What do you think?
Rate this book
The Definitive Guide to Horror Movies: 365 Films to Scare You to Death
Packed with photographs of the most terrifying scenes in cinema history, this unique, definitive, comprehensive guide traces the story of horror, decade-by-decade, and provides a witty and informative critique of over 200 films from all over the world, plus any TV series and literature that informed them, offering a superb introduction for beginners as well as something new for the die-hard horror fan.
Paperback
First published October 1, 2006
4 people are currently reading
100 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
April 8, 2023
Pretty disappointed with it honestly.
March 9, 2019
There are several different editions of this book with different titles, probably updated with each version. If you see a horror film guide with Marriott & Newman, it's probably some iteration of this book.
I got the 2006 edition when it came out and it broke my heart at the time because I was let down by the reality that there isn't a plethora of terrifying films of the kind of quality I was hoping for (no fault of the guide of course). But it did introduce me to some of my absolute favorite films (Possession, Inferno, The Shout, Lemora, Alucarda, Let's Scare Jessica To Death, Ghost Of Yotsuya and more), directors (Shinya Tsukamoto, Mario Bava, Brothers Quay) and really sent me on my way to discovering more interesting films.
Complaints: any of us could quibble forever about choices; the choices of Hong Kong films could have been better. Possibly more understandable absences are a bunch of great 50s-60s-70s Japanese horror films that were very rare at the time.
But Murnau's Faust and Salem's Lot really should have had their own entries, considering how many weaker films were included.
Some of the qualities of the films are vastly exaggerated and I thought there was a particularly dubious observation about Deliverance.
But this was a really great guide for people in the early stages of horror film viewing.
I got the 2006 edition when it came out and it broke my heart at the time because I was let down by the reality that there isn't a plethora of terrifying films of the kind of quality I was hoping for (no fault of the guide of course). But it did introduce me to some of my absolute favorite films (Possession, Inferno, The Shout, Lemora, Alucarda, Let's Scare Jessica To Death, Ghost Of Yotsuya and more), directors (Shinya Tsukamoto, Mario Bava, Brothers Quay) and really sent me on my way to discovering more interesting films.
Complaints: any of us could quibble forever about choices; the choices of Hong Kong films could have been better. Possibly more understandable absences are a bunch of great 50s-60s-70s Japanese horror films that were very rare at the time.
But Murnau's Faust and Salem's Lot really should have had their own entries, considering how many weaker films were included.
Some of the qualities of the films are vastly exaggerated and I thought there was a particularly dubious observation about Deliverance.
But this was a really great guide for people in the early stages of horror film viewing.
November 25, 2025
Somewhere out there, a high-priced university film theory class is missing a professor. It's because he was writing this book.
It's NOT what I had in mind when picking it up. I've read several similar books about different genres of movie -- science fiction, action, etc. --and the text was always an entry for each movie covered with the basic details on each film plus a paragraph or two of description, then it would move on to the next one. The only material difference in these books was how the entries were organized... that is, whether they were listed alphabetically, chronologically, whatever.
This one was chronological, which makes at least as much sense as alphabetically (which would have jam-packed parts of the alphabet such as the B section, with all the titles starting with "blood," "bride," etc.). But I was looking for quick hits on each movie, so I could compare the author's take on the ones I had seen, and decide whether I wanted to take a look at the ones I hadn't seen. What I didn't need were in-depth discussions about the symbolism, the subtextual meaning of the plot and dialogue, and the social and cultural significance of each film. I'm not against that, because there's certainly a place for such dissections, but I wasn't expecting to get it from a book that puts an exclamation point after "HORROR" in the title and places Leatherface's image in such a prominent spot.
And I can't imagine that many readers really got much out of the discussions contained in this book. Fans of "The Toxic Avenger," "Friday the 13th," and "The Human Centipede" probably only barely know of the existence of Luis Bunuel's 1928 surrealist short film "Un Chien Andalou," nor are they going to recognize the score of a movie as reminiscent of Bela Bartok. They're going to want to know what's scary, why, and whether it's worth checking out. And for the record, I can't even say my tastes align with the author's, because he frequently referred to movies I liked with terms like "execrable." (That's NOT good in terms of movie descriptions.)
And then there are the things that were skipped entirely... or almost. For instance, the section on the '80s opened with a full-page photo from "The Lost Boys," but the caption for that photo and a brief mention in the discussion about another '80s movie were the only times "The Lost Boys" was covered in the text.
And finally, there was the "Britishness" of it all. Now, I'm not an anglophobe. I'm not bothered by the extra "u" in words like "flavor," nor by the reversal of "er" and "re" in words like "saber/sabre." I don't believe that the U.S. is the dominant culture of the world and should be viewed as such. But I had to look up so many things that I should not have had to look up. Did you know that "boffin" is a British term for a scientist type? Did you know "bolshy" means deliberately comative or uncooperative? I didn't, but I do now. I also didn't know Derren Brown, "The Crystal Maze," or that Brits use "Heath Robinson" to describe what I've always heard called "Rube Goldberg" machines. I didn't know what "pom-bashing" was. And I certainly don't mind the use of synonyms to spice up a paragraph, but was it really necessary to use words like "subsidence" when "collapse" would have worked just fine, or "parlous" when "dire" was a quite serviceable term?
If this had been the book I had expected it to be, it would have been half as long, or it would have covered twice as many movies. To me, that would have been much more useful than a two-page essay about a B movie that explains things I don't need to know, like "the crack in the wall symbolizes the schism in the church." We want to read about "the most terrifying movies ever made," not about how you can ruin these movies by over-analyzing them.
It's NOT what I had in mind when picking it up. I've read several similar books about different genres of movie -- science fiction, action, etc. --and the text was always an entry for each movie covered with the basic details on each film plus a paragraph or two of description, then it would move on to the next one. The only material difference in these books was how the entries were organized... that is, whether they were listed alphabetically, chronologically, whatever.
This one was chronological, which makes at least as much sense as alphabetically (which would have jam-packed parts of the alphabet such as the B section, with all the titles starting with "blood," "bride," etc.). But I was looking for quick hits on each movie, so I could compare the author's take on the ones I had seen, and decide whether I wanted to take a look at the ones I hadn't seen. What I didn't need were in-depth discussions about the symbolism, the subtextual meaning of the plot and dialogue, and the social and cultural significance of each film. I'm not against that, because there's certainly a place for such dissections, but I wasn't expecting to get it from a book that puts an exclamation point after "HORROR" in the title and places Leatherface's image in such a prominent spot.
And I can't imagine that many readers really got much out of the discussions contained in this book. Fans of "The Toxic Avenger," "Friday the 13th," and "The Human Centipede" probably only barely know of the existence of Luis Bunuel's 1928 surrealist short film "Un Chien Andalou," nor are they going to recognize the score of a movie as reminiscent of Bela Bartok. They're going to want to know what's scary, why, and whether it's worth checking out. And for the record, I can't even say my tastes align with the author's, because he frequently referred to movies I liked with terms like "execrable." (That's NOT good in terms of movie descriptions.)
And then there are the things that were skipped entirely... or almost. For instance, the section on the '80s opened with a full-page photo from "The Lost Boys," but the caption for that photo and a brief mention in the discussion about another '80s movie were the only times "The Lost Boys" was covered in the text.
And finally, there was the "Britishness" of it all. Now, I'm not an anglophobe. I'm not bothered by the extra "u" in words like "flavor," nor by the reversal of "er" and "re" in words like "saber/sabre." I don't believe that the U.S. is the dominant culture of the world and should be viewed as such. But I had to look up so many things that I should not have had to look up. Did you know that "boffin" is a British term for a scientist type? Did you know "bolshy" means deliberately comative or uncooperative? I didn't, but I do now. I also didn't know Derren Brown, "The Crystal Maze," or that Brits use "Heath Robinson" to describe what I've always heard called "Rube Goldberg" machines. I didn't know what "pom-bashing" was. And I certainly don't mind the use of synonyms to spice up a paragraph, but was it really necessary to use words like "subsidence" when "collapse" would have worked just fine, or "parlous" when "dire" was a quite serviceable term?
If this had been the book I had expected it to be, it would have been half as long, or it would have covered twice as many movies. To me, that would have been much more useful than a two-page essay about a B movie that explains things I don't need to know, like "the crack in the wall symbolizes the schism in the church." We want to read about "the most terrifying movies ever made," not about how you can ruin these movies by over-analyzing them.
September 27, 2020
As an avid horror-fan, this book was a quick grab when I found it on a bookshelf in a local used bookstore. This is a solid guide for someone looking for more esoteric titles or someone wanting to expand on the horror titles they know. The chosen selections cover plenty of international releases and subgenera, and I felt that the book offered a healthy range of films, each of which does have an impact on the genre (even if it's a flawed film that led to something monumental).
One important note, there are two main authors, and several guest writers (as indicated by [initials]. It is very clear from the get-go the authors have a wide breadth of knowledge when it comes to horror films, as well as film as a whole, based on references and analysis. Some entries don't provide a clear-cut path of summary to analysis, and reading can be disorienting. There were a number of times I was looking for more in the summary, but then it abruptly shifts to the analysis of the film (and may jump back and forth), with no sentence to cleanly tie analysis and fact (summary, director, history).
On the analysis piece, the authors offer 1-2 page entries covering specific topics such as Zombies, Stephen King, Vampires and more, each highlighting notable movies respective to the title. Additionally, the authors shine at drawing connections between films, as evident throughout the book. However, there were multiple times where I felt the author(s) analysis could have gone deeper, while others were clean-cut.
In summary, this is a solid book that offers something to avid horror fans and novel fans. Athough the writing may take a bit to get used to, it is worth the trip.
One important note, there are two main authors, and several guest writers (as indicated by [initials]. It is very clear from the get-go the authors have a wide breadth of knowledge when it comes to horror films, as well as film as a whole, based on references and analysis. Some entries don't provide a clear-cut path of summary to analysis, and reading can be disorienting. There were a number of times I was looking for more in the summary, but then it abruptly shifts to the analysis of the film (and may jump back and forth), with no sentence to cleanly tie analysis and fact (summary, director, history).
On the analysis piece, the authors offer 1-2 page entries covering specific topics such as Zombies, Stephen King, Vampires and more, each highlighting notable movies respective to the title. Additionally, the authors shine at drawing connections between films, as evident throughout the book. However, there were multiple times where I felt the author(s) analysis could have gone deeper, while others were clean-cut.
In summary, this is a solid book that offers something to avid horror fans and novel fans. Athough the writing may take a bit to get used to, it is worth the trip.
May 29, 2017
Good overview of horror cinema, providing some context for the different genres of each era. However, for those seeking more film criticism rather than an overview, I'd recommend Kim Newman's Nightmare Movies: Horror on Screen Since the 1960s, which is much larger and in-depth, even though it only focuses on post-sixties cinema.
December 13, 2025
More of a sober, academic approach to the genre instead of the "Whoa, there aren't enough heads being chopped off here" tack taken in many of these guides. While the self-regard of some of the reviewers gets a bit much at times, they do justice to the long history of horror. This book passes the crucial test: you'd keep it by the toilet for perusal.
January 20, 2020
This book does write of all the sub genres you can think of in horror, and where it originated from; having a wide variety of many decades. I feel what lacked in this book, was the choice of explanation brought by the author. I don’t think I learned much, even though it is said to be the “definitive” encyclopedia of the genre. As many of these books, before the internet and apps, they were useful to an extent. Now, everything I’ve seen been applied in these books can easily be found on the site: Letterboxd with a brief description of the film. And not only is it easier, but you also get an opinion/point of view from various cinematic fans and not just exclusive to horror.
Save your money, and join the app: Letterboxd. It’s free, unless you need those extra perks and you can pretty much find way more movies you never knew existed there than in these books.
Save your money, and join the app: Letterboxd. It’s free, unless you need those extra perks and you can pretty much find way more movies you never knew existed there than in these books.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews