RUBBISH

Interesting discussion. Despite what a couple of other rude posters have written, I think you have some valid points, especially the idea of trying to formulate some rules for making categorizations. I also think John-367 makes some sensible points, and my own opinion lies perhaps closer to his, particularly in the idea that a movie can fall under more than one genre, and that there are degrees of validity of putting any movie into a specific category. My own piece of this is that I think the "tone" of the movie and the "intent" of the moviemakers need to be considered as much as the mechanics of the storyline.

In the Frankenstein example, while I would agree that technically it might be seen as science fiction since the modus operandi of the creation of the monster is shown to have a scientific basis, particularly in the movie version as opposed to the book, the overall tone and intent of the filmmakers seem to me to be designed to "horrify" or frighten the viewer. The gruesome appearance of the monster and certain events like the hanging of Fritz and the drowning of Maria lend weight to this interpretation, not to mention the gothic castle atmosphere and graveyard scenes. The movie has more in common with Grand Guignol than Verne or Wells in my book. The method of reviving the "homunculus" is also significant: if Henry Frankenstein were not a scientist and revived the stitched-together corpse using magic potions and incantations, there would be no reason to categorize it as science fiction at all. And, disagreeing with John-367, I would say that the first two Quatermass films are indeed science fiction since the emphasis is more on the scientific trappings rather than the horror elements, and there is little or nothing "supernatural" or "fantastic" about either (within the science fiction context, of course). And I wholeheartedly agree with you that a movie with supernatural elements is not necessarily a horror film, but could more rightly be categorized as "fantasy", "occult", "supernatural", or even simply as "drama", depending.

Similarly, it could be argued that Night of the Living Dead is science fiction since the zombies are apparently awakened by some kind of radiation from space, but again, the overall thrust of the movie seems to be to try to "horrify" the viewer with gory scenes of gut-munching, the gruesome appearance of the zombies, and several "shock/jump" sequences. Is NOTLD primarily thought of as a science fiction movie? Not too often, though it does have a science fiction element in its plotline.

As to the mystery/horror division (or continuum), I agree with John-367 that a "straight" mystery wouldn't necessarily have anything horrific about it (e.g., any Sherlock Holmes movie, except perhaps Hound of the Baskervilles), and that outright horror movies (such as Texas Chainsaw Massacre) may contain a "mystery" within them. (I would find it hard to categorize this movie as a simple "mystery" since there are so many elements and scenes that seem clearly designed to horrify, frighten, or revolt the viewer, even though there is really nothing supernatural about any of it.)

For my own purposes, I keep a database of my fairly large—1500+ title—"psychotronic" DVD collection, and I like to categorize each movie within one particular genre for search purposes (my reasons for this are irrelevant here). This can be problematic for those movies that seem to be sitting on the fence between genres.

Take a film like The Strangler with Victor Buono. Is it "exploitation" or "horror"? In this case, I think your qualification that there must be some "supernatural" element (I prefer the term "fantastic") to a "horror" film is apropos. While there are several shocking and disturbing murder sequences in The Strangler, there is absolutely nothing fantastic or supernatural about it, so I would categorize it as more of an exploitation film than horror, even though here on IMDb its genre is listed as "horror". Again, the general tone and intent, to me, lean more toward exploitation, with its emphasis on the psychopathology of the main character, the police investigation scenes, and elements of sexual titillation (not to mention that it was intended to "exploit" the Boston Strangler murders). By the same token, I would classify Peeping Tom as an exploitation movie since its basic subject matter (scopophilia and sexual maladjustment) seems more properly the province of exploitation movies than horror movies, even though there are some rather frightening scenes included. It could also probably be categorized as a "psychological thriller", again more to the point than "horror".

Many other stalker/slasher movies could (should?) be categorized as "exploitation" rather than "horror" by the same logic (e.g., The Centerfold Girls, Violent Midnight, some giallos, etc.). But a stalk/slash movie like Tower of Evil would, to me, be categorized as "horror" since there are definite fantastic elements that pull it out of the straight "exploitation" category. On the other hand, a non-fantastic "stalk/slash" film like Dementia 13 might be categorized as horror on general tone and atmosphere alone. Am I making any sense here? :-)

Or, how about movies like A Night on Bare Mountain or Kiss Me Quick? While both contain "supernatural" or "horrific" elements (werewolves, Frankenstein monster, vampires, etc.), I think most viewers would recognize these as being primarily "sexploitation" movies rather than horror films since they are almost entirely concerned with titillating the viewer rather than horrifying or frightening them in any way. Under John-367's typology, these could be subcategorized as "sexploitation horror" or "horror sexploitation", or perhaps more accurately as "monster sexploitation".

And, of course, we have all seen cases of, say, a straight mystery film being promoted as a horror film, even though the horrific or fantastic elements might be minimal or nonexistent (e.g., The Bat, The Climax, and Circus of Fear).

I guess, in the final analysis, what this discussion has shown is that categorization of movies into genres can be quite complicated at times. But I do applaud your effort to introduce some kind of logical rule-making into the process. My movie database apart, I do think it is valid to slot movies into more than one genre at times, or to adopt a system of categories and sub-categories as proposed by John-367.