Nosferatu (1922)

Initial Thoughts?

Vera Bradley: You may not think a silent film from over 100 years ago would be rife with humor, but Mona and I found ourselves nearly in tears laughing over several parts of this movie. While it must obviously be said that the pacing and acting of this movie is completely different from movies of the current era, it is perfect to watch with a friend who is likewise willing to suspend their expectations.

The highlights of this movie are its shadowy gothic visuals and the perfect contrast between the main human character and Nosferatu. The main human character does have a name, however Mona and I unilaterally dubbed him The Fool within two minutes of the movie starting, for his crushing lack of ANY situational awareness. The actor, Gustav von Wangenheim, pulled off some 10/10 facial expressions and mannerisms, and when paired with the OBVIOUS vampire, Count Orlok, his blissful ignorance was hilarious.

As for the aforementioned shadowy gothic visuals, I’ll just put these here:

EXQUISITE.

Mona Bloodstick: This is your wife?? Seriously?? That’s YOUR wife?? Cuz damn….. Seriously, this is your wife?? Hmmmm. Y’know, she’s got a nice throat….tell you what, that house across the street from your wife sounds pretty good….

I loved this movie. Just look at that actor. I've never met anyone who has a face that looks more like a fool than he.

1: How did this movie handle classic vampire tropes?

VB: This movie uses some very classic vampire tropes, being copied illegally, as it was, from Dracula lol. Some good blood sucking, long-distance hypnosis, coffin sleeping, etc. It is also important to note that at the time this came out, there were not really any existing film tropes for vampire movies, which gives it the benefit of figuring out its own vibe without being tied to an existing canon.

MB: It's kind of like the cradle of vampire tropes. Where we have the sexy Dracula and Carmilla vampires, we also have the ugly old vampires. All in all, nothing really upset me here and while Orlok is incredibly powerful, he has a decent amount of weaknesses for him not to be OP.

2: Any good kills?

VB: The kills in this movie are very different from those in other vampire movies. When the Count arrives in the European town and brings a “plague” with him, the ensuing death toll is illustrated with a procession of coffins through the streets. While not as dramatic or bloody as other movies, I did think this was a pretty striking image, and painted the scene very succinctly. The most dramatic death, (SPOILER ALERT) comes at the end with the self-sacrifice of the main character’s wife. This scene is quite minimalist and filled more with symbolism than it is with gory feasting. Again good in its own way, but not the type of kills you come to expect of later vampire movies.

MB: As Vera said, if I was comparing the kills in this movie to sex scenes, these kills would be more of a "fade to black" than full on poundtown. Considering the time period and the limitations this movie had due to copyright, I'm pretty pleased with it. I would be annoyed if a modern day self-proclaimed horror movie went this route, but I am pleased in this case.

3: How does this movie deal with the curse of eternal existence?

VB: This isn’t explicitly addressed, as it is more the story of humans suffering from a vampire attack than it is the story of a vampire. However, the viewer can extrapolate that eternal existence reduces a being into a parasitic shell of their original form– led by their worst desires and without conscience. To get REALLY pretentious, a Freudian might say this highlights a regression to the Id, buuuut that’s a pretty tenuous take considering the source material (Dracula) was written 3 years before Freud published his work on the subconscious. However, this movie came out 22 years after Freud, so maybe some of that slipped in there– subconsciously (wink). However I am neither pretentious nor a Freudian so of course I would never say any of that nerd shit.

MB: Don't listen to Vera she absolutely does say some of that nerd shit. Anyways, Count Orlok is totally chilling with his permanent state of death, but he is absolutely so far removed from his human self that it's hard to determine if he was ever upset about it at any point. Was he ever human at any point? It's possible he just erupted from the ground. Maybe he just hatched from an egg.

4: Sex appeal?

VB: Nosferatu is not a sexy vampire, but he IS absolutely perfect for this film. His costume design/makeup are exactly what they should be. He is grotesque in a way that is unsettling but also leaves the door open for comedy. He is SO OBVIOUSLY not human and yet The Fool is fully oblivious. Mona and I both agreed upon watching the 2024 version (review coming soon) that it could have been improved by keeping the exact same character design as this one. No notes.

MB: He is perfect for the film, I'm not even mad about the lack of sex appeal. Part of the reason I'm okay with it is because sex still plays a big role in this movie, see the vampire tropes section.

5: Would I want to be a vampire in this universe?

VB: I fear not. There seems to be no vampire camaraderie and his castle isn’t even thaaat cool.

MB: Call me vain, but if being a vampire means I turn into a shriveled up old man, I gotta pass.

Final thoughts?

VB: Mona and I watched this as a double feature with the 2025 Eggers version, and I would highly recommend doing the same. The 1922 version provides originality, impeccable vibes, and a sense of awe at the fact you can watch a vampire movie from over ONE HUNDRED years ago. What it lacks in modern pacing and sound-having, the 2025 version provides, including more detailed elaboration on the tight, symbolic scenes of the former. I would give this movie an 8/10 when watched in the right conditions.

MB: Ate and left no drops of blood. I loved this movie, it holds up better than a LOT of modern day vampire movies. I would totally watch it again. Ahead of its time. 

"Your wife has such a beautiful neck..."

- XOXO Vera Bradley & Mona Bloodstick