What do you think?
Rate this book
Horror!: The Definitive Companion to the Most Terrifying Movies Ever Made
From Frankenstein to Peeping Tom, the imaginative flair of the horror film has always shocked and delighted viewers. Packed with images of the most terrifying scenes in cinema history, this fully updated volume—with reviews right up to 2013—traces the genre decade by decade, providing a witty and informative critique of more than 300 movies from all around the world, and TV series, too. A team of seasoned, top horror experts leads the way with authority, humor, and encyclopedic knowledge, making this a superb guide for both die-hard and new horror fans.
- GenresHorrorNonfictionFilm
360 pages, Paperback
Published August 6, 2013
21 people are currently reading
118 people want to read
About the author
Kim Newman
293 books942 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 - 8 of 8 reviews
June 12, 2015
didn't read cover to cover but do plan on buying this one because it is a really good horror reference book
September 4, 2023
Of course you could nit pick and say there's a few gems missed: Angst, Venus in Furs, The Findlay's films of the '60s, Two Thousand Maniacs, Bloody Moon, A Night to Dismember, Altered States, Sergio martinos films, In my Skin, Demon, Twisted Nerve, Colour me Blood Red... I could go on but an objective definitive list devoid of personal choices is always going to be complicated.
You could even say some takes on big films are terrible. Criticising Bela Lugosi should be considered a crime. You can talk about Dracula (1931) being a stilted film due to being an early talkie but I really hate that take that some people have that the Spanish version is superior. Saying something is better than another just because it's more aesthetically pleasing or uses more complex shots goes against my entire understanding of cinema. This is about choices and the meaning behind those. The Spanish version does not advance the meaning, actually it takes away from Brownings atmosphere by being so cheap as to make shots look neater and doesn't show the same awareness of space. Villarias also makes stupid faces.
Jaws is noticeably empty. Perhaps Kermode said it all on that one in his famous piece that it's not about a shark so there was no point adding anything. The Shining also features a bizarre stance that it abandons the books history of the hotel to focus on the characters. That's not completely accurate. If it was Stephen King would have liked it as an adaptation. He hates it because typically Kubrick abandons the characters to focus on a wider narrative. It's right to say he does dismiss a lot of the history of the hotel though with the gangsters and that. Instead, focusing on the entire breadth of human history and the film is all the stronger for it.
I don't know why there's any point mentioning Jeepers Creepers. I'm not one of these weirdos who thinks that because of someone involved it should be burned. A bad person can make good art but the film is shite and didn't really influence anything so probably best just to forget about it tbh. "This has followed me around ever since it happened, but once people meet me the phantoms go away and they realize I made a stupid mistake, years ago. ... My past is going to follow me around for as long as people want to talk about it" is how Salva describes the incident in his own words. Blows my head off that. It's like mate you didn't get arrested for a DUI, you nonced a 12 year old. You filmed it and you had child Pornography at your house. We had you bang to rights. It's disgraceful that young aspiring filmmakers can't get into this industry whilst a terrible director and paedophile is continuing to work and shame on Coppola for still supporting him. How he ever got out of prison is beyond me. Should have got fucking life. If I ever saw this Salva character I'd beat the living shit out of him and see it as my public duty. The streets still remember.
Even with these minor issues highlighted though, the truth of the matter comes down to one single question. Where was this book when I was first getting in to these films? Now there's only the odd gap or two that it fills in for me. I'd have loved something like this which gives a general structure decade by decade going through what each had to offer. They do this so well by having intros, sections on themes/trends and then the individual films themselves. No better way to do it. The ultimate guide indeed. I'd fully recommend this to anyone wanting to make their first forays in to the genre. If I could go back in time a few years I'd have given it to myself then but at the same time it's kind of nice to have it now having gone through the hurt locker of the good, the bad and the ugly and being able to focus more attention on the key texts a second time round. To see if I agree with the canon, to rattle it's chains and see what needs more/less attention. A few rewatches could be in order. But first I look forward to watching some new ones that I didn't get round to starting with Lewis Allen's The Uninvited.
You could even say some takes on big films are terrible. Criticising Bela Lugosi should be considered a crime. You can talk about Dracula (1931) being a stilted film due to being an early talkie but I really hate that take that some people have that the Spanish version is superior. Saying something is better than another just because it's more aesthetically pleasing or uses more complex shots goes against my entire understanding of cinema. This is about choices and the meaning behind those. The Spanish version does not advance the meaning, actually it takes away from Brownings atmosphere by being so cheap as to make shots look neater and doesn't show the same awareness of space. Villarias also makes stupid faces.
Jaws is noticeably empty. Perhaps Kermode said it all on that one in his famous piece that it's not about a shark so there was no point adding anything. The Shining also features a bizarre stance that it abandons the books history of the hotel to focus on the characters. That's not completely accurate. If it was Stephen King would have liked it as an adaptation. He hates it because typically Kubrick abandons the characters to focus on a wider narrative. It's right to say he does dismiss a lot of the history of the hotel though with the gangsters and that. Instead, focusing on the entire breadth of human history and the film is all the stronger for it.
I don't know why there's any point mentioning Jeepers Creepers. I'm not one of these weirdos who thinks that because of someone involved it should be burned. A bad person can make good art but the film is shite and didn't really influence anything so probably best just to forget about it tbh. "This has followed me around ever since it happened, but once people meet me the phantoms go away and they realize I made a stupid mistake, years ago. ... My past is going to follow me around for as long as people want to talk about it" is how Salva describes the incident in his own words. Blows my head off that. It's like mate you didn't get arrested for a DUI, you nonced a 12 year old. You filmed it and you had child Pornography at your house. We had you bang to rights. It's disgraceful that young aspiring filmmakers can't get into this industry whilst a terrible director and paedophile is continuing to work and shame on Coppola for still supporting him. How he ever got out of prison is beyond me. Should have got fucking life. If I ever saw this Salva character I'd beat the living shit out of him and see it as my public duty. The streets still remember.
Even with these minor issues highlighted though, the truth of the matter comes down to one single question. Where was this book when I was first getting in to these films? Now there's only the odd gap or two that it fills in for me. I'd have loved something like this which gives a general structure decade by decade going through what each had to offer. They do this so well by having intros, sections on themes/trends and then the individual films themselves. No better way to do it. The ultimate guide indeed. I'd fully recommend this to anyone wanting to make their first forays in to the genre. If I could go back in time a few years I'd have given it to myself then but at the same time it's kind of nice to have it now having gone through the hurt locker of the good, the bad and the ugly and being able to focus more attention on the key texts a second time round. To see if I agree with the canon, to rattle it's chains and see what needs more/less attention. A few rewatches could be in order. But first I look forward to watching some new ones that I didn't get round to starting with Lewis Allen's The Uninvited.
January 24, 2016
Intelligent, insightful reviews of horror films from the silent era to the present. The book is organized by decade and a lengthy essay reviewing that particular decade leads off each chapter. Then, the most important horror films of each decade are reviewed in more depth in chronological order. Interspersed throughout the volume are essays on themes in horror films, such as vampire films, TV horror, etc. I don't agree with all the reviews, but they are entertaining and were written by people who obviously know and love horror films. I first got this in paperback and, when an updated editions came out, got THAT one for Kindle. The first edition has Lee Remick (from "The Omen") on the cover. I'd much rather look at her than at Leatherface, but oh, well. Anyway, this is a great resource for horror film fans.
BTW, there seems to be some confusion on the part of Goodreads about this. I noticed some reviews on this page are actually for Horror: 100 Best Books, edited by Kim Newman. I hope this is in the right place!
BTW, there seems to be some confusion on the part of Goodreads about this. I noticed some reviews on this page are actually for Horror: 100 Best Books, edited by Kim Newman. I hope this is in the right place!
May 14, 2017
A good idiots guide to horror. Some films missing and some included that I would of left out but I can't believe anybody could read all of this and not learn something, I've definitely found some new films to try.
Read
January 12, 2020I Enjoyed This...
Enough to consider reading some more books and seeing a few more scary movies. It was nice to be reminded of some of the movies that thrilled/scared me in my younger years. Newman did a great job.
Enough to consider reading some more books and seeing a few more scary movies. It was nice to be reminded of some of the movies that thrilled/scared me in my younger years. Newman did a great job.
September 29, 2013
This was more of a skim through kind of book. I now know more than I wanted to know about some of my favorite horror movies.
May 25, 2019
A great rundown of each decade of horror and a must see list of movies from each. So much to watch now
January 13, 2021
This is truly a definitive companion to horror movies.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews