What are your thoughts on the Terrifier series?

I’ve never seen any Terrifier films, but from the above exchange, I need to get on it.

Did he say "movies for prestige"?
And I'm not sure what bravery Terrifier requires. It is this guy's only vehicle and he has learned that being shocking is something he can ride for a while. It would be a lot braver, though admittedly possibly stupid, if he abandoned his one trick and tried to make the movies more interesting.

i can't really help you, i tried explaining my thoughts the best I could. You were the one who brought the topic up, not me. It took me a second to remember where that happened in the movie, but i finally did remember those two occurrences with the intro scene and the bomb.

I tried to explain what I meant in my response to Yoda's response, so refer to that if you want to know what i meant. The one where i talk in length about art and movie making in general.

Well, I mean, if you're gonna put it in quotes it should refer to something that person actually says. And I hadn't gotten to the later part yet.

Isn't that what quote boxes are for? I understand your confusion, so i'll remove the quotes from my original post to make it clear i am not referring to what Yoda said. I take it for granted I won't understand some of the things people online will say and I try not to respond when that happens.

No, I understand what you're saying now. In the context before the longer explanation it seemed like you were quoting him and I didn't see that and I was trying to follow this discussion and couldn't understand where that came from.
I hear what you're saying and I certainly wouldn't say there is no artistry to shock. But I think being a filmmaker is more than just having some artistry in one very small area. But then again, you also don't seem to be making the argument that these are Good Movies just that they are succeeding at being shocking so I guess I can't argue there.
I absolutely loathed Terrifier so that I have only seen it and All Hallow's Eve (before it) so I can only comment on those. But we sorta beat the dead horse of my loathing for that movie to death in another thread.

Pushing the limits is fine. That doesn't mean the movie is good. There's more than "what he did" and also "how he did it". I don't necessarily disagree Leone is going for a big splash and the job he's doing. I've just never found the films appealing. If it has an audience, cool. I just don't want to be in this series' audience.

__________________
I destroyed the dastardly dairy dame! I made mad milk maid mulch!

I can think of better "shock" films. Being a fan of Salo, A Serbian Film, Tumbling Doll of Flesh, Der Todesking/Nekromantik. I will just stick with my what the f*ck did I watch foreign films.

Adding the Danish Gutsforladt, which is really WTF! did I watch.

Do you know of a streaming service that offers these films with subtitles? Or maybe just a reasonably way to watch them piecemeal?

Salo was good, Tumbling Doll of Flesh seems really messed up based on the IMBD description.

Try Just Watch.

Gudsforladt ( A God Without A Universe) was on Tubitv. Kasper Juhl films are all f*cked up.

Most I have on dvd.

I don't watch overhyped films. I love horror but I like extreme as well.

My thoughts..

The last 20 minutes of “All Hallows Eve” freaked me the hell out and I wasn’t prepared for it.

For ages I would do an internet search to see when Art would be getting more screen time.

I liked Terrifier enough but on Terrifier 2 I just became immune to the violence.

I think Damian could have spent more money on better locations and less on fake blood.

Since I saw 2 and 3 over the past couple days, and I thought our conversations here were really interesting, I decided to re-watch the first one again (praise be to days off!). Here is how I rate them as movies:

Terrifier: 4/5

Terrifier 2: 3/5

Terrifier 3: 4/5

The first one is honestly my favorite though: I think the location and the lighting overall had more of a slasher movie feel to them, whereas the other two were obviously kinda over-done and higher budget. Also, the first one was more comedic, which generally adds to movies of this genre and makes more sense if you're going to have a clown-mime serial killer...

I respect how 2 out did the first one in terms of shock value and the general buildup of fear for the characters in the first part of the movie, yet as I said before, it kinda went downhill after the bathroom scene where:



I thought 3 was pretty solid, even though none of these movies are incredibly noteworthy. I like this series better than a lot of Slasher movies, yet I like a lot of movies from a lot of genres. I like what they did with Victoria in 3, and I also thought the Christmas scene near the end was pretty dreadful and unnerving (especially with the involvement of the younger family members).

Are you just into crazy clown movies?

Have you seen The Last Circus?

No it was just an impulsive choice plz don't take screen names so seriously...

You should watch it, it's a good film.

Sorry I watch a lot of non English speaking films .

Please pardon my impetuousness but I watched that trailer and that film looks great. It's on Freevee, which is the free side of Prime, so I can get to it at some point. I know you weren't addressing me with the post. It just caught my eye.

Sorry, little confusing because the two things were consecutive, which implied a link (perhaps unintentionally?). It's also implied because the post starts with "I disagree," so I'm naturally reading what follows as if it much be a contradiction. But now it sounds like it isn't, and that you don't actually disagree. More on that below.

That idea might be silly, but I didn't say it wasn't art. I said I thought it wasn't a skill/talent, and I generally found less value in it. You can make art without skill or talent.

So, per the above, it sounds like maybe you don't disagree with me, but with some unspecified other person who perhaps you've heard say things like this. Since people who question the value of shocking art often go on to say "it's not art at all," in the same way they'll use categorical exclusion to amplify their dislike of something. But I'm not going to say that.

Probably true on some level, but I think we see plenty of evidence of artists who've reached a level of success where they appear to be doing more or less exactly what they want to.

There's a funny little horseshoe theory thing going on here, where the least constrained filmmakers are a) those with no reputation and b) those with a sterling reputation. The difference is that b) is doing exactly what it wants to do and a) is doing whatever it has to do.

It's true that we can't ever really know what's in someone's heart, what their motives are. But I think we can draw some conclusions based on someone's career to that point. Pure shock seems to overwhelmingly come from people who do not really have a career to speak of, and have no preexisting foothold in the industry or reputation to risk. Which makes intuitive sense: they're trying to get attention. It's the cinematic equivalent of Thích Quảng Đức, the self-immolating monk. But he self-immolated to draw attention to an issue; he didn't say "check this out, look at how messed up it is that I'm on fire!"

Yorgos, on the other hand, already had a career before Poor Things. Whether it's good or not, shocking or not, I believe he had something to say with it. Shock as a means is occasionally a necessity. Shock as an end unto itself is kinda lame, and I think the degree to which it succeeds is mostly going to be a reflection of how badly rote media output has oversaturated a given culture.