I might sound like a little kid, but I have never really watched many horror movies and therefore I don't know how my scare level is. So I need your help with finding some horror movies that are on the same level/vibe with werwulf as I am planning on watching it in december. Thanks in advance.
England, 1305. A mute medieval peasant, haunted by childhood trauma, leads a quiet life raising a family on their farm, but with each full moon, he’s cursed to transform into a murderous werewolf. When a hunting party, charged by the king to cull the land of wolves, arrives and forces our man to join them, he struggles to conceal his transformations, all the while fighting to save his soul and his family’s fate from the evil that lurks within.
Since the announcements and the recent trailer, I have drawn 4 different depictions of werewolves I've found on the internet.
There's the wolf, the splitting werewolf, the human faced werewolf, and the satanic werewolf.
I went to see The Odyssey opening week in Dolby Cinema. The trailer preview that stood out to me the most by far, is Werwulf. It's been years since I've been to theaters and this was my first Dolby experience. This cinematic trailer was INTENSE! I've literally never seen something that looks so immersive. It was like being in 13th century whereverthefuck and I was probably holding my breath the whole time the trailer was playing. Since then, I've caught up on Eggers filmography and will probably show my gf Nosferatu later tonight. We are in for a real treat this Christmas! I need more discourse around this film!!
I know it's definitely ways away (especially with the Johnny Depp A Christmas Carol coming out this year) but I figured with Robert Eggers being attached to his own version of ACC I'd try my hand at fancasting an adaptation of the story using actors he's worked with across his movies
With Werwulf coming out in December but also Anna Biller's The Face of Horror premiering at TIFF this year it had me curious, do you expect to see more horror movies set in the middle ages coming out?
It's something I want to see since it feels like medieval horror, at least in film, is very small. The only ones that come to mind for me are both versions of Tower of London, The Virgin Spring, Onibaba, The Masque of the Red Death, Black Death, and I guess Season of the Witch since some people classify that as horror
The movie is obviously meant to be open, and there's no wrong analysis so feel free to disagree with my take, but I feel like there's a theory that explains all the movie, and is barely scratched by most analysis, and which has never been questioned entirely (I might be wrong, but I've never seen it being considered deeply). Please indulge this long commentary if you enjoyed The Lighthouse and wish to gather all its symbolism into one explantion.
To me, the film offers at least three distinct levels of reading :
The first is a psychological drama : two lighthouse keepers descend into madness through loneliness, alcoholism, and forced proximity.
The second is a supernatural tale deeply rooted in maritime folklore and Greek mythology.
And finally, there's a third reading, the one I refered to at the begining and which I'd like to go deeper, and that I find particularly compelling : the film as a dream of damnation, a feverish hallucination happening into the comatose mind of a dying man, the comatose mind of Tommy (Pattinson).
At one point, Wake (Dafoe) asks Tommy whether he's still stuck in the snow back in Canada. That line has always struck me as oddly specific. I wonder whether Tommy is actually dying in the snow, and whether the entire story is nothing more than the damp dream of a dying man. The constant dampness surrounding him would then come from his own soaked body in the snow. His subconscious would weave together his physical discomfort, his guilt, his hope for salvation and a new life, but also his unconscious certainty that death is approaching.
Viewed this way, the symbols stop being references aimed solely at the audience. They become the inner language of the protagonist himself.
The lighthouse is a light in the darkness, and therefore a form of knowledge, but also a symbol of hope. Being a wickie, a lighthouse guardian, could be considered an escape from reality, from guilt, but also a self-imposed punishment to exil. Moreover, the lighthouse is often represented as a gateway between worlds. (A symbolism famously explored in works such as BioShock, where the lighthouse functions as a literal gateway to another reality.) The lighthouse could be considered here, as a point between life and death, some kind of purgatory.
Wake himself is equally layered. He obviously evokes Proteus, but he also represents a part of Tommy's own psyche, both men are called Thomas. Wake represents the part that already knows the truth, that resists confession, occasionally offers comfort, but ultimately becomes Tommy's judge. And "Wake" naturally suggests awakening. He almost becomes the one trying to awaken Tommy to his own truth, while also keeping him in the blessing of ignorance, protecting him(self) from a truth he can't handle... but compulsively damaging in the process. "Why'd spill ye'r beans ?" is both judgment and regret for acknowledging the truth. (Even the way Wake introduce himself could be considered a cryptic order to bring Tommy to wake up, to slowly progress toward his truth, but also to get out of his coma : just "Wake (!)")
The seagull functions in much the same way. Wake tells us that gulls carry the souls of dead sailors. If Wake is considered a part of Tommy himself, Wake's murder of his second could be considered a reflection of Tommy's own murder of his foreman (The reflection reversing the surbonate order). The one-eye segull isn't only a sudtle clue to Wake's murder, but also a relentlessly tormenting embodiement of the murder Tommy is desperately trying to repress. When he finally smashes it against the rocks, the scene is initially almost absurdly funny: a man completely losing his temper over an unbearably annoying bird. But it immediately takes on a tragic dimension. That act symbolically unleashes the endless storm, which becomes less the literal wrath of Poseidon than the outward manifestation of Tommy's own inner judgment over his own murder.
Even Tommy masturbating isn't mainly about showing sexual depravation, but to show an attempt at escaping reality and guilt through sex. But even there, Tommy can't escape his guilt and condemn himself by thinking about a siren. (The siren is not only incarnated, but also represented as a wooden sculpture, alluding to Tommy's previous wood related work. A sculpture discovered in his matress, intended to stay on his back while he sleeps. Sleeping being an act free of guilt, but back pain being the somative pain of guilt. His guilt contaminates everything.)
Following this logic the light becomes the truth that Wake tries to hide, death itself he tries to prevent ("Going toward the light" being a familiar metaphor for entering the afterlife) and also Poseidon, Proteus' master. There's a scene where Tommy tries to take a sneak peek at the light and sees tentacles leaking some goo next to him. Poseidon would represent a damp divine judgement more than anything else. When Tommy finally reaches it, he confronts his truth/his guilt, divine judgement and ultimately : his own death. (When Wake says to Tommy he's sure he'll handle the light at some point, it's both to allude at a hope for Tommy to handle his truth, and at the certainty of his death)
The final scene naturally recalls Prometheus, but I also see it as a distinctly maritime judgment. Prometheus is eternally devoured by Zeus's eagles. Tommy, by contrast, is devoured by seagulls, birds belonging to Poseidon's realm. It ceases to be merely a mythological quotation and instead becomes the visual form of his own condemnation. And among all the gulls on that scene, we can see the one-eye seagull, back to torment Tommy. If we consider it represents Tommy's own murder, as much as Wake, it makes very much sense...
The last scene, to me, is a symbolic image which cumulates guilt and agony, reunited into the damp mind of a dying man feeling divine salvation out of reach...
"I'm probably a figment of your imagination. THIS rock is a figment of your imagination too. Ye're probably wand'rin' through a grove of tag alders up north in Canady. Like a frostbitten maniac talking to yourself. Knee deep in snow..."
This is Wake's commentary about the snow I was refering to earlier. To support my theory, I'd like to hilight that alders are a symbol of transition between life and death, refering again to Tommy's state of agony. And this transition symbolism is supported by the fact that alders grow along the surrounding of rivers and such, between land and water... Which also allude to dampness...
What I admire most about The Lighthouse is that its symbols never feel like mere cultural references placed there for the audience to decode. They seem to exist first and foremost for the characters themselves. Before asking what Eggers is trying to communicate to the audience, I'd rather ask why Tommy is facing these particular images. To me, it's that internal logic that gives the film its extraordinary power.
Thank you for reading, if you went that far, I hope it's not too cryptic 😅
And here is a big dive in the aesthetic as a bonus, because I think it's a very smart narrative tool :
[The black and white is not only beautiful but it creates an extraordinary sense of authenticity. From the very first shots, I almost feel like I'm looking at old photographs or archival footage from the late nineteenth century. There's one particular shot near the beginning where Pattinson and Dafoe stare directly into the camera. It's an incredibly simple image, yet it immediately evokes those old portraits of sailors or laborers, where people weren't posing to craft an image of themselves, but almost endured the camera instead. You can see the same tired, resigned expressions, faces marked by a hard life. It seems like a minor detail, but I think that shot anchors the entire film in a very specific sense of authenticity.
The black and white also serves the horror beautifully. Whenever the mermaid appears, when the tentacles emerge from the lighthouse's light, or during those expressionistic close-ups on Pattinson's eye, the film instantly recalls early horror cinema and silent psychological horror. The uncanny moments naturally belong to that old visual language, while the everyday scenes remain strikingly realistic. Visuals are extremely coherent while also contrasting the tone of the movie. It's brillant.
I had the same authentic feeling about the dialogue. The archaic language could easily have come across as self-indulgent, but underneath it's remarkably simple. The characters talk about their work, their frustrations, their lives. They argue, mock each other, swear, and can even be downright vulgar. Even Dafoe's almost prophetic monologues never feel artificially poetic. They sound exactly like the ramblings of an old superstitious sailor rather than the writer trying to impress the audience.
The film is obviously designed to unsettle and confuse the viewer, but I think it does so honestly, it is refreshing. The characters themselves seem just as lost as we are. The supernatural elements appear only in brief flashes before giving way once again to an almost mundane reality. Even without digging any deeper, the film works perfectly well: it can simply be seen as the story of two lighthouse keepers slowly descending into madness through isolation, alcohol, exhaustion, and hunger. The central question remains unresolved: are they losing their minds, or are they genuinely experiencing something supernatural? That first reading is already satisfying on its own.
Only afterward does the film begin to reveal its symbolic richness. The mythological references are numerous without ever becoming overbearing. Prometheus is fairly obvious in the final sequence. Proteus is subtler, yet even if you don't recognize him specifically, you instinctively understand that he belongs to a broader maritime mythology closely tied to Poseidon. The film never punishes viewers for missing individual references, and that's a rare quality in this kind of movie.]
TL;DR : the movie is all happening into Tommy's mind while he's dying in the snow in Canada, after comiting his murder.
Fordham University was kind enough to send this to me via interlibrary loan. I'd love to get some additional reading recommendations if someone has books or journal articles they particularly enjoyed.
Okay I know this conversation has been posted here many many times but I feel like I finally nailed down my personal ranking of his films:
What more needs to be said, this Is Egger’s at his most unhinged and unshackled. The cinematography and atmosphere is simply breathtaking and every single shot feels vital to the film.
Pattinson and DaFoe give some of the best performances of their careers and are completely in their element. Egger’s was able to bring out some breathtaking acting from them.
The film itself lives and dies from its eccentricities- honestly it can be a bit of a tough watch the first time around. The mystery surrounding the story is bewildering at first admittedly. However the slow burn buildup of conflict between the two men is so well done that you don’t even realize how truly insane the situation has gotten until you’re deep in it with them.
I truly cannot say enough how much I love this movie. He set the bar incredibly high with this one and honestly I’m not sure when or if he’ll ever be able to top it.
This film being number is controversial to say the least. To some of yall this is his best movie, to others it’s a complete waste of time. Personally I find the overall “simplicity” of the movie, along with the restraint he used as far as his directorial quirks, makes it a very solid watch. The tone was bleak and uncompromising, it didn’t try to reinvent the wheel or convolute itself to please arthouse snobs, it was just a story of revenge through and through.
Amleth has been discussed many times before, some seeing him as the actual antagonist to the film, and others seeing him as flawed hero. I appreciate that Egger’s didn’t try to reduce the film into a simple “good vs evil” story, nor did he unnecessarily bloat the film with a bunch of moral gachas.
It’s a simple film at its core- Amleth has one goal, revenge. Will the revenge consume him? Is his will strong enough to carry through on his promise? Will his values crack under duress or new revelations? Can he learn to live without it and shake the threads of fate?
Admittedly the film has some awkwardness to it- I personally find ATJ’s performance kind of flat in this movie, despite adoring her as an actress. There is a noticeable lack of charisma from any character in this movie- but that seemed very intentional to me. I don’t believe you’re supposed to like any of the characters in the film, nor root for one over the other. It’s like watching a runaway car on a collision course to a group of pedestrians- shocking, horrific, and somehow inevitable despite it being somewhat preventable.
The movie is a tragedy, and delivers well upon that premise.
When people hear the name Robert Eggers, this is the film they think of. If you weren’t around at the time it’s hard to explain how intensely and how quickly this movie exploded onto the scene. I’m giving credit where credit is due right now at the start- this film is a cultural milestone. Even if Egger’s subsequent works had all flopped- nobody could take away his accolades for this film.
It’s dreary, dreadful, and downright oppressive. It’s a slow burn with very little up and downs in terms of action or excitement- it simply just forces you to endure the same monotonous trudge into hell that the family experienced.
Admittedly, at times I do find the movie a bit of a bore, but the first 3/4ths of the movie is all in service to setting up a bleak climax.
Very solid movie, only slightly overshadowed by his following works in my personal opinion. Although, nobody could ever be faulted for having this one at the top of their list.
Also- Black Phillip 🐐
I want to state this right at the top- this is a fantastic film and I very much enjoyed it. However, when compared against Egger’s other works it’s hard to see it as anything more than just “fine”.
The cinematography and color grading of this movie was amazing. The movie was absolutely gorgeous despite it being so bleak and dark. The actors did their jobs well, however none were even close to reaching the heights Pattinson and DaFoe achieved in Lighthouse. Even DaFoe, being the recurring cast member he is, seemed far less riveting in this film than his usual appearances.
The story itself was simple- Egger’s didn’t take any risks and the film noticeably lacked a lot of his eccentricity. He very clearly restrained himself in order to ensure the film could be appreciated by a wider audience, and in turn generate more revenue.
I think he did the story justice and brought Nosferatu back into modern culture- however it just doesn’t grip me nearly as much as his others. It’s clear he wanted to make the movie, and was very interested in the subject matter, but in the end played it too safe and ended up in a situation where neither side of the fence was particularly enamored by it. General audiences still found the film too “arthouse” for their liking, despite the restraint he exhibited, while die hard fans sorely missed Egger’s cutting loose.
In my personal opinion, the film is fine. It’s a solid movie, I’ll never say no to watching it, but when I get the urge to watch an Egger’s film- I do not think of Nosferatu first.
Eggers is a master of telling gothic fables. I think Nosferatu is the ultimate masterpiece but I love the other movies as well. It's like watching great theatre that takes you to this other world, scares you, moves you..I bet I can taste and smell the movie. And the music..only thing is he was telling somebody else wrote so it wasn't his original so to say..
Skyrim province is a cold land and its people are literally vikings. In the game you can become a vampire or a werewolf.
Eggers did The Northman, Nosferatu and Werwulf.
Eggers played Skyrim too much. Case closed.
some people are afraid of the dark. some people are afraid of heights. there are even people who are afraid of lotus seeds and honeycomb, and you know what, after staring at images of those things for 30 minutes, I kind of get it. but you know what I was afraid of when I was younger? I was afraid of the guy who was turning the lights on and off at the end of SpongeBob season 2, episode 16a.
seriously, that "Nosferatu" guy gave me nightmares. really bad ones. in fact, I would even go as far as to say I was traumatized a bit. he's just so ugly. and for the longest time, I didn't even know who that guy was or why he was here. my dad tried to make me less afraid of him the best way he knew how: gaslighting. he said he was from an old movie, that much is true, but he then went on to say Nosferatu was a misunderstood ugly guy who was shunned by society, even though he's just a silly little prankster who wants to tell jokes. but then he said he went on a bit of a rampage after being mistreated. my dad wasn't doing a great job of making this guy seem less scary.
then years later, while browsing the Homestar Runner wiki, I saw his image once again since the character strong sad apparently used this guy as his profile pic at one point. it was there that I found out that this guy was actually called count Orlok, and he's actually Bootleg German Dracula. if my dad's reason for lying was to make this guy less scary, what was the freaking point of changing him from Dracula into Frankenstein? I'd have called my dad out for such a stupid pointless lie, but seeing how he was already dead at this point, he managed to get away with it.
1922's "Nosferatu" was an unlicensed version of Dracula made in Germany. to avoid lawsuits, they changed all the characters names, changed some details and even had a completely different ending. you know that whole part of vampire lore where they die in sunlight. yeah, that's from Nosferatu. it was not a part of vampire lore until this movie happened. isn't that crazy? unfortunately for the cast and crew of Nosferatu, they still got sued anyway and all copies were supposed to be destroyed. the film survived because at least one copy made it to America, and I guess the Americans didn't give a shit about European copyright laws.
despite Dracula and its many adaptions being responsible for vampires being seen as "sexy aristocrats", Nosferatu's "count Orlok" was a vampire in the original sense, being much more corpse like in appearance. basically what one would call a zombie nowadays. it's quite effective. Max Shrek as Count Orlok was terrifying. not sure why he ended up in an episode of SpongeBob though. did the SpongeBob writers not realize that this would scare children? non sequitur punchlines have consequences!
well, by the time I knew about all this I was in high school and had undergone years of emotional blunting, so I decided to watch that 100-year-old movie to see the origins of the light switch guy that scared me so much as a kid. and I must say, the film holds up. even without sound, it was way scarier than most horror films that come out nowadays. but that could just be because I was still a bit scared from when I was a kid. maybe it was just. . . what's the word I'm looking for? it's not nostalgia bias. uh, is "trauma bias" a thing? well, whatever.
after being freed from copyright prison, it seems Nosferatu became quite famous in the world of cinema. it got multiple remakes. first there was the 1979 remake "Nosferatu the Vampyre". this first remake changed all the characters names back to what they were in original novel. in fact, some localizations of the 1922 movie did the same thing in the subtitles. which I think is dumb, I know the story basically has the same set up as Dracula, but Orlok is not Dracula. Orlok is scary. Dracula is sexy. also, they went with the whole "he's not evil, he's just sad and lonely" angle that so many Dracula adaptions did at the time. the original Orlok was pure evil. this one just wanted love. LAME!
there was also 2000's "Shadow of the vampire", staring Willem Dafoe as Max Shrek as Count Orlok. less of a remake and more of a fictional "making of" type movie, this film was based around several rumors that Max Shrek was an actual vampire. yeah, the guy had appeared in other movies and hundreds of plays, but apparently people at the time were so afraid after seeing Nosferatu that they were convinced Max Shrek was a real vampire. I know movies were still relatively new in 1922, but man, people sure were stupid back then. Not at all like the tide pod eating geniuses of today.
but of course, the reason I'm talking about this all right now is because of the Most recent Nosferatu remake that just released.... (well, actually, it released in 2024, but hey, this review was written in January 2025 so... Hello future people)! I pretty much never go to movie theatres, the only two movies I saw in theatres in the last 15 years were the Mario movie and now Nosferatu. my brother skipped out on the Mario movie when the rest of our family went to see it, but being a fan of horror movies, this seemed like the kind of thing we could watch together. so we went at 9AM on a Sunday in a city full of religious people. since everyone was at church we had the whole theatre to ourselves, which was nice, because I definitely didn't want to deal with a theatre full of screaming people. after watching a bunch of trailers for movies that looked like they were written by AI, the film started.
prior to seeing the movie, I learned a few things about this new version of Orlok. first off, he had a mustache now. seems like a weird choice. I mean, Orlok is always a weird bald rat looking guy, seems like a mustache would make him less scary. people with mustache's aren't scary. Mario has a mustache! secondly, and people were freaking out about this online a lot, but apparently in this new version of the movie, they show count Orlok's penis. well. . . ok. I'm not a big fan of penises, but knowing it was going to be there allowed me to mentally prepare myself for it.
right off the bat, were a lot of changes I liked about this version. first off, the character "Ellen Hutter" (based on mina Harker from Dracula) had a deeper connection to the count, having apparently summoned him when she was younger. the original Orlok just saw a picture of her and became obsessed, so giving them this new backstory feels warranted. she also apparently has psychic powers now. if a horror movie has a female main character, she has to have psychic powers. it's basically a rule now a days. Ellen was played by Lily Rose Depp this time around, but apparently at one point they were going to give the role to Anya Taylor Joy. that would have been weird: I just can't picture Princess Peach Herself in this role.
then there was Thomas Hutter. out of all the name changes the original made, this one was the most tragic. Johnathan Harker is such a cool name. Thomas Hutter sounds lame as hell. at least they actually gave Thomas a lot more to do this time around, he was pretty much a useless idiot in the 1922 original. here, at least he actively tries to kill Orlok rather than cowering in fear.
while Thomas is visiting Orlok's castle, they keep Orlok in the dark a lot more compared to the original. guess they're building up tension more this way, hiding his face most of the time. but now that his face has a mustache, it's not that scary anymore anyway. nah, his face isn't what we should be worrying about, but rather, his penis.
despite that silly mustache, this version of Orlok was pure evil, just the way he should be. he does not want love, he just wants blood. this time around, Orlok was played by bill skarsgard. you know bill skarsgard, he was in it. I never saw it, but I do hear it is pretty scary. it has always been a weird movie to talk about, because any discussion about it can very easily turn into a "who's on first" type discussion, especially if you talk about the thing and it at the same time.
you know, one thing I was a bit disappointed by was the boat scene. this was kind of a big deal in the original, Orlok sneaking onto the ship and slowly killing the entire crew off. this time, it feels like more of an afterthought. we mostly just see the aftermath of Orlok's actions, like when they're throwing the already dead bodies into the ocean.
ok, but speaking of the Ocean, let's go back to SpongeBob for a bit: did you know that Nosferatu is just a reoccurring character now? yeah, they brought him back in one episode as the night shift manager, and that was a funny little call back, but then they just kept bringing him back. they're doing the same thing with the creepy old lady from the chocolate episode. well, if they're going to do that, why not make the "ya, buns and thighs" guy into a main character? you can't just take one off characters who exist only for a single joke in a single episode and then try to make them part of the main cast 20 years later. you just can't. it ruins the joke. it reeks of desperation.
err, anyway, Willem Dafoe is also in this movie. he's now been in two of these Nosferatu remakes, that's crazy. he's not Orlok this time, but rather, some new character who exists only for the sake of exposition. I don't think they even asked Willem Dafoe to be in this movie, it feels like they just showed up at his house uninvited, asked him to talk about vampires, and then he just kept talking and wouldn't leave. classic Willem Dafoe.
even though Orlok looks quite different thanks to that mustache of his, his shadow still looks the same as the original. and that's important: that shadow is part of one of the most iconic shots from the original film. it's probably why "Shadow of the Vampire" had that title; the shadow is just as important as the vampire. I do wish that they lingered on it a bit more in this new version, it passes by pretty quickly, but it is what it is.
as the movie approaches the two hour mark, we get to that iconic ending scene. the one that changed vampire lore forever. the scene where Ellen sacrifices herself, willingly giving her blood to Orlok so that he'd die when the sun rises. for this new remake, there's a pretty noteworthy change: they're both naked now. gross.
while in the original, the sunlight makes Orlok just kind of fade away, they went with a more violent approach this time. he pretty much implodes this time, vomiting out all the blood he just sucked and letting out a horrible roar. but then his body just kind of stays there. it doesn't disappear, so when Thomas arrives in the room, Orlok's dead naked body is just sitting there on top of his dead wife. well damn, that's awkward.
but you know, this whole time this scene was going on, I was sure this would be the part where we see Orlok's penis. so imagine my surprise. . . WE DON'T SEE HIS PENIS! where was it!? I was preparing myself this whole time for it, but it wasn't there! I mean, it's not like I wanted to see it, but I mentally prepared myself for it. but what was the point of that? IT WASN'T THERE!!! overall, it was a great remake. I had fun going to see it with my brother. however, I was promised Penis, and they failed to deliver.
I was a bit hesitant to leave the theatre. when we left the Mario movie during the credits, I later found out there was a post credits scene where Yoshi shows up. what if Nosferatu also had a post credits scene. it could be anything, it could have been Yoshi, it could have been Nick Fury, it could even be Orlok's missing penis. my brother checked his phone and said there was no post credits scene, but I don't know if I believe him. he is a sneaky little guy.
there have been many versions of Nosferatu over the years, but we may never see one with an Orlok that's as scary as the original. it's impossible to beat Max Shreck. you know what they say, if you mess with the Shreck, it's all Ogre.