Undracula:

Bram Stoker’s Dracula is an engrossing read. John Badham’s and/or Netflix’s Dracula (1979 & 2020) are also worth their weight in runtime.

Those who’ve ingested such elevated vampiric horror won’t enjoy this remake.

The 1922 silent film is derivative Stoker. Plus a remake, in and of itself, is derivative. Thus…

Nosferatu (2025) = Derivative²

The math checks out.

Nosferatu Review

A frayed story is obvious from the opening “jump scare,” a cowardly directing crutch. The footage quick cuts to a bloody screaming demon face, the high-pitch strings. The volume is too loud. The viewer feels self-conscious on the filmmakers’ behalf.

The shadow footage is shameless. This isn’t artistry – it’s a shortcut. A cheap way to fill screen time without requiring actual performances or engaging cinematography. Nosferatu films shadows lengthening over a miniature landscape. Candyman (2021) relies on shadow puppets to tell part of its story. Neither should be accepted as worthy of the big screen. It’s a visual gimmick that requires little effort yet masquerades as style. To sum it up: Shadows stretch, but creativity does not.

Nosferatu (2025) ends up being an exercise in mimicry without purpose. This remake drags itself through the motions of horror homage without generating a single moment of true unease. Even fans of the 1922 version will find this outing joyless, stale and hollow. The sound design overwhelms, the lighting choices feel smug and the pacing is all but non-existent. For a film trying so hard to be haunting, Nosferatu (2025) mostly just haunts your patience. Skip it.

B Movie

Conjures feeling akin to viewing Friday the 13th, a fellow derivative B movie. A feeling of somehow even less than inadequacy. At least F the 13th is mostly inoffensive. Nosferatu has a gruesomeness that sticks to the tongue.

Final Review: Nosferatu (2025) Don’t waste time and money. Enjoy a real Dracula instead.

★★

Check IMDb or Letterboxd if brevity’s preferable.

Enjoy punishing yourself? Check The Substance.