"Classic" as opposed to "plain bad"

[phips]

I thought Mike did well pointing out all the bad acting in that movie, add a dumb story with characters you would enjoy taking a bath in boiling oil, a uninteresting (and only one) location and you get a bad movie that is hard to sit through.

No wait... it's the sixties!
So this movie has got to be ground-breaking, and I am sure 27k+ user that voted a straight 8.0 for this turd would surly agree.

Am I missing something? Do I have to cut this movie some slack because moving pictures (nowadays called film) were still in its infancy?
At least everyone, I had to endure, saying more than two lines died, I would have to give it that...

[OmegaR!]

Sure the movie was groundbreaking, but it was also contemporaries with movies like Planet of the Apes and 2001: A Space Odyssey
Those movies were made in the same year (and there are many other gems made that year too) and it did (more or less) set the bar for
horror movies (many of which today follow the same pattern) but it doesn't mean you have to like it

classic or not, I found it hard to sit through... The Pre-RiffTrax was alright, but it seemed like it was a lot of filler... what with the drink mixes and all....

[BBQ Platypus]

Well, I actually loved this movie.  I thought it made great use of a low budget, building suspense rather than revolving around cheap violence.  It's still plenty gruesome, though - the ending seared itself into my skull the first time I saw it.  It's aged a bit, but I think it's aged well.

[Toyland Chairman]

I thought it was okay. I like DAWN OF THE DEAD better actually, but I wouldn't call NIGHT bad.

[Darth Geek]

I do find NIGHT very slow, and pretty uninteresting other than Ben's character. I do recognize it's groundbreaking status, but that doesn't make it easier to sit through.