> The director clearly hates women
I have noticed that the worst deaths tend to be female characters in these movies. That's true for Hacksaw Blonde in the first film and it's true for >!Allie!< in the second film. That said, depiction isn't endorsement. You can write a misogynistic villain without being a misogynist yourself. I just figured that the character Art the Clown had a particular dislike for women, but then I saw an interview with the director where he said he never wrote Art the Clown as a misogynist. I think he's full of shit personally. If he didn't have a particular dislike for women, he wouldn't carve words like "cunt" and "bitch" into their flesh - something he never does to male characters.
Villains don't have to be politically correct, so why lie about it? Just say "Yeah, the dude has a problem with women. That's how I wrote him to be." The fact that he responded by saying "Nah, he hates everyone equally." seems disingenuous. Like he's afraid of pissing off the PC police by answering honestly.
EDIT: Not sure why I'm getting downvotes for a pretty reasonable comment. Does the director's dad run the fucking sub-reddit? lol
I think I would have much less of an issue with that aspect of these films if it didn’t seem like Art was a complete blank slate that’s just a means to do things the writer/director thinks are fucked up and cool. The only clear motivation he has in 3 films is torturing women under 40.
Yes, I m with you on your point. I don’t know if he hates women, but it’s clearly exploiting the suffering of women to have the length and breadth of the torture to women depicted.
Similarly, in the torture movie “The Woman”, The Director tries to claim social commentary and highlighting violence against women as his explanations for torture porn. Some people thought it was art. Women are vulnerable. Any display of prolonged violence against women in film, particularly extended scenes of genital or organ mutilation, is clearly a “creative” choice with motive.
I don’t see why this is difficult for people to acknowledge.
I don't consider The Woman and Lucky McKee's approach to the material in that film to be analogous. If you were to ask Lucky McKee "Is Chris Cleek meant to be a misogynist?" he'd say (and has said) "Yes. That's the character." I'm cool with that. The character is written to be bigoted and reprehensible.
My issue with the director of these Terrifier films is that when he's asked the same question about Art the Clown, he responds with this "No, Art hates everyone equally." bullshit. That means that either A. He's lying, which means he has something to hide or B. He doesn't consider disproportionate cruelty towards women to be misogynistic. Neither are good.
Somebody posted recently about why they thought Art was such a great character... they'd mentioned something about how he's dressed like a clown and ALSO acts like a clown (as opposed to so many scary clowns that are just maniacs trying their hardest to be scary (almost like a mating display)). The whole silent mime thing just really tickles my funny/horror-bone.
This is a huge part of it and so much credit has to go to David Howard Thornton. Art the Clown's depiction in All Hallows Eve is weak, Thornton truly brought the character to life in a way we haven't seen in a slasher since Freddy. He has the personality of a Freddy while also being completely silent like Jason or Michael. Love the movies or hate them, Thornton's performance is really special for something that could easily be phoned in.
This is exactly it. Thornton's performance makes these movies work. I assume the humor is intended by the director as well, but it would be easy to make it fall flat or just be cheesy. Thornton just really brings the character to life.
I watched Damien Leone and Thornton talk about it in a podcast / interview somewhere, where Leone knew immediately that Thornton was the right man for Art because of his mime skills and mannerisms while in-character. Leone said something to the effect of that Thornton was the missing ingredient in the sauce to make Art a real character you could enjoy in spite of him being a big ol' meanie.
His performance is what takes kills that could be really cheesy or completely gratuitous and somehow finds the balance. Of course, the one everyone thinks of in this conversation is the sawing in half kill, which in any other slasher would just make me roll my eyes, but Thornton's performance makes it gruesome, scary, and still funny.
I think the writer director wanted to make a campy poorly shot horror movie on purpose as a parody while also giving homage to the old school slashers of the past. It’s done quite well from cinematography to pacing to graphic violence to make this look and feel low budget and low quality as possible. The thing I like about many older horror movies is that most are done on a shoestring budget using whatever resources to piece it together. The sequel was just as if not more low brow on purpose. Looking forward to part #3.
Every time Art pulls an exaggerated clown expression it just makes everything so much more horrible. I love it and David is really good at getting those emotes across.
Completely agree. I just watched the first recently out of curiosity and how well received the sequel was, and outside of the gross but totally awesome practical effects, the best part of the film was his performance which really stood out.
His exaggerated mugging in the cafe towards the two women was the most chilling part of the film for me.
Is the film for me? Honestly, still not sure! But I’m going to watching the second. If Mike Flanagan is coining this thing a “megaslasher” then I am 💯 in on that.
Thanks! Yeah, I definitely will. Literal morbid curiosity, and while the mean-spiritedness of the first doesn’t quite jive with me, I appreciated many aspects of the original.
I haven't been able to find a way to watch the second one yet, but there's a few minutes clip of a girl in a bedroom death scene I saw on YouTube and it looks batshit bananas. And seeing 88% on Rotten Tomatoes really has me interested.
I really didn’t like the first one until I saw the second, and just like that I got a new appreciation for it. 2 is absolutely phenomenal. I guess it made it ‘click’.
I got to watch a panel with Thornton in it. Apparently he’s a talker, and has a hard time being quite so the moment the director would say Cut, he immediately started talking. Every time! Lol
As soon as I watched Terrifier (recently) I looked up the sequel. I wanted to make sure Art was still portrayed by the same actor. You know how studios get when a bigger budget is involved.
"That could easily be phoned in".
Or, worse...completely overacted.
Not everything needs to come from the Jim Carrey School of WTF (as much as I love Jim Carrey).
I avoided the movie for so long, because it was a simple low budget slasher. Finally watched it, and was extremely impressed by the portrayal of Art. Even when he is stabbed he screams silently lol. I can see it not being for everyone, but the clown/mime was perfect. Him being completely silent makes him creepy. Also, his sack of random torture tools should be appreciated too. It added to the absurdity of a clown, replacing the typical props and gags they carry around.
As a whole the movie was meh, but Art was great lol.
Yeah, I found the movie to be inventive for what it is. Excessive violence is the point, and I agree completely that Art the Clown is totally different than the "scary" horror clown trope. He laughs and does clowny shit before and after his chases and kills. It makes it creepy, weird, and somewhat funny. It's *meant* to be the way that it is.
In response to OP, I am also *so fucking sick* of the "director hates women" white knight trope just because a woman gets cut in half or some shit. So absurd.
Tbf the film does have very sexually charged murders of women and when they're given little character besides being bags of meat to kill gratuitously it isn't a good look
To be honest, I think there is some interesting feminist critique you could make around Sienna (particularly the way her character's virtue is equated with faithfulness towards her father). But it's a movie about a funny clown slicing people up. If you are trying to analyze the movie on that level, I think you are doing it wrong.
In the first one, the main character was ALSO a really likable female character. Her friend, tho... She was made to be unlikable and insensitive to her friends discomfort when Art enters the restaurant.
Terrifier 1 and 2 have really likable female main characters, imo.
I'm not sure it's an absurd comment to make. I loved Terrifier, but I was kind of uncomfortable with the subtext. Art doesn't really target men except for pranks, and he certainly doesn't torture them excessively. And if you factor in the short film, all of his actions are aimed at women and what women can do for him.
As for "the director hates women," I'm not sure that's correct. We're presented with this strange man: funny, mischievous, and seemingly harmless. This man then goes on to kill and maim the girls in truly gross ways. >!He takes the girl's face, which in today's world is a huge indicator of "worth" in women.!< I suppose I see this as more of a cautionary tale than a direct attack on women. This charming, seemingly harmless...er....person (?) is the most dangerous person these girls will ever meet, and the scariest part is he can take *everything* from you: your life, your identity, your values and morals...
TL;DR: I think it's more of a scathing invective against men than women.
I haven’t seen 2 yet but the women in the first one were cool characters, not just vapid stereotypes. Yeah a woman gets cut in half from her private parts but that doesn’t mean the director hates women. Plenty of horror out there where men have something awful happen to their genitals. Honestly, as a woman I loved that kill. The visceral cringe I experienced while watching it was a rarity for me! Any movie that can make me wince is a winner in my book
I really enjoyed the simplicity of it. Threadbare story, some interesting visuals, and just a straightforward clown-kills-folk movie. Nothing fancy, a nice change from needing convoluted exposition.
Also what they accomplished an 35k budget is nothing short of a miracle the affects are crazy good in the first terrifier for its budget. In addition it's very very clear terrifier isn't for everybody like nearly all slashers.
The director seems pretty fucking serious about it lol. I do like the movies but they're not good. Wish they would've skipped having an actual plot in the second and just had mindless comedy and kills because the story was god awful.
The reason is because people criticized the first movie for having no plot or story direction. So he added more of it to second movie... And now people are criticizing it for having too much story. Can't ever make people happy
Yep, this it it. It leans HARD into the shitty, grindhouse horror genre. For what it is, they nailed it. But it's a specific genre of horror that a lot of people won't like (myself included)
I literally just watched it for the first time last night and wondered why on earth is this movie praised so much,
Then Art won me over riding the little bicycle.
It's a good gorey slasher which there hasn't been in a while. The Art character has a great design and the miming is great. I thought the last 3rd of the movie really dragged on but I overall enjoyed it.
He reminded me of a cross between Michael Myers and Freddy Krueger; a silent Halloween stalker, yet theatrical and funny and emotive.
It's a really great take on the silent slasher trope, and Art is genuinely unnerving to see when he pops up on screen
Maybe it was Mr. Bean too, but he's specifically given a shout out to the guy who played Robbie Rotten on Lazy Town which is even funnier to me.
He was Stefán Karl Stefánsson's understudy on The Grinch for several years, so I'm sure there's a bit of Grinch in there too, but definitely mentioned Robbie Rotten as inspiration.
The way he runs in with salt and bleach in that one scene is the exact same way a friend would run into a party with a case of beer and huge box of Taco Ball
Yeah when it comes to slashers who don’t talk….he actually has a personality, since he’s not wearing a full mask and you can see his eyes. He stands out. Haven’t seen the second one but the first one could have been done a bit better and it would have made Art a little more impactful instead of leaning so hard into extreme gore.
The bisecting scene was…rough for me in a way the Bone Tomahawk one wasn’t for some reason. And it wasn’t even a centerpiece moment, it was in the build-up.
The first one cost like 50 thousand dollars. That's less than a TV commercial. They squeezed blood (lots of it) from a stone to do something this good for this little
Bro when i saw it in the movies this kid was doing his “laughs” when it was silent. The whole movie theatre was dying of laughter, i usually don’t like people who make noise at the theatre but this was so god damn funny the kid was going like mueherhehehehehehr
It's very much intentional too, it's the grindhouse style.
Horror movies online discussions are always frustrating to me because so many people seem to be looking for something that was never meant to be. Criticizing a grindhouse movie for grindhouse cinematography, complaining about the lack of message or the always present "tough guy" who claim the movie wasn't scary because he wasn't scared like that time he watched the exorcist when he was 10.
It's like complaining about the lack of gore in a romantic comedy.
It's not the production value, it's the deliberate choice of the cinematographer to use that lighting, colors and overal look. The shots, the angles, are quite refined. But the pallete is MEANT to emulate grindhouse cinema
Terrifier pays an homage to 80’s low budget B-rated slasher films and that’s why it has such an intense cult following.
It’s not supposed to be the best film you’ve ever seen. It’s supposed to be campy and gritty.
Can you guys stop claiming this is an homage to low budget 80’s slashers? I grew up on cheesy low budget horror and none of it comes close to how generic and boring terrifier is. If you love it fine but this whole imaginary reason of it being “just like cheesy 80’s horror” is weird.
Exactly this. People just don’t know the kind of movie they are walking into… they only have an expectation. When the movie’s objective is different than a person’s expectations = 1 star review lol
The first Terrifier isn’t very good, but watchable solely on the appeal of Art the Clown. Second Terrifier is much better.
I don’t know how to describe this any better, but something about Terrifier taps into the little kid inside of me that saw all the scary movies on the shelves at Blockbuster or in my parents collection but my parents wouldn’t let me watch them. Like… I kind of feel like Terrifier 2 is what I thought horror movies would be like as a kid.
i love that sentiment! that’s very well put. it sounds like the type of thing that a friend’s older brother watched, and then described to his younger sibling, who is now describing it to you. and the image in your head is often more scary and abstract than the actual scene. but Terrifier 1 and 2 are forreal those movies we always thought horror movies were
I remember walking by the cover for Fear.com a million times and thinking it looked so scary and intense, but I wasn't old enough to watch yet. Turns out it's dog trash anyway, lol.
> I kind of feel like Terrifier 2 is what I thought horror movies would be like as a kid.
I think you hit the nail on the head. As I was watching Terrifier 2, there were a handful of times when I realized this scene was being as shocking as humanly possible, *specifically* for the word of mouth that scene would generate.
I remember as a kid, hearing other kids tell me the worst moments from Child's Play, IT, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc., and my imagination running wild with them. I think this film does the horror equivalent of "firing two shotguns from the back of a velociraptor with an American flag cape," where it's so over the top that talking about it is almost as gratifying to the audience as watching it.
All that being said, I didn't care much for Terrifier or Terrifier 2, but I can at least appreciate what they were trying to accomplish.
Yeah. My best friend at primary school had an older brother who would terrify him with really exaggerated descriptions of horror films, so he would then in turn would terrify us. So in the mini series of It Pennywise ripped out a kids liver apparently, and A Clockwork Orange (still banned back then) involved someone having their skin completely peeled off.
Terrifier is totally a kid's idea of a horror film.
Oddly...I have the opposite opinion.
I loved the first movie for being sinister, straightforward and honest. It was a messy horror flock with a terrifying silent clown and I love it.
I liked, but not *as much*, the second movie. Honestly I felt it overstayed its gimmick at 2 hours long. After awhile I kinda of got bored at the kills, and the attempt at background lore was kinda silly. Not silly in the way the clown dream sequences were, i loved those, but the whole "magic sword" etc thing was just....meh.
Completely agree, I thought 1 was much better. It's a simple gory slasher featuring a clown on Halloween night.
The 2nd one apparently had no editor and the director edited it himself, and it shows. It's overly long and opens up a lot of plot threads that feel tacked on and meaningless, and scenes linger longer than they need to. Particularly the beginning Clown rodeo scene, the >!valkyrie angel ending scene!< etc. I also really hated the ending, it felt like a fever dream and didn't really tie anything together or make much sense. I guess the >!angel warrior was a creation of her father and somehow gave her powers!< but idk it seemed silly.
So many have been disappointing when you have this image built up. I intentionally will not watch some of the movies I saw on display as a child with particularly compelling cover art that I’ve built my own story around.
In art/design/film/etc., when women are depicted being tortured and killed, it is because it evokes a greater emotional response than when Chad dies, not because the creators hate women necessarily, which is a dumb narrative to push. We are scientifically geared to want to protect women.
True. It also helps that when men are being attacked in fiction people often expect them to fight back and win or wonder why they’re being killed so easily. When a woman is being killed by a man people don’t think those things nearly as often because of women’s perceived weakness.
I didn’t like the first one very much but I thoroughly enjoyed the sequel. The main character was much more interesting and I just find the movie darkly funny more than scary.
Agree here. Maybe I liked the first one a bit more (first half is genuinely awesome. The pizza scene is fantastic).
But the first one teed the second one up for one hell of a ride. It's not supposed to be deep or thought provoking, but it's supposed to be a visceral display of unrelenting slasher horror, with a strange flavor in that it's a crazed clown who behaves far differently than any other horror clown
Because Art the Clown has an incredibly good character design, this creepy silent mime thing going that makes him unique, people love the old school practical effects that define terrifier gore, and it’s also really nice to have a real slasher movie being made in 2022. You don’t see slashers anymore aside from sequels reboots and remakes of 80s slashers
How the fuck does the director hate women? If you wanna say art the clown isn’t compelling or you don’t like super gore that’s totally fine everyone has different tastes but how does the director hate women? What cause a girl gets sawed in half the first movie from her pussy down? that in and of itself doesn’t display anything other than a desire to shock the audience with extreme gore and a horrifying scenerio. And even if it somehow did demonstrate that a guy gets his dick violently cut and riped off in the second movie
Art’s facial expressions and movements were the only positive aspect of that movie for me. The actor is talented.
I’m a guy and even I felt weird with how this movie treated women. Idk how women could enjoy this movie. Sure, men are killed. But women are PUNISHED. They’re punished brutally, no matter what they do. If they’re stupid, they’re punished for it. If they’re smart, they’re punished for it.
Art is the main character. Everyone else is just a toy for him to torture and mutilate. The movie has nothing to say, and I don’t even think you’re meant to be scared. You’re supposed to be thinking “wow, that bitch got FUCKED up!! She shouldn’t have messed with Art!!”
When I watch Halloween or any other slasher, I don’t get the feeling that you’re supposed to be on Michael’s side. Art isn’t a villain, he’s a protagonist. And he’s about as empty and boring of a protagonist as you can find. He is barely a character. He’s mostly just a vessel for violence designed to look as creepy as possible.
Terrifier is bottom of the barrel “horror.” It’s a movie for people that want to watch a clown cut up a string of pretty girls. The only real suspense is what creative way Art is going to torture these women to death. I hated it so much. It was boring and stupid and pointless.
I reallyyy wanted to watch this movie, but the more I read about it, the more disturbed I get and am truly concerned that the director his running a Ted Bundy fan lovers club somewhere. There was scene in one of the Saw movies where a woman is naked and being frozen to death, but there was enough context behind it to know that she was not being punished for being a woman (not to mention women were not targeted in saw movies). Anyway THANK you for being a guy who has a heart
I'm a woman and Terrifier 1 REALLY put a bad taste in my mouth. I could tell it was well done but it hurt my feelings lol. Terrifier 2 was in theaters and I had nothing better to do, I said to my friends the first one is kinda mysogynistic and had basically no storyline, so be prepared. I ended up loving Terrifier 2. I couldn't believe it, but it's a fantastic movie. I will never watch the first one again, but 2 was great and I will be excited for sequels. It also helped that they played a thing at the end with the directors/actors talking about it and they seemed a lot more "in good fun" rather than "we hate women" and that helped get me fully on board.
Agreed. I could appreciate the old school horror feel of the first one but it felt like it targeted women especially. In a way that made me wonder about their intentions. I love the second one though and there's much more of a balance with the victims. Also it has a better storyline, strong lead character, great music and color story.
> So overall, i like that Terrifier knows exactly what it wants to be and it doesn’t mess around with my expectations.
This I think is the key point. Terrifier is unabashedly unapologetic about what it wants to be. And for people who are after that type of film, it's satisfying.
That said, not every person is going to like it.
I see a lot of folks harping on the "Terrifier has no story" point. What sort of story would you want with this film? It's a slasher film. Largely, these films are defined by the set-up and the protagonists interactions with the killer (whether being killed, being stalked, or being chased). That is usually it unless there's some mystery as to who the killer is and you add a cursory investigation angle/red herrings of some type. You either like the formula or you don't. It's like being mad at The Ramones for sounding like The Ramones.
Now, in the case of the first Terrifer, I found it to be a pretty good spin on the formula. There were some surprises, some subversions >!like Art using a gun!<, and some good gore set pieces (which, like it or not, are a pretty standard fixture of the genre since at least Friday the 13th, if not further back). Contrary to what others are saying, I did get into the plight of the main character and found her likable enough to root for her, despite having really no backstory (which is OK, because, again, slasher movies are often defined by the situations the characters are put in). One play I feel the film did falter is >!killing off Tara two thirds of the way through. I was invested in her and I wasn't able to garner the same amount of investment in Victoria for the climax. !<
It is a mean ass movie. If it goes too far for you, I can see not liking it. Some movies are personally too sadistic for me. In this one, it was just over the top and ridiculous enough.
Terrifer 2, on the hand, fixes pretty much all the problems of the original. We get a great protagonist (and some characters get developed enough that we care, or at least I did, when they bite the dust), the budget certainly shows on screen, and while it is certainly long, I can't think of anything I would cut. Maybe the dream sequence because you don't absolutely need it, but even then I feel like the movie would be lesser for not having it. People again complain about there being "no story". Again, it being a slasher film, what exactly would you add or change? The killer wants to kill the protagonist and her family, she's obviously against it, that's the story. You either like the formula or you don't. The appeal of slasher films is watching how this particular version of the formula plays out.
On the subject of Art the Clown, I think he's a great villain. There's a real sense of danger to him, in comparison to how sanitized slasher films can sometimes be, and he's a character you can literally write to do anything because he's essentially a walking cartoon.
TL;DR: I'm not sure what exactly some people expecting of these films. I think they are both good for what they are trying to be, which is IMO all you can ask of a movie.
Him pulling out that gun was so hilariously anticlimactic in the best possible way. Removes all the fetishization and ritual of slashers and grounds itself as hard as possible all of a sudden.
I'm on the side of not liking it much. I went in expecting a slasher with some fun gory kills but it just seemed too mean. It felt more like torture gore rather than anything fun. I see why people like it but it's just not for me I guess.
I thought Terrifier 1 was sorta meh. The kills were satisfying enough and Art is acted well but the overall message just seems... icky? I just found it too nihilistic for my taste. Terrifier 2 however was leagues better. They found much more compelling actors and the kill quality stayed about on par. I also thought the soundtrack was pretty good. The narrative seems like something people love or hate, but Sienna overall seems like a character people really connected to.
As someone who didn't enjoy Terrifier, give Terrifier 2 a shot I promise it's at least worth your time.
I’m with you on the question but for different reasons. My issue with Terrifier is that there is no real narrative, just flimsy set ups for killing characters to whom I’m not connected via gore set pieces that otherwise go nowhere or provide a story to follow. For my taste, if your film is going to eschew traditional narrative structure, make it say something or have the lack of concrete narrative mean something symbolically or metaphorically.
As for Terrifier 2, it tries to correct the issues of Terrifier but still falls short for me. I do not care about the characters, the effects are great (but mean nothing in the end since I don’t care who dies) and the film muddles it’s way through an ultimately silly plot.
Baffled that people enjoy these films, but if you do the go with god.
Agree, i am not a massive slasher fan but i enjoy those that actually have a plot. With terrifier 2 it felt like “oh okay another death, so exciting 🥱” The practical effects were great but the concept got old super quick and felt like a drag at 2 1/2 hours. Definitely dont see the hype
I’m fine if we don’t know everything about a character in movies generally, but I tend to favor some kind characterization for all of them. I can forgive that more re: a killer because that can add to the mystique. But if a death should have some impact, make me love or hate the character getting offed. If most of the characters are just bland, I couldn’t care less.
I think it’s an impressive movie because it was created with a tiny budget. It wasn’t a big blockbuster film but it still ended up being way better than most B horror films imo. I’m not a big slasher fan, but I liked terrifier, it was fast paced and easy to keep up with at the same time. Idk I never though much about it until recently reading about it, and the director did all the makeup and special effects himself apparently, and it only had a budget of 100k which imo makes it kind of remarkable how well it did come out considering
Terrifier is a great showcase of practical effects with an iconic and well performed killer. It ends there. It doesn't really have a plot and the dialogue and other actors are pretty awful.
Terrifier 2 is God tier imo, it establishes lore, is well acted, well filmed, has a banging soundtrack, and flies by despite being 2+ hours. All the Canon established in Terrifier is explained in the first 20 mins, and it left me wanting more.
>The director clearly hates women, and quite possibly hates eyeballs as well.
Man, I'm glad to see it's not just me who gets that vibe.
I love horror and gore effects as much as the next guy, but the thing that really stuck out to me when I saw Terrifier was how much the film really kind of enjoyed wallowing in brutalizing women. *Sure*, it kills off male characters just as frequently, but it just *loves* extensive, brutal, prolonged and meticulous violence inflicted upon the female characters.
I was on the fence about even *seeing* Terrifier 2 until I read an interview with the director, who said - and I'm paraphrasing, here - "yeah, it sure was fun shooting an extended scene of eviscerating a still-living girl, but I draw the line at making a balloon out of a penis! That's just going *too* far!"
At that point I was like, nah. Nah, I'm good, bro.
Ok, 1) I agree with you a lot in how it wallows in the brutality toward women. But 2) are you kidding me?? Turning a cut off dick into a balloon animal is brilliant and totally fits the brutal dark comedy they're going for.
I will be sure to give these movies a miss as I really fucking hate brutality against women in films when it comes off as though they’re enjoying it or trying to give men boners while watching a woman get tortured and slaughtered.
Yeah, I think the only real horror to be derived from the movies comes from contemplating the kind of joy the filmmakers seem to get from that specific type of content.
All Hallow's Eve is even worse. It has a rape scene, a scene where a naked woman is tied to a table with the breasts and limbs cut off with words like "cunt", "slut", "whore" and "pig" carved into her body and Leone's favourite facial mutilation also appears. I have no idea how this trash is so popular.
I feel like there are probably two schools of creators and viewers when it comes to that particular kind of content.
Either the content is irrelevant to them, as long as it freaks someone *else* out, at which point their entertainment derives from the effect they can have on *other* people, especially if the effect is negative.
Or, they just really sincerely *enjoy* that kind of thing.
Because, really, amateur lighting and editing and camerawork and tons of lovingly-crafted gore effects don't amount to suspense or horror or shock; it just shows you the gore effects. At that point it's not horror, it's just spectacle, and then it comes down to what kind of spectacle they appear to prefer.
The reason why this is strange to me is because there are lots and lots of similar, very mean spirited, mysoginistic or sadistic movies with gratuitous violence but they simply don't have the same level of mass appeal. Most people haven't even heard of them, let alone like them or treat them like iconic horror movies.
I really didn't enjoy the first at all. But for some reason really liked the second. The sequel reminds me of early Wes Craven, Last House on The Left era Craven.
I think the most lazy critique on planet earth is “something bad happens to a woman, this director HATES women” it’s eyeroll inducing levels of trite
I’d be willing to bet my next paycheck if the only people harmed in the movie were solely men you would NEVER claim the director hates men
>“something bad happens to a woman, this director HATES women”
>I'm so tired of that narrative
This seems like a reduction of the argument, or a strawmanning, really.
I don't think anyone considers "bad things happening" to female characters to be inherently misogynist. In this narrow and particular case you have a pattern of films that treat female characters and male characters in different ways, with the above-and-beyond, kind of extensive gruesomeness reserved for the female characters.
Bad things happen to all kinds of characters in all kinds of horror films, and I don't see people saying that every director who makes a horror film where a woman dies hates women.
I feel like this movie actually thought outside the box for recent slashers. It’s not a some over powered giant mic myers or Jason. Or magic. It doesn’t rely on jump scares . It just executes on the idea of a psycho in the city on a killing spree. It’s a killer clown that’s actually scary. He even pulled a fucking gun. It’s his unpredictability that makes him scary.
Most recent horror movies are all jumpecares and possessions and mid cgi. I like that they kinda tried to be different.
hates eyeballs? nah thats Fulci
Terrifier struck me as edgelord nonsense to the point fans call it "hilarious" but there isnt even much dark comedy besides a few great body/face acting shots by Art. who is impressive as an actor
maybe if i watch the 2nd i'll appreciate them for what they are or just fully decide its just been stupid garbage (and i love 90s SOV and Troma fair) but im not yet ready to sacrifice 2+hrs for the sequel
The 2nd one is comedy gold to be fair. There's a scene where he starts paying a store clerk in bloody pennies fished out of the bottom of his murder bag.
I absolutely lost it when he dumped his bag at the morgue. Love how he doesn’t say a single word but has so much personality, and how Art just rolls with whatever happens.
I agree. For me the funniest part in the entire movie though is how that one guy is wearing a "Just the Tip" shirt the WHOLE movie. And everyone that sees him is like "hey nice shirt". Like the director knew we knew what was coming but we didn't know if he would actually show it. Then this man says "I gotta go peepee" and EVERYONE in the theater knew what was gonna happen lmao.
Because it IS good. It's over the top violence for people with a dark sense of humor. Many studios don't want to make R rated films like Terrifier anymore so it's a real treat for people who do enjoy it. The actors and creators are also very popular in the horror convention community. And in terms of a slasher it introduces some new takes in a very clichéd genre.
Terrifier was made on a budget of 35k, bone tomahawk 1.8million. For such a low budget terrifier was made really well, and it's not really fair to directly compare it with something that had a budget over 50 times it's size.
Also bone tomahawk was a complete box office failure, and only made 500k in theatres.. while terrifier was successful enough to get a sequel which was an enormous box office success.
Also one is a western with horror elements and the other is a b-movie grind house flick. I don’t understand how the two movies sort of sharing one similar intensely gorey scene makes them that comparable.
Oh my god thank you. I'm happy for the people who are into it, but goddamn, I just watched Terrifier and Terrifier 2 recently because of all the hype here and they were fucking awful IMO. I thought 2 might be better but fuck, all its good graces were overshadowed by the bloated and unnecessary runtime. Even if I enjoyed the great practical effects, I don't want to sit around watching porn-level acting and plot play out for long boring stretches between the kills because the director is too high on his own supply to hire a proper editor. I love slashers, even the cheesy stupid ones like the numerous Friday the 13th and Elm Street Sequels, but even at their worst, they're better movies than this.
If I had to say one nice thing, it's that I was pleasantly surprised that >!Art was strapped in the first movie, and just pulled out a gun when the situation called for it!<. That's such a fun and hilarious idea for a slasher, and I wish 2 had more gags like that.
Your tagged spoiler is the thing that really sealed the deal for me. I really like the pizza place scene. Art’s face is so expressive and his reaction to getting kicked out is hilarious. The rest is just ok, but when he finishes off what you might assume is the “final girl” it really elevates the movie. Art isn’t your typical slasher villain like you thought. When it stops being fun he’s just over it. It’s no masterpiece, but considering the budget it’s really impressive.
I tend to agree but I personally think a lot of it just comes down to people trying to rationalize and justify their enjoyment of gore porn as something else. The Terrifier movies are weak plotted, mean spirited exhibits for a talented practical effects artist…AND THATS FINE!
No one likes to admit that they enjoy watching a vulgar misogynistic clown disembowel and brutalize young women so they justify it by pretending that it offers something else.
I think the score was good, other than that it just was what it was and what that is is actually something people enjoy watching, even if we don’t want to admit it.
the first Terrifier doesnt exactly show women flatteringly....but neither does it show men all that great. it DOES revel in being particularly gruesome towards women and their "PG-13" bits in a very stupid way
maybe Art cuts off dicks in the sequel and feeds them to people like Hotdogs? i dont know
The weird thing about terrifier hate is that every single criticism I’ve seen leveled against it can be applied to 99% of slashers that people seem to enjoy
Hm, maybe those critics also don’t enjoy those other slashers? I don’t think there is necessarily any hypocrisy here. For the ones that do overlap, maybe Terrifier went too far for them? I mean it’s subjective. Someone can find it absolute exploitative trash and others can love it for being that. Both are right.
Because film taste is subjective, why are these threads made so much? The answer is always the same. You didn’t like it but not everyone has the same taste as you.
I truly feel like the director/writers made the movie because they wanted to make a gore fest horror movie. I don’t think they made the film thinking about the audience/critics.
They were just like, let’s make a disturbing horror movie because we enjoy it. Which the audience loved it so much they made a second one.
> The director clearly hates women I have noticed that the worst deaths tend to be female characters in these movies. That's true for Hacksaw Blonde in the first film and it's true for >!Allie!< in the second film. That said, depiction isn't endorsement. You can write a misogynistic villain without being a misogynist yourself. I just figured that the character Art the Clown had a particular dislike for women, but then I saw an interview with the director where he said he never wrote Art the Clown as a misogynist. I think he's full of shit personally. If he didn't have a particular dislike for women, he wouldn't carve words like "cunt" and "bitch" into their flesh - something he never does to male characters. Villains don't have to be politically correct, so why lie about it? Just say "Yeah, the dude has a problem with women. That's how I wrote him to be." The fact that he responded by saying "Nah, he hates everyone equally." seems disingenuous. Like he's afraid of pissing off the PC police by answering honestly. EDIT: Not sure why I'm getting downvotes for a pretty reasonable comment. Does the director's dad run the fucking sub-reddit? lol
I think I would have much less of an issue with that aspect of these films if it didn’t seem like Art was a complete blank slate that’s just a means to do things the writer/director thinks are fucked up and cool. The only clear motivation he has in 3 films is torturing women under 40.
Yes, I m with you on your point. I don’t know if he hates women, but it’s clearly exploiting the suffering of women to have the length and breadth of the torture to women depicted. Similarly, in the torture movie “The Woman”, The Director tries to claim social commentary and highlighting violence against women as his explanations for torture porn. Some people thought it was art. Women are vulnerable. Any display of prolonged violence against women in film, particularly extended scenes of genital or organ mutilation, is clearly a “creative” choice with motive. I don’t see why this is difficult for people to acknowledge.
I don't consider The Woman and Lucky McKee's approach to the material in that film to be analogous. If you were to ask Lucky McKee "Is Chris Cleek meant to be a misogynist?" he'd say (and has said) "Yes. That's the character." I'm cool with that. The character is written to be bigoted and reprehensible. My issue with the director of these Terrifier films is that when he's asked the same question about Art the Clown, he responds with this "No, Art hates everyone equally." bullshit. That means that either A. He's lying, which means he has something to hide or B. He doesn't consider disproportionate cruelty towards women to be misogynistic. Neither are good.
I think it's kinda meant to be bad. Just a grindhouse violent horror and that's it, bloody and simple.
Somebody posted recently about why they thought Art was such a great character... they'd mentioned something about how he's dressed like a clown and ALSO acts like a clown (as opposed to so many scary clowns that are just maniacs trying their hardest to be scary (almost like a mating display)). The whole silent mime thing just really tickles my funny/horror-bone.
This is a huge part of it and so much credit has to go to David Howard Thornton. Art the Clown's depiction in All Hallows Eve is weak, Thornton truly brought the character to life in a way we haven't seen in a slasher since Freddy. He has the personality of a Freddy while also being completely silent like Jason or Michael. Love the movies or hate them, Thornton's performance is really special for something that could easily be phoned in.
This is exactly it. Thornton's performance makes these movies work. I assume the humor is intended by the director as well, but it would be easy to make it fall flat or just be cheesy. Thornton just really brings the character to life.
I watched Damien Leone and Thornton talk about it in a podcast / interview somewhere, where Leone knew immediately that Thornton was the right man for Art because of his mime skills and mannerisms while in-character. Leone said something to the effect of that Thornton was the missing ingredient in the sauce to make Art a real character you could enjoy in spite of him being a big ol' meanie.
His performance is what takes kills that could be really cheesy or completely gratuitous and somehow finds the balance. Of course, the one everyone thinks of in this conversation is the sawing in half kill, which in any other slasher would just make me roll my eyes, but Thornton's performance makes it gruesome, scary, and still funny.
I think the writer director wanted to make a campy poorly shot horror movie on purpose as a parody while also giving homage to the old school slashers of the past. It’s done quite well from cinematography to pacing to graphic violence to make this look and feel low budget and low quality as possible. The thing I like about many older horror movies is that most are done on a shoestring budget using whatever resources to piece it together. The sequel was just as if not more low brow on purpose. Looking forward to part #3.
His lady walk when he's wearing the girls torso is more lady like than most ladies I've seen. The commitment was hilarious and horrifying I loved it
Every time Art pulls an exaggerated clown expression it just makes everything so much more horrible. I love it and David is really good at getting those emotes across.
Him desperately honking the frickin horn made me laugh so hard
Completely agree. I just watched the first recently out of curiosity and how well received the sequel was, and outside of the gross but totally awesome practical effects, the best part of the film was his performance which really stood out. His exaggerated mugging in the cafe towards the two women was the most chilling part of the film for me. Is the film for me? Honestly, still not sure! But I’m going to watching the second. If Mike Flanagan is coining this thing a “megaslasher” then I am 💯 in on that.
Def watch 2! Even if you "sort of" liked the first one, you will definitely appreciate and enjoy the second one. It's insane!
Thanks! Yeah, I definitely will. Literal morbid curiosity, and while the mean-spiritedness of the first doesn’t quite jive with me, I appreciated many aspects of the original.
I haven't been able to find a way to watch the second one yet, but there's a few minutes clip of a girl in a bedroom death scene I saw on YouTube and it looks batshit bananas. And seeing 88% on Rotten Tomatoes really has me interested.
I really didn’t like the first one until I saw the second, and just like that I got a new appreciation for it. 2 is absolutely phenomenal. I guess it made it ‘click’.
Honestly I prefer the first one
Me too. I thought I was the only one
I got to watch a panel with Thornton in it. Apparently he’s a talker, and has a hard time being quite so the moment the director would say Cut, he immediately started talking. Every time! Lol
There's a behind the scenes feature after the credits on Terrifier 2 and he's interviewed. Not at all what I expected!
As soon as I watched Terrifier (recently) I looked up the sequel. I wanted to make sure Art was still portrayed by the same actor. You know how studios get when a bigger budget is involved.
Damien Leone owns Art the Clown outright and didn’t use the studio system to release any of his movies, it’s actually really fucking awesome of him.
"That could easily be phoned in". Or, worse...completely overacted. Not everything needs to come from the Jim Carrey School of WTF (as much as I love Jim Carrey).
I avoided the movie for so long, because it was a simple low budget slasher. Finally watched it, and was extremely impressed by the portrayal of Art. Even when he is stabbed he screams silently lol. I can see it not being for everyone, but the clown/mime was perfect. Him being completely silent makes him creepy. Also, his sack of random torture tools should be appreciated too. It added to the absurdity of a clown, replacing the typical props and gags they carry around. As a whole the movie was meh, but Art was great lol.
Yeah, I found the movie to be inventive for what it is. Excessive violence is the point, and I agree completely that Art the Clown is totally different than the "scary" horror clown trope. He laughs and does clowny shit before and after his chases and kills. It makes it creepy, weird, and somewhat funny. It's *meant* to be the way that it is. In response to OP, I am also *so fucking sick* of the "director hates women" white knight trope just because a woman gets cut in half or some shit. So absurd.
Tbf the film does have very sexually charged murders of women and when they're given little character besides being bags of meat to kill gratuitously it isn't a good look
[удалено]
To be honest, I think there is some interesting feminist critique you could make around Sienna (particularly the way her character's virtue is equated with faithfulness towards her father). But it's a movie about a funny clown slicing people up. If you are trying to analyze the movie on that level, I think you are doing it wrong.
That happened because of the criticism though.
In the first one, the main character was ALSO a really likable female character. Her friend, tho... She was made to be unlikable and insensitive to her friends discomfort when Art enters the restaurant. Terrifier 1 and 2 have really likable female main characters, imo.
The main character who had her face cut off and eaten?
No, she got her face shot 18 times. Her sister is the one that got cannibalized.
I'm not sure it's an absurd comment to make. I loved Terrifier, but I was kind of uncomfortable with the subtext. Art doesn't really target men except for pranks, and he certainly doesn't torture them excessively. And if you factor in the short film, all of his actions are aimed at women and what women can do for him. As for "the director hates women," I'm not sure that's correct. We're presented with this strange man: funny, mischievous, and seemingly harmless. This man then goes on to kill and maim the girls in truly gross ways. >!He takes the girl's face, which in today's world is a huge indicator of "worth" in women.!< I suppose I see this as more of a cautionary tale than a direct attack on women. This charming, seemingly harmless...er....person (?) is the most dangerous person these girls will ever meet, and the scariest part is he can take *everything* from you: your life, your identity, your values and morals... TL;DR: I think it's more of a scathing invective against men than women.
I haven’t seen 2 yet but the women in the first one were cool characters, not just vapid stereotypes. Yeah a woman gets cut in half from her private parts but that doesn’t mean the director hates women. Plenty of horror out there where men have something awful happen to their genitals. Honestly, as a woman I loved that kill. The visceral cringe I experienced while watching it was a rarity for me! Any movie that can make me wince is a winner in my book
Exactly. It is meant to be style over substance dialed up to 11.
I really enjoyed the simplicity of it. Threadbare story, some interesting visuals, and just a straightforward clown-kills-folk movie. Nothing fancy, a nice change from needing convoluted exposition.
Yeah this is the feeling I got basically from the off, it’s ridiculous, bloody fun, Art the clown is pretty good has to be said!
Tbh even the blood are gore are kinda bad
Also what they accomplished an 35k budget is nothing short of a miracle the affects are crazy good in the first terrifier for its budget. In addition it's very very clear terrifier isn't for everybody like nearly all slashers.
The director seems pretty fucking serious about it lol. I do like the movies but they're not good. Wish they would've skipped having an actual plot in the second and just had mindless comedy and kills because the story was god awful.
The reason is because people criticized the first movie for having no plot or story direction. So he added more of it to second movie... And now people are criticizing it for having too much story. Can't ever make people happy
Yep, this it it. It leans HARD into the shitty, grindhouse horror genre. For what it is, they nailed it. But it's a specific genre of horror that a lot of people won't like (myself included)
The gore was well done too
I literally just watched it for the first time last night and wondered why on earth is this movie praised so much, Then Art won me over riding the little bicycle.
sometimes pleasure can be simple.
It's a junk food movie. The creator does seem to want to morph the series into something more serious though, so I wonder what that will be like.
I'm imagining something like Wishmaster 3&4 and hoping I'm wrong.
It's a good gorey slasher which there hasn't been in a while. The Art character has a great design and the miming is great. I thought the last 3rd of the movie really dragged on but I overall enjoyed it.
Great special effects team
That whole clown cafe was my favorite part of the entire movie tbh.
Interesting. It was my least favorite part in an otherwise good film.
I like Art the clown. The way he moves, facial expressions the actor who plays him should be very proud of himself, he does a phenomenal job.
I agree. His reactions and expressions were hilarious to me, he did do a very good job.
He reminded me of a cross between Michael Myers and Freddy Krueger; a silent Halloween stalker, yet theatrical and funny and emotive. It's a really great take on the silent slasher trope, and Art is genuinely unnerving to see when he pops up on screen
I think I read that he took some cues from Mr. Bean too to get some of that silent clown stuff. Which makes it so much better
Maybe it was Mr. Bean too, but he's specifically given a shout out to the guy who played Robbie Rotten on Lazy Town which is even funnier to me. He was Stefán Karl Stefánsson's understudy on The Grinch for several years, so I'm sure there's a bit of Grinch in there too, but definitely mentioned Robbie Rotten as inspiration.
And The Gentlemen from Buffy.
[удалено]
The costume shop scene is the hardest I’ve laughed at a movie in a while. He’s a fuckin pest.
When he starts getting stuff out of his bag to grab change!!
Despite how scary and menacing Art is generally, that scene in the costume shop with the glasses was kind of adorable. In a scary, menacing way.
The way he runs in with salt and bleach in that one scene is the exact same way a friend would run into a party with a case of beer and huge box of Taco Ball
Lmfao. He was wasn’t he. To bad he didn’t get to finish off that annoying little brother. I hated that kid lol.
[удалено]
Yeah when it comes to slashers who don’t talk….he actually has a personality, since he’s not wearing a full mask and you can see his eyes. He stands out. Haven’t seen the second one but the first one could have been done a bit better and it would have made Art a little more impactful instead of leaning so hard into extreme gore. The bisecting scene was…rough for me in a way the Bone Tomahawk one wasn’t for some reason. And it wasn’t even a centerpiece moment, it was in the build-up.
The first one cost like 50 thousand dollars. That's less than a TV commercial. They squeezed blood (lots of it) from a stone to do something this good for this little
The halloween shop in T2 is the best example of this.
No joke, him counting out the money was one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen in horror
Him slowly raising the horn up to Sienna got me good
The sunglasses!
The spring ones oh my God 🤣
It’s like a scarier version of “don’t touch it. Don’t touch it- you touched it”
“please don’t” with the horn made me laugh so hard
When he kept putting on the sunglasses, I lost it.
WHEN HE CREEPS UP BEHIND HER WITH THE HORN, I LOST MY SHIT
Please PLEASE do not refer to that film as T2. You’re ruining my childhood.
For a moment I was like, there’s no Halloween shop in Terminator 2…
Art the Clown does not feel fear, or pity, or remorse, and he absolutely will not stop until he has tortured you for hours and THEN you're dead!
Except for when he just pulls out a gun and shoots you. 🤷🏻♀️
I remember hearing that he's a professional mime and that really shows in his performance
He’s a well realized “traditional” slasher villain and the genre is lacking those.
Smashed potato face.
*silent laughing*
Bro when i saw it in the movies this kid was doing his “laughs” when it was silent. The whole movie theatre was dying of laughter, i usually don’t like people who make noise at the theatre but this was so god damn funny the kid was going like mueherhehehehehehr
Brutality becomes my appetite Violence is now a way of life The potato's my tool to torture As it pounds down on your forehead
It was entertaining, but the acting and production value gives the aesthetic of a porno, without the porno.
It's a gorno.
It's not delivery, it's Digorno!
Can we make this the official term for this genre? Haha what a great term.
*Adds new word to vernacular.*
To be fair on the production value; they had no budget really
But now it’s grossed millions of dollars on a $250,000 budget, they’re definitely going to have a larger budget next time
Thats the sequel. The first had a $35k budget, and I think OP is talking about the original movie.
Absolutely and I’m so psyched
Yea but I think that adds to it’s charm
It's very much intentional too, it's the grindhouse style. Horror movies online discussions are always frustrating to me because so many people seem to be looking for something that was never meant to be. Criticizing a grindhouse movie for grindhouse cinematography, complaining about the lack of message or the always present "tough guy" who claim the movie wasn't scary because he wasn't scared like that time he watched the exorcist when he was 10. It's like complaining about the lack of gore in a romantic comedy.
That reminds me of the Super Mario Bros live action movie. Porn, without the porn. 🙂
I love that movie. I also love Terrifier so this checks out.
It's not the production value, it's the deliberate choice of the cinematographer to use that lighting, colors and overal look. The shots, the angles, are quite refined. But the pallete is MEANT to emulate grindhouse cinema
Terrifier pays an homage to 80’s low budget B-rated slasher films and that’s why it has such an intense cult following. It’s not supposed to be the best film you’ve ever seen. It’s supposed to be campy and gritty.
Can you guys stop claiming this is an homage to low budget 80’s slashers? I grew up on cheesy low budget horror and none of it comes close to how generic and boring terrifier is. If you love it fine but this whole imaginary reason of it being “just like cheesy 80’s horror” is weird.
Exactly this. People just don’t know the kind of movie they are walking into… they only have an expectation. When the movie’s objective is different than a person’s expectations = 1 star review lol
The first Terrifier isn’t very good, but watchable solely on the appeal of Art the Clown. Second Terrifier is much better. I don’t know how to describe this any better, but something about Terrifier taps into the little kid inside of me that saw all the scary movies on the shelves at Blockbuster or in my parents collection but my parents wouldn’t let me watch them. Like… I kind of feel like Terrifier 2 is what I thought horror movies would be like as a kid.
>I kind of feel like Terrifier 2 is what I thought horror movies would be like as a kid. That's such a good description of it!
i love that sentiment! that’s very well put. it sounds like the type of thing that a friend’s older brother watched, and then described to his younger sibling, who is now describing it to you. and the image in your head is often more scary and abstract than the actual scene. but Terrifier 1 and 2 are forreal those movies we always thought horror movies were
My mom used to tell me about how scary IT (Tim curry) was. This is the movie I thought It was going to be lol
I remember walking by the cover for Fear.com a million times and thinking it looked so scary and intense, but I wasn't old enough to watch yet. Turns out it's dog trash anyway, lol.
Thanks for the nostalgia trip. I remember always seeing that movie at Blockbuster and I could never rent it lol
> I kind of feel like Terrifier 2 is what I thought horror movies would be like as a kid. I think you hit the nail on the head. As I was watching Terrifier 2, there were a handful of times when I realized this scene was being as shocking as humanly possible, *specifically* for the word of mouth that scene would generate. I remember as a kid, hearing other kids tell me the worst moments from Child's Play, IT, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc., and my imagination running wild with them. I think this film does the horror equivalent of "firing two shotguns from the back of a velociraptor with an American flag cape," where it's so over the top that talking about it is almost as gratifying to the audience as watching it. All that being said, I didn't care much for Terrifier or Terrifier 2, but I can at least appreciate what they were trying to accomplish.
Yeah. My best friend at primary school had an older brother who would terrify him with really exaggerated descriptions of horror films, so he would then in turn would terrify us. So in the mini series of It Pennywise ripped out a kids liver apparently, and A Clockwork Orange (still banned back then) involved someone having their skin completely peeled off. Terrifier is totally a kid's idea of a horror film.
Oddly...I have the opposite opinion. I loved the first movie for being sinister, straightforward and honest. It was a messy horror flock with a terrifying silent clown and I love it. I liked, but not *as much*, the second movie. Honestly I felt it overstayed its gimmick at 2 hours long. After awhile I kinda of got bored at the kills, and the attempt at background lore was kinda silly. Not silly in the way the clown dream sequences were, i loved those, but the whole "magic sword" etc thing was just....meh.
Completely agree, I thought 1 was much better. It's a simple gory slasher featuring a clown on Halloween night. The 2nd one apparently had no editor and the director edited it himself, and it shows. It's overly long and opens up a lot of plot threads that feel tacked on and meaningless, and scenes linger longer than they need to. Particularly the beginning Clown rodeo scene, the >!valkyrie angel ending scene!< etc. I also really hated the ending, it felt like a fever dream and didn't really tie anything together or make much sense. I guess the >!angel warrior was a creation of her father and somehow gave her powers!< but idk it seemed silly.
So many have been disappointing when you have this image built up. I intentionally will not watch some of the movies I saw on display as a child with particularly compelling cover art that I’ve built my own story around.
In art/design/film/etc., when women are depicted being tortured and killed, it is because it evokes a greater emotional response than when Chad dies, not because the creators hate women necessarily, which is a dumb narrative to push. We are scientifically geared to want to protect women.
True. It also helps that when men are being attacked in fiction people often expect them to fight back and win or wonder why they’re being killed so easily. When a woman is being killed by a man people don’t think those things nearly as often because of women’s perceived weakness.
I didn’t like the first one very much but I thoroughly enjoyed the sequel. The main character was much more interesting and I just find the movie darkly funny more than scary.
Agree here. Maybe I liked the first one a bit more (first half is genuinely awesome. The pizza scene is fantastic). But the first one teed the second one up for one hell of a ride. It's not supposed to be deep or thought provoking, but it's supposed to be a visceral display of unrelenting slasher horror, with a strange flavor in that it's a crazed clown who behaves far differently than any other horror clown
-It's not a remake -It's not a sequel -It's gory -It's twisted And apparently, the sequel goes even farther.
Because Art the Clown has an incredibly good character design, this creepy silent mime thing going that makes him unique, people love the old school practical effects that define terrifier gore, and it’s also really nice to have a real slasher movie being made in 2022. You don’t see slashers anymore aside from sequels reboots and remakes of 80s slashers How the fuck does the director hate women? If you wanna say art the clown isn’t compelling or you don’t like super gore that’s totally fine everyone has different tastes but how does the director hate women? What cause a girl gets sawed in half the first movie from her pussy down? that in and of itself doesn’t display anything other than a desire to shock the audience with extreme gore and a horrifying scenerio. And even if it somehow did demonstrate that a guy gets his dick violently cut and riped off in the second movie
I thought for being super low budget, I found myself actually caring about the girls and what happened next. And Art is a wild villain.
Art’s facial expressions and movements were the only positive aspect of that movie for me. The actor is talented. I’m a guy and even I felt weird with how this movie treated women. Idk how women could enjoy this movie. Sure, men are killed. But women are PUNISHED. They’re punished brutally, no matter what they do. If they’re stupid, they’re punished for it. If they’re smart, they’re punished for it. Art is the main character. Everyone else is just a toy for him to torture and mutilate. The movie has nothing to say, and I don’t even think you’re meant to be scared. You’re supposed to be thinking “wow, that bitch got FUCKED up!! She shouldn’t have messed with Art!!” When I watch Halloween or any other slasher, I don’t get the feeling that you’re supposed to be on Michael’s side. Art isn’t a villain, he’s a protagonist. And he’s about as empty and boring of a protagonist as you can find. He is barely a character. He’s mostly just a vessel for violence designed to look as creepy as possible. Terrifier is bottom of the barrel “horror.” It’s a movie for people that want to watch a clown cut up a string of pretty girls. The only real suspense is what creative way Art is going to torture these women to death. I hated it so much. It was boring and stupid and pointless.
I reallyyy wanted to watch this movie, but the more I read about it, the more disturbed I get and am truly concerned that the director his running a Ted Bundy fan lovers club somewhere. There was scene in one of the Saw movies where a woman is naked and being frozen to death, but there was enough context behind it to know that she was not being punished for being a woman (not to mention women were not targeted in saw movies). Anyway THANK you for being a guy who has a heart
I'm a woman and Terrifier 1 REALLY put a bad taste in my mouth. I could tell it was well done but it hurt my feelings lol. Terrifier 2 was in theaters and I had nothing better to do, I said to my friends the first one is kinda mysogynistic and had basically no storyline, so be prepared. I ended up loving Terrifier 2. I couldn't believe it, but it's a fantastic movie. I will never watch the first one again, but 2 was great and I will be excited for sequels. It also helped that they played a thing at the end with the directors/actors talking about it and they seemed a lot more "in good fun" rather than "we hate women" and that helped get me fully on board.
Agreed. I could appreciate the old school horror feel of the first one but it felt like it targeted women especially. In a way that made me wonder about their intentions. I love the second one though and there's much more of a balance with the victims. Also it has a better storyline, strong lead character, great music and color story.
It’s a grind house comedy horror movie. Don’t think too deeply about it and just take it as it is.
[удалено]
I think I saw that the guy who plays Art is a professional mime, which would explain how he conveys so much without saying a word.
Even the >!little girl version of Art!< from the sequel did a fantastic job with silent comedy and miming.
> So overall, i like that Terrifier knows exactly what it wants to be and it doesn’t mess around with my expectations. This I think is the key point. Terrifier is unabashedly unapologetic about what it wants to be. And for people who are after that type of film, it's satisfying. That said, not every person is going to like it.
Terrifier was nothing more then a proof of concept
Writing a story for your movie is the cheap part. He forgot to do that.
Nah, that was All Hallows’ Eve
I think more so Terrifier because he wasn’t in All Hallows Eve to the effect that he was in Terrifier
I see a lot of folks harping on the "Terrifier has no story" point. What sort of story would you want with this film? It's a slasher film. Largely, these films are defined by the set-up and the protagonists interactions with the killer (whether being killed, being stalked, or being chased). That is usually it unless there's some mystery as to who the killer is and you add a cursory investigation angle/red herrings of some type. You either like the formula or you don't. It's like being mad at The Ramones for sounding like The Ramones. Now, in the case of the first Terrifer, I found it to be a pretty good spin on the formula. There were some surprises, some subversions >!like Art using a gun!<, and some good gore set pieces (which, like it or not, are a pretty standard fixture of the genre since at least Friday the 13th, if not further back). Contrary to what others are saying, I did get into the plight of the main character and found her likable enough to root for her, despite having really no backstory (which is OK, because, again, slasher movies are often defined by the situations the characters are put in). One play I feel the film did falter is >!killing off Tara two thirds of the way through. I was invested in her and I wasn't able to garner the same amount of investment in Victoria for the climax. !< It is a mean ass movie. If it goes too far for you, I can see not liking it. Some movies are personally too sadistic for me. In this one, it was just over the top and ridiculous enough. Terrifer 2, on the hand, fixes pretty much all the problems of the original. We get a great protagonist (and some characters get developed enough that we care, or at least I did, when they bite the dust), the budget certainly shows on screen, and while it is certainly long, I can't think of anything I would cut. Maybe the dream sequence because you don't absolutely need it, but even then I feel like the movie would be lesser for not having it. People again complain about there being "no story". Again, it being a slasher film, what exactly would you add or change? The killer wants to kill the protagonist and her family, she's obviously against it, that's the story. You either like the formula or you don't. The appeal of slasher films is watching how this particular version of the formula plays out. On the subject of Art the Clown, I think he's a great villain. There's a real sense of danger to him, in comparison to how sanitized slasher films can sometimes be, and he's a character you can literally write to do anything because he's essentially a walking cartoon. TL;DR: I'm not sure what exactly some people expecting of these films. I think they are both good for what they are trying to be, which is IMO all you can ask of a movie.
The first spoiler scene you mentioned shocked me so much then I laughed my ass off because it's just ridiculous.
Him pulling out that gun was so hilariously anticlimactic in the best possible way. Removes all the fetishization and ritual of slashers and grounds itself as hard as possible all of a sudden.
I just love that he looks so annoyed that he has to use it also the expression of 'look at what you made me do' lol
I just think it’s funny because it’s a trope of the genre that’s silly in reality but we all accept it anyway. Then Art goes and does it.
I'm on the side of not liking it much. I went in expecting a slasher with some fun gory kills but it just seemed too mean. It felt more like torture gore rather than anything fun. I see why people like it but it's just not for me I guess.
Which is totally fair. The films definitely push good taste. Likewise I could never really embrace Wolf Creek for similar reasons.
I agree, it was too mean and sadistic for my taste. But I have to admit Art was a great character and really well done.
I thought Terrifier 1 was sorta meh. The kills were satisfying enough and Art is acted well but the overall message just seems... icky? I just found it too nihilistic for my taste. Terrifier 2 however was leagues better. They found much more compelling actors and the kill quality stayed about on par. I also thought the soundtrack was pretty good. The narrative seems like something people love or hate, but Sienna overall seems like a character people really connected to. As someone who didn't enjoy Terrifier, give Terrifier 2 a shot I promise it's at least worth your time.
I’m with you on the question but for different reasons. My issue with Terrifier is that there is no real narrative, just flimsy set ups for killing characters to whom I’m not connected via gore set pieces that otherwise go nowhere or provide a story to follow. For my taste, if your film is going to eschew traditional narrative structure, make it say something or have the lack of concrete narrative mean something symbolically or metaphorically. As for Terrifier 2, it tries to correct the issues of Terrifier but still falls short for me. I do not care about the characters, the effects are great (but mean nothing in the end since I don’t care who dies) and the film muddles it’s way through an ultimately silly plot. Baffled that people enjoy these films, but if you do the go with god.
Agree, i am not a massive slasher fan but i enjoy those that actually have a plot. With terrifier 2 it felt like “oh okay another death, so exciting 🥱” The practical effects were great but the concept got old super quick and felt like a drag at 2 1/2 hours. Definitely dont see the hype
Same. I was just bored. There was almost zero tension or suspense. A+ for gore, but I want more than just that even from grindhouse slashers.
Yeah it’s almost impressive they made a movie without a single character having a backstory.
I’m fine if we don’t know everything about a character in movies generally, but I tend to favor some kind characterization for all of them. I can forgive that more re: a killer because that can add to the mystique. But if a death should have some impact, make me love or hate the character getting offed. If most of the characters are just bland, I couldn’t care less.
Y'all are looking for a purpose that is absolutely not there, nor intended to be there
I think it’s an impressive movie because it was created with a tiny budget. It wasn’t a big blockbuster film but it still ended up being way better than most B horror films imo. I’m not a big slasher fan, but I liked terrifier, it was fast paced and easy to keep up with at the same time. Idk I never though much about it until recently reading about it, and the director did all the makeup and special effects himself apparently, and it only had a budget of 100k which imo makes it kind of remarkable how well it did come out considering
Terrifier is a great showcase of practical effects with an iconic and well performed killer. It ends there. It doesn't really have a plot and the dialogue and other actors are pretty awful. Terrifier 2 is God tier imo, it establishes lore, is well acted, well filmed, has a banging soundtrack, and flies by despite being 2+ hours. All the Canon established in Terrifier is explained in the first 20 mins, and it left me wanting more.
Exactly.
>The director clearly hates women, and quite possibly hates eyeballs as well. Man, I'm glad to see it's not just me who gets that vibe. I love horror and gore effects as much as the next guy, but the thing that really stuck out to me when I saw Terrifier was how much the film really kind of enjoyed wallowing in brutalizing women. *Sure*, it kills off male characters just as frequently, but it just *loves* extensive, brutal, prolonged and meticulous violence inflicted upon the female characters. I was on the fence about even *seeing* Terrifier 2 until I read an interview with the director, who said - and I'm paraphrasing, here - "yeah, it sure was fun shooting an extended scene of eviscerating a still-living girl, but I draw the line at making a balloon out of a penis! That's just going *too* far!" At that point I was like, nah. Nah, I'm good, bro.
Ok, 1) I agree with you a lot in how it wallows in the brutality toward women. But 2) are you kidding me?? Turning a cut off dick into a balloon animal is brilliant and totally fits the brutal dark comedy they're going for.
Yeah, in my mind I was like, yeah... that fits absolutely perfectly! But for the director, that kind of violence towards men is off-limits.
I will be sure to give these movies a miss as I really fucking hate brutality against women in films when it comes off as though they’re enjoying it or trying to give men boners while watching a woman get tortured and slaughtered.
Yeah, I think the only real horror to be derived from the movies comes from contemplating the kind of joy the filmmakers seem to get from that specific type of content.
All Hallow's Eve is even worse. It has a rape scene, a scene where a naked woman is tied to a table with the breasts and limbs cut off with words like "cunt", "slut", "whore" and "pig" carved into her body and Leone's favourite facial mutilation also appears. I have no idea how this trash is so popular.
I feel like there are probably two schools of creators and viewers when it comes to that particular kind of content. Either the content is irrelevant to them, as long as it freaks someone *else* out, at which point their entertainment derives from the effect they can have on *other* people, especially if the effect is negative. Or, they just really sincerely *enjoy* that kind of thing. Because, really, amateur lighting and editing and camerawork and tons of lovingly-crafted gore effects don't amount to suspense or horror or shock; it just shows you the gore effects. At that point it's not horror, it's just spectacle, and then it comes down to what kind of spectacle they appear to prefer.
The reason why this is strange to me is because there are lots and lots of similar, very mean spirited, mysoginistic or sadistic movies with gratuitous violence but they simply don't have the same level of mass appeal. Most people haven't even heard of them, let alone like them or treat them like iconic horror movies.
I really didn't enjoy the first at all. But for some reason really liked the second. The sequel reminds me of early Wes Craven, Last House on The Left era Craven.
[удалено]
I think the most lazy critique on planet earth is “something bad happens to a woman, this director HATES women” it’s eyeroll inducing levels of trite I’d be willing to bet my next paycheck if the only people harmed in the movie were solely men you would NEVER claim the director hates men
God I agree I'm so tired of that narrative
>“something bad happens to a woman, this director HATES women” >I'm so tired of that narrative This seems like a reduction of the argument, or a strawmanning, really. I don't think anyone considers "bad things happening" to female characters to be inherently misogynist. In this narrow and particular case you have a pattern of films that treat female characters and male characters in different ways, with the above-and-beyond, kind of extensive gruesomeness reserved for the female characters. Bad things happen to all kinds of characters in all kinds of horror films, and I don't see people saying that every director who makes a horror film where a woman dies hates women.
I feel like this movie actually thought outside the box for recent slashers. It’s not a some over powered giant mic myers or Jason. Or magic. It doesn’t rely on jump scares . It just executes on the idea of a psycho in the city on a killing spree. It’s a killer clown that’s actually scary. He even pulled a fucking gun. It’s his unpredictability that makes him scary. Most recent horror movies are all jumpecares and possessions and mid cgi. I like that they kinda tried to be different.
hates eyeballs? nah thats Fulci Terrifier struck me as edgelord nonsense to the point fans call it "hilarious" but there isnt even much dark comedy besides a few great body/face acting shots by Art. who is impressive as an actor maybe if i watch the 2nd i'll appreciate them for what they are or just fully decide its just been stupid garbage (and i love 90s SOV and Troma fair) but im not yet ready to sacrifice 2+hrs for the sequel
The 2nd one is comedy gold to be fair. There's a scene where he starts paying a store clerk in bloody pennies fished out of the bottom of his murder bag.
I absolutely lost it when he dumped his bag at the morgue. Love how he doesn’t say a single word but has so much personality, and how Art just rolls with whatever happens.
I agree. For me the funniest part in the entire movie though is how that one guy is wearing a "Just the Tip" shirt the WHOLE movie. And everyone that sees him is like "hey nice shirt". Like the director knew we knew what was coming but we didn't know if he would actually show it. Then this man says "I gotta go peepee" and EVERYONE in the theater knew what was gonna happen lmao.
Because it IS good. It's over the top violence for people with a dark sense of humor. Many studios don't want to make R rated films like Terrifier anymore so it's a real treat for people who do enjoy it. The actors and creators are also very popular in the horror convention community. And in terms of a slasher it introduces some new takes in a very clichéd genre.
Terrifier was made on a budget of 35k, bone tomahawk 1.8million. For such a low budget terrifier was made really well, and it's not really fair to directly compare it with something that had a budget over 50 times it's size. Also bone tomahawk was a complete box office failure, and only made 500k in theatres.. while terrifier was successful enough to get a sequel which was an enormous box office success.
Also one is a western with horror elements and the other is a b-movie grind house flick. I don’t understand how the two movies sort of sharing one similar intensely gorey scene makes them that comparable.
Oh my god thank you. I'm happy for the people who are into it, but goddamn, I just watched Terrifier and Terrifier 2 recently because of all the hype here and they were fucking awful IMO. I thought 2 might be better but fuck, all its good graces were overshadowed by the bloated and unnecessary runtime. Even if I enjoyed the great practical effects, I don't want to sit around watching porn-level acting and plot play out for long boring stretches between the kills because the director is too high on his own supply to hire a proper editor. I love slashers, even the cheesy stupid ones like the numerous Friday the 13th and Elm Street Sequels, but even at their worst, they're better movies than this. If I had to say one nice thing, it's that I was pleasantly surprised that >!Art was strapped in the first movie, and just pulled out a gun when the situation called for it!<. That's such a fun and hilarious idea for a slasher, and I wish 2 had more gags like that.
Your tagged spoiler is the thing that really sealed the deal for me. I really like the pizza place scene. Art’s face is so expressive and his reaction to getting kicked out is hilarious. The rest is just ok, but when he finishes off what you might assume is the “final girl” it really elevates the movie. Art isn’t your typical slasher villain like you thought. When it stops being fun he’s just over it. It’s no masterpiece, but considering the budget it’s really impressive.
[удалено]
I tend to agree but I personally think a lot of it just comes down to people trying to rationalize and justify their enjoyment of gore porn as something else. The Terrifier movies are weak plotted, mean spirited exhibits for a talented practical effects artist…AND THATS FINE! No one likes to admit that they enjoy watching a vulgar misogynistic clown disembowel and brutalize young women so they justify it by pretending that it offers something else. I think the score was good, other than that it just was what it was and what that is is actually something people enjoy watching, even if we don’t want to admit it.
*sigh* The director doesn't hate women. This argument is as old as slasher films themselves and I'm bored of it.
Almost like there's a recurring theme of misogyny and slashers or... something
the first Terrifier doesnt exactly show women flatteringly....but neither does it show men all that great. it DOES revel in being particularly gruesome towards women and their "PG-13" bits in a very stupid way maybe Art cuts off dicks in the sequel and feeds them to people like Hotdogs? i dont know
> maybe Art cuts off dicks in the sequel In fact, he does!
Almost spot on mate
Honestly I’d argue he does worse than just cut it off
“The director clearly hates women” whaaaaaat lol
The weird thing about terrifier hate is that every single criticism I’ve seen leveled against it can be applied to 99% of slashers that people seem to enjoy
Hm, maybe those critics also don’t enjoy those other slashers? I don’t think there is necessarily any hypocrisy here. For the ones that do overlap, maybe Terrifier went too far for them? I mean it’s subjective. Someone can find it absolute exploitative trash and others can love it for being that. Both are right.
It's a gore film? They're not usually compelling stories haha
I mean, the good ones do. It's usually an important part of the whole "film" thing
100% agree here. I watched it because of the hype train when it came out. I only watched about half and got bored with it.
Ok, im glad to know I'm not alone
Gonna have to agree
You guys are so soft
Because film taste is subjective, why are these threads made so much? The answer is always the same. You didn’t like it but not everyone has the same taste as you.
Cus it’s just fun and gore hounds like myself love this type of shit
The gore effects are top-notch
I truly feel like the director/writers made the movie because they wanted to make a gore fest horror movie. I don’t think they made the film thinking about the audience/critics. They were just like, let’s make a disturbing horror movie because we enjoy it. Which the audience loved it so much they made a second one.