Texas Chainsaw Massacre re-make Review

Obviously, Mr.Beaks is exaggerating...

"Spoilers are death for something as viscerally unsettling as this."

Yeah, right Mr.Beaks...unsettling for the american audience maybe.Which is understandable since all they watch, are watered-down "R" rated flicks.

You've seen it then?

As intriguing as that is... I have one question:

Did he call 'STREETFIGHTER' powerful? That automatically calls into question his cinematic expertise.

I mean STREETFIGHTER may be a guilty pleasure to me, but POWERFUL? That's LAUGHABLE at best.

Maybe he ment "Powerful" like my B.O.

and Double Dragon>Streetfighter

I'm interrested to see a modern re-telling of TCM....although I am all against re-inventing the wheel, I'm catching good vibes from this one.

although...I have been wrong before

Well, Beaks was speaking to AICN's audience, which is an audience made up of big time movie fans - like yourself. I'm pretty sure that a large contingent of that audience seeks out more than these watered-down "R" rated flicks you so heroically dismiss. There's certainly a point to be made about the MPAA and whatever else figures into what can and can't be played in front of American eyeballs. But...you didn't make it. Actually, you floated a watered-down version of what could probably turn into a very interesting point. Had you thought it through, maybe we'd have something here to chew on. Instead, we get bullshit. Fucking American.

Wow, I really hope you were kidding, cause if you weren't that was extremely childish and even less intelligent than the post you were trying to bash.

Took that last bit wrong, eh?

what the hell is that supposed to mean?

What part do you need explained?

HBAADU has a weird sense of humor (see link). I have to admit, I'm interested. This could end up being exhibit A in my pro-remakes argument: a film that doesn't try to be "better" than the original, just different, and good in it's own way. Or it could just suck. Either way, I think it's probably worth checking out. It's allready looking like a more interesting film then I was expecting.

No part I just thought it was rather unfortunate that you decided to ruin an otherwise intelligent post with an immature and ridiculous insult.

And to the last poster and his "remakes are good theory". I see what you're saying, but look at it this way... if you're setting out to do something "different" than the original, than why the fuck would you remake a movie anyways?

The answer is simple really, they're riding on the name of 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. It's pretty simple.

The worst part is that review made me interested too.

Because you see some aspect of the original that you'd like to play with and emphasize. Because you'd like people to see how YOU would imagine that world looking. Because when you were a kid, you saw previews for this movie, and they made a huge impression on you, but you weren't allowed to watch the actual film until years later, and in that time you had imagined the entire movie, but when you saw it it was something so completely different than you had imagined, and you want to see that movie you were imagining, not because it's better, just because you think that would be a cool movie too. Because, if you don't use the name of the "original," people will just go on CHUD and complain about what a total ripoff it was.

But getting back to my first reason, think of Cronenberg's The Fly. It's a remake of a classic film that takes the general story, but concentrates on all these ideas that aren't really explored in the first film, ideas that probably noone but Cronenberg would have thought of, but these are the flights of fancy he went on when he was watching The Fly years ago, so why not apply these ideas to the original story?

Here's the difference. Remakes like 'The Fly' and 'The Thing' are valid because the originals truly have lost their cultural relevance. Today's generation (and the one in the 80's as well) would not go to a video store and rent "The Thing From Outerspace" and be scared by it. It's in black and white, it's boring, and it's very cheap looking.

the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, despite being almost bloodless, and being made almost 30 years ago, still has relevance today. It is still viscerally alarming and can still have an impact on the viewer.

In my opinion the only reason to remake a film is to update it for the current generation, and I believe that it does not need to be done in all instances. There is no reason why anyone should be remaking films from the 70's in the year 2003, especially perfect ones.

Next thing you know they'll start remaking shit from the early 90's... you laugh but it's not far off.

And for the record, I wasn't trying to start a fight, I just think that studios are getting away with much too much of this 'Remake' shit.

The insult was a gag - a play on HBAADU's rip on American audiences, man. You reacted instead of understanding it. Shit, maybe he's right about American audiences...

Well, this is a matter of opinion. The Fly has Vincent Price (one of the greatest horror actors of all time, do I need to compare him to Jeff Goldblum to make my point?) and that great "heeeeeelp meeeee" ending. The Thing From Outerspace" remains a fine film imo as well. I see the point you're making, but I think you're applying a very subjective view and presenting it as objective truth.

30 years. About the amount of time between the classic Universal takes on Dracula and Frankenstein, and their remakes as The Curse of Frankenstein and The Horror of Dracula. Were those Hammer films irrelevant?

Pas du tout. Healthy debate is the reason I come here.

[quote]Z-Man:
[QB] Okay, I'll take that as valid. Touche.

Aha, but be careful with your own example there. The reason why Hammer remade those films is because they were an upstart company trying to make a name for themselves, and what better way than to USE A NAME THAT IS ALREADY POPULAR. They used those stories because of the success of the Universal films... they were riding on their names, much like the remake that we speak of.

I think this speaks for itself.

Hawks is a god. The original thing is still good and The Fly still kicks ass. And I pity anyone who cites black and white photography as a reason to call a film's relevance into question. The thing is not cheap looking, its reconstruction of an arctic base in the 50's is spot on. Nor was The Fly, a film shot in beautiful color with a 2.35:1 ratio "cheap looking".

Beaks again proves his greatness, with a refinement and perspicacity that is obviously lost on many of the Talkbackers.

Sorry, but you've missed the point entirely. They're not making these remakes for us! How many kids that aren't horror fans do you think have strolled into their local Blockbuster and rented "The Thing From Outerspace"? I can tell you how many, a big fucking '0' that's how many.

On the contrary I believe that many more 'mainstream' movie goers have seen and appreciated TCM than the aformentioned flicks.

I used the 'Black and White' issue because these films simply do not connect to mainstream movie goers, the ones who pay out the bucks to see this stuff, and the ones the studios are going for.

So you remake the thing, you make it culturally relevant and therefore more accessible to EVERYBODY, not just die hard horror films buffs who are just about the only people who are willing to go back and revisit the 'classics'.

And for the record, I never mentioned anything about the review, which I will admit was very well written and did make me interested. I'm speaking of the validity of remaking the film.

not all young people are slack-jawed morons with no attention spans. You are over-generalizing

Did I say "all young people", no I didn't, you're putting words into my mouth. I'm referring to young people who are not big horror buffs. I defy you to find a young person who is not a horror film buff, or not even a general film buff that has seen either of those 'classics'

very good points, I wholeheartedly agree.

I never said I wasn't curious... I saw a piece on TV about it today, and it looked very interesting... but still, I can't help but wonder if it's really necessary.

It has R. Lee Ermey in it, which has compounded my already burgeoning interest in this flick.

Yes, he is the one saving grace that this film has going for it, in my opinion.

dmeister

[quote]krankyboy:
[QB] Exactly my point... The Thing added something new to the pot. This is just a rehash, regardless of how they change the story. There is only so many inventive ways that you can slaughter teenagers.

You haven't seen it, so how do you know it's a rehash?

Well let's just forget for a moment that I've read the review, or the fact that I've read plot descriptions elsewhere.

Or the fact that it's said to be based more closer on the crimes of Ed Gein... which would mean that there are about 4 or 5 other films that I could check out with roughly the same story.

But no matter what way you slice it (literally) this is a slasher flick. Perhaps it's a dark, disturbing slasher flick, but it's still a slasher flick.

If they wanted to set out to make a dark slasher than by all means go for it... I enjoyed 'Wrong Turn'... but the difference is they're not using the name of a classic film.

That is what bothers me. They're using the name for recognition, plain and simple.

And I will say that R. Lee Ermey's presece does have me a bit excited as well...

Aha, but be careful with your own example there. The reason why Hammer remade those films is because they were an upstart company trying to make a name for themselves, and what better way than to USE A NAME THAT IS ALREADY POPULAR. They used those stories because of the success of the Universal films... they were riding on their names, much like the remake that we speak of.[/QB][/QUOTE]
Perhaps...but didn't Hammer actually improve upon the Universal formula? Precedents aside, the Universal films were pretty weak. "Dracula" was bad by 1931 standards, being a bloodless (ha-ha) translation of a bastardized stageplay; and "Frankenstein," aside from being a complete mish-mash of ideas, featured some of the worst acting ever committed to celuloid. My favourite bit is when Elizabeth, in full Hollywood glamour mode, begins referring to Dr. Waldman as "Dr. Valdman" because that's how the Germans would pronounce it...except no-one's bothering to do a German accent in the first place!

I'm not saying TCM will be good, but the original's a little overrated, don't you think? And that Franklin kid...Whoa.

i just seenthe trailer for this last night, and i gotta say I'm very intrigued.It kinda started off wishy-washy with the WB gang, but once they started do the whole snapshots, i sat up a little straighter in my chair. I'll go and see it, and i thinkit has some promise, but i'm also not burdened down" (for lack of better term) by the whole "why are they remaking a perfect horror movie" mindset. I did not like the original at all. And before someone attacks me and calls me an idiot again, my reasons are: too damn much screaming (i know, i know-"thats REAL" thats part of the realism of the movie but it just got on my nerves)-poor film quality (again, i know, low budget, part of the atmospher, didn't do it for me. apologies)-did not care for the level of brutality and basically torture at the dinner table-and i just found it to be kind of boring (please note these are my opinions, i'm not attacking anyone who considers this a classic nor am i questioning their reasoning)
i am looking for ward to it, not with high expectations or can't wait till it comes out attitude but i think it looks halfway decent.

Well, on your first note, I'm not really a Hammer fan so I'm not the person to ask. My opinion would be that they're not all that much more interesting than the originals.

And while I understand that some people feel TCM is overrated, I am not one of those people. I think it's a film that taps into emotions that only a small handful ever have before.

And while I'm thinking of it... why not remake bad films? Why not remake films that weren't all that good in the first place?, just to reimagine them in your own vision. (as some people have used as justification for remaking TCM)

But now that I mull that over... it's simple. You can't ride to success on the name of a film that was shitty in the first place... which is why people remake films... not to spin a new vision on an old story.

I'm all for a new TCM movie, I love the series (bar part 4) it would just seem better to call the movie a sequel.
Although I remember reading this was going to be a toned down PG-13 version, what's with the R for strong violence (not that I'm colplaining, I'm glad it's R, I'm just curious)