Review of Nosferatu (1922) by Nick C — 09 Oct 2009

That the only rotten review from a critic on this site complains about how modern audiences might not find it accessible should tell you something about this film, namely, that it is not up for question as to whether or not this is a good piece of work. The question is how good, and frankly it's the RT community that are in dissent. Take out that one review and this has 100% on both critics as well as top critics. Add in the RT community, and not so much. Never fear, though, as Willem Dafoe has given us a compromise.

If you cannot deal with sheer brilliance due to black and white, silent movie, difficult outdoor lighting situations, or whatever, then just go watch Shadow of the Vampire. For those that don't know, that is a movie (which I still maintain is a dark comedy) that tells the story of shooting Nosferatu (with the twist that the vampire is actually a vampire, and not the actor Max Schreck) with the likes of Dafoe as the vampire, Eddie Izzard as the main character of Nosferatu, John Malkovich as Murnau (the director) as well as other cameos. That is accessible, to be sure. If you enjoyed that, give Nosferatu a chance. If you did not, then you may just not be a fan of the genre in which case you may have some sort of disease that causes you to engage about things you are disinterested in. I'm no doctor, but it sounds like swine flu to me. I'd get myself to a hospital as far away from horror movies as possible (because hospitals are never settings for those sorts of movies).

This is for my money the single best horror movie ever made, and I frankly don't know what more I can say about that beyond my recommendation of Shadow if you don't find this your cup of tea.