How are old horror movies best of all time?

[hulkamaniak]

Can someone explain to me about how real old horro movies can be "the best horror movie of all time", im not trying to start an argument but. . .

I watched some of psycho and i didnt understand how it was any good, since it took so long to get into, the killings didnt look good, and compared to movies now they werent as scary.

I do realise they were good for there times, but how comparing it to movies of now can you say they are better, i mean if that exact movie was made now exactly the same, it would be very lowly rated, is it just the fact that it is original and was good for its time?

Thanks for anyone that explains

[Nyarlathotep]

...the kids of today....:rolleyes:

[urgeok]

like, OMG, could anyone like possibly explain to me what nasty old b&w movie could be better than the amazing Resident Evil 2 ?


For Real !

[Nyarlathotep]

that's it

i'm off to watch house of the dead


uwe boll for president !!!

[urgeok]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
that's it

i'm off to watch house of the dead


uwe boll for president !!!


finally ... someone who makes sense around here !

[Despare]

Nothing can be the best of all time because opinions vary and something being "the best" varies person to person. You really think because a movie is labeled the "best of all time" that they took all the movies ever and put them all up against each other and then just decided which one was best? I have some coffee to sell if you want, the can says "Best coffee ever! Worth millions!" I'll part with it for 5 grand.

[The STE]

Originally posted by hulkamaniak
Can someone explain to me about how real old horro movies can be "the best horror movie of all time", im not trying to start an argument but. . .

I watched some of psycho and i didnt understand how it was any good, since it took so long to get into, the killings didnt look good, and compared to movies now they werent as scary.

I do realise they were good for there times, but how comparing it to movies of now can you say they are better, i mean if that exact movie was made now exactly the same, it would be very lowly rated, is it just the fact that it is original and was good for its time?

Thanks for anyone that explains

You make me sad...

[alkytrio666]

Originally posted by hulkamaniak
Can someone explain to me about how real old horro movies can be "the best horror movie of all time", im not trying to start an argument but. . .

I watched some of psycho and i didnt understand how it was any good, since it took so long to get into, the killings didnt look good, and compared to movies now they werent as scary.

I do realise they were good for there times, but how comparing it to movies of now can you say they are better, i mean if that exact movie was made now exactly the same, it would be very lowly rated, is it just the fact that it is original and was good for its time?

Thanks for anyone that explains

Sad. Vomit-inducing. You are. I need to vomit. Excuse me.

[The_Return]

*shakes head in disgust*

[The_Return]

EDIT- Double post

[AUSTIN316426808]

:rolleyes: Whatever.

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by hulkamaniak


I watched some of psycho and i didnt understand how it was any good, since it took so long to get into, the killings didnt look good, and compared to movies now they werent as scary.




People had heart attacks watching Psycho. I'll admit I almost had one watching Boogeyman but for a completely different reason.

[filmmaker2]

I want that coffee Despare is selling. Desp, I'll give you six grand if you sell it to me and no one else. Discard all other offers! I just gotta have that tasty coffeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee thanks

[Posher778]

yeah classics suck sooooo bad. no wonder the films of today beat those old classics by millions, like house of the dead, house of wax, freddy vs jason, etc, etc.

[lionels_mother]

Originally posted by hulkamaniak
Can someone explain to me about how real old horro movies can be "the best horror movie of all time", im not trying to start an argument but. . .

I watched some of psycho and i didnt understand how it was any good, since it took so long to get into, the killings didnt look good, and compared to movies now they werent as scary.

I do realise they were good for there times, but how comparing it to movies of now can you say they are better, i mean if that exact movie was made now exactly the same, it would be very lowly rated, is it just the fact that it is original and was good for its time?

Thanks for anyone that explains

*sobs quietly*

[hollywoodgothiq]

Okay, let me take a stab at answering this seriously...

First, let's lay the foundation: There is a natural tendancy among viewers to think that the films of their era are the best. Those youngsters cannot fathom why oldsters still like classics, and oldsters cannot understand why youngsters prefer contempoary "trash" instead of classics. Unfortunately, this leads to many pointless arguments.

As for your specific example, PSYCHO was a shocker in its day because it took traditional Gothic elements of horror films (the isolated location, the imposing old dark house) and used them in a modern comtemporary story that seemed more accessible and realistic to its audience. By "taking so long to get into" the story, it presented Marion Crane as the lead character, then shocked viewers by killing her off completely unexpectedly.

PSYCHO continues to be considered one of the best horror films because its craftsmanship and artistry have withstood the test of time: the film is well-made and convincing in a way that the vast majority of horror films are not, and the screenplay and performances invite a kind of audience identification that makes the film seem like a real movie -- not just an excuse to string together a dozen murders at eight-minute intervals.

Having said all that, I will admit that I was profoundly disappointed when I first saw PSYCHO -- the film's reputation is almost to great for it to live up to. But after you get over your expectations and actually watch what's there, you see that it really is a great movie, one that's worth watching again and again.

[urgeok]

i agree that people tend to think that the time of their first exposure is the best era for film ... (nostalgia is a powerful thing)
but I'm an exception to that.

Most of my 1st experiences came in the 80's - which to me represents in general - the poorest time for horror films (thanhs to the home video boom)

To me the 70's will always represent the best time for horror - suited to my personal tastes. (i like the grainy gritty feel - and the common theme of helplessness in the face of conspiracy)

I can appreciate and respect the old Universal classics but they arent my favorites.

And i dont automatically hate everything new.. (although a more seasoned fan of any genre has to look hard to find a shred of origionality in a film after seeing countless 1000's of movies through the years)

[knife_fight]

Originally posted by urgeok
i agree that people tend to think that the time of their first exposure is the best era for film ... (nostalgia is a powerful thing)
but I'm an exception to that.

Most of my 1st experiences came in the 80's - which to me represents in general - the poorest time for horror films (thanhs to the home video boom)

To me the 70's will always represent the best time for horror - suited to my personal tastes. (i like the grainy gritty feel - and the common theme of helplessness in the face of conspiracy)

I can appreciate and respect the old Universal classics but they arent my favorites.

And i dont automatically hate everything new.. (although a more seasoned fan of any genre has to look hard to find a shred of origionality in a film after seeing countless 1000's of movies through the years)

I was gonna reply to this thread, but then I saw this. it's kinda like a card. it says what I was gonna say, but it's not my words.

[Despare]

I have watched movies before my time that have become a favorite film after the first watching. Nastoliga I'm sure is A reason but it surely isn't the only reason. Sometimes a movie is great no matter the time period.

[urgeok]

nostalgia is usually a reason for really liking a film that you probably wouldnt otherwise like that much..

[hollywoodgothiq]

I agree. Nostalgia is just one reason to like old movies.

The point I was making in my post was to explain why so often we hear pointless arguments from people -- young and old -- screaming that movies from their era are the only good ones.

I love classic movies, but I enjoy new films too. I don't ever want to be one of those old curmodgeons complaining, "They don't make 'em like they used to!"

[urgeok]

Originally posted by hollywoodgothiq
I agree. Nostalgia is just one reason to like old movies.

The point I was making in my post was to explain why so often we hear pointless arguments from people -- young and old -- screaming that movies from their era are the only good ones.

I love classic movies, but I enjoy new films too. I don't ever want to be one of those old curmodgeons complaining, "They don't make 'em like they used to!"

i totally understood your point ..

my main point was that often the "they dont make them like they used to" comes from the shit actors generally used in horror now, compared to the 70's. (and shit music, shit direction..etc)

Since home video - very few filmmakers take the horror genre seiously.

Plus - the theatre going demographic has changed drastically since the 70's. Movies are mostly made aimed at the 15 - 25 year olds. (thus generally less accomplished actors)

I keep saying 'generally' because i am aware that there are always exceptions to the rules .. but dammit - it is true .. for the most part - they dont make movies like they used to - because the climate has changed and there just isnt the demand for quality anymore.

[hulkamaniak]

Thanks for your opinions in the last few posts.

So if i truly want to be scared, and put in tension etc. from horror movies, it would be better to get the older movies right?

Any reccomendations?

[alkytrio666]

-"M"

-"Night of the Living Dead" (1968)

-"Horror Hotel"

-"Nosferatu" (1922) (although this might be a little too old for your taste)

-"Dracula" (1931)

-"Frankenstein" (1931)

-"I Walked With a Zombie"

-"House on Haunted Hill" (Vincent Price version- I don't know the date...probably around 1958 or so)


There's a few to get you started- most of them necessities.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by alkytrio666
-"M"

-"Night of the Living Dead" (1968)

-"Horror Hotel"

-"Nosferatu" (1922) (although this might be a little too old for your taste)

-"Dracula" (1931)

-"Frankenstein" (1931)

-"I Walked With a Zombie"

-"House on Haunted Hill" (Vincent Price version- I don't know the date...probably around 1958 or so)


There's a few to get you started- most of them necessities.

and all of the val lewton series

[BloodRedFlower]

Well, it all comes down to a matter of taste.

But I enjoy old horror movies because they had different ways to scare the shit out of a person. Instead of using special FX, they were able to create a creepy mood solely through camera angles, movements and story.

And that's where lies the magic of cinema.

[bloodrayne]

I think for some of us, we remember the impact that the older films had at the time they first came out......Before CGI, and easy to make, high tech, special effects....I like the 'gritty reality' of the older films...They simply have a much different 'feel' than today's 'highly polished, cookie cutter' films

Also, at that time...Many of the concepts were new...We hadn't already experienced them a million times...That feeling tends to linger, too

The original Psycho and Night Of The Living Dead blew me away back then...

[lycainin]

Old movie's are good, In there own way. For me, its about light and dark. The play on shadows was a great part of the old classic's LIke Phycho for example;; But today's movie making is out of this world. In avery way possible, Lord of the Ring is a prime example of, how far movie making has come. I agree with what Bloodrayne and Blood Red Flower said on this subject,,, for they said it better than I did...

[Posher778]

I think all the good classics should just be restored with color and better sound and picture quality. More people would like them I think.

[Despare]

Originally posted by Posher778
I think all the good classics should just be restored with color and better sound and picture quality. More people would like them I think.

That would ruin a LOT of movies for me and I REALLY REALLY hope you're being sarcastic.

[von chaney]

ah the good old classic's ,eh?
universal and hammer films will rule forever.
picture lugosi as dracula stalking through his ruined castle to bring renfield to his doom,classic.
even chaney's london after midnight,ok its lost,but his vampire with a mouthful of fangs,one of the best moments in black and white history. dracula, frankenstein,wolfman and creature from black lagoon,pure class.
then came THE GOLDEN AGE of hammer. you will never find a better team than peter cushing and christopher lee. their monsters were bigger and better,and blood all in glorious colour. (none of this use your imagination rubbish).
how many times do you really need to see freddy slash another bunch of kids to ribbons? and will michael myers be chasing jamie lee curtis when she is a granny??
turn the light out,put a bit of universal or hammer in the dvd, and you will never be better scared and entertained.

[PR3SSUR3]

Can someone explain to me about how real old horro movies can be "the best horror movie of all time", im not trying to start an argument but. . .

I watched some of psycho and i didnt understand how it was any good, since it took so long to get into, the killings didnt look good, and compared to movies now they werent as scary.

I do realise they were good for there times, but how comparing it to movies of now can you say they are better, i mean if that exact movie was made now exactly the same, it would be very lowly rated, is it just the fact that it is original and was good for its time?

Thanks for anyone that explains


This is a perfectly reasonable thought, seen from down from off the high-horse.

Each generation has their movies, and only film scholars (or "buffs"... who are of course by nature over protective and anal about what is considered "classic") may delve into history to uncover and learn more about genre sparks, original concepts and inspiring works.

Most folk, however, can't be arsed - much less work to switch off in front of Transporter 2 than to deconstruct and find meaning within The Bride of Frankenstein.

Now that the horror film is where it is, messier gore and the same monsters more mutated are in demand - subtle, intriguing and genuinely scary pictures are a nice surprise, but definately not the first choice of today's prime audiences.

The shaping of the horror movie definately depends upon the times we are living, though some of us wisely draw distinctions between success and innovation.

[Despare]

Originally posted by hulkamaniak
if that exact movie was made now exactly the same, it would be very lowly rated

I think if Psycho was made today exactly the same it would still garner some critical acclaim because the movies that borrowed from it may not be around. Conversely, if you were to have seen Psycho when it came out you probably would have enjoyed it a lot more due to the fact that you hadn't seen anything like it. I admit, with some films you have to take into account when a movie was made and see it for what it did and what it was; not what it is.

[filmmaker2]

I tend to believe that while movies have always been commercial art, they are currently almost purely commercial, and very little art. In the current horror films I feel very little passion and love for the material, only an impulse to calculate, package and sell the product. Technology and techniques have advanced; but it is their nature to evolve--I'm not impressed with special effects simply because they're current techniques. Give me "Curse of the Demon" or "Night of the Living Dead" any day, or the earlier Hammer Dracula movies....these things still give me good chills! And the original three Star Wars movies--even the seriously flawed "Return of the Jedi" --are way better than the later prequels. And give me the original "King Kong" any day. Its story and pacing were tight and focused and dynamic, while the remake, oozing money and effects from every pore, tastes like flat soda to me.

Of course, I grew up with all that older stuff, and I am biased that way. I don't think it's impossible at all for new great movies to me made; I just don't see too many things that deeply impress me these days.

[hollywoodgothiq]

Originally posted by hulkamaniak
i mean if that exact movie was made now exactly the same, it would be very lowly rated, is it just the fact that it is original and was good for its time?

Of course PSYCHO would be lowly rated if some remade it exactly the same -- we even have evidence to support this, in the form of the dreadful remake by Gus Van Sant in the late 1990s.

To paraphrase Pierre Menard, the beknighted author in the Jorge Luise Borges story "Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote:"

"To film PSYCHO at the beginning of the 1960s was a reasonable, necessary, and perhaps inevitable undertaking; at the beginning of the 21st century it is almost impossible. It is not in vain the 56 years have passed, charged with the most complex happenings -- among them, to mention only one, that same PSYCHO."

In other words, the very existence of a 1960 PSYCHO makes the concept of a subsequent PSYCHO almost unthinkable, because all the techniques, style and surprises have been used -- exhausted.

[Despare]

Originally posted by hollywoodgothiq
Of course PSYCHO would be lowly rated if some remade it exactly the same -- we even have evidence to support this, in the form of the dreadful remake by Gus Van Sant in the late 1990s.

It wasn't EXACTLY the same though. If Psycho were released today the same way it was before AND the horror genre hadn't had anything quite like it then maybe it would get some good "ratings".

[AtsuiSenkiGoku]

best classic horror movie is army of darkness because it was funny or they live

[hollywoodgothiq]

Originally posted by Despare
It wasn't EXACTLY the same though. If Psycho were released today the same way it was before AND the horror genre hadn't had anything quite like it then maybe it would get some good "ratings".

I think you miss my point -- which was not to disparage PSYCHO but to point out that the "thought experiment" (about how PSYCHO would be regarded if made today) is a foolish one.

[PR3SSUR3]

I thought the Van Sant remake was perfectly watchable, and retained the feel of the original - same camera angles and all.

[AtsuiSenkiGoku]

is vansant like vanhelsing because it wasnt good

[PR3SSUR3]

It's more like "faggot", which is good - or so you say.

[AtsuiSenkiGoku]

i never said gay was good i said i could have meant that it was just you ass uming and faggot sounds nothing like vanhelsing

Just because something can be made more efficiantly or more advanced it doesn't mean that it's superior. Computers can be used to make beautiful shiny objects and even craft protraits much more realistic and colorful than the Mona Lisa and yet we know which is better. Movies are art and to truly appriciate where we are you have to have some understanding and appriciation of where we came from; or at least if you want to get into films. The only reason many of the modern films you love are around is because they were inspired by or borrowed from the classics. Sometimes these films bring ideas and inspiration to the table and that doesn't fade away throughout the years as a film may have the tendancy to do.


suburban commando is a good example because its a mixture of alien and highland and no holds barred which were all great movies that were awesome

[PR3SSUR3]

I've already said all that, apart from the faggot and Suburban Commando bits.

[AtsuiSenkiGoku]

so have i

[PR3SSUR3]

Yes, but by copying off me.

:D

[GOODandEVIL666]

i agree with alkytrio but i also would add DEMENTIA 13...

[ADOM]

I agree, what would weaken Psycho today as a movie or any classic for that matter, are the subsequent thousands of movies that have built on them. What makes a movie a true timeless classic is that it defines its moment in history as well as being entertaining and artisitic at the same time. Psycho was and is what it is because of when it was made. Had it NOT been made over 5 decades ago then it would chill today's audiences nearly as much as it did back then, but if Marty pushed his dad out of the way of that moving car his parents never would have met and he'd never exist! Time travel is too dangerous.