Turning horror classics into action movies.

I agree with you. The problem is that when you bring in people to make a horror movie who may not know the best way to make horror, they substitute action instead, because its easy. Its an easy, effective way to provide an adrenline rush in the movie. The best horror doesn't have to rely on that. Take the Exorcist, what I consider the best horror film. There is nothing in that movie that could be called an "action sequence." It relies on atmospehere, story, and characters. The Exorcism scene works not because any great action, its two guys standing over a girl on a bed. It works because of the atmosphere created in the scene, the outstanding preformances of the preists and the excellent writing of the scene.

Thanks to these posts, you guys are two of my favorite newest posters. The Wolf Man is my favorite horror movie--it's what made me love movies in the first place, and it's still brilliant. And also being a big Karloff fan, you can imagine my chagrin at what Universal did to the Mummy. Ugh.

Hopefully with the success of movies like The Ring and the accompanying upsurge in Japanese Horror exposure in the US, we'll get more thoughful horror, horror that tries to freak out your mind instead of your nervous jump reflex. B/c Japanese films lately have shown more willingness to engage the mind than have American "horror" films.

Reading what you posted in the DOTD teaser and what you posted here. I can see your point...and maybe it's good that you went kinda in depth becuz I now would take back what I said in the other post. Action only works in Horror movies if it is essential to the movie, I wish I could give examples but my brain is fried from studying for my midterms... The best type of Horror movies (for me) are the ones, like you said, make you think AND you could actually picturing that really happen. Maybe that's why TCM works and movies like Seven, 28 Days Later, The Omega Man..stuff like dat. If your going with Fantasy Horror, like Romero's DOTD or any other supernatural element I feel you have to not only have a damn good story but something that we could relate to, meaning care about what's going on in this fictional world. Care about the characters, feel their pain, their frustration...That's what movies like Dawn, Day, Night do so well. Like I said I wish I had more examples from the top of my head but I can't think right now and I'm rabbling on and on when I should be studying. But that's my opinion (and I still like the fast zombies ) Later.

I have nothing against action-filled horror films but I would hate to see horror going that route entirely. But I don't think that will happen. There have been a number of character and plot driven horror films in the last few years and they have fared quite well at the box office and with viewers ... THE OTHERS, THE RING, SIXTH SENSE, STIR OF ECHOES in the US and even more in foreign countries like Japan. These films are still being made and I'm very grateful for that.

But as I wrote above I have no problem with films that mix action and horror. Actually I prefer that mix to horror and comedy, which is something I can't really get into with very few exceptions.

And if you watch Argento's cut of George R. Romero's original 1979 version of DAWN OF THE DEAD you'll find out that that is very much a fast-paced action horror film as well. So it's hardly anything new.

I think it would be pretty boring if horror went into one direction only. Variety is the key. Something for everyone. Try to keep an open mind and you'll probably get a few positive surprises.

I couldn't agree with you guys more. The Wolfman is also my alltime fave horror flick and I also am getting a bit tired of the horror film as action movie. (Though I do enjoy the Blade flicks and am dying to see Hellboy...but no more Underworlds please.)

To be fair though, we have seen many updates of the old classic monsters over the last decade or so and not all have been action movies.

"The Mummy" was action horror yes, but "Mary Reily" the Jeckyl/Hyde movie wasn't, nor was "Bram Stoker's Dracula," "Mary Shelly's Frankenstein"(whatever your views on it), or "Wolf." Whether successful or not for each of us, they were spins on the classics that didn't rely on "action."

Of course, I guess it is true that none of these are super-recent.

Preach on brother ... I agree ...

I believe there is also some responsibility on the part of the horror fan to seek out and track down the good stuff ... It is one thing to be subjected to something, and yet another to enbrace, accept or absorb it ...

I saw an incredible film called SEE THE SEA and posted about it ... I for one come here not just to talk about the latest stuff, but to hopefully hear about some unknown or small film ...

Sorry guys, got to disagree. At least partly.

First off, I love the classics. Deeply. They're what turned me onto horror, and movies in general.

But I don't see the point in getting all het up about the vague notion of "action" encroaching into "horror", as if it's some insidious plague that'll destroy our beloved and pure genre.

Movies have always been a self-cannibalising artform, each generation feeding off what came before and - eventually - coming up with classics of its own. There's no such thing as purity when it comes to movie genres. When you look at it from a longview perspective, even our beloved classics were subject to the whims of Hollywood in their day. The Wolf Man? Creature From The Black Lagoon? In the 1940s, they were action movies. Carpenter's remake of The Thing is an action movie compared to the original. American Werewolf is an action movie compared to The Wolf Man. King Kong was a 1933 special effects blockbuster, no different to Van Helsing or The Mummy. And so it goes.

We shouldn't let our reverence for what an era achieved bestow misguided notions of "what horror is" on the movies themselves. Yeah, Hollywood is having one of its regular remake spasms at the moment. Maybe it seems more prevalent than in the past. Maybe it is more prevalent than in the past. So what? The horror genre as a whole is in rude health right now, and for every tired and generic Underworld, there's a May waiting to be discovered. Which one do you think will be held up as a horror classic fifty years from now?

If slick action movies with horror overtones were all that was on offer then, yes, I'd be howling in anguish as well. But they're not. There's a ton of variety in horror right now, and if one sub-genre doesn't appeal then simply dig elsewhere. There are some real gems to be unearthed these days.

For what it's worth, I think the remake of The Mummy is a blast. The sequel licks ballsweat, but the first remake is a great popcorn movie. And there's nothing wrong with that. NOTHING. The classics are strong enough to survive most reinventions (hell, they survived Abbot & Costello) and if bolting the story of Imhotep to the Indiana Jones chassis offers a fresh spin on the tale, then why the hell not? For all its action and adventure, the remake still offered some cool horror-based moments, and the Mummy himself remained something more than just a rampaging monster - it's more "faithful" than you think, in that respect.

Put it this way, had the remake been a "straight" horror movie, a direct remake of the original, would it have improved on what Karloff did? They got it right first time, so why not do something different for the remake? I'd rather see Van Helsing vs Dracula portrayed as a fun action movie than suffer through another well-meaning but ultimately redundant retread like Branagh's Frankenstein or Coppola's Dracula. We've got the horror classics, and no amount of rejigged remakes will dim their brilliance.

In other words, if they remake something and create a fresh take on the original, they're accused of betraying the genre. If they did a straight remake, we'd just end up saying "It's OK, but not as good as the original". So what's to lose?

Dawn of the Dead? I like the trailer. It's smarter than I expected, witty even, and I'm intrigued to see what they do with it. But it is a trailer, and trailers are cut to appeal to the most people.

Well, we don't know that. Who's to say the remake won't retain the same creepiness as Romero's movie, but beef up the zombies as well? There's stuff I don't like in the trailer, but more than enough that I do - to my surprise. For now, that's good enough for me.

That's a trick question, as the two aren't mutually exclusive, nor are they the only two options on the menu. The existence of Blade 2 doesn't alter the existence of Dark Water. Freddy vs Jason doesn't cancel out Cabin Fever. Brendan Fraser doesn't cancel out Boris Karloff. Horror can be whatever people want it to be. It can be funny, exciting, sexy or just plain scary. All are valid, and there's room for them all under the horror banner.

It's like those purists who moan about the death of "real" hip hop, or "real" rock music. Things change, things evolve. That's how they stay fresh, and that's how the classics of the future happen. Horror is going in all kinds of directions right now. There's a resurgence of low budget film making that will, I'm sure, bring us this generation's equivalent of a Romero, Hooper or Carpenter. There's some fucking awesome stuff coming out of Asia. And there's even some major studio money flowing in the direction of projects that would have died on the vine ten years ago. And, yes, as always, there's the big budget Hollywood take on the genre, spicing up old formats with some horror staples to spook the mainstream.

It's always been this way. The great thing about movies is that the past never vanishes. If Van Helsing doesn't sound like your kind of thing, just cue up the Universal Monsters on the DVD player. Get some Hammer boxsets ordered. Pick up some of Anchor Bay's Romero special editions.

But horror is doing better now than it has for years. To focus on something like this (which isn't really a problem, just a facet of the genre that has always been here) is futile, in my opinion.

As attention spans get shorter over time, you can expect more and more actioned-up versions of your fave horror films. I'm thinking Nosferatu directed by Antoine Fuqua.

The Brendan Fraser Mummy stuff is to horror what Domino's delivery is to italian food.

Although Dawn of the Dead does look pretty good (maybe just because it's basically another chance to get the Resident Evil movie right).