What do you think?
Rate this book
Nightmare Movies: Horror on Screen Since the 1960s
Now over twenty years old, the original edition of Nightmare Movies has retained its place as a true classic of cult film criticism. In this new edition, Kim Newman brings his seminal work completely up-to-date, both reassessing his earlier evaluations and adding a second part that assess the last two decades of horror films with all the wit, intelligence and insight for which he is known. Since the publication of the first edition, horror has been on a gradual upswing, and taken a new and stronger hold over the film industry.
Newman negotiates his way through a vast back-catalogue of horror, charting the on-screen progress of our collective fears and bogeymen from the low budget slasher movies of the 60s, through to the slick releases of the 2000s, in a critical appraisal that doubles up as a genealogical study of contemporary horror and its forebears. Newman invokes the figures that fuel the ongoing demand for horror - the serial killer; the vampire; the werewolf; the zombie - and draws on his remarkable knowledge of the genre to give us a comprehensive overview of the modern myths that have shaped the imagination of multiple generations of cinema-goers.
Nightmare Movies is an invaluable companion that not only provides a newly updated history of the darker side of film but a truly entertaining guide with which to discover the less well-trodden paths of horror, and re-discover the classics with a newly instructed eye.
Newman negotiates his way through a vast back-catalogue of horror, charting the on-screen progress of our collective fears and bogeymen from the low budget slasher movies of the 60s, through to the slick releases of the 2000s, in a critical appraisal that doubles up as a genealogical study of contemporary horror and its forebears. Newman invokes the figures that fuel the ongoing demand for horror - the serial killer; the vampire; the werewolf; the zombie - and draws on his remarkable knowledge of the genre to give us a comprehensive overview of the modern myths that have shaped the imagination of multiple generations of cinema-goers.
Nightmare Movies is an invaluable companion that not only provides a newly updated history of the darker side of film but a truly entertaining guide with which to discover the less well-trodden paths of horror, and re-discover the classics with a newly instructed eye.
634 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1984
51 people are currently reading
1990 people want to read
About the author
Kim Newman
289 books949 followersNote: This author also writes under the pseudonym of Jack Yeovil.
An expert on horror and sci-fi cinema (his books of film criticism include Nightmare Movies and Millennium Movies), Kim Newman's novels draw promiscuously on the tropes of horror, sci-fi and fantasy. He is complexly and irreverently referential; the Dracula sequence--Anno Dracula, The Bloody Red Baron and Dracula,Cha Cha Cha--not only portrays an alternate world in which the Count conquers Victorian Britain for a while, is the mastermind behind Germany's air aces in World War One and survives into a jetset 1950s of paparazzi and La Dolce Vita, but does so with endless throwaway references that range from Kipling to James Bond, from Edgar Allen Poe to Patricia Highsmith.
In horror novels such as Bad Dreams and Jago, reality turns out to be endlessly subverted by the powerfully malign. His pseudonymous novels, as Jack Yeovil, play elegant games with genre cliche--perhaps the best of these is the sword-and-sorcery novel Drachenfels which takes the prescribed formulae of the games company to whose bible it was written and make them over entirely into a Kim Newman novel.
Life's Lottery, his most mainstream novel, consists of multiple choice fragments which enable readers to choose the hero's fate and take him into horror, crime and sf storylines or into mundane reality.
An expert on horror and sci-fi cinema (his books of film criticism include Nightmare Movies and Millennium Movies), Kim Newman's novels draw promiscuously on the tropes of horror, sci-fi and fantasy. He is complexly and irreverently referential; the Dracula sequence--Anno Dracula, The Bloody Red Baron and Dracula,Cha Cha Cha--not only portrays an alternate world in which the Count conquers Victorian Britain for a while, is the mastermind behind Germany's air aces in World War One and survives into a jetset 1950s of paparazzi and La Dolce Vita, but does so with endless throwaway references that range from Kipling to James Bond, from Edgar Allen Poe to Patricia Highsmith.
In horror novels such as Bad Dreams and Jago, reality turns out to be endlessly subverted by the powerfully malign. His pseudonymous novels, as Jack Yeovil, play elegant games with genre cliche--perhaps the best of these is the sword-and-sorcery novel Drachenfels which takes the prescribed formulae of the games company to whose bible it was written and make them over entirely into a Kim Newman novel.
Life's Lottery, his most mainstream novel, consists of multiple choice fragments which enable readers to choose the hero's fate and take him into horror, crime and sf storylines or into mundane reality.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
March 14, 2019
Kim Newman must have seen about 10,000 movies in his life so far. He must leap out of bed and take in Head Cheerleader Dead Cheerleader (2000) over breakfast before checking the post to see if his contact in Baton Rouge has finally sent the promised copies of Sergio Martino's hard to get Your Vice is a Locked Door and only I Have the Key (1972) and Joel Reed's Bloodsucking Freaks (1978).
Speaking of sucking, Kim's book sucks up almost every stupid and every reasonable horror movie from 1960 to now and slices and dices them and lists and enlists them and draws lines between them and taxonomises them and explores sub-genres and sub-sub-genres until you feel like your brain has been sucked out of your ear by the brain sucking things in Brain Sucking Things (1997).
Here's a typical couple of sentences:
After Fight Club, a run of "imaginary friend" or "imaginary fiend" films wore out th device. Ostensible protagonists turned out to be the killers stalking them (and killing their friends) in Session 9 (2001), Switchblade Romance (2003) and Shrooms (2006). Trauma (2004) and Spiral (2007) have neurotics kill people they take for illusions only to find they're real. It became almost mandatory in horror that at least one supporting character should turn out to be imaginary or a ghost or an imaginary ghost.
Or take this from page 470 :
Organ-harvesting rackets are presented in detail in Dirty Pretty Things (2002), Koma (2004), The Passage (2007) Recycled Parts (2007), The Harvest project (2008), Train (2008) and Staunton Hill (2009).
I was shouting at the book by now – "Kim, Kim, you've seen enough organ-harvesting-racket films, you can STOP NOW!"
Occasionally, not often enough, Kim snaps – he's finally seen enough!
Psycho movies have proliferated like a school of piranha fish, taking bites out of each other until they finally coalesce into one endless film. Any stray ideas are likely to crop up all over the place at once, as filmmakers imitate each other like unbalanced pod creatures from invasion of the Body Snatchers often with results about as graceful as the human-headed dog in the 1978 version. He Knows You're Alone ripped off The Silent partner for a scene where a severed head is discovered in a fish tank. By the time of Night School (1981), a scant four months later, the trope was hackneyed enough for a cop to refer to "the old head in the fish tank bit".
There are frequent flashes of amusement amidst the gouts of mulched innards:
The Town that Dreaded Sundown (1976), a rare movie featuring death-by-knife-attached-to-a-trombone-slide...
Jeff Burr's Leatherface : Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990) tries to elevate the goonish Leatherface from his cannibal clan to solo stardom the way Berry Gordy put Diana Ross in front of The Supremes.
As tied-to-a-chair-and-tortured films go, Hostel is only middling gruelling
Having an uncaricatured lesbian as the lead in a horror sequel is a surprisingly progressive touch that's easy to miss among the bloodletting.
But – much as I enjoyed Kim's book, I wondered - what makes these horror fans want to see so much of the same thing over and over? Aren't horror movies making the same few points (where there is a discernible point) again and again? Maybe I have to ask myself, as a fan of pop music, what makes the three minute pop song so charming I want to listen to so many of them? Is it the same thing? Are gorehouds actually being comforted by the predictable fifteen murders in Boogeyman II (2002) and lulled into warm cosiness by the familiar cannibals of Don't Look Behind You (1991) as I am by the smart chord changes on Younger Than Yesterday and the looptape sufferings of Diana (Leatherface) Ross? It's a funny old world.
Speaking of sucking, Kim's book sucks up almost every stupid and every reasonable horror movie from 1960 to now and slices and dices them and lists and enlists them and draws lines between them and taxonomises them and explores sub-genres and sub-sub-genres until you feel like your brain has been sucked out of your ear by the brain sucking things in Brain Sucking Things (1997).
Here's a typical couple of sentences:
After Fight Club, a run of "imaginary friend" or "imaginary fiend" films wore out th device. Ostensible protagonists turned out to be the killers stalking them (and killing their friends) in Session 9 (2001), Switchblade Romance (2003) and Shrooms (2006). Trauma (2004) and Spiral (2007) have neurotics kill people they take for illusions only to find they're real. It became almost mandatory in horror that at least one supporting character should turn out to be imaginary or a ghost or an imaginary ghost.
Or take this from page 470 :
Organ-harvesting rackets are presented in detail in Dirty Pretty Things (2002), Koma (2004), The Passage (2007) Recycled Parts (2007), The Harvest project (2008), Train (2008) and Staunton Hill (2009).
I was shouting at the book by now – "Kim, Kim, you've seen enough organ-harvesting-racket films, you can STOP NOW!"
Occasionally, not often enough, Kim snaps – he's finally seen enough!
Psycho movies have proliferated like a school of piranha fish, taking bites out of each other until they finally coalesce into one endless film. Any stray ideas are likely to crop up all over the place at once, as filmmakers imitate each other like unbalanced pod creatures from invasion of the Body Snatchers often with results about as graceful as the human-headed dog in the 1978 version. He Knows You're Alone ripped off The Silent partner for a scene where a severed head is discovered in a fish tank. By the time of Night School (1981), a scant four months later, the trope was hackneyed enough for a cop to refer to "the old head in the fish tank bit".
There are frequent flashes of amusement amidst the gouts of mulched innards:
The Town that Dreaded Sundown (1976), a rare movie featuring death-by-knife-attached-to-a-trombone-slide...
Jeff Burr's Leatherface : Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990) tries to elevate the goonish Leatherface from his cannibal clan to solo stardom the way Berry Gordy put Diana Ross in front of The Supremes.
As tied-to-a-chair-and-tortured films go, Hostel is only middling gruelling
Having an uncaricatured lesbian as the lead in a horror sequel is a surprisingly progressive touch that's easy to miss among the bloodletting.
But – much as I enjoyed Kim's book, I wondered - what makes these horror fans want to see so much of the same thing over and over? Aren't horror movies making the same few points (where there is a discernible point) again and again? Maybe I have to ask myself, as a fan of pop music, what makes the three minute pop song so charming I want to listen to so many of them? Is it the same thing? Are gorehouds actually being comforted by the predictable fifteen murders in Boogeyman II (2002) and lulled into warm cosiness by the familiar cannibals of Don't Look Behind You (1991) as I am by the smart chord changes on Younger Than Yesterday and the looptape sufferings of Diana (Leatherface) Ross? It's a funny old world.
November 12, 2024
rereading this classic, curious if it will be as good as when I first read it in college. a formative book for me.
💀
Unfortunately, this was quite scattershot. When Newman is on his game, he is very, very impressive: there is a genius to how he contextualizes and then explores certain films, directors, and subgenres. He shines brightest in his adulatory overview of Romero's original Living Dead trilogy (which bookend this guide), but also does excellent work examining a number of auteurs (Dario Argento, Abel Ferrara, Paul Morrissey, John Waters, Larry Cohen, Brian De Palma, David Cronenberg, and of course George Romero) and a number of films (popular movies like Halloween, The Shining, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Howling, The Omen; cult classics like Targets, Pretty Poison, and Martin; obscurities like Blue Sunshine, Let's Scare Jessica to Death, Messiah of Evil, Scream and Scream Again). I particularly appreciated his overview of Italian horror and two excellent films by the sadly underseen Michael Laughlin: Strange Invaders and Strange Behavior. When he's on, he's really on.
But when Newman is bad, he's horrid. Part of that is due to his approach: he spits out the titles of movies like a berserk rain man, title after title after title, often using snarky summaries that function as self-amused putdowns. There is a swarming feeling to this barrage that can be overwhelming and draining. Worse, there is such a constant stream of insults that it often feels like he loathes the very genre he is writing about. To be fair, a lot of the films he describes do sound terrible - but it really becomes wearying. In particular, his asinine sneering at the original Alien comes across as unforgivably contemptuous. Just as damaging as his invectives and his title-swarms is how wide a net he casts. This is supposed to be a guide to horror films. Why is he writing about disaster films, especially earthquakes? Why are Manchurian Candidate, Smooth Talk, Raggedy Man, Apocalypse Now, Blood Simple, and for chrissakes After Hours included in the book? Why is he even writing about Mad Max and Road Warrior - let alone dismissing them? He's great when writing about John Waters - but that director doesn't make horror films! It was all so frustrating.
I do get why I loved this book in college. So many titles and a few of them even lauded. It must have been the source of many personal lists, many searches, many discoveries.
So, 5 stars for when he's great and 1 star for when he's terrible... I guess 3 stars is appropriate.
💀
Also going to amuse myself by recapping all of the horror films and tv that I've watched recently. October is the best month! Although now it's actually November.
October Horror List
The Kingdom III: Exodus (Denmark/2022) - this long-delayed follow-up is decidedly inferior to its predecessors. but it had its moments I guess; Lars von Trier is always a fascinating director. but he seems bored by the plot and almost contemptuous of his characters. a real disappointment, as the first two series are amazing examples of horror tv (along with Twin Peaks, Black Summer, Dead Set, and AHS: Asylum)
A Dark Song (Ireland/2016) - intense chamber piece with a wonderfully hallucinatory ending. even the angel was disturbing.
El Conde (Chile/2023) - funny and smart, plus beautiful cinematography. loved the cast of human gargoyles, the flying, the politics, the evil wit. that surprise cameo at the end was brilliant.
Pieces (USA/1982) - sleazy slasher. a 10-year-old chopping up his mom in the opening was certainly a first for me. 80s must have been a different time for child actors.
Cure (Japan/1994) - Kiyoshi Kurosawa is an amazing director and this is his best, and one of my favorite films. probably my 4th time watching it? so disturbing. the stillness of it all...
Stopmotion (UK/2023) - I wanted to fast-forward so many times during this grueling mash-up of psychological freakout, claymation (+ rotting flesh-mation), and bizarro dream sequences. this was ingenious, completely original, and I'll never watch it again.
When Evil Lurks (Argentina/2023) - wow this was disgusting. I don't usually enjoy being grossed out, but this was a great film. what an upsetting ending.
Halloween (USA/2018) - so disappointing, I expected David Gordon Green to do better. only in the opening asylum scene and in the climactic kitchen fight did I see flashes of the visual flair that was such a big part of his earlier films and in Eastbound. his usual care with actors was nowhere to be found. I guess this is what selling out looks like.
Oddity (Ireland/2024) - even better than the director's Caveat, which was pretty great. Damian Mc Carthy really knows how to get mileage out of weird constructions, like the wooden mannequin here and the toy bunny in Caveat. ending was a bit disappointing.
Milk & Serial (USA/2024) - can't believe how clever and creative this hour-long YouTube found footage/serial killer film turned out to be. watch it here
The House on Sorority Hill (USA/1983) - fairly effective slasher. man, sorority girls play the meanest pranks. also, the one guy in the pool proclaiming "I'm a sea pig" LOLOL oh my God
Luz (Germany/2018) - from the director of Cuckoo. this is the superior film. definitely far from mainstream. essentially an art film about possession. the directing in this is excellent and the stylized acting eventually gave me the creeps. definitely not for everyone. amazing that this was his film school thesis. very 80s, very Euro, very Fassbinder
The Watchers (USA/2024) - so disappointing. as far as directors go, apple sure didn't fall far from the tree. Although there were a handful of Servant-level shots (great series), so can't say the director is totally without talent.
All the Colors of the Dark (Italy/1972) - above average giallo. Edwige Fenech is so attractive she's hypnotic. love the tension, lighting, arcane imagery. Sergio Martino is a great director. didn't love the orgies or the puppy sacrifice.
Arcadian (USA/2024) - even when playing it completely straight, Nic Cage is such a compelling actor. fantastic creatures in this one! still not sure what they even were.
Gonjiam: Haunted Asylum (South Korea/2018) - ghosthunters find their doom in a setting featured in many Creepiest Places in the World lisitcles. despite mainly being shot on GoPro, I was impressed by the consistently striking arrangement of the cast - many great shots.
Banshee Chapter (USA/2013) - a revisit of Lovecraft's "From Beyond." Ted Levine sure is having a lot of fun in this movie.
Cannibal Man (Spain/1972) - Eloy de la Iglesia is an excellent filmmaker. basically functions as a secret critique of Spain under Franco, where the rich are so idle they want to kill themselves and the poor can't help killing. the gay de la Iglesia suffuses his film with homoerotic imagery. no cannibalism on display, just a confused man who doesn't understand why he keeps killing the people closest to him, then storing their bodies in his bedroom. a disturbing film, to say the least.
Gaia (South Africa/2021) - loved the beautiful nature shots and trippy hallucinogenic imagery in this fungal eco-horror about Big Changes Coming.
Satan's Slaves & Satan's Slaves: Communion (Indonesia/2017 & 2022) - the first film is an enjoyably goofy family-in-peril story with some great retro 80s decor & couture. the darker, stranger, more complex sequel is easily the superior film, with an amazing brutalist apartment block setting and a wonderfully horrible climax. really looking forward to the third one. both films have some nicely creepy, old-timey ballads that I had to quickly download afterwards.
Among the Living (France/2014) - Maury & Bustillo's excellent, misunderstood film is a love letter from France to the Americana of the late 70s-80s. sort of a Stand by Me meets The Hills Have Eyes. a Family First film, in all the good ways and all of the bad. a sweeping, elegiac score and beautiful countryside and all-too-real adolescents on the one hand and stomach-churning violence on the other. despite being purposely derivative, this is a surprising, original film.
Mill of the Stone Women (Italy/1960) - I rewatched this enjoyable classic (rarely referenced nowadays) and was mostly impressed by the handsome production, excellent primary setting (the mill), and the impressive images of corpse-statues melting in the fiery finale.
House of Usher (US/1960) - I always forget how dynamic a director Roger Corman can be. the vivid colors really popped and the creepy mansion had some amazing decor. those paintings! plus a great, mannered performance by Vincent Price, cringing one moment, sneakily vicious the next.
The Dead Don't Die (US/2019) - once upon a time, I thought Jim Jarmusch could do no wrong. how wrong I was! this is a disaster, from the embarrassing meta moments to the stillborn humor to the horrible plot itself.
The Fly (US/1986) - loved the cool blue-gray style of the film and how much of a tragic love story this actually is. great chemistry and acting by always eccentric Jeff Goldblum and a nicely deadpan Geena Davis. Cronenberg such an expert at portraying bodily transformation and breakdown. sure gets gnarly though - I'm not a big fan of body horror.
Planet of the Vampires (Italy/1965) - Mario Bava makes the most atmospheric and stylish horror films. after years of watching this on vhs and then dvd, my umpteenth viewing of this bizarre classic reached its apex in the copy I now have on blu-ray. this an all-time favorite. the sets, the colors, the uniforms... everything looked amazing. and such a fun plot, predating Alien and The Thing remake in where it goes.
Midsommar (US/2019) - horror in bright daylight is the most unnerving horror. this is an enchanting film with beautiful cinematography, wonderfully detailed direction, and lots to think about. that last shot of the sad heroine finally smiling as her boyfriend is burned alive! I suppose that's one way of turning a frown upside-down. I read some reviews after my rewatch (extended cut only!) and I just have to say: no, this is not about white supremacy. my God, people can be so thick sometimes. didn't help that the director encouraged that perspective. well, it was 2019, I suppose I can't blame him. anyway, this is perfect. tied with Cabin in the Woods as my favorite modern horror film.
Apostle (US/2018) - beautifully shot and very surprising. I knew nothing about this film and at first wondered if I had somehow been tricked into watching an absorbing but depressing historical drama (not usually my thing) rather than a horror film. but when the horror showed up, it really showed up. it's great that the director, whose Indonesian action films I've enjoyed, is just as adept and as technically accomplished with slow-burn, atmospheric horror. and Dan Stevens is such a fun, eccentric actor.
The Medium (Thailand/2021) - documentary format really worked against this overwrought, overlong possession/folk horror film. horrific yet silly climax. beautiful landscapes though and I liked how real the auntie medium felt.
Grotesquerie (US/2024) - does this tv show even count as horror? the Lost Highway/WandaVision twist in episode 7 really got me. Ryan Murphy is like Kim Newman: excellent when he's on and horrid when he's not. this had plenty of good stuff and plenty of terrible stuff. on the plus side: incredible acting from everyone (Niecy Nash actually made me cry in the first episode) and great directing from multiple directors, especially that phenomenal 15-minute continuous shot at the beginning of episode 5.
💀
Unfortunately, this was quite scattershot. When Newman is on his game, he is very, very impressive: there is a genius to how he contextualizes and then explores certain films, directors, and subgenres. He shines brightest in his adulatory overview of Romero's original Living Dead trilogy (which bookend this guide), but also does excellent work examining a number of auteurs (Dario Argento, Abel Ferrara, Paul Morrissey, John Waters, Larry Cohen, Brian De Palma, David Cronenberg, and of course George Romero) and a number of films (popular movies like Halloween, The Shining, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Howling, The Omen; cult classics like Targets, Pretty Poison, and Martin; obscurities like Blue Sunshine, Let's Scare Jessica to Death, Messiah of Evil, Scream and Scream Again). I particularly appreciated his overview of Italian horror and two excellent films by the sadly underseen Michael Laughlin: Strange Invaders and Strange Behavior. When he's on, he's really on.
But when Newman is bad, he's horrid. Part of that is due to his approach: he spits out the titles of movies like a berserk rain man, title after title after title, often using snarky summaries that function as self-amused putdowns. There is a swarming feeling to this barrage that can be overwhelming and draining. Worse, there is such a constant stream of insults that it often feels like he loathes the very genre he is writing about. To be fair, a lot of the films he describes do sound terrible - but it really becomes wearying. In particular, his asinine sneering at the original Alien comes across as unforgivably contemptuous. Just as damaging as his invectives and his title-swarms is how wide a net he casts. This is supposed to be a guide to horror films. Why is he writing about disaster films, especially earthquakes? Why are Manchurian Candidate, Smooth Talk, Raggedy Man, Apocalypse Now, Blood Simple, and for chrissakes After Hours included in the book? Why is he even writing about Mad Max and Road Warrior - let alone dismissing them? He's great when writing about John Waters - but that director doesn't make horror films! It was all so frustrating.
I do get why I loved this book in college. So many titles and a few of them even lauded. It must have been the source of many personal lists, many searches, many discoveries.
So, 5 stars for when he's great and 1 star for when he's terrible... I guess 3 stars is appropriate.
💀
Also going to amuse myself by recapping all of the horror films and tv that I've watched recently. October is the best month! Although now it's actually November.
October Horror List
The Kingdom III: Exodus (Denmark/2022) - this long-delayed follow-up is decidedly inferior to its predecessors. but it had its moments I guess; Lars von Trier is always a fascinating director. but he seems bored by the plot and almost contemptuous of his characters. a real disappointment, as the first two series are amazing examples of horror tv (along with Twin Peaks, Black Summer, Dead Set, and AHS: Asylum)
A Dark Song (Ireland/2016) - intense chamber piece with a wonderfully hallucinatory ending. even the angel was disturbing.
El Conde (Chile/2023) - funny and smart, plus beautiful cinematography. loved the cast of human gargoyles, the flying, the politics, the evil wit. that surprise cameo at the end was brilliant.
Pieces (USA/1982) - sleazy slasher. a 10-year-old chopping up his mom in the opening was certainly a first for me. 80s must have been a different time for child actors.
Cure (Japan/1994) - Kiyoshi Kurosawa is an amazing director and this is his best, and one of my favorite films. probably my 4th time watching it? so disturbing. the stillness of it all...
Stopmotion (UK/2023) - I wanted to fast-forward so many times during this grueling mash-up of psychological freakout, claymation (+ rotting flesh-mation), and bizarro dream sequences. this was ingenious, completely original, and I'll never watch it again.
When Evil Lurks (Argentina/2023) - wow this was disgusting. I don't usually enjoy being grossed out, but this was a great film. what an upsetting ending.
Halloween (USA/2018) - so disappointing, I expected David Gordon Green to do better. only in the opening asylum scene and in the climactic kitchen fight did I see flashes of the visual flair that was such a big part of his earlier films and in Eastbound. his usual care with actors was nowhere to be found. I guess this is what selling out looks like.
Oddity (Ireland/2024) - even better than the director's Caveat, which was pretty great. Damian Mc Carthy really knows how to get mileage out of weird constructions, like the wooden mannequin here and the toy bunny in Caveat. ending was a bit disappointing.
Milk & Serial (USA/2024) - can't believe how clever and creative this hour-long YouTube found footage/serial killer film turned out to be. watch it here
The House on Sorority Hill (USA/1983) - fairly effective slasher. man, sorority girls play the meanest pranks. also, the one guy in the pool proclaiming "I'm a sea pig" LOLOL oh my God
Luz (Germany/2018) - from the director of Cuckoo. this is the superior film. definitely far from mainstream. essentially an art film about possession. the directing in this is excellent and the stylized acting eventually gave me the creeps. definitely not for everyone. amazing that this was his film school thesis. very 80s, very Euro, very Fassbinder
The Watchers (USA/2024) - so disappointing. as far as directors go, apple sure didn't fall far from the tree. Although there were a handful of Servant-level shots (great series), so can't say the director is totally without talent.
All the Colors of the Dark (Italy/1972) - above average giallo. Edwige Fenech is so attractive she's hypnotic. love the tension, lighting, arcane imagery. Sergio Martino is a great director. didn't love the orgies or the puppy sacrifice.
Arcadian (USA/2024) - even when playing it completely straight, Nic Cage is such a compelling actor. fantastic creatures in this one! still not sure what they even were.
Gonjiam: Haunted Asylum (South Korea/2018) - ghosthunters find their doom in a setting featured in many Creepiest Places in the World lisitcles. despite mainly being shot on GoPro, I was impressed by the consistently striking arrangement of the cast - many great shots.
Banshee Chapter (USA/2013) - a revisit of Lovecraft's "From Beyond." Ted Levine sure is having a lot of fun in this movie.
Cannibal Man (Spain/1972) - Eloy de la Iglesia is an excellent filmmaker. basically functions as a secret critique of Spain under Franco, where the rich are so idle they want to kill themselves and the poor can't help killing. the gay de la Iglesia suffuses his film with homoerotic imagery. no cannibalism on display, just a confused man who doesn't understand why he keeps killing the people closest to him, then storing their bodies in his bedroom. a disturbing film, to say the least.
Gaia (South Africa/2021) - loved the beautiful nature shots and trippy hallucinogenic imagery in this fungal eco-horror about Big Changes Coming.
Satan's Slaves & Satan's Slaves: Communion (Indonesia/2017 & 2022) - the first film is an enjoyably goofy family-in-peril story with some great retro 80s decor & couture. the darker, stranger, more complex sequel is easily the superior film, with an amazing brutalist apartment block setting and a wonderfully horrible climax. really looking forward to the third one. both films have some nicely creepy, old-timey ballads that I had to quickly download afterwards.
Among the Living (France/2014) - Maury & Bustillo's excellent, misunderstood film is a love letter from France to the Americana of the late 70s-80s. sort of a Stand by Me meets The Hills Have Eyes. a Family First film, in all the good ways and all of the bad. a sweeping, elegiac score and beautiful countryside and all-too-real adolescents on the one hand and stomach-churning violence on the other. despite being purposely derivative, this is a surprising, original film.
Mill of the Stone Women (Italy/1960) - I rewatched this enjoyable classic (rarely referenced nowadays) and was mostly impressed by the handsome production, excellent primary setting (the mill), and the impressive images of corpse-statues melting in the fiery finale.
House of Usher (US/1960) - I always forget how dynamic a director Roger Corman can be. the vivid colors really popped and the creepy mansion had some amazing decor. those paintings! plus a great, mannered performance by Vincent Price, cringing one moment, sneakily vicious the next.
The Dead Don't Die (US/2019) - once upon a time, I thought Jim Jarmusch could do no wrong. how wrong I was! this is a disaster, from the embarrassing meta moments to the stillborn humor to the horrible plot itself.
The Fly (US/1986) - loved the cool blue-gray style of the film and how much of a tragic love story this actually is. great chemistry and acting by always eccentric Jeff Goldblum and a nicely deadpan Geena Davis. Cronenberg such an expert at portraying bodily transformation and breakdown. sure gets gnarly though - I'm not a big fan of body horror.
Planet of the Vampires (Italy/1965) - Mario Bava makes the most atmospheric and stylish horror films. after years of watching this on vhs and then dvd, my umpteenth viewing of this bizarre classic reached its apex in the copy I now have on blu-ray. this an all-time favorite. the sets, the colors, the uniforms... everything looked amazing. and such a fun plot, predating Alien and The Thing remake in where it goes.
Midsommar (US/2019) - horror in bright daylight is the most unnerving horror. this is an enchanting film with beautiful cinematography, wonderfully detailed direction, and lots to think about. that last shot of the sad heroine finally smiling as her boyfriend is burned alive! I suppose that's one way of turning a frown upside-down. I read some reviews after my rewatch (extended cut only!) and I just have to say: no, this is not about white supremacy. my God, people can be so thick sometimes. didn't help that the director encouraged that perspective. well, it was 2019, I suppose I can't blame him. anyway, this is perfect. tied with Cabin in the Woods as my favorite modern horror film.
Apostle (US/2018) - beautifully shot and very surprising. I knew nothing about this film and at first wondered if I had somehow been tricked into watching an absorbing but depressing historical drama (not usually my thing) rather than a horror film. but when the horror showed up, it really showed up. it's great that the director, whose Indonesian action films I've enjoyed, is just as adept and as technically accomplished with slow-burn, atmospheric horror. and Dan Stevens is such a fun, eccentric actor.
The Medium (Thailand/2021) - documentary format really worked against this overwrought, overlong possession/folk horror film. horrific yet silly climax. beautiful landscapes though and I liked how real the auntie medium felt.
Grotesquerie (US/2024) - does this tv show even count as horror? the Lost Highway/WandaVision twist in episode 7 really got me. Ryan Murphy is like Kim Newman: excellent when he's on and horrid when he's not. this had plenty of good stuff and plenty of terrible stuff. on the plus side: incredible acting from everyone (Niecy Nash actually made me cry in the first episode) and great directing from multiple directors, especially that phenomenal 15-minute continuous shot at the beginning of episode 5.
April 29, 2014
Whew! It took me a month but I finished it. I must confess that there were moments when I despaired of ever seeing the end - but my love of horror films and plain, bulldog determination allowed me to pull it off.
I was a horror movie fan in my teens and early twenties - then slowly moved away from the genre as the terror got more graphic. I am a fan of the the creeping variety (like the The Omen), but grand guignol disgusts me. Then, I did not have access to a VCR for quite some time between the middle eighties to the middle nineties, and horror rarely comes uncensored to India - so most of the really frightening movies never made it to Indian theatres. I picked up the horror habit again in the middle of the last decade, and left it again a year ago when torture porn began dominating (torture is really difficult for me to watch). It's like an addiction which I can't quite get rid off.
This book allowed me to recall my yesterdays with a sweet nostalgic pain, as I curled up with a coffee in front of the TV on a rainy Friday afternoon with a stack of horror videotapes to get me through the weekend. In 700+ packed pages, Kim Newman has done a stupendous job of compilation: he lists down horror stories from the sixies up to the present - I don't think there're many that he has missed. He touches upon all the subgenres (vampires, ghosts, zombies, torture etc.), as well as the few auteurs. Newman does not restrict himself to conventional horror, but analyses those films which fall outside the conventional horror flick (e.g. David Lynch) also - hence the title, "Nightmare Movies".
But all said and done, the book is information overload. In his intention to explore all facets of horror, the author has forsaken any in-depth analyis. Agreed, it may not be possible to any level in a such an ambitious project without proving unmanageable: yet, it limits the usefulness of the book. You will not get any insight into the reason why we frighten ourselves to death by reading this book. At best, it is a geography and history of horror. The ardent fan will find many a familiar face on the journey: but if you are not that into horror, it would be advisable to leave this book alone.
Recommended for horror junkies.
I was a horror movie fan in my teens and early twenties - then slowly moved away from the genre as the terror got more graphic. I am a fan of the the creeping variety (like the The Omen), but grand guignol disgusts me. Then, I did not have access to a VCR for quite some time between the middle eighties to the middle nineties, and horror rarely comes uncensored to India - so most of the really frightening movies never made it to Indian theatres. I picked up the horror habit again in the middle of the last decade, and left it again a year ago when torture porn began dominating (torture is really difficult for me to watch). It's like an addiction which I can't quite get rid off.
This book allowed me to recall my yesterdays with a sweet nostalgic pain, as I curled up with a coffee in front of the TV on a rainy Friday afternoon with a stack of horror videotapes to get me through the weekend. In 700+ packed pages, Kim Newman has done a stupendous job of compilation: he lists down horror stories from the sixies up to the present - I don't think there're many that he has missed. He touches upon all the subgenres (vampires, ghosts, zombies, torture etc.), as well as the few auteurs. Newman does not restrict himself to conventional horror, but analyses those films which fall outside the conventional horror flick (e.g. David Lynch) also - hence the title, "Nightmare Movies".
But all said and done, the book is information overload. In his intention to explore all facets of horror, the author has forsaken any in-depth analyis. Agreed, it may not be possible to any level in a such an ambitious project without proving unmanageable: yet, it limits the usefulness of the book. You will not get any insight into the reason why we frighten ourselves to death by reading this book. At best, it is a geography and history of horror. The ardent fan will find many a familiar face on the journey: but if you are not that into horror, it would be advisable to leave this book alone.
Recommended for horror junkies.
March 29, 2020
I started this book night before last and it is not what I thought. Way over the top detail on the horror movie industry and who did what behind the scenes along with which producers jumped from one movie to another. The book might be for some people but it is not for me so sticking it on my dnf shelf.
December 5, 2011
I've had the original edition of Nightmare Movies since I stumbled across it in a used bookstore in the early '90s. I have read that thing to pieces -- Newman wrote a classic of film criticism, which makes a great guidebook and a great leisure read alike.
The updated edition takes us up to, pretty much, right this second -- he covers everything right up to movies that were released in 2010 and 2011. To do it, he took the original book and the left the text intact but added footnotes when he had changed an opinion or had something new to say. To this is added essentially a second entire book covering everything released since the first Nightmare Movies went to print. This makes the new Nightmare Movies a big ol' volume indeed, and formatted very differently from the original -- notably the full-page photos are gone, and the movie stills are much smaller and fewer, crammed into two inserts. The proofreading, sadly, sucks -- it's full of inconsistently spelled names, typos, and howlers like "serial" for "cereal." I don't blame Newman for this -- I blame Bloomsbury. For shame!
There's lots of good and interesting stuff here, including Newman's reflections on the "torture porn" genre, the vampire romance phenomenon, and J-horror. The new content is, however, a little less sparkling than the old. Part of it is that he's not starting from scratch to consider, say, vampire films, because he already did that in the original, so some sections feel more like a laundry list of movies than a fresh appraisal -- and part of it might be that just like the rest of us, Newman's older and more jaded than he was 20-some years ago. However, his appraisals of movies he especially liked or found interesting are as sharp and intelligent as ever. Newman is an intelligent and thoughtful watcher and he assumes his audience is as well -- he's refreshingly unwilling to embrace a consensus opinion, and to take "trashy movies" seriously. And he can be very funny.
In my opinion, this is THE single indispensable book for anyone even mildly interested in horror cinema.
The updated edition takes us up to, pretty much, right this second -- he covers everything right up to movies that were released in 2010 and 2011. To do it, he took the original book and the left the text intact but added footnotes when he had changed an opinion or had something new to say. To this is added essentially a second entire book covering everything released since the first Nightmare Movies went to print. This makes the new Nightmare Movies a big ol' volume indeed, and formatted very differently from the original -- notably the full-page photos are gone, and the movie stills are much smaller and fewer, crammed into two inserts. The proofreading, sadly, sucks -- it's full of inconsistently spelled names, typos, and howlers like "serial" for "cereal." I don't blame Newman for this -- I blame Bloomsbury. For shame!
There's lots of good and interesting stuff here, including Newman's reflections on the "torture porn" genre, the vampire romance phenomenon, and J-horror. The new content is, however, a little less sparkling than the old. Part of it is that he's not starting from scratch to consider, say, vampire films, because he already did that in the original, so some sections feel more like a laundry list of movies than a fresh appraisal -- and part of it might be that just like the rest of us, Newman's older and more jaded than he was 20-some years ago. However, his appraisals of movies he especially liked or found interesting are as sharp and intelligent as ever. Newman is an intelligent and thoughtful watcher and he assumes his audience is as well -- he's refreshingly unwilling to embrace a consensus opinion, and to take "trashy movies" seriously. And he can be very funny.
In my opinion, this is THE single indispensable book for anyone even mildly interested in horror cinema.
July 14, 2016
If you want a book of film criticism focused on horror, this is the definitive choice, especially in this newer edition. You will not agree with the author on everything, of course, and it glosses over a couple of things, but it is easily the most in-depth and knowledgeable film study of horror in the era (1960-2010). And it's fun.
Let me start with what it is and isn't. It is not a book of film theory, like Men, Women and Chainsaws, nor is it a study of horror across media, a la Danse Macabre. It is not a rating index. It is simply an overview of horror films of the era, covering almost all of the important works and quite a few minor ones, especially those by major genre directors. It is divided into categories, including sections on auteurs. It does make allusions to film theory, of course, but is relatively accessible. It makes no effort to avoid spoilers, however, so tread lightly if that is an issue.
This is a fairly academic book, and assumes a fair level of knowledge in the field, so a newcomer could feel swamped rather quickly. Also, the tone is a little dry at times, though not often. You will also get no personal information on the author, like King's inserts in Danse Macabre. It is insightful, and often witty, and will offer a further insight into the field as a whole for most.
Basically, it is a reference book, and an enormously useful one. There are splashier, more entertaining books about genre films, but this is probably the widest ranging, and possibly the most informative. You won't get in-depth dissections of special effects or studio gossip, and the earlier sections are lacking for most non-English language works (the author backfills a bit in the later sections), but more specialized works are available for those things. Overall, an experienced student of horror films cannot go wrong with this book.
Let me start with what it is and isn't. It is not a book of film theory, like Men, Women and Chainsaws, nor is it a study of horror across media, a la Danse Macabre. It is not a rating index. It is simply an overview of horror films of the era, covering almost all of the important works and quite a few minor ones, especially those by major genre directors. It is divided into categories, including sections on auteurs. It does make allusions to film theory, of course, but is relatively accessible. It makes no effort to avoid spoilers, however, so tread lightly if that is an issue.
This is a fairly academic book, and assumes a fair level of knowledge in the field, so a newcomer could feel swamped rather quickly. Also, the tone is a little dry at times, though not often. You will also get no personal information on the author, like King's inserts in Danse Macabre. It is insightful, and often witty, and will offer a further insight into the field as a whole for most.
Basically, it is a reference book, and an enormously useful one. There are splashier, more entertaining books about genre films, but this is probably the widest ranging, and possibly the most informative. You won't get in-depth dissections of special effects or studio gossip, and the earlier sections are lacking for most non-English language works (the author backfills a bit in the later sections), but more specialized works are available for those things. Overall, an experienced student of horror films cannot go wrong with this book.
August 9, 2020
Whew. Reading this was like being inside the mind of a scattered lunatic who spent their entire life watching nothing but horror films. I only was able to get through half of this book as every section felt like it was a mildly coherent list of related horror films. Here's the zombie chapter, here's the midnite movies chapter, here's the vampire chapter and all those chapters did was attempt to rattle off as many movies in that subgenere as possible.
There's some opinions bandied about, but they are usually a sentence or two at best and there's simply not enough meat to any of them. There was also an overall dismissive tone to too many of the films that was off putting to me. Admittedly, these films will never be considered high-art, but I would have appreciated a bit more respect towards them.
I gave up during the Silence of the Lambs chapter. Silence of the Lambs is a great movie, but Newman dives into the crime thriller genre after that and I feel those films are not horror as they rely more on suspense and crime solving than horror.
I guess differing opinions and his overall style put me off. I suppose I'll wait a while to read my copy Newman's Anno Dracula.....
There's some opinions bandied about, but they are usually a sentence or two at best and there's simply not enough meat to any of them. There was also an overall dismissive tone to too many of the films that was off putting to me. Admittedly, these films will never be considered high-art, but I would have appreciated a bit more respect towards them.
I gave up during the Silence of the Lambs chapter. Silence of the Lambs is a great movie, but Newman dives into the crime thriller genre after that and I feel those films are not horror as they rely more on suspense and crime solving than horror.
I guess differing opinions and his overall style put me off. I suppose I'll wait a while to read my copy Newman's Anno Dracula.....
December 17, 2018
The best and most comprehensive account of the modern horror film (i.e. post-1968, from Night of the Living Dead onwards) I've ever read and could ever hope for, covering in detail all the major trends and movements from around the world in the last 50 years (up to 2011).
This volume consists of the original book from 1988, extensively annotated to provide updates or revised opinions where he has changed his mind in the interim (but leaving the original intact), followed by another 300 pages or so covering everything from 1988 onwards.
There is a very neat structure whereby the original book starts with Romero's Night of The Living Dead in '68 and ends with his Day of the Dead in '85, and the new half starts with the Night... remake in 1990 and ends with Romero's second Dead trilogy (Land of, Diary of and Survival of the Dead) from 2005-2009.
Individual chapters cover in enormous detail such topics as Italian horror (the giallo, the zombie cycle and the cannibal film - Argento gets a section to himself in the 'Auteurs' chapter), the 'Indian Summer of the British Horror Film' (late period Hammer, Amicus, Michael Reeves, Pete Walker etc.), Classical Gothic, devil films, slasher films, ghost stories etc. The new section covers more recent trends such as the post-Scream postmodern 90s horror film, the Ring-inspired J-horror boom and the unfortunate development of torture porn.
Films and directors are assessed and contextualised and vast amounts of detail are given and yet it still all reads very easily and entertainingly, never descending into just listing films. All in all this book provides a brilliant survey of an enormously varied genre with incredibly impressive knowledge and authority, and works equally well to dip in and out of or read cover-to-cover. His novels are great too.
This volume consists of the original book from 1988, extensively annotated to provide updates or revised opinions where he has changed his mind in the interim (but leaving the original intact), followed by another 300 pages or so covering everything from 1988 onwards.
There is a very neat structure whereby the original book starts with Romero's Night of The Living Dead in '68 and ends with his Day of the Dead in '85, and the new half starts with the Night... remake in 1990 and ends with Romero's second Dead trilogy (Land of, Diary of and Survival of the Dead) from 2005-2009.
Individual chapters cover in enormous detail such topics as Italian horror (the giallo, the zombie cycle and the cannibal film - Argento gets a section to himself in the 'Auteurs' chapter), the 'Indian Summer of the British Horror Film' (late period Hammer, Amicus, Michael Reeves, Pete Walker etc.), Classical Gothic, devil films, slasher films, ghost stories etc. The new section covers more recent trends such as the post-Scream postmodern 90s horror film, the Ring-inspired J-horror boom and the unfortunate development of torture porn.
Films and directors are assessed and contextualised and vast amounts of detail are given and yet it still all reads very easily and entertainingly, never descending into just listing films. All in all this book provides a brilliant survey of an enormously varied genre with incredibly impressive knowledge and authority, and works equally well to dip in and out of or read cover-to-cover. His novels are great too.
May 4, 2017
Very well researched and sourced. Thorough, and Newman's knowledge is unrivaled. My only issue is he doesn't seem to like much of anything. He's unduly hard on (or just plain wrong) on films like ALIEN, RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD and THE RE-ANIMATOR, all acknowledged classics. His pithy asides are annoying. That being said I'd rather he be opinionated than sycophantic. Recognizing Tim Burton as an "auteur" is a pleasing move, and the section on David Lynch is wonderful as well. A good read for serious horror film fans.
November 23, 2014
If there is a Necronomicon, this is surely it.
January 4, 2026
Essential.
I love Kim Newman and can only assume he has cloned himself to keep chunking out such great criticism, fiction and reviews
I was always a little saddened that he turned out not to have a TV friendly face as he was briefly on a comedy quiz show and is the undisputed expert around all things weird!!!!
I love Kim Newman and can only assume he has cloned himself to keep chunking out such great criticism, fiction and reviews
I was always a little saddened that he turned out not to have a TV friendly face as he was briefly on a comedy quiz show and is the undisputed expert around all things weird!!!!
August 15, 2023
Split these reviews up into parts 1 and 2 cause they would be too big to fit. Just know this books an essential banger. As Kermode basically says, stop fucking about and get some Kim Newman on your shelf. Mr Rapid fire is back at it again rattling off those names. He can't be stopped. As ever his structuring of all these movies is excellent finding a way to link so many under the bracket of nightmare cinema. The Matrix isn't horror per say but it's an unavoidable nightmare that's every bit as haunting as Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It's not just this is what America is really like behind the disguise but this is what your world is like. So yes, 100% appropriate and Newman's always amazing at talking about sci fi anyway, so how could we exclude?
Horror in the 2000s is basically a tale of 3 directors. Much has been written about the torture porn cycle involving the notorious films of Eli Roth, Rob Zombie and James Wan. Firstly, the kick off that they were showing what would have been video nasty like material in multiplexes. Then later, how these films link in to the war on terror, the revelations of Guantanamo Bay and spread in to television with the likes of 24. The xenophobia was running rampant during this era and was best embodied in these guys movies. Hostel being the finest example of the "why are you doing this to me?" genre. It's a fantastic parody of American ignorance, misogyny and even the notion of a final girl. The tables are turned on the boyish sexual fantasy of let me have a girl in a room that I can do anything to. Some say the second movies the better of the two. I don't get it. The first exposed a lot of horrible male actions and the second one tried to be a more obvious let's put some girls in the leads and look like we're championing feminism more. Something thats get killed the moment it isn't a females strength or brains that gets them out of a desperate situation but their wallet. Yeah, sometimes it's better to paordy the problem than to champion the progressive. The two Hostel films proving that.
Sadly, what isn't written about so much is the output of James Wan when we reach the 2010s. Cause this exactly the point when most horror gets dog shit and pisses me off. Instead of actually being about something or having the public consciousness seeping in on topics such as the war on terror we get the watered down studio package of Insidious. Having to watch all the copycats which recycle themes of grief and trauma due to that films success is the real torture porn. Ironic because the main plot lines are families losing a loved one too soon and Dementia is actually one of the biggest issues today. I hate to break it you but your loved ones aren't dying and that's the problem. Gaspar Noe knows this personally and that's why we got Vortex.
So none of horror cinema today really acknowledges anything in society. We're still stuck in this phase. The twisted thing is Horror films only become important following major disasters, if not they're just capitalist studios making money with cheap rubbish. The former is the horror films true role. When everything becomes bullshit, it is the only truth. Above all, horror is the dark conversation that sometimes we have to have and it's one the studios aren't having right now. The independents and smaller studios like A24 aren't putting up a good enough alternative and the only one who can actually say something with the grief and torture is Ari Aster. He's the only one who provides some humour amongst all the self serious doom and gloom. His films are personal, whereas the rest are just studio hacks. Noone cares for exploitation models and lofi aesthetics, instead we get bland studio polish. Style has been erased. Visual appearance no longer advances a story or evokes the setting. Jump scares are beyond a joke and I crave a return to the atmospheric slow burn of J Horror.
Prior and parallel to the torture porn, we had the found footage craze, which is unfortunately pretty dead in the water. A shame because I love the whole prankster aspect to it, the gonzo energy and the ability to keep testing the boundaries of technology and reality. From Orson Welles's radio piece War of the World's to Ghostwatch. That sort of meta parody of our technological modes that keeps you on your toes. Makes me sad it was tainted by repetitiveness, when by nature it should be constantly about trying to find new ground. In essence, we got lazy. We broke too many rules. Newman selects the respectable Silence of the Lambs as his horror films of the '90s. There's no denying it's a masterpiece and in terms of invading popular culture, Hannibal was definitely the character that invaded our homes and became a part of every conversation.
Although pretty entranced by and emotionally connected to Fire Walk with Me, My own choice for best horror of the '90s would be late entry The Blair Witch Project, which I think is one of the last real works of art not just in horror but in this medium. More than this medium, in fact. Like in the movie how it's all about what lies outside the frame, my appreciation for it is in that too with the way it combined the Internet, TV supplements and different cameras. Plus, it literally created a new style of directing you could call method directing, which hasn't been replicated since. It is kind of crazy to think the most medium pushing films of the last 20 years that change the entire concept of what a film could be and the way they look have been The Blair Witch and Michael Mann's silly action film Collateral. If digital is the future then these films have proved to be the most exciting new directions. You have to ask yourself could we have shot LA night scenes in the dark like this and could we have created such wide spread online hysteria before these two films? In this sense, they're the last two really groundbreaking films. Whilst not quite as effective, Lake Mungo is pretty damn good too and a high point of the 2000s.
New French extremity films get a mention in this book but they could have probably had a whole chapter dedicated to them. After New Hollywood, New French Extremity might be my favourite movement in cinema. Those directors provided the best balance of shocking images with genuinely intellectual ideas. Weirdest thing is people still don't know which are good and which are bad and there's definitely not enough written about them for my liking, making them still a terrain to be navigated critically. Kermode used to do this well before he came a family critic. I didn't always agree with his thoughts on these controversial films but to atleast have someone engaging with them was lovely. In My Skin remains a favourite from this period using the body as the final battle against capitalism. You can see its influence on the films of Julia Ducoournau today who's applying the body horror towards feminism and vegetarianism.
A common trend of the 2000s is that we get lost in some of the empty but formally excellent films like The Descent, which is just the thrills of Alien in a cave but without any of the anti capitalist commentary or using visual art works to suggest civilisations. Rec too would be another fun film that perhaps gets too much time. Both great films but no classics. Remakes from the 2000s were often solid enough (as Newman states made by good directors waiting for a personal project) but the critics are way too distracted by these. Newman guessing in the '80s that Lynch would have a full comeback and be the most popular auteur of the '90s and being proven right to be able to write tons of pages on him makes me so happy. Incredible prediction. Newman and Kermode were some of the only ones supporting Fire Walk with Me back then too before it was regarded as a masterpiece. Hats off to you my boys.
Happy to see Larry Fessenden get some dedicated time but three auteurs seriously need more attention here. Koji Shiraishi, who many know for Noroi but should know for the Taxi Driver found footage ghost movie Occult. Bong Joon Ho, who needs no introduction. He made the horror movie of the 2000s, which is The Host. Sorry, I'm a big lover of creature features that aim high and capture the national nightmare. You have to wait til the final chapter for Newman's notes. For a more dumb creature feature that aims lower, Newman is right in saying Piranha 3D was a hoot. Finally, Forzani and Cattet, who's post modern films on giallo and slasher films fascinate me greatly. Alexandre Ajas High Tension was a tense game of cat and mouse that examined the metaphysical relationship between predator and Prey but in a way I still can't decide whether is dumb or smart. Amer is a much better piece, which definitely exists in a world that is a fully aware of Clovers book Men, Women and Chainsaws. Doing what a genre suggested but in a single film, making it a classic that should be talked about more.
Rather fittingly we close this second half with Romero's second zombie trilogy going right back to how we started in '68. Land of the Dead is generally underrated fun. Whether it's satire or homage is a good question, either way I enjoy it. Diary of the Dead shows some promise with its willingness to engage in found footage and it does have a few ideas up its sleeve but it also looks just as crap as half the found footage cycle was with some really poor set pieces. Survival of the Dead is far less ambitious and only looks slightly better but there are few laughs. On this occasion, Newman looking to the Future picks There Will Be Blood like he chose Apocalypse Now last time as his horror in non horror. The respite when horror disappears but shows up elsewhere. Similar to Universal monsters ending and noirs/sci taking over with the same attitude just in a different form. I'm not too sure why he felt more optimistic at the end of this book than the last. Horrors fucking dire these days. Maybe I should follow his advice and search for the attitude rather than the form. Where were at now, Oppenheimer would be my go to. That I guess is my review of this book and personal view of horror in this period.
Horror in the 2000s is basically a tale of 3 directors. Much has been written about the torture porn cycle involving the notorious films of Eli Roth, Rob Zombie and James Wan. Firstly, the kick off that they were showing what would have been video nasty like material in multiplexes. Then later, how these films link in to the war on terror, the revelations of Guantanamo Bay and spread in to television with the likes of 24. The xenophobia was running rampant during this era and was best embodied in these guys movies. Hostel being the finest example of the "why are you doing this to me?" genre. It's a fantastic parody of American ignorance, misogyny and even the notion of a final girl. The tables are turned on the boyish sexual fantasy of let me have a girl in a room that I can do anything to. Some say the second movies the better of the two. I don't get it. The first exposed a lot of horrible male actions and the second one tried to be a more obvious let's put some girls in the leads and look like we're championing feminism more. Something thats get killed the moment it isn't a females strength or brains that gets them out of a desperate situation but their wallet. Yeah, sometimes it's better to paordy the problem than to champion the progressive. The two Hostel films proving that.
Sadly, what isn't written about so much is the output of James Wan when we reach the 2010s. Cause this exactly the point when most horror gets dog shit and pisses me off. Instead of actually being about something or having the public consciousness seeping in on topics such as the war on terror we get the watered down studio package of Insidious. Having to watch all the copycats which recycle themes of grief and trauma due to that films success is the real torture porn. Ironic because the main plot lines are families losing a loved one too soon and Dementia is actually one of the biggest issues today. I hate to break it you but your loved ones aren't dying and that's the problem. Gaspar Noe knows this personally and that's why we got Vortex.
So none of horror cinema today really acknowledges anything in society. We're still stuck in this phase. The twisted thing is Horror films only become important following major disasters, if not they're just capitalist studios making money with cheap rubbish. The former is the horror films true role. When everything becomes bullshit, it is the only truth. Above all, horror is the dark conversation that sometimes we have to have and it's one the studios aren't having right now. The independents and smaller studios like A24 aren't putting up a good enough alternative and the only one who can actually say something with the grief and torture is Ari Aster. He's the only one who provides some humour amongst all the self serious doom and gloom. His films are personal, whereas the rest are just studio hacks. Noone cares for exploitation models and lofi aesthetics, instead we get bland studio polish. Style has been erased. Visual appearance no longer advances a story or evokes the setting. Jump scares are beyond a joke and I crave a return to the atmospheric slow burn of J Horror.
Prior and parallel to the torture porn, we had the found footage craze, which is unfortunately pretty dead in the water. A shame because I love the whole prankster aspect to it, the gonzo energy and the ability to keep testing the boundaries of technology and reality. From Orson Welles's radio piece War of the World's to Ghostwatch. That sort of meta parody of our technological modes that keeps you on your toes. Makes me sad it was tainted by repetitiveness, when by nature it should be constantly about trying to find new ground. In essence, we got lazy. We broke too many rules. Newman selects the respectable Silence of the Lambs as his horror films of the '90s. There's no denying it's a masterpiece and in terms of invading popular culture, Hannibal was definitely the character that invaded our homes and became a part of every conversation.
Although pretty entranced by and emotionally connected to Fire Walk with Me, My own choice for best horror of the '90s would be late entry The Blair Witch Project, which I think is one of the last real works of art not just in horror but in this medium. More than this medium, in fact. Like in the movie how it's all about what lies outside the frame, my appreciation for it is in that too with the way it combined the Internet, TV supplements and different cameras. Plus, it literally created a new style of directing you could call method directing, which hasn't been replicated since. It is kind of crazy to think the most medium pushing films of the last 20 years that change the entire concept of what a film could be and the way they look have been The Blair Witch and Michael Mann's silly action film Collateral. If digital is the future then these films have proved to be the most exciting new directions. You have to ask yourself could we have shot LA night scenes in the dark like this and could we have created such wide spread online hysteria before these two films? In this sense, they're the last two really groundbreaking films. Whilst not quite as effective, Lake Mungo is pretty damn good too and a high point of the 2000s.
New French extremity films get a mention in this book but they could have probably had a whole chapter dedicated to them. After New Hollywood, New French Extremity might be my favourite movement in cinema. Those directors provided the best balance of shocking images with genuinely intellectual ideas. Weirdest thing is people still don't know which are good and which are bad and there's definitely not enough written about them for my liking, making them still a terrain to be navigated critically. Kermode used to do this well before he came a family critic. I didn't always agree with his thoughts on these controversial films but to atleast have someone engaging with them was lovely. In My Skin remains a favourite from this period using the body as the final battle against capitalism. You can see its influence on the films of Julia Ducoournau today who's applying the body horror towards feminism and vegetarianism.
A common trend of the 2000s is that we get lost in some of the empty but formally excellent films like The Descent, which is just the thrills of Alien in a cave but without any of the anti capitalist commentary or using visual art works to suggest civilisations. Rec too would be another fun film that perhaps gets too much time. Both great films but no classics. Remakes from the 2000s were often solid enough (as Newman states made by good directors waiting for a personal project) but the critics are way too distracted by these. Newman guessing in the '80s that Lynch would have a full comeback and be the most popular auteur of the '90s and being proven right to be able to write tons of pages on him makes me so happy. Incredible prediction. Newman and Kermode were some of the only ones supporting Fire Walk with Me back then too before it was regarded as a masterpiece. Hats off to you my boys.
Happy to see Larry Fessenden get some dedicated time but three auteurs seriously need more attention here. Koji Shiraishi, who many know for Noroi but should know for the Taxi Driver found footage ghost movie Occult. Bong Joon Ho, who needs no introduction. He made the horror movie of the 2000s, which is The Host. Sorry, I'm a big lover of creature features that aim high and capture the national nightmare. You have to wait til the final chapter for Newman's notes. For a more dumb creature feature that aims lower, Newman is right in saying Piranha 3D was a hoot. Finally, Forzani and Cattet, who's post modern films on giallo and slasher films fascinate me greatly. Alexandre Ajas High Tension was a tense game of cat and mouse that examined the metaphysical relationship between predator and Prey but in a way I still can't decide whether is dumb or smart. Amer is a much better piece, which definitely exists in a world that is a fully aware of Clovers book Men, Women and Chainsaws. Doing what a genre suggested but in a single film, making it a classic that should be talked about more.
Rather fittingly we close this second half with Romero's second zombie trilogy going right back to how we started in '68. Land of the Dead is generally underrated fun. Whether it's satire or homage is a good question, either way I enjoy it. Diary of the Dead shows some promise with its willingness to engage in found footage and it does have a few ideas up its sleeve but it also looks just as crap as half the found footage cycle was with some really poor set pieces. Survival of the Dead is far less ambitious and only looks slightly better but there are few laughs. On this occasion, Newman looking to the Future picks There Will Be Blood like he chose Apocalypse Now last time as his horror in non horror. The respite when horror disappears but shows up elsewhere. Similar to Universal monsters ending and noirs/sci taking over with the same attitude just in a different form. I'm not too sure why he felt more optimistic at the end of this book than the last. Horrors fucking dire these days. Maybe I should follow his advice and search for the attitude rather than the form. Where were at now, Oppenheimer would be my go to. That I guess is my review of this book and personal view of horror in this period.
June 7, 2017
My understanding is that Kim Newman is widely regarded as an authority on the subject of horror films. Unfortunately, I found his tone throughout to be rather snide--he use a footnote at one point to denigrate by name a critic whose opinion he disagrees with. He also has a way of presenting his opinions as though they were objective fact, which becomes an unintentional source of amusement: I was reading the updated version of the book, which presents the original 1988 text with updated footnotes and a new chapter covering horror 1988-2009. This means that, when 1988 Newman says something like how 'Alien' is too schlocky, or how 'The Exorcist' probably won't hold up over time, the reader gets to enjoy seeing Newman eat crow ('Well, I guess I was wrong about this one,'). This happens at least once per chapter, and it became something I awaited eagerly.
Additionally, frequent stretches of the text are simply lists of films, which I don't find particularly useful or informative. There were enough factual errors that even a casual fan could catch them (a few I noticed: 'Independence Day' was not released in 1999; Shaun does not say "we're coming to get you, Barbara," in 'Shaun of the Dead'; the 1983 disco film with John Travolta is 'Staying Alive,' not 'Tony Manero.') And Newman for some reason feels compelled to include soft core porn flicks, which is his prerogative, but I doubt it's what the typical horror fan is looking for.
Additionally, frequent stretches of the text are simply lists of films, which I don't find particularly useful or informative. There were enough factual errors that even a casual fan could catch them (a few I noticed: 'Independence Day' was not released in 1999; Shaun does not say "we're coming to get you, Barbara," in 'Shaun of the Dead'; the 1983 disco film with John Travolta is 'Staying Alive,' not 'Tony Manero.') And Newman for some reason feels compelled to include soft core porn flicks, which is his prerogative, but I doubt it's what the typical horror fan is looking for.
December 21, 2018
Not an encyclopedia, Newman instead organises movies by theme, constructing in clusters of titles a patchwork narrative of post-'68 horror cinema much as Dr Frankenstein fashioned the Monster. The paradigm shift is represented by Night Of The Living Dead, and, by implication, the delayed reaction to the steak knife Psycho plunged into the heart of traditional horror cinema in 1960. Of course, that corpse continued to walk for several years, weakening as the ferocious, uncouth youngster grew in horrible strength. Newman also provides chapters profiling a number of 'auteurs' operating in the horror genre. This book has been released in various editions. All are recommended - the earliest are illustrated and nicely designed, in a large format. The most recent edition is fully annotated and updated, with a 'New Nightmares' section that brings the story up to the present (equal in length to the original - effectively two books inside one jacket). Any horror film addict worth her/his salt will be well versed in the Romeros, Cronenbergs and Argentos, Newman gives you the bigger picture, context and succinct, insightful and witty critical faculty. The man has seen every Megashark flick, so you don't have to. Essential reading.
April 23, 2010
Quite simply - One of THE best books ever written on horror movies (along with Phil Hardy's The Overlook Film Encyclopedia: Horror) - Newman's approach, finding thematic nodes around which to cluster films, and opening them up to interpretive readings - quite simply revitalized my life-long love of horror films that had been flagging by the end of the 80s (well, Newman's book and the critical writings of Tim Lucas in the column and then magazine Video Watchdog - the early days of which are available in The Video Watchdog Book).
This book guided my thoughts on horror films (and film, really) throughout the 90s and beyond. It is indispensible.
This book guided my thoughts on horror films (and film, really) throughout the 90s and beyond. It is indispensible.
March 4, 2018
for every masterful stroke -- the comparison between the portrayal of hannibal lecter in manhunter and silence of the lambs is perhaps the book's highlight -- there's another 50 pages of dense lists or derogatory comments about actors, subgenres, and even musicians. newman manages to work in a potshot at michael jackson's music in a discussion of john landis' work (two, if you count the footnotes), and like most of the author's negative opinions, it seems more nasty than critical.
essentially, you'll come away from nightmare movies with a strong list of films you've likely never heard of, and the author's international scope means that he's drawing in influences and repeatedly discussing cinematic trends in other countries most other books gloss over, at best. if you can get past the fact that newman essentially vaunts or disdains, and doesn't really comment but briefly on everything in the vast in between, this is a great resource, but you will definitely find yourself yelling at it on a regular basis.
essentially, you'll come away from nightmare movies with a strong list of films you've likely never heard of, and the author's international scope means that he's drawing in influences and repeatedly discussing cinematic trends in other countries most other books gloss over, at best. if you can get past the fact that newman essentially vaunts or disdains, and doesn't really comment but briefly on everything in the vast in between, this is a great resource, but you will definitely find yourself yelling at it on a regular basis.
April 13, 2012
Flipping comprehensive (and opinionated) catalogue of broadly-defined "genre" films, arranged quite helpfully into themes rather than chronologically. Most recent edition includes a second volume bringing the reader up to speed with films released since the mid 1980s. Rather lovely write ups of a few "auteurs" which have piqued my interest in Larry Cohen and Dario Argento. Now I have to find the time to watch these films!
May 31, 2019
This is THE definite encyclopedia for you horror movie buffs out there. And marvellously written! If all non fiction books were such a reading pleasure I would read a lot more of them.
August 10, 2023
I'll split these in half and lash this here even though I'm reading the edition that combines it with new nightmares otherwise this review will get too big:
He's back in pure rapid fire mode, naming title after title that will fuel your endless nightmares. At over 600 pages, this is his epic. His masterpiece. Alongside Men, Women and Chainsaws has to be one of the most essential horror texts. Before this, so many horror books had mainly focused on the Hammer films and Universal. Instead of brown nosing that which is already canon, getting lost in nostalgia and recreating arguments of the past, Newman went to town on that period of horror from about '68 to about '85 when he was originally writing this. Re-critiquing the films coming out in his time rather than the films he grew up with. In effect changing the way a lot of these films are viewed and the way in which we view them today. Making it one very influential book.
So as fans, as critics and even filmmakers owe something to this book. If it wasn't for this man a lot of our favourites would still have been left in the mud. Due to that perseverance Night of the Living Dead and Texas Chainsaw Massacre are firmly considered classics even by those nerdy scholars. As usual, he doesn't just stop there. This little fucker has seen them all and so has to list about 20 rip offs of every big movie ever. Particularly love that sharks get some love too. For too long have they been off the radar and I'm not talking about that Sharknado shite. I'm talking about Tintorera, baby! The Spanish and Italian exploitation films all get a mention. This guy can't help himself when it comes to rattling names off the bat. Whether he hates them or love them, he releases the goods.
Newman's take on Last House on the Left has always been a good one. A film which when mentioned by critics always perks up my ears and usually disappoints when they embarrass themselves by refusing to engage with it in any way. He gives it more time than most do. It deserves respect for doing for exploitation and low art what Bergman's The Virgin Spring did for high art. 100% gets you thinking about how a story can be told in different styles and swinging to different tastes, what those styles mean and which is the best way to tell the story. Craven was in his usual witty reflexive style bordering on parody as he abandons Bergman's outdated religion angle and allows for his surroundings to invade the picture, such as the post-Vietnam post-Manson pornographic violence invading movies, making for something for more timely. As an update on the old material, I think this part is too ignored.
Newman accepts that it is effectively shocking, controversial and that there is a Straw Dogs style statement about what violence does to us in the even when justified to some degree but considers it to be contrived unlike the original when it comes to the twist. He may be correct, I'd have to watch it again for these contrived accusations. It's difficult to follow it's intricate plot points when you're on the verge of shitting your pants. Shitting your pants being something of a cop out description come to think of it. When you see the rape scene, down and dirty in the grass and the synths come in, it's so psychedelic, it's like your brain being twisted and you're so lost in the filth it's unreal. Newman is still against the equally controversial I Spit on Your Grave, citing it's non equal time of rape and revenge. There is the female who comes out smiling though! Only a liberal would deny the power of the images of revenge. The bath tub scene penis dislodging remains my favourite. Bizarrely, he mentions that Clover is a fan. So we have a male considering it misogynist and a female considering is feminist. It's been years since I've seen it but I think in some way that makes me respect it more.
Sadly he's another moaner about slashers. Seems like pretty much everyone is which is why I love Clover's classic so much. I still think anyone who rants about the repetitiveness of slashers needs to be living in this time with all these gloomy pseudo-intellectual possession movies on grief and trauma with daughters having something passed on to them as they recover from their mothers death (hope he rips in to this crap if he ever puts out a part 3). Look, the slasher cycle was fun! You rock up to the cinema and it's just teenagers partying and getting killed. A bit like a rock n roll movie from the '50s. You just hangout and it's knowingly dumb. Now, these writers think they can write. I know which era I prefer. Were the slashers empty? Sure on an individual basis maybe but taken as a whole their battle of the sexes, Freudian and gender crises are enjoyable near ritualised romps. Halloween had it all as the single film, which is why it's one of the best but that whole mythical connection between killer and final girl when taken as a whole keeps me coming back no matter how recycled. Even if they were questionably misogynistic, that was all part of the sadomasochistic thrill, right? But who was taking that seriously anyway? Dumb horny teenagers went down and conservative family values were parodied. Nout wrong with that.
This was all before the studios got involved and watered everything down after the success of Insidious. Gone is that ethos of a bunch of shoddy filmmakers sticking 2 fingers up to the studios, going in to the woods and coming back making names and a few million. There is nothing fun about the horror movies I have to watch every week these days. Now it's just a bunch of writers who think they're smart, I've got no time for it. It's not funny young kids making money. It's rich companies churning out bland shit, getting big profits and somehow the critical acclaim too. As you can tell, I feel very strongly about this issue. Get me in the Delorean, hit that sweet spot at 88 miles an hour and I'll go reviewing sexy slashers at the cinema instead. Atleast, Newman hasn't got a bad word to say about Tom Savini but let's just say his takes on scifi are far more interesting than his takes on slashers.
I see he's still trying to push Let's Scare to Jessica to Death as the next horror considered masterpiece. Whilst, I'm so behind it getting more attention cause its incredible, I'd settle with it being an underappreciated classic but it's not a masterpiece. I don't think it quite has the same weight to it as TCM or Living Dead. They reached a really warped and unexpected Great American Picture status if such a term exists like the Great American Novel. A concept that's slightly mentioned and hinted at here but I'd love a whole book on some day. I also think my man underrates the likes of Spanish auteurs Jesus Franco and Jose Ramon Larraz. Jean Rollin and Lucio Fulci too. Yes, some of these belong in the auteurs section. Maybe it was too early to be throwing them up for discussion. At this point it was pretty revolutionary to be championing TCM and Night of the Living Dead so I'll cut King Kim some slack.
Does Larry Cohen belong in the auteur section or have I just not seen enough of his movies? The Stuff had that anti consumerist satire, as does most 80s horror responding to the excess brought upon by the Reagan administration. Even fucking Shopping Mall does it. Does he carry this theme over and do anything with it? He even talks about Cohen sustaining himself in the industry better than Hooper and Carpenter. Whilst I agree Cohen did keep a steady stream going and I like his movies, the so called movies that Carpenter had to make to survive but didn't really want to make according to Newman like Christine I can almost guarantee is better than any movie Cohen ever made. Christine was bad to the bone. Is Hennenlotter an auteur if Cohen gets to be one? His monsters and Herschell gore speak for drug addiction and isolation in New York. What doe Cohens films say? Or should we not get too picky here as the word auteur is generally an overused word when it comes to describing directors. Here I'm semi tempted to say he just had a few left over he wasn't sure what sections they could go in. Oh well, these are some of the best names we can agree there. Also, Newman doesn't seem as overly enthusiastic about DePalma as he should be. Come on, even aside from the horror/thrillers Scarface is a straight up masterpiece. You can't atleast praise that a bit more than he does.
I don't have any idea how my man can justify saying Carpenter's The Thing doesn't revive the cold war subtext. All of its drama hinges on the fact two different nations blinded by nationalistic interests were unable to share research with each other and due to a lack of knowledge for each others languages were unable to explain that the bloody dog at the start is The Thing! Or was that missed just because they changed Russia with Norway to make it more subtle? Once it all kicks off its about self absorbed individualism and paranoia of the other. Communication being the key to survival. It's the greatest of the creature features that embody the cold war doing it way better than any movie from the '50s did. It is as Newman states remembered for being a very dark and miserable movie with the most horrible and disturbing special effects but underneath all that it's a movie about nations working together, which is perhaps unrealistic but also undeniably wholesome and humanist of Carpenter. Not even going to go in to his dismissal of Alien as a good but not great movie. He must have been smoking crack when he said Charles Band's Trances has more ideas than Ridley Scott's entire career. Come on Newman, be normal. Did smile when I saw in the notes him acknowledging how harsh he was on Alien. I'll let him off, come to think of it both Alien and Blade Runner need time to grow on you. People said much worse things about The Thing in the '80s too.
The Italian section slaps like it should covering all the big names. These are treated with respect: rip offs but the best rip offs in the world. Great points are made about how the cannibal boom is purely an Italian genre and didn't come from a particular US movie. The giallo's were heavily inspired by noir, Hitchcock and Poe but were also an Italian thing without a particular movie to trigger them. There were a few more steps included which involve Mario Bava. By treating some of these seriously, this harkens back to Newman attempting to shift the critical thinking like what was done with the Spaghetti Westerns. Whilst, I definitely love some of these guys more than Newman, his analysis here is sound. I was convinced in his notes he would add more on Michele Soavi, who he only briefly mentions at the end. He does so for Martino but not for my man Soavi, who established himself fully after the first edition of this was already written in the late 80s and 90s. Soavis catalogue was cut short by the death of his son but I still rank The Sect, Cemetery Man, Stage Fright and The Church as being among the best Italo horror flicks.
This is a fantastic book and inevitably there's a few things I disagreed with but these are more little personal touches that are pretty much irrelevant in the grand scheme. Even though, I may do it sometimes and have here (can't help myself sorry), I don't really believe in criticising and nit picking every critics thoughts on individual movies as a statement on their overall skills and I don't care for or even want to agree on everything. I'm here for their overall contributions, takes on a trend/genre and their style of writing. It can be interesting if they don't like a movie you love and yet they provide such a good reason for it. It's not the shattering experience it's made out to be. Either it's amusing or you respect the film more for being so challenging and producing alternate and alienating responses. Some being perfectly legitimate criticisms and still not stopping the film being good. Newman's basically done what the books he would have read growing up did in re-championing that which was originally disregarded. That's the main thing to take from this. After all, it's all about the next generation, is it not? Infiltrating dreams like Freddie Krueger and passing on this great American nightmare, so at some point we can maybe just maybe learn from it.
He's back in pure rapid fire mode, naming title after title that will fuel your endless nightmares. At over 600 pages, this is his epic. His masterpiece. Alongside Men, Women and Chainsaws has to be one of the most essential horror texts. Before this, so many horror books had mainly focused on the Hammer films and Universal. Instead of brown nosing that which is already canon, getting lost in nostalgia and recreating arguments of the past, Newman went to town on that period of horror from about '68 to about '85 when he was originally writing this. Re-critiquing the films coming out in his time rather than the films he grew up with. In effect changing the way a lot of these films are viewed and the way in which we view them today. Making it one very influential book.
So as fans, as critics and even filmmakers owe something to this book. If it wasn't for this man a lot of our favourites would still have been left in the mud. Due to that perseverance Night of the Living Dead and Texas Chainsaw Massacre are firmly considered classics even by those nerdy scholars. As usual, he doesn't just stop there. This little fucker has seen them all and so has to list about 20 rip offs of every big movie ever. Particularly love that sharks get some love too. For too long have they been off the radar and I'm not talking about that Sharknado shite. I'm talking about Tintorera, baby! The Spanish and Italian exploitation films all get a mention. This guy can't help himself when it comes to rattling names off the bat. Whether he hates them or love them, he releases the goods.
Newman's take on Last House on the Left has always been a good one. A film which when mentioned by critics always perks up my ears and usually disappoints when they embarrass themselves by refusing to engage with it in any way. He gives it more time than most do. It deserves respect for doing for exploitation and low art what Bergman's The Virgin Spring did for high art. 100% gets you thinking about how a story can be told in different styles and swinging to different tastes, what those styles mean and which is the best way to tell the story. Craven was in his usual witty reflexive style bordering on parody as he abandons Bergman's outdated religion angle and allows for his surroundings to invade the picture, such as the post-Vietnam post-Manson pornographic violence invading movies, making for something for more timely. As an update on the old material, I think this part is too ignored.
Newman accepts that it is effectively shocking, controversial and that there is a Straw Dogs style statement about what violence does to us in the even when justified to some degree but considers it to be contrived unlike the original when it comes to the twist. He may be correct, I'd have to watch it again for these contrived accusations. It's difficult to follow it's intricate plot points when you're on the verge of shitting your pants. Shitting your pants being something of a cop out description come to think of it. When you see the rape scene, down and dirty in the grass and the synths come in, it's so psychedelic, it's like your brain being twisted and you're so lost in the filth it's unreal. Newman is still against the equally controversial I Spit on Your Grave, citing it's non equal time of rape and revenge. There is the female who comes out smiling though! Only a liberal would deny the power of the images of revenge. The bath tub scene penis dislodging remains my favourite. Bizarrely, he mentions that Clover is a fan. So we have a male considering it misogynist and a female considering is feminist. It's been years since I've seen it but I think in some way that makes me respect it more.
Sadly he's another moaner about slashers. Seems like pretty much everyone is which is why I love Clover's classic so much. I still think anyone who rants about the repetitiveness of slashers needs to be living in this time with all these gloomy pseudo-intellectual possession movies on grief and trauma with daughters having something passed on to them as they recover from their mothers death (hope he rips in to this crap if he ever puts out a part 3). Look, the slasher cycle was fun! You rock up to the cinema and it's just teenagers partying and getting killed. A bit like a rock n roll movie from the '50s. You just hangout and it's knowingly dumb. Now, these writers think they can write. I know which era I prefer. Were the slashers empty? Sure on an individual basis maybe but taken as a whole their battle of the sexes, Freudian and gender crises are enjoyable near ritualised romps. Halloween had it all as the single film, which is why it's one of the best but that whole mythical connection between killer and final girl when taken as a whole keeps me coming back no matter how recycled. Even if they were questionably misogynistic, that was all part of the sadomasochistic thrill, right? But who was taking that seriously anyway? Dumb horny teenagers went down and conservative family values were parodied. Nout wrong with that.
This was all before the studios got involved and watered everything down after the success of Insidious. Gone is that ethos of a bunch of shoddy filmmakers sticking 2 fingers up to the studios, going in to the woods and coming back making names and a few million. There is nothing fun about the horror movies I have to watch every week these days. Now it's just a bunch of writers who think they're smart, I've got no time for it. It's not funny young kids making money. It's rich companies churning out bland shit, getting big profits and somehow the critical acclaim too. As you can tell, I feel very strongly about this issue. Get me in the Delorean, hit that sweet spot at 88 miles an hour and I'll go reviewing sexy slashers at the cinema instead. Atleast, Newman hasn't got a bad word to say about Tom Savini but let's just say his takes on scifi are far more interesting than his takes on slashers.
I see he's still trying to push Let's Scare to Jessica to Death as the next horror considered masterpiece. Whilst, I'm so behind it getting more attention cause its incredible, I'd settle with it being an underappreciated classic but it's not a masterpiece. I don't think it quite has the same weight to it as TCM or Living Dead. They reached a really warped and unexpected Great American Picture status if such a term exists like the Great American Novel. A concept that's slightly mentioned and hinted at here but I'd love a whole book on some day. I also think my man underrates the likes of Spanish auteurs Jesus Franco and Jose Ramon Larraz. Jean Rollin and Lucio Fulci too. Yes, some of these belong in the auteurs section. Maybe it was too early to be throwing them up for discussion. At this point it was pretty revolutionary to be championing TCM and Night of the Living Dead so I'll cut King Kim some slack.
Does Larry Cohen belong in the auteur section or have I just not seen enough of his movies? The Stuff had that anti consumerist satire, as does most 80s horror responding to the excess brought upon by the Reagan administration. Even fucking Shopping Mall does it. Does he carry this theme over and do anything with it? He even talks about Cohen sustaining himself in the industry better than Hooper and Carpenter. Whilst I agree Cohen did keep a steady stream going and I like his movies, the so called movies that Carpenter had to make to survive but didn't really want to make according to Newman like Christine I can almost guarantee is better than any movie Cohen ever made. Christine was bad to the bone. Is Hennenlotter an auteur if Cohen gets to be one? His monsters and Herschell gore speak for drug addiction and isolation in New York. What doe Cohens films say? Or should we not get too picky here as the word auteur is generally an overused word when it comes to describing directors. Here I'm semi tempted to say he just had a few left over he wasn't sure what sections they could go in. Oh well, these are some of the best names we can agree there. Also, Newman doesn't seem as overly enthusiastic about DePalma as he should be. Come on, even aside from the horror/thrillers Scarface is a straight up masterpiece. You can't atleast praise that a bit more than he does.
I don't have any idea how my man can justify saying Carpenter's The Thing doesn't revive the cold war subtext. All of its drama hinges on the fact two different nations blinded by nationalistic interests were unable to share research with each other and due to a lack of knowledge for each others languages were unable to explain that the bloody dog at the start is The Thing! Or was that missed just because they changed Russia with Norway to make it more subtle? Once it all kicks off its about self absorbed individualism and paranoia of the other. Communication being the key to survival. It's the greatest of the creature features that embody the cold war doing it way better than any movie from the '50s did. It is as Newman states remembered for being a very dark and miserable movie with the most horrible and disturbing special effects but underneath all that it's a movie about nations working together, which is perhaps unrealistic but also undeniably wholesome and humanist of Carpenter. Not even going to go in to his dismissal of Alien as a good but not great movie. He must have been smoking crack when he said Charles Band's Trances has more ideas than Ridley Scott's entire career. Come on Newman, be normal. Did smile when I saw in the notes him acknowledging how harsh he was on Alien. I'll let him off, come to think of it both Alien and Blade Runner need time to grow on you. People said much worse things about The Thing in the '80s too.
The Italian section slaps like it should covering all the big names. These are treated with respect: rip offs but the best rip offs in the world. Great points are made about how the cannibal boom is purely an Italian genre and didn't come from a particular US movie. The giallo's were heavily inspired by noir, Hitchcock and Poe but were also an Italian thing without a particular movie to trigger them. There were a few more steps included which involve Mario Bava. By treating some of these seriously, this harkens back to Newman attempting to shift the critical thinking like what was done with the Spaghetti Westerns. Whilst, I definitely love some of these guys more than Newman, his analysis here is sound. I was convinced in his notes he would add more on Michele Soavi, who he only briefly mentions at the end. He does so for Martino but not for my man Soavi, who established himself fully after the first edition of this was already written in the late 80s and 90s. Soavis catalogue was cut short by the death of his son but I still rank The Sect, Cemetery Man, Stage Fright and The Church as being among the best Italo horror flicks.
This is a fantastic book and inevitably there's a few things I disagreed with but these are more little personal touches that are pretty much irrelevant in the grand scheme. Even though, I may do it sometimes and have here (can't help myself sorry), I don't really believe in criticising and nit picking every critics thoughts on individual movies as a statement on their overall skills and I don't care for or even want to agree on everything. I'm here for their overall contributions, takes on a trend/genre and their style of writing. It can be interesting if they don't like a movie you love and yet they provide such a good reason for it. It's not the shattering experience it's made out to be. Either it's amusing or you respect the film more for being so challenging and producing alternate and alienating responses. Some being perfectly legitimate criticisms and still not stopping the film being good. Newman's basically done what the books he would have read growing up did in re-championing that which was originally disregarded. That's the main thing to take from this. After all, it's all about the next generation, is it not? Infiltrating dreams like Freddie Krueger and passing on this great American nightmare, so at some point we can maybe just maybe learn from it.
February 4, 2023
Oh my, this took me nearly a year to get through, but it was so interesting and covered so many films in an interesting way I am glad I persevered.
I loved the way particular films are highlighted to shed light on trends and themes in future movies. The discussion of worldwide films, not just US and European cinema was also intersting. The breadth of Kim Newman's knowledge is amazing, but I do wonder if he ever asks himself if the hours viewing repetitive torture porn or poorly made derivative vampire romance were well spent.
However, I also appreciate the classic monster movies, Hammer, Amicus and British folk horror as well as more recent films especially ghost stories, so those and the meditations on vampires interested me the most.
I'd love him to do a few top tens of favourite films, I would definitely seek out any I haven't seen.
I loved the way particular films are highlighted to shed light on trends and themes in future movies. The discussion of worldwide films, not just US and European cinema was also intersting. The breadth of Kim Newman's knowledge is amazing, but I do wonder if he ever asks himself if the hours viewing repetitive torture porn or poorly made derivative vampire romance were well spent.
However, I also appreciate the classic monster movies, Hammer, Amicus and British folk horror as well as more recent films especially ghost stories, so those and the meditations on vampires interested me the most.
I'd love him to do a few top tens of favourite films, I would definitely seek out any I haven't seen.
June 16, 2020
Newman is one of those people who clearly knows every horror movie that's ever been made and could probably quote you scenes by heart. The knowledge is endless, the writing is witty and clever and draws you in and the sheer number of horror films in this book is mind-boggling. It's a great book for fans and covers every corner of the horror film world.
On the personal side: if you read about horror movies often, there's a good chance you probably know Kim Newman and know if you like his critiques of horror movies or not. So, if you tend to agree with his writing on film, you'll like this book; and if you tend to disagree with his critiques you probably won't. That being said, if you don't know him, but like horror movies, this is a great book.
On the personal side: if you read about horror movies often, there's a good chance you probably know Kim Newman and know if you like his critiques of horror movies or not. So, if you tend to agree with his writing on film, you'll like this book; and if you tend to disagree with his critiques you probably won't. That being said, if you don't know him, but like horror movies, this is a great book.
September 21, 2022
Five stars by virtue of its incredible comprehensiveness. Kim Newman must have spent every waking hour of his life in the dark in front of the screen watching every variety of horror film (including all manner of related cult, arthouse, and exotica films). Sure, some get name-checked only in the voluminous chapters on zombies, vampires, ghosts, serial killers, demons, mad scientists, and on and on, but the primary films are always given a few paragraphs. At times you just glaze over and let the text flow over you but there is always a pungent comment to draw you back in. Unlike others who tolerate or revel in trash cinema, Newman is frank in his assessments: many or most of the films in these genres are pretty bad. But the great ones are worth seeking out -- as is this tome.
March 28, 2019
This book is bizarrely disappointing. It has good information. But with the amount of references that makes to movies without necessarily giving enough focus a trend setting series or a couple seminal works from the different decades between the 1960s and the present, the book is largely directionless. There are areas where you can see the potential of the book and its project, namely the two sections on auteurs and their works as well as the sections of chapters that slow down with the references and do a deeper dive on a couple of films or a series rather than trying to reference anything that remotely references a horror trope or entity.
October 25, 2021
Encyclopedic view of horror movies since the late sixties. Examines the big tent pole movies (Night of Living Dead, Halloween). And their cultural reaction against mainstream society. Explores the thesis that the world is more frightening than we assume it to be.
Although the books ends in the late eighties, anticipates the future waves of horror, such as the golden age of dread that has created some very unique horror movies (hereditary, the lighthouse, babadook)
Although the books ends in the late eighties, anticipates the future waves of horror, such as the golden age of dread that has created some very unique horror movies (hereditary, the lighthouse, babadook)
January 3, 2025
The author of this has to have the most encyclopedic knowledge of not only the horror film genre but also films in general I’ve ever seen. There were points where there would be pages rattling off movie titles, and I’d look them up out of curiosity and they’d be out of distribution and impossible to find online.
Despite its encyclopedic nature, it’s still insanely readable and as somebody with a love for the horror genre, reading about the evolution of the genre and its various sub-genres was insanely interesting.
Despite its encyclopedic nature, it’s still insanely readable and as somebody with a love for the horror genre, reading about the evolution of the genre and its various sub-genres was insanely interesting.
January 23, 2022
This was a nice nostalgic trip through horror movie land. It's arranged in themed chapters so you can pick and choose (torture porn - not my thing but zombie movies - yay!). After reading it, I've decided to watch four movies I never got around to (The Birds, Psycho, Towering Inferno, and The Prophecy) and re-watch three I remember liking (The Monster Squad, Se7evn, and They Live).
April 10, 2024
Still the authority on nightmarish (not just horror - it goes beyond that), movies, Kim Newman expands upon his original definitive volume with the same enthusiastic insight, wit, and seemingly endless genre knowledge. Essential reading for anyone with an interest in the genre.
July 27, 2021
Front-loaded with its best material (that incredible analysis of Night of the Living Dead), which it never measures up to again. Yet still exceptionally entertaining. Binge-able despite its length.
Read
September 8, 2022dnf. great reference material but a bit like reading a tv tropes page
July 20, 2023
Much more concerned with breadth than depth, and written by twee horror-comedy writer Kim Newman, but any book covering decades of horror cinema is time well-spent for this horror fiend.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews