MovieChat Forums > Dracula (1931) Discussion > Overrated. Murnau's Nosferaty is better ...

Overrated. Murnau's Nosferaty is better than this


Nosferatu is far better than Browning's Dracula in every aspect. You can see that Dracula is just a stage play dressed up as a movie. It's not scary at all. The "exetrior" scenes are just a set. Nosfertu, on the other hand, in spite of being 9 years older than Dracula, is still scary and creepy as hell. Max Schreck is totally terrifying, the movie itself is atmospheric and the castle looks much more real and scarier than the Universal version. Also, one detail I'd like to point out to compare the films, is that, when the ships arrive at Wismar/London, and find the captain's dead body, in Nosferatu, we actually see the captain's corpse (which is really "hardcore", taking into account the time Nosferatu was made), while in Dracula, we just see the dead captain's shadow.

Seriously, if people found Dracula scary, Nosferatu must have given them countless nightmares.

reply

I agree, although I still enjoy this film somewhat. I especially like the lack of music in 'Dracula'.


He is not coming back. He has forgotten me.

reply

Both movies are wonderful, each in it's own way.

reply

I've seen Nosferatu and I agree it is very creepy and highly atmospheric. I just saw this today and like it a lot actually but it seems a bit disjointed and when I checked this film's length is only 1:14 minutes? Very short indeed. But then, I checked IMDB's trivia and it seems this film has been edited to the producers content rather than the director's which is why it seems that way.

reply

Cant be compared


A silent from germanys peak in films and an english Hollywood talkie

reply

Dracula is better because it has sound. Germany apparently wasn't able to create sound yet for their films until Hitler discovered a way how to do it

reply