The Top 10 Horror Flicks We’ve Reviewed… So Far

The film Sinners directed by Ryan Coogler has shown that a vampire movie can have teeth, soul, history, sex, violence, and an absolutely fantastic soundtrack.

The fact that the story is set in the Jim Crow South gives the horror a serious tone even before the first vampire appears, and Michael B. Jordan's dual performance is so effective that Smoke and Stack come across as two different individuals, while the atmosphere infused with blues music gives the film a distinct identity of its own.

Jon called it "an amazing interpretation of the entire vampire genre" and praised the cast, the moody photography, the dynamic action, and the "hypnotic blues soundtrack". Don agreed as well, saying that Coogler's choice to set a vampire story in 1932 Mississippi was "a very ambitious idea" – one which he thought the filmmaker had successfully carried out.

It wasn't all praise though. Jon wished there was more vampire lore and a bit less slow buildup. Don became distracted by wondering where all those survivors had suddenly appeared during the final part.

The biggest issue Ken had with the film was that the third act depressed him. Although he admired the music, the visual style, and the way it celebrated Black Southern culture, it left him "rather crestfallen" because after having spent so much time getting to know the characters their personalities vanished as they joined the vampire collective.

That disagreement explains the 4.00 average: Don and Jon delivered 4.75s, while Ken came in at 2.50. A divisive banger is still a banger.

Few horror movies weaponize distrust like John Carpenter’s The Thing.

Put a group of men in a remote Antarctic research station, bring in an unfrozen alien that is able to perfectly imitate any one of them, and immediately all the conversations turn into interrogations. The film's cramped direction by Carpenter, the sinister music by Ennio Morricone, and the wonderfully repulsive practical effects by Rob Bottin result in a movie made up of paranoia and nightmare fuel.

Jon called it "a chilling horror classic," and he praised both the "who-can-you-trust" mystery and the way Carpenter managed to keep the audience trapped in the characters' state of suspicion. Don recalled being impressed by the effects, the pacing, and the feeling of unease that arose each time the film moved into another dark corner.

The movie’s limitations also kept it from climbing higher. Jon struggled to connect with the supporting cast and occasionally had trouble remembering who was who. He also wanted a little more clarity about how the creature operates. The famously ambiguous ending worked for the conversation, but it still left him wanting to know what happened next.

Ken felt that it had some goofy elements and maintained that today's audiences might value it more as a significant filmmaking artifact than as a great movie in its own right. Don and Jon disagreed with this view, each giving it four solid fucks.

The practical effects may look like products of their time, but the distrust is timeless. If your friends start quietly testing each other’s blood after watching it, leave the room.

By the 1990s mid-decade slashers had become predictable, and Wes Craven's Scream took advantage of the audience's familiarity with the rules by incorporating it into a new style murder mystery.

It's terrifying, comical, aware of itself, bloody, and includes a number of characters who have seen so many horror films that they know what not to do; yet they still carry out those mistakes.

Don called the film's opening 'one of the strongest movie openings in movie history' and referred to it as 'almost the perfect film'. He lauded the cast, the score, the direction, the twist, and the way in which the movie observes the slasher conventions while at the same time dismantling them.

Jon enjoyed the combination of horror, satire, and references to pop culture, as well as the movie's starting appeal as a whodunit. He also liked the fact that Sidney Prescott was a capable and relatable protagonist. The only thing he didn't agree with was that once you know who the killers are, some of the mystery is lost: "With each rewatch, to me, Scream loses a little bit more of its magic."

When Ken first saw it, he acknowledged the skillful dialogue and the tension, but was not particularly interested in the supporting characters; Don and Jon both gave it 4.75, while Ken gave it 3.00.

That disagreement landed Scream at 4.17, but there’s no disagreement about its impact. It reminded audiences that horror could understand its own clichés, laugh at them, and still gut you like a fish.

Wes Craven took the one place where everyone is supposed to be safe—their dreams—and gave it to a burned killer with a fedora, a striped sweater, and knives for fingers.

In the original film A Nightmare on Elm Street , Robert Englund's Freddy Krueger was only partly shown, whereas in later films he became more talkative and theatrical; this degree of restraint in the original makes him more mysterious and scary.

Don enjoyed everything about it, including the opening, the score, the dream sequences, the kills and the practical effects. He also liked the fact that the film still looked good decades on. Because of its nostalgic value and rewatchability he gave it a score of 4.75.

Ken’s favorite element was Nancy. Rather than waiting helplessly for someone to save her, she studies Freddy, builds a plan, and takes the fight directly to him. Ken praised her resilience but landed lower overall at 3.25.

For Jon a great film is one which you want to talk about afterwards, one that stays with you and one that you look forward to seeing again as soon as possible; the original Nightmare met all three of these criteria and had one of his rare perfect ratings.

The final average was 4.33—miles above the 2010 remake’s 0.50. Apparently, replacing Robert Englund and draining the personality out of Freddy is not the path to cinematic gold. Who knew?

“In space, no one can hear you scream”—or argue about whether a supporting cast is too pedestrian.

Ridley Scott's Alien is essentially a haunted-house film set on a spaceship, and the movie's slow camera work, the industrial corridors, the deep shadows, and its disturbing sound design cause the Nostromo to become a place in which danger might be lurking behind any bulkhead.

Jon described Alien as the model for science-fiction horror, saying that its impact on the genre was similar to that of Die Hard on the action film genre. He praised the visual storytelling, the slow shift from a feeling of unease to terror, H.R. Giger's design of the creature, and Ripley's intelligence and resourcefulness.

Don summarized it more efficiently: “It’s Jaws meets Star Wars. I mean, how can you go wrong with that?” He praised the writing, casting, and cinematography while acknowledging a few imperfections that kept it just short of cinematic gold.

When Ken first saw it he felt overwhelmed by the tension, but that effect wasn't as strong on him years later. Although he still respected the facehugger, the chestburster, the xenomorph and the Ash reveal, he thought that a number of the characters were less interesting than Ripley and Dallas.

The average came to 4.42; that's not bad considering the film manages to spend its opening section simply displaying an empty ship before turning dinner into the worst company meal ever shown in the cinema.

Before Scream made horror self-awareness fashionable, Wes Craven turned his own creation loose on the people who made the movies.

In New Nightmare Heather Langenkamp, Robert Englund, John Saxon and Craven take on roles resembling their own selves as an ancient evil starts to use the Freddy mythology to get into the real world. The film is strange, ambitious and much more serious than the earlier sequels which had become increasingly cartoonish.

Jon described it as the franchise's "craziest twist" and maintained that Craven had "weaponized" meta storytelling as a tool for horror. Heather Langenkamp and Robert Englund received widespread praise, as did the choice to bring Nancy back in a completely unexpected way.

The movie isn’t flawless. Its early sections can drag, the redesigned Freddy didn’t win everyone over, and Jon missed some of the dark humor of the earlier installments.

Nevertheless, the idea was too bold—and yet so successful—that it could not be ignored. Don explained that the callbacks were effective since so many of them were subtle, and he enjoyed the fact that the original Elm Street theme had been included. Guest Elyse also agreed that bringing back Nancy was good enough reason to celebrate.

With Don and Jon both awarding 4.50, New Nightmare earns the fifth spot. It may not be everyone’s favorite Freddy movie, but without it, horror’s late-’90s self-aware revolution might have looked very different.

Most horror movies are filled with screams. A Quiet Place makes you afraid to breathe.

John Krasinski creates a full post-apocalyptic world based on creatures that respond to sound, telling the story of a family's struggle to survive through the use of limited dialogue, sign language, facial expressions, production design, and carefully controlled audio.

Jon described it as a "unique cinematic experience" and admired the way it managed to achieve character development without the use of conventional dialogue. His frustrations stemmed from the family's occasional poor judgments. Given that so much effort had gone into living in silence, why were there not more distractions on the farm? And why did the characters at times move rather than remain perfectly still?

Ken enjoyed the way that Evelyn acted as the family's emotional core and Lee served as their constant problem-solver. He praised the performances, the way the camera moved, the music, the pacing, and the movie's ability to stay powerful when seen over and over again.

Don’s biggest complaint was the creature design: “Can we not have a fucking monster that opens up like a flower anytime soon?” He also initially hated Lee’s death, but the discussion helped him recognize that the movie’s triumphant ending required a devastating sacrifice.

That mix of inventive storytelling, parental fear, emotional stakes, and nerve-rattling sound design earned a 4.58. Just don’t watch it while eating chips.

Following the way that Freddy's Revenge broke most of the rules which had been set up for the franchise, Dream Warriors managed to get Elm Street back on track.

Nancy returns to help a group of institutionalized teenagers who discover special abilities inside their shared dreams. Freddy gets bigger kills, sharper one-liners, and victims capable of fighting back.

Don praised the characters, music, direction, return of Nancy and her father, and Wes Craven’s involvement in the story. He also credited the movie with reviving the series and transforming Freddy into a true franchise icon.

Jon described it as "a true Elm Street sequel" and lauded Patricia Arquette for giving Kristen heart and vulnerability. As for Robert Englund, he fully manages the balance between making Freddy scary and presenting the "wisecracking sadistic killer" that we all love.

The two men made the same point: the film known as Dream Warriors needed to have more Dream Warriors. They wished that the characters' powers were developed further and that there were more scenes of the group facing off directly against Freddy. It is possible that budget constraints had prevented this potential, but the idea is still one of the best in the franchise.

Don and Jon each gave it 4.75. As the Professor didn’t submit an official score, the movie holds a 4.75 average from the participating Guys.

Train to Busan is not just a zombie film; it's a story exploring selfishness, sacrifice, class, parenthood, and the kinds of things people show about themselves when survival becomes a scarce resource.

It also has a shit ton of fast zombies.

The fact that the train is confined gives the action a sense of momentum and means that the characters have to face new problems each time they move from one car to another. Above all, the film causes us to care about the passengers before the massacre takes place.

Guest Gerard praised the film for its balance, saying that it had "just enough family connection, just enough horror, just enough gore, and just enough action". Don called it "fucking intense" and enjoyed its beautifully tragic tone, the cast, the production design, and the emotional range.

At first Jon feared seeing a movie with subtitles, but that worry soon vanished. He complimented the character development—particularly the way Seok-woo changed from a selfish and emotionally distant father to someone ready to give up everything for his daughter.

“We don’t have the perfect hero in this film, and I appreciate that,” Jon said. “We just have an ordinary man thrust into a life-and-death struggle.”

The movie’s human villain matters almost as much as the undead. The zombies operate on instinct; the passengers make choices. Some show courage and generosity. Others are willing to feed everyone else to the horde if it buys them another minute.

Don and Jon awarded 4.75, giving Train to Busan its official 4.75 average. It’s brutal, emotional, and proof that the zombie genre still has plenty of life in it.

Nearly every possession movie made since 1973 has existed in the shadow of The Exorcist.

William Friedkin treats the supernatural material with the seriousness of a drama. The medical procedures, Chris MacNeil’s desperation, Father Karras’ crisis of faith, and the exhaustion surrounding Regan’s possession make the impossible feel disturbingly real.

It was also one of the few horror films that actually frightened all three of them when they were young.

Jon called it “the pinnacle of horror films” and praised its groundbreaking makeup and effects, constant tension, iconic performances, and disturbing imagery. “Once you see it, it possesses your mind,” he said. “You never look at green pea soup the same way again.”

His only criticism was that after 20 or 30 viewings, some of the creepy allure naturally fades. Apparently, repeated demonic possession exposure builds immunity.

Ken praised the characters of the film, particularly Father Karras, since it is his grief, guilt and waverings in his faith that provide the story with its emotional core. Don pointed out that the film remains with you because Friedkin bases the horror on skepticism: parents, doctors and priests all look for rational explanations before accepting what is happening.

Don and Jon each gave The Exorcist cinematic gold at 5.00. Ken awarded 4.50, resulting in a 4.83 average and the top spot among the horror flicks we’ve reviewed.

The power of Friedkin compels you.