In the realm of modern film categorizing, there is the genre known as "a thriller", and there is also the genre known as "horror".
How would YOU define the difference?
For example: Is Hitchcock's PSYCHO a "thriller" or a "horror" film? Come to think of it, did Hitch ever make ANY "horror" films, as such?
What about ROSEMARY'S BABY ? THE OMEN?
Full Version: A "thriller" Versus A "horror" Film...
Click to view attachmentGreat question. To me, a thriller is a movie that might involve a mystery or adventure, perhaps with a murder thrown in for good measure. CHARADE, I think, is a great example of a thriller. Another, would be THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH. Possibly, THE EXORCIST?? Not sure, on that one.
Re. Psycho, perhaps because of the gore involved, might that film, exceed a suspense format, and border on horror? There's an intense feeling of impending doom, in PSYCHO. Doom that might involve violence, or torture. The house. Norman. His mother . . . the offbeat location, of the Bates Motel. All signals that something horrible, is going to occur.
The BIRDS, might be a horror film . . . violence depicted against children. The attacks of the Birds, are pounding and relentless.
Not sure if I made any sense. Hope so.
Re. Psycho, perhaps because of the gore involved, might that film, exceed a suspense format, and border on horror? There's an intense feeling of impending doom, in PSYCHO. Doom that might involve violence, or torture. The house. Norman. His mother . . . the offbeat location, of the Bates Motel. All signals that something horrible, is going to occur.
The BIRDS, might be a horror film . . . violence depicted against children. The attacks of the Birds, are pounding and relentless.
Not sure if I made any sense. Hope so.
I largely agree with Armanis' definition. Maybe to elaborate a bit. Horror usually implies the
supernatural, while thriller's dangers are usually attributable to human menace.
I think I prefer really well-made horror flicks to thrillers, because the menace being of the other-worldly
variety seems so much more frightening to me. Unfortunately as we've discussed here before, really
well-made horror movies are rare. The ones that really mainly on gore, with bad writing and even
worse acting are an embarrassment to the genre.
supernatural, while thriller's dangers are usually attributable to human menace.
I think I prefer really well-made horror flicks to thrillers, because the menace being of the other-worldly
variety seems so much more frightening to me. Unfortunately as we've discussed here before, really
well-made horror movies are rare. The ones that really mainly on gore, with bad writing and even
worse acting are an embarrassment to the genre.
Click to view attachmentHi sofia . . . so then, The Omen, Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby . . . are more into the horror, circuit. I think that's probably true. 
To me, a "thriller" is a suspenseful movie, in which the action, which could be keeping you on the edge of your seat, would be brought about by human hands and usually involves some intrigue or plot twist of some sort involving someone's death, being stalked, but not necessarily meant to focus on scaring you- the point is to build and keep up the suspense. I think of films like Jagged Edge, The Fugitive, Fear, Sleeping With The Enemy, A Perfect Murder.
Some films kind of blur this line, like Flatliners. The action is both brought upon by human hands, but there is a bit of the supernatural in there. What Lies Beneath is sort of in this same category. So was The Village.
There are also different types of horror:supernatural/occult horror; slasher films; sci-fi horror; what I would call dorm/youth "pop" horror like "I Know What You Did Last Summer," Film Noir horror, like in Night of the Hunter, all kinds of horror. I think the point of horror is to really appall the audience or shock them and scare them, perhaps disgust them or revolt them with gore or violence, usually combining fear with juxtaposed moral points of view. I think Pyscho is a horror movie. So is The Birds.
Some films kind of blur this line, like Flatliners. The action is both brought upon by human hands, but there is a bit of the supernatural in there. What Lies Beneath is sort of in this same category. So was The Village.
There are also different types of horror:supernatural/occult horror; slasher films; sci-fi horror; what I would call dorm/youth "pop" horror like "I Know What You Did Last Summer," Film Noir horror, like in Night of the Hunter, all kinds of horror. I think the point of horror is to really appall the audience or shock them and scare them, perhaps disgust them or revolt them with gore or violence, usually combining fear with juxtaposed moral points of view. I think Pyscho is a horror movie. So is The Birds.
Great question!
To me THRILLER is a film in which suspense is the main focus and keeping you at the edge of your seat through non-visual stimuli. By that I mean that a thriller's success is largely based on what is NOT shown rather than on what IS shown. Hitchcock really mastered this. It can also include funny incidents and some goofy situations to break the tenseness and give a sense of false security.
The lady vanishes, Rebecca, Marni, Vertigo are all examples of such a technique. Hitch also had a tendency to mix in lots of psychological treatment of his subjects; the cleptomania in Marni, the Oedipus complex in Psycho, the inferiority complex in Rebecca, the bordeline necrophilia in Vertigo. That of course involves quite a bit of sex, which is implied. In a horror movie on the other hand such hints wouldn't be made; if sex were involved it would be rape or a sexual crime or something horrible like that.
Brian de Palma made lots of interesting and intriguing thrillers, with a more moden edge and less "censored" scenes (after all he created those about 20 years after Hitch's classics) at least at his first half of his career: Body Double, Dressed to kill. Highliy watchable all of them.
Charade I would also categorise in this genre. It does have suspense and grace.
HORROR films on the other hand rely on making the viewer feel terror.
Terror is not the same as fear. We feel fear for something that may happen to us, something tangible, something that poses a realistic risk. Imagine if we see a burglar in our homes. This is fear. We fear for our lives, our right to do as we choose with our body.
But if we see a burglar in another person's home from the window across the street and we actually see them kill the neighbour, then we feel terror. It has to do with empathy. So, the more we realise that, the more effective the horror becomes.
Hitchcock in his film with a similar theme never actually shows the murder, he hints at it and we have our doubts; so this is suspense, not terror. De Palma in his similar film Body Double also makes us double-doubt the scene by the 3/4s of the film. We do not feel terror, we feel suspense on what will happen and what the hero will do to unravel the plot. That's the main focus.
On the other hand in Fright night,
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089175/
we do see the vampyres kill the neighbours. We are terrified! They might do the same to us at one point!
The thing about the Exorcist that has made it into an enduring success and a masterpiece of cinematic horror is that it actually manages to convince you that there IS evil and it is out to get us, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but it might and we have witnessed that it spares no one, not even an innocent child.
That's terror.
There are also sub-genres however, like Splatter and Gore. Those rely on disgust and humiliation more than terror/horror.
To me THRILLER is a film in which suspense is the main focus and keeping you at the edge of your seat through non-visual stimuli. By that I mean that a thriller's success is largely based on what is NOT shown rather than on what IS shown. Hitchcock really mastered this. It can also include funny incidents and some goofy situations to break the tenseness and give a sense of false security.
The lady vanishes, Rebecca, Marni, Vertigo are all examples of such a technique. Hitch also had a tendency to mix in lots of psychological treatment of his subjects; the cleptomania in Marni, the Oedipus complex in Psycho, the inferiority complex in Rebecca, the bordeline necrophilia in Vertigo. That of course involves quite a bit of sex, which is implied. In a horror movie on the other hand such hints wouldn't be made; if sex were involved it would be rape or a sexual crime or something horrible like that.
Brian de Palma made lots of interesting and intriguing thrillers, with a more moden edge and less "censored" scenes (after all he created those about 20 years after Hitch's classics) at least at his first half of his career: Body Double, Dressed to kill. Highliy watchable all of them.
Charade I would also categorise in this genre. It does have suspense and grace.
HORROR films on the other hand rely on making the viewer feel terror.
Terror is not the same as fear. We feel fear for something that may happen to us, something tangible, something that poses a realistic risk. Imagine if we see a burglar in our homes. This is fear. We fear for our lives, our right to do as we choose with our body.
But if we see a burglar in another person's home from the window across the street and we actually see them kill the neighbour, then we feel terror. It has to do with empathy. So, the more we realise that, the more effective the horror becomes.
Hitchcock in his film with a similar theme never actually shows the murder, he hints at it and we have our doubts; so this is suspense, not terror. De Palma in his similar film Body Double also makes us double-doubt the scene by the 3/4s of the film. We do not feel terror, we feel suspense on what will happen and what the hero will do to unravel the plot. That's the main focus.
On the other hand in Fright night,
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089175/
we do see the vampyres kill the neighbours. We are terrified! They might do the same to us at one point!
The thing about the Exorcist that has made it into an enduring success and a masterpiece of cinematic horror is that it actually manages to convince you that there IS evil and it is out to get us, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but it might and we have witnessed that it spares no one, not even an innocent child.
That's terror.
There are also sub-genres however, like Splatter and Gore. Those rely on disgust and humiliation more than terror/horror.
What Helg said. Though they're not mutually exclusive categories.
Exactly what helg wrote above. In a thriller you don't see what scares you while in a horror film you are shown it.
and in a Slasher, you are splattered with it!
Thriller - a movie with an element of mystery and suspense. Creepy, a feeling of dread, an element of surprise.
Horror - a movie full of blood n' guts, zombies, monsters eating you, killing by hatchet/chainsaw.
I so much prefer thrillers, I enjoy a little suspense and excitement. Horror movies, not so much, they are kind of boring with all that ketchup, special effects, chicken guts, and shuffling zombies. Oh, look at that, a decapitation. Horrifying? Yes. Thrilling? Not unless you cut people's heads off as a hobby.
Compare, literature-wise, the early Stephen King. Salem's Lot was a thriller that kept me up at night. At the end of his career, Mr. King's work was full of gross-out scenes. Gross, not scary. Having run out of thrills, Mr. King reverted to the playground and substituted icky disgusting things instead of creepiness.
Horror - a movie full of blood n' guts, zombies, monsters eating you, killing by hatchet/chainsaw.
I so much prefer thrillers, I enjoy a little suspense and excitement. Horror movies, not so much, they are kind of boring with all that ketchup, special effects, chicken guts, and shuffling zombies. Oh, look at that, a decapitation. Horrifying? Yes. Thrilling? Not unless you cut people's heads off as a hobby.
Compare, literature-wise, the early Stephen King. Salem's Lot was a thriller that kept me up at night. At the end of his career, Mr. King's work was full of gross-out scenes. Gross, not scary. Having run out of thrills, Mr. King reverted to the playground and substituted icky disgusting things instead of creepiness.
Great responses and ideas here, wow!
Another thing that strikes me, is the different ways they manage their stories. Thrillers, IMO, seem to make the viewer work harder to interpret what might be going on, figuring it out, speculating, and wondering, and keep the viewer's attention, while also demanding that they wonder where the story's going. Horror, on the other hand, leaves less to the imagination, and tends to spell things out, and lead the viewer down a well defined path of its' choosing. Also, horror tends to rely on allegorical/archetypal character and story forms. Thrillers tend to depend on the suspense of 'this could really, truly happen, couldn't it?' while horror always seems to have an element of 'can this be real?.'
Another thing that strikes me, is the different ways they manage their stories. Thrillers, IMO, seem to make the viewer work harder to interpret what might be going on, figuring it out, speculating, and wondering, and keep the viewer's attention, while also demanding that they wonder where the story's going. Horror, on the other hand, leaves less to the imagination, and tends to spell things out, and lead the viewer down a well defined path of its' choosing. Also, horror tends to rely on allegorical/archetypal character and story forms. Thrillers tend to depend on the suspense of 'this could really, truly happen, couldn't it?' while horror always seems to have an element of 'can this be real?.'
and if you want to add "creepy" to the list, a list of titles here
http://www.creepyflix.com/default.php
sillage
http://www.creepyflix.com/default.php
sillage
alien surely the definitive combination of the two lashings of suspense and at the time of release some genuinely horrific scenes the sequels just showed too much of the aliens imo.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.