|
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.
|