Nothing beats the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre in terms of visceral terror, and creating a constant sense of unease, while having very little gratuitous violence. It's one of the best horror films of all time, it's not just another slasher flick, it delves into the most heinous depravity of people, and while a simple story, shows the true horror of a person thrust into a life threatening experience. Gore becomes a crutch often to stand in for a lack of true tension, but violence is only disgusts, it doesn't create a true sense of suspense and terror.
I think Ebert said it best when he said about the remake: "There is no worthy or defensible purpose in sight here: The filmmakers want to cause disgust and hopelessness in the audience. Ugly emotions are easier to evoke and often more commercial than those that contribute to the ongoing lives of the beholders." That's how I saw the remakes: they hate the audience and isn't concerned with entertaining them. It's more concerned with making its characters suffer and gleefully piling up the bodies.
He may be thinking of 'Pieces' from 1982, but that has a scene of a killer backing into a lift with a chainsaw and hiding it from an unsuspecting female victim, not a policeman.
Whoa, what a coincidence -- I was just listening to the (old) podcast of this exact movie review around about the same time you posted that comment, so I ended up hearing later on in that podcast what the movie was. But thanks anyway :)
He's so right. These remakes/sequels show how horror movies have lost their imagination and have become about cliches, style and copying other films. The makers think that a horror film should be sadistic, chasing teenagers. There is not one moment of real terror in any of these recent films to match Hooper's original. He understand the emotions and fear and allows us to experience the film this way.
@clipsryan Actually, the early slashers like Psycho, Halloween, Black Christmas or the original TCM had very little sex or gore. They relied on narrative tension and atmosphere. Even when good horror is gory, it's using violence as a means to an end; it's not just an excuse to show people getting sliced up. Can you honestly say that's what the remake was doing?
Kermode is totally right in that the original TCM had no blood. It was virtually all clever suggestion. Also, the most scary films are ones that explain nothing: to me the scariest film of all is Mulholland Drive. The scene in the diner. I'll say no more.
Ebert didn't know it was going to be a classic when he first reviewed it. He has since gone to say he enjoys it more now looking back on it. And I still prefer the originals, even the fourth one, better than the originals because at least they had an identity, Leatherface was actually interesting. The remakes turn him into a generic, teleporting hunk of death that they desperately try to explain as 'tragic'. Seriously, Platinum Dunes needs to stop with the 'tragic' bad guys; it destroys them.
This is Kermode at his best, sticking up for proper horror film, not these boring, music video style over colour saturated copies of other films. When will Hollywood stop making films about other films?...For me, Kermode has faltered recently with his liking for Prometheus and Berberian Sound Studio in particular, but i am with him on this.
Haven't seen NOES remake althoug I don't think the original can be bettered. I don't wish to have a fully fleshed out Freddy character, in fact the less we know about him the better as far as ia m concerned. But there are so many remakes coming out next year, This seems to be what people want. New ideas and original, personal stories are unwanted and are fewer and fewer each year. If you like NOES remake over the original then there is nothing I can say to make you change your mind.
The remake didn't really tell us much more about Freddy apart from that he molested children. In fact, it turns out that the reason why the children are attacked while the parents are left pretty much untouched is because the children are essentially being killed by their own repressed memories coming to get them. I'm not a big fan of Wes Craven. I don't think the remake was better than parts 3 and 4, but I think the acting boosts it above the original film. (But I have odd taste, I'll admit.)
At the end there Kermode says the funniest line in the movie, Balance. I think this acknowledges that this sequal does capture the nihilstic meaningless horror of the first one. Absolute insanity. The aesthetic has changed, so it's all full on gore, this was the post Saw zeitgeist. But it's really not so different from the original. I think they made a real good effort with this movie, Kermode is too hard on it, cos he is a pussy.
Ebert wasn't a huge fan of the original but admired it for its originality, direction, acting, and method. It was gruesome but at least did it well because it had good intentions. Plus, I find it interesting that the original is so much more terrifying and intense using only two pints of blood while the remakes use gallons of the stuff. I think its just the cynical ineptitude of the remakes that offends me. They aren't trying to make good movies; they're riding the success of the good originals.
Ok sure the original is untouchable but... I thought this had real menace and threat of violence with no escape. Yes young people in a van travelling though Texas with chainsaw in the title we know or we think we know what will play out. For me the biggest character is not leather face its Sheriff Hoyt played by R.Lee Emery. It has a claustrophobic atmosphere and tension. For me its a great film, haters gonna hate 8/10
After five minutes of seeing the film the violence, excessive gore & no scares is what the film is all about & is overall an unnecessary prequel. (17%) (1/5 stars) (negative)
In the barest possible sense it had those elements, but they were all done HORRIBLY. The film actively seemed to HATE the audience and wanted to insult both their intelligence and their humanity. The first film had style and frights as well as an underlying fear that this could really happen. The remake and its sequel were just ugly, incompetently-shot geek shows meant to trample on their audience's taste and flip us off for demanding something resembling effort from them.
I actually think the Nightmare On Elm Street remake was the best of the recent remakes (though admittedly I haven't seen Zombie's Halloween remake yet). Throwing out funny Freddy, scary Freddy actually seemed to be built up properly and Kyle Gallner was great too. Unfortunately the film still followed the trend of having a bunch of kids who all look like they've just had makeovers five seconds ago and Rooney Mara was phoning it in. Hardly surprising to hear the director's work was compromised.
It's my second favorite Texas Chainsaw film after the original and part III. It was a decent Chainsaw movie and infinitely superior to the remake. I didn't go into The Beginning expecting to see anything even closely equitable to the original masterpiece. I felt it was closest to part III but with more visual grounding in Hoopers original. I'd go as far as to say it's the best Platinum Dunes whole dumb slasher-movie universe fad gave us and it's miles better than Hooper's own sequel.
It launched the career of Mcconaughey? That's too bad, his first movie is easily his best. Should've been the one to launch his career and I'm sure it actually did.
Nothing beats the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre in terms of visceral terror, and creating a constant sense of unease, while having very little gratuitous violence. It's one of the best horror films of all time, it's not just another slasher flick, it delves into the most heinous depravity of people, and while a simple story, shows the true horror of a person thrust into a life threatening experience. Gore becomes a crutch often to stand in for a lack of true tension, but violence is only disgusts, it doesn't create a true sense of suspense and terror.
The Balance line is funny. That and Mark's chainsaw impression.
I think Ebert said it best when he said about the remake: "There is no worthy or defensible purpose in sight here: The filmmakers want to cause disgust and hopelessness in the audience. Ugly emotions are easier to evoke and often more commercial than those that contribute to the ongoing lives of the beholders." That's how I saw the remakes: they hate the audience and isn't concerned with entertaining them. It's more concerned with making its characters suffer and gleefully piling up the bodies.
'sounds like an egg-whisk' - HAHA
I thought an iconic line was ‘well hey dean😁, good to meet u’
He may be thinking of 'Pieces' from 1982, but that has a scene of a killer backing into a lift with a chainsaw and hiding it from an unsuspecting female victim, not a policeman.
When he talked about the one good line, I thought for a minute he was going to reference The Black Knight. That would have been brilliant.
Whoa, what a coincidence -- I was just listening to the (old) podcast of this exact movie review around about the same time you posted that comment, so I ended up hearing later on in that podcast what the movie was.
But thanks anyway :)
It is Pieces he's thinking of - it's a hilarious scene! A fantastic film
“Little bit of Ed Gein..RRRRRARRRRARRRRA” 😅
What was the film Kermode was trying to recollect?
I'm fairly sure it's Pieces too.
Was Kermode thinking of Pieces?
Odd question- does anyone know where Kermode is pulling that Kim Newman quote from?
From Kim Newman. _badoom-tsssh_
5 years too late, the movie he's talking about is "Pieces", right?
Mark Longden
yes
Pieces is one of the most genuinely funny films ever made
Pieces?
@MrHeslopian He does have a doctorate.
What is up with the censors in the UK?
He's so right. These remakes/sequels show how horror movies have lost their imagination and have become about cliches, style and copying other films. The makers think that a horror film should be sadistic, chasing teenagers. There is not one moment of real terror in any of these recent films to match Hooper's original. He understand the emotions and fear and allows us to experience the film this way.
Just wanted to say, I dig the name - Peter Greenaway is awesome!
@clipsryan Actually, the early slashers like Psycho, Halloween, Black Christmas or the original TCM had very little sex or gore. They relied on narrative tension and atmosphere. Even when good horror is gory, it's using violence as a means to an end; it's not just an excuse to show people getting sliced up. Can you honestly say that's what the remake was doing?
hahaha " sounds like an Egg whisk " lol
Is he talking about Pieces?
PIECES IT WAS PIECES
Well...tell us how you really feel Mark
i thought it was motel hell for a minute then mark said no.
Well, at least it gave us more Diora Baird.
Kermode is totally right in that the original TCM had no blood. It was virtually all clever suggestion. Also, the most scary films are ones that explain nothing: to me the scariest film of all is Mulholland Drive. The scene in the diner. I'll say no more.
Brr-rrr-rrr... That diner scene...
Ebert didn't know it was going to be a classic when he first reviewed it. He has since gone to say he enjoys it more now looking back on it. And I still prefer the originals, even the fourth one, better than the originals because at least they had an identity, Leatherface was actually interesting. The remakes turn him into a generic, teleporting hunk of death that they desperately try to explain as 'tragic'. Seriously, Platinum Dunes needs to stop with the 'tragic' bad guys; it destroys them.
I have no idea, sorry.
This is Kermode at his best, sticking up for proper horror film, not these boring, music video style over colour saturated copies of other films. When will Hollywood stop making films about other films?...For me, Kermode has faltered recently with his liking for Prometheus and Berberian Sound Studio in particular, but i am with him on this.
@EvilgidgitReturns you sure it was mud?
Haven't seen NOES remake althoug I don't think the original can be bettered. I don't wish to have a fully fleshed out Freddy character, in fact the less we know about him the better as far as ia m concerned. But there are so many remakes coming out next year, This seems to be what people want. New ideas and original, personal stories are unwanted and are fewer and fewer each year. If you like NOES remake over the original then there is nothing I can say to make you change your mind.
@clipsryan saying all remakes have better acting seems pretty ignorant to me. nevermind
Texas eggwhisk massacre LOL
Ummm, no its not
The remake didn't really tell us much more about Freddy apart from that he molested children. In fact, it turns out that the reason why the children are attacked while the parents are left pretty much untouched is because the children are essentially being killed by their own repressed memories coming to get them.
I'm not a big fan of Wes Craven. I don't think the remake was better than parts 3 and 4, but I think the acting boosts it above the original film. (But I have odd taste, I'll admit.)
Fatpie42 is
At the end there Kermode says the funniest line in the movie, Balance.
I think this acknowledges that this sequal does capture the nihilstic meaningless horror of the first one. Absolute insanity.
The aesthetic has changed, so it's all full on gore, this was the post Saw zeitgeist. But it's really not so different from the original. I think they made a real good effort with this movie, Kermode is too hard on it, cos he is a pussy.
Ebert wasn't a huge fan of the original but admired it for its originality, direction, acting, and method. It was gruesome but at least did it well because it had good intentions. Plus, I find it interesting that the original is so much more terrifying and intense using only two pints of blood while the remakes use gallons of the stuff. I think its just the cynical ineptitude of the remakes that offends me. They aren't trying to make good movies; they're riding the success of the good originals.
@clipsryan Opinions can be ignorant.
Ok sure the original is untouchable but... I thought this had real menace and threat of violence with no escape. Yes young people in a van travelling though Texas with chainsaw in the title we know or we think we know what will play out. For me the biggest character is not leather face its Sheriff Hoyt played by R.Lee Emery. It has a claustrophobic atmosphere and tension. For me its a great film, haters gonna hate 8/10
He is a doctor of horror fiction.
After five minutes of seeing the film the violence, excessive gore & no scares is what the film is all about & is overall an unnecessary prequel. (17%) (1/5 stars) (negative)
@roloug95 Oh yeah. J.P Simon. The man who later made Slugs the movie.
@psynno1 Exactly - they care about horror, but that's about it.
In the barest possible sense it had those elements, but they were all done HORRIBLY. The film actively seemed to HATE the audience and wanted to insult both their intelligence and their humanity. The first film had style and frights as well as an underlying fear that this could really happen. The remake and its sequel were just ugly, incompetently-shot geek shows meant to trample on their audience's taste and flip us off for demanding something resembling effort from them.
I actually really liked this one for the unrelenting violence. The remake was great and I liked this one too.
never seen it
Michael Hawkins if u liked the remake give it a shot
I felt like I got buggered watching this film. This is just awful.
Texas Egg Whisk Massacre
@EvilgidgitReturns lol so true.
a prequel of a horrible remake oh how sad hollywood is
I actually think the Nightmare On Elm Street remake was the best of the recent remakes (though admittedly I haven't seen Zombie's Halloween remake yet). Throwing out funny Freddy, scary Freddy actually seemed to be built up properly and Kyle Gallner was great too. Unfortunately the film still followed the trend of having a bunch of kids who all look like they've just had makeovers five seconds ago and Rooney Mara was phoning it in. Hardly surprising to hear the director's work was compromised.
@clipsryan Yeah, remakes always have better acting. tool.
Part 3 was a great 80's trashy horror to watch with some chums. #bumchums #scaredbumchums #hidebehindthesofanudechums #nomorehashtagschums
Sorry 1990 #gottheyearofthemoviewrongthongcladbumchumsfromplanetsoappickerupper
I haven't even seen the original and have no emotional attachment to it. That being said, the remake was still shit.
It's my second favorite Texas Chainsaw film after the original and part III. It was a decent Chainsaw movie and infinitely superior to the remake. I didn't go into The Beginning expecting to see anything even closely equitable to the original masterpiece. I felt it was closest to part III but with more visual grounding in Hoopers original. I'd go as far as to say it's the best Platinum Dunes whole dumb slasher-movie universe fad gave us and it's miles better than Hooper's own sequel.
These new directors don't understand horror. They have nothing original to say. They are not disturbing. they are sick and infantile and gratuitous.
this was one of the goriest films I have ever seen
Mark ‘original is better’ kermode
It launched the career of Mcconaughey?
That's too bad, his first movie is easily his best. Should've been the one to launch his career and I'm sure it actually did.
the best TCM films r the original and the remake. the rest, meh...
2003 sucked .. the beggininh was much better , still nothing on the orig
This review was terrible :S
R. Lee Ermy was brilliant, but everything else about this film, was just shit. The original was amazing, but this, is just garbage.