So many choices, so little time…
Well, I don’t even think Alien is a horror movie, actually, but some of the choices were included because I thought people would want to vote for them.
I’m curious why you don’t like the 70s and 80s horror movies you’ve seen. Why do you like the more modern horror movies better? I can think of some possible differences, but I wonder what your reasons are.
I don’t like horror movies, waiting to be grossed out again is not a fun way for me to spend 2 hours. However, The Amityville Horror isn’t like that, and it’s a great movie to boot. As is Alien.
Is The Wicker Man a horror?
Why do you think The Wicker Man isn’t a horror movie? Maybe I should start a “what makes a movie a ‘horror movie’?” thread. It’s an interesting question.
I strongly advise you read Stephen King’s Danse Macabre. He discusses the various levels on which horror fiction/film works, ranging from suspense to grossout. There are many “thrillers” in which the story is based on danger and violence, but all the actual violence takes place offscreen. E.g., Link (the violence is offscreen probably because the killer is an ape, and they used an actual ape in filming, and you can’t train an ape to pretend to rip somebody’s arms off).
They seemed to come in two flavors: 1. slow, and building up to nothing much ever happening 2. cheesy and possibly bloody.
Many movies from both the 60s and the present seem to do better with creating atmosphere, pace, and at least discomforting tension if not outright scares.
Honestly, much of the time, budget and star power. Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins are in Silence of the Lambs? Okay, it’s a thriller.
I’d totally forgotten Alien was from 1979. It’s held up well.
Heh, the Puppetmaster was nice, but it’s the sequels that REALLY gave it it’s flavor.
Interesting that you mention Silence of the Lambs, because I had been thinking about how to classify that one. Personally, I would put it in horror, based on my initial impressions when I first saw it at the theater on opening night. But I realize others don’t find that film so horrifying. I suppose budget and starpower often have something to do with genre assignment, but I was thinking about the American versions of The Ring and The Grudge as examples of more recent movies that I would classify as horror, which do have recognizable stars and Hollywood-sized budgets. But I suppose those movies are exceptions to the (low-budget) rule.
I would put Silence of the Lambs in the horror or horror/thriller category. It’s got a very real Grand Guignol quality to it (and the crappy sequel even more so).
My general guiding rule for horror movies, however, is much like porn. I know it when I see it.
Appropriately enough, the erotica/porn and thriller/horror divide are also often based on bodily fluids, or lack thereof.
Have you seen The Exorcist?
Now that is pure entertainment…not pleasant, but your mind isn’t going to wander, either.
You’re missing Stewart’s point which is that it’s impossible to define parameters for something as tenuous as a label. There’s no blood in The Haunting but both the book and movie are solidly in the horror genre. Have you ever seen Halloween? There’s more blood in most action movies than you’ll find in Halloween. It’s intellectually stifling to categorize anything with a given set of check boxes (even if you are just discussing horror movies).
IMHO it is although obviously other people are going to disagree. It’s got the atmosphere, the growing sense of tension, mystery and desolation and one hell of an ending. All of these qualities, while not necesarily defining what is and what isn’t a horror movie, are usually necesary to make a film scary.
I missed the edit window but wanted to apologize to Cat Fight. I re-read my reply and it came off as ridiculously snippy. That wasn’t my intention, I’m sorry.
I don’t think it would be possible to make a checklist that would allow you to definitively classify a movie as horror versus thriller, but I think it would be possible to come up with a list of features that appear in the horror genre. I suggest that some examples would be
-occult elements (demons, ghosts, possession)
-evil, death and/or isolation as primary themes
-film evokes feelings of fear or revulsion, or both
-film is not primarily comedic, but may include some comedic elements
-death occurs or is alluded to in the film, possibly violent and/or multiple deaths
-gory or bloody scenes
-villain(s) may be portrayed as psychopathic/sociopathic, mentally ill, or sadistic
-in the slasher subgenre, killer(s) wielding knives or other cutting objects
There’s a token Fulci film. It’s nearly the same 
Okay, here’s (part) of my opinion:
I like a horror movie for the fear potential. I don’t really need to see the guy get bisected by the business end of the omigoditsakinfelookout thing*, but the possibility that the hero might get fricasseed. (I’m not doing spoiler boxes – these movies are 20+ years old, people) The first *Halloween *had this. When Annie’s boyfriend went to get beers, we never actually saw him get impaled to the door. We saw:
Boy closes pantry door.
Michael Myers is behind door and grabs boyfriend by the throat.
Boyfriend goes up in air against door.
Camera shows shoes going off floor.
Close up of Myers’ hand and knife drawing back, then going forward.
Knife comes out back of door.
We never actually saw him getting stabbed.
In Alien, there’s the scene where Yaphet Kotto and Veronica Cartwright are gathering materials for the escape pod when the creature sneaks up on them. While I don’t remember seeing Yaphet getting killed, soon it is just Veronica and the Beastie. While it towers over her and she is gasping (turn on), the Beastie is sneaking the evil killer tail toward her backside. Camera cuts to Sigourney Weaver POV running down the hall as Veronica screams, the last part of her scream is cut off mid-breath. No blood is shown, but we all know what happened. (For the record, I am not a film student.)
There are many more examples like this. When I was a kid, my mother and I would disagree upon which to see: The slasher flick or the more cerebral “scary” ones. You would be surprised more often than not to see who picked which type.
I agree with this but there are quite a few thrillers that do this effectively, as well.
L.B Jeffries waiting for Thorwald at the end of Rear Window.
Roger Thornhill and the sudden appearance of the crop duster in North by Northwest.
Johnnie Asgarth bringing Lina a glass of milk in Suspicion.
Then again, maybe Hitchcock was the only person who could transcend genres.
Hitchcock, sure. But you can’t argue with the classics.
There’s others:
Kubrick. In The Shining, there’s no blood (well, other than the twins and the elevators, but that’s not in real time, right?) in the movie until Scatman buys it. I think Kubrick does the whole “building the tension” thing pretty well, but once he breaks the seal there is nothing but mayhem after that, but almost purely psychological mayhem.
For some reason, I’m making a *Poltergeist */ *Deliverance *connection. They both show how quickly something starts off being just a fun time turns into a “man vs. elements” very bad day. Some may not consider these specifically horror, but both these movies certainly take a different direction than the view usually intends. I was going to mention Duel, but I don’t want to start a Spielberg love-fest.
Sure, I can do a bloodbath. If I’m expecting it, so be it. I understand that sometimes a movie can depend upon blowing away 40 or 50 people will be crucial to the plot. :dubious:, but I prefer 1/ that horror sneak up on me, 2/ I know the horror is coming but I like a good buildup, or 3/ if you’ve got to use blood, make it believable and make it messy.
YOU LEFT OUT JAWS. Hoe can this poll be OK with that mistake.