1200 Horror Films Ranked/Rated/Reviewed

haunted building, remote location, based on kingotrashy novel

10/10

Strengths: visuals, sets, tension, soundtrack, setting, suspense, originality, ominous mood, Jack Nicholson, the film annoys Stephen King (because it was heavily re-written i.e. all the garbage was taken out)

Weaknesses: none

Visually stunning, with a degree of eeriness only Kubrick and very few others could have achieved; some of the scenes are unsurpassed in this respect. Ghost stories are notoriously unscary, so hats off to Kubrick for making all the right choices to elevate this trite genre to very lofty heights.

The cinematography is immaculate. Kubrick even makes the toilet look good. OK, bathroom... whatever.

Nicholson is incredible and provides much of the entertainment. What he did here isn't overacting: it's precisely what the film and story required. (He has been criticized for his performance here by a small and very clueless group of detractors - who probably consider Rob Zombie the greatest ever film-maker.) After all, he is going insane, right? Should this kind of psycho-lunacy be underplayed? Just as with "A Clockwork Orange", Kubrick picked literally THE best actor for the job. Both movies heavily relied on the main-character casting for the movies to reach their full potential.

Shelley Duvall is excellent, too, and well-cast. The poor thing really struggled during the filming; Kubrick was merciless toward her. Considering the shoot lasted a whopping 11 months, this is no minor thing.

I can't believe they re-did this though; what's the point? Re-doing TS is like sending 23 year-old Helen Mirren to a plastic surgeon and breast-implants doctor. What's there to improve?

That vastly overrated clod Stephen King always hated the fact that Kubrick had his flawed original story heavily re-written, and he despised Kubrick for it. The ego on that man-hick! "How dare he re-write MY words??? They are MY words, the great Stephen King! Blasphemy!" (This is how I picture an egomaniac hack writer reacting to someone "messing" with his garbage.)

Stevie should be forever flattered that the best director of all time decided to pick up one of his crummy books and make a movie out of it. In fact, this left-wing putz had actually dared to publicly criticized Kubrick's adaptation of his irrelevant little novelette, thereby exposing his ignorance to all. Stephen King criticizing Kubrick is like a guy in a wheelchair criticizing his boxing coach for not making him the WBA heavy-weight champion of the world (with the difference that Kubrick made something great out of "Shining"). King criticizing Kubrick is like an eight year-old Flat Earth Society member telling Einstein that his theories are stupid. King criticizing Kubrick is like Michael Moore criticizing old BBC nature documentaries for being unrealistic and staged. King criticizing Kubrick is one of the biggest jokes in the history of mankind. If you still want to watch the remake, your problem. There are great Youtube clips mocking it: I recommend those instead.

TS is so heavily re-written that it's a mistake to even consider it a "Stephen King movie".

Excellent soundtrack, similar to that of "2001". I wouldn't listen to it separate from the movie though...

I strongly suggest you find the 140-minute version.

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1559997/?ref_=tt_urv

Downer ending: Sort of First Viewing: 1988 (altogether at least 5 times)

zombapocalypse, splatter, semi-comedy

10/10

Strengths: setting, humour, soundtrack, mood, unpredictability

Weaknesses: ending is a bit weak

Downer ending: Sort of

First Viewing: 1989 (altogether at least 5 times)

vampires, comedy, gangster

10/10

Strengths: premise, plot, hilarity, cast, cameos, Anne Parillaud

Weaknesses: disgusting silicon strippers, dumb Prince songs

25 years ago I remember laughing my ass off at this and absolutely loving how Parillaud played it, gave it a 9/10 rating. But over the years I simply assumed it wasn't as good, that it's just another comedy that I overrated when I was young and dumb, so I subsequently reduced the rating. Which turned out to be completely unnecessary.

Now I liked it perhaps even more. Laughed like crazy again, despite remembering bits of the plot, and once again Anne got my thumbs up for being so perfect in this. She is something special, which is particularly unusual given how awful French actresses tend to be on average.

The entire cast is very well picked, not just she. Paglia and Loggia in particular. Paglia doesn't get nearly as much funny stuff to do as Loggia and Parillaud, but he makes the most out of his character. Loggia, in the role of his life, very obviously had a grand time playing this mob boss, and the way he chose to play him as a vampire is masterful. It'd be hard to imagine any actors being in this instead of Parillaud and Loggia. As well-written and conceived as this was, they are the ones who maximized its potential, made it a classic.

Well, a classic to me at least, certainly not to the masses. How such a great movie went not only unnoticed but then later undiscovered is quite the mystery. Baffling. But then again, film-goers are just like most music fans: completely and utterly clueless. IMDb voter averages are the only proof I need to make my point. Case closed, most people wouldn't know a good film if it crapped on their empty heads.

The plot is tight, fun, never even slightly tedious despite the lengthy running time. There are many great gags, some visual, some verbal - those latter ones usually consisting of a one-liner i.e. a reaction of a character to any of the numerous absurd situations. Even very minor characters have their shining moments.

It's the sort of premise that writes itself.

Viewings: 1998, 2023

haunted cabin, dystopian, sci-fi, black comedy, lovecraftian, apocalypse

10/10

Strengths: story, premise, the major plot-twist, originality

Weaknesses: somewhat bland cast

TCITW is a much-needed refreshment, in a genre that is dominated by clones. It's a sort of tribute to all types of horror films, a semi-parody, and a wild, imaginative, unpredictable ride, all rolled into one. All those who pathetically attempt to trash this film, futilely trying to find something to nitpick about, have to be out of their silly little minds. There are plot-twists, there's an original premise, violence galore, and a wonderful finale. What do you want more? A B-J from the movie? So if you're a deluded creature that is forcing yourself to hate this film just because another great horror film was finally made, and that annoys/upsets you for some reason, be my guest: I can smell your desperation from a thousand miles away. Haters of TCITW are the same people who rank "Avatar" as a masterpiece.

For those of you who knew the essential premise/plot in advance, you only have yourselves to blame; I never watch trailers, nor do I care for the very staged/scripted/moronic interviews with actors/directors while they're hyping flicks, talking about what an "honor it was to work with him", about how "generous" their co-stars were. Hence any movie can surprise me - provided it does actually contain surprises. I knew absolutely nothing about TCITW, aside from the spoiler-devoid movie poster and the unusually high IMDb rating (for a horror flick), which actually made me suspect that this might be a major piece of crap, given this site's track-record i.e. taking into consideration how the average movie-going zombie "thinks" and votes.

Even the obligatory comic-relief sidekick isn't half-bad. I can't remember the last time that an annoying buffoonish horror-film clown had an iota of a quality gag coming out of him. This one is interesting and actually serves a purpose in the story. And he doesn't spit one-liners all the time, smirking like a cretin, but actually shows real fear when a situation calls for it. As soon as the chaos commences he stops making joking around.

The only minor criticism I have is the overly "cute" dialogue from the control room bosses.

The only major logic flaw would be that it isn't explained how they managed to get an EXACT mix of the 5 young personalities required (the whore, the athlete, the fool...) to go to the cabin exactly when the sacrifice was needed to take place.

TCITW gets a point off for the absolutely ridiculous wolf-kissing scene, and for including the vastly overrated Sigourney Weaver. As if it weren't bad enough that she infested four "Alien" movies and "Ghostbusters". Retire the damn nepotistic 6-foot witch already! Let her play mothers of trolls in half-a**ed fantasy Disney flicks.

I would also have edited the movie in such a way as to give the viewer more time to believe that they're actually watching yet another "Evil Dead" re-hash. The introductory scene with the lab people gives away little, admittedly, serving more to confuse than to reveal anything, but it does hint that the events surrounding the five "teens" aren't what they seem. I would also have taken out the invisible force-field bird-disintegration scene; that way, when the "hunk" runs into it his demise would come as a total shock. In fact, I wouldn't have revealed the existence of the underground labs until the first half-hour is over. But this isn't a major criticism; no movie is perfect.

There is definite regret that the movie finishes just as the end of the world is starting, but I suppose that something does have to be left to the imagination.

The last third is amazing: it's pure fun cinema as we very rarely get in horror or any other type of film these days.

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw2724801/?ref_=tt_urv

Downer ending: depends on the person, some might say yes, some no

Viewings: 2012, 2023

haunted house, based on kingotrashy story, mono-setting

10/10

Strengths: story, mood, eeriness, plot-twists, suspense

Weaknesses: the director's cut ending isn't very good (watch the cinema version)

Is Cusack hallucinating or is it me? A good movie based on King's material?!

Of course, it's only based on a short story, i.e. it's been vastly peppered up and improved by no less than THREE writers. (It takes many writers to turn a mediocre mess into a quality product, similarly to how it took 56 plastic surgeons to turn Khloe Kardashian into a half-way decent-looking woman.)

Set mostly in a hotel suite, this entertaining film is never dull. It's slickly directed, and a great ride. There are even a twist or two, which is amazing considering that King, the King of Predictability, wrote the story this is based on. But then again, how much of this is his own writing?

This is only the second time - since Kubrick's phenomenal "The Shining" - that a movie based on a Stephen King book or story turns out very good. It took nearly three decades for it to happen again, but here it is. My guess is that the story was re-written in a major way (that is to say drastically improved), so kudos to the writers for being so bright i.e. capable of turning crap into gold, which is a rare talent. It's cinematic alchemy.

Take a look at Mary McCormack's new lips. She looks like a frog. Her plastic surgeon should have his license revoked.

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1737534/?ref_=tt_urv

Downer ending: cinema version: no, director's cut: yes

First Viewing: 2007 (altogether 3 times)

haunted cabin, splatter, demonic, possession, remote location

10/10

Strengths: visuals, setting, originality, mood, suspense, special effects

Weaknesses: some of the acting is mediocre

First Viewing: early 90s (altogether at least 3 times)

haunted cabin, self-parody, splatter, comedy, possession, demonic, remote location

9/10

Strengths: visuals, setting, originality, mood, humour, plot-twists

Weaknesses: a little derivative of the first part

First Viewing: 1990 (altogether at least 3 times)

mystery, haunted ship, time loop

9/10

Strengths: story, unpredictability, setting, premise, suspenseful, enigmatic

Weaknesses: the main plot twist isn't new

This Christopher Smith has much more to offer than first meets the eye - or met the eye. After the blood-spurting, somewhat dumb "Creep" and the unsuccessful blend of horror and comedy in its follow-up, "Severence", Smith comes up out of left field with this excellent horror mystery. Perhaps he'd finally realized that it's not necessary to portray the graphic butchering of female anatomy ("Creep") or to rip off current horror-film fads such as "Hostel" ("Severence"). Sometimes you just need to sit down, focus, and write a script that actually deserves several months of preparation and shooting, instead of letting your pet hamster write it in 30 minutes...

I almost always bash British horror films, because they're so dull and overrated, but this is a rare exception. It's one of the best I've seen in years. But perhaps that also has something to do with this being an Australian co-production...

You can read the entire review here:

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw2227977/?ref_=tt_urv

Downer ending: there is a major twist that can be seen as downer, so yes

Viewings: 2010, 2016

demonic, religious, remote location, satanic cult, based on computer game

9/10

Strengths: visuals, sets, setting, story, soundtrack, originality, mood, suspense, eerie, special effects

Weaknesses: none

SPOILERS

There aren't many horror films I can think of in which the hero or heroine is stuck between two sides battling each other, both of which are equally nasty. Essentially, this is the premise: a fundamentalist Christian sect lead by a deranged woman (suitably cast with Krige) used human sacrifice to fight Satan (or at least a demon), but they played with fire rather clumsily – literally – which lead to a minor incident in which most of the population got destroyed and sent to some sort of a Hell. (It's too depressing-looking and contains far too many ugly bite-happy insects to be Purgatory.) The girl they burned (?) became the demon's BFF, but because there was still a speck of goodness left in her, a child, Sharon, was "created" (don't ask me how); that same girl that had been adopted by Sean Bean and that actress who looks exactly like Roman Polansky's wife, the French actress Emmanuelle Seigner. The two look so much alike that for a long time I didn't realize I was watching two different women in movies! Emmanuele played Satan (or a demon?) in "The Ninth Gate", and so we come full circle. (Well, it's a sort of circle; perhaps a pentagram.) We come full pentagram. Polansky privately also likes little girls, so we have at least two circles or pentagrams here to come full to.

You can read the entire review here:

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw3139164/?ref_=tt_urv

Downer ending: no

Viewings: 2007, 2014, 2016

space sci-fi, mystery, demonic

9/10

Strengths: visuals, sets, setting, premise, mood, special effects, eeriness, suspense

Weaknesses: occasionally dumb characterization and silly dialog

Downer ending: mostly

First Viewing: 1998 (altogether 3 times)

surreal, drama, arthouse

9/10

Strengths: visuals, sets, soundtrack, uniqueness, mood, sense of mystery, eeriness

Weaknesses: perhaps a tad too abstract, occasionally repellent

Perhaps the most morbid, darkest movie ever made. Totally abstract; to discuss the "plot" here would be to miss the point. Did I say "point"? I'm not sure there is a point. But there doesn't have to be one. Eraserbrain is almost totally free for interpretation. Part horror, part futuristic drama, part mystery. It defies definition.

Some scenes are downright chilling, some are absolutely gross, and in-between there is plenty of eerie, dark, confusing, abstract melodrama. The few dialogues that take place - even though mostly weird - give a little bit of a breather. Hard to watch, especially repeatedly, this is definitely not entertainment in the classic sense.

Nevertheless, it is utterly fascinating. Hard to believe that it was directed by the same David Lynch who gave us such beautiful-people yuppie-mystery crap like "Twin Peaks", and who started casting Laura Dern in his films, probably because he saw "talent" in her. Or maybe because he is fascinated by freaks? There is a very nice song(!) here, sung by the "radiator lady", somewhere in the second half.

In hindsight, decades after the fact, it is almost funny that Eraserbrain has no proper story (or at least no proper story development), considering that Lynch became later notorious for setting up complex mysteries - but then completely unable to untangle/resolve them in any logical, meaningful way. Of course, Lynch's rabid fan army would vehemently deny that; they all used generous helpings of glue to help them "explain" all these quasi-profound "arty" films.

Whoever claims that "this is the movie that got me interested in cinema" is a lying attention-seeking insecure hipster. "Star Wars" or "Dumbo" were what got you into cinema, you pompous clods! Stop pretending you enjoyed this when you were 11.

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1570486/?ref_=tt_urv

Downer ending: this movie doesn't have an ending, or a coherent story

First Viewing: 1990 (altogether 2-3 times)

drama, mystery

9/10

Strengths: visuals, mysterious, originality, mood

Weaknesses: only one nude scene with York

Like so often with Robert Altman's movies, it's hit or miss: his films are either quite bad or terrific (not counting the mid-90s onwards, when everything he touched was crap).

There is much to recommend here. First of all, the eeriness Altman creates shames 99% of all horror films - and this isn't even a proper horror film in the classic sense, but more like a psychological drama with strong "Twilight Zone" influence.

No time is wasted here; right from the start strange things start happening. It's a weird mystery that will keep you guessing - until the decidedly UNhappy ending.

I have no idea why this movie is both hard to come by and totally forgotten. Instead, whenever Altman's name is mentioned, we hear how great "The Player" is supposed to be. That movie is mediocre. Forget "The Player" and that boring nepotist Tim Robbins; instead, check out "Images", "3 Women", "Vincent & Theo", and of course "M*A*S*H*", to see Altman at his best.

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1721552/?ref_=tt_urv

Downer ending: yes

First Viewing: 1997 (altogether 2-3 times)

mystery, lovecraftian, apocalypse

9/10

Strengths: story, plot-twists, unpredictability, originality, premise

Weaknesses: not an ideal cast

John Carpenter comes up with a winner every now and again, and this is one of them. Could this really be? A horror film that is unusual and unpredictable, with the sort of ingenious, fun plot that quite clearly could never stem from a crap writer like Stephen King. Which is ironic since the plot revolves around a fictional version of him, a famous horror writer.

SPOILERS

Would King destroy the world the way this writer does, if he had a chance?

Of course he would. Reds are nearly all vicious, violent thugs masked as peaceniks who fantasize about the apocalypse. In their minds, any kind of "revolution" (preferably a very violent and cataclysmic event) will quickly lead to Utopia. They actually believe in these fairy-tales - these alleged atheists. Liberal Logic 101: "atheists" who believe in "Heaven on Earth". Anyone smell a mega-oxymoron here?

One of the film's major strengths is that it moves at a very brisk pace, from the first scene onwards. There are no time-wasting scenes like in so many other horror movies, no needlessly boring 20-minute intros with their very thin plots. Unpredictability rules the roost, fun twists abound, and the increasing confusion that arises from the to-and-fro between reality and fantasy is never annoying or incomprehensible.

The special effects are okay. They may have been much better had the film been made just a year or two later. The soundtrack is quite solid, and the dialogue and acting aren't moronic.

Pretty much Carpenter's last hoorah. What followed was junk like "Escape From L.A." and "Ghosts Of Mars", not to mention the abysmal "Ward".

Certainly one of the best horror film of the 90s.

There is a brief appearance by the future Darth Vader, Hayden C.

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1722484/?ref_=tt_urv

Downer ending: yes, but it's spectacular

Viewings: 1996, 2016, 2023 (altogether 4-5 times)

religious, road movie, mystery

9/10

Strengths: story, dialog, visuals, enigmatic

Weaknesses: the ending isn't bad but not ideal

Satan gets pregnant? Interpretations of the ending abound.

It's interesting that Polanski went back to Satanism as a subject matter, dealing with it in a more sophisticated i.e. serious manner than is usually the case. TNG could easily have been a goofy, unintentionally funny movie in someone else's hands. Kudos to the little formerly-house-arrested kiddie-fiddler for tackling such an idiotic (but fun) topic with such style and competence; not a small achievement by any means. Especially given what a disappointment the vastly overrated "Rosemary's Baby" was, 3 decades earlier.

Speaking of competence, or a lack thereof, the Devil couldn't have been a very competent book distributor, what with having written one that only a handful of people ended up ever seeing. Was Satan perhaps shy or insecure about his work, fearing that it would not stand up to the great commercial success of his adversary's work, the Great Book? Chances are that Satan's little opus couldn't possibly be any dumber – or duller – than the said collection of rants and raves that are obsessed over in various over-decorated, suspiciously financed buildings throughout the world by men of cloth paid to (mis)interpret that crap to their weekly gatherings of bored but fearful flock. Besides, it would be only fair to hear both sides of the fence, i.e. to read what the opposition has to say.

You can read the entire review here:

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw2571512/?ref_=tt_urv

Downer ending: hard to say, ask Polanski, maybe he knows

First Viewing: 2000 (altogether 3-4 times)

haunted technology, long-black-hair-ghost-chick, japanese

9/10

Strengths: story, premise, originality, mood, suspense, eerie

Weaknesses: spawned dozens of long-haired-Asian-chick-ghost clone films

First Viewing: early 00s

demonic, based on novel

9/10

Strengths: visuals, sets, story, soundtrack, originality, mood, suspense

Weaknesses: somewhat dated special effects, the 1st half isn't much fun on repeat viewings, 1st half focuses too much on gross-outs not enough on plot, Kirsty's incessant screaming, pointless "recap" scenes

Downer ending: no...

First Viewing: 1990, 2023 (altogether at least 4-5 times)

religious, possession, demonic, based on novel

9/10

Strengths: story, moody, mysterious

Weaknesses: smooth sailing

Downer ending: not really

Viewings: 1991, 2005 (altogether 3 times)

religious cult, time loop, mystery

9/10

Strengths: premise, mood, originality, dialog

Weaknesses: none

I am not a big fan of writing positive reviews, much less ones as positive as this film deserves. Handing out compliments to film-makers and the cast isn't my forte, and isn't anything I enjoy doing. I am not even sure I know how to do it. This is exacerbated by the fact that it's been such a long time since I've had a chance to write one: a movie this good comes up once in a Blue Moon, certainly as far as 21st-century filmic produce is concerned. I come across a 9/10 film once a year at the very most, though probably as rarely as every other year, so I don't even get to have much practice at writing only good things about a movie.

Whatever...

TE is a great mystery, in the vein of the very best that 60s "Twilight Zone" has to offer (check out my IMDb list of TZ episodes, which include brilliant reviews, as brilliant as all my reviews - which are brilliant). In fact, if TE were (miraculously) compressed into a 22-minute TZ episode it would rank among the best 5, easily.

You can read the entire review here:

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw5903884/?ref_=ur_urv

Downer ending: not for the protagonists

First Viewing: 2020

surreal, mystery, semi-comedy, based on novel

9/10

Downer ending: yes

First Viewing: 1992 (3-4 times)

space sci-fi, action, conspiracy, monster

9/10

Strengths: setting, mood, suspense, special effects

Weaknesses: Paul Reiser's speech impediment, Sigourney Weaver's over-seriousness, the exaggerated gung-ho faces of the soldiers

Downer ending: yes, as always in this franchise

First Viewing: 1989 (altogether at least 3 times)

vampire

9/10

Strengths: premise, soundtrack, mood

Weaknesses: not always impressive, Susan Sarandon too skinny, Catherine Deneuve still can't act

Vampire films are so very boring - but not this one. Somewhat underrated perhaps, but it's probably the best vampire film.

Seems to be regarded as some kind of a trashy lesbian story, with a little bit of horror and gore thrown in for good measure; well, that's nonsense. I'm the first to blast a movie for throwing in cheesy lesbianism, but it doesn't get in the way at all, and does have a purpose story-wise i.e. isn't thrown in randomly to titillate horny sexually inadequate hipsters as in Lynch's idiotic "Mulholland" flick. These critics would have us believe that some silly Dracula film from the 30s is a masterpiece while this original approach to vampirism is a cheap, exploitative, erotic tale.

The film is visually terrific, very atmospheric, has a good cast (Sarandon is excellent), and a superb soundtrack. Sarandon naked in bed is not exactly a deterrent, either. (This virtue-signaling activist's greatest talent, probably.)

The last scene - with its masterful combination of visuals and music - is the absolute highlight of the film.

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1570379/?ref_=tt_urv

Downer ending: not really

First Viewing: 1989 (twice)

mystery, sci-fi, thriller

9/10

Cronenberg's last good movie. After this, dunno what happened. He must have had the same cinematescopy performed on him that Scorsese got in the 90s. Total removal of all faculties and skills.

First Viewing: 1999 (twice)

space sci-fi, prison, monster

9/10

Strengths: visuals, sets, moody, special effects

Weaknesses: watching a bald Sigourney Weaver - as if she weren't hideous enough with hair, girl power

Avoid the director's cut. Fincher is clueless. Get the cinema version. Admittedly, by now I can't even recall the differences because I don't have the original anymore.

Downer ending: if you see the sequel it is, otherwise not really

First Viewing: 1992 (3-4 times)

mystery, remote location

9/10

Strengths: premise, story, plot-twists, eerie, moody, originality

Weaknesses: slow start

YBR is yet another example of why one should NEVER pay attention to this site's rating average. It's a meaningless figure.

An investigative team goes into a remote forest to investigate a mystery revolving around why all 250 people from a small village decided to leave one day, never coming back.

I know, it sounds like yet another amateurish, idiotic, hand-held-camera piece of garbage like "Paranormal Activity", "Rec", "The Blairwitch Project", or "The Poughkeepsie Tapes", but there is no reason give up in disgust because thankfully this is not the case. It's a REGULAR movie. No dilettante actor talking over a wobbly recording of Something Vague This Way Comes, while the special-effects crew takes a nap and hopes that the camera falls off into the mud so they won't have to do anything.

You can read the entire review here:

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw2531768/?ref_=tt_urv

Downer ending: big yes

First Viewing: 2011

haunted technology, apocalypse, japanese

9/10

Strengths: mood, premise, suspense, eerie

Weaknesses: having to rely on the subtitles, shitty song at the end, opening sequence as spoiler

I'm a jaded horror-movie fan, hence approximately once in a blue moon do I get to watch a film from this genre that has me glued to the screen rather than bored or sneering/almost laughing at the gore when I'm not supposed to be. But perhaps that was the key here, the essential ingredient - or rather the lack of it: the fact that there is no gore, no understandable threat. Most horror directors/writers just can't get it through their thick skulls that the creepiest films are those that don't clearly spell out what the threat is but keep things cryptic. A monster chasing a victim is far less interesting than the kind of danger these characters here are in.

Just like in the Japanese "Ringu", the eeriness comes out of what is insinuated rather than catchup-stained limbs flying through rooms as if they had wings.

"Kairo" remains interesting in spite of its 2-hour length, although a little editing snip here or there would have made it a little more compact. The dialogue is not that interesting early on, but this eventually improves, and later on sometimes just a few sentences say a lot. The ghost scenes are very well conceived, quite original, and greatly help elevate this movie above 98% of the usual horror crap. The story is slightly muddled but it matters not.

In fact, the story gives you various hints and suggestions, but never the whole picture. It suggests that the numerous ghosts are trying to contact the living, but as soon as they do they drive the living mental, to suicide. Whatever the living experience or learn about the "other realm" through close contact with a ghost so depresses and scares them that they become almost catatonic, ready to die.

This is one interpretation, though others probably can't differ drastically to this one.

I like the fact that not every victim of this "apparitional pandemic" reacts the same way. For example, the female survivor from the opening scene chooses not to die, like the vast majority does.

I can't say I agree with that opening scene, because it serves as too much of a spoiler. I'd prefer not to know in advance that there will be an apocalypse, or that she'll end up on a ship. I believe this ruins a few surprises. Hence why I strongly suggest that you skip the intro, jump directly to the 2nd minute.

The score is good, but is applied sparingly. Entire segments are completely devoid of music, which serves the mood very well. It is a slow-paced film in which this seems to work better than having a constant blaring of music, as is so overkilled in so many American horror films.

Japanese actresses are so much better-looking than the increasingly homely, masculine blondes Hollywood serves us lately... These actresses are so much more feminine and appealing than the defective SJW actresses that populate western movies these days. Another advantage.

"Printo screenki": this is how one male character referred to a certain computer-keyboard feature...

Downer ending: more yes than no, free for interpretation

Viewings: 2008, 2023

sci-fi, mystery, thriller, mono-setting

9/10

Strengths: visuals, premise, story, originality, enigmatic, setting, special effects, sets, unpredictable, suspense

Weaknesses: shoddy characterization and occasionally cartoonish dialog, weak ending

Downer ending: yes

First Viewing: 2000 (twice)

serial-killer, thriller, cannibal clan, exploitation, evil peasants, remote location, non-supernatural

9/10

Strengths: moody, suspense, gritty

Weaknesses: gets too hammy during the dinner scene

You will not find many of these "cannibal peasant" films on this list, and the few that there are nearly all scored low.

I am not a fan of this garbage sub-genre. TCM however was the first of its kind and it works because its grit looks real. It is genuinely suspenseful.

Downer ending: no........

First Viewing: 1990

haunted building

9/10

Strengths: setting, mood, visuals, suspense

Weaknesses: uneven

Downer ending: no...

Easily the best of all haunted house movies, this movie has a good story, surprise twists, a good cast (including the cute Pamela Franklin), and most importantly - a high visual quality and atmosphere without which almost any horror film is doomed.

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1745732/?ref_=tt_urv

First Viewing: 1995 (twice)