Chicago Critics’ Scariest Films
by Andre Soares
I tend to ignore top 100 film lists because they are usually made by people who know little about movies beyond Hollywood stuff made in the last 15 or 20 years. But the list of "100 scariest movies" compiled by the members of the Chicago Film Critics Association does include several oldies and even, gasp, a handful of non-American horror films.
Since I’m a total wimp when it comes to scary movies, I found it curious that several titles in the Chicago critics’ list left me utterly unimpressed (e.g., Misery, Psycho, The Exorcist), while others that — whether good, bad, or so-so films — gave me nightmares for days (e.g., El Espinazo del diablo / The Devil’s Backbone, The Fog [1980], Mulholland Dr.) are nowhere to be found in it.
Also, I couldn’t find any Lon Chaney vehicles or any of the neo-horror Japanese films that have found a large audience worldwide. Either I missed them, or perhaps Lon Chaney and Japanese horror films aren’t available in Chicago.
(They do, however, have the 1935 campy comedy Bride of Frankenstein listed. But then again, Elsa Lanchester’s wig was frightening…)
The Chicago critics’ top 100 choices:
1. Psycho (1960) Alfred Hitchcock
2. The Exorcist (1973) William Friedkin
3. Halloween (1978) John Carpenter
4. Alien (1979) Ridley Scott
5. Night of the Living Dead (1968) George A. Romero
6. Jaws (1975) Steven Spielberg
7. The Shining (1980) Stanley Kubrick
8. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) Tobe Hooper
9. Dawn of the Dead (1978) George A. Romero
10. Rosemary’s Baby (1968) Roman Polanski
11. The Silence of the Lambs
12. The Blair Witch Project
13. Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (1922)
14. Frankenstein (1931)
15. A Nightmare on Elm Street
16. Carrie (1976)
17. The Thing (1982)
18. Bride of Frankenstein
19. The Haunting (1963)
20. Poltergeist
21. Suspiria
22. Wait Until Dark
23. The Birds
24. Don’t Look Now
25. Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn
26. The Innocents
27. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer
28. Freaks
29. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
30. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1919)
31. The Omen (1976)
32. The Fly (1986)
33. Seven
34. The Re-Animator
35. The Sixth Sense
36. The Ring (2002)
37. The Evil Dead
38. Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde (1931)
39. The Hitcher
40. Near Dark
41. Dracula (1931)
42. Vampyr (1932)
43. Onibaba
44. Scream
45. Aliens
46. Creature from the Black Lagoon
47. Session 9
48. Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht / Nosferatu the Vampyre (1978)
49. Black Christmas
50. When a Stranger Calls
51. Repulsion
52. Misery
53. Horror of Dracula
54. The Others
55. Jurassic Park
56. The Seventh Victim
57. Peeping Tom
58. 28 Days Later
59. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
60. The Hidden
61. May
62. Shaun of the Dead
63. Last House on the Left
64. 10 Rillington Place
65. Salo
66. Cat People (1942)
67. Frailty
68. The Howling
69. Trilogy of Terror
70. Blue Velvet
71. I Walked with a Zombie
72. Bram Stoker’s Dracula
73. Martin
74. Deliverance
75. Carnival of Souls
76. Spoorlos / The Vanishing (1988)
77. Masque of the Red Death
78. The Night of the Hunter
79. Salem’s Lot
80. Fright Night
81. Black Sunday (1960)
82. Scream 2
83. Dressed to Kill
84. The Stepfather
85. Friday the 13th
86. The Exorcism of Emily Rose
87. Let’s Scare Jessica to Death
88. The Brood
89. Dead-Alive
90. Open Water
91. The Mummy (1932)
92. Requiem for a Dream
93. Signs
94. The Wolf Man
95. Phantasm
96. The Night Stalker
97. Brides of Dracula
98. M
99. God Told Me To
100. Les Yeux sans visage / Eyes without a Face
Reeling - The 2006 Chicago Gay and Lesbian International Film Festival
Australia’s 2006 Festival of Jewish Cinema
At Cinematical: Boys Scouts, Sniffing Dogs, and Hollywood Studios
Comments
13 Responses to “Chicago Critics’ Scariest Films”
Leave a Reply
Note: All comments are moderated. Different views and opinions are welcome, but abusive/bigoted/flaming comments will NOT be approved. Also, please be aware that the Alternative Film Guide has NO contact information for the talent mentioned in this blog or any information pertaining to or access to distributors'/producers' film prints.
“Bride Of Frankenstein” a comedy? Hmm, I don’t get that one. Although it certainly does have elements of comedy in it. I just saw this film on the big screen at Cinesation( And had seen it before on the lovely DVD release). It’s actually quite a touching film because it speaks to elements of lonliness, societal ostracism, and to the desire for all living beings to be loved and accepted. Take the “horror” element out of the film and it’s a fascinating look at man’s inhumanity to one another, and their inability to see past external superficialities. My mother mentioned being very moved after watching it.
Of course that’s just my personal take. I haven’t really read a great deal about James Whale(Haven’t gotten around to the biography yet), but I find that aspect of the film quite interesting considering Whale was a gay director.
So no, I can’t say I find “Bride Of Frankenstein” a “horror” film per se. But something much more significant. I’m a big Karloff fan, and despite the fact that his face is obscured by the heavy makeup, it’s one of his finest performances. Coupled with James Whale’s excellent direction and his moody, surreal cinematic touch, seeing it on the big screen was an entirely different and emotional experience.
James,
I gotta admit that I saw “Bride of Frankenstein” many years ago. I remember finding some of it humorous. I definitely remember that it wasn’t at all a “scary movie.”
I do have the DVD here. I need to check it out again. (I can’t think of any big-screen showings of “Bride” in the Los Angeles area in the near future.)
Well, there are definitely comedic touches. Una O’ Connor was a big hit with the audience as well as Ernest Thesiger’s highly flamboyant performance as Dr. Frankenstein’s comrade in his experiments (Thesiger was also a big hit earlier that day with his performance in Whale’s “The Old Dark House”)But, while I don’t consider the film a “horror” film in the traditional sense, I also wouldn’t classify it as a comedy. So, I think that’s why you’re description of it puzzled me. Again, merely a personal thing though.
It’s funny you mention “The Old Dark House.” Some of it is hysterically funny — and intentionally so.
But then the film takes a turn toward the macabre, and it had me on the edge of my seat until the (lighter) finale. There are precious few horror movies from the 1930s that actually put the fear of godawfulness in me — but “The Old Dark House” is one of them.
So, perhaps we should call it a Horredy?
Curiously, “The Old Dark House” is nowhere to be found in the Chicago critics’ top 94 (!) list of scariest movies.
Maybe it’s one of the missing last six titles…
Yeah, those top 10, 50, 100 whatever lists are pretty dumb all right. I agree that Chicago’s was not so bad at all. In this matter of stupid lists, no one can beat AFI.
**** Warning: Spoilers Below*******
Yes, “The Old Dark House” is terrific. People attending Cinesation kept repeating Thesiger’s line “Have a potato” for the rest of the weekend. There’s a really interesting relationship between Karloff’s character as the mute manservant and the insane brother Saul which the family has kept hidden in the attic. When Saul is killed in the end, Karloff is seen very tenderly holding Saul as he’s dying and Karloff is clearly very bereaved by his death. It had a certain gay subtext for me. If I remember correctly, I think Karloff was particularly watchful over Saul, and was the one who was mainly in charge of his care. You get a sense that perhaps there was a deep love and intimacy that existed between the two men. Again, just my personal take on that.
I don’t know that I was necessarily “frightend” watching “The Old Dark House” but it has a very palpable and stirring atmosphere due largely to the superlative cinematography of Arthur Edeson and the perverse performances from several of the actors. The print shown at Cinesation was taken from a stunning 35mm LOC print. The film was as clear and smooth as glass on the big screen and breathtaking to behold.
I think most lists are pretty silly these days. I just don’t understand the concept of actually sitting down and coming up with 10, 50, or even 100 items on a “Best Of” or “Greatest of All Time” list. I never get the need people have to place things in such dogmatic hierarchial contexts. How do you prove “better”? How do you prove “bad” or “good”? You can’t, simply because film appreciation is such an incredibly subjective thing. One person’s “junk” is a meaningful journey for someone else. We might have our personal opinions as to what we like or don’t like, but that hardly etches it in stone. Ask 100 people what the “10 Greatest Romantic Films” are, and guarenteed you’ll get different responses depending upon the person and they’re experiences in life. In a more casual setting, lists can be fun among friends to seeing what other people enjoy. But as a means of measuring film history, they’re pretty useless.
Diabolique is far scarier than Rosemary’s Baby, or 4 or 5 of the otther Top 10.
I haven’t seen several of the films in their top-ten list. But I’d say that the less popular a film is — even though we’re talking about film critics who should know their classics — the less likely it’ll be for that film to make it to any top-100 list — let alone a top-ten list.
Unfortunately, a list filled with relatively obscure titles (i.e., anything made outside of Hollywood, released before 1985, and that hasn’t become a major “classic” of some kind) will not get the sort of media attention accorded to lists consisting of more popular fare.
And, needless to say, such lists are almost invariably self-promotional tools.
James,
Lists as a “means of measuring film history” are indeed useless (just take a look at the AFI lists), but I bet that Sight & Sound will come up with another such list in 2012.
As I said in my previous post, those lists are good seeling tools. That’s why publications create them — including the Alternative Film Guide. (I do, however, explain that my lists — and my reviews — are, like everybody else’s, highly subjective and definitely NOT written in stone.)
Now, I do enjoy reading lists — depending on who is doing them, of course. I look at those lists not to discover the Greatest Movies of All Time, but to find out what particular individuals or group(s) of individuals find special.
And before I forget…
I’ve never seen a good print of “The Old Dark House.” What’s available on video or on cable is a high-contrasty print.
Those guys should make the restored LoC version available on DVD.
And no, I don’t recall sensing a gay subtext between Karloff and the Old Dark wacko. I gotta watch that movie again…
“Play Misty for Me” scared me more than any other movie I’ve seen. Nothing spectacular, just quiet, building tension in a California town. I think it may have been the first contemporary movie Clint Eastwood did; it certainly was the first one in which he was stalked.
So “Jurassic Park” is scarier then “Salo”? Sounds reasonable. Big saurians are way more horrible then fascists who force you to eat shit and afterwards torture you to death in front of your friends. Of course the Gillman from the Black Lagoon beats them both.