How Robert Eggers' "Nosferatu" stacks up with its predecessors

The third version of the timeless vampire movie hits all the right notes

Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel Dracula is a timeless, seminal story of good versus evil with intriguing characters, enduring themes, and is considered a gothic horror masterpiece…so it should come as no surprise it’s been adapted more than 30 times. But it was the first one, F.W. Murnau’s Nosferatu, which took on a life of its own.

Released in 1922 during the silent film era, it’s actually an unauthorized, unofficial adaptation of Stoker’s novel. Murnau changed several details including renaming Count Dracula to Count Orlok in order to avoid any potential copyright issues. Despite the changes, though, Murnau brought his vision to life through expressionist set design, brilliant use of shadows, and an unforgettable performance by Max Shreck as Orlok.

Nosferatu earned its place in history with its eerie, gothic feel and set the template not only for future vampire films, but for the entire modern horror genre.

And when another version came along in the form of Werner Herzog’s Nosferatu the Vampyre in 1979, the groundwork was laid for its success. Serving as both a remake of (and homage to) Murnau’s classic and an adaptation of Stoker’s novel, Herzog opted to keep the original character names but otherwise put his own unique twist on things. The biggest difference is how he updated the story to a more modern, introspective, and psychological tone.

Another key change is Dracula himself, played this time by Klaus Kinski. Kinski’s version gets more of a backstory, and more pathos, than any other portrayal. But, in another love letter to Murnau and the original, Kinski’s black costume, bald head, rat-like appearance, and long fingernails imitate Max Schreck’s iconic look.

Herzog’s Nosferatu, though it paid homage to Murnau’s original, stands on its own with its haunting landscapes, creepy soundtrack, and overwhelming sense of dread.

And that brings us to the newest adaptation…Robert Eggers’ 2024 version. The first thing that jumps out is how it returns to the roots. Back is Count Orlok and the dark, gothic atmosphere (albeit with the benefit of modern production values) made famous by Murnau’s version. It’s impressive how Eggers managed to pay tribute to the original, but also make it his own by bringing new narrative elements to the proceedings, new characters, and themes like obsession, mortality, and power.

And though it brings a more prominent psychological horror aspect than its predecessors, Eggers’ version is a dark, visceral, folktale brought to life by its stellar cast that’s sure to stick with you from the moment you leave the theatre.

But the question is, where does it rank alongside its predecessors? To help answer that question, I rewatched Murnau’s original and Herzog’s remake after going to see the Eggers cut. And, to be perfectly honest, Murnau’s version is an untouchable classic. It’s the original and it’s the best. But Eggers’ version is as close as anyone’s likely to come to recreating the atmosphere, tone, and experience that Murnau put to film in 1922.

That said, Murnau’s version walked so Herzog could run and Herzog’s version did the same thing for Eggers. And that’s one of the best things about the Nosferatu mythos. Each version brings its own unique flavor and adds to the story’s evolution… making watching all three the best (and most fun) way to experience and appreciate this timeless tale.

Wanna weigh in on this post? Drop me a line at popcornandparsecs@gmail.com!