Your favorite 2spooky films that terrified you from 1920-1995.

File: Great 80's horror.jpg (755KB, 738x1136px) Image search: [Google]

755KB, 738x1136px

anyone?

>>19411568
Boy, Murnau's Nosferatu is so much better than the Herzog one, it's not even funny. Kinsky should've stuck to playing mercenaries in the jungle or mentally ill yuropoors.

the first movie that spooked me was jaws, then the thing
by the way OP, you don't get to trash It Follows while posting a pic with garbage like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Suspiria and Phantasm

File: klaus 3.gif (969KB, 500x240px) Image search: [Google]

969KB, 500x240px

>>19411876
The fuck? Herzog's version is far superior than the original. They made it more artistic and added a genuine sense of depression and isolation. Not only did they manage to make Dracula sympathetic, but they made it seem like there was no hope for that town. It really is a masterpiece.

>>19411884
>Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Suspiria and Phantasm
>implying It Follows is even remotely better than any of those
>Implying you aren't just butthurt

>>19411897
they're equally bad, and suspiria might be the worst example of cheesy eurotrash crap hyped by tryhard burgers

>>19411908
I'm sorry but I cannot logically take what you're saying seriously. If you wanted to shit on Halloween or TCM, fine.. I cannot agree with this notion that Suspira is bad. I'm still having trouble understanding how you could say It Follows which is an awful film with no redeeming qualities is "equally" as bad as the others. At least the other films either had innovation or did something unique and entertaining.

>>19411922
>innovation
if you consider dumbing down the genre as "innovation", sure
and I don't consider shitty movies to be "entertaining" like some hipsters that go "Wow, this movie is terrible! I know, isn't it great xDDD"
suspiria is slow, dull, badly acted, has a terrible script, terrible effects even for its time (the bat and slinky that was supposed to be barbed wire stood out as particularly terrible when I saw it years ago) and its plot makes no sense
but because it looks like a rainbow barfed all over it the majorly tasteless horror movie audience mistakes it for art

laughable

>>19411943
Dumbing down is not I mean. Yes the idea of some random killer with a body count is not what I prefer in horror films but I consider something like TCM to be innovative because it did something you didn't see a whole lot in American horror films at the time. They made it feel real. It was almost shot like a documentary and the whole film had this brutal realistic grainy quality you've never seen before. It was edgy and risk taking. It wasn't a monster that was brought back to life by electricity and goes around strangling people. Even if you don't personally like it, thinking it wasn't innovative is just silly when considering how much it did.

Everything else you said is strictly subjective and is your own personal opinion.

YOU find it slow
YOU find it dull
YOU think it's badly acted
YOU think it has a terrible script
YOU think it has terrible effects
ect...

These are all things that can be argued because it is a matter of opinion. You are the minority which is fine. People are free to think what they want.

>>19411967
>They made it feel real
you'd have to be under 10 to think anything in TCM looked real, but that wouldn't be such a problem if the actors did a convincing job
the shark in jaws also looks obviously fake but the performances by Scheider, Dreyfuss, Shaw etc, Spielberg's direction and Williams' music elevate it to legendary status
the same can't be said for TCM, and having shitty no-name talentless actors in horror movies has become a standard since then

>It wasn't a monster that was brought back to life by electricity and goes around strangling people.
big deal, Psycho took the inspiration from the same real-life event as TCM and ended up being 10 times better

>Everything else you said is strictly subjective and is your own personal opinion.
well no fucking shit, what kind of a non-argument is that? The same could be said about your It Follows comment, but just saying "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, maaaan" is just a lazy way to back out of an argument

The 80s were a treasure trove of horror films - in terms of production, practical effects, entertaining stories, etc.

But I also enjoy the earlier stuff too.

Anyone here enjoy "Carnival of Souls"? I think, as far as psychological and supernatural horror goes, it's a necessity.

You have good taste, OP.

It Follows was ok though.

>>19412002
>you'd have to be under 10 to think anything in TCM looked real,
It looks real in the sense that it doesn't look like a film. That's the appeal of it.
>but that wouldn't be such a problem if the actors did a convincing job
The dialogue in films are completely unrealistic and it's not how people actually speak. Just because the acting isn't on the level of Humphrey Bogart does not mean it's bad. It's very natural sounding and is a nice fit for the movie.
>the shark in jaws also looks obviously fake
It is fake but I disagree in the idea that it's looks fake. I feel it's very convincing looking.
> but the performances by Scheider, Dreyfuss, Shaw etc, Spielberg's direction and Williams' music elevate it to legendary status
Irrelevant.
>the same can't be said for TCM, and having shitty no-name talentless actors in horror movies has become a standard since then
Actors have to start somewhere. Your idea that actors have to play at a certain level or style is ridiculous. This is how actors learn the craft.
> Psycho took the inspiration from the same real-life event as TCM and ended up being 10 times better
That is your opinion. Also not everyone is Alfred Hitchcock.
>well no fucking shit, what kind of a non-argument is that?
The right kind.
>The same could be said about your It Follows comment
It Follows is shit.
>"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, maaaan" is just a lazy way to back out of an argument
How is it? It's a legitimate fact. What's retarded is you think the idea of an argument matters since neither you or me are going to change our opinions afterwards so bitching about "Oh but this" is pointless. I could easily go into greater detail to why it is I feel you are wrong but I would be wasting even more time than I am now. Has nothing to do with backing out of anything. You say things as if they are objective which why I stated how it was just your opinion which you didn't seem to know going by the way you described certain things.

>>19411568
I thought It Follows at least had a fresh idea, sexually transmitted ghost/stalker thing. I mean it's kinda dumb, but I haven't seen that idea in a movie before

>>19412060
>Irrelevant.

haha, yeah acting, directing and music are "irrelevant" for a horror movie
this is precisely why the genre has been mostly shit, it's filled with people who mistakenly believe they have what it takes to make a decent horror movie, and an audience with abysmally low standards
over time the requirements for making a horror movie have become so low the genre has basically become synonymous with shit

we have nothing more to discuss here

>>19411876
>or mentally ill yuropoors
I think in that case he wasn't really "playing" them. I don't think you could say Kinski's acting whenever he plays a mentally ill character desu