Terrifier & Terrifier 2: The ultimate bloody duo

nimblemarlin6 said:Everyone's out here trying to dig up the "roots of Art's psychopathy," right? Like we can just pinpoint one moment where everything went south. It’s not that simple. You can't just look at a guy like Art and expect a neat little origin story like some Hollywood script. People want answers, they want a motive, but sometimes there isn't one—just pure, unadulterated chaos.🤣

Why does he even do what he does? Seriously, why?! What is his whole deal? What's the backstory there?🤣

What an absolute moron (I had to get this off my chest even if I end up getting banned for it). 😁 ),
It’s pretty obvious the guy just isn't accepted by anyone—even without the mask on. He can't get a girlfriend, everyone treats him like a punching bag, and the poor idiot doesn't even realize how creepy he actually is. So, he tries to play it off as a clown, but honestly? Even that fails miserably.

That clown basically acts like an "exhaust valve" when you're trying to crunch the numbers. It's like... a pressure release for the whole equation. Second person.
That character is a total psycho. A complete sicko.

Or maybe it’s an alien?

What you’ve laid out there is pretty much the life story of your average teenager.
Not everyone ends up walking around with a machete or an assault rifle—though, obviously, some do, especially in the USA.
Speaking of psychopaths, if we're talking cinema, Hannibal Lecter is probably my personal gold standard for the archetype.
So, I guess it's up to you all to decide—is Art a psychopath, or is he something else entirely?
Aliens are off the table.

mellowskipper said:Honestly, what you just laid out is pretty much the daily grind for your average teenager.
I mean, obviously not everyone ends up wandering around with a machete or an assault rifle, though let's be real, that happens way too often in the USA.>
Speaking of psychopaths, if we're talking movie icons, Hannibal Lecter is basically the gold standard in my book.
So, come on, tell me—is Art a total psycho or is there something else going on there?
Aliens are off the table.

It's actually pretty common for movies like this to serve as these super extreme, radical metaphors ☕

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...

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.

Edward Watson18 said:either you watched a Larry Cohen movie regardless of anything else, or nowadays it's the case with James Wan and Neill Blomkamp... back then there were more directors you could actually point to, whereas today it feels like just a tiny handful where you can say the movie is worth watching

- when you knew Rutger Hauer or Tom Atkins was in a film, you knew the acting would at least be entertaining; those kinds of actors don't exist anymore

- if the effects were handled by Rick Baker, Stan Winston, Rob Bottin, or Tom Savini... you knew you were watching because the deaths or the creatures were going to be impressive

- when you saw names like Joel Silver, Albert Band, Roger Corman, Irwin Yablans, Robert Zemeckis, Jerry Bruckheimer, Mario Kassar, or Andrew G. Vajna producing... you could generally expect a decent movie

- similarly, seeing screenwriters like Dan O'Bannon, Larry Cohen, or Fred Dekker meant the film should be good

for a million reasons... you wouldn't have a clue about any of them... it's like asking if the players are from Uruguay or if they are politicians from the upper house in Wales...

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

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...

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?

nimblemarlin6 said:Are you seriously writing fan fiction here? Again?

Based on the "second one," I’d say this character and the chaos he starts is strictly for the fans—totally random, pure horror spectacle, exactly what gorehounds crave.
He exists in a world that's just "realistic" enough to serve as a backdrop for murder scenes, wears that suit because it looks cool, stalks people basically just because, appearing out of nowhere without any rhyme or reason (even Jason has more logic to his appearances), breaking the fourth wall, winking at the horror buffs...

It’s a movie made by fans, for fans.

I should probably hedge my bets since I haven't seen the first one, so I don't know if they show some kid who's basically a young Jeffrey Dahmer dealing with trauma, the roots of his issues, a rough childhood, why he's in normal clothes versus why he puts on that clown suit...

Man, forget the fan fiction stuff, it's about how I actually perceive the film.

That's like me saying the Earth is flat. It's so easy to just slap on some stupid label you picked up somewhere.

I can make my own guesses, seeing as his targets are mostly young girls.
And who said we're talking about a young guy? He might have been a kid once.

Slaughter, slaughter, slaughter... if I actually loved watching carnage, I would've gotten a job at a meatpacking plant.

Ricko said:With the release of the second Terrifier installment, Art jumped straight into that elite tier where the legends live—the ones most icons will never even touch. We’re talking about the Holy Trinity here. It's tough to imagine another horror villain ever rising up to mess with their status. The sheer weight and impact they have isn't just for horror fans; it's massive for all of pop culture. Now, I'm not hating on Art or anyone else—they're all top-tier villains but like I said, there are different levels to this game.

Man, you missed the biggest point of all. Freddy isn't the ultimate heavy hitter just because of how he looks or his vibe; it's because of the mechanics behind him. He has that genius premise of operating within dreams and nightmares, playing on that primal fear of sleep itself.

That's where his real power lies. That's what actually gets under people's skin. It goes deeper. So, if you ask me, he's in a league of his own. Purely supernatural.

As for Art? He can hang with Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees, no question! And if you look at his whole way of doing things, there's almost this sense of him fighting against the system—it's definitely not a coincidence how he goes after those news reporters and scalps their faces.

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)...