Which 80's horror vet's movies hold up best today?

im all for cronenberg, as ive already said, but the obvious dubbing of 60s through 80s italian films doesn't bother me at all, since so many of them were shot MOS. You'd have poor dubbing in any language, unless you had everybody dubbed into the language they were actually speaking, in which case you'd have an audio track made up of about half a dozen languages. I just mean to say that it stems from a technical issue, not one of, say, lazy filmmaking, or something like that. (i know you didn't say that, im just completing my thought process here)

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

What I meant is "movie A" is trumped by "movie B".

As in "the Fly" is inferior to "the Thing", etc...

 

Carpenter, Argento, De Palma, and Cronenberg's films from the 70's and 80's all hold up amazingly today, but I too went with Cronenberg for the simple fact that he has proved how amazing he is by not fizzing out and staying relevant well into his late 60's. His films also deal with issues that can be topical, even today.

Argento and De Palma are almost pure style and aesthetic which, to me, isn't a negative, but films that depend so heavily on a certain dated style just don't hold up today with mainstream audiences and sensibilities.

Romero's films were topical in their day, but the issues addressed in them are severely dated and fall on deaf ears, so all audiences are left with is stock music, hammy acting and dated special fx. Dawn and Day of the Dead are still two of my favorite movies of all time.

I don't really see Carpenter as ahead of his time, save for maybe the Thing. Most of his stories were throwbacks with (then) modern sensibilities and almost all of his lead characters were old western or thriller archetypes, which audiences today just don't get.

I still love all these filmmakers and their Pre-90's work to death and I based my vote purely on who would make the cut with a modern audience.

 

Too hard. Went with DePalma just because his early works are so darn ambitious and visually stylish...and I feel people just don't discuss them enough.

But as for aging well...Carpenter's stuff is so damn timeless. Prince of Darkness and Christine just get better and better.

 

All are excellent, but David Cronenberg. His first few movies:

Shivers, AKA They Came From Within
Rabid
and the rest of the Cronenberg films that X-Human listed. I have all but the Dead Ringers on DVD, and I saw Scanners when it was originall released theatrically.

 

While I agree with every argument that Cronenberg's movies hold up well, I went with John Carpenter. It has been argued that Halloween has not aged gracefully. I don't quite agree - it has many brilliant shots which are still copied today, and the finale is a textbook example of how to build suspense. Yes, some of the dialogue is quaint, and it is not paced like most horror films of today. The Thing remains impressive today, and In the Mouth of Madness showed Carpenter retaining his voice and still being able to make a clever film in the 90's.

Argento is probably the one whose movies agree the least with modern palates. His overstylized approach is distinctly out of synch with the present trend toward realism. I still enjoy many of his films and consider them good, but I think he is more of an aquired taste today.

Fulci has always puzzled me. Does he hold up well? Was Fulci ever consistently good?

 

Consistently entertaining, at the very least!

 

Cronenberg. As much as I love the other filmmaker's on this list, his work still holds the most power for me. Plus he seems to keep getting better.

 

Great poll. I actually went with Romero, though I think Cronenberg is the better choice. I like Matt's point that Cronenberg continues to improve while the rest seem to erode (ie Craven - Scream 4....yikes). I realize that that's not the point of the poll though. Dawn of the Dead led me to vote for Romero since it is timeless for me.

 

oh! Tough one...I had to go with Cronenberg. His movies were wayyyy ahead of their time. Carpenter was a close second though.

 

John Carpenter, whose films I revisit more than any other director on this list. Many worthy choices to pick from though.

 

I had to pick John Carpenter. I never get tired of his films especially Escape From NY, The Thing, Big Trouble in Little China, and The Fog.

 

should have picked another for earlier mentioned reasons, but went with craven , because last house on the left and hills have eyes still make me squirm in my seat and nightmare on elm streeet hell even scream make me jump in my seat so.....

 

Entertaining? Perhaps, but he's also frustrating. He's all over the place - often you have to appreciate the intent rather than the execution with him, because he doesn't show restraint. Like in the case of the plastic spiders in The Beyond, or that awful plastic head hitting the cliffs in Don't Torture a Duckling.

 

I picked Fulci but I sorta wish I picked Hooper...

 

Well, when the Drudgereport references a movie (or makes a bi-line using it) I suppose that makes a movie (or director) pretty relevant or... "holds up".

"ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK: Limbaugh Gets Mega Millions on Condo Sale..."

http://drudgereport.com/

(hey, I tried! :fuck