"bad" classics

[wufongtan.]

I was watching HalloweenII the other night. And after it had finished i was like "meh". I haven't seen the movies for a few years, well a lot of years and remembered enjoying it. i still enjoyed it but it wasn't anywhere as good as i thought. maybe it was years of reading how great it is by other fans of horror that gave me some sort of high expectations of the film. Has any one here watched a old "classic" that they haven't seen for years and thought well that wasn't as good as i remembered? Do horror fans suffer from the same syptoms as music fans. Where they feel they sort of have to praise a band/album to be taken serious even though deep down they don't really think it's all that good?

[Doc Faustus]

Definitely, although it is possible to dislike and appreciate something at the same time. There's a lot of horror classics that I dislike but appreciate. I appreciate Dawn of the Dead, for example, but I don't like it. I appreciate the Exorcist, but it's forty five minutes too long.

[cdub88]

Friday the 13th is my all time favorite movie franchise, and yet I thought Part 5 was incredibly boring (no Jason, but enough titties...including some HUGE ones...to make up for it) but still, not entertaining



plus i rewatched Leprechaun 3 recently...man i loved that SO MUCH MORE back when it was out

[Posher778]

None of these are classics......

[mannequinwizard]

face it we're all getting older damn it im gonna watch as much crap
as i can before i end up dead.


O_O my life is one big rerun anyway every damn year and theres
plenty of horror movies out there and more good ones on the way.

[Staplez]

None of these are classics......

I was thinking the same thing. When I think classic I think Psycho, not Halloween 2.

[The_Raven]

Halloween II?
Dawn of the Dead?
Friday the 13th?
Leprechaun 3?

classics?

Poor Boris and Bela might have turned in their graves. :rolleyes:

[BloodRedFlower]

Yeah these are not exactly classics, but they're becoming it :)

I watched White Zombie (the movie) and Creature From the Black Lagoon some time ago, good examples of classics that I appreciated, but didn't like. They're valuable pieces because they set some new standarts in their time. Now they might look ridiculous, but are marks in movie history so... gotta respect them.

For me it happens the same when it comes to music, like... with older heavy metal bands (Kiss, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden....) that I respect because they are the roots of what I listen to now, but I don't really like their music.

[colubrid660]

Halloween 2 is a minor classic from that era...and it is pretty boring.

The old "Fly" movie (not the Jeff Goldblum version, the old old one) is one that, while I still like it, it was much freakier when I was younger.

[The_Return]

I was also hugely disappointed by the Vincent Price version of The Fly...it had its moments, but could have been a lot better with the talent behind it.

Price was painfully underused...that was barely even a cameo, but he gets top billing....

[neverending]

Classic horror, as defined in the forum title is horror films from the 1960s and before, so regardless of whether you regard crap sequels from the 80s or 90s as "classics" they are not from the classic era.


And though I'm a fan of Cronenberg the original Fly is so much better than his confused remake it's laughable.

[Lord RawK]

When I read this topic I thought of it in the terms like neverending described. That being said, when a movie is considered a classic, it doesn't have to be from 50 years ago. So this really could go either way. The only problem is, it is in the "Classic Horror" section which says 60s and before. If this was in a different board in the forum, then we could go the other way on this subject.

[Marya Zaleska]

Halloween II?
Dawn of the Dead?
Friday the 13th?
Leprechaun 3?

classics?

Poor Boris and Bela might have turned in their graves. :rolleyes:

I agree. The real classic are from the 1960 back ( even in the silents).

The best classic stars were Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, both Lon Chaney Senior and Lon Chaney, Junior, Peter Lorre,Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Ingrid Pitt and Vincent Price to name a few.

Though some of the earlier sound films may seem quite hammy, they are still superior to some of the trash being made today.

However, I am not saying all modern horror films are trash. There are many, many real quality films still being made after the 1960's like The Howling, The Exorcist, Silent Hill, The Omen, The Gathering, The Skeletal Key, Sleepy Hollow, House On Haunted Hill( new version), The Gathering, The Others, The Entity, Poltergeist, Arachnaphobia, Jeepers Creepers and Species.

I have never seen The Hills have Eyes. I think I will treat myself today to that film along with a few beers!

The Countess:)

[Ferox13]

The best classic stars were Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, both Lon Chaney Senior and Lon Chaney, Junior, Peter Lorre,Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Ingrid Pitt and Vincent Price to name a few.

LOL - one of these ppl are not like the others :-)


Just kiddin' Marya Zaleska - i prolly have a more similar taste to yours than most on the board... I'm a huge Karloff fan and even the rest of your list are my horror heroes too (well except pitt but i know its ur fetish)

[crabapple]

There is an "I Love Vincent Price" shirt for sale on Amazon and I have been considering getting one. Vincent was the ginchiest!

[CopperShark]

I'm not familiar with most classic horror if indeed classic horror is defined as anything before the 1960's. I'm young (24) so for me movies from the 60's and 70's are old though a distinction can clearly be made between them and the old B&W movies. Some of the classics are good and I certainly appreciate them but they just aren't my taste. Movies like White Zombie are deadly boring for me; say what you will. With that said some older movies that I think are overrated but aren't necessarily bad include Phantasm and Poltergeist.

[neverending]

If you don't like Classic Horror then why are you posting in the Classic Horror forum?

Think before you answer.

BTW- Poltergeist & Phantasm are not Classic Horror.

[CopperShark]

If you don't like Classic Horror then why are you posting in the Classic Horror forum?

I did not say I didn't like classic horror. I said I appreciate it and there are some films that I like but generally they aren't my taste. Besides is not this thread specifically about "BAD horror"? Does this not imply an allowed discussion on the classics we don't like? I believe it does and since I did say that "White Zombie" was deadly boring I'm completely on topic.

BTW- Poltergeist & Phantasm are not Classic Horror.

I referred to them as older movies, not classics specifically to avoid negative feedback from individuals like yourself. Even still the subject on exactly what a classic is seems to be under debate on this forum, even if it is specifically outlined under the forum description.

Think before you answer.

Read before you reply.

I came here wanting to share my opinion, nothing more. You could have just read what I had to say and left it at that since you already made clear what your opinion was prior to my post but instead you decide this needs to go on further, muddle up a decent thread and instigate and nitpick my post. Awesome.

[The_Raven]

Even still the subject on exactly what a classic is seems to be under debate on this forum, even if it is specifically outlined under the forum description.

There is no debate.

It is a silent and mutually understood and respected fact between all members of HDC - Night of the Living Dead is taken as a milestone of distinguishing between classics and modern horror. And since NotLD was made in 1968, it is pretty obvious which ones are actually classics by the exact definition of the word.

As I pointed before, the person who started this thread needs to learn what a "classic" movie actually is, before even going to the area of "good" or "bad" classics.

They need to distinguish right, before deciding on making a thread and vomit their useless verbal diarrhoea into it. At least it will save the forum server some space.

[CopperShark]

Well I have been a member of HDC for how long? And have what...19 posts? Sorry I don't quite understand this "silent and mutually understood and respected fact" yet. What a warm friendly bunch of people we have here, truly. Whatever a classic horror movie is or isn't I still don't feel my reply was off topic or necessary to bitch about. Horror snobbery at its finest I guess.

[James Whale]

I think the point being made here is "Do we pretend to like old classic films to get credibility?" No, I don't. I love THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN and appreciate it. Some of the younger fans only need a little prep. Someone who has a knowledge of classic horror giving them hints of what to look for.With a little study, even someone who is very young can do way more then "appreciate" a classic.; they can truly enjoy it! It's important to put a classic in context. For example , the classics of the 50's were made during a time of paranoia about communism and the atom bomb. Many of these films had mutated monsters created by exposure to radioactivity. Many of these films also had people who looked like everybody else but were actually pod people. These films were examples of the paranoid McCarthy era. Someone could look like your best friend, but could actually be a communst spy! Putting these film in context can make watching them way more then an academic exercise. Context can make watching classics FUN! These films are not something that you should feel obligated to watch. They are time capsules of frights and flights of fancy.

[urgeok2]

I think the point being made here is "Do we pretend to like old classic films to get credibility?" .



just to touch on this :

I am the 1st to admit (to a very harsh audience) that I do not love the old classics as much as other people do.

I appreciate them
I dont mind them
I aknowledge their place in cinema history
I know they are very beautiful and atmospheric ..

but they dont speak to me as much as you'd think they would - especially me being an older guy. (i saw them before anything else)


to me the old universal horrors were atmospheric - definately - but that was their main strength.

i dont think the acting was as satrong in general. the music didnt grab me, the pacing was oft times too slow - even for me.


i love stylish films, but i like to forget i'm watching a film when i'm watching a film..

movies like Session 9, the Others, Hardware, Ju-On, Phantasm, etc ... have the ability to suck me in far more than the old classics.

Like anything, i believe there are people who truely like them, i also believe there are some people who say they do for the credibility - whatever - thats human nature.

we each have our own concious or subconcious criteria for what films grab us.
I won't pretend to understand it .. and i wont deny it.

i likes what i likes ...

[Darryl Mathe]

Question: Why did Blair Witch rip off Cannibal Holocaust and get away with it?

[Ferox13]

Question: Why did Blair Witch rip off Cannibal Holocaust and get away with it?

No sure what that has to do with any thing but I kinda think BW ripped off THE LAST BROADCAST more.

[Elvis_Christ]

Halloween II is a dope flick. Heathen motherfuckers! :D

I'm down with what Urge said too... my "classics" are different than the classic era of horror.

The Blair Witch didn't rip off Cannibal Holocaust it's part of the same subgenre and uses the standard conventions of it to tell it's story.

[illdojo]

Halloween II is a dope flick. Heathen motherfuckers! :D

I'm down with what Urge said too... my "classics" are different than the classic era of horror.

The Blair Witch didn't rip off Cannibal Holocaust it's part of the same subgenre and uses the standard conventions of it to tell it's story.

Ditto
Ditto
Ditto

[crabapple]

I liked Hallyween II, too.

[colubrid660]

Classic horror, as defined in the forum title is horror films from the 1960s and before, so regardless of whether you regard crap sequels from the 80s or 90s as "classics" they are not from the classic era.

Thats a pretty rigid way to describe "classic". A classic should be any movie that had an effect on how later movies were made. Just because movies like Halloween and Alien aren't in black and white, doesn't take away the impact it had on later horror films.

I just think for the purpose of this thread, this is the definition we are using.


And though I'm a fan of Cronenberg the original Fly is so much better than his confused remake it's laughable.

The original Fly was alright but come on, Cronenberg's remake was a completely different style of movie and had completely different meaning.

[neverending]

This is the classic horror forum. If you want to discuss bad modern horror movies, go to the modern horror forum.

How much simpler can it get?

I didn't define modern & classic eras that way- that's the accepted genre breakdown industrywide.

[Zero]

Daughter of Dracula - oh my was that awful!

[The_Return]

Daughter of Dracula - oh my was that awful!

This one? :

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027545/

If so, I'd agree that it was a bit disappointing...but awful?

It does have Edward Van Sloan back, after all...it can't be all bad.

[colubrid660]

This is the classic horror forum. If you want to discuss bad modern horror movies, go to the modern horror forum.

I agree, but seeing as how we discuss almost every type of movie, including upcoming superhero movies, in modern horror and others, I really don't think the "rules" are held to be that rigid.

[Zero]

the rules are very rigid - - - very very rigid


(oh and daughter of dracula did, indeed, suck ass)

[Robert_Dunbar]

Funny how subjective that all is. I love DRACULA'S DAUGHTER. ( Also SON OF DRACULA, though I'm not usually a Chaney, Jr. fan.) Gloria Holden is such an iconic presence. And it's very cool that it begins the same night that the Lugosi DRACULA ends.


www.DunbarAuthor.com