"Nosferatu Could Have Been Excellent, But a Fatal Mistake Ruins It."

The year 2024 in cinema ended on a positive note, as titles like Sonic the Hedgehog 3 and Mufasa managed to attract a young audience, while films aimed at an adult crowd, such as A Complete Unknown and Babygirl, also found their share of success. Most productions exceeded box office expectations, with one in particular standing out above the rest: Nosferatu. Robert Eggers’s dark interpretation of the classic Dracula story is not the typical Christmas release, but it resonated deeply with a niche audience of film enthusiasts and goths, grossing over $50 million to date. Amidst the widely recognized acclaim from critics and audiences, dissenting opinions have also emerged, and in this case, mine is among the critical voices.

As a fan of the vampire horror subgenre, I eagerly anticipated Nosferatu, convinced that Eggers was the right director to revitalize the story for 2024. However, the final credits left me feeling unsatisfied. The film could have been impactful, but a major flaw ruined it for me: the portrayal of Nosferatu itself, namely, Count Orlok.

To delve deeper into this, it’s helpful to go back to 1922, the year the original Nosferatu was released in the Netherlands, becoming a classic of cinema. Subtitled A Symphony of Horror, F.W. Murnau's unauthorized adaptation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula introduced the world to Count Orlok (played by Max Schreck), a vampiric creature with a rodent-like appearance that brings chaos and death to a small German town. The iconic image of Orlok feeding on a young woman’s neck, gazing up at the audience, is burned into the collective memory.

In 1979, German director Werner Herzog revisited Nosferatu in a masterful version that incorporated color and sound, creating a chilling atmosphere that distanced it significantly from the original. There, good does not classically triumph over evil; rather, it transforms into something different, unnoticed by anyone.

Herzog dared to alter what was necessary to adapt to the cinematic culture of his time, which favored grim endings and greater representation of violence. However, he maintained Orlok’s appearance, this time played by Klaus Kinski, making changes to the script and visual language while preserving what made Orlok unmistakable: his terrifying presence.

The question is, why did Eggers choose to modify the unique appearance that characterizes Nosferatu? In an interview, he mentioned that he thoroughly researched vampire folklore to make his Orlok reflect the reality of a deceased Transylvanian noble. This resulted in complex costuming and the inclusion of a distinctive mustache that represented part of the cultural tradition.

However, the final result of his Orlok did not evoke the same terror as his predecessors. Instead, it felt disappointing, with an exaggerated mustache that made him look more like a 70s disco joke than a true villain. Bill Skarsgård, the actor tasked with bringing him to life, was nearly unrecognizable under the makeup, robbing the character of the chance to impress the audience.

In the shadows, Orlok came to be less a convincing character and more a poorly executed visual effect. The last image of the film, where Orlok lies exposed and dead in the sunlight, attempting to create a poetic image, actually transforms into a mere display of the budget allocated for visual effects.

Changing a classic can be valid, but those changes should be for solid reasons, not just the simple need to stand out. Unfortunately, Eggers's transformation of Count Orlok’s appearance did not work, stripping Nosferatu of its unique and disturbing characteristics, and instead presenting a villain who failed to captivate or frighten.

Reflecting on Nosferatu 2024, it’s impossible not to think of Francis Ford Coppola's rich and complex version of Dracula, which preserved what made its character so terrifying and yet heartbreaking. In his effort to provide a realistic and differentiated approach, Eggers lost sight of what made Orlok memorable in the first place.