What makes a better horror movie: murderer or monster?

Tools    





Watched Saw again and I thought of making this. I'm hoping to learn some things about the horror genre this way.

Note: I'd rather not have a poll this time since the main focus is comments and comparisons.



Victim of The Night
Usually if the villain is completely human it's not really a horror movie for me, it's a slasher or a thriller.
But I am the Horror Police.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
I like the more human villains, even if it's technically a monster, like Frankenstein or The Fly, etc.



Definitely depends. If I run through the films that scared me the most, it's definitely a mix...but most of them involve monsters. Specifically, monsters that are quasi-rational. There's something about a force or a monster that's smart enough to do basic problem-solving, but not smart enough to be reasoned with, that is deeply terrifying.



Definitely murderer, as it's more real. The more real something is, the more scary it is. Monsters aren't real. That's why some war films are also some of the best horror films.



Usually if the villain is completely human it's not really a horror movie for me, it's a slasher or a thriller.
But I am the Horror Police.
Can someone explain to me (no animosity/confrontational tone intended, that’s just my lovely manner), where this comes from? I’ve heard it so many times and, despite being a lifelong horror fan, have never understood why that’s the case. Surely the purpose of a thriller is to ‘thrill’, i.e. generate suspense, whereas a horror film is meant to leave you disturbed/uneasy?

P.S. because if that’s the case, why on Earth is there a separate ‘supernatural horror’ genre?

https://www.cornettfiction.com/supernatural-horror-genre-explained/

Here we go: “horror (pronounced hawr-er) is a genre of fiction whose purpose is to create feelings of fear, dread, repulsion, and terror in the audience—in other words, it develops an atmosphere of horror. The term’s definition emphasizes the reaction caused by horror, stemming from the Old French orror, meaning “to shudder or to bristle.”

https://literaryterms.net/horror/

Don’t see why cinema should be any different.



I think it's an almost irrelevant distinction. The best horror films, at least most of the time, revolve around some force that we are unable to comprehend. And this can just as easily be a monster as a man. The monomania of Michael Myers, or the incomprehensible family dynamics in Texas Chainsaw, are as equally bewildering as some unknowable beast or malevolent spirit.



When a horror film finds ways to short circuit our rational mind, the result of this is that it makes us extremely vulnerable. And vulnerability is the bullseye most good horror should aim for, by whatever means they choose.



I think it's an almost irrelevant distinction. The best horror films, at least most of the time, revolve around some force that we are unable to comprehend. And this can just as easily be a monster as a man. The monomania of Michael Myers, or the incomprehensible family dynamics in Texas Chainsaw, are as equally bewildering as some unknowable beast or malevolent spirit.



When a horror film finds ways to short circuit our rational mind, the result of this is that it makes us extremely vulnerable. And vulnerability is the bullseye most good horror should aim for, by whatever means they choose.
Agreed.



Usually if the villain is completely human it's not really a horror movie for me, it's a slasher or a thriller.
But I am the Horror Police.
It's all semantics, so it makes no big difference to me, but I've always seen "slashers" as a subgenre within horror.

Thrillers are a different beast (ha! beast) because I feel the execution is a bit different. The focus is more in the feelings it elicits in the characters, and hence the audience (thrill, tension, dread, etc.) whereas horror seems to be more focused in the nature of the "horrific" events and a certain impending doom. I can see why and how there can be a lot of overlap between those two, but to me, it's the kind of thing that "when I see it, I know". I think most horrors would qualify as thrillers, but not all thrillers would qualify as horror.

For the sake of discussion, some examples of films I consider thrillers (and not horror) are Uncut Gems, Night of the Hunter, Mulholland Drive, Vertigo, Silence of the Lambs, Blood Simple, No Country for Old Men, etc. Some of those lean more towards horror (Silence?), others lean more towards drama (Vertigo?), but they're not "fully there" for me.
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!



It's all semantics, so it makes no big difference to me, but I've always seen "slashers" as a subgenre within horror.

Thrillers are a different beast (ha! beast) because I feel the execution is a bit different. The focus is more in the feelings it elicits in the characters, and hence the audience (thrill, tension, dread, etc.) whereas horror seems to be more focused in the nature of the "horrific" events and a certain impending doom.
I would agree. If anything, horror is distinguished by a ‘bad’/tragic ending.



I would agree. If anything, horror is distinguished by a ‘bad’/tragic ending.
Yeah, and I think that even in those that seem to have a "happy" ending, there's always that sense of uneasiness and not being able to escape that doom. Just look at the ending of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. The girl escaped, but at what cost? Her face is not one of happiness, but rather of a crazed feeling of "I somehow got away", but that danger is still there. Same with Halloween, The Exorcist, Alien, The Omen, The Witch, The Descent, just to name a few...



Yeah, and I think that even in those that seem to have a "happy" ending, there's always that sense of uneasiness and not being able to escape that doom. Just look at the ending of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. The girl escaped, but at what cost? Her face is not one of happiness, but rather of a crazed feeling of "I somehow got away", but that danger is still there. Same with Halloween, The Exorcist, Alien, The Omen, The Witch, The Descent, just to name a few...
Again, agree. The above are also ‘mild’ examples - in Cargo 200, which I rewatched recently and which is generally quite disturbing,
WARNING: spoilers below
the girl ‘survives’ at the end, but being chained up in a flat full of dead bodies, her future is uncertain (or, rather, I’d say she’s fairly certain to die). If this were the US, you’d think someone would come in to check on a high-powered cop who had t been to worn for days, but not in Soviet Russia. Also we see how he lives, total squalor. No one cares. So she’s free from captivity, technically, but not actually ‘free’. And I think one of the most interesting aspect of that film is why the woman who killed her kidnapper didn’t let her go.
@Alexandrmirokov, any thoughts on that?



Some of those lean more towards horror (Silence?), others lean more towards drama (Vertigo?), but they're not "fully there" for me.
I don’t suppose the Scorsese Silence? Or do you mean the 2019 film with Kiernan Shipka?



Definitely murderer, as it's more real. The more real something is, the more scary it is. Monsters aren't real. That's why some war films are also some of the best horror films.
Interesting; how far does this extend? Are things like disease or car accidents "scarier" as well because they're more plausible than murderers, or does it taper off at some point?



Interesting; how far does this extend? Are things like disease or car accidents "scarier" as well because they're more plausible than murderers, or does it taper off at some point?
Yeah, I think that’s a good point. I avoided Breaking Bad for years because cancer does scare me very much - more than anything, probably. So the reaction is off the scale.



I imagine that kind of "scary" is quite different from the kind of scariness you might feel when a guy with a machete is bearing down on someone or a waterlogged ghost is crawling out of a TV screen. "Scarier" is a broad term that encompasses--but is not limited to--terror, which is how I think most people would take this question, in the context of film.



I don’t suppose the Scorsese Silence? Or do you mean the 2019 film with Kiernan Shipka?
I was referring to Silence of the Lambs, which I mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Got lazy in the end there



Again, agree. The above are also ‘mild’ examples - in Cargo 200, which I rewatched recently and which is generally quite disturbing,
WARNING: spoilers below
the girl ‘survives’ at the end, but being chained up in a flat full of dead bodies, her future is uncertain (or, rather, I’d say she’s fairly certain to die). If this were the US, you’d think someone would come in to check on a high-powered cop who had t been to worn for days, but not in Soviet Russia. Also we see how he lives, total squalor. No one cares. So she’s free from captivity, technically, but not actually ‘free’. And I think one of the most interesting aspect of that film is why the woman who killed her kidnapper didn’t let her go.
@Alexandrmirokov, any thoughts on that?
Didn't read the spoiler cause I haven't seen that film, but yeah. I went with some of the most popular horror examples of the last 30-40 years, but it's definitely something that extends to many others in the genre, sometimes to far more bleaker extremes.



A system of cells interlinked
I imagine that kind of "scary" is quite different from the kind of scariness you might feel when a guy with a machete is bearing down on someone or a waterlogged ghost is crawling out of a TV screen. "Scarier" is a broad term that encompasses--but is not limited to--terror, which is how I think most people would take this question, in the context of film.
Someday, a horror discussion that includes Yoda won't have this scene get mentioned, but not this day!
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



Victim of The Night
Definitely murderer, as it's more real. The more real something is, the more scary it is. Monsters aren't real. That's why some war films are also some of the best horror films.
Ya know, I feel the opposite.
Even though I don't believe in the supernatural at all, because I am a 200lb. man, I don't feel nearly as threatened by some killer. If you put some dude in my apartment, I have a chance, who knows, maybe a good chance that I come out on top. But you put a witch in my apartment (even though I don't believe in witches)... god knows what's gonna happen to me. I mean, I got something against some guy with a knife or even an axe or something, but against a witch? I got nothin'.
I think this is actually why slasher movies are so famous for the characters making impossibly stupid decisions. Because if the villain is human, then they should actually have a pretty decent chance of survival. In fact, if they're a group and the villain is just one, then they actually should survive with minimal losses, if we're going with "real" as you said in your post. It is necessary that they be stupid AF for there to actually be danger. This is why you never read stories of mass killings with an axe.
I used to have, way back in the RT days, Wooley's Rules For Surviving A Slasher. And they were pretty obvious. I don't remember them all but some again obvious highlights were:

Run. And not like an idiot.
Run in a straight line as fast and far as you can without stopping.
Don't trip over things.
If you have found dead bodies already, don't investigate strange noises alone and unarmed.
Never choose the flashlight over the shotgun.
Don't drop the shotgun/shovel/whatever just because the killer appears to be down.
If the killer is down finish him.

There were many more, but all of these will save you from any human so you can't do any of them in a horror movie or you will have no movie.
Furthermore, all the other tropes that make the genre a punchline most of the time are actually necessary for the killer to actually succeed in these films. Like the phone never working. The car doesn't start. The killer is super-human when necessary for the story, at times being preternaturally strong or preternaturally resistant to injury and pain or has the apparent ability to teleport or the very unique ability to slashers and serial killers of being able to hide several bodies convincingly in the space of minutes. Or the movie will simply change its own rules to allow the killer to be successful or more threatening when this would not be possible by the rules that govern reality.

And I think it is because the rules of reality are out the window in a supernatural horror film that they are more frightening.
It would suck to be the kids who got caught in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre but, to me, that is a rare film. But if movies are fantasy so that Leatherface and Cannibal Family can be a thing, I like my chances escaping them a lot more than I do escaping a ghost or a witch or, god forbid, the ghost of a witch... or some other spooky thing.