I expect to get some pushback on this opinion of mine and that is fine. It's my opinion and I am entitled to it. I, like almost anyone else, was really looking forward to this film because it's been a little while since someone did some sort of vampire film from a old-timey sort of origin way and that is precisely what this is. It's dark, it takes place in the early 1800's and this sort of thing can appeal to me because no technology = no bullshit plot armor like mobile phones screwing up the horror.
I thought the film was OK, but just not as fantastic as the rabid fanbase out there seems to suggest. I'm not saying that all of those people that said that they loved it are wrong, we are all entitled to our opinions, I'm just saying that I didn't find it to be something that will be talked about years from now as some sort of epic masterpiece. I don't believe it is that.
It is on the other hand, a wonderful departure from the absolute shite that Hollywood has been making about fantasy creatures such as vampires over the past decade or so and I welcome a more grounded adaptation of something so famous as the "original vampires."
I'm not going to spoil the story here because I don't really have to. We all know the origin story of vampires and especially if you have already seen Bram Stoker's Dracula in 1992 starring an unlikely Keanu Reeves, you will notice the parallels in this film almost immediately. While I appreciate the homage that director Eggers was almost certainly shooting for, a great deal of what happens in this film is a direct lift from that movie so when those things happen you aren't surprised, you are kind of like "let's see if they can do it better than the 1992 film did!"
Basically, A young husband is beckoned to some remote place that definitely isn't Transylvania in order to secure a real-estate deal for his brokerage firm and establish himself as a partner by negotiating the transfer of property to one Count Orlock, who is described as being "one foot in the grave" and a bit peculiar. The journey and arrival at the castle plays out almost exactly as it did in Dracula.
Eggers does a good job of concealing the Count's face in the beginning and this establishes some sort of tension for when we eventually do see it later. I was a bit let down by the fact that the overall, well almost everything, that happens in this film is basically exactly what happened in Dracula. If that was the intention all along, and it almost certainly was meant to be, then I guess that is fine. It just wasn't what I was expecting or looking forward to because I already saw Dracula in the 90's and I don't really need to see it again now, do I?
There is some fantastic imagery in this movie but once you notice that they are straight up replaying the 1992 film with modern capabilities in film-making, I kind of started to tune out a bit. We don't get to see the Count nearly as much as we did in 1992 and that makes him more mysterious, but in the end the interactions are largely the same.
The escape from the castle, the realization that your odd host is actually some sort of other-worldly creature, the disbelief on the part of the people who haven't seen it yet, and the rush to get back to one's wife before the Count claims her are all present here. There are some differences such as the final act but in the end if you did watch the film in 1992 you have already seen this one.
They did a good job of not introducing too much silliness and there is a sense of urgency throughout as well as a very real fear of the Count who is careful to not reveal what his powers are all about to the commoners, but in the end the result is the same. I can appreciate that Eggers was trying to stay very close to the actual source material but I actually kind of wish that he hadn't.
When the film was over I was kind of happy that it was and I feel not at all compelled to go and see it again whereas I have seen the 1992 film many times and would gladly go back and watch it again. I know this is an unpopular opinion but given a choice between which of the two films is better, I would select Bram Stoker's Dracula starring an unlikely choice of Keanu Reeves.
This film has already won a bunch of awards for Best Cinematography and I do believe that it definitely deserves that. It is a beautiful film and my experience of it is only marred by the fact that it mirrors another film of similar nature almost exactly and I was hoping that it wouldn't. Of course this has a lot to do with me and I am aware of that.
Everyone in this film, including and perhaps especially Lily-Rose Depp are fantastic in their roles and before you ask, yes, she is Johnny's daughter but appears to have real acting chops and isn't just riding the fame of her father.
Should I watch it?
Yes, watch it and see if you end up being a bit irked the way that I was. It is a visual spectacle, that much is for certain. I was disappointed by something that was likely beyond the control of the makers and perhaps I am being too fickle about this. I don't like remakes of already good films and in my mind that's what this is.
If you have never seen the 1992 film then you will almost certainly enjoy this film a lot more than I did. I understand that I am in the minority here as far as my non-plussed attituded is concerned but myself and several of my friends actually switched the film off halfway through because well, nothing was going to surprise me. I already knew how it was going to turn out. It's a good movie, no doubt. I think it is getting a bit more praise than it actually deserves though because of how long it took to make and because the claimed labor of love that went into it on the part of Robert Eggers who struggled for many years to get this produced at all.
This film isn't legally streamable as part of any subscription at the moment. It can be rented or purchased on Amazon, Apple, and a wide variety of other platforms. It's likely still in theaters in many places as well
