what nosferatu fans think of twilight?

You are wrong rowanlc. Telling us not to say it doesn't in any way change this irrefragable truth. Your comments are embarassingly obtuse. I need to stop hating new films do I? Tough luck, lots of people hate those films.

Why would I like a film that has Tom Cruise and Bradd Pitt in it? They are too busy indulging their grandiose egos for me to respect them. Hollywood is just an ego scene, an industry that peddles nauseating dreams for the adolescent mindset, so no, I don't need to stop hating them.

I've studied human nature my friend, and it's inordinately presumptuous of you to believe we haven't. Humans have no truly fixed nature anyway, so your point is a tenuous one at best, and if I may say so an extremely digressive one as well.

Don't give me this "I assure you" nonsense as if you were some pre-eminent authority on this subject, especially when you have done naught to elucidate the reasoning behind your pretentious talk. What I find unfathomable is that anyone would have the brazen effrontery to claim that a person with a predilection for the works of a veritable artist like Murnau should also like pus like the films you mentioned, when, apart from the obvious vampire correlation, the film's are in many ways antithetically opposed to each other.

One obvious discrepancy is the monster itself. In Nosferatu, the monster is a far more nefarious creation than say Tom Cruise, whose performance is nothing more than a platform for his gargantuan ego. The vampire in Murnau's work of art is the embodiment of the plague, the projection of the fears of the population of post-war Germany, which also applies to the whole movie itself. Murnau was a virtuoso storyteller and his acute understanding of spacial concepts to reflect the characters subjectivity, visual metaphor, expressionist cinematography etc should be taken into account before you make these unsupportable claims and cheapen Nosferatu by comparison. Just because the films all have vampires in them is of no consequence to anyone interested in film as an art form.

You also need to analyse Murnau's ingenious use of negative imagery, time lapse photography to create the sinister, spider-like movements of Nosferatu, how he uses all the aforementioned things to constitute the film's supernatural imagery, and then juxtapose it with the methodology of today's directors of horror movies and you'll understand that your claim is abundantly inane. I reiterate, where is the logic behind your claiming I would like those movies if they were released in 1922? It's ludicrous! The differences are manifest, and just because they both have vampires in them it doesn't mean that that should be a good enough reason to respect them both!

It also behooves you to remember that Murnau was more than just some Hollywood philistine, I mean director with a keen business sense, the man was one of cinema's most painterly directors, who successfully intergrated the fine arts into his own work, like in this film the work of German Romantic landscape painter Caspar David Friedrich and Francisco Goya, or Rembrandt in Faust, Vermeer in Sunrise etc. The reason why I'm pointing this out is, of course, to expose the obtuseness of your claim that that if those films you mentioned were made back then, I'd like them, even though the films bear no relation, which can also be said of Hollywood films in the 20s compared to the past 20 years. The mentality of Hollywood filmmakers has markedly changed, and films like the ones you refer to wouldn't have been made back then, especially in the banal manner they craft films today.

Apropos the remark I just made, Hollywood cinema was a completely different place to what it is now, which is why some people look to the past for their amusement and inspiration, so your point is poorly formed to say the least. The directors in the 20s, like Murnau, Keaton and Chaplin exercised an authority over their films unheard of since, and this is perhaps the quintessential ingredient ingredient of all great art, that the artist is allowed complete freedom of expression, to make the films they want in the way they want with the people they want. Go away and study the Hollywood today and you'll see just how much the art-form has degenerated into nothing more than an industry where the filmmaking pratices are so rigidly and inflexibly imposed by philistine producers that it has no artistic worth.

You think that none of us should hate Twilight and IWAV? Or to put it another way, you think that none of us should hate what you like, which is the implication of that childish remark. I have a preference for Expressionist horror, and I abominate the kind of infantilisations we see of horror today, with their standardised fascination with gratuitous visual shocks that leave nothing to the imagination, digital photography and cgi that makes a film look less like a sequence of tableaux and more like a computer game, cliche soundtracks, and actors who spend more time cultivating their image than the things germane to the acting profession etc. I could go on and on and on and on.

I don't understand what human nature has got to do with any of this, and clearly you don't either. Your comment is fatuous in the extreme, and I suggest that in future you awaken your inert mental faculties before you come on here, instead of just using this site to exercise your fingers.

I love Nosferatu, it's the scariest vampire movie I've seen. Dracula (1931) is great too. I also really enjoyed Interview with the Vampire (never read the books), because of the suave and sexy style of the vampires coupled with their animalistic nature. I absolutely love Stephen King's "Salem's Lot," I think it's an amazing vampire story that I don't see people mention most of the time when they think of vampires.

Twilight is awful. It ruined vampires and made them sissy sparkling "heartthrobs". It's fine with me if vampires are good looking, but they need to be evil. That's why Nosferatu is amazing; the vampire is unapologetically evil and horrific.