This Halloween, you have 8 movies to introduce somebody to horror.

[Sculpt]

Originally Posted by Despare

So your buddy doesn't know anything about horror. The point is that this week your friend wants you to introduce them to the horror genre. Kind of, they've set aside time to watch two movies a day, every other day for one week starting on Monday. You have 8 movies to show your friend the classic side, the gory side, the crazy side, the funny side, and all the aspects of horror cinema that you can squeeze into eight flicks. Which eight do you pick?

I think I'd introduce them to the Horror genre, with those sides, like this...

classic-esque
Nosferatu
Frankenstein

gory-esque
The Exorcist
The Thing 82

crazy-esque
Psycho
Nightmare On Elm St

funny-side-esque
Ghostbusters
Evil Dead 2

[metternich1815]

An interesting question. I don't like to limit myself to arbitrary genre lines, so my list reflects this. I think my eight would be (not in this order):

Halloween (1978)
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
Psycho (1960)
The Haunting (1963)
Dracula (1931)
Jaws (1975)
The Howling (1981)
Pet Sematary (1989)

Those are some excellent films from a variety of genres that I think would give them a taste of the genre, if that doesn't work, I can always try more modern ones.

[TastingIntellect]

Classic
Night of the Living Dead
The Shining

Gory
Dead Alive
The Thing (original)

crazy
The Devil's Rejects
Evil Dead 2

Funny
Hatchet(Any of them)
Shaun of the Dead

[knife_fight]

Bride of Frankenstein
Halloween
the Exorcist
Nude for Satan (one of my favorite euro-sleaze flicks)
Evil Dead 2
Dawn of the Dead
Black Sunday
Curse of Frankenstein


I guess I would just show them my favorites, being of the mindset, "If they don't like these, they don't like horror".

[roshiq]

It'll be a trap...

1. Hitchcock's Psycho (A beautiful drama-thriller about a guy & his bit crazy mother)
2. The Exorcist (A slow-burn moving film about a troubled teen & a priest)
3. Carpenter's The Thing (A solid sci-fi suspense thriller)
4. Carpenter's Halloween (A sad little story about a girl & his long lost brother)
5. Rosemary's Baby (An emotionally moving tale depicting the tensions & fear of the first-time pregnancy for a newly-married woman)
6. TCM [Original] (Newly restored, a lost 'true-crime' film about a survival story of a group of teens 'rescued' by a poor-struggling family)
7. Let the Right One In (An everlasting children love-story)
8. Freaks (30's highly acclaimed classic film about the behind the stage struggling life of circus people)

[Sculpt]

Originally Posted by neverending

Classic
Frankenstein- Though Bride is my favorite horror film, I think without the first film as a pelude a lot would be lost, so I'd start with the original. Plenty of time later to get to the sequel.

Horror of Dracula- Bring on the other iconic monster with Hammer's masterful take on the tale, and introduce two iconic personalities, Cushing and Lee.

I agree with you. I wouldn't think to start someone with Bride of Frankenstein if they haven't seen Frankenstein 31. Many parts would be confusing, and many references would be left hanging. Having seen it recently, it's a lot more referential to Frankenstein than some might assume.

I see you didn't select Dracula 33 either. I liked Dracula 33, but it's not one of my favorites. It's a bit dry and slow. Probably would entertain intellectuals a bit more than non-intellectuals. I went with Nosferatu. Even though I had seen a ton of Hammer Dracula films and Dracula, I was still at the end of my seat for Nos. And surprisingly to me, I thought the special effects were better and more frightening than the former.

Originally Posted by TastingIntellect

Gory
Dead Alive
The Thing (original)

Just checking... you mean The Thing 82 or 52? The 52 version is called The Thing from the other world, but usually referred to as The Thing, especially before the 82 version.

Originally Posted by roshiq

It'll be a trap...

1. Hitchcock's Psycho (A beautiful drama-thriller about a guy & his bit crazy mother)
2. The Exorcist (A slow-burn moving film about a troubled teen & a priest)
3. Carpenter's The Thing (A solid sci-fi suspense thriller)
4. Carpenter's Halloween (A sad little story about a girl & his long lost brother)
5. Rosemary's Baby (An emotionally moving tale depicting the tensions & fear of the first-time pregnancy for a newly-married woman)
6. TCM [Original] (Newly restored, a lost 'true-crime' film about a survival story of a group of teens 'rescued' by a poor-struggling family)
7. Let the Right One In (An everlasting children love-story)
8. Freaks (30's highly acclaimed classic film about the behind the stage struggling life of circus people)

LOL - no spoilers from you.

I enjoyed Freaks. But I don't know I would say it was particularly good, or important to horror. It may be a classic, because of the notoriety, which comes purely from the title, and the unique actors presented in a proper way (except, possibly, the last 15 mins; much of which was permanently cut). That is to say, if none of the actors were physically unique, and the characters were just trapeze, clowns and show girls, and it was released with the book title "Spurs", then we wouldn't be talking about it now.

[knife_fight]

Originally Posted by Sculpt

I agree with you. I wouldn't think to start someone with Bride of Frankenstein if they haven't seen Frankenstein 31. Many parts would be confusing, and many references would be left hanging. Having seen it recently, it's a lot more referential to Frankenstein than some might assume.

When I picked Bride, I guess I was just picturing some of my "irl" friends, who would have been surrounded by pop culture up to this point. I would assume they knew the story of the original Frankenstein. I can't feasibly picture anyone being like, "What is this 'horror' thing you speak of?".

[neverending]

I enjoyed Freaks. But I don't know I would say it was particularly good, or important to horror. It may be a classic, because of the notoriety, which comes purely from the title, and the unique actors presented in a proper way (except, possibly, the last 15 mins; much of which was permanently cut). That is to say, if none of the actors were physically unique, and the characters were just trapeze, clowns and show girls, and it was released with the book title "Spurs", then we wouldn't be talking about it now.

But the actors are not trapeze artists, clowns and showgirls. They're pinheads, human torsos, living skeletons, dwarves... what the world at that time called Freaks, abominations, monsters. Amongst themselves they're normal, but the outside world fears them, and puts them on display to demean and control them. In the film their society is invaded and betrayed, and they exact their brutal revenge, and it's not the type of revenge you could find in a western. Their revenge is endemic to their place as society's freaks. They've been mocked and humiliated and have acted like the monsters outsiders believe them to be.

Freaks is not only good, it's a masterpiece, and an important early example of the sympathetic monster(s) abused by an uncaring, cruel society.

[metternich1815]

Originally Posted by Sculpt

I see you didn't select Dracula 33 either. I liked Dracula 33, but it's not one of my favorites. It's a bit dry and slow. Probably would entertain intellectuals a bit more than non-intellectuals. I went with Nosferatu. Even though I had seen a ton of Hammer Dracula films and Dracula, I was still at the end of my seat for Nos. And surprisingly to me, I thought the special effects were better and more frightening than the former.

If you are talking about the Dracula from 1931, then I could not disagree more. I loved that film and have ever since I was young. It is easily my favorite Classic Universal horror film. Nosferatu is good, but Dracula (1931) is better, in my opinion. I would actually say that it is my second favorite vampire movie of all time.

[shadyJ]

It's hard to believe that the same guy who made Dracula made Freaks. Freaks is terrifically directed and imaginatively filmed, whereas Dracula is stagy and slow, even by the standards of its time. Lugosi and Dwight Fry are the only good things about Dracula for me. When it came out with a Philip Glass soundtrack, I had to laugh, because no film could be less suited for a Philip Glass soundtrack, but perhaps I should give it a chance; maybe it works as a study in contrasts. No offense, but I think the respect for Dracula is generally unwarranted and rests solely on Lugosi's great performance. Of the Universal horror films, it is my least favorite.