The title of the review is obviously joking but I hope it gives an idea of ​​the doubt that gripped me for the entire (considerable) duration of the film: am I in the presence of a cinema masterpiece or am I watching a film that does everything to critics like him?
I have no doubt that Robert Eggers, also considering his young age, will become one of the most important directors of the coming decades - and I am anxiously awaiting his “Nosferatu”.  The film is simply majestic from all points of view and the performances of Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson are nothing short of sublime, especially in the monologues. A piece of advice: it is a film to watch in the original language with subtitles, otherwise you lose much of the characterization of Dafoe's character, perfectly credible as a late 19th century sailor without becoming a caricature (although Eggers winks a bit at the viewers when he has Pattinson describe his character as a sort of scoundrel who poses as Captain Ahab). 

Eggers' attention to historical detail, including language, is obsessive.  The film, visually, recalls the masterpieces of the past thanks to the use of black and white, the unusual square format and lenses that reproduce the effect of films of the past. The slowness of the progress made me think of Tarkovsky.

Why my doubts, then? Because I couldn't shake off the impression that from a certain point onwards the film transformed into a theatrical work (I discovered after seeing it that Eggers also worked in the theater and it seems evident to me in this film). The dramatic monologues of the first part transform into theatrical monologues in the finale. The lighthouse setting becomes metaphorically just a painted backdrop to act as a backdrop for the actors' performances, but if there had been the sea painted on a scenic backdrop the effect would have been identical. And, above all, the chaos of the storm has become universal chaos, eliminating the need for a logical motivation for what the film tells.  The characters lose their minds and at the same time the story loses contact with reality and logic.  Is it an advantage? Is it a defect? Everyone has their own personal answer. For me it tips the scales on the negative side. A film and a play are different works with different rules, I have never liked hybrids between them, but that's just my opinion.  From a certain moment on, I saw the realism of the film disappearing to make way for surrealism, in which every bizarre act is justified a priori, especially in the ending. It's my limit, but I find surreality as an end in itself in a film futile.  I must say that this flaw - if it is one - is an element that is often repeated in A24 films. Of excellent quality, but always somehow "strange" and surreal.

There remains one point, which cannot be analyzed without spoiling the story: the lighthouse, which is not only the setting of the film but a real character. It will remain in suspense until the last moment

I'm sure Eggers knew perfectly well what he was doing and how this film should be made. But this "how" is the problem: did he make a splendid film or did he collect a collection of splendid elements? I could be wrong but it seems to me that he himself defined the genre of this film neither as drama nor as horror but as "strange". 

What I liked

• Dafoe and Pattinson are sublime, but watch the film in the original language!
• The direction, the photography , the sound, the atmosphere, etc.
• The meticulous historical reconstruction
• The feeling that the film is a sort of fairy tale - it is inspired by an old American tale, if I remember correctly <23 >

What I didn't like

• The feeling that at a certain point the fairy tale transforms into a theatrical work
• The basic misunderstanding: it is a film that has some great hints, a constant underlying tension and some slightly stronger scenes, but there is less horror here than in an episode of Peppa Pig, I think. Eggers is a master at creating visceral tension, but his approach to fear  is extremely refined and subtle. I don't think this film is being served well by classifying it as "horror." 

Who may like it

• Who loves auteur cinema, Bergman, expressionism, Tarkovsky and who doesn't expect to see a "traditional" horror film ”
• To theater enthusiasts