The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) Anticipation/Reviews/Discussion

Discussion in 'General' started by rhett, Oct 1, 2003.

  1. Ash28M

    Ash28M Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,063
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Mississauga, ON, Canada
    Well I saw it last night and overall I would say it was an enjoyable experience. On the contrary though it really was lacking in everything that made the original a masterpiece in the first place. The giddiness and realism was gone and I just didn't feel the Closter phobia and creepiness felt with the first. Saying that though there were parts that built up tension nicely and actually made me feel a bit uneasy. The acting was good overall but although I always respect rhetts comments I really didn't feel Jessica Biel's performance measured up to Marilyn Burns's. With Marilyn I actually felt this could have happened to this girl, while I didn’t feel the same compassion from Jessica's Character. Overall I would give the film about a 7.25 -7.50 out of 10 and for comparison sake I would put it just above say a film like Wrong Turn, while the Original would get a 9.
     
  2. rhett

    rhett Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    9,418
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Canada
    Just a tidbit guys: The TCM remake made 11 million on its opening day. That paves the way for about a 27-30 million dollar weekend, making this very cheap, 13 million film a HUGE profit-maker for New Line. With Halloween coming in the weeks ahead, the drop-offs for this film should be considerably less than what most horror films experience in their run. The film seems destined to end up just a little bit shy of Freddy Vs Jason's 81 million.

    Horror is very much a viable force at the box office right now, and with the success of TCM, many more remakes are going to start surfacing in the upcoming years. This is as mainstream as horror has been for a longg time.
     
  3. WesReviews

    WesReviews Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2001
    Messages:
    1,582
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Pikeville, KY
    Oh, come on! The TCM remake was 100000000 times better than House of 1000 Corpses! This is the movie House of 1000 Corpses should have been and wasn't.

    When anticipating both projects (though not looking forward to Chainsaw's remake, honestly), I never thought i'd say this, but Michael Bay actually out-did Zombie when it comes to horror/exploitation.

    When walking to the car after seeing Ho1KC, I thought "THIS is the best you could do, Rob? The guy who criticizes all these other horror films and THIS was the best you could freakin' do?"

    Whereas, after the TCM remake, I thought to myself "FUCKIN' A!"

    I think that sums up the comparison best.
     
  4. tommy doyle

    tommy doyle New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2001
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It breaks my heart to say this.....

    The movie was not that great. Just another rehash of cliches put together to make a Jessica Biel vehicle.

    All throughout the movie I saw camera shots and scares from other movies.

    The movie should be like a pop-up-video like on VH1.
    *pop*"We took this idea from the Blair Witch Project"

    *pop*"Dosn't this basement remind you of Se7en?"

    *pop*"Dosn't this character look like she is Gollum from Lord of the Rings?"

    *pop*"Remember the 'Hand cam' from From Dusk till Dawn? Here it is again, this time with a head!"

    I could do this for almost every part of this movie

    I wanted so bad for this to be a good movie.
     
  5. Revoltor

    Revoltor Guest

    Ebert has a hidden agenda to destroy the horror genre...


    LOL!

    You can't expect us to take you seriously anymore.

    Edit: I'll add that I enjoyed the film. I had no clue Sgt. Hartman was in it. That alone made the movie rock. If the movie was called "Crazy motherfuckers from hicktown" you party poopers would love it.

    Leatherface was a a little dissapointing but I'm pretty sure if
    there's gonna be a sequel, they'll attach the chainsaw to his stump :)

    There really wasn't much to complain about. One death scene wasn't really shown in detail. Felt like a waste to me. At the end it gets a little stupid but nothing that destroys it for me.

    Feh, I found it more entertaining than the first.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 18, 2003
  6. John

    John Guest

    Guys, we are forgetting that a review is just an OPINION!!!! Of course we are not all going to see eye to eye. Normally Rhett and I are in total agreement on what we like and dislike, but we aren't verbally thrashing one another even though we are separate ends on the spectrum on our Texas Chainsaw Massacre OPINIONS.

    :lol: I am cool with the fact that I am right about the movie and Rhett is wrong. :lol:
    Seriously, this is a heated discussion about the movie. Let's keep the focus there instead of all attempting to 'one up' each other.
     
  7. mcchrist

    mcchrist A new breed of pervert!

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2001
    Messages:
    7,998
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Keepin' the dogs away...
    Actually, I couldn't imagine a worse movie this year than HO1KC... Until yesterday, TCM was horrible horrible horrible!
     
  8. Disco Stu

    Disco Stu Guest


    Identity is artless garbage. If you read Ebert's review of David Gale, you'll see that he was basically offended by the movie, which I think merits a zero star review. If you think the world would be better without the movie, then I think giving it no stars is appropriate.



    Heroin does in fact create a certain mood. I've found drugs to make it easier for me to tolerate slasher movies as well. I didn't know you needed ID to get heroin in Canada though. Glad to see they legalized drugs up there, so we can see if it works in large scale country, a test market of sorts.



    Maybe you do, but 99% of the public thinks, "I like it because they kill people."

    You are mixing terminology here, and it has caused you some confusion. Likable does not equal identifiable. I don't have to like someone to understand where they are coming from. Maybe they say or do something that I find to be a worthy idea form their standpoint, even if they find them morally reprehensible as a person. Do I "like" Travis Bickle? No. But I understand why he is where he is in the world of Taxi Driver. I can understand why he does what he does. Do I like Chad in In the Company of Men? No. But I recognize the behavior and I can see how he got there. In a slasher movie, you can rarely identify or understand a character's motives, other than to get killed. The Rules of Attraction is well made but has no people in it that I would not only not want to spend time with, but do anything but want to avoid. It is not just that they are unlikable and do nasty things to each other, they are shallow and boorish, and they have been overly calculated to represent Ellis' overall archetype, which can be summed up by a sneer. I think every one of his characters fall into this trap, he's not one who manages much variety. So if all we are provided with is a sneer, wouldn't you find that kind of limited and uninteresting?
     
  9. Grim

    Grim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,742
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    I think we've steered just a bit off topic.
     
  10. moogong

    moogong Arte Suave

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2001
    Messages:
    5,434
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I saw it last night and I have to say I enjoyed it. If you go in looking for it to be better than the original, you will be dissapointed. It's rare to catch lightning in a bottle twice.
    I am glad it was not a shot by shot remake and I am glad they took liberties with the story. I know most horror now days are just made to make a buck, but I see the TCM remake a tribute to the genius of the original.
     
  11. MaxRenn

    MaxRenn Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2001
    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I have been following this discussion with interest and have no idea whether Ebert has a bias against horror movies. However it is understandable that Ebert prefers certain genres over others - we all do. If a critic is not particularly versed or interested in a certain genre then it may not be possible to give a fair and honest review. If that is "bias" then so be it.

    On a wider point, Rhett's problem seems to be with Ebert's opinions on certain types of horror films. I can only agree with DiscoStu's points about the moral bankruptcy of much of the slasher genre and why Ebert may not be too interested in them. Personally I consider movies like "Taxi Driver", "In the Company of Men", "Safe", "Crash" to be truer horror movies than at least 90% of the slasher genre.
     
  12. Agent Z

    Agent Z "Get to the river...

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2001
    Messages:
    5,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Thanks! :)

    *hands Hellbilly a bag of goodies for the ride up to camp......along with his unapproved camp physical, already filled-out*
     
  13. Hellbilly

    Hellbilly Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2001
    Messages:
    14,180
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    38
    :lol: :lol: :lol:

    :eek2:
     
  14. rxfiend

    rxfiend Joe Six-Pack

    Joined:
    May 1, 2001
    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    204
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Southern IN
    just watched the remake and i thought it was alright. i'd rank it 3rd in the series (with the original and part 4 beating it out). I'm glad they didn't do a frame by frame remake (like the Psycho remake) and instead, did something different with the material.
     
  15. Dave

    Dave Pimp

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 1999
    Messages:
    7,361
    Likes Received:
    585
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    I haven't seen this yet. As such, I haven't followed this thread at all. But I did just catch this on Yahoo.

    That's a big opening weekend, especially if IMBD's listed budget of $13 million is corrected. If the Dawn remake is successful, which I'm sure it will be, I bet this is only the beginning of classic horror remakes.
     
  16. As ALWAYS, i 100% agree with Mcchrist. There ain't much to really like about the movie. And the score? god awful. It is at least entertaining on a frenitic level, but, ah, whatever.
    2 stars outta 5.
     
  17. Caesar

    Caesar Guest

    I strongly disagree with this opinion. :)

    Remember the scene in which Leatherface finds the engagement ring which Kemper had for Erin? Well, to me that meant that he really WAS intent on marrying her and also going legit. He lied to her about the ring and I thought it was cool because it was a real tragedy when he never got to give it to her . . . and she never found out about it either. :(
    I was discussing the film with a friend of mine and he thought it would have been twisted and interesting had Leatherface pulled out the ring while wearing KEmper's face. :D

    I'm a big fan of the original film and I went into the remake with my reservations but I really hoped it would be cool . . . for me, this movie was barely better than average as its own movie but as a remake it really sucks. Big time.
     
  18. Demon

    Demon Don't Fuck With Dolly!

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    853
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    22 Acacia Avenue
    I disagree with most of you guys, this movie just plain out sucked, on its own and as a remake.

    The first 15 started good, but down hill and down hill fast, I think they tried to change too much from the original first of all, and they tried too hard to make it different, which didn't work. They lost me around the 20 minute mark, I just started to not care..........they had too many characters I could give less than a flying fuck about.

    oh yeah, showing Leatherface's real face was a big no no, and was something a dumbfuck non-horror writer would do, aswell as cutting his arm off?? WTF, and having a back story on why Leatherface kills was even more pathetic, aww so thats why he kills, kids made fun of him.........DIE MICHAEL BAY YA FUCKIN' PUSSY!!!

    the Dawn of the Dead trailer looked like shit too.....oh yeah and Resident Evil 2...........as if the first one wasn't shitty enough
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2003
  19. y2doublet

    y2doublet Toxic Crusader

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2000
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Bergman-country
    Still haven't seen it, but wanted to chime in with a thought. I read somewhere that Michael Bay wanted to bring the movie to a whole new generation of kids that could have missed it. Just a reflection, but if Bay is such a good samaritan why couldn't he just have financed a discount on the DVD of or a theatrical re-run for the original. He could have done it with the fucking cashback from Bad Boys II (another cinematic atrocity he has unleashed on us and that really muddles his definition of a good samaritan). And another thing, are kids of today really so fucking braindead that they can't or won't watch a movie from the 70's? I mean the 70's?! That's only 30 years ago, for crying out loud! Are they so fucking lazy by principle or what?
     
  20. legnadibrom

    legnadibrom Guest

    poop

    about 4 kids that i work with saw this over the weekend, 2 of them had seen the original and thought the remake is better,
    i also had a discussion about widescreen versus full screen with some youngsters and full screen reigned supreme, unfortunately, as well
     

Share This Page