I think so, less garish.
I really like Bram Stoker's Dracula but for me it's always been an uneven movie. A movie with some great strengths namely the OST, costumes and general production values. Some of the cast do very well too but it's always been a bit too theatrical and tonally uneven, fairly camp and silly at times.
Nosferatu is more gothic and refined.
I'm not a huge fan of Coppola's movie, apart from a few scenes. Good that this sounds as though it could be better.
shareI think this movie had a stronger screenplay, but the FFC film had a much more interesting visual style.
shareI love Bram Stoker's Dracula and can agree that it is uneven.
I haven't seen Nosferatu, but have seen the trailer and plan to see the film.
Based on the trailer and your post, the two films seem to be apples and oranges and not comparable.
I had this hope too as I love the tone and style of BSD. Nosferatu definitely started out as a contender, but it couldn't keep it up as it went on. It fizzled out for me.
BSD had Hopkins, Oldman, Ryder, Reeves (joking on that one). BSD had some genuinely freaky shit in it - and I'm not talking about Oldman's purple lenses. The brides, the stomping man made of rats, Wojciech Kilar's INSANE score, and Oldman just being Oldman. I mean you could feel the ache, love, and pain of Oldman's vampire. You almost had sympathy for him
I really liked the first 1/4 of Nosferatu a LOT. But in the end, it's just a disfigured vampire fucking and sucking Johnny Depp's daughter 'till the sun comes up. Holla! 🦇💦🩸💦🩸
I felt the same about Nosferatu. It had a very strong first half but it just loses momentum and drags on after that. The movie has a lot of atmosphere but that's basically it.
share'Reeves (joking on that one)'
😆
I disagree with your interpretation of the ending. Although I remember it being more powerfully executed in Murnau's original version, I think Eggers did a great job.
SPOILERS BELOW
For me, Ellen's sacrifice is beautifully tragic. Having exhausted other attempts to combat Orlock, and facing a plague that threatens to boil over and destroy countless lives - perhaps devastating the country - Ellen seals her own fate. She takes on a damnation on behalf of those she loves, to save her town, her friends, and her husband. In Eggers' version, where Ellen has previously escaped from an abusive relationship metaphor with Orlock, there is an added note that makes it particularly brutal for Ellen.
But, at its core, this is an invocation of defending against a vampire with a crucifix. Two pieces of wood do not ward off evil. The element that works is the power of Christ. (I'm not proselytizing, I'm speaking within certain strains of vampiric lore). What Ellen does is model this sacrifice, and in so doing, she undoes Orlock completely.
Furthermore, in a cinematic climate inundated with filmmakers flailing around, trying to make "strong female characters" but not knowing how to write them as interesting, we see Ellen given flaws (compacts with darkness to satisfy lusts), struggles, and the power to defeat those evils without just making her a generic action hero.
I'm not knocking BSD - I like that movie a lot, too - but I just want to push back on Nosferatu not sticking the ending.
BSD all the way for me. This was very cinematic, thanks to today's advancements, but it can't compare to the '92 version.
shareDracula ‘92 is Francis Ford Coppola showing his last gasp of visual and cinematic genius, despite the camp factor. A true feast for the eyes and ears.
Nosferatu 2024 is an entertaining gothic/lovecraftian fan-service film, although Eggers on his best day doesn’t measure up to Coppola firing on half cylinders in Dracula.
I wouldn't compare them.
Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) looks more a like fairy tale, everything too polished, too nice, not too scary. People go watch it to see pretty actors. Although I would say the story is more interesting, Nosferatu is more straightforward.
I prefer Nosferatu, but they are very different movies. BSD is more colourful, obviously, but I don't think I'd say it's more campy. Consider the Van Helsings (well, Dafoe wasn't technically named Van Helsing, but it was the same role). Both of them are eccentric. I don't think Hopkins' performance is more campy than Dafoe's.
It is theatrical, though, and if I'm in the mood for that, BSD is perfect. Nosferatu is more unsettling. It seems more genuinely eerie and frightening than BSD, in which I never really feel that same sense of terror.
Both films look incredible. They're shot brilliantly. They have great design work. They are accomplishing different goals, but the uncanny look of the strange, red-gowned Gary Oldman isn't less of an accomplishment than the shadow-shrouded corpse that Skarsgard gives us.
And as for uneven - I agree here. This might be why I prefer Nosferatu, ultimately. BSD has some obvious low points in casting. Well, mostly Keanu Reeves. I like Reeves - I actually think he's a better actor than he gets credit for - but he isn't suited to a period piece, he can't do the accent, and he just sticks out and draws attention to how wrong he is. Then there's the plot... BSD goes along adhering impressively to the original novel, but fumbles it with the shoehorned-in "romantic" angle between Dracula and Mina. Ironically, the twisted love triangle is far better played in Nosferatu than in BSD. Nosferatu seems to understand the horror, danger, and evil of the abusive relationship between Ellen and Orlock whereas BSD plays it almost like this is the romance we should be cheering for.
But, while I think BSD has drawbacks, I also think the parts where it is close to the book, a (mostly) stellar cast (Tom Waits!), and brilliant production design help give it its own merits, making for a reasonably creepy entertainment of a film.