You have to be logged in to comment! If you don't have an account register now for free! Your account allows you to post comments and reviews, upload videos and images, access or our forums, write personal blogs, and maintain your profile.
I don’t know if I liked this or not. Maybe this is too early to write a review without really digesting it, but, oh well.
First and foremost, do not let the title trick you into thinking you’re about to experience extreme gore. Minus the suicide scene, the rest of the movie could have easily gotten a PG-13 rating. After that point all the kills are cut-off scenes. There is less blood than in the original (PG rated) Star Wars and way less gore than the (also PG rated) Indiana Jones flicks. I cannot really describe how pansy-like the kills were done. Yes, a guy gets his balls cut in half—no, they don’t even come close to showing even the after carnage, much less the actual event. They couldn’t even show a chick get mangled by the chainsaw—you just see feathers flying from her coat, not even blood. The back cover says, “The most hardcore film of the year!” but it seems to forget that Saw also came out in 2004. Though the original Saw was far from a bloodbath, and by far the least gory in the series, it makes this movie look like a children’s cartoon.
Besides that insanely disappointing fact, the movie itself was well done . . . for about the first hour. The old man in the wheelchair, the sheriff, the calm-speaking old ladies: all that was gold. The first chainsaw attack was very suspenseful. The jump scenes were actually slightly creative. The horror staple, the slow opening that is meant to make you care about the characters, is well done.
The main problem comes when you first see Leatherface. I wish they would have just left out the cheesy bits about him cutting off faces and sewing them up to his own. They could have just shown him have different severed faces, but no, they had to SHOW the lame cliché of him sewing them and such. I think that was when I lost all hope I could take this movie seriously. That cliché is used so many times it’s no longer disturbing as much as cheesy. Yes, I know the original TCM was the movie that started the cliché, but they could have just cut around it for the sake of modern audiences. I would have taken the movie SO much more seriously if I didn’t have to keep myself from laughing at that scene. It gave me flashbacks to the cheesiest movie ever made: The Phantom of the Opera. Leatherface himself was slightly cheesy as well. Nowhere near as cool as he used to be, but they could have been lamer.
Though it seems like I’m being negative, I actually did like this movie. I’m just writing this to people don’t get the wrong impression. (1)Do not expect a gory movie. (2)Do not expect an amazing well-done last 50 minutes. (3)You may find it quite cheesy at points because the directors were too stupid to leave out the clichés.
The idea of remaking The Texas Chain Saw Massacre isn't really a new one - two of the sequels to the original practically did just that, reworking rather than continuing the storyline.
Speaking of sequels, then this remake is preferable to at least two of them, but somehow doesn't quite come off. It's very much a contemporary update, the decision to go for a bookending "documentary realism" style completely undermined by the usage of non-diagegic music throughout.
There's too much added, too much muddying what is a very simple story: interbred madman kills people with a chain saw. Here we get a legion of contrivances keeping the photogenic leads from getting away, while the token disabled character has changed from being one of the good guys to one of the villains.
Plot isn't necessary in a horror film that relies on visceral thrills, but plot is what we get, as well as an overlong coda and extraneous characters. More to the point, it just isn't scary. Leatherface comes and goes as the script dictates, while gore and sexual titillation take over.
Certainly not an awful film or an awful remake, this is nevertheless an inessential piece of cinema.
Im a big fan of leatherface and the texas chainsaw massacre movies. this remake is bullcrap and I hate it.
its not scary and the storyline sucks
leatherface looks like a wuzz.
i vote for a new remake.
let me say that the original TCM was slasher personified and when i heard about the remake i was sceptical but now ive seen the new version i was blown away.the way that Micheal Bay captured the sheriff as a awful human being was disgustingly brilliant. The kills were awesome and of course Leatherface kicked ass !!!! All in all a awesome movie to go rent out with freinds or your date AWESOME !!!!
Im a big Fan of the original....and was hoping and waiting for the remake to get the expirience on the big screen.... went in , saw , went out drepressed i wasnt expecting something as good as the original but this one was plain bad
The first and scariest slasher movie i saw was perfect in any way good chasing scene,the hot jessica biel,good acting,scary and of course tons of blood.
I first viewed this film when I was 10 and I can honestly say that I didn't want to go to sleep that night. This film is nothing but relentless the whole film from begining to end. What helped this film embrace its horror was the tagline. Inspired by a true story. When youre 10 those words are the scariest shit you will ever hear while viewing a horror film. This film isn't for the faint of heart.
one of the best remakes made! Leatherface was terrifying, the movie had blood and, gore, a good story, a good ending this movie has everything. I wish there was an unrated version.
A pretty depressing film,the gun suicide of the girl in the van was terrible & unrealistic,the prolonged suspension of the guy on the meathook was too far out. While Leatherface looked good here-he is so brutal & cold. As usual R L Ermey was the only real star here as Hoyt.
THE HORROR HYPE METER Excited to see this movie? Rate it here!
