Art the Clown is such a brilliantly designed, silent version of Freddy Krueger. He’s got incredible costume design going for him, and the actor’s performance is just phenomenal—honestly, the guy deserves an Oscar for this. Just based on his facial expressions and that stare alone, Art the Clown has become someone you simply can't forget. When you consider how much damage he can take, that weird ability he has to basically teleport wherever the plot needs him to be, and then there's that little supernatural girl helping him out—it’s pretty obvious we're dealing with some kind of demon here. There isn't much of a backstory yet, but by the time they get to the third installment, they'll need to come up with something more than just a slow burn and a string of killings. I have a feeling it’ll be a blast, though.
Patrick Martin said:... It’s pretty obvious the character isn't accepted by anyone—even without the mask—he can't get a girlfriend, everyone picks on him, and the poor guy doesn't even realize how weird he is. He tries to play the clown, but he can't even pull that off.
That clown acts as a sort of "pressure valve" in his psyche. A second persona. The guy is a massive psychopath. A complete sicko.
Or maybe he's an alien?
Are you writing fan fiction now? Again?
Based strictly on the sequel, I'd say this character and the chaos he triggers are really just tailored for fans—totally random and horrific—exactly what gorehounds want to see. He exists in a world that's "real" enough to serve as a decent backdrop for murder scenes, wears that suit because it looks cool, stalks people just because, shows up randomly without any rhyme or reason (even Jason has more logic to his appearances), breaks the fourth wall, and winks at horror buffs...
It’s a movie made by fans, for fans.
I should probably hedge here since I haven't actually seen the first one, so I don't know if it shows some young guy type like Jeffrey Dahmer struggling, the roots of his issues, a rough childhood, trauma, or if he wears normal clothes versus that clown suit...
Patrick Martin said:... through Art's incredible facial expressions, I can almost glimpse the roots of his psychopathy.
It’s a classic cat-and-mouse minimalist flick, and honestly, they nailed the execution.
"Better to be first in the village than last in the city"—or something like that. ☕
So, people are looking for "the roots of Art's psychopathy."🤣
Why does he do what he does? Whyyy? What's his whole backstory?🤣
That’s exactly what happened with Myers. The second anyone asked, "What are the roots of his evil?", the whole franchise just went downhill.
The moment they asked, "What's the story behind the Space jockey?", the Alien series basically went to hell. 😁
But let's not beat around the bush: Art isn't some complex psychopath. There are no roots, no causes.
If we're being honest: Terrifier doesn't have a plot.
In Terrifier 2, it’s really just a string of loosely connected fragments—scenes that feel like they were tailor-made for a music video or a quick clip... there's barely any connective tissue to actually make it feel like a cohesive movie. The sequence of scenes essentially serves one purpose: Art runs into one of these thinly sketched characters and mashes them. That "story" is basically a Rorschach test—it just fills in whatever the viewer wants to see.
Art has no origins, no explanations. Terrifier 1 and 2 barely have a narrative. The Terrifier movies exist solely for the gorehounds to get their fix.
Terrifier 2—and honestly, the first one too—is basically just pornography.
In porn, everything revolves around one thing (I know, I know, this might shock some of you), which is people having sex in all sorts of different ways. The connective tissue of the plot is paper-thin and, frankly, nobody cares about it; everyone is just waiting for the characters to reach the next location so they can get laid.
In horror flicks like Terrifier, it’s not about the sex—it’s all about the killing and the carnage. The actual story and the attempt at building a realistic world are incredibly thin... they really only exist to serve as a bridge to the next moment where the clown gets to creatively rip someone's guts out.
Where Terrifier 2 actually succeeds within this trashy genre is that, unlike a mountain of other slashers out there, it managed to create characters that are somewhat interesting and actually elicit empathy. But outside of that specific framework—where everything boils down to the clown slaughtering people—these characters and situations don't offer or say anything meaningful about anything.
It's a different beast than Halloween Ends, which—if it weren't a horror movie featuring Michael Myers where he absolutely has to use a kitchen knife—could almost pass for a drama. Sure, a very boring drama, but you could judge it by the standards of dramatic filmmaking.
Without the slaughter, Terrifier 2 is nothing. Zero.
But look, what I'm saying isn't a dig at Terrifier. I had a blast watching it. I think it's good. But it's trash. Fun, entertaining trash.😁
bluerider3 said:Terrifier isn't just some trash we happen to enjoy—this is a cult classic that kicks the new Halloween versions to the curb. This is what a real Halloween movie looks like. Finally, someone actually made a proper film; if you don't see that, you clearly just don't get horror, and that’s fine. You can hate it, sure, but that doesn't make it bad. It's a terrifyingly well-constructed horror flick with perfect timing, great pacing, and everything else a top-tier horror needs—most importantly, it's actually scary. It strikes that impossible balance between dark humor and pure dread. The guy behind Terrifier truly understands this genre and knows how to deliver a masterpiece.
That one scene at the Clown Cafe is basically the whole movie in a nutshell—if that isn't a perfect sequence, I don't know what is. It's unsettling yet somehow fun, a masterfully crafted dream sequence. Honestly, I don't see anyone topping this kind of horror for a long, long, long time.
Those cookie-cutter meta-horror creators will never reach this level because they lack the imagination—they don't grasp the genre they're playing in, and they're too afraid to really let go of the brakes. To borrow from a true horror legend: "epic horror randomness"—that's where the real terror lives. That's where everything is.
Don't get me wrong, I love Friday the 13th, but that's a standard slasher. It has its moments within its subgenre, and it's definitely one of the better ones, but we're talking about a completely different league here.
Look, being totally realistic, movies like Terrifier represent the absolute final tier of the cinematic food chain.
I don't feel any more intellectually enriched after watching Terrifier 2... I'll admit, it's incredibly good for its specific type of movie, and that's really all there is to it. It entertained me. It was expertly shot for its little micro-niche. But nothing more than that. The film only works if you view it through a very narrow, basement-dwelling lens. It's a movie for the fans. It's better than... /insert some other horror title here/.
Even though that last Halloween drove me crazy, it actually had some sort of philosophy behind it. You can actually debate it—for instance, those folks over at Red Letter Media spent a solid 45 minutes doing a smart analysis of Halloween Ends.
Do you think there's anything intelligent to say about Terrifier 2 beyond the perspective of a hardcore horror fan? Nope. Art the Clown kills it, the acting is decent, the scenes are imaginative, and the mask is iconic. What's the point? What is it trying to tell us? It tells us exactly one thing: Art the Clown kills it, the acting is decent, the scenes are imaginative, and the mask is iconic.
Terrifier is just a really solid, successful little flick within a very tight, insular genre, and that's that.
Back in the day, during the golden age of VHS tapes, my brother and I used to borrow movies like this and watch them late at night—sneaking around while our parents thought we were fast asleep, thinking we were doing something "adult."
The charm and quality of these flicks really boils down to the fact that they aren't pretentious—they don't try to be anything other than what they actually are.
As soon as any kind of hype starts building, suddenly we get some new Halloween trilogy where the self-proclaimed experts start reading deep, philosophical meaning into everything. There isn't much intelligent commentary to be had regarding Terrifier 1 and 2. This isn't some milestone in cinematic history; these are just little indie movies that make most people want to lose their lunch—the kind of stuff kids secretly watch because they think they're being subversive, while Catholic moms and the critics over at The New York Times act like these films are some kind of moral catastrophe ruining the youth.
The Terrifier films are trash that we love, much like parts 4, 5, or 6 of a Friday the 13th sequel. I honestly hope they just stay at this micro level.
bluebison8 said:One of the most incredible combat sequences from the old school era had to be that opening battle in Gladiator. It was absolute genius.
That whole battle? Historically inaccurate—just completely off the mark. I’m guessing they were aiming for more of an impressionistic vibe—you know, trying to capture that specific feeling of being a barbarian when you're staring down the barrel of a highly organized, totally superior military machine.
To be perfectly honest, *Braveheart* is just absolutely packed with historical inaccuracies. Look, the whole point of movies like that isn't to serve as a history lecture—it's to entertain you first, and maybe spark enough curiosity to make you actually go look something up later. And honestly? That movie definitely did its job.
As for me, I just couldn't get into this one—mostly because the premise relies on this all-female unit being the kingdom of Dahomey’s primary fighting force and their only hope for survival, and then that very first fight scene shows them being physically superior to an entire squad of men in a way that felt totally absurd.
Plus, judging by the trailer, the whole plot feels incredibly cliché—you know the drill: some naive newcomer joins the ranks, undergoes intense training, and eventually proves her worth. It’s basically the same story we've seen a hundred times before, just with the genders swapped. I had this nagging feeling I’d already watched the whole thing, so I just didn't have the heart to keep going.
Does the movie ever actually explain why their most elite unit—the only thing standing between them and invaders—is made up exclusively of women?
There was probably some sort of female warrior unit in Dahomey back then—I mean, sure—but I highly doubt they were the elite backbone of the entire kingdom's military readiness. It feels more like they were either a ceremonial squad used for parades, or perhaps the state was just forced to draft women because they’d lost way too many men in combat.
And look, even Gaddafi had his unit of female bodyguards, which doesn't exactly make them the premier fighting force in all of Libya—it's more like they functioned as a glorified harem meant for show.
Just started watching. It kicks off with the opening narration. Set in 19th-century Africa—the Dahomey kingdom going up against another group... It bugged me a bit that the intro feels so "American"—you know, all that talk about freedom and liberty. I mean, were people in the Dahomey kingdom back in the 1820s really rocking American vibes and clinging to Christian moral standards? Whatever, not my point. The narration keeps going, and there’s this quote, roughly: "The only defense for the Dahomey kingdom is a regiment of warrior women." Hmm. Okay... I think they also mention they're some of the greatest fighters the world has ever seen. Right... seriously?
First scene: nighttime. You see a group of Black warriors sitting around a fire with spears—clearly meant to be African warriors. Then, out of nowhere, these stern-looking women emerge from the tall grass, dressed like they stepped straight out of "300." They charge the warriors and just absolutely wipe them out with this insane level of skill—without taking a single hit themselves.
I don't doubt the movie is well-made—it clearly has high production values—but watching it requires a massive amount of, what's the term, "suspension of disbelief."
If I were to lay out my contact list in a neat little bulleted format, you might walk away thinking I’m some kind of social butterfly with a packed calendar.
But the truth is, I spend about 90% of my time flying solo—which, honestly, suits me just fine.
When I am actually out with a crowd, I usually just end up feeling empty—like I'm just participating in this hollow imitation of what real connection looks like.
The real thing? Genuine connection is incredibly rare.
Reading through this thread really hit me with the realization of just how little I actually hug people. It’s gotten to the point where it feels almost strange—like some massive, out-of-the-ordinary event rather than just something you do.
Here is an interesting article about hugging: -------- Psychologists suggest that getting five or six hugs a day can actually make your life longer and better. This idea was championed back in 1982 by American priest Kevin Zaborney, who designated this day as international hug day. The healing power of a hug isn't just talk, either. Psychotherapist Virginia Satir famously claimed that humans need at least four hugs a day just to survive. She went on to say we need eight hugs daily to maintain ourselves, and twelve to truly thrive. Even world-renowned psychologist Jack Canfield includes hugging in his theories, noting it's healthy, completely natural, and practically perfect. The breakdown is: • 4 hugs to survive • 8 hugs to maintain • 12 hugs to thrive.
Types of hugs:
The Bear Hug - One arm goes over the shoulder and the other around the waist, with both people reciprocating the same way. You make eye contact. It’s a firm hug, but not suffocating. In a romantic context, the guy might even lift the girl off the ground. Message: “You’re awesome!” or “I’ve got your back.”
The "A" Hug - Bodies lean toward each other, using both arms—one over the shoulder and one near the armpit—with faces pressed close so both people look in the same direction. In some parts of the world (not really common here in the US), this quick hug serves as a standard greeting.
The "I Want You Big Time" Hug - Two people wrap their arms tightly around each other—man holds the woman's waist while she wraps her arms around his neck. Torsos touch, legs intertwine, and feet brush.
The Patting Hug - A two-armed hug where you pat the other person with one hand. It basically means: “I like you, but this is strictly platonic.”
The One-Armed Hug - A quick side-hug using just the right arm. Typical among men when the message is: “We're buddies, but we aren't that close.”
The No-Chest Hug - Contact is limited to hands and shoulders, with nothing below that level. The rest of the bodies stay about 1.5 to 2 feet apart. Common among women meeting female colleagues they are friendly with but aren't particularly close to.
The Cheek Hug - A gentle hug, standing or sitting, where cheeks prominently touch while a hand rests on the side of the face. Meaning: “I’m sorry you’re feeling down.”
The Housework Hug - Approaching someone from behind while they are busy with chores and wrapping both arms around their waist, crossing your own arms. The "Guess Who" Hug - Approaching from behind and gently covering the person's eyes with both hands, pressing your chest against their back.
The Forehead Hug - Hands go on the other person's shoulders, and foreheads are rested against each other.
The "Heart" Hug - Each person reaches around the other with one arm under the armpit and the other over the shoulder, resting fingers on the back of the neck.
The Side Hug - Two people standing side-by-side, each using one arm. Good for passing the time while waiting in line.
The "Top of Head" Hug - A standing person hugs a seated person with both arms, enveloping their head or neck, with one side of the face touching the back of the head. Supposedly good for fighting depression. ---------
How often do you hug, and which style do you use most? 🍿
__________________________________ Theme pulled after 109th post from Today's topics.
I barely hug at all—honestly, probably close to zero. Days just roll by without a single embrace. Part of it is definitely a hangover from the pandemic era, I guess. Just yesterday, I went in for a friendly hug, but she shut it down immediately: "No way! I think I'm coming down with a cold!" As for how things used to be before the pandemic... well, I've pretty much forgotten. And that whole idea that you need four hugs a day just to stay alive? Total nonsense.
It actually wasn't half bad—kind of felt like a fresh take on an Indiana Jones style franchise. It’s just such a shame they went overboard with all that vague, muddy nonsense... Honestly, this part was pretty useless.
The other day, Aljehin asked me on the chat what romance actually means to me. I’ll admit, I had to pause and really think before I could give an answer. How do you all define romance? And when was the last time you actually did something romantic—or better yet, experienced it?
___________________________________ This topic was pulled from the 146th post of the topic of the day.
Look, romance isn't dead. It’s just... different for everyone. At some point in life, everybody runs into it.
As for romantic gestures, though—that’s where things get messy. What hits the mark for one person might totally miss for someone else. Take the holidays, for instance. Everywhere you look in the city right now, the Advent displays are set up according to this specific template—something clearly designed to feel "romantic" to whoever came up with the concept. It’s kind of this manufactured, industrial, pseudo-Disney version of romance. You know the vibe: fake snow and Sinatra playing in the background. Personally? It feels hollow to me. There is no such thing as a "default" romantic state. Romance is entirely subjective. I remember once, heading out to meet a girl, I didn't want to show up empty-handed, so I grabbed a quick little box of Turkish Delight on my way. Just a small thing, really. But to her, that was a massive romantic gesture. To some other girl, it probably wouldn't have meant a thing. So, yeah. Romance is a slippery category. It definitely exists, but you either have to aim for it perfectly or prepare to be blindsided by it.
Look, there’s this one segment about the newspaper itself and its editor—where Owen Wilson introduces us to the city while riding a bike—and then you have those three stories with their own subheadings. So, really, we're looking at five distinct parts, three of which actually have titles.
I caught the first day it dropped. It’s a great, fun flick—definitely plenty to take in. For some reason, though, that final segment about the police chef just didn't land for me; felt a bit sluggish, honestly. But the bit with the painter and the protests? Top notch. All those scenes set in the newsroom featuring Bill Murray were just brilliant. I can't help but wish they'd shuffled the order of the stories, though. While I enjoyed the movie, it didn't quite hit the heights of Grand Budapest. It’s funny—in his earlier stuff, his stylistic flair wasn't quite this front-and-center, almost distracting you from the plot. It felt like the director was so focused on the theme this time around that he just wanted to deliver a full-on Wes Anderson experience.
I thought the original Blade with Wesley was top-tier.
But this new direction? It’s got a massive problem. The old Blade lived in its own world—there weren't any other superheroes running around, so the whole thing could just be a pure action-horror flick. Now, though, everything is being shoved into one giant universe alongside the Avengers and the Eternals and this endless parade of caped crusaders. They're going to throw someone else in there, the plot is bound to get watered down, and let's be honest—the movie will probably end up looking and feeling just like every other Marvel movie out there.