Highest Rotten Tomatoes Audience Rated Horror Movies
 

RT (rottentomatoes.com) receives an enormous sample of ratings from audiences. Of course it's just a "like" or "don't like", which they call fresh or rotten. It doesn't measure amount of how good, but it does measure mass appeal. And I do find a correlation -- in that the highest rated in a 1-5 stars type of scale most often matches to the highest liked percent on RT.

I looked at the most well known highest rated general horror movies, and listed them by highest percentage of liked by audiences. I tried to be more inclusive on the horror type.

Thought I might see a preference for modern movies, but I didn't. Personally, I liked Evil Dead 2, but don't see why Evil Dead is rated so highly. I get the exuberant love for Shawn of the Dead, Rosemary's Baby, Bride of Frankenstein, The Shining and Dawn of the Dead. To me Night of the Living Dead, Frankenstein 31, Evil Dead 2, Poltergeist, Alien, The Exorcist and Jaws are far superior.

You think the RT Audience Like Percentage is fairly accurate? Any films see way out of place compared to another movie?

94% Se7en 95
93% The Silence of the Lambs 91
91% The Shining 80
91% Shawn of the Dead 04
90% Psycho 60
90% Alien 79
90% Aliens 86
90% Pan's Labyrinth 06
90% The Night of the Hunter 55
89% Let the Right One In 08
88% The Thing 82
88% Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari. (The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari) 20
87% The Devil's Backbone 00
87% Zombieland 09
86% Evil Dead II 87
86% Gojira 54
86% Repulsion 65
86% Eyes Without a Face 60
86% Saw 04
85% Halloween 78
85% Nosferatu 22
85% Night of the Living Dead 68
85% El Orfanato (The Orphanage) 07
85% Dead of Night 45
84% The Innocents 61
84% Dawn of the Dead 78
84% Deep Red (Profondo rosso) 75
83% The Exorcist 73
83% Rosemary's Baby 68
83% Pepping Tom 60
83% Bride of Frankenstein 35
82% Frankenstein 31
82% Invasion of the Body Snatchers 56
82% Suspiria 77
81% Jaws 75
81% The Evil Dead 81
80% The Birds
80% Vampyr - Der Traum des Allan Grey 31
79% King Kong 33
79% Bram Stoker's Dracula 82
79% The Invisible Man 33
79% Ringu 98
78% A Nightmare on Elm Street 84
78% Texas Chainsaw Massacre 74
78% Re-animator 85
78% The Omen 76
78% REC 07
78% Planet Terror 07
77% Dracula 31
77% Don't Look Now 73
76% An American Werewolf in London 81
76% Cabin in the Woods 12
75% The Fly 86
75% The Mummy 99
75% Hellraiser 87
75% The Others 01
74% Poltergeist 82
73% Invasion of the Body Snatchers 78
72% Godzilla king of the Monsters 56
71% The Thing from Another World 51
70% Carrie 76
70% Scream 96
68% The Mummy 32
66% Friday the 13th 80
66% Phantasm 79
64% The Fly 58
64% The Myst 07
61% Scanners 81
50% The Ring 02

The only one I'd bother arguing with you on is Bride of Frankenstein. It's widely regarded as one of the greatest horror films ever, and one of the few instances where the sequel surpasses the original. It's a more subversive film than Frankenstein, the directing is tighter, it features more content from the novel. In addition to Karloff, Frye and Clive, it's got Elsa Lanchester and Ernest Thesigner. It's also my favorite horror film.

Meh, I guess I'll dispute your opinion of Rosemary's Baby too. It's a bonafide masterpiece. It's got more atmosphere and creeping dread than ten other films.

As for the rest of the list- it is what it is. A list of a website's members votes.

I agree about Rosemary's Baby being a masterpiece. My only beef has always been that the final crib scene is underwhelming in that they don't really show the baby. But overall, exceptional, and I'm not surprised at all by the high ranking.

I'm also not surprised by Evil Dead's ranking. 81% seems about right. It's a classic in so many ways, a genre launcher, and being very cult relative to ED2, most of the people who watch it are people who are likely to like it.

I saw Evil Dead 2 first, and saw Evil Dead later on. I didn't think it was even close as good. I don't think it had the heart ED2 did. It wasn't as creative, and it wasn't even in the same ballpark for humor. That's just my opinion. I would have thought I'd like it, since I loved ED2 so much, but what can I say.

I respect you appreciation for Bride. But as far as royal critics crowning certain movies as masterpieces... I've agreed with most, but some are very undeserving. Like some 'classics of literature' that nobody enjoys reading.

I wasn't able to see Bride of Frankenstein as a kid, just one of those I always missed. I saw it for the first time just a few years ago. Oh my... It wasn't a horror movie, it was satire. The original Frankenstein was completely believable and engrossing. Bride had no believability to me. Case in point -- we enter a room where eight inch tall elephants are under a one foot diameter glass cake cover (or whatever you want to call it). It had nothing to do with the main plot. Yanked me out of the movie. And then the Frankenstein monster is a philosopher. It was whimsical. And I hated it. I admit it -- I loved reality, seriousness, and cold gloom of the original Frankenstein, and when Bride was whimsical satire spoofing the original movie, and I wanted to barf. So maybe I partly couldn't get past my expectations.

Rosemary's Baby was OK to me. I'm a patient viewer, and appreciate depth and mood, which one reason I love Alien, but I thought Rose wasn't quite sharp enough, and felt a bit diffuse and mundane for large periods of time. The acting was good, but strangely at the same time I thought the characters were a bit flat, underdeveloped.

When somebody's so far off the mark, it's not even worth discussing.

I'm not exactly sure what I'm looking at in terms of the list.... Is this a selection of horror movies that you (sculpt) pulled together or the most popular horror movies according to RT?

In terms of just taking the list at face value all I can really say is each to their own..... If I had to put that selection of movies in some sort of order it would look very different, if I had to do a top 50 horror movies list, half the movies would be gone.

Seven isn't even a horror movie is it? :confused:

I was curious how the vast number of RT members rated the best known horror movies. That's the Audience Rating, as opposed to their Critics Rating. I wanted to see if the Audience Rating made sense, was pretty close to what I might rate my best movies.

I looked at a bunch of 'best horror movies of all-time' lists, and then went to RT and acquired the Audience percentage, and listed the movies in percentage order. I'm sure I've missed some. Horror movies not generally considered good by general movie standards I didn't seek out (like Halloween 3).

As I mentioned in my original post, I tried to be more inclusive for the horror genre, so people could exclude movies they don't consider horror, rather than have people say, 'why didn't you include such-&-such!!!!'.

It's a good question: are these horror movies? Shawn of the Dead, Pan's Labyrinth, Zombieland, Jaws, The Invisible Man, Alien, Se7en, Silence of the Lambs, etc?

As far as Se7en goes... how can one say Psycho is a horror film, but Se7en isn't? (If you think this, I really would find your reasoning interesting to read.) They both deal with a crazy serial killer. Both are filled with what I would call horror.

And what if a movie is mainly a comedy, but just uses the horror genre as a setting? Are these horror movies? Shawn of the Dead, Zombieland, Evil Dead 2, Young Frankenstein, Dawn of the Dead, etc? I don't consider Young Frankenstein a horror movie, but I do Dawn. But all the rest are scattered between the two poles. I don't know if one can draw a line except by one's subjective opinion. How would you draw the line?

I see I've offended you. I apologize. Maybe I am way off. It's just my opinion. When I was a kid, looking in the television guide that came with our news paper, I always saw Bride had four stars. I've always known it was considered one of the best horror movies of all-time. I was so excited to see it. I'm a lifelong horror movie fan. But when I finally saw it, I didn't like it. I'm totally in the minority, but I was willing to explain why I didn't like it.

You know eventually two people will disagree with their assessment of art. It's a guarantee in life. I hope you don't let that bother you. I agree with you, there's no point in arguing about Bride. I'm not interested in you refuting my assessment. Really, I'd like to appreciate Bride. The more music and movies I can appreciate the better. I'm only interested in what you liked about it. I can watch it again and get a better appreciation of it. Thanks!

I am disturbed to learn that Frankenstein was turned into a philosopher in that film. I will have to take a look at it. That is an act of creative license that will not stand, if true.

Well, of course, its a personal opinion and I don't want to get drawn too far down the rabbit hole because everyone has to draw their own line. That said, the fact that it has horror elements no more qualify it as a horror than Casper, theres a ghost and a haunted mansion, right? Horror elements don't make a horror movie.

Seven follows a very obvious crime drama/ thriller structure and throws in a few elements of horror to disturb the audiance, but for me that isnt enough. Its about the detectives, their drives, their lives their ability to uncover a crime. We are following those guys on a journey as they try to keep pace with a criminal mastermind. That's a crime drama, not a horror movie. Now, if you switch the focus to Spacey and make a movie that follows his motivations, his actions, his crimes (Think Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer) then you are starting to bridge the gap to horror.

It's largely a gut feeling and instinct for me rather than some set of rules I refer to and all the above probably happens in movies I would happily class as horror. But for me, Seven really doesnt 'deal with a crazy serial killer' in the same way Psycho does.

Genres are like those big stretchy garbage bags (and NO!, I am not inferring genres, horror or otherwise, are garbage) into which all sorts of differently shaped objects can fit, creating awkward bulges without tearing.

Well, I have to say, you have a very good reason there. You're right, Se7en is about the detectives, not John Doe. Psycho, was about the women who stole a bank roll, but then was switched to being about Norman Bates the killer. So yea, I could see that as a very reasonable dividing line.

Since you're pretty good at this, what would you say about these movies? Horror or not, and why?

Evil Dead 2
Young Frankenstein
Shawn of the Dead
Pan's Labyrinth

Yes, very true! Like the genre of 'rock'.

I know you're not asking me but I'll give my plugged nickel's worth anyway. I'd say they're either horror or horrorish, with three of them fitting snugly into the subgenre of "gore-horror." Or somethin'.

This pretty much sums up the reality of genres better than I could....

Evil Dead 2: Healthy doses of slapstick comedy where blood and gore replace the custard pies, but still at the heart of it, its a horror movie. The first movie is more serious in tone (Campbell pretty much plays it straight in the first movie or at least is more down the line).

Shawn of the Dead: It's about as much 'horror-comedy' as any film can be. It's a pastiche of the genre but is still rooted in horror, more specifically a zombie apocolypse. The zombies are as real and dangerous as Dawn of the Dead and the situation is just as bleak.

Pan's Labyrinth: Fantasy Drama with a big slice of horror? :confused: I think the tone and atmosphere are what helps it sit inside the horror genre without too many raised eyebrows, but its a fantasy drama first for sure.

All this shit is totally subjective and open to opinion and I wouldnt argue with anyone that disagrees, thats just my take on it.... As for Young Frankenstein? It's one of my favourite comedies but I'll let you decide whether it qualifies as a horror movie;



I only said all that so I had an excuse to post that video...

Well said. I agree completely. Genres are helpful for us to categorize and group things, and for very brief description, but most things don't fall 100% into a single genre or subgenre. However, often there's a need to choose a single category -- for instance, in a video store -- so IMO there's nothing wrong with attempting to categorize things that way.

ED2 and Shaun of the Dead are pure horror if you take away the funny parts. Their stories are told from the prspective of skilled horror storytellers. The plots are horror, the production techniques are horror, and if you're not a fan of horror, you won't like them. Just because they have comedy mixed in doesn't take away the horror.

Pan's Labyrinth is harder to categorize, but I agree, it's rooted in fantasy, and the story is told as a drama. The violent scenes make it appealing to horror fans, and also we know del Toro to be a horror director and producer. A few scenes cross over into a more horror-like perspective, where the girl is exploring and doesn't know "what's around the corner." But if I were putting it on a shelf in the video store, I'd put it in fantasy.

Young Frankenstein does a stellar job of utilizing horror techniques in its parody, but I would root it in comedy. Much like the Scary Movie franchise, but perhaps with more respect to the horror genre. The setting and characters are well aligned with the movies it is lampooning. But, unlike ED2 and Shaun, I think if you take away the comedy, you don't have a movie.

All of those are horror movies, IMO, because they all contain both horror and the supernatural. A film can be horrifying without being a horror (e.g., Schindler's List) and supernatural without being a horror (e.g., Close Encounters of the Third Kind). But horror mixed with supernatural means you get a horror.

Well said. I would describe the movies pretty much they way you guys do. Good example for where you'd put it in a video store; which is the question I'm asking, but I would put Pan's Labyrinth in Fantasy and Young Frankenstein in Comedy.

But I would put Shawn of the Dead in Comedy, and Evil Dead 2 in Horror. My reason would be, I think ED2 was intended as a Horror movie, and Shawn was intended as a comedy, and I think it really comes across in the movie. I think more horror fans would like ED2 than comedy fans. And although some comedy fans may not like Shawn, I personally know a few non-horror fans who really liked Shawn, and they're comedy fans. There's a mainstream element in Shawn that's often absent from horror movies. Such as mainstream comedy actors, and the underlying bedrock sensibility is comedy, where one feels safe and in that way one never believes it's real. As an example, killing the first zombie: I think the establishment of the comedy is made so the audience is OK with laughing at the killing. Where that isn't the case in Dawn of the Dead and ED2. Oddly, in the last point I bring up about Shawn, I think that's absent in The Return of the Living Dead, which I would put on the horror shelf; although that would seem inconsistent to most.

Pan's Labyrinth, I would have to talk some horror fans into seeing it. "It's not like Disney's Labyrinth with Daivd Bowie. It's the director who did Mimic, accept it's way better!" LOL Pan is like a Grimm's tale. It's certainly dark with horror sensibilities.

I thought about that too -- the element of the supernatural. If we're not trying to define horror, but rather what 'video store category shelf' to place a movie, so to speak, then the element of horror and supernatural comes into play.

As a kid, it's the horror element that made me interested in seeing Young Frankenstein. Funny about defining 'supernatural'... is Frankenstein 1933 supernatural, or is it science fiction? I'd say it's technically science fiction, but the producers/distributors certainly billed as horror at the time of the film's release. The "Frankenstein monster" solidified it as horror over time. Just like many people commonly call the monster "Frankenstein", instead of the Doctor.

The film defines bringing a dead body back to life as science, without supernatural means, so to speak. But some would argue all things, such as zombies, ghosts, demons, angels, miracles, space aliens, etc, are all natural things that aren't currently well understood. It's a very fuzzy line between sci-fi and supernatural.

To sum it up, like you say (MM), Young Frankenstein has the elements of horror and supernatural, where Schindler's List and Close Encounters only has one or the other. That's a very logical approach. Not many would cite you for placing Young Frankenstein on the Horror shelf, except for the Mel Brooks fans. :)

I agree with most of what people have said in this thread. I actually remember learning about this in my Intro to Philosophy course. Horror movies are really an open-concept (A thing that has certain characteristics, except when it doesn't). Many people, on the other hand, try to treat it as a closed-concept (thing with a clear definition, such as a triangle). Personally, I group the War of the Worlds (1953), The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), Evil Dead II (1987), Jaws (1975), Godzilla (1954), Them! (1954), Shaun of the Dead (2004), Pan's Labyrinth (2006), Seven (1998), and Dawn of the Dead (1978) as a horror (with Pan's Labyrinth, Seven, Dawn of the Dead, Jaws, and Evil Dead II being clearly horror). With the understanding that horror is not really a clearly defined genre. As stated, genre grouping is often artificial with some films not fitting into a certain category or sometimes fitting into multiple simutaneoulsy. I think we generally understand what is a horror movie and what isn't. Casper simply is not a horror movie. Young Frankenstein, I don't consider horror, but understand the argument. Additionally, sometimes "scary movie" is used interchangeably with horror movie, but this is not always the case. Jaws or Psycho, for instance, are not particularly scary (unless you are in a motel or in the ocean), but are definitely horror. Thus, a horror movie is scary unless it's not. Ultimately, horror movies cannot be easily categorized or grouped because they are not a closed-concept.

I agree with you, it's not really that easy to define what a horror movie is.

For example, to me, just because a movie is gory does not mean it's horror. A crime story with a lot of blood is still a crime story, and that's really what I think most of today's so-called horror movies are.

But, if you ask someone else, they'll have a totally different opinion about that, and in fact I have been in many debates with people who claimed that their (in my eyes) crime movies were much more horrifying than my silly supernatural fairytales.

It doesn't really bother me much what other people consider to be horror... although when I talk to slightly younger people (I'm 35), I can tell that their idea of a horror movie is often very far from my own, and I know that the future horror releases will be aimed at them and not me...