spoke-, in the Rosemary’s Baby thread, observed that horror movies in general don’t hold up well. I think I agree, but can think of a few exceptions:
The Exorcist
Frankenstein (Universal)
Night of the Living Dead
I’m thinking keep it earlier than, say, 1980. Do you disagree with the ones I mentioned? What makes horror films age badly? What other ones have held up?
I had never seen the original *Texas Chainsaw Massacre *until a few months ago. It definitely succeeded in scaring the crap out of me, mostly because I had no idea that it wasn’t your average run-of-the-mill slasher flick.
Both Carrie and The Omen hold up pretty well too, IMO.
And of course Psycho, which I think is still genuinely creepy after all this time.
SaharaTea beat me to it, but “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” definitely holds up, once you slog through the almost interminable first half-hour. Probably my favorite in the genre.
Off the top of my head, I’ll add that “The Shining” (1980) and “Halloween” (1978) still work.
A Page of Madness
The Black Cat
Bride of Frankenstein
Eyes without a Face
Weekend
The Wicker Man
God Told Me To
Dawn of the Dead
and I think Rosemary (while far from perfect), still holds up exceptionally well for its type (I posted in that thread defending the film).
The Changeling with George C. Scott in a haunted house. The scenes with the ball and the chair and drowned child under the floor still give me chills.
I don’t think horror films age more badly than other films. If they’re “good”, they’ll hold up.
Ghost Story (1981) with the wonderfully creepy Alice Krige. Like The Changeling, minimal to no FX and no gore at all.
Another vote for The Changeling.
I know most people don’t automatically categorize it as a horror film, but this one was scary, and is still scary (just saw it last week).
Alien.
I’m going t break the rule a little and add John Carpenter’s The Thing.
That movie was probably one of the best Horror films of the 80’s and still packs a viceral punch in its effects.
It also is an example why physcal effects can create better mood and reaction from actors than Digital ones. (watch the scene where the thing is first being examined by the characters… nice reactions to the look, feel and stench of the mound on the table)
It’s just after your cutoff date, but John Carpenter’s The Thing still holds up, I think. Especially noteworthy, because it’s an effects-heavy film, and it’s usually the dated look of the special effects that makes the old movies laughable.
Another one just after your cutoff is 1982’s Poltergeist, which also holds up nicely for a film so heavy with special effects.
kingpengvin and Max Torque beat me to my suggestion. As a fall back, I offer up the original The Haunting, from 1963. Just about the perfect haunted house story.
I’d have to disagree. The makeup effects are awesome, there’s no question, but the “Consumers are just like zombies!” social commentary does not hold up well and actually bogs down the movie.
In fact, I’d almost go so far as to say the remake is the better movie.
You go too far sir!
I’ll vote for this too.
Ugh! The remake is full of exactly the kind of things horror movies are full of nowadays–stupid people making irrational decisions borne out of contrivance. The “consumerism” theme in the original would be old if it still didn’t perfectly apply 30 years later–and anyway, that’s not the major point of the mall setting. The point is that ultimately, humans are their own worst enemies–unlike the turgid and overly-frenzied remake, the zombies aren’t the bad guys at all. Leading complacent, sheltered existences, completely disassociated from the outside world leads to a spritial death not too dissimilar from the physical death all around them. The remake is famous (rightly) for its electric first 10 minutes or so, but beyond that, it’s acres of dumb.
I didn’t think that at all, do you have any examples?
People always hold this up as why the original shines but it doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny (especially in light of Day of the Dead). The mall is literally an island paradise in a sea of zombies. Much like the island paradise the main characters of Day go to in the helicopter at the end. Because the characters get bored with the mall is a sign of their stupidity, not any kind of commentary on humanity. The characters in the remake leave the mall because they ran out of supplies.
And then there’s the biker gang. The crazy, drunken, reckless biker gang that has supposedly survived in the aftermath of the zombie outbreak for months. The crazy, drunken, reckless biker gang that gets slaughtered by all of the mall zombies. And the crazy, drunken, reckless biker gang that, if Dawn were “real life”, would have been eaten weeks ago because they’re crazy, drunken and reckless.
I concur with the OP’s inclusion of the Exorcist. It has a good story and good effects. I feel like if it had been done today, it would have been all CGI–and for some reason, to me, CGI always looks less real. Or too good to be true.
ETA: I agree with Carrie, as well. I think the Shining’s still great, too.
Chief among them all is Mekhi Phifer and the Zombie Baby. Zillion times more stupid than anything the biker gang dishes out (though he’s only one glaring example; there are others).
They don’t really leave the original because they’re bored–their paradise has been compromised. But even while they were secure, they realized that holing themselves up was just leading to a slow death. Going out into the world may mean greater risk, but also a greater chance at finding something worth surviving for. The consumer paradise around them still is empty compared to the prospect (however remote) of community and socialization. How long would they actually live–the final two–before going stir crazy at the mall? The thing I like about the original is that it entertains these questions amidst the gore. The remake has a few capable characters but lots of pandering stupid among the rest.
Definitely “The Shining” and “Halloween (the original!)”