Robert Eggers Thread - Based period film director obsessed with historical accuracy - 'The Witch', 'The Lighthouse', 'The Northman', and 'Nosferatu' (2024 remake)

  • 🔧 At about Midnight EST I am going to completely fuck up the site trying to fix something.
Releasing it against multiple kid movies was a risk that I don't know if it paid off or not. It made 50 million globally but apparently the budget was 50 million so... It most likely bombed or underperformed.

As for the movie: it's good. But it's the same Dracula story that we've seen a million times. So, if you haven't seen a ton of Dracula movies already this might be refreshing. But for me I would take the Herzog Nosferatu or the Coppola Dracula over this.
I'm a fan of Eggers' work (especially The Lighthouse) and I enjoy classic gothic vampire stories, so I feel like I'm going to enjoy this.

My expectations, at worst, are that I'm going to dig this movie for the aesthetics/style and overall vibe of the movie, even if it doesn't manage to surprise me or reinvent the wheel.
 
If I had to predict your ranking if you did watch Nosferatu, it would be this: The Northman > The Witch > Nosferatu > The Lighthouse.
I saw Nosferatu tonight, and loved it.

The performances from Skarsgaard, Hoult, and Depp in particular were excellent while Defoe, Ineson, and Taylor-Johnson were all very good. Some of the cinematogrophy is absolutely stunning, and I really appreciate Eggers' reliance on natural light and period-accurate lighting sources to light his scenes. One shot that I really loved was Thomas waiting for Orlock's carriage at the crossroads in the middle of the forest.

I would easily rank this as one of the greatest vampire movies of all time, and place it far above Coppola's Dracula.

My new Eggers Ranking is this Nosferatu>The Northman>The Witch>The Lighthouse.
 
One shot that I really loved was Thomas waiting for Orlock's carriage at the crossroads in the middle of the forest.
This scene alone threw me for a loop, it was such an ethereal scene with the accentuation of the cross symbolism. The movie is almost worth it just for that scene alone. Since you mentioned the natural lighting, I enjoyed how you couldn't see Orlok's wolves at first, just their eyes.
 
I would honestly give the movie a 4/10. I have no interest in rewatching or ever seeing it again. The ending is had me dying of laughter and it would be hard to retroactively take it seriously

Honestly the more I think about it I dislike the movie on a very hard to express way and i think that what bothers me about it. It's like all the parts work on an individual level but together I just kind of hated it. The acting was good and the cinematography was the best i have seen in a while. I just felt bored through most of it i guess nothing was extremely complex and challenging way. I guess I feel as though a lot of beauty and acting went into for what I find is a subpar story. There was never any tension after the initial introduction of Orlok. The mustache is was killed it for me . He had the same stache as the neighbor from office space.There was just a point I just wanted to walk out because I knew what ever ending was planned iw ould have never been satisfied. I just wish i could put my finger on what makes me hate the movie so much. I tend to like his movies but maybe this one just didn't hit home for me .

TL:DR: I didn't like the movie and just wanted to write something to maybe convey what was bothering me so much about it. I'll take my "To dumb to understand and appreciate this movie" stickers now.
 
I would honestly give the movie a 4/10. I have no interest in rewatching or ever seeing it again. The ending is had me dying of laughter and it would be hard to retroactively take it seriously

Honestly the more I think about it I dislike the movie on a very hard to express way and i think that what bothers me about it. It's like all the parts work on an individual level but together I just kind of hated it. The acting was good and the cinematography was the best i have seen in a while. I just felt bored through most of it i guess nothing was extremely complex and challenging way. I guess I feel as though a lot of beauty and acting went into for what I find is a subpar story. There was never any tension after the initial introduction of Orlok. The mustache is was killed it for me . He had the same stache as the neighbor from office space.There was just a point I just wanted to walk out because I knew what ever ending was planned iw ould have never been satisfied. I just wish i could put my finger on what makes me hate the movie so much. I tend to like his movies but maybe this one just didn't hit home for me .

TL:biggrin:R: I didn't like the movie and just wanted to write something to maybe convey what was bothering me so much about it. I'll take my "To dumb to understand and appreciate this movie" stickers now.
Nah it definitely sucked and I too find myself progressively more and more annoyed that I wasted time and brain space on it in retrospect.

I already mentioned that it's just cuck porn. I am willing to concede that on some level, the original film and the novel could be considered cuck porn, like you could certainly describe them in such a way if you set out to -- "woman tries to resist the persistent coercive advances of a gross creepy old man while hiding it from her supposed lover before ultimately acquiescing," it's the plot of a thousand NTR hentais but also technically an incomplete summary of Dracula. But Eggers' version is just so blatantly cuck porn. Aside from the many instances of Depp faking orgasms in her "trances", the cringey scene where she almost kisses Orlok when he gets there, the cringey "you could never please me like he could" scene the cringey ending -- ALL that aside, between going so far out of the way to paint Harker as impotent and incompetent and the rest of the cast being portrayed as essentially bumbling idiots because they're not privy to the information we're shown as the audience, while portraying Orlok as essentially unstoppable, there's no reason to believe that anybody is going to get anything done except for Ellen, and because of that there's no fucking tension at all. Nothing anybody does can possibly affect anything, we all know Orlok is going to get to Emma, and we all know that the only choice of any consequence in the entire movie is going to be whether Emma gives him what he wants to spare the people around her. Which in the case of this adaptation is graphic sex with a gross creepy old man who isn't her husband, narratively framed as a moral sacrifice but with such an undercurrent of creepy cringey sexual tension that it doesn't come off as a sacrifice so much as an excuse. It's just cuck porn, intercut with transgressive and emotionally disturbing spectacle for, I guess, the same reason as that weirdo who wrote that Metamorphosis hentai does the same thing.

It is a really visually beautiful film and the acting is good but I just cannot shake the feeling that I got tricked into watching a Vixen adaptation of an NTR doujin. And if I haven't made myself clear, I do not want to watch that.

I do not feel intellectually or experientially richer for having watched this film.

Northman > Vivitch > nothing > Nosefartu.

(I didn't watch The Lighthouse because it sounded pretty gay and this experience has only validated that decision.)

Hat sticker me idgaf
 
Nosferatu? More like Nertoraru!

I liked the film. Absolute great acting and visuals. Reminds me that going to the cinema can be actually fun. I hate it that I subconsciously look for niggers in films now, at least there were none here, though they could have took more German looking actors. The villain was great, finally a vampire that is cool.

Also as expected, I fucking coom brained morons who probably call themselves feminists
1736462134229.png

Edit: Some more thoughts:
* I really liked the main characters teaming up. There's something awesome in the "group of well educated upper class men tackling unholy terror" vibe. Especially as it is played straight (somewhat).
* There's a weird scene of the heroine criticizing her friend's husband for bounding her to the bed. An argument that would have had merit if it wasn't for her having seizures and sleep walking, so that action was 100% justified just to keep her safe. Tbf the film doesn't make the husband evil in any way or really frame the woman as being right.
* There seems to be an implications of the husband's unborn son becoming Nosferatu or Alucard but nothing happens unless it was either cut or implied in a gay post credit sequence.
 
Last edited:
Kay, full review time
Its very good, its not quite Northman level but its much better than the other two. Its obviously based off of the Murnau film which I have seen many times cause I love his movies. Now given its just like the others in that its a fantastical period piece, there are some problems with the period piece part of it. Im going to nitpick here, sorry if people arent up for that.
- The accents are english despite this being set in Germany. Obvious one, they could have done a comic german accent instead of a serious one, like with Hugo Weaving in Captain America the first Avenger. Everything is Os and Ahs with soft Ts unlike german which is hard on Ts and Ds. Its still a victorian upper class accent instead of a chav accent so points for that at least.
- Some of the Dialogue feels out of place. Ms Hutter uses "minutes" at one point when "moments" would have been more appropriate given the setting, the writing style and cadence. Same thing with the Aaron Taylor Johnson character saying Damn, Damn as an exclamation or swear seems more recent, something after the 60s. It wouldve been seen as degenerate blaspheming, especially using Damn instead of Damnation.
- Orlok has a mustache. Fuck this, this is terrible, they wanted to combine the 1921 look with the Vlad Tepes look. This is an irredeemable change and it looks bad.
- Clothing is victorian, the coats they wear remind me of the American Civil War uniform which Django wore in Django 1966. Thats what Hutter wears when he seeks Orlok and I find it hard to believe that an English Man in Germany would wear this.
- Its set in 1938 from what I remember of the flashcard in the beginning, could be wrong. The western world had some form of electricity by the 1910s and this victorian industrial city type setting seems much older, sometime around mid 1800s. 1938 Germany would certainly be much different.
- Orlok in the original film was a polite man, even if he was royalty he made sure Hutter felt comfortable which made the subversion halfway through of his vampirism a lot more shocking. This Orlok is just trying to buck break Hutter from the get go to the point of subservience, I know its meant to make him look imposing. Doesnt work, sorry.
- Orloks prosthetics suck, he looks like a zombie vampire, not a vampire. His skin is rotting, his backbone is jutting out, flesh is weak. I know hes a corpse but again, it breaks immersion.
- Lily Rose Depps acting is very mediocre, I guess eggers has to have one bad actor in every movie. In the Northman it was Nicole Kidman, in the lighthouse it was the woman, in this its Lily Rose Depp. There are points where her fear/madness was less visceral than it should be, visibly so. Also her hair part looks like shes bald with a wig on but I guess thats not really an issue.
- They tried to make Knock into a Jokeresque madman which doesnt work. In the original film (Sorry if Im comparing that a lot with this, I like that one a lot) Knock was a real estate agent who was hypnotized by orlok, that much is true. But he was a lot more capable of passing as a regular person, which allowed him to act as Orloks minion till he arrived. Its only when Orlok gets on the ship does Knock gets imprisoned for insanity, if I remember right, and inside prison hes just eerily laughing and smiling instead of eating birds and rats. I think the film even ends on him smile, like ghastly smile. Sorta like a "Victory Achieved" kind of smile. Thats much better than what was done here.
- They cut out a scene in the middle where Hutter is warned by the locals to not go to the castle in the night, because a werewolf was in the woods. I really really fucking miss this cause it wouldve been so cool to see the implications of the woods being haunted by a werewolf. They used a hyena in the original movie to show the werewolf which I found funny. Instead in this, the locals are a bunch of retarded gypsies performing an exhumation, completely pointless quite explicit foreshadowing which couldve been implicit and understated.
- Ms Hutter being a nympho is just bad storytelling, I sort of understand the message of the movie but again, the original film has orlok lusting for her because he likes the pretty young healthy thing. In this its sort of a ying yang, she opened the portal to darkness and now she must close it by embracing darkness, thing. No, bad. It seems to be the ultimate message of the movie, that youre supposed to forgive people like Ms Hutter for her nympho tendencies cause she held the key to saving the world. Very Christian message but doesnt fit in well with this horror movie about vampires, the black plague and rape.
- Too much christian shit, in the original movie there wasnt much attempt by the religious people to defend against or defeat orlok. Nobody could, he was a force of nature with no opposition and there was no van helsing analogue in the movie.
- Last and final, this is probably the biggest gripe I have with this movie (Sorry in advance to wtfneedsignup). The original films message, whether intentional or not, was about how old world immigrants from far off lands bring death disease and backwards things to the civilized world, leaving terror in their wake. It also had a very pervasive undercurrent of antisemitism, given orlok looks like an antisemitic caricature right out of "The Eternal Jew" and given Europe was just starting to ramp up its antisemitism after the pogroms, the mass emigration to America and WWI. That antisemitic angle worked in the films benefit, it still feels extremely creepy and unsettling to watch orlok, this jewish caricature bringing rats death disease filth, everything to what is basically a peaceful industrial society. It makes the film much better than it has any right to be combined with all the other aspects and the technical expertise of the time (color filters representing time of day was exceptionally genius for a silent film). This movie obviously cannot do that explicitly, even if done implicitly it would be completely decimated by the ADL and the press. It leaned more into the rape and blood aspects of Dracula the book which are fine, but you might as well call it Dracula, not Nosferatu and not sell it under Universals monster movie label (the beginning of the film had the retro universal watermark).
I probably have more thoughts which I will have to sleep on to know. Despite all these gripes, its still a very good movie worth watching, not Eggers's best but still very good. The lighting especially was just spectacular.
 
Same thing with the Aaron Taylor Johnson character saying Damn, Damn as an exclamation or swear seems more recent, something after the 60s. It wouldve been seen as degenerate blaspheming, especially using Damn instead of Damnation.
From Dracula (1897):
"I have got such a horror of the damned brutes from recent events that I cannot stand them"
"Damn all thick-headed Dutchmen!"
 
This movie obviously cannot do that explicitly, even if done implicitly it would be completely decimated by the ADL and the press. It leaned more into the rape and blood aspects of Dracula the book which are fine, but you might as well call it Dracula, not Nosferatu and not sell it under Universals monster movie label (the beginning of the film had the retro universal watermark).
Dracula also has the same kind of undercurrent, but it's also missing from most adaptations. One of my favourite parts of the book actually, is when Dracula and Harker are talking:

“We Szekelys have a right to be proud, for in our veins flows the blood of many brave races who fought as the lion fights, for lordship. Here, in the whirlpool of European races, the Ugric tribe bore down from Iceland the fighting spirit which Thor and Wodin gave them, which their Berserkers displayed to such fell intent on the seaboards of Europe, ay, and of Asia and Africa too, till the peoples thought that the were-wolves themselves had come. Here, too, when they came, they found the Huns, whose warlike fury had swept the earth like a living flame, till the dying peoples held that in their veins ran the blood of those old witches, who, expelled from Scythia had mated with the devils in the desert. Fools, fools! What devil or what witch was ever so great as Attila, whose blood is in these veins?” He held up his arms. “Is it a wonder that we were a conquering race; that we were proud; that when the Magyar, the Lombard, the Avar, the Bulgar, or the Turk poured his thousands on our frontiers, we drove them back? Is it strange that when Arpad and his legions swept through the Hungarian fatherland he found us here when he reached the frontier; that the Honfoglalas was completed there? And when the Hungarian flood swept eastward, the Szekelys were claimed as kindred by the victorious Magyars, and to us for centuries was trusted the guarding of the frontier of Turkey-land; ay, and more than that, endless duty of the frontier guard, for, as the Turks say, ‘water sleeps, and enemy is sleepless.’ Who more gladly than we throughout the Four Nations received the ‘bloody sword,’ or at its warlike call flocked quicker to the standard of the King? When was redeemed that great shame of my nation, the shame of Cassova, when the flags of the Wallach and the Magyar went down beneath the Crescent? Who was it but one of my own race who as Voivode crossed the Danube and beat the Turk on his own ground? This was a Dracula indeed! Woe was it that his own unworthy brother, when he had fallen, sold his people to the Turk and brought the shame of slavery on them! Was it not this Dracula, indeed, who inspired that other of his race who in a later age again and again brought his forces over the great river into Turkey-land; who, when he was beaten back, came again, and again, and again, though he had to come alone from the bloody field where his troops were being slaughtered, since he knew that he alone could ultimately triumph! They said that he thought only of himself. Bah! what good are peasants without a leader? Where ends the war without a brain and heart to conduct it? Again, when, after the battle of Mohács, we threw off the Hungarian yoke, we of the Dracula blood were amongst their leaders, for our spirit would not brook that we were not free. Ah, young sir, the Szekelys—and the Dracula as their heart’s blood, their brains, and their swords—can boast a record that mushroom growths like the Hapsburgs and the Romanoffs can never reach. The warlike days are over. Blood is too precious a thing in these days of dishonourable peace; and the glories of the great races are as a tale that is told.”

Most adaptations miss out on the idea of there being types of people, made by their blood, not by their actions; who are different from others. Jonathan in his naive, simple idiocy; brings that violent vicious darkness back to civilised England. He invites in that thing that had destroyed so many people, and driven apart entire nations at the point of the sword, for a bit of money and some social status. He doesn't even consider what he's doing as he journeys through the foreign and all together savage lands, he has no conception of the world as anything other than genteel and pleasant. It's an adventure to him, but to Dracula, it's the invitation by a man, to a slavering wolf into the village.

Not as anti-Semitic for sure, but the undercurrent is there. Also yeah that mustache was fucking terrible.
 
It also had a very pervasive undercurrent of antisemitism, given orlok looks like an antisemitic caricature right out of "The Eternal Jew" and given Europe was just starting to ramp up its antisemitism after the pogroms, the mass emigration to America and WWI. That antisemitic angle worked in the films benefit, it still feels extremely creepy and unsettling to watch orlok, this jewish caricature bringing rats death disease filth, everything to what is basically a peaceful industrial society. It makes the film much better than it has any right to be combined with all the other aspects and the technical expertise of the time (color filters representing time of day was exceptionally genius for a silent film).
I never got the idea of antisemitic angle considering Count Orlock is... well, a count. As far as I know there were very few Jews that got an aristocratic title and none of them belong to the eastern parts of Europe. Vampires in general work better as allegories to Aristocracy as deformed, pale skinned parasites that tower over the people around them.

I wouldn't be surprised that some people will criticise the original film for antisemitism but that's more the usual pre existing biases manifesting. Nu Orlock is more of a brute to counter the modern day depiction of a vampire.
 
The accents are english despite this being set in Germany.
I don't really care for really fake sounding accents. If absolute realism is what you want, cast all German actors and take a massive hit at the box office. It's a standard practice, whereby each character speaks the host language (assumed to be English) and the languages 'foreign'/translated to the main character are heavily accented. It's the same reason why Chernobyl wasn't in Russian/Ukrainian. It's implied they speak Russian but the English reaches a wider audience and is more universal.
Orlok has a mustache. Fuck this, this is terrible, they wanted to combine the 1921 look with the Vlad Tepes look. This is an irredeemable change and it looks bad.
It's true to the history of what a count would have looked like at that time period. I didn't mind it, but I can see why it's a divisive creative decision. I respect Eggers for going ahead with his vision.
Its set in 1938
1830's.

I really enjoyed this one. I like how his films feel very genuine, visceral and the horror elements have a dream like quality - making them seem more believable despite the supernatural subject matter. The cinematography and performances were also great. Props to Bill Skarsgard, I didn't recognise him at all. Music was good too.

I'm not sure why much of the criticism is based on the plot elements that were taken directly from the source material. It seemed fine to me, even if very gothic. I quite liked the darkness of the ending and how Orlok was doomed to death by primal urges.

It's not perfect. There were strange parts: the expectation (and surprise from the other characters) that the father wouldn't be wholly committed to their plan to defeat Orlok having just lost his entire family was pretty absurd to me. When they found him in the crypt and acted surprised that he went mental, it just didn't sit right.

Personally, I'd rank it higher than Northman. I thought much of the action in that film seemed highly choreographed and unrealistic. Which took me right out of the film. But that was probably reflective of the fantasy, folklore/legendary elements of the Norse mythology. The performances were also not as convincing, and I didn't like Nicole Kidman.

Egger's films are great though. Looking forward to the next one.

The Lighthouse >> Nosferatu >> The Northman >> The Witch.
 
Last edited:
This man should have been chosen to direct Salem's Lot, and all of Mr. King's other movies for that matter.
 
  • Horrifying
Reactions: KingNothing
I never got the idea of antisemitic angle considering Count Orlock is... well, a count. As far as I know there were very few Jews that got an aristocratic title and none of them belong to the eastern parts of Europe. Vampires in general work better as allegories to Aristocracy as deformed, pale skinned parasites that tower over the people around them.
If you've seen the original, it's very very unsubtle especially given the context of the holocaust. See it in the way you would a propaganda film and orloks facial prosthetics look like this.
1736738217586.jpeg

Combine that with what the film implies, again it's not some ancient evil cult type film like this one or other dracula adaptations. Orlok is just an old world stranger who wishes to emigrate to the new world. He's in fact a very polite man till he gets on the boat. He's just an immigrant who brings chaos with him, it's that simple.
Obviously I don't think it was intentional, more of an accidental cultural byproduct of 1920s germany.
Maybe not Berserk, but I am certain he would do a version of Faust. Which is probably as close as we're gonna get.
Murnaus faust is his best film bar none. People know nosferatu cause of cultural osmosis but somehow nobody knows this one for some reason. It has better composition, better shots and an even better story. I've always wanted to see a mature animated adaptation of it like say, prince of egypt cause it's kids material, a morality tale. It would win an instant oscar if dreamworks made it with James baxter and it would be the stuff of children's nightmares for time immemorial. I would still watch eggers's version if he made one, I just hope he doesn't insert anything weird or sexual like he usually does. It will not work in this case.
 
Sorry for doubleposting
This is one of the most iconic shots from faust, my favourite one.

1736744479811.jpeg

The context is mephistopheles blocks out the sun, covering the town in shadow and spreading disease decay and death, making his influence more pervasive so people stray further from God thinking he abandoned them.
When I first saw the nosferatu trailer I was absolutely certain that eggers copied it during the orlok covers the city with shadow sequence. Even fantasia copied the exact same thing from this movie for the night in bald mountain segment. Eggers would make a really good remake of this movie, if he has restraint.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: AnsemSoD1
Back