Terrifier 1 or 2?
I think the first one is superior. How about everyone else?
shareI prefer the second.
The first is leaner and a bit darker tonally, arguably a superior atmosphere. It has it's strengths of course but for me this is a case where the sequel is better in almost every area.
- More of a story, some lore developing. The first is very barebones and basic.
- Better production values (more locations, better sets, better photography). This had a bigger budget and it shows.
- Much better OST.
- A far superior protagonist. The first one does the old bait-and-switch shock of killing of the lead half way through. It seems Sienna is gonna carry this franchise and become the final girl of it. When all is said and done it'll be Sienna who is synonymous with this franchise not the lead in the first (I can't even remember her name). She'll be the Laurie Strode/Nancy Thompson/Ellen Ripley of Terrifier.
- Slightly better gore FX and a lot more of it.
- Better costumes/clothing. Sienna's outfit is brilliant and quite memorable.
As I said when people take a step back and look back on franchises stuff like having the franchises defining final girl, being a surprise box office hit, introducing themes/plots that become core to the lore of the franchise...these all make the films the 'best' in their respective franchises.
It's why a film like Friday the 13th (1980) struggles to get people to stick to the 'original is always the best' mantra. Because the iconography of the franchise is Jason Voorhees in a hockey mask. It takes stuff like this for people to let go of their anti-sequel bias. When a franchise moves away from the original intentions and it's sequels become more iconic. The first Terrifier is basically a throw away at this point, a little kernel of a story that the franchise is growing away from.
If Terrifer 3 carries on from 2 (further explains the lore that was introduced, has the main cast return) then people in the future will rightfully see 2 as being better than 1.
Both Leone and Thornton have confirmed that a Terrifier 3 is planned, along with further installments that will slowly build on Art's background and motives. With the heroine of Terrifier (2016) having been driven insane, Terrifier 2's protagonist is set to be a franchise lead and return in future films and related media. Leone has also stated himself that he may have more than enough material for Terrifier 3 to warrant a Terrifier 4.
From wikipedia. share
Excellent analysis. I'm pretty much in agreement with all your points. The addition of a fantastic final girl (indeed, I think Sienna is already one of the best final girls ever) is the aspect that made the biggest difference for me that made this superior to the original. It says a lot in a movie with a supremely creepy killer clown with some of the most brutal and memorable kills I've seen that Laura LaVera was the best part of the film. She delivers an excellent performance and gives us a hugely sympathetic and likable character to root for, looks totally amazing in that costume, and she's absolutely bad-ass in the film's final act.
shareI too consider Sienna to be one of the best final girls ever. She's gorgeous but very importantly she's a very likeable character. Likability is so important for a protagonist especially if you're expecting them to carry the franchise and be the lead in several films.
Giving her a beautiful costume (that will surely become iconic within the confines of the Terrifier franchise), a bad ass sword and letting her kick some ass really compounds upon the beauty and likeable nature to make her one of the best.
The costume is quite important actually as it makes her standout, it's a memorable look, like how horror movie villains with cool/badass costumes become more iconic and easily recognizable. Many final girls only get to rock plain clothes.
Terrifier 2 feels like the beginning of the franchise in a way even though it's a sequel. They introduced so much that needs to be explained and they've found their 'final girl'.
Yeah. I agree for the most part. I guess I'm more in tune tonally with the darker atmosphere of the first. I just remember it being a bit more brutal etc. I think I'll have to give it a rewatch soon.
shareI rewatched the first last week in anticipation for seeing the second.
The first does feel a bit more grim and oppressive. The second feels a bit more zany, like a carnival of the macabre. A touch of humor and more colorful (visually and tonally).
It's because the first is so contained. You're dropped straight into the night of horror and it doesn't let up or deviate much. It's very linear. All the proceedings take place at night in desolate places. It's quiet and unnerving.
Here in the second you spend time with Sienna, her brother and their mother. You have daytime scenes, family chit-chat and drama, scenes at schools, party scenes with many in attendance (people enjoying themselves and having fun). You also have the quirky meme-able scenes like the dream sequence at the Clown Cafe.
I can see some people preferring the simplicity of the first and the atmosphere it has. It's dark, mean spirited and feels isolated from the rest of the world like a dark little corner in the middle of no where. It's so condensed and tightly contained that the atmosphere doesn't let up at all. It's grim from the first frame to the last.
I think you've summarized the difference between these two films perfectly. I fully agree. I think the zany and warm elements of the second one detract from it for me. Compared to the first's relentless grim and oppressive contained-ness as you say.
That last paragraph, 100% bang on.