People throw around Psycho (1960) and the original Night of the Living Dead (1968)...but I mean there was "Revolt of the Zombies" back in 1936...lame, lame movie, but it's classified as Horror so it counts...any thoughts?

Well if you want the absolut first.  Didn't Edison do a short silent version of Frankenstein around the beginning of the century?

I think Psycho and night of the living dead helped usher in what we would call modern horror. 

But before them you had great silent films that pull off a little terror.  Turn of all the lights, put on a creepy soundtrack or some midnight syndicate or hell. even some cruxshadows or clash or NIN if the mood hits hit you and watch Nosferatu.  The original silent one.

Then Universal gave us all the classics with Wolfie,Frankie, and Drac in the 30s.  And of course the mummy -- I always liked mummys.  Didn't the Brits burn mummys in place of wood and coal when they were originally colonizing . . oops I mean aiding Eqypt.

But back to topic -- lots of great horror before the 60s -- even Hammer started in the 50s I think and the 50s gave us some great sci/fi horror movies too.  Don't forget the gillman.

Well wikipedia throws around movies from pre-1900...those being some short films that involve the supernatural.  If you wanna be literal about it, I'd go there.  Also seems there were a lot of Hunchback adaptations in the early 20th century.

Incidentally, I've had problems with people saying that Psycho is the first "modern" horror movie...is it different from what came before?  Yeah...but that also implies that every movie after it fits to a neat little box alongside it as "modern"...which they don't.  Heck, Hitchcock was always supposed to be the "master of suspense" not horror.  And while the two can go together, Psycho is way more suspense than horror.  But that's just me.  And that's waaaaaaay off topic.  lol

EDIT:  Ok....guess not....lol  Basically, I'm just saying that I think saying everything after Psycho is "modern"...it oversimplifies the genre.

I know I know -- I do tend to ramble off with scattered thoughts sometime -- I'm getting old and and a little screwy.  And I was half nuts to begin with.

Hey, I wasn't complaining.  lol.  And truth be told I agree with you.  Because you call it ushering in modern horror like its an era, which it is.  There are people who call psycho the first modern horror movie.  THATS what I have a problem with.

you are right about that.  Psycho and the original NOTLD certainly don't seem modern anymore.  Can we give that honor of being the first modern horror movie to Halloween or the Exorcist  and just put psycho and NOTLD with the older black and white "classics"  cuz we do have to label everything . . . . .  don't we?

Cool, thanks for those replies. I'd forgotten about the original Dracula back in the 30's. Those pre-1900 ones sound interesting too, might jump on Wiki and IMDb later and have a look. I didnt care for Nosferatu...saw it on a double-feature with The Cabinet of Dr Caligari (1920), didnt much like that either, but they count as horror flicks regardless of my opinion.

Not to sh*t on anyone's posts (they are all interesting and i love to start a good tete a tete (okay I just wanted to say "tete a tete" there but u get my drift...) but I guess to clarify, what I meant in my original post was what was the first movie to actually define the "horror" genre...like what movie came along that made the movie industry go, "okay, we need to name this genre...let's call it "Horror"...?

i reccomend "The Bride of Frankenstein" to everyone, Attrage. Forget how hokey the title sounds.  Great atmosphere and sets and the monster even speaks -- he slays too.   Better than the first one even.  It is the definitive horror film of the 30s.

 And for my buddies who are down with 4-20, the scene of " "urghhhhh, smoke good, urghhhhh" will have you rolling on the floor and trying to post it to youtube.

Cool, that's another one to add to the list. I've always dug Frankenstein...comes from reading the book as a kid, I think.

Totally understand.  Point of fact, if someone came up to me and said PSYCHO IS THE FIRST HORROR MOVIE...I'd probably have to hit them since it would negate universal monsters and hammer films at the least.  lol.  So I knew what you meant, it just brought other stuff to mind.  I could tell that you didnt think that either since you knew of 1930s horror.  lol.

that's a damn good question Attrage.  When I was younger they all called the classic Universal movies from the 30s "Monster Movies"  In fact when I was kid, that's what we called them , Monster Movies.  That would be very interesting to know when the term " Horror Movie" was first coined and what movie it applied to.

Monster Movies! Yes! I dont know how i didnt think of that I just finished reading "IT" by Stephen King and they (50's ones like "I was a Teenage Werewolf") feature quite prominently in that! So...perhaps the definition of "Horror" movies is only quite recent then? Were the Hammer films simply called Hammer films or were they thought of as "Horror"??

That Edison Frankenstein's actually on youtube, Pumpboy.

First Part

Second Part

And from what I'm seeing, theres a French short film from 1896 that people are saying was the first horror film (Le Manoir Du Diable).  As for which was originally called horror, since I doubt that that was when it first was made, I've no clue.

Well they were at least using it by the 70s because the old British Tv anthology that they made was called, Hammer's House of Horror"

Plus, if you wanna see hammer horror right now relatively frequently, Monsters HD loves showing them.  Particularly the Christopher Lee Draculas.  Horror of Dracula was on at 6 EST.

that was great cryp!  Thanks.  I had never actually seen it.  pretty creepy for it's time.  I've seen worse made in the last ten years.  You know in 1910 it had people pissing on themselves.

I own most of of the great Hammer movies.  I don't get that channel anyway.  But when I was younger, Hammer was the bomb.  They were my favorite studio.  They may have coined the term horror film first.  Horror of Dracula was their first Drac movie.  I loved Peter Cushing -- he jumped back and forth between creating the Frankenstein monster and trying to stake Drac.  I think he was in all of their movies.  And their damsels in distress were always the hottest thing this side of a serving wench.  Ingrid Pitt!!!!!!!!

And back to mummies for just a second.  Their "The Mummy" is in my opinion, the best mummy ever.  He was faster, stonger and alot more violent than Karloff's take.  When they shoot holes in him with the shotgun and he just keeps coming -- great stuff.

Caught a bit of Horror of Dracula this morning.  I could tell it was quality.  And I definitely agree about The Mummy even having not seen it.  See, the channel airs ads for other movies they're showing by doing this thing called "see the good parts" and they showed a scene from the Hammer version of The Mummy for it once, and it looked so good.  I think it was the scene where he gets stabbed and keeps right on coming.

Mummies are quality no matter what...I dont think I've ever seen a Mummy i didnt enjoy, even that comedic one in Amazing Stories was brilliant.

I dont get any satellite TV or cable or anything, plus I'm in Australia and most of you guys are in the US I think...I'm reliant on DVDs for my horror entertainment...free to air TV here in Aust never shows horror, The Sixth Sense is about as "horror" as they get!

Most purists will say "Horror of Dracula" was Hammer's best Dracula movie, but it was just their first.  I love it, but I think their "Dracula Has Risen From The Grave" was actually the best.  It has it all (except,mysteriously, no Peter Cushing for once)

Chris Lee doing the count as only he could

Great damsels

Great black horse carriage

good priest and one not so good

of course great scenery, cinematography, score, and acting

and no spoilers, but the sight of the first victim is a blast.

and anyone who fashions themselves a mummy fan should check out their "The Mummy"

and don't forget "The Reptile" -- another one of Hammer's often forgotten films.

God I loved that studio.

If you want to see how good Hammer could be, purchase The Mummy and Dracula has risen from the Grave.  They should be fairly cheap on DVD. They'll get your blood flowing to purchase more.  They were a great studio to bridge the gap between the Universal stuff and the newer stuff.  They fell apart and so did their films in the 70s.  They were great with the gothic stuff -- they weren't too good when they tried to go modern.   And to be fair, they had lost alot of talent behind the camera by then as well.

I forgot to mention that Monsters HD has a great website that has an insanely awesome video clip section for trailers, etc.  Seemed something people would wanna see.  It's kinda like a reasonable substitute for the channel itself without the actual full-length movies.  This is the video clip section .

thanks again Cryp -- you're the man.  I love the site.

 Yes you are the man! Thank you for mentioning the Monsters HD.

still have been unable to pinpoint when the term "Hooror" was first used to describe a movie.  Depending on who you read, it varies alot.  Some folks are saying it started withe 30s Universal flims, but we were still calling them "Monster Movies" long after that.  Some say Hammer started it.  Others mentioned as being called Horror first by studio or critic range from Psycho to Rosemary's Baby to Night of the Living Dead to Invasion of the Body Snatchers.  I don't know if it's possible to find the answer.

Yeah after doing some digging myself I reckon it's impossible to pin down a definitive answer, but that's okay, I like questions without answers, like getting lost is the best way to get somewhere you've never been :)

As far what a lit major learned in school, I would consider The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari as the first true horror-genre film.

but was it called a horror movie at the time?

I don't think the issue is so much when the name "Horror Movie" came into vogue. Those who cite Psycho as the first modern horror movie aren't saying that because they think there's something significant in the use of the word "horror." They're saying it because there seems to be something qualitatively different about movies that came after Psycho (or thereabouts) and those that came before.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Myself, I think it's this: before Psycho, horror was dependent on the unnatural and the grotesque--on the idea that whatever was causing the mischief was outside the normal order of things or had put itself outside the normal order in some way. Typically, this "otherness" was portrayed physically, such that whatever was inspiring the horror was physically grotesque (Frankenstein, Mr. Hyde, the Phantom of the Opera, etc.) or had some feature that was different from normal men (Dracula's fangs). But in Psycho, you had a "creature" that was a normal-looking man through and through. There was no attempt made to separate him out from the rest of humanity. Heck, even his name was thoroughly mundane and unremarkable: Norman--normal man. Similarly, in Night of the Living Dead, while the zombies were physically disgusting, that was only because they were normal people who happened to be dead. They were clearly being presented as unfortunate victims themselves; it wasn't their fault they were disturbed from their slumber and forced to eat brains. They were simply doing what allegedly comes naturally to the dead who are made to walk. (The Mummy, by contrast, brought his condition upon himself by being, in his former life, an idolator and sorceror.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In short, prior to Psycho, normal men who killed inspired fear but not fright. Movies that featured such men were deemed suspense movies, but not horror or monster movies. But beginning with Psycho, the idea that a monster could look just like you or I, and that it might not be responsible for its condition, came into vogue.

well one of the oldest horror films was made in 1896!

Nosferatu for its time (1922) is pretty creepy. I would say that would be one of the very first HORROR films.

Ghostbusters.