StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm wary of remakes, especially in today's PC world post-Scream.

I remember an HBO, or Showtime.. one of those, specials about Movie Monsters. And they were interviewing the original Leatherface. He was talking about how they approached him to reprise his role in the new movie and the casting lady said, "We're totally re-doing this movie as a psychological thriller, not a bloodbath like the original." Poor leatherface just kind of paused for a minute and said, "Did you even SEE the original?"

Good God..

I never saw the original. Im not interested in seeing this one.

Most slasher pics are fucking stupid bullshit, but this one actually seems pretty good...at the very least, it's got a good trailer. Looks much better than that Cabin Fever bullshit.

That said, I'll wait until it's available to rent.

The remake by Michael Bay? Michael "EDIT IT TO FUCKING DEATH AND THEN BURN THE NEGATIVES" Bay?

I regard it with a sense of horror, and not the kind the makers intended. The original was no great work of art, but it sure as hell doesn't deserve the likes of Bay fucking with it!

To be fair, Bay is only the producer, not the director.

And the original wasn't that great anyways, so nobody's going to care if they mangle the original story...it's basically just a brand new movie with an old premise.
And, as I said before, it looks like it'll be at least relatively good, considering the genre. (99.99% of all slasher pictures make me envy the retarded)

The original was just that, actually. Kind of original. If it didn't invent the genre, it re-invented it. Too bad it was downhill from there....

Why didn't they just go out on a limb and, oh, I dunno, make a completely original movie? Especially if they're out to change it so much?

I blame this remake trend on the first Adams Family movie, BTW. It was a bandwagon that people are still jumping on.

TCM is not really a slasher film.

And it is one of the greatest horror films the world has ever seen. The remake looks surprisingly faithful. I'll be first in line tomorrow. I'll give Michael Bay some credit for now, it looks like he did a very good job.

What's the movie about. What I determined from the trailer was that 4 teens blundered into a house of rednecks who kill anybody who comes in.

As a rule of thumb, remakes, from the moment they are mentioned, suck unless proven otherwise by a direct viewing. I refuse to believe any remake (especially nowadays) can possibly live up to the original unless I see it myself.

And when it comes to remakes I, more often that not, leave the room very dissapointed.

TCM is gonna suck.

Hey, Ebert gave it zero stars!

What was the last movie to get that?

"Life of David Gale"!

What about the movie before that?

"Freddy got Fingered"!

Nope, not gonna see it!

Setzer wrote:What's the movie about. What I determined from the trailer was that 4 teens blundered into a house of rednecks who kill anybody who comes in.

That quote is priceless.

AFAIK, TCM is going to suck badly. But who knows, maybe i'll get a pleasant surprise...

The producer/director said that he agreed with the film raters that movies need less gore. Booooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, the original TCM is one of the most disturbing films i've seen and its is almost goreless. Its not that it makes you sick to your stomache with blood and guts--hell, i can take everything, I've sat through all the Guinea Pig and Violent Shit films without blinking an eye--but it has this creepy, rotting atmosphere that just gets under your skin. Its the atmosphere, the mood; its a testament to Tobe Hooper's brilliance.

I still maintain that the trailer to the remake looks like it will be very good. The original cinematographer from TCM1 is back on board IIRC, and the cinematography was one of the most effective parts of the film. But whatever. I'll reserve judgement until tommorrow night.

Just once I'd like to see the serial killer run into a gun-crazy, card-carrying member of the NRA- Shep, if you will. The Serial Killer runs into Shep's room, fires up the chainsaw...

...and gets his head blown to bits by a shotgun.

I'd like to see Shep in "Scream".

"I'm inside your house."

"WHAT?"

My apologies, Shep, but I just couldn't resist.

CHUD says it's good. However much you trust them.

Review

Oh that poster isn't ripping off Hannibal...

Eh, I'm not gonna see it. I'm not into that genre anyway, and this one doesn't seem to stand out at all.

Looks like crap, sounds like crap, I'm sure as hell not wasting my money on it.

The first one was kind of like..."this is the film that they've been hyping since I was a kid as scary?" I certainly won't be seeing this one, although the trailer is very good I've been burned WAY too many times to go see a movie based on a trailer.

Even if I wanted to I wouldn't. The Preppie hoarde is deciding to make this viewing it's make out zoine. Meh.

Okay looks like im the first one to post an actual post-viewing review here so here goes...

I just back from seeing the film. While it wasnt anything special, it didnt completly tank either. Which leaves me with the original question: if you cant improve on the original then why bother? The original film is still a thousand times better.

However, having said that, the remake is fairly enjoyable. There are a few moments where the same under-your-skin (no pun intended) atmosphere from the original returns,, even if they are far and few between. I just think that the actual premise and absolutly chilling imagry of the chainsaw-weilding Leatherface is so damn cool that its hard for the film to be completly terrible. One thing I will definitly give credit to is the cinematography: absolutly beautiful. The original DP from the first film returns 30 years later and he hasnt lost his touch; the film looks absolutly great, and if any enjoyment from the film can be salvaged, it is definitly to his credit alone (though his name alludes me right now).

Complaints? Many. For one the film just isnt scary. Yeah, its got some disturbing ideas, all of which belong to the original film. One thing that dissapointed me was that original film was not only a hundred times more disturbing, but it was more violent as well. Stuff like the girl-on-the-meathook scene are excercized in favor of scenes that about equally as onscreen-violent but not very shocking at all, beyond cheap closeups of gore. Part of the reason that is isnt very effective leads me to the second major problem the film has.

And that problem is that too much was changed. I'm all for new directions, but only if they are beneficial. *SPOILERS*
Gone is the girl-on-the-meathook scene, instead replaced with a mundane, similar scene. 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. Gone is the human-flesh-for-sale BBQ stand; though it still exists in a similar form, the horrific secret is never revealed. Much of the more disturbing aspects of the tale are ommitted--the slaughter-house mentioned in the original is explored, but the dialogue of the original was much more disturbing. The hidden car-lot in the farmland is seen, but never explained (the family hides the vehicles of all their victims in the back of the house).

So what does that leave us with? Barely anything. All those things that were ommitted were all the things that made TCM effective and were what made it great and unique. So what are we left with? Teenagers running from a guy with a chainsaw. Yawn. It has a certain level of enjoyment but its a standard, unoriginal teen slasher flick. What are the things they added? New scenes of teens running from a guy with a chainsaw!

The film does have enough merrits to warrant a viewing for fans of the series or the genre, but those looking for something unique and frightening should stick with the original film. Some viewers in the theater were appalled at the violence; i couldnt understand it. The premise itself is disturbing, but what we actually see is downright tame. Hell, stuff on CSI or X-Files is almost as gory and violent as this. Horror fans will see this regardless of my, or anyones, opinion on the film, just because they have to see the new Texas Chainsaw Massacre film. People who arent into this stuff would be better off seeing something else.

For those who havent, go see the original 1974 Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

DPDarkPrimus wrote: My apologies, Shep, but I just couldn't resist.

I'd just go, So? And then stab the loser to death and take him with me.

Here's another review, not nearly as positive as the one above:

Ebert was right to give this movie zero stars. It's barely a movie at all--more like an exercise in getting the audience from one cheap scare to the other. Oh no! Something's moving! Oh wait, it's just a kid. Oh no! It's Leatherface! Oh wait, it's just the "sheriff". Well now we can relax--oh holy shit, it's Leatherface for real! Ad nauseum. I could scare someone just as easily by sneaking up on them and shouting "Boo!"

In between startling the audience and chasing characters we don't care about with a chainsaw, the movie indulges in every horror cliche since Psycho, maybe Nosferatu. I don't think I'm giving away any major plot points by telling you that everyone who smokes pot or fucks dies. Or that cars don't work at critical moments. Or the friendly locals aren't really friendly. Or that Leatherface, who is supposed to be human, is capable of swinging a chainsaw around after recieving wounds that would leave every other human who ever lived dying in a haze of shock and blood loss (after seeing what happened to him, you'll be wondering how he even managed to start the fucking thing).

The characterization doesn't extend much past slutty chick, shallow jerk guy, shallow jerk guy with glasses, guy who's trying not to be a shallow jerk but not hard enough not to get killed later, and Our Hero Girl. Our Hero Girl is a moron, by the way--I counted at least three instances where she could have killed Leatherface or at least taken a decent shot at it (one of those missed chances led directly to the death of another character).

Not that we can really blame her. The whole story reeks of idiot plot (as in, the only way the story works is if all the people in it are idiots). If our intrepid band had a lick of common sense, Leatherface would have gone hungry--but then we wouldn't have a movie, would we?

Redeeming qualities? A few. It's always good to see R. Lee Ermey on the big screen. He was scarier than Leatherface, to be honest. Jessica Biel is hot as a motherfucker, as usual. The movie did have a few moments that were genuinely disturbing and scary--undoubtedly stolen directly from the original. Other than that, unless you feel like spending $8 to look at some mildly interesting set design (otherwise known as the Thirteen Ghosts justification), you'd do better spending your money elsewhere. Take the money you would have wasted on The Cheap Uninspired Ripoff of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and rent a copy of the real Texas Chainsaw Massacre and look at pictures of Jessica Biel on the Internet.