Give or take a few elements, there’s a fairly basic formula a movie must follow for audiences to embrace it. The plot needs to be captivating, the characters–even if not likable–have to be intriguing and relatable in some way, the acting should be believable and authentic to the film’s storyline, and the cinematography must be coherent. Even if a filmmaker tinkers with these aspects in unique ways, these components will be apparent in the production in some form.

Horror is a genre that is afforded much leniency in following this formula. Scary movies often sacrifice traditional methods of strong filmmaking, instead prioritizing recipes for terror. Scary movies often don’t have realistic plots and the characters lack the common sense that breeds relatability between them and the viewer. But they will do one thing that no other genre does–they get in our heads, and they freak us out.

Many horror film directors have one goal in mind: to scare their viewers. They don’t often embark on a journey to craft an amazing film. They typically start with a small budget and project the nightmares in their head to television screens across the world. Horror filmmakers don’t share the same aspirations as their peers who work in different artistic styles. And, because of that, the horror genre is held to a different standard. Take the Halloween franchise. Viewers and critics alike tend to enjoy these movies. But in watching them, we’ve all caught ourselves asking: why would that character search for the weird noise in their house instead of just leaving and calling the police? We’ve all had the same thought: I would never die in these movies because I simply would never stay in that situation. And we’ve all probably asked the same question: why doesn’t Michael Myers ever die? The franchise doesn’t make that much sense, but what would the Halloween season be without a Halloween movie marathon? Halloween is loved by audiences because it satisfies its main goal–it plays on a common fear, and it does a great job of doing so. We don’t have the lasting taste in our mouths that there are several plot holes and the acting wasn’t phenomenal. When we think of Halloween, we think “that was a pretty good scary movie.”

But then, if we look at another low-budget slasher, Friday the 13th (1980), we’ll find that many viewers denounced this movie. On paper, it’s the same concept: a psycho killer dedicated to satisfying his bloodlust. But where this movie went wrong was its determination to cover the camera in comically bad fake blood. The movie abandoned any potential realism in exchange for egregious gore and over-the-top killing, resulting in a film that abused horror elements to the point of exhaustion. Viewers were no longer scared and instead were repulsed by the overuse of slashing.

So, where exactly is the line drawn?

There seems to be a delicate line in what’s acceptable in horror movies. Viewers are willing to put up with bad acting in exchange for fun scares. And, of course, there are genuinely amazing scary movies that hit every mark: a cohesive story, a top notch cast, and stunning visuals. But what exactly do audiences look for in horror? Why are some movies critically acclaimed despite lacking conventional filmmaking strategies? What makes a horror movie land with audiences?

It has everything to do with expectation. Because the genre is oversaturated with bad movies, the bar is already fairly low. Audiences don’t expect every horror movie to live up to Hitchcock standards. They just want to be scared and enjoy how movie will establish this.

Different subgenres of horror have different sets of expectations, with some subgenres landing better than others. But what in these different subgenres works and what doesn’t?

Gore

Gore, also known as the splatter genre, is typically an acquired taste, making it the least likely to be widely enjoyed by audiences. But it certainly sets itself apart from other subgenres of horror because of its shock factor. Gore films tend to shy away from a strong plot, with much of their stories lacking in noticeable ways. But many viewers who do watch gory movies do so because of its gut-wrenching visuals. These movies follow an uncommon set of criteria to reach their audiences. They don’t have to be good. They have to be unwatchable.

What Makes Gore Land?

When people want to watch gore, they want the grossest, sickest, most stomach-churning experience imaginable. There aren’t really “Best Gore Movie” lists. Instead, you’ll likely find “Gore Movies that Will Guarantee You’ll Throw Up” lists. But even with gore, circumstances still have to feel realistic. Aside from the obvious gruesome nature of gory films, much of its scare factor relies on the notion that this could, given the movie’s circumstances, happen to anyone.

Arguably one of the most popular gore movies of all time, Sam Raimi’s The Evil Dead (1980) establishes a strong foundation of a great splatter film. A review by James Berardinelli of ReelViews describes the appeal of this movie, “The extreme nature of the gore isn’t beside the point – it is the point. Raimi goes so far over the top in presenting these displays that they take on a campy, almost humorous appearance. It’s impossible to take all this blood seriously. So, instead of being sickened, we’re strangely amused – and this is all intentional.” Berardinelli’s take sums up the allure of any gore movie. If you’re watching a splatter flick, chances are the acting is going to be laughable. The cinematography will not be anything to write home about. The characters are going to be so stupid, you’ll wonder how they made it that far in life. But none of that is why you watch a gore movie. You watch it because you want to be grossed out. And directors don’t make these movies so you’ll be moved by the plot or seek refuge in the relatability of the characters. They make these movies because they want you to be grossed out.

What Makes Gore Flop?

Sometimes, gore is too gross. Even with its innate graphic nature, there still needs to be a pinch of tastefulness in these movies. The Human Centipede is one movie that even the most adamant gore watchers despise, simply because the premise is entirely too offputting. It has no redeeming qualities, and it just makes you feel dirty for watching it. As with any other horror movie, when the main component of fear is overdone, every other aspect of the movie that was poorly executed becomes blaringly apparent. Variety Magazine notes of the movie, “‘going there’ does not a movie make.” And that’s the best way to describe why this gorefest does not work. “Icky” does not equate to good gore.

Slashers

Slasher movies do rely a good bit on gory attributes. But what separates a slasher from a splatter is its emphasis on the movie’s characters and the plot. Slashers will always have an element of realism, as that’s what the subgenre’s scare factor is rooted in.

What Makes Slashers Land?

The slasher is one of the more common subgenres of horror. Because of this, if a slasher movie expects to captivate audiences, it needs to do something other slashers don’t do, even if that means having good actors (because let’s be real, most slasher movie actors are comically corny in their roles).

Scream (1996) is a movie that does something most horror movies don’t do: it mocks horror. Much of Scream’s success is rooted in its satirical commentary of scary movies, even poking fun at itself. But it also features an all-star cast, with each actor doing a remarkable job in his or her respective role. It’s well paced, even including a mystery aspect. Director Wes Craven did an extraordinary job of paying attention to each aspect of his film, tying it all up with a unique analysis of horror. The film is so impressive, it’s often credited for “bringing back the slasher,” even though slashers were still being created at the time of its release. Its reimagination of the slasher granted it enormous success by differentiating from the norms of the subgenre.

What Makes Slashers Flop?

Slashers typically set out to do one thing: follow the deaths committed by a psycho killer. So, they’re often pretty hit or miss. If the killing is overdone, it’ll likely be a miss. But due to the slasher’s tendency to follow characters and how the murders affect them, convincing acting is a must. The acting doesn’t need to be great, but it does need to offer some sort of character arc. When reading reviews of slasher movies, you’ll find one of the top complaints to be about the acting. You’ll also find another top complaint to be about the killing–whether it’s entirely overdone or not done enough. The 2008 remake of Prom Night directed by Nelson McCormick perfectly demonstrates what audiences don’t want from a slasher film. Critics resent the poor acting, despite having noteworthy actors Brittany Snow and Idris Elba as leading roles, and they detest the censorship of the PG-13-rated killings. The film failed in delivering the one thing slashers are guaranteed to offer–good scares and bloodbaths–without so much as offering a strong character arc in a last-ditch attempt at salvation. It’s a great example to other filmmakers on what to avoid when making a slasher.

Supernatural

Supernatural movies are probably some of the scariest horror movies when done well. Even though their credibility can be disproven on a scientific level, many people believe in the supernatural. And because the supernatural exists outside the corporeal realm, the possibilities of what can ensue are endless since they no longer need to fit in the boundaries of physical expectations. The scares in these films are easy to achieve but hard to predict. Suspense is intrinsic to the atmospheres shown: if a character is in a dark room in a haunted house, there’s a 50/50 chance some ghostly other will walk behind them, and viewers love watching the game of “What Will or Won’t Happen.” The supernatural subgenre plays on one of mankind’s biggest collective fears: the fear of what’s unknown.

What Makes Supernatural Movies Land?

Setting is one of the most important features of a supernatural horror movie. Atmosphere plays a major role in establishing suspense. More than any other subgenre, supernatural is one where audiences are particularly aware that the characters are subject to their environment–anything can happen to them. If a movie of this classification hopes to reach audiences, it needs to incorporate an air of spookiness and volatility.

Both James Wan’s The Conjuring (2013) and Ari Aster’s Hereditary (2018) are movies with strikingly unsettling environments that are intensified by dim cinematography. The films fill viewers with looming dread for the majority of their run times. Critics commonly praise both movies for their atmospheres; while the jump scares in them are heart stopping, the suspense and possibility of what could happen are enough to conceive pure terror in the minds of viewers. It caters to the main expectation of audiences wanting to enjoy a supernatural horror movie: creepy ambience.

What Makes Supernatural Movies Flop?

Any unearthly concept is usually enough to freak out audiences, given its foundation is strong enough. Sometimes, some ideas just aren’t that scary–whether that stems from lack of imagination or the absence of a fully fleshed out plot. Many of the supernatural films that flop tend to do so because we’re accustomed to much worse. If a movie of this genre ignores the storyline, it won’t make sense to audiences, and, thus, loses all its scare factor. Or, if audiences have seen the same concept in a different, scarier production, the film is less likely to create a lasting impression. Corin Hardy’s The Nun (2018), a prequel to The Conjuring, is one example of this. The Conjuring was released first and set the bar high for viewers. Its prequel disappoints because it relies solely on visuals and less on actual scares and suspense. And after watching its successor, the visuals in The Nun pale in comparison. Not to mention, the plot of The Conjuring was far more developed. The Nun feels like a lost little brother trying to find his way in the larger footsteps of his older brother. It lacks a dreadful environment, the storyline is muddy, and there is no apparent investment in the characters. It just doesn’t scratch the itch viewers want it to.

Psychological

Psychological horror preys on the unshakeable, ingrained fear that maybe we don’t have as much control over our minds as we think we do. This subgenre focuses heavily on the nuances of human nature. Characters will often be increasingly unreliable or unstable, and the film tends to follow their descent into madness, paranoia, or despair.

What Makes Psychological Movies Land?

Psychological horror is a tricky subgenre because it has a lot to achieve. Much of the plot will often be found in symbols throughout the film, rather than being delivered in more explicit ways. The audience must pay attention to the director’s subtle hints and clues. And because many psychological horror movies are a commentary on some specific aspect of society and human nature, viewers are confronted with the task of deconstructing the pieces the filmmaker gives them. Look at Jennifer Kent’s The Babadook (2014). The movie is strong on its own, but it’s not as impactful until you realize the Babadook represents protagonist Amelia’s depression. The movie follows Amelia’s and her son Sam’s deterioration, but the subtle details are what make their slow decline more apparent. But The Babadook works because it’s still digestible to audiences. It’s a satisfying ending, and viewers feel a sense of achievement for making sense of it all. A psychological horror will land if audiences feel rewarded by both the experience of the movie and the mental math, they solved to understand it.

What Makes Psychological Movies Flop?

Because psychological horror requires a certain amount of assembly, a film in this subgenre will likely fail if the instructions to put the pieces together are unclear. It’s not uncommon for filmmakers to become too ambitious, resulting in a movie that’s all but incomprehensible. A film that falls victim to this is Charlie Kaufman’s I’m Thinking of Ending Things (2020). Viewers are left with the feeling they just watched a cinematographic feat, if only they can figure out what exactly the movie meant. The pieces are laid out in front of us, but we have no discernable way to put them together. The acting was impressive, and the cinematography was stunning. But there’s absolutely no apparent meaning to the movie without hours of analysis. Many walked away from this movie frustrated and annoyed, demonstrating the biggest risk of psychological horror: sometimes, it’s just too arduous of a task to watch.

So, What Makes a Horror Movie Land?

Take a second and think about your favorite scary movie. What made it work so well for you?

It’s likely the expectation you had for the film. When we watch any movie, whether we realize it or not, we enter with a set of wants. We want the film to deliver certain things. Our wants have been crafted by the movies we’ve seen in the past of the same genre, and our feelings on movies depend entirely on if those desires are satisfied.

No one can conjure up a definitive list of what will make a horror movie successful because the genre is too broad. What will work for a slasher won’t necessarily work for a splatter. That’s because subgenres generate an array of different wants and expectations. What any horror movie can do to land with audiences is embrace its subgenre and offer viewers distinctive components they haven’t before seen. But above all, a horror movie needs to be scary in its own regard, without so obviously bypassing traditional filmmaking formulas.