the loneliness that arises out of the inevitable dissatisfaction of untamed desire and appetite. She hungers for more and more and can never get it; this is simply her nature. Eventually, she calls upon death himself to satisfy her.

Enter Thomas. Despite the fact that Thomas is unable to satisfy Ellen physically, it's clear that she loves him and he loves her. Their love transcends the physical, and for that reason, their relationship survives Orlok's scheming. It's this love, perhaps what the movie is trying to portray as true love, that helps Ellen vanquish Nosferatu. She accepts her nature, she accepts who she is, and with this acceptance, she vanquishes the melancholy that's arisen out of this nature; she vanquishes the Count. I think her final embrace with Orlok is borne out of love for Thomas. Despite the fact that she's addicted to carnal desire, it's also clear that there's something in her that recognizes her love for Thomas—a love that can't be shown in any physical way, through sex or otherwise. She rebukes Orlok's advances and tells him he doesn't know true love, only appetite. In her sacrifice, I think she proves to Thomas and perhaps the audience too, that she is also capable of true love, despite her nature.

That's my interpretation of the movie. What did you guys think? Did I miss something?

Poster made by me, feel free to use it.

Eggers Nosferatu is pure atmosphere with very little to no nuance in its retelling. I honestly thought it was kind of a mess. It looks unbelievable though. Really cool use of light and shadows. With that being said, Nosferatu is Eggers first miss in my opinion.

A testament to the fact that stunning cinematography, production design and a solid ensemble are not enough to make a great film.

Although if you liked a movie like longlegs which many of you seem to have enjoyed, you will probably absolutely love this.

For a movie that originally had no dialogue, this one is filled with nothing but people expositorily talking in dark rooms for scenes that drag on for way too long. Didnt find it thought provoking or suspenseful whatsoever. I think the biggest issue was the fact that none of these characters had any sort of personality or were interesting/dynamic at all which made it tough to become truly invested. They merely feel like props rather than lived in characters. The elements that excite are spaced out between… “fine” or "meh" moments. i repeat, shot beautifully, but just like… cool, what are we doing here and why do we care about these people?

Theres no doubt that Eggers is an absolute craftsmen and a wildly talented auteur, but this one just felt incredibly stiff and hollow. Not a bad movie by any means, but surely a disappointment at least in my eyes having been quite pumped for it since it was announced. Just a wonderfully shot nothing burger of a remake. Of course, this is all just my opinion. try not to crucify me.

Apologies if this has been posted already. Just saw Eggers’ version. Lots to like, but overall I was kind of unsatisfied. Recently rewatched Herzog’s version and I find it the superior film. Werner was able to capture such a mood and atmosphere with less.

Nosferatu (2024) is a fine film that misses the mark slightly while still being a visually pleasing journey through dread.

The good: The scenery, lighting, and some performances created a treat for the eyes. The monster itself is imposing, memorable, and represents a powerful force of nature. Our introduction to Nosferatu in particular does an good job of creating a monster that moves like a predator just beyond our field of vision, who defies the senses and exudes power. Nicholas Hoult does a fine job as a mild-mannered but resolute lead. Ralph Ineson and Willem Defoe are a welcome couple of side characters. To top those things off, the movie itself is paced thoughtfully and deliberately toward its end. The conclusion is powerfully acted and obeys its own in-universe rules. The special and practical effects were all believable from the clothing of the bourgeious to the movie monster's long imposing fingers.

The Bad:

The performances from some characters was off-putting and created the appearance that the actors themselves did not understand the intent behind their lines. Anna Harding's performance appears as one of a high-schooler quoting Shakespeare unsuccessfully while Aaron Taylor-Johnson gave a poor performance in most scenes he was in, coming across as an impotent shadow of the character he was meant to portray.

The lore given in 2024's Nosferatu vs 1929's Nosferatu is expanded upon clumsily, such that the new lore is a mess compared to the sparse details given in the original film. In 2024's version, Lily-Rose Depp's character Ellen had been plagued by Nosferatu her entire life, which creates confusing motivational descriptions for Nosferatu, who only pursued Ellen after her marriage to Thomas (Nicholas Hoult). Atop that, the plot's resolution is strange--one crew goes on an apparently useless adventure while Ellen stays behind to save the day. 2024's version chose not to capitalize on Ellen's self-sacrifice as a 'big reveal', which does not detract from the film itself, but may be perceived as a missed opportunity to showcase strength from goodness in such a selfless way (truthfully, both Mina Harker and Ellen Hutter are characters on whom directors seem to miss capitalizing--but that's a story for another time.)

At risk of comparing 1929's version to 2024's version, a subtheme was lost involving the power of sunlight in dispelling fears, which also feels like a miss as this subtheme was not replaced by anything in the modern version.

The medium: Lilly-Depp Rose as Ellen delivers a fine performance but underdelivers at crucial moments in the film which were then compounded by confusing directional choices which made Ellen appear to be possessed at certain moments in the film. The choreography at those moments in time look awkward--not so much as to ruin the movie, but enough so that you'll be pulled a little into uncanny valley or have your immersion broken. Ellen's virtuous character is muted from the original 1929 film which is unfortunate, however Ellen's interactions with Nosferatu itself are very strong and powerfully acted, creating very high peaks and offputting lows throughout the film.

Overall: This film is gorgeous. It is worth a watch or two. It may even find itself loved among a fervent many, but it is not without it's share of problems. While I had high hopes, this movie will likely not be among those I purchase for home use despite hitting many tones I enjoy.

Horrible, horrific and heartbreaking. Everything that it was supposed to be and more. Egger’s yet again proving his understanding of folklore, removing the glorified version of vampires as the world had come to know them. The film rips away any form of positivity you could have towards Orlok- leaving you feeling repulsed and disgusted by him with absolutely zero redeeming qualities. The first true Strigoi in cinema and nobody could have done it but Egger’s. Bill is unrecognizable both vocally and visually. Lily-Rose is haunting, magnetic and terrorized through not only her dreams but her reality. Nicholas Holt is the perfect Thomas Hutter, as the grief and horror consumes him. Von Franz provides a voice for Ellen, camaraderie, and an opportunity to act as she must- without restraint. Costume design by Linda Muir was something I cannot even put into words. Ellen’s mourning-wear exceeded my expectations and my only sadness came from not seeing her lilac evening ensemble longer than it deserved. The soundtrack was perfection, giving me chills on several occasions and being the perfect background to each haunting shot.

If you are looking for some form of romanticism in the story, this is not your film. The torment is perfectly repulsive and this will be your truest insight to what people of 1838 truly believed the vampire to be. There is nothing about this story that does not make you want to burst into tears for Ellen or detest Orlok to the highest degree. Perfect, perfect, perfect.

Ellen and Orlok are seen dead on bed together and Hutter and the professor find them, with Ellen dead and Orlok this nasty husk. This is a pretty stupid question but what did they do to the bodies afterwards? How would they have properly disposed of a dried up mummy husk that has been walking around for centuries and what about Ellen given she has been defiled from this corpse of pure evil? I don't know, again it is a pretty stupid question but I somehow wonder how people back at that movie's time period would have done.

saw it in IMAX on christmas night and I am going back on saturday and sunday. everything you expect from egger’s is painted in this film. it was immersive, beautiful, disturbing, sensual, and an anxiety ridden ride from the first shot till the end. lily-rose depp’s performance was so physically visceral and deserves its own praise. the use of shadows in each shot and in between scene transition kept me at the edge of my seat all night. those of you have seen it, where do you rank it on your egger’s list? this might be my new favorite movie by him and my favorite movie of all time in general.

Debating if I should see it in the theatre, live vampire themes but I’m a baby when it comes to horror. Is it really scary or more erotic?