The first appearance by Dracula in a US film came in 1931, with Bela Lugosi in the titular role.

However, It wasn’t the first time that Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel inspired the character to come alive, as it were, on the big screen.

In 1922 German filmmaker F.W. Murnau directed the silent film Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror; as it was unauthorised, the character’s names had to be changed, with Dracula now Count Orlok.

Robert Eggers version is a curious hybrid of both that film and Stoker’s book, but still with a blood thirsty creature at the heart of it.

1838, Wisberg, Germany, and Thomas Hutter (Nicholas Hoult) has recently married his sweetheart Ellen (Lily-Rose Depp) and is hoping to impress at work to get a raise. And luckily for him, an opportunity comes by way of a reclusive count in a distant land wanting to move into a substantial property in their area, which would come with a lucrative commission.

Thomas is keen to oblige, but there’s a snag, as Count Orlok (Bill Skarsgård) insists that he brings the documents to him immediately, which would involve a six-week journey to his country. Although Ellen is far from happy with his absence, Thomas knows that it would help out financially, so sets off.

Once in the Count’s presence however, Thomas gets a very bad feeling about the whole deal, but it’s a little late for that now, as the Count has a hold on not just Thomas, but Ellen too, which he intends to take full advantage of when he moves into his new home.

With the Count displaying supernatural powers, is there anyone who can stop him?

This is not your average vampire flick and to that end doesn’t engage with many of the usual traits. There are no crosses, no wooden stakes, no blood-sucking of the neck. No holy water. Even the bats have been replaced with rats.

So not a conventional vampire film then. Unfortunately, by removing all those traits and tropes, what’s left isn’t terribly interesting.

The first real issue is Skarsgård’s Count; by stripping the character back, literally speaking on the physical front, the almost creature-like character doesn’t come across as terribly horrific. This is made worse by the accent, that sadly sounds like a parody, as if he should be the new roommate for all the vampires in What We do in the Shadows. It’s not helped by the fact that it has a built in echo with everything he says, giving it an almost Darth Vader character, which again just makes it more comical than threatening.

And then you have Eggers’ direction, which is disappointingly pedestrian. His screenplay lacks energy, but more importantly, simply doesn’t fill your heart with horror; one essential ingredient for a horror film is peril, and this version of Dracula is completely devoid of it.

The most interesting element to it all is how the director uses his colour palette, often draining it of colour, like one of the Count’s victims, when there’s a hint that someone is in danger. It’s just a shame that the technique is more impactful than anything that takes place on screen, with it ultimately being more wordy than it should be.

If you’re watching a film about a vampire, you should be feeling a shiver down your spine, not a bout of giggles when he turns up on screen.

It’s a cheap shot to say it lacks bite, but that’s the truth of the matter.

It’s all very well trying a different take on the vampire genre, but when the result is so underwhelming as this, you kind of crave for a cape and some pointy gnashers.