Modern Day Classic

[Ash28M]

If you can pick just ONE film that you see as a true modern day classic that should be head up there with the greats of the genre what would it be?

My pick as I'm sure i have said many of times would be The Blair Witch Project.

What would be your pick?

[gunner]

I look at "modern day classic" as being a future projection on what will be held with high respect among future film fans that are nursing (or yet to be) right now. Being an old school kind of person no modern film could ever sit beside the classics from and before my growing up experience, no matter how good. Blair Witch is a good classic behind-the-scenes & advertising story, but as a film I dunno, it's kinda like a carnival sideshow where the actual display inside the tent doesn't match the thrilling poster. It's a final product much altered by the studio carnies. I found the Sci-Fi channel special far more satisfying and a better time capsule, spooky even. But I think those who "where there" will appreciate it more than new viewers.

Shaun of the Dead isn't a horror film 100%, but I can't get over it. I think it'll have a "classic" impact on future generations. So that'll be my choice.

[_pi_]

The naysayer in me says: a modern day classic is a contradiction in terms.

[Ash28M]

I look at "modern day classic" as being a future projection on what will be held with high respect among future film fans that are nursing (or yet to be) right now. Being an old school kind of person no modern film could ever sit beside the classics from and before my growing up experience, no matter how good. Blair Witch is a good classic behind-the-scenes & advertising story, but as a film I dunno, it's kinda like a carnival sideshow where the actual display inside the tent doesn't match the thrilling poster. It's a final product much altered by the studio carnies. I found the Sci-Fi channel special far more satisfying and a better time capsule, spooky even. But I think those who "where there" will appreciate it more than new viewers.

Shaun of the Dead isn't a horror film 100%, but I can't get over it. I think it'll have a "classic" impact on future generations. So that'll be my choice.

I barley even heard of TBWP before I was blown away by it, so the marketing and advertising is more of a side note for me when it comes to the movie. I choose the film because Number one it's was groundbreaking and Influential when it came to it's first person perspective, realism and it's fascinating use of back story. Sure Cannibal Holocaust used similar devices but that's not what it's remembered for or what it's imitators mimicked. Blair Witch took the found footage concept and ran with it. Secondly it's still talked about and fiercely debated among the horror community. Thirdly the more I watch it the tougher it is to pick out it's faults. Naysayers say the film doesn't hold up to repeated viewings. I watched this the other night trying to find faults with it and honestly I couldn't find many, nothing about it is too far fetched that it takes you out of the film and everything is believable from the acting to the setting. Also watching this late at night alone with the lights down and the sound up still gives me the chills.

[gunner]

Sorry Ash, I can respect your opinion. Perhaps if I wasn't exposed to the hype and the true story exposed by Fangoria magazine before the hype began, I would have had a greater appreciation for the movie.
I will admit it's been YEARS since I watched the film, I will have to visit it again. But my memory of the film is unlikable twenty somethings screaming "fuck" repeatedly, a dripping snotty nose, a smoker who can't keep track of his smokes (impossible, it's a first priority for smokers) and long scenes of nothing happening with the feel that something "could happen". The only moment of impact for me was the interiors of the dilapidated house at the end. That was creepy, especially when viewed by their tunnel visioned lighting. I do remember feeling heebie jeebies thinking about it and talking about it later that night, kinda like the experience of telling scary stories back and forth. But that little thrill was 1/20th of the feature's running time. After about the 40 minute mark I wanted to climb into the screen and shut those damned kids up myself in an even scarier way than the "Blair Witch" could have pulled off. Their presence was irritating, if I went camping with them, I'd still be bitching about it. I think I would far prefer the true original version before the Artisan folks messed with it. More backstory, less "actual footage" compiled in the mindset of a really good "In Search Of" episode. I hope someday we'll all be able to see that version.

[Slackjaw83]

Being a 10 year old film, I really would have a hard time calling "Blair Witch" a Modern Day classic. A "90's Classic" maybe.......

If you're going from the 90's forward as your time table, I'd say "Scream". Not only did it help bring a genre that was considered dead by most people back to the mainstream forefront, it also was a good flik and had a pretty nice base idea of using horror movie cliches as deaths, and really making a horror movie for fans about fans.

[baggio]

28 Days Later

[X-human]

I don't think people will be all that impressed with shaky cam in 50-75 years. Technology will be so advanced that cinematic quality would be easily accessible to anyone. BWP is such a product of its time I can't see it surviving. Scream is also very referential of its time. In 50 years the "rules" of slasher may be so far out of the mind of the general public no one would really even get the movie anymore. Scary Movie will fair even worse I'm sure.

Now Ginger Snaps on the other hand I can see being a movie people can still enjoy and relate to even centuries from now. Shadow of the Vampire may too. It builds on a legend that already has stood the test of time.

[Slackjaw83]

Agree on Shadow of the Vampire, as it's about one of the most influential films of all time in "Nosferatu". Disagree about Ginger Snaps, as I didn't even enjoy it when it was released. Werewolves in connection with females going through puberty? I'll stick with "In The Company of Wolves".

[Angelman]

I don't think people will be all that impressed with shaky cam in 50-75 years. Technology will be so advanced that cinematic quality would be easily accessible to anyone. BWP is such a product of its time I can't see it surviving. Scream is also very referential of its time. In 50 years the "rules" of slasher may be so far out of the mind of the general public no one would really even get the movie anymore. Scary Movie will fair even worse I'm sure.

Now Ginger Snaps on the other hand I can see being a movie people can still enjoy and relate to even centuries from now. Shadow of the Vampire may too. It builds on a legend that already has stood the test of time.

I'm not sure that's true. Dracula and Frankenstein are B&W - still classics. Texas Chainsaw has those 70s outfits and 16mm handheld - still classic. I think what helps elevate something to classic level is when it becomes a part of the cultural lexicon. I'm not sure Blair Witch falls in that category but it was a phenomenon. Ginger Snaps, while very good, may not be high profile enough. My vote would be for Scream (based on it rejuvinating the moribund theatrical horror film) or 28 Days Later - a film that I believe really works on a thematic/human/stylistic level - as possible future classics.

[Grim]

I guess if we're going from 2000 and up, I'd go with High Tension and the two "28" movies.

[Slackjaw83]

If we're going solely from 2000 forward.....

- 28 Days Later (unique look at the time, great atmosphere, made a seemingly played out idea work extremely well)

- The Machinist (great looking film that is a great mixture of Lynch-ish visual and Sixth Sense story telling)

- The Ring (I hate this movie, honestly I do, but, objectively, it started the "American Remakes of Japanese Horror" wave, as well as opening mainstream American audiences up to Japanese horror style)


Another 1990-onward film that deserves mention is "Jacob's Ladder", solely based on the fact it was ripped off so voraciously in the 19 years since it was released.

[The Chaostar]

Let the Right One In - a masterpiece that defies ganres, best movie of the decade in my book along with the russian film The Return (non-horror).

The Descent - for hundreds of reasons, atmosphere and subtext the two obvious ones

Blair Witch Project - while I don't find the movie (which I like) a masterpiece, it will be remembered as a classic in the future or, at least, that's what I think.

REC - this will be a "boo!" favorite for years to come, I think.

[vampyr789]

The Descent and [REC] are probably two of the scariest movies to come out in the past 5 years.

[gunner]

"Cookers" has to be mentioned. It was creepy as hell and is everything that a cult classic should be. With the unusual (and realistic) drug addiction based theme and being shot on the cheap with digital video (equivalent to yesterdays16mm) by an obviously ambitious crew just fits the mold perfectly. Yet I think it got lost in the jungle, probably because the cover art made it look like just another cheesy, cookie cutter dtv release. Maybe todays obscurity will help it tomorrow.

[othervoice1]

So how many years are we talking about- has to be a movie within the last 15, 10, 5 years?

[Katatonia]

I think a good majority of the modern film audience out there is "trendy" to be perfectly honest. They rave about a film for a few months, and then it's largely forgotten by all but a small core audience. Many just don't stand up even after a couple of years have passed.

I certainly enjoy many films released over the past decade, but I would be hesitant to name any as "modern classics" yet.

[Ash28M]

So how many years are we talking about- has to be a movie within the last 15, 10, 5 years?

15 years sounds about right.

[msw7]

Let the Right One In - a masterpiece that defies ganres, best movie of the decade in my book along with the russian film The Return (non-horror).

The Descent - for hundreds of reasons, atmosphere and subtext the two obvious ones

Blair Witch Project - while I don't find the movie (which I like) a masterpiece, it will be remembered as a classic in the future or, at least, that's what I think.

REC - this will be a "boo!" favorite for years to come, I think.

I am with you 100% (I don't think Blair Witch is as good as some others, but it was important).

The only two I would add are:

Inside
Martyrs ("classic" might not be the right word here - but, much like Cannibal Holocaust, I suspect every horror fan will watch it at least once)

[crikan]

I really hated The Descent

I could see Scream and 28 Days Later

[Fall Break]

House of a 1000 Corpses and American Psycho

[Erick H.]

I really think the term ''classic" is tossed around too lightly.Some guys will stumble out of a theater on a Friday night after seeing a film they enjoyed and say "Man ,that one was a classic,a CLASSIC !!!!".
Not a month later they will be calling that new "classic" a piece of crap because THIS WEEKS classic beat it all to hell.I see that a lot.People can be really fickle.I don't start playing the classic game until about 20 yrs after the release.It really takes a minimum of 10 years to even get a good hint where a movie will end up in the grand scheme of things.How many movies have we all seen in the past ten,fifteen years that came out to great buzz and big box office only to end up with huge backlashes against them within months? How many ''classics'' from the past twenty years are barely mentioned today ? These calls need time and perspective.

[fattyjoe37]

Although my favorite of recent years is Scream, I think when people look back on the 90s and 00s they will see either The Descent or Let the Right One In as the horror classic of the period. To me, Blair Witch won't be rememered as a classic but a hit with a good gimmick.

[Hellbilly]

Not really "horror" but I'd say The Silence of the Lambs.

[Matt89]

hmmm...from a horror standpoint, I'd have to go with The Descent as well. I don't understand how people hate this movie. It was suspenseful, had excellent cinematography, great characters...it's a film that I feel will definitely be considered a classic in the years to come. (I too think the term "modern-day classic" is rather contradictory.)

But yeah, definitely The Descent. Hell, I might actually go out and pick up the blu-ray today. It's been a while since I've seen it.

~Matt

[wago70]

"Candyman" was the last horror flick to really intrigue me and make me uncomfortable. It's from the '90's but...I haven't really been gripped by anything newer.

I really liked "The Descent" but at some point near the end the creatures stopped being scary once focus shifted to a rift between two characters. Loved that "ending" though (the original UK ending).

[Ash28M]

"Candyman" was the last horror flick to really intrigue me and make me uncomfortable. It's from the '90's but...I haven't really been gripped by anything newer.
.

No horror film made in the last 17 years has intrigued you? I'm surprised you haven't given up on the genre all together by now.

[bigdaddyhorse]

I'd put The Descent on the list for sure.

I fully agree with Scream as well, although there's been many flicks since that have made me wish Scream never happened so I could maybe not see it ripped off so badly, or homaged so poorly. While it was a great movie it has brought on an onslaught of shit like the I know What You Did series. This would be fine if I could just not watch those (I stopped after the second Summer movie, that series can go nowhere but worse I feel), but I always have to give em a chance.

Another I feel may be looked at one day as classic is Wolf Creek. It's the opposite of Descent, but almost just as scary.

I'd say Devil's Rejects as well, except IT'S NOT HORROR! It is a classic though, already it's a fucking classic.

[MorallySound]

I'd say Devil's Rejects as well, except IT'S NOT HORROR! It is a classic though, already it's a fucking classic.
Agreed.

But yeah, I'll also vote for The Blair Witch Project.

[Ash28M]

I'd say Devil's Rejects as well, except IT'S NOT HORROR! It is a classic though, already it's a fucking classic.

Why would you say it's not Horror? If that's not Horror then last House on the Left or Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer isn't horror.

[bigdaddyhorse]

Why would you say it's not Horror? If that's not Horror then last House on the Left or Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer isn't horror.

Last House is almost horror, Henry and Devil's and just fucked up character studies mixed with peroid pieces when you break it all down. In fact, Last House is just that too, a fucked up revenge story.

Now if Devil's Rejects or Henry were to follow the victims, they'd be a lot closer to horror. By following the villians the whole way, it's a study of what and why more than anything. I can't get scared for any victims because they are done away with too quick with no screen time to build up any feelings for them. Fuck, I'm rooting for Otis and Spalding everytime I watch DR, and they're supposed to be the bad guys.

[Ash28M]

Last House is almost horror, Henry and Devil's and just fucked up character studies mixed with peroid pieces when you break it all down. In fact, Last House is just that too, a fucked up revenge story.

Now if Devil's Rejects or Henry were to follow the victims, they'd be a lot closer to horror. By following the villians the whole way, it's a study of what and why more than anything. I can't get scared for any victims because they are done away with too quick with no screen time to build up any feelings for them. Fuck, I'm rooting for Otis and Spalding everytime I watch DR, and they're supposed to be the bad guys.

I don't think a horror film necessarily needs to scare you nor does it need to follow the victims. A motive for a Horror film can also be to disturb or disgust and that's what these films shoot for. Psycho followed the Villain and once slashers became old hat audiences often routed for the Killer.

[SpaceAce]

Saw

It kind of came out of nowhere and spawned many (probably too many) sequels, had lots of buzz and interest and still remains interesting to alot of people. Had a nice premise and although it didn't really do anything too inventive it kind of helped get the torture type of thing started in a widespread way.

I would also agree with Blair Witch and maybe Scream, but overall not too many of the other movies mentioned will be viewed as a "classic" by many people. When I think of classic, I think of a movie that people years from now will go back and watch again, and reach for when they want to show a "classic" movie for their friends, or they want something that is a well known scary movie. Just like Friday 13, Halloween, TCM, dracula, frankenstein, NOTLD, they are classic and although I would never say that Saw or Blair witch is as good as any of them, I do think people will be watching these and enjoying these for years to come on a widespread level and they will be thought of as a Classic horror movie..

[bigdaddyhorse]

I don't think a horror film necessarily needs to scare you nor does it need to follow the victims. A motive for a Horror film can also be to disturb or disgust and that's what these films shoot for. Psycho followed the Villain and once slashers became old hat audiences often routed for the Killer.

Maybe not the best example.
I guess I just can't really explain it, but ever since the first time seeing Devil's Rejects I've never thought of it as a horror film, same with Henry. They're close to horror and share some elements, but something I obvilously can't explain seperates them.

[Angelman]

Maybe not the best example.
I guess I just can't really explain it, but ever since the first time seeing Devil's Rejects I've never thought of it as a horror film, same with Henry. They're close to horror and share some elements, but something I obvilously can't explain seperates them.

I'm with BDH. There is a difference for me between vampires, killers, ghosts and that mean-spirited grindhouse "thriller with some bite" genre. Last House isn't horror, although it gets lumped in with horror films.

[othervoice1]

Saw


OMG I thought that was an awful movie and have been so perplexed it has so many sequals. I took a date to see it and found the story so-so with acting so poor I couldnt get into the movie. I remember one of the guys that was trapped overacting soooo badly! But she thought it was okay and she isnt even a horror movie fan, so maybe its just me. Could anyone tell me if any of the sequals are actually better then the original? If so I may give it a try

[bigdaddyhorse]

OMG I thought that was an awful movie and have been so perplexed it has so many sequals. I took a date to see it and found the story so-so with acting so poor I couldnt get into the movie. I remember one of the guys that was trapped overacting soooo badly! But she thought it was okay and she isnt even a horror movie fan, so maybe its just me. Could anyone tell me if any of the sequals are actually better then the original? If so I may give it a try


I think all the sequels are probably better than the first, although the even numbers are iffy.

2 was decent/O.K.
3 was pretty damn good
4 was fucking confusing and pretty cheap storywise. I think I figured out the never mentioned timeline on the 5th try
5 is more of a noir flick and is just awesome, easily my favorite of the series.

You should probably watch them all as they just keep building on each other and flashbacks to the first film and before. You might be kinda lost going right to 5, but I can't say for sure as I've been in the theater opening day for every one of them.

[spawningblue]

A lot of movies mentioned aren't big enough to be classics, and I would say will fit more into the cult classic status. I loved The Descent, High Tension, Session 9, Rec, ect. (I didn't thin Ginger Snaps was too good personally), but I don't think they were big enough to be considered classics. If you look at what horror movies are considered classics, they are/ were all mainstream, The Exorcist, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Night of the Living Dead, Friday the 13th, ect. I think Scream, Blair Witch and Saw will all be considered horror classics years from now.

[othervoice1]

I think all the sequels are probably better than the first, although the even numbers are iffy.

2 was decent/O.K.
3 was pretty damn good
4 was fucking confusing and pretty cheap storywise. I think I figured out the never mentioned timeline on the 5th try
5 is more of a noir flick and is just awesome, easily my favorite of the series.

You should probably watch them all as they just keep building on each other and flashbacks to the first film and before. You might be kinda lost going right to 5, but I can't say for sure as I've been in the theater opening day for every one of them.

Well sh&t Ill probably have to go and rent all of them now....

[Grim]

Another I forgot. The Mist. God that movie is awesome.

[dirkwu]

Hostel. w/o a doubt instant classic.

[Ash28M]

I guess there isn't a consensus. There has been such a wide assortment of movies mention. Funny that Grindhouse hasn't been mentioned since it won our best of the decade poll.

These are the films that have been brought up so far.

The Blair Witch Project
Shaun of the Dead
Scream
28 Days Later
Ginger Snaps
Shadow of the Vampire
Haute Tension
The Machinist
The Ring
Jacob's Ladder
Let the Right One In
The Descent
REC
Cookers
Inside
Martyrs
House of a 1000 Corpses
American Psycho
The Silence of the Lambs
Candyman
Wolf Creek
The Devil's Rejects
Saw
The Mist
Hostel

[Slackjaw83]

As much as I enjoyed both "The Mist" and (well, half...) of "Grindhouse", the fact that they were both "throwback" films should disqualify them.

[Grim]

As much as I enjoyed both "The Mist" and (well, half...) of "Grindhouse", the fact that they were both "throwback" films should disqualify them.

I wouldn't really consider The Mist a throwback. Regardless of that, they're modern films so I don't see why they shouldn't be included.

[Slackjaw83]

The Mist is absolutely a throwback. It's essentially a big "monster in the darkness" b-movie. It also has a very 1950's McCarthy era "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" vibe, So much to the point that Darabont re-edited the film and re-released it in black and white, so as to reinforce its throwback, 50's sci-fi appeal.

That said, I loved the film. One of the best fliks I saw in theaters in 07.

[Katatonia]

I guess there isn't a condenses.

A consensus, or something condensed? :evil:

[Grim]

The Mist is absolutely a throwback. It's essentially a big "monster in the darkness" b-movie. It also has a very 1950's McCarthy era "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" vibe, So much to the point that Darabont re-edited the film and re-released it in black and white, so as to reinforce its throwback, 50's sci-fi appeal.

That said, I loved the film. One of the best fliks I saw in theaters in 07.

Yes, it does have those qualities, but I think many of the horror films out these days (obviously all of the remakes) have embraced elements from previous decades. Are you saying that it should only include films that are completely unique from anything else done before?

[Grim]

Also, I wouldn't really consider Grindhouse because I consider it less a movie and more of an experience, the movies were Planet Terror and Death Proof. That being said, Death Proof was amazing, though I don't really consider it too much of a horror film.

[Slackjaw83]

Well, to me, for something to go on to be a "classic", I would assume that it broke some new ground and stuck out from the back by being unique or at least having a unique quality, not simply being a vehicle for a director to pay homage to films of the past that he loved/loves. Maybe it takes the conventions in place and raises the stakes, maybe it's a typical "situation" in a new and different setting, and on and on and on.

Like I said, I loved "The Mist", but, I don't see people in 30 years saying "THAT MOVIE!". The black and white version should be seen by every horror fan IMO, but as far as the masses in general? I'm not so sure.

Different strokes, though.

For the record, I barely made it through "Death Proof", lol. I don't mind a "talky" flik that's crammed end-to-end with cult film references, no do I mind a good chase film. That said, I can't feel complete apathy toward every character (except the "villain" in the piece) and say it was an enjoyable film for me. I literally didn't want the girls in the flik to live OR to die, I simply didn't CARE, which is far worse IMO. You can "pick a side" and cheer said side on if you honestly couldn't care less about either side to begin with.

That said, it simply wasn't my type of movie, but, seeing as how QT's pretty hit-or-miss with me, it didn't really surprise me.

[Grim]

Well, to me, for something to go on to be a "classic", I would assume that it broke some new ground and stuck out from the back by being unique or at least having a unique quality, not simply being a vehicle for a director to pay homage to films of the past that he loved/loves. Maybe it takes the conventions in place and raises the stakes, maybe it's a typical "situation" in a new and different setting, and on and on and on.

Like I said, I loved "The Mist", but, I don't see people in 30 years saying "THAT MOVIE!". The black and white version should be seen by every horror fan IMO, but as far as the masses in general? I'm not so sure.

Different strokes, though.

For the record, I barely made it through "Death Proof", lol. I don't mind a "talky" flik that's crammed end-to-end with cult film references, no do I mind a good chase film. That said, I can't feel complete apathy toward every character (except the "villain" in the piece) and say it was an enjoyable film for me. I literally didn't want the girls in the flik to live OR to die, I simply didn't CARE, which is far worse IMO. You can "pick a side" and cheer said side on if you honestly couldn't care less about either side to begin with.

That said, it simply wasn't my type of movie, but, seeing as how QT's pretty hit-or-miss with me, it didn't really surprise me.

Yeah people are usually love or hate with Death Proof. I find usually that if someone liked Planet Terror, they usually either like Death Proof less or not at all, and vice versa.

[DVD-fanatic-9]

I hate to do this, but... I can't accept The Mist as a viable candidate on any level for this category. It's kind of screwed up, but that movie was absolutely ruined for me by the CGI. I know how that must sound, but some things can not be ignored. CGI is one of them.


Anyway, I think Ash has set the time clock for 1999 and beyond with his vote. So from there - it's Ginger Snaps, 28 Days Later, and Suicide Club/Circle.



The Descent and [REC] are probably two of the scariest movies to come out in the past 5 years.
The Descent is one of the most boring movies I've seen in a long time. That can't be what you mean when you say scary.

Not only that, but it's the movie that single handedly has raised my standards even more. It's made me even more picky than I was before. My patience is running even thinner than before. Because it's an empty-headed movie that looks big budget and highly professional. I used to think that was enough. And it was, when the movies were more entertaining. Now, they think they're more confrontational. Which means there's less on the side to distract yourself with so you can ignore the key faults.



I really hated The Descent
Thank you!



hmmm...from a horror standpoint, I'd have to go with The Descent as well. I don't understand how people hate this movie. It was suspenseful, had excellent cinematography, great characters...it's a film that I feel will definitely be considered a classic in the years to come.
I usually really respect you (although, you're going to hell for what you said about 90's horror, :D), and I don't want to upset you further... But you know me just well enough to know I can never shut up about something like this. The Descent was not all it was cracked up to be. The Descent wasn't even close to the hype. In fact, at this point- I actually have to ask you what you were smoking when you thought this was a great movie.

First of all- it's a survival horror movie. Which is code word for: snoozeville. People go into some dark, dank place and they're stuck there. Then, you add some really lame monsters. That doesn't make matters any better. The creatures in this movie were not scary. They were lame.

Before when I brought up this movie (like- 3 months ago), I was starting trouble. Now, I honestly want you to plug into me. I'm trying to open up, get you to relate. So you know exactly where I'm coming from. The problem with all that is: it's too obvious. And expected. And easy- it doesn't take serious thought to go - "let's put them in a cave and cram them in tight spots, and then: there are vampire-looking monsters." Who does that impress? At all? What's so great about that? Be honest.

And then the characters... Again, the important thing to remember here: survival horror film. It doesn't matter what you learn about these people, in the end- they are just thrown into life or death situations in a trap and panic situation. It doesn't matter whether we like them or not, there's no story. Other than- they go somewhere and anyone will or can die at any moment. Who they are isn't important. Which is why they're all basically sporty types and their dialogue is either stereotypical or meaningless.

Nothing that happened in that movie made any difference. Anything could have happened and it would be the same. It's a movie about - they go in and bad stuff happens. There's no real substance in it. I'll give you cinematography. Which would have had me saying this is a great movie - if this were the 1990's. But it's not.

Name me one horror classic from the past (and go back before this decade) that was good just because "they went here and bad stuff happened." One real honest-to-goodness classic that had no other point than the mayhem. That's why I rag on this decade so much. Hopefully you understand.



Why would you say it's not Horror? If that's not Horror then last House on the Left or Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer isn't horror.
I would disagree... But you have the start of a very interesting argument.

To prove you wrong, I would most likely say that the tone of the films and how different they were from the thrillers and exploitation movies of their eras - is enough to make them horror films. And the fact that they are about deep seeded human cruelty and darkness. The Devil's Rejects is nothing more than an unintelligent (at least as far as the writing goes) road trip exploitation sex-comedy. I'll reduce it to pure superficiality and say- one stabbing during a music montage doesn't make that a horror film. Every other murder is done by way of gun or beating with a blunt object.

But that was a very good point, Ash28. I'm impressed.



Last House is almost horror, Henry and Devil's and just fucked up character studies mixed with peroid pieces when you break it all down. In fact, Last House is just that too, a fucked up revenge story.
Not exactly. First of all, I would say to remember that Last House belongs to a group of horror films of that era that were commenting on the Vietnam war (including Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Deathdream / The Night Andy Came Home). Then, look at the way it's shot. Your average thriller or exploitation movie is more dramatic, especially films of that time. Last House was not made to emphasize drama. It was to extract certain psychological aspects of the characters, put them on film for us to see. I say it's clearly a horror film. The editing, the dark and tragic element, the hopelessness, the shots of parts of their bodies close up (mostly hands, you'll notice- watch it again) to show vulnerability and such. Only horror films can do that. And Texas Chainsaw Massacre did it too (Sally's eyes in the dinner scene). Because they are about the overall horror of the situation, not the drama of it. I mean- you know it's a million miles away from a film like Straw Dogs. You can't just look at what happens. You have to look at the way the film shows it happening. Last House is a horror film, through and through.

Henry pretty much follows the same train of thought. It's not a drama or a thriller, either (seeing as how thrillers need drama to work). In those kinds of movies, you need to see humanity. Henry was a movie about how void of sympathy the killers were for humanity itself. So, to do that, the filmmakers have to remove the drama this would have if it were a Hollywood film. It really is a horror film. Not just because people are stabbed and killed. But because they are monsters. Human creatures without sympathy for their victims. Which is why in the advertising campaign- they compared Henry to Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger. He doesn't wear a costume, but he's just as heartless as they are.



Now if Devil's Rejects or Henry were to follow the victims, they'd be a lot closer to horror.
I think you mean - closer to a slasher film.



By following the villians the whole way, it's a study of what and why more than anything. I can't get scared for any victims because they are done away with too quick with no screen time to build up any feelings for them.
Maybe not. But you can definitely be creeped out (which if you weren't, by Henry, there's something wrong with you). And that falls under mood. Which is essential to a horror film.



Maybe not the best example.
I guess I just can't really explain it, but ever since the first time seeing Devil's Rejects I've never thought of it as a horror film, same with Henry. They're close to horror and share some elements, but something I obvilously can't explain seperates them.
Actually, I thought you had a pretty good point with: rooting for the villains in The Devil's Rejects. Not only is that one of the reasons that movie kind of sucks (considerably), but it's also another key reason why it isn't a horror movie.

[DVD-fanatic-9]

(accidental double post)

Sorry, I tried to delete this second one but for some reason I can never delete my posts. This thing won't let me.

[Ash28M]

Also, I wouldn't really consider Grindhouse because I consider it less a movie and more of an experience, the movies were Planet Terror and Death Proof. That being said, Death Proof was amazing, though I don't really consider it too much of a horror film.

I saw Grindhouse in the theater as i'm sure many of you did. I see it more as an anthology like Two Evil Eyes then I do two separate films. I have a hard time splitting them up.

[SaviniFan]

The Descent, Let the Right One In. Both excellent films that hold up to repeat viewings. I say they will live on in the years to come.

[Shannafey]

There have been a few really good films in the past few years and a lot of them were mentioned, but in all honesty, I don't think any of them will hold up as classics. Some will be remembered and enjoyed on DVD and Blu Ray, but as far as classics, I don't see it. Films like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Night of the Living Dead, The Exorcist were all original and had an impact. Most of what we see today is remakes of these classics. The few original films that are good and as I said, most are mentioned in this thread, don't have that same kind of impact. A lot of them are foreign films (Martyrs, Let the Right One In, Ginger Snaps) and I really don't think a lot of films get considered classics because they are niche market films, even to horror fans. We on this forum are die hard fans and seek out these films. The general public is only exposed to the traditional Hollywood films and most nowadays are remakes or very poor quality trash. I hate Blair Witch project, but I have to say it will probably be fondly remembered, so will Scream and probably Rob Zombie's films. I wouldn't call any of them classics though!

[allmessedup]

THE DESCENT all the way...I still watch and enjoy that one just as much as I did when I first saw it....SHAUN OF THE DEAD also.

For me it takes around 3-4 years to see if a film has staying power with me, so it's way too early for me to decide about LET THE RIGHT ONE IN. There have been a lot of the movies in recent years that I thought were fantastic after first seeing them, but I really lost enthusiasm for them as years passed. I would say this is the case for most of the movies mentioned so far.

[Katatonia]

There have been a few really good films in the past few years and a lot of them were mentioned, but in all honesty, I don't think any of them will hold up as classics. Some will be remembered and enjoyed on DVD and Blu Ray, but as far as classics, I don't see it. Films like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Night of the Living Dead, The Exorcist were all original and had an impact. Most of what we see today is remakes of these classics. The few original films that are good and as I said, most are mentioned in this thread, don't have that same kind of impact. A lot of them are foreign films (Martyrs, Let the Right One In, Ginger Snaps) and I really don't think a lot of films get considered classics because they are niche market films, even to horror fans. We on this forum are die hard fans and seek out these films. The general public is only exposed to the traditional Hollywood films and most nowadays are remakes or very poor quality trash. I hate Blair Witch project, but I have to say it will probably be fondly remembered, so will Scream and probably Rob Zombie's films. I wouldn't call any of them classics though!

Great post, Shanna! Sums up my thoughts pretty well. ;)

[Shannafey]

Great post, Shanna! Sums up my thoughts pretty well. ;)

Thanks!

[othervoice1]

I am not really going to mention any movies but I do feel that movies I think SHOULD be seen as classics later on and ones that probably will be may be different. Well one movie I would say that is a no doubter is Blair Witch though, you can mark that one down on your list right now.

[spawningblue]

I don't think a classic movie has to be original. If that is the case, then Friday the 13th would not be considered a classic which it obviously is.

[Ash28M]

I don't think a classic movie has to be original. If that is the case, then Friday the 13th would not be considered a classic which it obviously is.

Actually that's a good question. I don't know if I consider Friday the 13th a classic. I see it more as a second tier film, a notch down from the Classics. It being obviously spun off Halloween may have something to do with why I feel that way.

[maybrick]

Actually that's a good question. I don't know if I consider Friday the 13th a classic. I see it more as a second tier film, a notch down from the Classics. It being obviously spun off Halloween may have something to do with why I feel that way.

No matter how I feel about the movie, I'd classify Friday the 13th as a Classic Slasher because if you ask anyone off the street to name a slasher film F13 would invariably be at or near the top of the list.

[spawningblue]

No matter how I feel about the movie, I'd classify Friday the 13th as a Classic Slasher because if you ask anyone off the street to name a slasher film F13 would invariably be at or near the top of the list.

Exactly.

[Slackjaw83]

The "Going to Pieces" documentary put it best when concerning "halloween" and "Friday" :

"Halloween" was the thing that came out before the movement had a name, that was pretty much there, laying the groundwork. "Friday" was the first film that was KNOWINGLY a slasher, that ditched the socio-political commentary and simply reveled in the violence and bloodshed of it all.

Simply because of that (let alone Savini's jaw dropping effects, or the fact that it was mercilessly ripped off dozens of times in the following years), it was a first of its kind in a strange way, and set a precedent in its own way, so it deserves the "classic" tag that it gets.