I prefer modern horror. I appreciate that classic horror was incredible for the time, but I watch horror to scare myself, and in that regard modern horror is significantly better.
That being said, I do enjoy seeing where horror came from, so The Cabinet of Dr Caligari ('That is my fiance!') and Nosferatu are both in my DVD shelf, along with the likes of Lugosi's Dracula, Freaks, Psycho, The Exorcist etc.
I used to like to be scared when I was younger, but as I've aged I've found I prefer the comfort of the familiar. Not sure if it's just me, or if it happens to most people as they get older (same thing happened to my mom, so maybe it's a woman thing).
Generalising to a high degree, but:
Older movies have better stories put together by talented writers and visualised by the best directors of the time (Hitchcock, Kubrick, Polanski all made horrors, I wonder why so few of the modern greats do it?) but many of the stories have become far too conceptually dated/tame to scare modern audiences.
On the other hand, newer movies often struggle with incessant use of cliches and horror tropes, a lot of bad story-telling, being gimmicky, lots of under-developed characters without interests or motives, but can be conceptually scary for a modern audience.
I prefer the modern scene for those films that actually do get the story telling right. Which is rare, but worth it when it does happen. Films like 28 Days Later, Trollhunter, Rec, Let the Right One In, Blair Witch. And horror/comedy. Shaun of the Dead, Cabin in the Woods, Hot Fuzz, Zombieland.
Firstly, I totally love
Hot Fuzz, but wouldn't classify that as 'horror'. It's one of my favorite movies of all time so you get extra points for mentioning it!
Secondly, what I like about the classic horror is that it sheds light on the origins of the genre. When you see the film that 'did it first' you can come to appreciate it more than the modern copycats, even if those newer flicks are scarier. I guess it boils down to this - do you watch simply to be scared, or do you watch because of an appreciation for the filmmaking itself. The difference between guzzling a bottle of cheap booze or sipping a glass of expensive wine.
Thirdly, I think the big difference between classic and modern horror is that classic horror relied on suspense and the viewer's imagination, while modern horror has become very graphic and relies more on the element of surprise. Hitchcock summed it up well:
Alfred Hitchcock said:
There is a distinct difference between "suspense" and "surprise," and yet many pictures continually confuse the two. I'll explain what I mean.
We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let's suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, "Boom!" There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware the bomb is going to explode at one o'clock and there is a clock in the decor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one. In these conditions, the same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is participating in the scene. The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: "You shouldn't be talking about such trivial matters. There is a bomb beneath you and it is about to explode!"
In the first case we have given the public fifteen seconds of surprise at the moment of the explosion. In the second we have provided them with fifteen minutes of suspense. The conclusion is that whenever possible the public must be informed. Except when the surprise is a twist, that is, when the unexpected ending is, in itself, the highlight of the story.
I guess I prefer the suspense and off-screen violence because it allows me to decide what happens, while the shock value of modern horror tends to leave me more traumatized than entertained.
@
dasNdanger loved house of wax but have never been a big fan of hammer horror's, modern horrors don't do it for me too much special effects.
I like the older Hammer flicks because many had a cheesy/campy element to them that was in and of itself entertaining, outside of the fright effect or even the actual story. Sometimes it was bad special effects, or cliche dialogue - whatever it was I've always enjoyed it better than the more realistic horror fare. And classic gothic horror - with frightened ladies in long, flowing gowns and dense fog and long shadows - has always delighted me.
Don't like the genre at all. I can derive no entertainment from watching variations on the same theme (for example, a hockey-masked lunatic sequentially dispatching numerous teenagers/youths with gusto) repeated over and over to a fixed formula. I find it boring and repetitive and it fails to keep my attention.
The nearest thing to a horror movie I ever watched was "Alien" when it first came out in theatres. By the time I realised it was a horror film in disguise, I was hooked.
Have you watched any classic horror (from the 1930s-1960s)? While there are some cliches, there are also some very interesting stories, but they are often NOT for the instant gratification crowd. The story has to unfold, be allowed to unfold. I will suggest two films, one that is considered horror/thriller, and one that is not, and both involving carnie life. Freaks (1932), and the film noir flick, Nightmare Alley (1947). The latter, despite not being a horror flick, will haunt you for years to come (while the ending for the film was altered to appeal to the audiences of the day, it still can trouble your thoughts... ).
One can apply that to anything they dislike. I can't stand superhero or action movies, because I find them repetitive.
Most horror films we see out there are terrible (hockey mask trope, etc) but I really enjoy the slower ones, which rely more on atmosphere and pacing. Makes the whole thing eerie, rather than shocking you once when a lad with a saw jumps out.
In reading up on autism I learned that many autistic children love to watch the same sort of show/movie (or even the same exact movie) over and over again. The reason is that they find the familiar themes and tropes comforting, just like a good friend. I totally get this because that's why I enjoy the same style of horror flick, or mystery movie, or action film. Not suggesting I'm autistic, lol, but that I can really relate to liking a repetitive theme or style or formula. I don't like to be shocked or taken out (or, too far out) of my comfort zone.
Which makes me wonder (again) if this is a woman thing, an age thing, or just a 'me' thing. Do guys like being taken out of their comfort zone more than women?
I usually consider classic to be pre-1970 and modern to be post-1970. It was around then (or the mid-60s) that horror changed and went from relying primarily on suspense to becoming more shocking and graphic.
das
