Revisiting 4 Horror Classics From the 2000s: Do They Still Hold Up?

It’s that time of year again, the spookiest month: October, which, as we all know, is ultimately capped off with the scariest of holidays, the one where witches and ghouls roam the world: Halloween. In honor of Halloween, I’ll be taking a look back at some horror movies of years past to see how well they hold up and how scary they seem by today’s standards.

Three years ago, I did this with three classic horror movies from different decades. In 2024, I reviewed three major 1990s horror titles. I was planning to do a similar post last year, but after rewatching The Silence of the Lambs (which I’d intended to use), I found I still liked that movie so much that I decided to write about just that. 

Now, though, I’m back on task! For this go-around, I’ll be focusing on some major titles from the 2000s. Are they worth watching decades after their releases, and just how scary are they today?

Saw (2004)

Twisted Pictures, 103 minutes

Saw was a massive cultural phenomenon when it was released and led to the rise of the ‘torture porn’ brand of horror films that would dominate cinema for the next decade. It also resulted in tons of sequels as part of a (still-growing) Saw media franchise that’s grossed over $1 billion in sales. 

This first film in the series, however, is perhaps the least like what most people would think of when they hear the name Saw. While it definitely has some gross elements, primarily the generally dirty feeling it creates, there’s actually very little torture in Saw. If anything, the movie falls just as much into the thriller/mystery genre as it does horror, if not more so. There’s maybe three minutes of actual torture traps that people have to escape (which would become a staple of later films), and all of these scenes occur in quick flashbacks.

Saw was created by James Wan, who ultimately directed the film, and Leigh Whannell, who wrote it and also stars as Adam. The two recent film graduates were able to secure funding for their low-budget horror story, which centers on two men trapped in a room largely because Wan and Whannell (correctly) reasoned that a story such as this would be cheaper to produce. 

Saw is totally watchable today, but it only clears the bar of being just good enough in almost all key areas. The story is fine. The characters are fine. The acting, also, is fine. If the movie excels in any key area, it’s that it does a great job of crafting an unpleasant world for its characters to call home. This definitely feels similar to the world of David Fincher’s Seven, but without any of the polish of that higher-budget film.

There aren’t any truly frightening scenes in Saw. I don’t think there was a single moment in my recent viewing where my pulse quickened or I felt any sort of fear. At the same time, I’m not sure Saw is trying to be truly terrifying in that way; this is more of a horrific crime story.

It all feels very mid-2000s horror. There are a lot of quick jump cuts. I think if someone were looking to watch a “Saw movie,” they might be disappointed by the original since it likely won’t be what they expect. This also isn’t necessarily a good enough film to merit watching for its story alone. Overall, Saw certainly feels like a student film, though I can acknowledge the massive impact it had.

Grade: 5.5/10

Scary Factor: 2.5/10

The Ring (2002)

DreamWorks Pictures, 115 minutes

The Ring was a major financial success when it first came out. It’s based on a Japanese horror film that had come out several years prior, which itself is based off of a novel titled Ring.

More importantly, for me and many of my fellow millennials, in the years following its release, The Ring held the spot as the scariest movie that we’d ever seen. The movie was actually rated PG-13, unlike most horror films, and that definitely led to more parents being willing to let their children watch it.

I’d argue that the film is actually crafted in a manner that lends itself to being far scarier to a younger audience. While scary movies in general tend to be more frightening to kids, The Ring is a sort of very basic brand of horror that completely lacks nuance. It’s trying, very simply, to scare you, and the ways it goes about doing so lacks sophistication that older viewers might appreciate or look for.

The basic setup is that viewing a videotape that features spliced-together creepy clips leads to one’s death in seven days. The Ring follows a journalist named Rachel who watches said tape after the death of her niece before going on to investigate its origins. Rachel sees things from the tape, like a ladder or fly, in her real life, and this is meant to increase the spookiness of everything. The movie also boasts a somewhat over-the-top musical score to let us know when we should be scared.

One of the scariest parts of a horror story is often that there are unknown elements. The unexplained is usually the most frightening part of a story. The Ring does not adhere to this philosophy at all. Through Rachel’s investigation we learn every bit of the backstory about the haunted tape. 

I really do think that The Ring serves as a bit of a time capsule, not just for its insights into the early 2000s (as this is very much a film of that time period), but also in that it allows viewers to think back to how they felt initially watching it. I’m not sure how impactful the movie would be with younger audiences today since all of the technology in the movie is quite outdated. Would a cursed cassette tape have been scary to me in 2002? Probably not. But for a large number of people, at a specific time, The Ring was quite scary. 

Watching it today, The Ring isn’t bad, but it’s certainly not too frightening. It feels like a basic horror story with zero subtlety. Rachel’s investigation feels as if it progresses very easily and quickly. I suppose it needs to since she only has seven days to figure out what’s going on.

Grade: 6.5/10

Scary Factor: 5/10

Paranormal Activity (2007)

Paramount Pictures, 86 minutes

So, Paranormal Activity is a film that I wasn’t too eager to rewatch since I remembered not enjoying it and finding it quite overrated when I first saw it nearly two decades ago. Still, I felt like the movie deserved a fresh viewing for this post since it was extremely popular at the time of its release. It’s also since spawned six follow-up films (and counting), and the original made oodles of money (almost $200 million) on a shoestring budget. 

Well, unfortunately, I think I got it right the first time. Paranormal Activity isn’t in downright awful territory, but it’s certainly not good. The movie is basically a things-that-go-bump-in-the-night story, and that’s really all there is to it.

The story follows a couple, Katie and Micah. Katie’s been haunted by a demon at different points in her life. Now that said demon has returned, Micah purchases a camera to document what happens to him and his girlfriend after they go to sleep.

Paranormal Activity rotates between daytime scenes of the stressed-out, fighting couple and nighttime scenes where creepy things occur (creaking doors, strange sounds, etc.). It’s definitely a one-trick pony when it comes to creating scary moments in the dark. If you find a sheet being slowly pulled off the bed by an unseen force terrifying, then do I have a movie for you! For me, while some of these moments can be a little scary, it gets old fast.

Watching it today, the character of Micah feels like a major issue with the film and makes it even worse. He’s a truly problematic person who’s extremely self-centered and doesn’t listen to his partner when she says what she wants to do. It’s hard to enjoy a movie when one of the two characters you’re following is totally insufferable. Micah is just that; he’s an insufferable jerk.

It’s impressive whenever a film is able to achieve the sort of success Paranormal Activity did, but I don’t think it’s worth watching. I think it underdelivers, likely in part because of the constraints imposed by its budget. What we do get is some cheap tricks, a few moments of suspense at night, and a couple that should’ve broken up long before the story started.

Grade: 3.5/10

Scary Factor: 4.5/10

The Descent (2005)

Pathé Productions, 100 minutes

When I think back about horror movies that I enjoyed that were also fairly frightening, I remember The Descent as a film that definitely hit the mark in both ways. It’s for this reason that, after watching three 2000s releases that didn’t hold up as being particularly scary or even particularly good films, I decided to watch this one. Could The Descent (at least partially) redeem 2000s horror?

As it turns out, filmmaker Neil Marshall’s movie is both scary and quite good. While I don’t believe it falls into masterpiece territory, I’d argue that it’s one of the better films in the genre since 2000.

The Descent centers on a woman named Sarah. A year after a horrific tragedy, she finds herself at a cabin in the woods with five thrill-seeking friends. Together, they descend into a cave in the Appalachian Mountains. However, what’s meant to be a revitalizing adventure soon turns into a nightmare.

I won’t say much more about the plot of the film as The Descent is the type of horror experience that it’s best to go into not knowing too much about what will occur. I will say, though, that if you have claustrophobia, you’ll likely find this one especially scary.

The acting in The Descent is above average, and all of the characters feel well differentiated from one another, especially compared to the casts we often get in horror movies. There’s an emotional weight to the story and performances that makes the film feel more impactful.

If I had to point to one weakness in the movie, it’s that it relies a bit too much on jump scares. These types of quick scares aren’t out of place in the film, but they’re somewhat overused.

It’s also worth mentioning that there are two very different versions of the film’s ending. The ending shown in America is shorter than the original UK version. While it’s only one additional scene in the UK version, it ends the film on a far different note. The UK ending, which was what Marshall originally intended to be seen worldwide, is far superior. Overall, The Descent holds up as both a quality film and a frightening one.  

Grade: 8.5/10

Scary Factor: 8/10

Past Horror Posts:

Rewatching Three 90s Horror Movie Classics: Scream, The Blair Witch Project, & Seven

Horror Time: Rewatching 3 Scary Movie Classics for Halloween (Psycho, The Exorcist, The Shining)

10 Underrated Horror Movies You Might Have Missed

The Silence of the Lambs: Reexamining & Reviewing the Best Movie of 1991