With Netflix, this forum, and remakes, I had the chance to visit many of the "classics" to see how they were with fresh eyes and no emotional connection. The one I thought aged by far the best, and not even a close second, was the original TCM. The original Halloween was also good.

But many of the "classics" I thought were not even awesomely bad. I could not believe the credit Last Houst on the Left, Hills Have Eyes, Nightmare on Elm Street, and a few others would get from various huggers on the internet when I thought they were average at best.

Though I understand many don't have the ability to be objective, because I also own Krull in my collection and could not possibly explain the attraction to someone who has never seen it before.

I see your point with Dawn of the Dead, but still like the original better. Which of these Remakes did you find better or scarier than the original? For me, that would be none.

Amityville Horror
Black Christmas
The Boogeyman
The Fog
The Hitcher
The Omen
Psycho
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
When a Stranger Calls

That's why we got the remake last year :)

Am I the only one that feels that "Altered States" would make a killer remake?

Dawn of the Dead 2004 is quite full of social/political commentary and sub-text itself....is it just the fact that its different commentary than the original that makes people just ignore it? Or is it just fast zombies? Or that it sort of ends up in an action flick (which...where zombies real, there would be lots of shooting going on anyway).

I'm one who finds slow zombies scarier. I think it adds to the hopelessness of the situation. There's nowhere to go, no place safe, so it doesn't matter if they are slow they will still get you anyway. There is a false hope in the original Dawn that we might just survive this that I didn't feel in the remake. Also you get to know the characters in the original so you are bummed when one of them buys it.

From your post, I can't tell if you're criticizing Romero's movies for not giving a reason (you might have been saying that as a positive point, but i'm not sure). My feeling on this is that it's great that we don't know. Why in the hell would humanity figure out what it was? Once the zombie uprising started, people started dying in large numbers, then once humans became outnumbered, i'm sure the scientific community became severely diminished and their resources weren't as great as they would be had this whole zombie plague not happened. It's so creepy to know that one day, the dead just came back to life. And that once you die...YOU WILL TOO! It's just the way things are, no explanation. I love that.

That would take my vote as well.

I would agree, especially those two wacky cops who are horrible at their jobs.

Although I can appreciate horror movies from the 30-40's and earlier, it's really hard to find any of them actually scary. Stuff like Frankenstein, Dracula, Nosferatu, Wolfman, etc. don't really pack the punch they must have 70 years ago.

Sure. Not knowing is part of the horror. However, my post was in response to another poster that said that they <i>did</i> know the reason and that the reason was why Slow Zombies(Dawn 78) made more sense than the Dawn(04) Fast Zombies.

I agree on both your statements.

I know the original Black Christmas has a pretty big Cult following & I do own the ‘Special Ed.’ DVD but it’s a bit overrated in my opinion. I’ve heard great things about it before I saw it & I was just found it a bit underwhelming.

I’d say that Black Christmas is actually kind of boring in some parts & I don’t know if anyone actually found it scary in 1974.

I completely agree with you, in that The Original Texas Chainsaw Massacre still stands up well today, actually it stands up terrifically. The film style is what really adds the ‘Scary’ factor & even though I’m one who enjoyed the 03’ remake, I think the OR is still more ‘Scary’ due in large to the filming style.

I’m going too say with a strait face that 1922’s Nosferatu still stands up well today. I mean anything filmed in the 20’s is creepy too begin with but Nosferatu is possibly my favorite ‘Monster’ of the ‘Classic’ Horror era.

I like the Dracula, Frankenstein & Wolf man Universal Classics but they are a little slow.

In truth, the older Horror films are better than anything made in the last 10-15 years & I don’t think we’ll ever see Friday the 13th, Halloween, etc… type classics again.

To me a horror film doesn't have to be scary. It's the atmosphere, the story, and (maybe most importantly) the characters that make those fiilms. That's why the old classics still work. Frankenstein (and I include Bride with it, they are practically one film) has incredible atmosphere, and the characters are so interesting. What scares people changes all the time.

To me The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari is one of the greatest films because of all those reason as well. I agree with Nosferatu and seeing it on the big screen is awesome.

Well could you point out what commentary this film has?

Most zombie film have lots of shooting in them. Gunfire doesn't make it an action film. And there is nothing wrong with an action film with zombies. I think Dawn 04 just failed in the excitement element.

For the record I don't think it will age well.

First film that came to my mind was Murnau's Nosferatu, but as I see it has been mentioned already. See, even flicks of 20s can be scary and disturbing nowdays. There are some truly talented pictures that still hold the test of time. TCM and The Omen are among them.

Although I think it's held up very well, I still don't think that Tobe Hooper's "Texas Chain Saw Massacre" holds up as well as it predecessor, "Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!".

Any 1950's or 1960's movie where the woman just screams and screams while the monster slowly lumbers towards her.

This was replaced in the 1970's and 80's by an even more annoying cliche -- the woman finally getting the good sense to run away -- yet somehow the slowly lumbering monster would catch up every time.

Apparently not.

... although the linked story was some time ago. I thought that I saw an article about this in EW a while back, they occasionally ran a short article in which they suggested movies that needed to be remade -- usually ones they considered to have great premises but lacking in execution.

2004, huh.

And that, IMHO, is a big problem with many recent horror flicks. I'll take a strong sense of dread over the x number of scares the marketing team demands of the director.

But I'm a cynic...

I think it's still worth watching but I just don't find the original Halloween scary anymore.

Many of the old horror films are not scary anymore although they remain good and classic and we still love them. There's a great merit of being the first. I believe The Sopranos is the greatest thing ever created about mafia, but The Godfather will always remain The Godfather.

I agree. I watch that a few years ago for the first time because it was supposed to be good and it was absolute garbage.

Nightmare on Elm St. is one of the scariest films I've ever seen to date. The Last House on the Left was complete and utter garbage though. Haven't seen the original Hillls Have Eyes and don't have much desire too. I'd say A Nightmare on Elm St. is one of the top old horror films that has aged well along with The Thing and Halloween I and II.

Well The Hills Have Eyes remake was actually better than the Original. It’s a rare case that the remake was better but the original just didn’t really show the ‘mutants’ as good as the remake did.

Completely agree with you there. The Thing is my favorite movie of all time and it still holds up extremely well no matter how many times I watch it.

Being a horror fan (especially of old-school) there aren't a lot of them that I think have lost their luster after all these years. These classics helped shape what horror is today and that's why they're just that: classic.