Posts by Betty Chase4

bluecyclist64 said:What kind of idiot actually translated the title as "Loyalty Among Thieves"?
They deserve to be kicked out of the industry—hard.

Honestly, over the last few years, I’ve developed a real allergy to these lazy, bottom-of-the-barrel translations...

I remember picking up much more English just by watching movies back in the day—they actually had decent subtitles then, unlike now. Today’s generation struggles to learn English because they're stuck with these terrible translations...

Was it really that difficult to translate "Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves" correctly?
Why can't they just stick to the actual title?

If I were the boss, I’d fire the translator on the spot... either they’re trying too hard to be "clever" or they’re just plain incompetent... either way, I wouldn't hire them again for anything.

p.s. — and don't even get me started on the garbage translations you see on FOX or NBC (like in the series "The Mentalist")...🤦, though even PBS has slipped up a few times... it’s honestly jarring when you hear what the characters are saying in the original audio, only to read some mindless, inaccurate subtitle underneath.

casualharbor72 said:I haven't checked it out yet—but would you actually count the Jurassic Park films in that category, or not?

No Jurassic Park...

It could have been better, honestly—but it wasn't bad either. If nothing else, it’s a step up from all those other Jurassic World movies.

nimblemarlin6 said:I get this sense that back in the day, people weren't actually trying to make trash.
Even Ed Wood—as we saw in that biopic about him—actually considered himself a serious filmmaker.
And Corman—from what I've managed to watch of his, which isn't nearly enough, unfortunately—isn't really making trash, he's just making cheap exploitation flicks.

Low budgets, ripping off a cliché Hollywood blockbuster, and throwing untrained people at the camera—that's the recipe for garbage that happens to be fun. Eventually, people realized they actually enjoyed watching it... and only then did we enter this era where movies are intentionally designed from day one to be trash.

Nowadays, trash doesn't just emerge "organically" from a pile of bad filmmaking—it's a carefully calculated, pre-planned genre.
What would you even call that? Metatrash?

Most movies, just like today, are made for one reason: profit... not artistic merit. The goal is to invest as little as possible while squeezing out every cent.
So, they hire all sorts of people who juggle multiple jobs... but lack talent or even basic skill.
Regarding Ed Wood... honestly, if you look at his work, I don't think he was a bad director at all; he was just limited by time and resources, which forced him into that "gonzo" style of filmmaking—shoot it fast and move to the next scene.

Sometimes, you get lucky when people who actually love cinema make something great with almost nothing to work with—using whatever scraps they have available. Examples would be things like "bad tast" and "Evil Dead" (though the latter was technically born from a micro-budget, making it feel trashy).

These days, it seems like Charles Band is one of the few still making actual trash films... everything else is just straight-up garbage made by untalented hacks.

It honestly pains me to see so many people online categorizing "Evil Dead" as a trash film—it never truly belonged in that category.

bluerider3 said:You're totally right—those guys basically pioneered this whole genre of Piranha trash. This one is such a great throwback, too. I don't really see what’s "wrong" with it or why it wouldn't work as a solid cult classic; honestly, if you ask me, everything is exactly how it should be. I've spent a massive amount of time diving into pretty much every horror flick from the 80s, whether they were major hits or just obscure gems.

Actually, trash films go way further back than the ones you're bringing up. You've got the works of Herschell Gordon Lewis, and even before him, you had Ed Wood. Then moving into the 80s, you had Fred Olen Ray, plus classics like ''The Killer Shrews'' (1959), ''The Phantom fra 10,000 Leagues'' (1955), and ''Robot Monster'' (1953)... so this genre has been around much longer than people realize.
Roger Corman, TROMA, and The Asylum built entire empires on trash cinema—though, to be fair, Corman and TROMA did put out some legitimate films every now and then.

The definicija biti trebati for these movies is that they actually had some resources behind them, but because of an untalented director or just poor execution, they end up looking silly. Trash films can be a blast—for instance, I spent nearly three hours the other day at work watching ''Baby Oopsie 1-3''—but they become absolute snoozefests if they lack that sense of fun.

Now, these aren't trash:

"Grizzly" (1976), "The pack" (1977), "Piran" (1978), "aligator" (1980)...

They might look that way to someone today, but they aren't trash; they might just be bad or weak films. For context, ''Grizzly'' pulled in nearly 40 million dollars—until ''Halloween'' came along, it was actually the highest-grossing independent production at the box office.

A real trash film from that era would be something like ''Godmonster of Indian Flats'' (1973)... you only have to see the quality to tell the difference...
The fact that most of those movies had tiny budgets is a separate issue entirely. With these, you can actually see the effort put in to make everything look as good as possible.

Take ''Evil Dead'', for example—some people call it a trash film, but I don't see it that way.

''Cocaine Bear'' (2023) - Review #92

- This could have been so much better—as it stands, it’s just one of those movies you watch once and then move on from...

bluerider3 said:I have absolutely nothing against Dave Bautista, but man, he has such a peculiar look to him—it’s almost funny. I don't know how to describe it—he just gives off this vibe like he's a six-foot-plus snake in human form. It's honestly pretty surreal; he reminds me exactly of the creature from the movie Anaconda.

I've been thinking quite a bit about Uranija lately—that sense of celestial wonder and the sheer scale of what we're looking at when we gaze upward. It’s one of those subjects that really puts things into perspective, isn't it? There's something deeply humbling about contemplating the cosmos from our little corner of the universe. kaže:
He’s a soldier—it's highly likely he's taken quite a few hits over the years.
To be honest, those little nicks and scars are a bit creepy to me—I’ve always had a thing about seeing them on a bald head. 🕺

What he’s dealing with—that wrinkling look on the back of his neck—is most likely just skin hypertrophy.

I finally sat down to watch "Knock at the Cabin" (2023), and I have some thoughts. It’s one of those films that really sticks in your mind—not necessarily because of explosive action, but because of that lingering, unsettling tension it builds from the jump. The premise is pretty heavy—a family on vacation gets cornered by four strangers who demand an impossible choice. It’s uncomfortable, and honestly, it should be. M. Night Shyamalan has always been interested in these kinds of moral dilemmas, though I find his approach here to be much more grounded than some of his earlier, more eccentric work. The pacing feels intentional—it doesn't rush toward the chaos, which actually makes the eventual payoff hit harder. Dave Bautista delivers a standout performance here. He has this incredible ability to pivot between being physically imposing and deeply vulnerable, and he uses that perfectly to anchor the tension. Even when the plot starts leaning into its more heightened, apocalyptic territory, his presence keeps things feeling somewhat human. It isn't a perfect movie—some might find the logic a bit thin in certain spots—but as a psychological thriller about faith and sacrifice, it’s quite effective. It’s definitely worth a watch if you’re in the mood for something that stays with you long after the credits roll. - Review #90

It was a bit of a letdown, honestly—the kind of movie you might give a single watch if you're bored, but I definitely wouldn't waste a trip to the theater for it. Better to just catch it on your couch at home.

Lisa Ross65 said:For those who have a taste for this kind of cinema—PBS is running an erotic film cycle this Friday. They’re kicking things off with Paprika tinta Brassa. Also, a new version of Lady Chatterley just dropped on Netflix. Personally, I think it’s excellent—miles better than that old version featuring S. Kristel.

This looks perfect for a movie night... though it's a bit ridiculous how the lead actress is from San Francisco, yet they keep mentioning Porec and California instead.
According to this movie, it seems like every woman in California is built like a fitness model and incredibly curvy...

Larry Walker24 said:New Year's Eve on PBS

Emmanuelle, a French flick (Rated R)

It’s a women's drama about Sylvia Kristel traveling to Bangkok to spice up her sex life...

This was the first movie in that whole series of French softcore films based on the novel by Emmanuelle Arsan. It was a massive hit back in Europe, the US, and all over Asia. They even shot a sequel in 1975 because it blew up so much. Honestly, the influence of Emmanuelle was everywhere—it even inspired stuff like that Italian series, Black Emanuelle.

I’m not sure I can call these "softcore" when they are really just pure erotica. In my opinion, maybe only the fourth installment fits that description because it features two brief scenes with visible penetration...
Everything else is straight-up erotica... since you don't actually see any penetration...

brighteagle39 said:

Betty Chase4 As I was reflecting on this earlier, I found myself thinking about what was said:
I must admit, I find myself still searching for something worthwhile to watch today, particularly when it comes to those classic erotic films from the early 1980s. There was such a specific, unmistakable atmosphere to that era of filmmaking that seems to be missing from modern cinema.
Honestly, I find this to be better than many adult films out there. There is something uniquely captivating about the way everything is shown, yet nothing is explicitly revealed; that subtle tension is exactly what makes it so incredibly engaging.

When I try to recall some of those classic titles, things like *Private Lessons* or *What Every Woman Wants* are usually the first ones that come to mind.

I couldn't agree more. In that regard, I think Sylvia has truly remained more memorable than any other adult actress from that particular era. It was simply a specific genre of erotic cinema back then, naturally filled with its share of both masterpieces and total flops. Personally, I always found myself gravitating more toward those breezy Italian erotic comedies from that period, especially the ones starring Gloria Guida and Laura Antonelli.
To be perfectly honest, I found *Emanuelle* to be an incredibly tedious and overextended film. I remember watching it back when I was just a kid, and if I'm being truthful, my only real motivation for sitting through it was the restless anticipation of waiting for Sylvia Kristel to finally undress.

For some reason, I find the sequel, Emmanuelle, much better than the first one...

Patrick Martin said:I'd much rather just stick to watching actual porn☕

I still have quite a few favorites left over today—especially those great erotic films from the early 1980s.
It’s honestly better than most adult films out there—there's just something about that tension where everything is visible, yet nothing is actually shown. That subtle balance is exactly what makes it so captivating.

For me, titles like *Private Lessons* (1981) or *What Every Woman Wants* (1986) are the first ones that come to mind...

True enough. Though, if I'm being honest, I always had a bit of a soft spot for Laura Gemser too...

steeljackal7 said:Man, I remember watching that as a kid on Vox or maybe some German cable channel—something like that. It was always late on weekend nights; I clearly remember waiting for my parents to head to bed so I could finally switch over to 😁
.

It was the exact same story for me... I’d catch it back then (I think it aired right before the main movie) during those Thursday nights on Vox... right when my dad had just set up the satellite dish...
To be honest, those Emanuelle films were better than 90% of the porn produced in the US...🙏

briskhound2 said:Then Michael Myers is a demon.

If you look at All Hallows' Eve and the end of Terrifier 2—plus how he wrapped up the first film—it’s clear he has ties to the demonic side of things...

We still don't really know what Myers is... even if we lean into the Thorn theory. For now, he definitely isn't a demon, because none of the sequels have hinted at that even slightly...

briskhound2 said:Will... not quite. He just killed them—even though the original concept was that he would haunt them first, but that idea was tossed in the trash because it was a bit too much for that era. That shift happened during the remake. Freddy—God bless him—isn't actually original; he's essentially a derivative of Myers and Jason Voorhees, just with more sarcasm and the personality provided by Robert Englund. In terms of pure originality, he’s a zero, but he pulled it off through sheer charisma. And that’s only if you stick to the first movie and maybe the second; after that, Freddy basically turned into Pennywise—a guy who isn't scary at all...

Looking back at the start of Jason vs. Freddy and the first episode of Freddy's Nightmares, it's certain he was targeting children (a sadistic serial killer), though whether he's a pedophile is still an open question... and all of this was before the remake...

I can't agree that Freddy isn't an original villain. It is precisely because of his uniqueness that his character became a pop culture icon and holds much higher status than Jason or Myers... and he certainly isn't a derivative of those two, nor does he share much common ground with them.
What I do know is that Jason is a pure derivative of Myers, whereas this guy is a derivative of Norman Bates mixed with a malfunctioning cowboy robot from Westworld...
You're right, though—Freddy wouldn't be Freddy if it weren't for Englund's performance...

briskhound2 said:Again, not really. Michael Myers fits that description if we only consider the first Halloween. He is literally indestructible there, and you have no idea what kind of monster he is—but as John Carpenter puts it, he is the embodiment of evil itself. Later attempts to explain him away ruined all the mysticism surrounding him, but that first film... he's truly unstoppable. All these guys listed have flaws that make them formidable enemies, but with just a little bit of strength, they go down (fire being the obvious choice of weapon)
.

As far as I know, Myers also buckled under fire in the sequel....
When I mentioned The Thing and Predator... I meant that Myers belongs in that same group, along with Jason and, say, Pinhead...

briskhound2 said:If you ask me, I’d put him in a room with Francis, Jamie—you know, the Red Dragon and Buffalo Bill types—and then throw Henry Lee Lucas in there too; that's a whole different league entirely. We're talking about actual depravity here, not whatever this is above.

I agree, though I was really thinking about it in terms of slashers—after all, Psycho is essentially the blueprint for the genre...

Patrick Martin said:I mean, screw fan fiction—my interest lies in actually watching the movie.

It’s as if I claimed the Earth was flat. It’s always easiest to just slap on some silly label you picked up somewhere else.

I can certainly make my guesses, seeing as his targets are mostly young women.
And who said we're talking about a young guy? He might have been one once upon a time.

Gore, gore, gore... honestly, if I loved watching slaughter that much, I should have just gotten a job at a meatpacking plant.

Well, if the gore bothers you that much, then maybe you shouldn't be watching these kinds of movies in the first place...

As far as Art is concerned... there really isn't any other way to explain him than to say he's a demon.

Freddy is easily the most original and twisted villain out there—mostly because he was an even bigger monster when he was human, being a serial killer who targeted children (it immediately brings Ted Bundy to mind)...
But now he's transitioned into a dream demon. It's entirely possible he's immortal and effectively unkillable; even if you take him out in the real world, he just retreats back into the dream realm to start the whole cycle over again. At best, you might manage to trap him—sort of like a genie in a bottle—but killing him? That seems nearly impossible (given the logic "If It Bleeds, We Can Kill It," and he doesn't exactly bleed).

If we're ranking them against the entire genre, Freddy sits firmly at Level 1—right up there with The Thing, Predator, and Alien...

Now, if we stick strictly to the slasher subgenre, he's in the same league as Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees, Leatherface, and Chucky. I'd also put Matt Cordell from ''Psycho Killer'' in that top tier; he's unfairly overlooked, but he could definitely hold his own against Jason or Myers..
The next tier down would include Art, joined by a group consisting of Madman Martz (Madman), The miner (My Bloody Valentine), Farmer (The Cottage), Cropsy (The Burning), Frank Zito (Maniac), and Norman Bates (Psycho)...

Ricko said:Hmm, I wouldn't necessarily agree regarding Freddy. In my opinion, he’s actually even more depraved than Art—it's just that Freddy leans into dark humor and those one-liners, which tends to undercut the sheer seriousness of the carnage. Still, his kills are arguably more stomach-turning; think about when he turns that girl into a literal worm just to crush her, or in the third installment when he uses that guy's veins to play him like a puppet master.

Art is a top-tier villain who is definitely going to leave a mark, but let’s be realistic—there are tiers to horror villains. Given where things stand right now, Art isn't quite at the level of the genre's "Big Three" yet. Personally, I think Freddy Krueger is the greatest horror villain ever conceived, and honestly, one of the greatest icons overall. His influence is immeasurable; neither Jason, Myers, nor anyone else in history carries that kind of weight. If you want to see the ultimate American boogeyman, I highly recommend this massive 4-hour documentary https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1510985/ -

seriously, if you haven't seen this, consider it required reading if you've forgotten who and what Krueger is. There simply isn't a more influential villain in horror than Freddy. When former US President Ronald Reagan used to quote and mention Freddy in one of his speeches, you knew you were dealing with a legend. It would be like if Joe Biden mentioned Art today—it's just not going to happen.

For me, the first tier consists of Freddy, Myers, and Jason. Freddy sits at the head of the table, while Myers and Jason flank him on either side. The next tier down includes other legendary horror icons like Pinhead, Chuckija, Dracula, Ghostface, Damien, Norman Bates, Jack Torrance, Pennywise, Jaws, and Leatherface...

With the release of Terrifier 2, Art has officially entered that second tier alongside the names I just listed, though it's a stretch to say he'll ever break into that top tier. That trio represents the holy trinity, and it's hard to imagine another horror villain ever rising enough to disrupt them. Their significance and cultural impact transcend the horror genre and bleed into all of pop culture. Now, I'm not disparaging Art or the others—they are all fantastic villains—but as I said, there are levels to this game.

It's because you aren't a true horror fan. I mean, come on—not knowing about Baker, Savini, or Winston? For us older heads, that was the lifeblood of the community—going to horror conventions, living alongside the fandom, and knowing every actor, director, producer, makeup artist, and deep-cut Easter egg. Like how Gonzo mentioned that Freddy's glove appears in Evil Dead and stuff like that. That sense of community got lost in the era of modern horror, but it's slowly making a comeback, and it should, because that's what the horror fandom has always been about.

Look, you don't have to be a hardcore horror fanatic, but you really ought to know the fundamentals if you claim to watch horror... it's the same as saying you love action movies but don't know who Jackie Chan, Sho Kosugi, or Rutger Hauer are. How are you supposed to know which films are actually worth your time when you're faced with a million action flops like "American Justice" and the like?

casualharbor72 said:on a million-dollar question... he wouldn't have a clue about any of them... like whether they're soccer players from Uruguay or politicians from the Senate in DC...

I just want to know if the movie is actually good or not...

Well, screw that then... I've always relied on those specific details before watching anything—and honestly, I still do... That’s probably why most people end up watching garbage movies and feeling bitter about it the whole time...

Even when I was a kid, I had this knack for it; by the time I was seven, I could navigate a video rental store and pick out solid films without breaking a sweat—and I rarely missed...

Nowadays, my brother will call me up to ask if a certain flick is worth the time, so he doesn't waste his evening on something mediocre... and my wife does the same thing, flipping through channels and asking me what a movie is about or if it's even worth watching...

It’s the exact same logic with adult films... if you knew for a fact that someone like Christopher Clark was starring in one... you'd know exactly what kind of scenes to expect. Or if the director is Harry S. Morgan, you know you're looking at either teen themes or something more amateurish—not to mention that when Ed Powers is behind the camera, you can practically guarantee a massive amount of amateurism in his work...

When you hear the name Tinta Brass, you already know you're in for either something avant-garde or straight-up erotic...

If you watch movies as often as I do, that kind of information stays burned into your brain, which saves you from wasting your life on stupid movies...

casualharbor72 said:To me, Terrifier is absolute garbage.
Terrifier 2... a total game changer—it's definitely worth watching, and I’d easily give it a rating higher than a 5 out of 10.
Honestly... at least that's my take—I think people are going to be a bit more receptive this time around. It's funny, because when the first one came out, I noticed there was a massive wave of haters—myself included.

Those people who rave about the first film—they’ll usually try to pull the "you just don't get it" card to justify their stance—but honestly, if you actually sat them down and asked them to name a single scene that truly left an impression... well, they'd probably struggle to come up with anything at all.
I watched it myself—honestly, there’s just nothing to grab onto there.
There simply isn't a protagonist in this one—it’s just the antagonist paired with a bunch of mindless characters. I mean, the brunette tried to hold her own for a second, but honestly, her attempt was completely pathetic. It was like she’s never even watched a single UFC fight in her life; she acts more like some hardcore boxing fanatic who just stands there counting down instead of actually fighting back.

You don't actually need to "get" a movie like this—it’s straightforward, and honestly, it just speaks for itself.

I have to say, I was genuinely floored by that scene at the end when the cops finally show up—but honestly? That moment where Art pulls out a gun for the first time totally left me speechless. And man, that sequence where Art starts going ham with the shotgun in the pizza parlor... the editing and the sound design in that part were just top-tier.

The whole point of this movie is that you aren't supposed to find anything to nitpick—it’s just built that way. You follow this mysterious guy as he goes about killing people, and then you simply sit back and see where the ride takes you.

casualharbor72 said:I’ve been following the horror genre pretty closely lately—just keeping tabs on everything that comes out—and honestly, I couldn't care less about the specific subgenre. For me, it’s all the same. As long as the movie actually moves along, I'm happy. My only real gripe is when some incompetent director decides to shove some utterly moronic nonsense down your throat—like how they tried to give the Creeper some kind of "justice" in that last sequel. It just ruins the whole experience.

I feel the same way—it’s honestly helpful to have a rough idea of what you're getting into before you hit play. It lets you mentally prepare for the ride, you know? I mean, you can't go into a movie about zombies, expect to see werewolves instead, and then turn around and complain that the film was garbage.
I really geared up for Terrifier 2—I made sure I was fully prepared since I saw it clocks in at a solid 138 minutes...
I have to admit—I just can't bring myself to sit through movies like *Audition*, *Midsommar*, or *Martyrs* whenever the mood strikes... for those kinds of films, I really need to mentally prepare myself first. On the other hand, stuff like *Evil Dead* or *Dawn of the Dead*? I can watch those anytime.

I honestly believe it’s always helpful to know the specifics—you really need to keep an eye on the subgenre, who’s behind the camera directing, the cast, and especially who handled the special effects. In the past, I felt it was just as vital to look into the producer and the screenwriter, too.

I don't want to sound like I'm overthinking things here—but just to give you an example:

There was a time when knowing a film was directed by John Carpenter or Larry Cohen was enough—you’d watch it regardless of anything else. Nowadays, that feeling only kicks in when you see names like James Wan or Neill Blomkamp on the poster. It feels like we used to have a much wider variety of directors we could actually trust; today, it seems like there's only a tiny handful left who truly earn that kind of automatic interest.

Whenever you knew a film featured someone like Rutger Hauer or Tom Atkins—well, you knew you were in for a good time at the very least—but honestly, those kinds of actors just don't make them like they used to.

When you see names like Rick Baker, Stan Winston, Rob Bottin, or Tom Savini behind the scenes—well, you already know what you're in for. You watch those films specifically because you know the deaths and the creature effects are going to be absolutely massive.

Once you see names like Joel Silver, Albert Band, Roger Corman, Irwin Yablans, Robert Zemeckis, Jerry Bruckheimer, Mario Kassar, and Andrew G. Vajna all lined up to produce a film—well, that’s usually a pretty safe bet that you're in for something good.

— plus, having names like Dan O'Bannon, Larry Cohen, and Fred Dekker on the script would have been a massive indicator that the movie was actually going to be good.

Patrick Martin said:The only thing I remember about Laurie Strode is how poorly she aged—and honestly, the film/series went right along with her.

In *Terrifier 2*, even young Sienna feels more fleshed out than Laurie Strode does in the entire *Halloween* franchise.☕

Yeah... you hit the nail on the head there.

Nathan Wells29 said:I ALREADY SAID I HAVEN'T SEEN TERRIFIER 2, SO LET'S NOT EVEN TALK ABOUT IT.
And besides, people know Laurie, they know Michael Myers, Tommy Doyle, and Dr. Loomis... plus, I'd much rather remember Hawkins than these insignificant characters from *Terrifier*.
AND YOU ALL NEED TO REALIZE THAT THE *TERRIFIER* FRANCHISE IS DESTINED TO END UP LIKE *Friday the 13th*... A MASSIVE STRING OF BAD SEQUELS, MEANING NONE OF THE MOVIES IN THE SERIES ARE ACTUALLY GOOD.

Regardless of whether you've seen the second one or not, the first *Terrifier* actually has better characters than *Halloween Ends* or *Terrifier 2*...
And now you're bringing up Tommy Doyle and Loomis—characters who aren't even in *Halloween Ends*. It's obvious people recognize Laurie and Myers (I'm not sure why you're even mentioning them... likely because you can't recall anyone else), but surely you could check IMDb or Wikipedia for the other characters that appeared in the Greenov trilogy?

Maybe the *Friday the 13th* franchise doesn't work for you, but some of us find it quite entertaining, and it has its gems within the slasher subgenre—like 2, 4, or 6. Even the other sequels have great effects, kills, or just one crazy good moment (for instance, seeing the *Necronomicon* and Freddy's glove pop up in the ninth one)...

I honestly don't understand why some people bother watching certain subgenres or films when it's blatantly obvious they don't enjoy them....?

p.s.—and there's no need to yell... we can all tell when you're using lowercase.😁

Nathan Wells29 said:I haven't seen the second one yet, but compared to the first Terrifier, Halloween Ends is superior in almost every way.
The characters actually matter to the plot—plus, you have the lead actress playing the same role she did 44 years ago, a role people actually remember. Meanwhile, I doubt anyone even knows the last names of the people in Terrifier, and they probably never will...
The story might have taken a wrong turn, but it still isn't like your typical slasher.
And when I say it's "worse," I don't mean someone getting gunned against a wall; I mean an unnecessary amount of blood.
I'll admit, that scene in HE where the tongue gets flipped over the record was revolting, but at least Michael isn't using excrement to write "The Shape" on a wall.

In what way are the characters in HE more important?
The plot could have easily flowed along without all of them... honestly, the movie could only really move forward if it had Laurie.
The writer made them so poorly developed that the characters in Terrifier 2 look like masterpieces by comparison... besides, anyone who watched the film recently—and I assume we're talking about HE—can't even remember the names of the characters, other than Laurie Strode...

In splatter films, there's no such thing as an "unnecessary dose of blood"... there's only bad CGI blood or simply not enough of it.

Michael doesn't need to be writing on bathroom walls with filth, but Art is just built differently... he was conceived to be a repulsive character, and that's exactly what he is.
Even Freddy and Jason won't ever be quite that disgusting...

p.s.—horror fans, especially those into slashers, will definitely remember Victoria Heyes and her sister Tara from "Terrifier," as well as Sienna in the sequel... personally, I think people will remember those Terrifier characters much more than they'll remember whoever stood in for Frank Hawkins or Corey Cunningham.