Would you call me a philistine if I told you I think this is overrated? I'd probably deserve it. OK...from an ABSOLUTE LANDMARK IN FILM HISTORY perspective, it's fascinating, invaluable stuff. And I can imagine, casting myself back to the early 1920s, when nothing REMOTELY like it had been seen on screen before...this would've packed a colossal punch with audiences. But if you've watched more than a few modern films in the past 50 years, your movie-psyche is probably expecting something a lot faster-moving than this. Frankly, to mostly ADD-warped modern minds, this is going to DRAG. I realise that's heresy, but we all can't be literate film history students/snobs. This WILL send a lot of people to sleep. Yet, I am so glad I've seen it. While there is a lot of redundancy in "getting there" scenes, while the music score (in my version anyway) was ridiculously over-dramatic in the non-vamp scenes, a fast-forwarded version of Nosferatu has a helluva lot to recommend it. For the time - for ANY time really, the atmosphere of many of the vamp sequences is captivating. There are no frightening "shocks" by modern standards, and nothing particular graphic, but there are a few dozen images within this film that are absolutely haunting...strangely beautiful too, in a really creepy way. The film is very old, yes, the film is very slow, yes, but the film - or more accurately some of the images from the film - will lodge into your brain and be hard to shake. Schreck is so definitively macabre and memorable that every subsequent vampire on film was really a pale (no pun intended) imitation. Speaking of which...yes, I reckon this might be overrated. Yes, I reckon this might send a few viewers to sleep. But damn, it's a shitload better than Twilight.