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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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)
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
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.
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 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.
