Texas Chainsaw Massacre!

Actually, the only teen I felt for was Jessica Biel's character and maybe her boyfriend. The other three were potheads who need a good killing.

That said, the movie and characters still drew you in and it was a fantastic movie. Definitely the best horror movie of the year.

 

I agree, I don't want to seem overly critical of the movie, because I did enjoy the film..

However, I just didn't care at all what happened to the kids..Just like what Qonas indicated..(except I was most annoyed by Biel's character--as I mentioned before, her "uber-woman" was just hard to believe..I did like the performance of her boyfirend, but the others were just 2-D characters..

*SPOILER DISCUSSION***





1)maybe it was the nature of the movie, but I was pulling for the family..

When the stoner pulled the trigger and the gun went <click> I just thought "oh yeah, Ermy's gonna do something now!" I wish he would have then took out his gun and shot the kid right then and there..

2) The overblown scene when Biels had to kill her friend on the hook was hoaky and melodramatic...I would have let him hang there..

3) Finally, in the most needless scene in the movie, Biels chops off Leatherface's arm!?! That was just stupid...

I knew it wouldn't happen, but I was hoping there was going to be a twist and leatherface would have gotten his revenge.. As it were, we ended up with the sappy "Hollywood ending.." grrrrr....

 

I loved how the chainsaw could cut through anything in the remake. Very unrealistic.

In the original, it couldn't even cut through the semi's door at the end of the film.

 

Gone is the entire surreal trip of terror through the farmhouse--gone are the bone-lamps, the flesh-covered chairs, the skeleton art, the decaying corpses and the infamous dinner scene.[/b

oh, god. that's the BEST PART of the original. they cut out the DINNER SCENE? that's the core of the original. what the heck is wrong with them?

 

However, I just didn't care at all what happened to the kids

But with the first, outside of Sally, the lead, did you really care about any of the other kids? None of them, outside of her brother are ever really developed, and the brother is (intentionally) annoying beyond words. The rest were just Leatherface fodder.

they cut out the DINNER SCENE? that's the core of the original. what the heck is wrong with them?

They made a different movie. I actually would rather them keep the dinner scene out, just because it is such a strong point of the original. There's no way in hell they could have re-created it, or done it justice at all. Better to just leave it alone.

 

No, you are obsolutely right, the kids were nothing more than Facefodder in the first one as well...

However, the main girl wasn't some super lock picking, car wiring, crazy chopping, superwoman either...

I thought it was a very powerful and "real" scene when the girl was laughing hysterically in the back of the pickup at the end of the first one.. She was just glad to be alive, and earned it..

This time, I wished that one member of the family would hack Biels and wipe that smirk off her face...

 

No, the characters in both films werent exactly the deepest developed. However one thing i didnt like about the remake was the whole teen-slasher angle that they went for; We have the slutty chick, the good chick, the loser and the stoner. i dont know, i guess it aint a whole lot different than the original film, but something about it just rubbed me the wrong way. The biggest part of this leads to my main complaint about the film: they failed to understand the original.

Case in point: Yes, the original didnt have the deepest characters and the remake is about on equal footing. However, the point of the film was to just overwhelm the viewer with horror. The film was disturbing beyond words when it was released. The dinner scene completely crystalized this point; its so over the top and disturbing, it almost takes on a humerous tone in its extremity. The viewer is placed from the perspective of the main girl as she is completly assualted by these gruesome acts that are just absolutly appalling. Rob Zombie's House of 1000 Corpses understood TCM and emmulated that sentiment perfectly (the film is a remake of TCM anyway--the new one wasnt even needed!).
Now in the remake we have the same farmhouse/dinner-scene sequence. Instead of submitting Jessica Biel to a trip of surreal terror through bone-chairs, rooms full of corpses, cannibalism and the dinner sequence, we have her wake up in the basement and find her friend on a meathook. Okay, thats pretty cool, except HER NIPPLES ARE SHOWING THROUGH HER SOAKING WET T-SHIRT! The scene is quickly dispensed with in a rather lame and horror-less way before we are treated to more scenes where she hides from Leatherface. Rather than go for exploitive shocks and try to distrub the viewer, the film goes for endless jump-scares and standard teen slasher cliches.

The whole farmhouse sequence was the core of the film. They removed all hints at cannibalsim, and completly glazed over most of the more distrubing aspects of the original; the meathook scenes were retained in some form at least, but they just didnt have the same impact IMO.

So what did they add? More footage of Leatherface chasing a girl in a wet t-shirt. More scenes of jump-scares and such. The scene with the baby and the trailer-park family? What was that about? What did that establish? It was put in there just to make Beil look like a more wholesome character, and the scene doesnt have any effect on the rest of the film. The pyscho-cop scene was entertaining but seemed a little too unnecessary and comedic (however i enjoyed it all the same).

They made a different film all right: they made a teen slasher flick, albeit a very cool one (but that was due to the souce material alone).

I dont think they set out to make a different movie. I think they set out to remake TCM but failed to grasp the very nature of the original, or at least were willing to sacrifice it to make it a more commercial film (!).

But whatever, i dont mean to bash the film so, its pretty decent, i just think that it completely misrepresents the original. What i did love: the whole face-mask thing that Leatherface does. They at least did that one brilliantly; the one moment where Biel realizes he is wearing her friends face was truely chilling and the only moment where i felt the spirit of the original return in full form. Too bad there wasnt more moments like this.

 

rpeugh obviously hasn't seen very many horror movies in the past 10 years, if ANY. Give me a break, man.

I'm a bit of a horror buff. True horror movies aren't about"boo, scared ya didn't i?" type moments. Its so cheap and tacky, any director on the face on the earth can do it, and it doesn't any sort of lasting impression. Heck, "boo" moments even take you out of the movie and make you giggle.

True horror is about creating imagery that sticks in the mind, themes that you will carry out with you from the cinema and you will run over in your head over and over again in the dark. The original created a truely disturbing setting and it affected a generation because of its themes of canabilism and mutilation.

This movie is another in a long line of unnmemorable teen slashers. Teen slashers are the favourite of lazy directors and shoddy writers. Heck, these ones are more lazy than the regulars, these guys had to go and steal the ideas of a classic.

Why doesn't anyone remake a bad movie, i ask you. Just leave the classics alone for goodnes sake! Now they're remaking Night Of The Living Dead, and i hear thats not even an 18. Ain't that just precious.

We live in a world where Resident Evil the movie and the Scream series passes for horror. Its truely sad.

 

"Now they're remaking Night Of The Living Dead"

Again ? There was already a 1990 remake. Shows you how forgettable that was.

 

Its actually Dawn of the Dead, the superior sequel.

 

Well, Kainedemo , I havent seen many in the past THREE years, because quite frankly, I have lost faith in the horror genre. I just know they are going to suck, so why spend my money to go see them? In fact, when I heard that Micheal Bay was involved in this movie, I thought it would definately suck. But when I saw a positive review from Harry Knowles, a person I tend to agree with a lot, I figured it might be good. And I found it to be very good. What great horror movies have you seen in the past ten years? Oh, and "boo" moments still work if you can do them right. I dont think a movie should be punished for doing them or be called "lazy".

And about the dinner scene, I think another reason they left it out is because cannibalism is a thing that has been overdone with Hannibal Lector and other things. Im also kinda glad they left that scene out.

 

Rob Zombie's House of 1000 Corpses understood TCM and emmulated that sentiment perfectly (the film is a remake of TCM anyway--the new one wasnt even needed!).

See, now, I thought 1000 Corpses was crap, and that it emulated nothing of TCM, because it was too busy trying to be feaky and funny at the same time. I didn't think it had any of the qualities that made TCM (original) good. I thought this was a superior movie in every way to 1000 Corpses. There were some very good images and scenes in TCM (Remake), the tracking shot through the bullet hole in the Hitchhiker's head, Leatherface wearing Eric Balfour's face as a new mask, I loved the scene with R. Lee Emery and one of the kids in the van, where he's forcing him to recreate the Hitch's suicide, the kid hanging on hooks had me squirming after awhile, yes, there was Jessica's see through shirt (which I will never, ever complain about) but that was followed shortly by her covered in the guy's blood after she puts him out of his misery. There was a lot of good in this movie that really stood out to as good. Yes, the ending and the business with baby didn't work well for the type of movie it should have been, but for me, that's a small complaint.

 

Rob Zombie has already said that the next 1000 Corpses is going to be "Have the same characters, but be more dark, without the comedy.."

Take that as you will, I guess..

And I agree with the dinner scene being left out as well..

At least this way, the original will always have it, instead of it being ruined by some "modern interpretation.."

and I'm not complaining per se, about her shirt, it just got to be absurd how everything was wet..

I haven't seen that much water in a movie since Titanic...

 

I haven't seen either one of the movies, but I will rent the original asap.

 

do so...It's worth it..

Don't expect a modern day "slasher flick" per se...But expect a surreal horror, like what Kaine detailed..

The modern TCM isn't bad either, just different...

You will report back here with your review, right...!