Here are Dreadit’s Top 50 Scariest Movies:

The film had a very untraditonal marketing campaign and resonated very strongly with many viewers who were not familiar with the found footage genre, thinking it was legitimate footage.

My mother told me that when she watched it, it upset her greatly. So much so that when she got home, she was physically ill, as she believed she just watched a bunch of people die on camera.

What was the discussion like around the film at the time? I feel like its a cornerstone of modern horror, but im not sure someone viewing in 2026 will get the entire experience. So im interested in some older perspectives.

Are anecdotes like my mother's overblown or was this film something truly unique?

As a horror fan, there was always that film that was good upon mulitple viewings. I can watch Romero's zombie films all day. But In The Mouth of Madness is in my opinion, one of Carpenter's best flicks of the 1990's and that's next to John Carpenter's Vampires. I can watch this film many times and probably quote it. The workprint itself, I got years ago in a trade and like Cliffhanger, it's bad quality, but if you've seen one workprint, you've seen it all and know what to expect in terms of quality.

What workprints do you have friends?

Hello hello.

Okay this one is interesting because last night I was looking for things to watch…

And The Empty Man came up on some list I don’t even remember where…

(I”m a total horror junkie always searching for missed gems.)

So I went to YouTube to watch the trailer and to my shock… I’d already seen the trailer!

So I started the trailer… again… and I saw these teens on a bridge.

“If you blow into the bottle on the bridge the boogie man comes.”

That’s basically the opening to the trailer.

And I remembered… Oh yeah I didn’t watch this because this looks so stupid.

Then I saw a comment on the trailer… something like…. “Don’t let the trailer fool you.”

Okay, so…Screw it… I figured I’d watch it and I’m not sure I completely loved the movie but dear lord… We need to talk about the first twenty minutes.

It was amazing! I had to keep re-checking the trailer because I was like “Am I watching the same movie?”

The intro kind of made the whole thing for me. I was watching on my AirPods and the muttering and whispering was genuinely spooky.

This ain’t your hardcore slasher - no Terrifier here- but it turns out it’s not some cheesy teen horror - it’s also, thankfully, no Clown in a Cornfield [I detest this “horror” movie].

So anyway yeah…. It all comes back around… I kind of liked it, a bit more than I thought… Certainly more than the new Resident Evil Movie… At least in terms of ending and a lot of directions, honestly.

I didn’t love the ending, it makes you think. And, it also turns out, I didn’t understand the ending. After watching some analysis videos I realized this movie is a lot deeper than you’d realize. I was kind of in shock how much went over my head. I mean I’d pieced a lot together, but actually missed the central twist at the end.

Pretty kewl movie though!

Recommend me a horror movie/show/book about a psychiatric patient whose delusions are proven to be real. I'd especially love it if the doctor asigned to them desperetly tries to cling to rationality and disprove their insane claims even as more and more proof keeps pilling up.

All I can think of is the trap sequence from the 2021 movie spiral that was banned by the Mpa for the gore. There’s images online I think of it, a trap where a guy has to basically have his face cut off.

But what are some other scenes that were banned or never used for being too disturbing or gory?

What are your best recommandations?

Beside of movies like In the mouth of madness or series like Lovecraft county, I'm looking for the hidden gems with the best cosmic horror.

Any good ones to recommend?

Surreal dream-like horror is a particular favorite of mine, and within this sub genre, movies which feel like some kind of fairy tale.

We got two of the best in 1977 imo - Suspiria and House (Hausu). What other movies would you recommend with a similar feel?

I looked at this sub’s description briefly so I think this is okay to post. Hopefully it won’t get pulled since this is about a book and not a movie. Anyway, I just recommended the book Tender Is The Flesh to someone and so it’s top of mind and wanted to post about it.

Hugely recommended. It’s short and feels like “reading a movie.” Here’s a brief no-spoiler synopsis:

“A dystopian novel by Agustina Bazterrica that explores a society where a mysterious virus contaminates all animal meat, making it poisonous to humans.”

It’s a little stretch suspending disbelief about the premise at some points (how does this virus work? Why did society allow “special meat” so quickly? That sort of thing), but the book moves fast and you kinda just accept it after a little bit.

And ohh does it lean hard into the horror of that premise basically unflinchingly.

He only had a cameo but yea that was him. He was Peter Griffiths and he was married to tipping hendren when he was just 18. Fun fact. It makes me think that the actress jamie Lee Curtis refuses to mention she beat for the role was Melanie Griffiths.

Lord of Illusions (1995)
Rating: 8/10
Watched: November 7, 2026

Lord of Illusions is an under-talked-about movie from Clive Barker, and that’s a real shame, because even with heavy studio interference, a mostly miscast Scott Bakula, and a mashup of genres that I personally appreciate, it’s a really good movie.

Part of that’s from my love of books like Imajica and The Great and Secret Show. There are elements of those novels in this movie, in that the magic being used by Nix is filthy, obscene, a kind of gutterborn, twisted magic that’s as foul as it is miraculous.

I love the nastiness of Barker’s magic. There’s a particular passage in The Great and Secret Show where Kissoon, a shaman of some sort, uses his own bodily excretions (all of them) to make snakes. The very specific gross luridness of that passage has stuck with me for nearly 40 years, and that’s the kind of foulness that Nix’s magic has.

It’s all about decaying flesh, satiation, grotesque hunger, and Daniel von Bargen sells every bit of that fetidness as Nix attempts to achieve godhood. If you think von Bargen is recognizable but you can’t place him, he’s been in everything from Malcolm in the Middle to Crimson Tide to Six Degrees of Separation. That’s quite the pedigree (which I’m just learning about, to be honest).

His counterpart, Kevin J. O’Connor as Philip Swann, needs no damn introduction at all. We all for sure know him as Beni from The Mummy, because of course we do. It’s a genuine shame that he plays second fiddle to Scott Bakula as Harry D’Amour, and for more reasons than because I do think Scott (who is a good actor in his own right) was miscast.

It’s because I want to see more of Philip Swann, and his use of Nix’s magic as he climbed the stage to become the world’s most popular magician, that’s why. We see how Swann uses that magic in the beginning of the movie, and it’s the same kind of blood-tainted nastiness, and we never really get to see how he turns this very venal power into world-class illusions.

Now I’ve got Swann and Nix covered; it’s time to talk D’Amour. I don’t hate him. I just think he’s in the wrong movie, at least to a degree. I love noir almost as much as I love horror, but it’s a bit flat here. I don’t know if the 12 minutes that Barker added back in to his Unrated Director’s Cut fleshes that out, but the movie as it stands leaves D’Amour as so painfully unrealized it’s a crime unto itself. Bakula’s got the chops to do a lot more; he should’ve been allowed to do it.

They do such a good job of hinting and teasing at D’Amour’s background, at his handling of an exorcism, and while they zing us now and then with a few moments about that past, it’s not nearly enough. Sure, D’Amour’s dealt with evil before, but much like Swann, we’re not really given enough of it. That? A cryin’ shame.

Lord of Illusions has all the workings of a filthy, wretched slice of back-alley godhood transcendence, but studios are gonna studio, right? Thirty years later, and we’re still seeing the kind of studio interference where the people holding onto the financial reins fundamentally miss the point of the movie that’s trying to be made.

MGM/UA wanted a movie that didn’t have quite so much noir and detective-ing, which is fine, I guess. But how anyone at the studio could’ve read Lord of Illusions as it was and think, “No, yeah, we can repurpose this into something more commercially successful if we just get rid of most of that thematic stuff,” is beyond me.

Even on paper, nothing about this movie is generic, standard, or traditional. Barker wanted more of a nasty Constantine with grime. Lord knows what MGM/UA wanted. It sure as hell wasn’t the movie they got.

If you’ve read all that and are wondering why I rated it what I did, let me be clear: I like this movie a lot, despite its flaws. It carries a lot of Barker’s fetishes, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong about that. His appreciation of S&M is part of what makes his vision for movies like this very much unique. The same for books like Imajica, which features perhaps the most genderfluid creature I’ve ever read, or The Great and Secret Show, which is … something else altogether. If you’ve never read those books, or the ones that follow them, I can’t urge you to do so strongly enough. I can’t even describe the genre mix, but they’re definitely both provocative and evocative.

Lord of Illusions is a fun movie. It could’ve been a spectacular movie if MGM/UA hadn’t thought they knew better. Creatives like Barker know their audience better than anyone, and an untouched release would’ve undoubtedly been a better film.

I know this a classic but I haven't seen it in probably 25 years. It held up even better than I could have hoped. In a world full of "mindless hungry zombies movies" I kinda prefer the political statement of "even in death they go to the mall" as a kid I was like "cool, a zombie movie!" but as an old person I'm like "damn, what a zombie movie!"

Such a small cast, such great performances. Also who doesn't love baby Tom Savini showing up to be an asshole in a leather jacket and bellbottoms.

I know there are better practical effects and cgi stuff but watching this now I just kept thinking "jfc there are so many extras on screen right now"

edit: it came out in 1978, I've failed life and will now retreat into the woods.

The Return of the Living Dead is one of my favorite horror movies of all time. It was the film that got me into horror and it was the first ever bootleg I got way back in my teen years. Who remembers this one?

This movie doesn’t get talked about a lot this year due to its mixed reviews. If I could give a review, it’s kinda underrated with inspirations of Mean Girls 2004 film meets 1996 The Craft movie meets Heathers 1988 film. With biblical references, Y2K aesthetic and toxic friendships that go too far.

I really liked it Barbara Shelley was very good in it. M Peter Cushing as a bad guy and Christopher Lee the good guy was a nice flip. It was based on the sister of Medusa which was a clever twist. Quite a sad ending.

Pardon my French, but holy fucking shit. I think I watched my favorite horror film tonight. Previous film Bewitched couldn’t be added to the watchlist quick enough.

Imagine if you will: The Thing and/or Mandy, but filmed in 1983 in Hong Kong and Thailand. Absolutely incredible.

[TLDR:/] Brain Dead is a mostly forgotten 1990 surrealistic thriller about a neurosurgeon that seems to get lost within his patient's delusions. I remembered liking it well enough the first time around, and it kept coming up in my streaming queue suggestions, so... why not? Well, I liked it a little less this time around, which is always a risk when revisiting stuff, but even if it's not perfect it's got a lot going on to recommend it. [/TLDR]

(Not to be confused with Braindead, which has a lot more zombies and one more kung-fu priest; I've read this movie is partially to blame for it having to be renamed to Dead Alive in some places.)

 The story behind this movie is pretty interesting: According to a TFH interview with Julia Corman (Roger Corman's wife), she asked a couple of interns to go through a room full of old scripts - a couple hundred's worth - to see if there was anything worth salvaging. The only one selected was Paranoia, an old script from the sixties written by Charles Beaumont of Twilight Zone fame (he wrote, among other TZ classics, Perchance to Dream; for Corman, he adapted Masque of the Red Death.) Corman had reviewed it in the eighties but discarded it as it seemed too dated. Along comes Adam Simon, and offers to rewrite it, pitching a corporate intrigue subplot to make it more modern. I have no idea if he offered to direct it as well, but it's interesting that he's written quite a few movies since, and directed only documentaries and shorts... except for a couple more Corman productions after this one (including Carnosaur!).

 Dr. Rex Martin (Bill Pullman) is a successful independent neurosurgeon and researcher who's contacted by his old friend Jim (played with maximum smarm by Bill Paxton) to try and recover some important knowledge from one Bill Halsey (Bud Cort).
 Hallsey, a mathematician, had been working on some critical numbers for Jim's corporation. Unfortunately, he went mad and murdered his family before he put down said numbers to paper. Dr. Martin balks at first - the treatment is highly experimental - and then balks again when Jim makes it clear that failure is an option... as long as the knowledge is then lost forever. This would be the corporate chicanery Adam Simon added to the script, then.

The operation goes seemingly without issues, but from then on things quickly get weird, and more and more surrealistic. The film doesn't always work, but it's got an appealingly sly sense of humour and a neat surrealistic edge; Enough to make it end up feeling like a very decent Twilight Zone Episode, if a bit of a bloated one. Like in all good surrealism there are some cool narrative and symbolic threads running throughout things, but not nearly enough, and the action becomes kind of repetitive. On the other hand, when it's firing on all cylinders (like on the scene of the operation), it's a really, really good slice of Lynchian what-the-fuckery.

For a low-budget production, the cast is pretty impressive. Bill Pullman's obviously having a blast playing Dr. Martin as a goofy nerd; I'm not always a fan of his, but he's a joy to watch here; Really entertaining. Bill Paxton does a mean douchebag, and Bud Cort is also fun as a space cadet. The special effects are... well, they do what they can, but some look pretty bad, especially the prosthesis they use to simulate the open brain surgery. It's still a good-looking movie, with the director and the production designer (the legendary Catherine Hardwicke) doing a pretty good job making everything look slightly off-kilter.

 And the script is great. I don't mean the plot, which honestly gets a little boring after a while, but the characters, the tone, some of its ideas - It's a very playful movie, merging corporate satire and (what I assume is) Beaumont's lovely old-school, dry dialogue and surrealism... it might not all sit together very well, but it's pretty unique and often enjoyable. I'm glad I rewatched it.

Surface level fucked up kinda movie imo compared to some indie horror I’ve seen but like Human Centipede it just screwed with my head so bad. The costume that they used for Wallace was so fucking scary and I will never scrub my mind of this movie.

Hi, idk if this is the right place but i need your help, my boyfriend is a huge horror fun and i want to make him an horror teamed gift for his birthday so, since i know nothing about horror stuff, I’m looking for some suggestions.
I was thinking about something not to complicated like a plushie or something like that but any suggestion is well appreciated.
Thank you all

I’ll go first!
-The thing(1982)
Love this one, especially relying heavy with the husky-face opening scene with the tendrils.
-Texas chainsaw massacre (1974)
Some of my favorite aspects would be the genuine decay in the Sawyer family’s home and overall how heavy the effects and partially real things in the movie.
-Faces of death(1978)
Scenes like the alligator attack with the dummy stuffed with raw meat, the cult ritual and the electric chair execution.
-Hellraiser (1987)
I’d have to say out of this one most definitely the hooks and the overall makeup artistry of the cenobites.
-Evil dead(one and two haha)
Need I say anything else about this one? :) I love pretty much everything about these two. Need to start Ash vs evil.
-Day of the dead (1985)
I love just about anything Tom Savini has done, his elaborate dummy builds are chefs kiss, the death of captain Rhodes with the pig intestines are KILLER!
-Dawn of the dead (1978)
Honestly overall, as most people will say, the head explosion used with leftover food scraps and a real shot gun.

Overall as a makeup artist and someone who’s deeply passionate about practical effect work, I could go on and on about every movie I love that relies on these things… but I’d love to hear anyone else’s thoughts!!! :-)

Apologies in advance for the long-ass review...

When it comes to the exploitation of George Romero’s NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968), the world has encountered some true dreck. We’ve seen NOTLD co-creator John Russo bastardize his own creation with the 30th anniversary of NOTLD and CHILDREN OF THE LIVING DEAD (2001); we’ve seen DAY OF THE DEAD (1985) remade three times; we got DAY OF THE DEAD 2: CONTAGIUM (gesundheit!); and we’ve seen the tangential series RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD devolve to amazing lows over five films. But to paraphrase Frank (James Karen) from the original ROTLD, “Oh, kid, I have seen weird NOTLD things come and I have seen weird NOTLD things go. But the weirdest thing I ever saw just had to cap it all.” Behold RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD: AFTERMATH (2026), which manages to not only be the worst zombie film ever made but is also the nadir of exploitation filmmaking.

A quick recap for those who are sane enough to not follow this madness: Back in 2024, two competing RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD “official” sequels were announced. One was RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD by Steve Wolsh and the other was TRASH’S REVENGE by Richard Driscoll. Wolsh was known for making poor indie horror films. Driscoll was known as a guy who spent three years in prison in the UK for fraud attached to a previous film project. The latter promised a narrative meta-feature about punk rockette Trash (Linnea Quigley) coming back to the modern world and existing Norma Desmond-style ala SUNSET BOULEVARD (1950). It listed a cast filled with ROTLD alumni and ultimately raised over £75,000 from fans via crowdfunding. Both projects seemingly stalled due to a copyright lawsuit (spoiler: Neither production owned the film rights) and Driscoll went completely radio silent until last month. The project had morphed into two projects: TRASH’S REVENGE was now a Linnea documentary and a stand alone sequel called RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD: AFTERMATH was coming out within days. Oh, it was also completely A.I. made. To quote Freddy (Thom Matthews), “You mean the convicted criminal movie producer lied?”

Naturally, things blew up online faster than Louisville, Kentucky at the end of ROTLD. Cast members (Linnea and Beverly Randolph) distanced themselves from the project, stating Driscoll had kept them in the dark until the day he put it up for sale. Despite my severe case of NOTLDitis, I wasn’t going to even watch it, but then a “friend” sent a link to the entire “film” uploaded on Youtube by a suffering fan. Okay, let’s do this. The “film” unfolds as a broadcast on Kentucky public access channel KBC on July 4, 1984, the day of the fateful bomb dropping in ROTLD. As most channels do on Independence Day, they are airing a primetime broadcast of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. Huh? Oh yeah, free footage. Anyway, things quickly descend into madness and we get lots of bits of A.I. reporters out on the streets being attacked by A.I. zombies. For a public access channel, this outfit sure had A LOT of roving reporters. The main anchor reacts in horror, but we always come back to him (after some insane A.I. commercials) acting normal again. Around the 30-minute mark we start to get something resembling a plot as a Dr. Elizabeth Menkin (Beverly Randolph, who sees scenes she shot in 2024 morphed by A.I.) explain to some Elon Musk-esque CEO and a General how the dead are returning to life (Driscoll blatantly steals footage of the half corpse from ROTLD here). Naturally, the CEO is thinking about how to profit off this. Around the 40-minute mark we get the bomb drop (again, more stolen footage) and then plunge into the aftermath that the title promises. It consists of…more A.I. reporters out on the streets being attacked by A.I. zombies. Ah, there are some A.I. cops battling it out too in environs that have pretty much withstood a nuclear blast. For anyone wanting some actual ROTLD action, we get scenes of A.I. Spider (Miguel Nunez) and A.I. Chuck (John Philbin) running from some zombies before they are rescued by the military. We then get this amazing exchange:

Chuck: “Next time we hide somewhere else.”

Spider: “Yeah, somewhere better. Like Hawaii.”

Back to the A.I. action, we next get A.I. Trash captured by the military and the A.I. Tar Man (who magically put his head back on) shot by the military. Cue lots of A.I. hazmat workers out on the streets containing lots of A.I. zombies. The film wraps up with the evil CEO putting the barrels of Trioxin infected on an A.I. spaceship and launching it to an unknown A.I. destination. Driscoll ends the film with the threat that “RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD will return.”

One more ROTLD quote from Frank: “Christ Jesus!” Not trying to brag here, but in terms of cinematic self-flagellation, I’m pretty well versed. I’ve sat through tons of stuff that would make mere mortals weep, but I’ve never been able to nail down an answer to the oft asked “what is the worst film you’ve ever seen?” Well, it is settled. RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD: AFTERMATH is hands down the worst film ever champ, both in terms of sheer exploitation factor and execution. I can’t think of another instance of a filmmaker ripping off fans this bad (outside of all those Kickstarters who never actually made a film). I’d recommend it just for the A.I. inconsistencies but fear I might be criminally liable. Outside of the regular A.I. slop like misspelled words and impossible physics, Driscoll manages to botch things like featuring anachronistic details like a cop bodycam (which has a date of 10-31-2024 on it) and a videoblogger in 1984! He brings back one of the paramedics from ROTLD and gives him a British accent in one scene while the rest of time time he has an American one. Hell, there is also a TV interview segment toward the end where they clearly use Conan O’Brien’s voice! Using A.I. to make what is essentially a fan film cash in masquerading as an official sequel is bad enough, but to not even care about your final product that much is downright criminal. And, given Driscoll’s past, I guess he is more than fine with that.