How are old horror movies best of all time?

[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