4/10. Here's why:


The title character in NOSFERATU doesn’t appear until around the 30-minute mark. That means that director F.W. Murnau knew about the rule of horror cinema where you do that with the monster in order to create suspense. But after you do that, you can focus completely on him. And you know what? That's what should've happened here! COUNT ORLOK has no real personality. He was interesting enough for me to want to see more of him... but he only appears in a total of 9 *beep* minutes! The rest of the movie is about the humans who happen to be as boring as ORLOK’s hobbies must be (he's a vampire, after all). That’s why I don’t think the movie is good: The ratio between interesting scenes versus the uninteresting ones. Murnau also knew about how to scare. The shots of ORLOK’s shadow and the way he lurks around are insanely creepy. But, because they’re only a few, it’s not enough to save the movie.

You can read comments of other movies (including the rest of the franchise) at http://vits-ingthemovies.blogspot.cl/2015/12/comments-round-up-november-2015.html

Any thoughts?

reply

Sometimes less is more. Remember that.

-Rick Grimes

reply

I know that. I don't have a problem with that; I have a problem with filling the void with bad things.

reply

I just disagree that the void was filled with bad things.

-Rick Grimes

reply

I disagree. Anthony Hopkins was only in Silence of the Lambs for 15 minutes and Darth Vader was only in the original Star Wars for 12. Both films were longer than Nosferatu so they all have pretty much the same amount of screen time when compared to the total runtime.

reply