Jon Goes to the Grindhouse: ‘Terrifier 2’ deranged, disgusting but also original, emotional … if you can stomach it
There is a point in “Terrifier 2” during which a character’s mother walks into her house, sees the place in shambles and discovers something so shocking you cannot help but completely understand her over-the-top, only-in-a-horror movie scream.
It might be the most graphic and disgusting scene in a film overflowing with them, but the special effects are so well done and the sequence so well earned that you find yourself – while squirming and possibly shielding your eyes (or worse) – impressed with the end result.
And it is all by design, as the shock value is the gimmick for “Terrifier 2” – currently playing in select theaters and streaming now on Screambox.
The shock value was its predecessor’s call to fame in 2016 when the Damien Leone-directed “Terrifier” started making the rounds. That film had arguably one of the grossest kill scenes in genre history, and I won’t spoil it here if you have yet to watch. I’ll just say it involves a saw. Those with iron stomachs can seek out the film for themselves if they so choose.
The premise of that film was simple. Two young women stop for a bite to eat to sober up after attending a Halloween party but are stalked by Art the Clown, a seemingly unstoppable force that gives Pennywise a run for its money in the menace department.
The sequel finds Art reinvigorated and ready to scare up a whole new series of intense and graphic kills not to mention nightmare fuel for the viewers.
A movie like this is going to be divisive no matter what. There will be people who are – not without merit – repulsed by or morally and ethically opposed to seeing that kind of graphic violence done to primarily female characters. There also will be people who see the grotesque and understand the craftsmanship that goes into the makeup and special effects to sell a viewer on the scares.
Personally, I did not find anything in “Terrifier 2” to be out of place for a grindhouse flick from the ’80s. But while special effects have undoubtedly gotten more realistic in the past 40 years, so much of it has ceded ground to digitally enhanced or created effects that this film felt like a throwback in that sense – a love letter to the practical effects that made the legends revered in the golden era of horror.
Effects aside, though, the biggest difference in quality between “Terrifier” and its sequel is story – more specifically, that the second chapter has one. Don’t mistake that for a critique. “Terrifier” is a nonstop bloodbath, barely giving you a moment to stop screaming let alone breathe. But it also loses itself at times because the plot is treated as a secondary concern.
“Terrifier 2” would work even if the gore was reduced. That’s a triumph.
The plot focuses on Sienna (Lauren LaVera), a young woman whose father died a year earlier and seems fated to contend with Art on the one-year anniversary of the events of the previous film.
Sienna also must contend with a mother, Barbara (played by Sarah Voigt), who is at her wit’s end with the responsibility of being a single parent and sole provider for Sienna and her younger brother, Jonathan. Voigt shines in every scene she’s in, and for my money was one of the film’s highlights.
Art is once again played masterfully by David Howard Thornton. He clearly relishes making the viewer feel at unease. Every exaggerated step, finger-rolling hand wave or cheekbone-to-cheekbone smile drip with dread.
Ordinarily, Thornton’s antics would alone be worth the price of admission. But LaVera and Elliott Fullam, who plays Jonathan, are the best reasons to see “Terrifier 2.” The duo deftly portrays the complicated family dynamic that has arisen in the wake of their father’s death while also vying with a murderous force that has become focused on them.
Another thing going for the movie? It’s scary – even without the blood and guts (of which there is plenty). There is a scene when LaVera’s Sienna is shopping for costume supplies that may be one of the best scares in the movie, and it may include the least number of effects.
If it is not clear, I really liked this movie. Was it high-concept art? Maybe, if you view the gore as a sort of Jackson Pollock captured on film. Was it elevated horror? No, unless you mean its effect on your blood pressure. But it is fun and will be a cult classic for the next 40 years. That’s more than enough.
Sometimes, it’s as simple as a rose is a rose is a rose. Or, better yet, sometimes a tiny top hat is a tiny top hat is a tiny top hat.
If you’ve seen “Terrifier 2,” tell us what you thought of it in the comments section. And if there is another movie you’d like to see discussed in this space in the future, let me know.