MovieChat Forums > Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (1922) Discussion > Annoyed by overacting and many flaws.

Annoyed by overacting and many flaws.

posted 14 years ago by Da_wizzZ
44 replies | jump to latest

Hutter is just a nutjob if you ask me. They couldn't cast a worse person than Gustav. Although it's a silent job, i notice someone's awake when he gets out of bed, you do not have to overempasize that by stretching 6 times to show you really awake now. For examploe in the beginning, why is he running around in the house like that. Yes he must go, but thus that make you run around the house like a little child. Yes, again, i'm aware of this being a silent movie. But please overemphasing what you do is just nuts.

Besides was Ellen having visions? How come Hutter was exactly at the same time home from Transylvania as Nosferatu was, while he has been in hospital etc and Nosferatu was going by ship with ghostly haste thanks to his deadly breath?

No horror here, i wonder if peope in the early twenties were actually scared by this movie. Ah well, probably i''m just spoiled by all actors we have seen through the decades.

Just against all other critics, this movie gets from me a 3/10

[–] sponge_101 13 years ago

Gustav is a pretty good actor, that's is just how Germans acted in this period. They were heavily mocked for it when Hollywood and sound film rose to prominence. The film is, while flawed, a masterpiece. Murnau improved greatly, 'Faust' from only 4 years later is a drastic improvement in terms of directing.

EDIT: You know what, I take the first part back, Gustav was just a poor actor

[–] jonnnk 12 years ago

That's the first thing I thought too..We saw you get out of bed...No need to stretch in front of the mirror for a minute and a half! Haha

[–] psychocosmic-1 12 years ago

Oh boy what a thread!
Has everything been said about german overacting?
There must be more than one answer to all this, the acting style a s o.

I know two things thats for sure.. Even in the silent era, there were several kinds of styles. For example, my little Sweden, had a period of excellent
filmmaking that influenced filmmakers in other countries (Swede directors like Sjöström and Stiller). To us today, these films appear to be played in a very
realistic, down-to-earth, non stagey, way and the films were made between the end of 1910´s and beginning of 1920´s. What I want to say is, that the
German temper in the early films had a very "opposite" style than the Swedish. One can compare with other German classics like the Fritz Lang films,
(the Steven Spielberg of the 1920´s), BUT when you watch this film it is quite clear that Hutter IS a sexually inmature man. His wife seems to want
something out of their marriage, especially when its time for Hutter to leave. There is no romance at all in his boyish character. That is why Lucy, who is
utterly hungry for The Passion is a potential pray for the supernatural powers of the vampyre.

The other thing I am certain about, is that the people involved in this film, for example Murnau was a clever director and the guy who "invented" Orloks
features as well as the art direction (Albin Grau) was involved in magic spiritual orders and spiritism, which in turn would make me trust that this
production is immune to accusations from people nowadays that claim the film is made by idiots. It may be the first REAL fullenght horrorfilm (but
Kabinet of Dr Caligari was made in 1919 and the first American horrorfilm was the Barrymore version of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde 1920) AND, films had
been made since the beginning of the century. What I mean is, films with fantasy element, supernatural themes a s o was old hat. Check out Frankenstein
from 1910, Student von Prague 1914 and Golem from 1915 plus a number of Russian silentfilms from that age. It was surely not one of the first films ever
made, right?

Also, there will always be people who cant stand silent films. But we others, can celebrate NOSFERATU as THE horrorfilm of the silent era!

[–] tobias_681 12 years ago

Personally I thought he acted really well. The overacting made it so hillarious and interesting.

"No horror here, i wonder if peope in the early twenties were actually scared by this movie. Ah well, probably i''m just spoiled by all actors we have seen through the decades."

I wonder how people actually get scared by most horror movies nowadays. I was actually a little scared by this movie. I don't know what movie nowadays would be able to do that. Maybe Blair witch Project. I should at some point watch that. Just mostly I find horror movies more than boring. Its often to obvius and I wonder if horror directors know what a story is. Of course there are some good never horror movies too. You don't have to point that out. However many aren't that good.

Well most likely I got most scared by Metropolis. Even though its not even a horror-moie. At some certain point in the movie (somewhere were all the machines exploded) there just was the music combined with the picture and the thoughts behind it. That really got me. Can't understand why you can see Metropolis with 6 in Germany.....

Ok but back to topic. Nosferatu in my opinion was a really good movie with good acting, good pictures and a well known, but interesting story.

[–] TimeTravel_7 11 years ago

Yeah, it was remarkable back then, 100 years ago. But the question is, how do you rate it? Do you rate it 10/10 just because it was one of the best back then, or do you lower the rating because you see that it was far from perfect even back then? It's all about the sentiments and feelings really, you can't be objective on this one.

My top 100:
http://www.imdb.com/list/g41XE9AVM7k/

[–] KingCobra686 8 years ago

Things are never easy when you try to condense an entire movie into one number rating.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

This is the issue. For it's time in 1922 I'm sure it was baller. But now 100 years late it's a very poor film. Unwatchable.

Nosferatu (1922) is a regular on "Top 100 Horror Films of All Time" lists. Sometimes cracking the top 10. Yet films like Final Destination 3 (2006), A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) and The Thing (2011) are way better.

Seriously. Get a bunch of 25 year olds who've never seen Final Destination 3 and Nosferatu, make them watch them and ask which they prefered. It's not a question on what the answer will be. Some snobby, pretentious cinephiles will turn their nose up at uneducated 'millenials' with ADHD but it's not even just age. Get a bunch of 40 years old to watch those two films and the answer will be the same.

Aging is a thing. It's the reason why so many people list the classics of the 70s & 80s as the best Horror films ever and not the Universal Monster Movies, Val Lewton productions, Hammer Horror productions or 1950s Sci-Fi horror. They're too dated for most people. Whilst the 70s & 80s are that sweet spot, old and gold but still recent and modern enough to hold up and be an ejoyable viewing experience.

I tend to rate things relative to todays standards. Otherwise every single old film gets bonus points and leeway, the older the more. What's the point in calling Nosferatu one of the best Horror films of all time if the vast majority of people would derive no pleasure in watching it. It's a historical curiosity for 'film buffs'. That's it. It can be listed as one of the most influential if you like, but it's not a good film in 2022.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 3 years ago

Some films age poorly, so I'm kinda with you there. But many films don't and seem perpetually wonderful to me. Nosferatu is, frankly, one of them.

I watched this film for the first time as an adult. I don't remember how many years ago now, but certainly well past 1922. I'm not going to say it scared me, but I was quite taken with it. In fact, I loved it.

But maybe I just have an affection for silent movies that's uncommon.

While I don't want to say that only snobbish intellectuals can be the gatekeepers of culture, I also don't want to turn the keys over to people who don't care and can't distinguish a quality difference between the storytelling in Nosferatu or Metropolis and the storytelling in 2 Fast 2 Furious. I think there's a middle ground.

Certain images in the film are *striking*, like Orlok rising from the coffin. I'm still touched and moved by the final moments of the film. Ultimately, I must disagree with you on this one; Nosferatu would almost certainly crack my top 10 favourite horror films list.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Hey man to each their own.

I just find it far too dated and I'm aware of the fact that most of the population would likely agree with me. I personally don't really agree with older films getting a metric tonne of leeway and good grace.

Nosferatu is at it's core a blatant ripoff of Bram Stokers Dracula novel. It was hardly a brilliant piece of genius, more so a shameless early horror film with admittedly a good creature design and some nice shots.

If a film came out today ripping of a Stephen King novel and gets sued out of print people would likely rightfully trample on the film for being the work of a hack. But hey, time forgives and people look back on Nosferatu fondly. I just find it funny how people will bad mouth a film like Midsommar for being a 'rip off' of The Wicker Man, bad mouth countless late 90s slashers for being Scream 'rip offs' and froth at the mouth with regards to modern Horror remakes... only to then label Nosferatu a masterpiece and worship The Thing, The Fly and other old school remakes.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 3 years ago

Absolutely: everybody gets their own taste.

I have mixed feelings about giving grace to older films. I give them grace in some aspects. The style is different. I've never found different styles off-putting. For instance, the '70s had a "fly on the wall" camera and acting style. Their comedies are a little bit calmer, but I don't find them less funny for that. (I'm talking generally; I'm sure there are exceptions).

So, in that way I will allow an older film not to lose points just for being old or having older sensibilities. I also respect pioneers. Just because everybody copied the "adventurers helicopter shot" from Lord of the Rings doesn't mean that LotR's shots are worse. Akira Kurosawa and his cinematographer (can't remember the name...) pointed a camera at the sun and dropped it in... Rashomon...? I think...? That shot isn't remarkable today, but I have to give them credit.

But the main reason I love Kurosawa's work isn't because I'm giving it points for originality at the time or giving it latitude because of older sensibilities (or cultural divide) but because Seven Samurai is genuinely one of the best film experiences I've had regardless of that other stuff.

Now, getting into that last point, that's interesting, and it's almost a whole other topic about when people give credit for "ripping off" (they say "homage" or "adaptation", of course) and when they hate revision ("rip off" becomes the term of choice). Yeah, that's interesting to think about for sure. That's largely just perception. I think people didn't like Midsommar's slow pacing or something and, along with not liking the film, they throw on "it's a ripoff" onto the pile. If they like it (I do) they don't accuse it of ripping off Wicker Man.

The other thing is that, I think we might level that accusation when (1) we start noticing the same pattern of the "ripped off" property and that scuttles our enjoyment/surprise at the new work, and (2) the adaptation or homage wasn't up-front. The Maltese Falcon *says* it's an adaptation of the book, and Nosferatu is pretty nakedly Dracula (even if they tried to mask the copyright infringement with name swaps). Midsommar, on the other hand, wasn't marketed or presented as "it's like the Wicker Man", even though it's clearly in that "pastoral horror" subgenre.

That's just a possible theory. I'm just spitballing here.

[–] FilmBuff (7354) 3 years ago

I've never seen Final Destination 3, or either of the two remakes of older films you mentioned, so I can't comment, but I did see Nosferatu in my 20s, and was astounded by it. Sure, it was made at the dawn of cinema, so it doesn't have the polish of modern films, but it looks great and it is creepy as hell.

As for the Universal vs. Hammer debate, the winner is Universal, hands down. It's not even close, at least when comparing the best of both groups. Universal made a handful of absolutely great horror films, and then a bunch of derivative follow-ups, while Hammer didn't make a single great film. Instead, they made lesser remakes.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

To each their own.

But I strongly disagree on your statement that Hammer Horror never made a great film. Oof. With all due respect I'm not quite sure on your knowledge of their films (i.e, how many you've seen). Hammers Monster movies may not be quite as good as Universals overall (some are, in my opinion, namely Dracula and Curse of the Werewolf) but their Sci-Fi and Psychological Thrillers are great. They have a number of original films under their belt.

When it comes to Hammer they've made the following films which I consider to be great;
- Quatermass 2 (1957)
- Dracula (1958)
- The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959)
- Never Take Sweets From a Stranger (1960)
- Taste of Fear (1961)
- The Curse of the Werewolf (1961)
- Quatermass and the Pit (1967)
- The Devil Rides Out (1968)

Then you have a bunch of fun underrated films like;
- Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde (1971)
- Twins of Evil (1971)
- Vampire Circus (1972)
- Captain Kronos, Vampire Hunter (1974)

[–] FilmBuff (7354) 3 years ago

I recently watched the Hammer Hound of the Baskervilles, which was one I hadn't seen before, and found it barely watchable. The Universal version of that film is fantastic, and one I can watch over and over. And no, I haven't seen every Hammer horror film, but I've seen perhaps a dozen, and yet to see one that I consider a good film. I watched The Creeping Flesh a couple months ago, and feel giving it 2 stars out of 10 would be generous.

I'm not opposed to watching another, and I don't doubt they put out some great films here and there, but the idea that a group of randomly selected people are going to prefer the Hammer films over Universal seems wrong. If anything, the easy-to-follow, formulaic nature of many of the later Universal films will be more appealing to the average viewer than the jarring elements that always seem to be present in the Hammer films.

The next time I'm up late with nothing better to do, I'll see if Amazon Prime has one of the films you listed that I've not yet seen, and I'll give it a go.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I'd recommend Taste of Fear (1961), Quatermass and the Pit (1967) & Never Take Sweets From A Stranger (1960) primarily.

[–] FilmBuff (7354) 3 years ago

If'n I watch 'em I'll come back here and let you know my thoughts.

[–] Metal_Basher 8 years ago

I basically enjoyed the first half. Not much horror involved afterwords.

HARLEYS R4 YUPPIES
(my bumper sticker)