Cardiac161

I've gotten really interested in some classic horror movies lately but was quite underwhelmed by some of them due to :

1) updated versions that I felt were more terrifying (case in point which may be considered blasphemy: Dawn of the Dead 2004 where the effects were better and the concept of zombies running instead of the slow crawl worked well)

2) recent horror films that raises the bar (not necessary gore) in suspense

I'm pretty sure there could be further reasons why some of these older (yet considered classic) films in the horror genre just aren't as terrifying as they were back then.

Of course, there are still standouts that couldn't be equaled like The Exorcist.

Wondering if you guys could name well-known classic movies in the horror genre and cite reasons why they probably stand as well today.

yojimbo44

the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers still works really well...i think it works because the basic story is solid, the build up is steady and for the most part the acting is pretty good. the movie isn't about providing cheap thrills, but drawing you into to something bigger...and of course the whole subtext for the 1956 version is the communist witchhunt, which adds layers to the story with subtlety.

The Bride of Frankenstein is one of the best movies ever made, IMO, and is definitely timeless too.

cheers

matome

Of course this is a remake of another classic, but John Carpenter's The Thing has stood the test of time for me and it's been 25 years so I think it qualifies. The suspense and jump scares are very well done and even the special effects hold up decently. The minimalist but effective score (virtually no 80's synthesizer twangs here, unlike the other Carpenter films) adds to the dread as well. And given it's locale, the only things that would keep you from thinking it could have been filmed recently are the Sargon Chess computer and the boombox.

cranberries fan

Matome your right on with John Carpenter's The Thing,I just watch that flim not that long ago it's still works on so many levels big-time(Rob Bottin were are you?).

rw2516

Even the 1951 original still holds up well. Except for some lame dialog in few spots.

cactusoly

Sorry... I love the Dawn of The Dead remake but it does not compare to the original. Slow zombies are better because they are FN dead not sick the point is that there are just so many of them. The one thing I did hate about the remake is when the guy was shot and did NOT get up, showing that it was just some stupid disease instead of the rapture.

polietilen

the slight difference in the thing score from previous carpenter scores is due to the fact that the great ennio morricone composed it, although the score certainly seems to have a carpenter style to it.

Giantrobo

Yeah but the original "Dawn" NEVER gave a reason for the uprising. Peter saying, "When there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth" was just his take on things based on his Grandfather's old saying. However, there was never a valid reason given. The closest Romero came to giving a reason for the Living Dead was in "Night" during the epilogue when it was suggested that a strange Meteor passing Earth may have something to do with the uprising...or was the "Maximum Overdrive"? I forget.

With that said, I think Romero's DEAD movies particularly "Night" and "Dawn" stand up because they touch something deep in the human mind concerning the fear of being eaten alive, being alone and trapped in a dangerous situation, and the mindless Zombie like state of mankind in this day and age.

Going back to "Maximum Overdrive", it addresses the issue of our slavery to technology. One only has to be without power for a couple days to realize how much we're suckled on the Technology Tit.

matome

Ah, true. I forgot that.

naitram

I think a lot of the 70s and 80s slasher horror stuff doesn't stand up well now actually, while many great classic horror films do. I can't really watch Friday the 13th anymore, it's just a bore. Give me some classic Universal horror like Wolfman or Frankenstein anyday, or some Hammer films.

And Romero's Dawn of the Dead is light years beyond the remake. I thought the remake was done well and it's a fun action movie, but Romero's is chock-full of social commentaries and subtexts that help make it a classic.

Drop

I guess it depends on what one wants from a Horror film. If you are strictly looking to be scared then theoretically every Horror film will be outdated some day. But if you're talking about great films, then it's a little trickier.

The original Dawn of the Dead is pretty much my favorite film of all time. I actually did anticipate the remake, but I was dissappointed by it. What I loved most about the original was the 4 main characters (and even the side ones), and I hated every character in the remake because they were so stupid and many were superfluous. Plus I don't find running zombies terrifying because they seem too human, I can tell a person is under that makeup. There is something about the slow, spaced out, Romero zombies that creep me out. Even with their blue faces, they seem so gone and dead, and unhuman. The feeling I like most in horror is being unsettled and the remake just did not do that for me, it had too much action for me to feel creeped out.

Nonetheless, I understand why people prefer the remake, it just don't work for me.

The Frankenstein films (especially the first two) are not scary in the least, but they have an unsettling nature, and they are so well crafted that Bride is definitely one of my favorite films of all time, and it still feels incredibly fresh.

The Wolfman is another great film that unsettles and manages to tell a great story.

Ultimately, Horror is too personal of thing to make it so cut and dry. I think above all, Horror films should try to be great films and not just a collection of scares, because scares become outdated.

maingon

People under the stairs. I remember watching it when i was younger and thought it was really good and scary. Seen it the other day and hasnt aged well

devilshalo

It worked well, until they stopped at the bottom of the stairs and the "learning curve" of the garage dweller using the pipes.

Carpenter's The Thing is a helluva lot more scary than the original.

I liked the original Blob more than the McQueen and Dillon/Smith ones.

Quatermass

The Steve McQueen one was the original, wasn't it?

taffer

Poltergeist

The movie scared the crap out of me as a kid. There is a tree a few feet from my bedroom window, and after seeing the tree come alive in that movie, I was always scared of the tree in our yard.

I re-watched the movie last year after not seeing it for 15+ years, and it is just so laughably bad now.

MovieMaster11

The Last House on the Left seems really outdated to me.

polietilen

Sorry to disagree here, but even if Poltergeist may not scare you anymore, I don't think how anyone could say that it's laughably bad now. Actually, I think it's one of the most exciting rollercoaster ride-type-of-movies that has ever been made. Add to that the wonderful score by Goldsmith and a really wonderful chemistry between the actors who portray the family (not to mention the overall amazing performance from Zelda Rubenstein) and you get an emotional involving drama as well. A popcorn movie with that many great elements in it just doesn't get made nowadays. The effects may be a little outdated, yes, but it's like another person said before, good horror movies aren't really about effects and scares alone. That's why many 80s slashers are so terrible now, although they'll always be guilty pleasures in my book.

islandclaws

The title of this thread sounds like an oxymoron. Horror films become horror classics because they don't feel dated to later generations. They still pack much of the same punch they first did, hence the "classic" moniker. I've yet to see a modern remake that surpassed the original "classic" it was based on. Except, arguably, The Hills Have Eyes which managed to slightly top the original film amazingly enough.

DRG

I think Last House on the Left has aged horribly. I know Wes Craven was new at this, but some of it is shot and scored like a cheeseball comedy, which undercuts the disturbing nature of the story in a bad way.

outer-edge

But see, there's the problem. Don't get me wrong, I do own and enjoy the movie, but if someone is looking for straight up scares, I can see how the original doesn't do it for them. Sure, it's classic because of that other stuff, but scary? Not for me really (neither is the remake, but I enjoyed it too for the action-centric focus).

I think that was the original poster's point. He wanted more straight up scares, and while some classics are classics for a large range of reasons, they may not provide the straight up scares anymore.

I still think Alien has it for myself. It's got this tense, desolate feel and offers suspense and jumps.

John-In-VA

The ones that work best for me are the ones that maintain that constant state of unease and creepiness. I don't have a ton of horror movies, but I looked over at my dvds and saw Rosemary's Baby, The Shining, and The Exorcist. I think these have held up very well.

Lt Ripley

You sir, are a good man.

Cardiac161

Sorry..maybe the title should have read "Classic Horror Films that are not scary anymore."

I started the thread because I saw some old horror films that were considered classic but I highly doubt if they would scare today's audiences. Mind you, I'm looking at this simply at the aspect of the scare factor, not whether it was original, it had a social commentary, or it was a satire.

Rockmjd23

Yeah, the bumbling deputies are way out of place.

JIF

Bob Clark's Black Christmas hasn't aged well. The clothes, the furniture and the phones (technology) are so outdated. What's to be expected from a 1974 film, but Texas Chain Saw (released the same year) still stands the test of time.