Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews21
adamb-49813's rating
If you're there to marvel at excellent cinematography and set design you'll love this film. Truly blown away by some of the often haunting and dreamlike shots. The set design offered absolute immersion in the period it was set and didn't betray it at all while simultaneously helping set the tone the director was going for which I didn't much care for.
As a movie on the whole it felt absolutely devoid of any allure or enjoyment. I'm the first person to go on pedantic rants about how regular movie-goers are spoilt by mainstream media and can't just sit and enjoy a serious or "slow" film. In spite of that I found Nosferatu much too bitter to swallow. It wasn't slow, the pacing wasn't the issue, it just wasn't enjoyable and I suspect the majority of the audience who see this will echo the same sentiment from either side of the fence.
I don't get to decide what makes a film a film, but It feels like an artistic portfolio trying to convey how impressive a shot and moody a tone Eggers could achieve.
I enjoyed seeing some excellent interpretations of the scenes from the book, that felt like they hit the nail on the head if Bram Stoker were to have showed us what he wanted the reader to imagine. The village folk in the carpathian mountains felt that way, as did the victorian streets with rain bouncing off black umbrellas. Delightfully morbid and at times beautiful. Eggers always really nails the historical settings he's going for every time. I was however totally unimpressed by the castle which looked like an empty building site and beyond unimpressed at the appearance of Nosferatu himself. What compelled anyone to to make him 7 feet tall with a giant moustache?
The acting to me felt lacking, but I think the script was the main fault there. William Dafoe impressed me though. In comparison to The Lighthouse I think the method acting there worked so well because the roles given were so vibrant and lively whereas the script here felt flat and the characters weren't at all brought to life no matter how well the actors performed.
This is the utter antithesis of Francis Ford Coppola's dracula that at times was so vibrant and colourful it was cheesy. I see that movie as a work of art, I also see Eggers version the same way visually. Both extreme ends of the spectrum come with their own faults, namely pretentiousness for this one.
As a movie on the whole it felt absolutely devoid of any allure or enjoyment. I'm the first person to go on pedantic rants about how regular movie-goers are spoilt by mainstream media and can't just sit and enjoy a serious or "slow" film. In spite of that I found Nosferatu much too bitter to swallow. It wasn't slow, the pacing wasn't the issue, it just wasn't enjoyable and I suspect the majority of the audience who see this will echo the same sentiment from either side of the fence.
I don't get to decide what makes a film a film, but It feels like an artistic portfolio trying to convey how impressive a shot and moody a tone Eggers could achieve.
I enjoyed seeing some excellent interpretations of the scenes from the book, that felt like they hit the nail on the head if Bram Stoker were to have showed us what he wanted the reader to imagine. The village folk in the carpathian mountains felt that way, as did the victorian streets with rain bouncing off black umbrellas. Delightfully morbid and at times beautiful. Eggers always really nails the historical settings he's going for every time. I was however totally unimpressed by the castle which looked like an empty building site and beyond unimpressed at the appearance of Nosferatu himself. What compelled anyone to to make him 7 feet tall with a giant moustache?
The acting to me felt lacking, but I think the script was the main fault there. William Dafoe impressed me though. In comparison to The Lighthouse I think the method acting there worked so well because the roles given were so vibrant and lively whereas the script here felt flat and the characters weren't at all brought to life no matter how well the actors performed.
This is the utter antithesis of Francis Ford Coppola's dracula that at times was so vibrant and colourful it was cheesy. I see that movie as a work of art, I also see Eggers version the same way visually. Both extreme ends of the spectrum come with their own faults, namely pretentiousness for this one.
True hidden gems tend to have really polarising reviews, some absolutely love it and some hate it. Caveat was no exception and I think it's a truly masterful horror film that really does something beyond unique and manages to be a rare example of modern horror that is genuinely frightening.
This one followed suit review wise and noticing that, going in I thought I was in for a treat. That just wasn't the case, this was just lacklustre in so many ways. There are traces of the brilliance and exceptional tension building from Caveat but its in short supply. There's a clear directorial style that has great potential but fails to shine through the murk of the bad writing, dialogue and acting as the movie goes on till in the end very little good to say remains. It also felt like the movie suffered from trying to be some successor to Caveat rather than finding its own identity.
This one followed suit review wise and noticing that, going in I thought I was in for a treat. That just wasn't the case, this was just lacklustre in so many ways. There are traces of the brilliance and exceptional tension building from Caveat but its in short supply. There's a clear directorial style that has great potential but fails to shine through the murk of the bad writing, dialogue and acting as the movie goes on till in the end very little good to say remains. It also felt like the movie suffered from trying to be some successor to Caveat rather than finding its own identity.