Film review – G does Films

Nosferatu (2025) Review: Robert Eggers’ triumphantly terrifying return to vampiric form

It is unlikely that the director of Nosferatu (1922), F. W. Murnau, would’ve imagined 102 years later there would be a remake of his film which so closely recaptures the essence of the original. When I first watched Murnau’s original film, I was immediately struck by its captivatingly ominous atmosphere, despite the fact it is one of the oldest films I’ve ever watched. I found it to be particularly effective when the titular vampire wasn’t on screen. As a viewer you’re only left to imagine what his presence is like, the musical score and camera work reminding us that he is coming, filling us with dread. I can imagine this is how Robert Eggers felt when he first watched the film, as a remake has been a passion project of his for 10 years. Despite his minimal filmography, Eggers’ has proved himself to be one of the most interesting and distinct filmmakers of the past decade. The Witch (2015), The Lighthouse (2019) and The Northman (2022) all have a uniquely identifiable style, despite the fact they overlap into multiple genres. Having previously written about both Robert Eggers’ films and Nosferatu (1922), I was adamant that there was no other filmmaker who could successfully produce a modern remake of the horror classic given the overlap between their distinct yet straightforward approach to horror. Now a new year has arrived with a new take on the horror classic, I can safely say I was not disappointed.

Just as the 1922 original was, Nosferatu (2025) is effectively a retelling of Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel Dracula. The original was, in fact, an unlicensed adaption, so much so that Stoker’s widow won a lawsuit against the film which allegedly led to all copies of the film being destroyed. Of course, this wasn’t enough to stop the original from continuing to live decades later like some vampiric monster. Solely the fact that Eggers was able to successfully breath new life into a story which has been told countless times across many different medias proves not only the timelessness of the story, but his ability has a filmmaker. Nosferatu (2025) is effectively the same story as Dracula; a solicitor is called to sort a property deal out with a mysterious Count who resides in a creepy, isolated castle and eventually makes his way to the solicitor’s hometown to feed on the living. So how does one successfully retell a story which has been done to death? (Pun intended).

One of the first things that’s most striking about Egger’s film is its faithfulness to the time period. Nosferatu (2025) is set in 1838 Germany and you well and truly believe it. As demonstrated in his previous films (especially 2022’s The Northman), Eggers has shown to be able to masterfully capture historical accuracy, from the set design to the character’s speech. Nosferatu (2025) is no exception. The dialect is almost Shakespearean yet completely understandable for a modern audience, and the costume and set design fully immerses the audience into the 19th Century. Even the minimal use of lighting makes some scenes almost look black and white, creating that creaky, claustrophobic feeling that the 1922 original conveyed. Of course, the use of lighting and shadows is a big factor in also conveying the generally creepy atmosphere that you’d expect from a gothic horror film. This is something that combines Eggers’ distinct directorial features with what is required of a Nosferatu film; further supporting the notion that there was no other filmmaker right for the job. One sequence in particular involving horses and a carriage in a forest was particularly captivating for its camera work and use of shadows, reminding the audience that the titular vampire’s is somehow omnipresent…

Rarely is it that one can describe an actor truly ‘disappearing’ into a role. The only recent examples I can think of is Colin Farrell as The Penguin in Matt Reeves’ The Batman universe, or possibly Nicolas Cage in last year’s horror film Longlegs. Partly due to the incredible makeup and costume work, and partly due to the exceptional performance. The same can be said for Bill Skarsgård as Nosferatu. As far as I’m concerned, you’re not watching Skarsgård. You’re watching the real Count Orlok who happens to have a taste for the blood of the living. I appreciate the fact his appearance was kept relatively secretive before the release of the film, which makes his performance even more striking. When he first appears you still don’t see him; being out of focus in the foreground or background as the main focus is Nicholas Hoult’s terrified reactions as he listens to the Count’s deeply raspy tones. Skarsgård apparently worked on the voice for Nosferatu for weeks, providing a slow, deeply unsettling tone which combines the temperament of a Transylvanian lord and something much more sinister. His appearance may not be what you expect, but it certainly harkens to the appearance of 15th Century Prince Vlad the Impaler, who was allegedly the original inspiration for Stoker’s Dracula.

Just like the 1922 original, Nosferatu’s presence reverberates throughout the film, in part due to the fantastic performances from the film’s cast. As mentioned, Hoult’s Thomas Hutter seems genuinely terrified when he first meets the Count, as if it is the first time he’s seeing Skarsgård in full costume and makeup. As previously mentioned, the film’s dialogue is very Shakespearean-esque, which allows the actors to really play the time period to their full potential. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is excellent as Hutter’s friend and vampire skeptic Friedrich Harding, who effectively plays as a counter act to Willem Dafoe’s Professor Albin Eberhart Von Franz, a Swiss philosopher who happens to be an expert on the occult and all things vampiric. I truly believe Dafoe would fit right at home in any historical time period. The unique eccentricity in his performances in Eggers’ films show his versatility as an actor and his ability to adapt to any period of history. Ralph Ineson, who I believe is a substantially underrated actor with his low, raspy, Yorkshire voice, is also great as the doctor who treats Ellen for her ‘sickness’. Which brings me to the performance that everyone is going to be discussing; Lily-Rose Depp as Ellen Hutter. The film requires a lot from her as an actor both emotionally and physically; convincing us that she is under the spell of the Count by physically contorting her body and face without any additional editing, which she pulls off with terrifying magnificence. Similarly, however, Simon McBurney as solicitor turned madman Herr Knock terrifically pulls of feats of terrifying emotional and physical derangement which must also not go unappreciated.

Nosferatu (2025) is a real treat for horror fans. It is clearly a film made by people who truly care about the source material and historical accuracy, and whose sole interest is immersing an audience in its world for two hours. It recaptures the distinctly unsettling atmosphere of the original, whilst using particularly grotesque and terrifying imagery to revitalise the horror for a modern audience and show us that vampires can still be scary. As for criticisms, I struggle to find many. Being a gothic horror film, some may find it a little slow paced, and it could perhaps leave you wanting to see more of the Count himself, but ultimately that is the purpose of the film. To take the time to fill its audience with dread and only imagine the horrors that await. I wouldn’t even describe Nosferatu as scary, but it doesn’t need to be. Scaring a modern film audience is an increasingly difficult task year by year, and films such as this opt to consistently and effectively unsettle and discomfort an audience rather than outrightly scare them, which is arguably just as effective. Everything from its chilling musical score by The Northman composer Robin Carolan to its exceptional historical accuracy, Robert Eggers’ Nosferatu is a film made to be seen at the cinema, and might very well be Eggers’ magnum opus. Happy New Year to cinema.

Movies about movies: Why have they been popping up so much recently?

What defines a movie about movies? They remind us of the beauty of film, the appeal of the cinematic world, and the reason we go to see them on a big screen. A lot of movies reference movie-making in some way, but that doesn’t mean they are about movies. For example, King Kong is about a group of explorers who travel to Skull Island to document its inhabitants on film, but that isn’t what the film is about. The film is about adventure into the unknown, and the misunderstood creature that is Kong. I wouldn’t even describe a film like La La Land as a movie about movies. Whilst it is set in Hollywood and one of its main characters is an aspiring actress, it is not about filmmaking specifically.

Movies about movies weave films and filmmaking into their central themes. They remind audiences of the joy of going to the cinema, and the complexity of the filmmaking process itself. A quintessential example of this is Sam Mendes’s recent film, Empire of Light. Centred around a cinema set in Margate, it follows cinema workers Hilary (Olivia Colman) and Stephen (Micheal Ward) navigating the turbulent times of 1980s England as romance blossoms between them. The film integrates themes of racism, mental health and class, but to its core, it is about how film can bring people together. As Stephen so eloquently puts it to Hilary in one scene; ‘That beam of light, it’s an escape.’ Sam Mendes has himself stated it is based on his early experiences of going to the cinema, and many have regarded the film as his ‘love letter’ to cinema. Other quintessential examples of movies about movies are La La Land director Damien Chazelle’s Babylon, and Stephen Spielberg’s semi-autobiographical film The Fabelmans, both of which have hit UK cinemas in the past few months. Babylon is an outrageous, lavish, 3-hour picture about the transition of silent to sound films in the late 1920s. It stars Margot Robbie as aspiring actress Nellie LaRoy, Brad Pitt as declining actor Jack Conrad, and Diego Calva as Manny Torres – an up-coming filmmaker and Nellie’s love interest. The core of the film is about these characters navigating the 1920s-film scene, depicted through various sequences of film productions and showing how hilariously gruelling they could be. The ending encapsulates how far cinema has come, as Manny sits in a cinema in the early 1950s and reflects upon his life and how much of an impact film has had on it. Spielberg’s The Fabelmans, however, is quite the opposite of Babylon. It is a tender, heart-warming, coming-of-age story of aspiring filmmaker Sammy Fabelman and how films provide the vehicle for him to navigate his dysfunctional family life. Not only did the film garner critical acclaim, but was also nominated for over 100 awards, and won 23. What these films all have in common is (1) they were all released in UK cinemas in 2023; and (2) they illustrate how films play an integral role in the development and story of the lead characters.

This trend even extends to previous years, with films like 2022’s The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent and 2021’s Belfast reminding its audiences of the joy of filmmaking and going to the cinema. Unbearable Weight is effectively Nicholas Cage’s hilariously self-aware tribute to cinema, as he plays a fictionalised version of himself and pokes fun at his own career. Belfast meanwhile was Kenneth Branagh’s sleeper hit about a boy brought up during the political turmoil of Northern Ireland in 1969. As with Empire of Light and The Fabelmans, the film revolves around its central character navigating troubling times with a love for films presented as a hopeful escape. Even Ti West’s recent 2022 horrors X and Pearl, both starring Mia Goth, can be regarded as tributes to early and late 20th century cinema and what made it so special.

Whilst there have always been movies about movies, there has rarely been so many within a short space of time. In the past, movies with movies woven so centrally into their plots have come much more infrequently, with releases like The Player (1992), Adaption (2002), The Artist (2011), and The Disaster Artist (2017) only appearing every few years. Considering the movies previously discussed have been released in 2022 and 2023, it is reasonable to assume it has partly been due to filmmakers getting back on track in a post-COVID world. Considering the detrimental impact the pandemic had on filmmaking and cinemas, perhaps filmmakers are choosing to remind people how valuable the cinematic experience is, causing a ‘bump’ in releases of movies about movies. Many filmmakers have even commented on this. British director Philippa Lowthorpe once stated how saddened she was that the performance of her film Misbehaviour (2020) was affected by the pandemic. Combined with the rise of streaming, people are seemingly less inclined to travel to cinemas. A 2020 survey by Variety even found 70% of people would rather watch movies at home than go to the cinema. So, perhaps filmmakers are attempting to remind audiences through the craft of visual storytelling that watching a film in the cinema is one of the most encapsulating experiences you can have. Even Tarantino has recently announced that he has completed the script for his next and final film, The Movie Critic, which will be set in the 1970s and centred around movie critic Pauline Kael. It would be interesting to discuss with mainstream directors such as Tarantino and Spielberg whether their mind-sets have been influenced by the effect the pandemic and streaming has had on cinemas. For now though, as an avid movie-goer, I couldn’t be happier about filmmakers choosing to produce more movies about movies. Hopefully, reminding people of the magic of the silver screen and the whole cinematic experience will have audiences returning to cinemas.

‘Bullet Train’ Review: Move over Thomas, there’s a new No.1 train in town

What do you get if you cross the slick action of John Wick, the comedic timing of Deadpool, and the fastest train in the world? No, not a bad dad joke, but Deadpool director David Leitch’s action comedy film Bullet Train. This film is exactly what it sets out to be, a (literal) bullet train which takes you at breakneck speed through its humour, violence and action. This style of filmmaking matches the engaging cinematic energy of the Deadpool films, but with a unique setting and premise. What else would you expect when you place nearly a dozen deadly assassins together on the world’s first high-speed train line?

The film’s plot is fairly straightforward; several assassins end up on a Japanese bullet train together and are forced to face each other in one way or another. For a film so focused on its action and humour, it doesn’t need to have a more complex plot. Brad Pitt portrays ‘Ladybug’, the assassin film’s plot pivots on. Not only does Pitt yet again prove himself to be one of the masters of cinematic action, but also of comedic timing. He’s hilarious in this film, mixing the goofiness of Chris Hemsworth’s Thor with the quips of Ryan Reynolds’ Deadpool. Aaron Taylor Johnson, Brian Tyree Henry and Joey King were also standouts, portraying assassins ‘Tangerine’, ‘Lemon’, and ‘The Prince’ respectively. Tangerine and Lemon were effectively a British gangster comedy duo, constantly arguing over Lemon’s unusual obsession with Thomas the Tank Engine, which was hilariously ironic given the film’s setting. Joey King’s ‘The Prince’ was a no-nonsense assassin posing as an innocent schoolgirl, who could seamlessly slip between the two. Being set in Japan, the film also boasted several Japanese actors, namely Andrew Koji as ‘The Father’ and the legendary Hiroyuki Sanada as ‘The Elder’ who only polished the film’s razor sharp slickness with their cut-throat Katana action. There is even a few surprise cameos along the way, which make you laugh purely at the fact that said actors agreed to take part in such a ridiculously fun film.

The cast and premise of the film are at the forefront of what make it a summer must-watch, but it’s the little things that make this film standout. The little details of the plot that eagle-eyed moviegoers will notice which are paid off later, the tight camerawork and gorgeously colourful lighting on each of the different train carriages and stations, all add to the visceral, exciting energy that Leitch pulls off. The film introduces each assassin with colourful neon lettering also dubbed in Japanese, creating a stylistic, almost comic-book feel to the film’s meticulous energy. The only times we aren’t on the bullet train are when the film provides flashbacks to characters’ past, which are brief enough to not take us out of the fun of the train, but just enough to weave the plot together. Thanks to the lighting and camerawork, the film convinces its audience that we are on the bullet train with the assassins experiencing the mayhem first hand.

Bullet Train excels mostly because it appeals to both the casual moviegoer and the serious moviegoer. It’s unique and accessible premise topped with its quip-filled humour make it an easily enjoyable summer film, but it’s meticulously sleek filmmaking style makes it stand out as a thoroughly enjoyable action film worthy of the John Wick hall of fame. It is a film about both good and bad luck, and about fate. Is it fate that decides who lives and who dies? Is it fate or skill which allows characters to survive? As Brad Pitt’s Ladybug says, ‘Fate is just bad luck’. The film addresses these types of conundrums in interesting ways, and makes you question whether there even is such thing as fate or luck. What better way to address them than on an assassin-filled 200mph train journey? If Edgar Wright and Quentin Tarantino agreed to make a film together on the condition it was full of Thomas the Tank Engine jokes, it would probably result in something like Bullet Train.