Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

VERN vs. CRAPPY TEXAS CHAINSAW REMAKE: THE PREQUEL!!

Agree totally with Vern by DarthGuapo	Oct 6th, 2006 02:56:50 PM
Anyone who likes this film needs to be shot. How does gore compete with tension and scares? It's the easiest thing in the world to gross someone out. To really scare someone you have to be smart and inventive, which this movie is clearly not.
Agree totally with Vern by DarthGuapo	Oct 6th, 2006 02:57:13 PM
Anyone who likes this film needs to be shot. How does gore compete with tension and scares? It's the easiest thing in the world to gross someone out. To really scare someone you have to be smart and inventive, which this movie is clearly not.
What happened in part 3? by bluebottle	Oct 6th, 2006 03:03:12 PM
i never saw it, but i thought there was some allusion to leatherfaces backstory... at least in the teaser there was that thing with the "excalibur" like discovery of the chainsaw. btw, vern... start your own site. this pigsty doesn't deserve you.
Jason X and Michael Bay by nuetro	Oct 6th, 2006 03:30:52 PM
Michael Bay seems to ruin everything he touches. The only movies that were remotely intelligent and good were The Rock, maybe the Bad Boys movies, and maybe Armageddon. But seriously, Michael Bay doesn't need a trashcan to the face. He needs to be the hot college girls in the sleeping bags at the end of Jason X. If you saw Jason X movie, you know why.
Vern needs to get laid or something... by jojo-pimp	Oct 6th, 2006 03:47:33 PM
and get rid of this pent up anger. Dude...the remake really was not that frickin bad....i still cant believe so many people on this site like to badmouth it. It will never compare to the original, but its still a decent flick. Chainsaw 2, 3 and 4 sucked balls....admit it.
Fucking awesome review! by CaptainCosmos	Oct 6th, 2006 03:47:59 PM
Vern that was review was almost as hilarious as it was insightful. Honestly, I don't think this piece of shit deserves the amount of effort it took you to write this up, but my god, I so wish someone would forward this to that douchebag Bay, and the obviously clueless "horror director" who apparently has never seen an American Horror flick in his life. Hell, every horror movie producer in Hollywood should have this written in reverse and pinned to their goddamn forehead. Thanks, Vern!
I seem to remember Leatherface flying a plane in part 3 by pokadoo	Oct 6th, 2006 03:48:07 PM
...or he took one out, with his chainsaw or something. Their was defintely a plane in there somewhere.
Vern=The Voice of Reason by dancinggopher01	Oct 6th, 2006 03:48:33 PM
I read all the reviews, and then pick Vern's all the fucking time. TCM:The Beginning is already on my Netflix list. Fuck seeing this in the theatre.
So... by richier123	Oct 6th, 2006 03:51:55 PM
I read the first paragraph, but I don't have time at the moment to finish it, I will later. I just wanted to comment... The original Texas Chainsaw sucked serious ass, as it was laughably bad when I rented and watched it a year ago. Serious, she runs out of a window, falls to the ground, then stands up like nothing happened. Now, I am assuming I think it sucks because I did not see it when it came out, I saw it however many years later it has been.... but I thought the remake was good, it had all the stuff that seems to make a horror movie a horror movie these days. And I expect that this one will be similar. * * *** Lets see if those line breaks work So in conclusion, I liked the remake, but it may be because I am one of the few people that thinks the original was damn near pathetic
Vern always speaks truth! by dejectedgeek	Oct 6th, 2006 03:53:26 PM
I've never disagreed with a Vern review since I've gone to this site, this was no different, and it was damn entertaining.
Is it as bad as... by Mr. Nice Gaius	Oct 6th, 2006 03:59:48 PM
..."The Hills Have Eyes"? Cause I just watched that POS last night and I want that 2hrs. of my life back. Holy shit.
vern, i liked this write up by Bob C. Cock	Oct 6th, 2006 04:00:20 PM
i liked the fuckin' berries part especially
I HATE when critics say these films are gory by IndustryKiller!	Oct 6th, 2006 04:04:02 PM
When they are as tame as a fucking kittne. now I'm not some gore fetishist who needs to see every viscral detail of the killing but critics talk like its Cannibal Holocaust or something. These big budget hollywood horror films couldnt be less visceral and easy to stomach. The horror equivalent of disney films.
Let me guess.... by moviebuff2	Oct 6th, 2006 04:06:27 PM
Now that everyone hates Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, I guess Harry will put out a review for the Departed where he doesn't see why everyone likes it so much. Watch!
Paid by the Word, Vern? by Read and Shut Up	Oct 6th, 2006 04:07:54 PM
...hay-zeus, dude. I like your insight but you can cut 40% off that review. More does NOT equal more!
And how do these directors get work???? by IndustryKiller!	Oct 6th, 2006 04:09:34 PM
He made one movie that sucked and he gets to direct a high budget potential franchise installment?? Are studio selling raffle tickets to direct movies nowadays?
WTF is up with horror movies by godzillasushi	Oct 6th, 2006 04:09:55 PM
At least Hostel was entertaining, but garbage everywhere.
Vern's Review Is The Doorway To True Evil by The Ender	Oct 6th, 2006 04:10:58 PM
I've officially been talked out of seeing this steaming pile of shit. I was going to go there, spend the 9 dollars, and laugh at all the fucktardery. Now, I think I'll just go see the Departed.
Oh Neutro by godzillasushi	Oct 6th, 2006 04:13:38 PM
Dont be silly lol. The Rock was somewhat alright. But WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY DOIN WITH A GATTLING GUN IN OUTER SPACE in Armageddon. And it had ammunition. :) I just made myself laugh.
I liked the remake by performingmonkey	Oct 6th, 2006 04:18:21 PM
If you block the original from your mind and consider how many uber-shit horror flicks get made now, the Chainsaw remake isn't so bad. The cast is very good, there isn't too much gore (although there IS plenty). The hitchhiker scene is well played, certainly good enough to freak out a mainstream audience (I bet you anything some people walked out when she blew herself away). The original Chainsaw is a different animal. It's not even worth comparing ANYTHING to it. Fuck you.
How about Chainsaw! The Musical by Lance Rock	Oct 6th, 2006 04:21:31 PM
...or any more franchise opportunities?
Talked out of seeing it? by DonkeyTron	Oct 6th, 2006 04:22:35 PM
Did anybody really need to be talked out of seeing this? Really? This is why they keep making these dog turds. People keep going. They know they shouldn't. They know they'll hate it. But they go anyway. I don't get it. And if anybody is thinking of seeing this because Harry liked it; you're kidding yourself. Harry liked it because he got to see it in a strip club with naked chicks dancing with chainsaws and R. Lee Ermey giving him a hummer with a mouthful of Orbit Gum that he got from Target on the way back from the Alamo Alehouse where, apparently, every movie is just orgasimic because every fucking celebrity that ever lived comes in and rims everybody and gives them cigarettes and money. I'm just kidding Harry is the pilar of integrity. (cough)
heh by Spaz_Monkey	Oct 6th, 2006 04:38:05 PM
"Rated R for scenes of disgusting soup."___ Funny!
Hahahaha... VERN made a Demon Dave joke... by Frijole	Oct 6th, 2006 04:42:22 PM
It'll never end! PS I love the original 4 (even 4... actually ESPECIALLY 4... I know Vern hated the Illuminati angle but I thought it was batshit crazy enough to be brilliant) and I really dug the remake. Sue me.
Just read Vern's Wikipedia entry... by ScarranHalfBreed	Oct 6th, 2006 04:50:37 PM
...Not only does Guillermo Del Toro call him a "national treasure", but it states that he's an ex-criminal who did armed robberies and stuff. Is this true or another display of his humour??? Millions of kids around the world will be devastated if it is.
"The horror equivalent of by Ridge	Oct 6th, 2006 05:02:21 PM
"The horror equivalent of disney films." Industrykiller I could not agree with you more. Brilliant way to put it. It really does feel like generic mass produced drivel doesn't it.
I've pretty much lost interest by Mechasheeva	Oct 6th, 2006 05:09:30 PM
in mainstream horror. The TCM remake was cliched garbage. It wasn't scary, it just made me feel a little sick (mostly the meat-hook thing). I was hoping this one would turn out better, especially when I found out they were including the dinner scene, but no dice. Wanna know how to make a movie scary? Good characters, a creepy setting, a suspenseful buildup, and a release of tension that's so intense it practically pins you to the seat. The Descent is a perfect example of this.
Oh, and richier123 by Mechasheeva	Oct 6th, 2006 05:10:33 PM
You are no longer allowed to watch a horror movie ever again. Unless it's Pulse. You can go nuts with that one.
A simple reason all these horror films are shit... by alienindisguise	Oct 6th, 2006 05:12:30 PM
is because the dumbfucks directing them haven't seen the originals! All they understand is the shit that has been force fed to them over the past 10 years. It will just continue to get worse my friends until someone wakes the fuck up in Hollywood! Which probably won't happen in our lifetimes.
Ah, instead of covering butts by greenlighting remakes, by kabong	Oct 6th, 2006 05:19:04 PM
Hollycrap goes with the prequels. Okay, buttheads, then make prequels to the prequels and then prequels to the prequels of the prequels. You get the boring picture? It's the boring picture of the crap movie industry. Make something new or get out of the way.
"Don't give me Kravitz's cousin... by triplefive	Oct 6th, 2006 05:20:11 PM
and tell me he's Jimi Hendrix". Fuckin' classic right there.
"Explain how Michael Meyers disappeared..." by JackPumpkinhead	Oct 6th, 2006 05:22:13 PM
"...or which one of them was the Thing at the end of THE THING?" OF COURSE they will. Isn't that shithead responsible for the worst film of the last ten years, "House of 1000 Corpses", remaking Halloween? You can expect some "back story" and "explanation" there, definitely. And when the remake of the remake of The Thing comes out (I'm betting it'll be in two years) then you can be sure of a crappy ending like that.
"Thomas Hewitt" Leatherface is NOT the same character a by future help	Oct 6th, 2006 05:24:54 PM
I love ya' Vern. The very best critic on this site. Like the Glory days of Joe Bob Briggs reviews
fuck you Richier123 by future help	Oct 6th, 2006 05:31:16 PM
dumbass
Print review, take to theater, post on door by Jonesey1111	Oct 6th, 2006 05:45:55 PM
Anything to decrease ticket sales. No money = no movie. Hollywood will listen if we speak in their terms.
Another good review. by rbatty024	Oct 6th, 2006 05:52:50 PM
I can't remember the last time I saw a good horror movie. It's a real shame.
What's the last by veritasses	Oct 6th, 2006 06:02:31 PM
horror/fantasy/sci-fi flick with any sort of buzz/star power/geek history/ associated with it that Harry absolutely hated?
Yeah, but by film_chic	Oct 6th, 2006 06:30:40 PM
Vern was really, really, REALLY sure that he was going to absolutely hate this movie long before he saw it. I'm taking this review with a large grain of salt.
I usually love Vern, but hes dead wrong here by BitterMan23	Oct 6th, 2006 06:40:34 PM
He compares the film entirely too much to the original 4. I dont mind if you compare the remake to the original film, but the only film to compare the prequel against, at least in the manner Vern is here, is the remake. I fail to see how Leatherface's rather silly discovering of the chainsaw has any bearing on what happened in the original series, or how we should interpret them. If you dislike the film for its own internal shortcomings, that is perfectly fine, but you shouldnt judge it based on what you liked about part 3 or whatever. Its a different series. I guess we should also dislike Batman Begins because Jack Nicholson didn't kill his parents?
TCM = juggfuckled by ubersnarf	Oct 6th, 2006 06:47:13 PM
right on, Vern! Why can't Hollywood take all the movies that kinda squelched and could be awesome with a little makeover, instead of going after beloved classics? Like Michael Bay reworking The Birds? Worst idea ever. However, if Michael Bay wants to redo, say, Zardoz, that could have potential. Well, actually, no, Zardoz is pretty bad all around. But still.
If you thought Descent sucked by BitterMan23	Oct 6th, 2006 07:10:28 PM
why do you even watch horror movies? (Note - this question only applies to those above the age of 16 or so.)
As soon as UPS brings that 55-gallon drum of Anal Lube by BannedOnTheRun	Oct 6th, 2006 07:11:06 PM
I'll watch the Dawn of the Dead remake again. Oh yeah, baby. "You will believe a remake can fly." (TM)
I didn't mind it by jackinitraw	Oct 6th, 2006 07:20:37 PM
I guess my cinematic palet isn't as refined as "Vern"'s is. I didn't mine the remake though either. People who argue the merits of horror confuse me. These so called rules and social commentaries seem to be beside the point. I'd recommend this. It's not like the Pink Panther remake or anything which wasn't funny and was suppoed to be. This is a decent horror movie. You geeks need to calm yo'selves.
Jonesey111 by readyoufool	Oct 6th, 2006 07:58:48 PM
I think Hollywood is done listening to people who post on film forums. Look how much good all that "internet buzz" did Snakes on a Plane. Cause that was such a blockbuster, eh?
vern by llephen	Oct 6th, 2006 08:15:16 PM
is the best movie reviewer on the internet.
Part 4 was mostly crap but... by ZombieisaDouche	Oct 6th, 2006 08:24:04 PM
I loved the hint that the government was somehow funding the family to keep killing. At least, that's the idea I took from it. Think about it , that would explain how come they've been around for like decades. When they need someone to squeal, they send them to the family for a little torturin'. But what the fuck do I know?
Poor form by blackwood	Oct 6th, 2006 08:46:21 PM
"But I'm an American so just take my word for it that these movies are important to some of us here." Kind of ignorant, Vern, and not in the funny way. Boo. Hiss. Etc.
Friday the 13th by DarthGuapo	Oct 6th, 2006 08:54:31 PM
Are they seriously letting him make this now?
I saw Bay's TCM three times at the theatres... by The Dum Guy	Oct 6th, 2006 08:59:22 PM
and I must say that two times I was forced to go since I was out voted on which movie to see each time. I didn't think it was great, but compared to TCM 3 & 4, it's fucking brilliant, so I don't really get the hate it receives.
Gore does not equal horror. by Larry of Arabia	Oct 6th, 2006 09:24:44 PM
Modern horror is pretty much crap on all levels, and the good stuff is roundly ignored by kids who get off on torture and misery. Horror is about fright and suspense, not blood and entrails. Think about how little gore you see in the truly GREAT horror movies. Alien. The original 13 Ghosts. The Shinning. The movies picked their shots and shocked you with their images. Modern horror has lost that. How much gore was realy in the original Nightmare on Elm Street? Not much.
Best part about TCM remake by Phategod2	Oct 6th, 2006 09:34:43 PM
Jessica Biels T-shirt meat. everything else complete crap.
I want to have Vern's poop babies by SuckLeTrou	Oct 6th, 2006 09:37:16 PM
Seriously, my ass is wide open any time you need to drop a load, bud. And Richier123 can eat them after I give birth.
re: Gore does not equal horror by The Dum Guy	Oct 6th, 2006 09:50:12 PM
Isn't horror supposed to be horrible? The Shining had a lake of blood spew forth from an escalator and it had images of hacked-up little girls. The first Nightmare had a chick getting dragged upside down around a room being cut up. Granted gore doesn't equal effective scares, but alot of iconic horror is helped by it's sometimes excessive gore.
Think this is bad? Wait for Transformers by Doc_Strange	Oct 6th, 2006 09:50:15 PM
A movie DIRECTED by Michael Bay. Not just bad, fuckin' terrible bad. Not so bad that it's good but just fuckin' awful shit.
What's a "horro" movie? by BitterMan23	Oct 6th, 2006 10:10:41 PM
Anyway, the above 16 comment was my way of saying that i wouldnt expect idiot kids to like The Descent (or any other good "horro" movie, as you call them). Because they are mostly morons, and make things like The Grudge a blockbuster. When a horror film possesses some intelligence and respect for the audience, those folks usually stay far far away (note - these people are the ones who will say the Dawn remake is better because the original is "too slow" or some such idiocy).
Vern I watched Uncut TCM 3 by sentient	Oct 6th, 2006 11:30:47 PM
Vern I watched Uncut TCM 3 last week. I've had it for ages now on DVD, but I just couldnt bring myself to watch it again. I was more interested in the Bonus stuff about the films making more than anything else. I wanted some insight from Greg of KNB and the Director- The Darkskys DVD made me do it basically. I re-emembered the The VHS shocking Truth Documentary I bought thats on that Darkskys TCSM DVD and I wanted to know more about TCM3, and why it failed so badly. I felt privy to a historical gem. TCM3 grabbed the director and began shooting with in a weeks time. F13 redone- How much development time is it getting.... Almost NONE! Sound fimilar! What gets me is they are filming the Friday the 13th remake with the same sort of time rush done for TCM 3. Simply put a Rush In, and the results will be... Shit! This for the fans remake of Friday the 13th is not a nurtured baby. It's a shit it out fast before this Remake Trend dies, and get that easy green. -----------Sad world my man. The Saw is Family. The Rehash is shit!
Wow! First time I've ever DISAGREED with Vern! by Kasch	Oct 6th, 2006 11:59:20 PM
Vern, I agreed with every single line you wrote in your review of the remake. I can't believe it, but I'm disagreeing with almost every line of THIS review. Dude, you're an awesome writer, but to say that this film is the same as the remake is totally missing the point. I actually think Harry Knowles hit all the right notes for once. When you get down to it, Nispel's remake drowned in its own style. There's a genuine gritiness with this one that makes it far superior. The remake felt like it was trying to be a hardcore 70's horror film, while this one felt like it WAS a hardcore 70's horror film. It's offers that same intense level of hopelessness and nihilism. You know nobody's walking away from this. You just have to sit and watch it unfold. Does it have a formula to it? Yes. But it's executed with such a high level of tact that it transcends that. Sure, the victims are "teens passing through." But at the very least, there's an actual attempt to make these kids engaging - we don't just get mindless babble before the slaughter (See: Jessica Biel and Friends). They're not the be-all-end-all of characters, but they have more going on than the kids in Tobe Hooper's original, and a HELLUVA lot more than the stereotypes in the remake. Most importantly, the stuff that was happening with them at the beginning of the film actually played into the horrors that followed. WOW! What a concept! But the evolution of the villains is what made this a story worth telling. In the remake: No sense of family. Just maniacs who would pop out at predictable moments to go "Boo!" Here, they were an actual entity and you watched them arc. That in itself is what this series has tried to be about, and it's what the filmmakers captured perfectly. My only real gripe: The final kill. The "back seat pop-up" was just so unbelievably cheap. There isn't a single person - horror fan or not - who won't see that coming a mile away. I thought the makers did a good job of keeping clear from those telegraphed scares, so they should've known better than to play that card. Other than that, I will continue to harp my love for this film. I think it's the most worthy successor to the 70's original as we'll ever see.
Vern nailed it as usual by Daddylonghead	Oct 7th, 2006 12:17:02 AM
I don't recall ever disagreeing with one of Vern's reviews or film opinions, including those concerning DTV junkfood like the "Wild Things" sequels. While there can NO EXCUSES for liking the TCM remake (aka "THAT 70's SHOW CHAINSAW MASSACRE"), I didn't even like "The Hills Have Eyes" remake, though I will concede that on some levels it was a superior movie to the original. Still, if I had to choose which to watch, I'd take the original every time. More fun, more exciting, and yes, less brutal ( or at least, not brutal in that tired, unpleasant 21st-century-Hollywood-shock-c inema way). The "Dawn of the Dead" remake gets a pass from me, because its success brought us "Land of the Dead."
I think it's scary when... by thatpeterguy	Oct 7th, 2006 12:23:46 AM
Vern's review provides more chills and thrills than the movie he is reviewing. Well done sir, you are now my favourite reviewer on this site. Moriarty and Quint are reliable and Harry, well Harry gives an entertaining read but his opinions are irrelevant.
Yeah, it's weird when the Talkbacks talk more... by ScarranHalfBreed	Oct 7th, 2006 12:57:50 AM
...about the reviewer of the movie than the movie itself. Whenever I see the name "VERN" on the AICN front page, I can't wait to click on the link. He is the only reason why I frequent the site. And I have to agree with the Harry thing - a positive review from Harry means nothing to me. I'd rather listen to Ebert, and that's saying something.
Why do people do "preparation work" before a movie? by GibsonUSA	Oct 7th, 2006 01:41:40 AM
It's a f'n movie. Get off work and just go watch it.
In true VERN FORM.. (Or: For the Love of F**k,SELF-EDIT by topaz4206	Oct 7th, 2006 01:53:23 AM
yet another review that's longer than the script. THREE THOUSAND-plus words, Vern. I don't think even people that loved this movie are willing to subject themselves to such verbal incontinence.
In true VERN FORM.. (Or: For the Love of F**k,SELF-EDIT by topaz4206	Oct 7th, 2006 02:13:23 AM
yet another review that's longer than the script. THREE THOUSAND-plus words, Vern. I don't think even people that loved this movie are willing to subject themselves to such verbal incontinence.
Kasch by Vern	Oct 7th, 2006 02:23:06 AM
Thanks for your comments bud. I'm glad you enjoyed it. But I just don't see it. I wrote that review last night and sort of blurted it out without any finetuning so I could sleep, so it's kind of garbled. But in thinking about it today the main reason I thought the movie failed for me is this prequel thing. I don't like the idea of explaining where the characters come from, but I even less like that they half-assed it so much. If this is THE BEGINNING then let's actually see how Leatherface goes from harmless retard to cutting off people's faces, and how R. Lee Ermey goes from (whatever he is) to guy who kills a cop and wears his clothes. There is no build to it, it just happens right at the beginning. There is no gradual slide, no insight, no feeling of "this is how it would really go down." They're just as crazy and evil at the beginning of the prequel as they are at the end of the remake, they're just wearing different outfits. I like what you say about the hopelessness, but it didn't work for me, instead it just seemed like suspenselessness. Maybe it doesn't help that I have recently rewatched all of the original movies so I've seen these type of scenarios over and over again. But to me there was nothing with the thrill of even, say, Renee Zelweger running through the house and out the window in part 4. I didn't give a shit about the characters or feel like rooting for them. I do think WOLF CREEK is kind of like what you're talking about, I liked that movie. But even in that one somebody gets away. I guess maybe this could be a philosophical disagreement, too. To me, somebody either escaping or getting revenge is part of the primal thrill of slasher movies. If everybody dies at the end that can work, but I think only if you really believed they could get away and rooted for them and they just missed by the skin of their teeth. I don't know. By the way, do you disagree with what I said about Leatherface's lack of personality? Did I miss anything there? Anyway, thanks Kasch, I appreciate it.
topaz by Vern	Oct 7th, 2006 02:28:25 AM
Then don't read it, dude. I didn't read your talkback. Oh wait, I think I did. Fuck.
Great review and richier123 = idiot by smellmycheese	Oct 7th, 2006 03:47:23 AM
Great review, Vern. Great review. And richier123, you're an idiot. You saw the original last year?? WTF! Some horror fan! I'm guessing you saw the remake first. Yeah, in fact, I know you did. It's written all over your smug little post. ===== "Serious, she runs out of a window, falls to the ground, then stands up like nothing happened." - because you NEVER see that in modern films, do you?! Sure, it's a LOL moment, but it's not detrimental to the authenticity of the film unlike the poor acting of the remake. ===== "Now, I am assuming I think it sucks because I did not see it when it came out" - I'd be very surprised if most folk here saw it when it first came out as I doubt AICN is that popular with the over 50s!! Dumbass. ===== "I saw it however many years later it has been" - it's been 32. Thirty two. Is the IMDB blocked on your browser? ===== [the remake] "had all the stuff that seems to make a horror movie a horror movie these days" - yeah, it was a boring, predictable, creatively bankrupt piece of shit that you've seen 1000 times before - and done better. ===== I could go on but I cannot be bothered.
Great review and richier123 is an idiot by smellmycheese	Oct 7th, 2006 04:02:06 AM
Great review, Vern. Great review. And richier123, you're an idiot. You saw the original last year?? WTF! Some horror fan! I'm guessing you saw the remake first. Yeah, in fact, I know you did. It's written all over your smug little post. ===== "Serious, she runs out of a window, falls to the ground, then stands up like nothing happened." - because you NEVER see that in modern films, do you?! Sure, it's a LOL moment, but it's not detrimental to the authenticity of the film unlike the poor acting of the remake. ===== "Now, I am assuming I think it sucks because I did not see it when it came out" - I'd be very surprised if most folk here saw it when it first came out as I doubt AICN is that popular with the over 50s!! Dumbass. ===== "I saw it however many years later it has been" - it's been 32. Is the IMDB blocked on your browser? ===== [the remake] "had all the stuff that seems to make a horror movie a horror movie these days" - yeah, it was a boring, predictable, creatively bankrupt piece of shit that you've seen 1000 times before - and done better. ===== I could go on but I cannot be bothered.
richier123 is an idiot by smellmycheese	Oct 7th, 2006 04:04:38 AM
...three times a charm...
Vern wants his own prequel by wildjem77	Oct 7th, 2006 05:04:06 AM
Vern, get over the fact that not everybody has the same taste as you. If Harry liked it, so be it. You still don't get the difference between re-imagining and remake. While some elements in your review are true, (like having less tension because it's a prequel) it still is an enjoyable movie for horror fans. You can clearly read that you were already busy making up 'smart' remarks during the movie to thrash it anyway. Maybe you shouldn't waste your time writing reviews that need swearing ( yeah we're all so impressed by that...), instead stay home to watch the originals over and over again to say to yourself they're better.
cheers vern by axemurder	Oct 7th, 2006 05:04:54 AM
I hated the remake, but was kinda excited by this Bloody Disgusting gave it such a stellar review and they dont seem to cock-suck many studios, horror movies are a big part of who i am (i own a horror t shirt company) but i am having my love beat out of me everywhere i turn. Basically there is not too much you could do with the story unless you had the balls to turn it completley on its head, thee guys are intent on giving us passable horror fodder that the myspace emo-retardos lap it up, and then we bitch and moan cause they dont make REAL HORROR ANYMORE but, how many people out there are supporting & buying releases from Unearthed Films, Code Red and Synapse etc HOW are releasing real horror movies??? you cant trust harry anymore, he his hollywood dick so far down his throat that its coming out of his ass. this site is in bed with some many filmakers i am really thinking of letting it go, but then Mori & Vern make it worthwhile whoever said they should start their own site is correct...they should.
spelling mistakes by axemurder	Oct 7th, 2006 05:10:52 AM
I just got out of bed. I am ashamed of myself
Descent sucked because... by triplefive	Oct 7th, 2006 08:55:46 AM
all of the "horror" is based off of stupid character decisions, e.g. purposefully leaving a map behind, running blindly through unknown, dark caves, despite several of your friends doping just that earlier and suffering great harm because of it, and there was a serious lack of continuity with the cavedwellers, and which senses they use and which they dont. oh, and JUMP scares. i fucking HATE jump scares. Does The Thing have a single fuckign jump scare in it? Fuck the Descent.
"Does The Thing have a single jump scare in it?" by Osmosis Jones	Oct 7th, 2006 10:27:49 AM
KURT RUSSELL: Pretty good spook comin' up...
Sometimes a chain saw is by TheTalentedMrBond	Oct 7th, 2006 10:39:22 AM
Sometimes a chain saw is just a chain saw.
I agree with Vern... but by WolfmanNards	Oct 7th, 2006 11:17:58 AM
it was better than the remake, so it went way above my expectations, so I didn't leave the theater angry like I was expecting. Dude, when I left the theater after I saw the remake, I was cursing my arse off. My face was red. I was so pissed. Everybody was looking at me like I was the freak for not liking it. FUCK THEM. And Vern, about hearing college kids say "what makes this scary is it really happened" in line.... SAME FUCKING THING HAPPENED TO ME. Only I told them it wasn't, and they told me I didn't know what I was talking about. This generation sucks, even though awesome ol' me is part of it. I work at a video store, and I have told people that bring the remake up to the counter, to instead, get the original, which they usually didn't even know existed. Sad thing is... I've been told that some people who bring it back, don't like the original, and "liked the remake better". You're right about the lighting. Just light it well, and whatever the shit is that you're lighting, people will like it better. Fuck them.
DAMN GOOD MOVIE!!! by jojo-pimp	Oct 7th, 2006 11:46:50 AM
I dont care if Vern is pissed that it wasn't up to his standards of what a "Prequel" should be, or that it didnt make him as wet as the original did....this was a balls out gorefest with some pretty damn good scares and intensity. The push-up scene kicked ass!
Yeah, but... by DocPazuzu	Oct 7th, 2006 12:09:39 PM
...does Diora Baird get 'em out?
If you support this film, please answer this question by Immortal_Fish	Oct 7th, 2006 12:28:28 PM
How do you account for hip-hugging jeans that are so very "futuristic" as Vern aptly describes? Sorry, but that's a deal breaking show stopper for any period piece, which includes the advanced technology in the (admitted) fantastical Star Wars prequels. Eye candy is one thing; audience pandering is another. It's flat out insulting. Shit, 70s porn still gives me a boner, whatwith the Mr. Furley / Scooby's Fred neck sashes (and Albert Einsteins in knee-locks), so what's the deal with the complete absense of high-waisted, bell bottom jeans from this Vietnam era 'remake'? Oh, I get it. It's to provide commentary (read: criticism) on "staying the course" whilst providing the same demographic titilating visuals of both the bouncy meatsy and bloody meatsy kind. How predictable. How Hollowood predictable. Will pass. But looking forward to worthy counterpoints. Yes, even though this is the sack of rabid weasels known as AICN TB.
i am a rabid weasel by ectocriminal	Oct 7th, 2006 12:49:28 PM
for jordana brewster in low-cut tight jeans. that being said, i don't think your average attendee of this film will even realize that they didn't have low cut jeans in the 60s. in fact, i'll bet they banked on their core audience not even knowing exactly when the vietnam war took place until they dropped it on them during the film. the reason why contemporary horror is stagnating is partially its willingness to please a crowd instead of grabbing said crowd in an unexpected way and forcing them to watch or walk out. they won't risk money on this. i don't mean to be insulting, but most hollywood business types won't take risks on known cash cows (the remake made 80 mil domestic, pretty good for an r-rated flick). we'll keep getting this same stuff because horror, as a rule, shouldn't appeal to the mainstream. this is money-making 'horror'. sure, some of it can be scary at times but i'm sure that although i haven't seen the film yet there's nothing here that hasn't been done before.
I don't get the "balls out gorefest" thing though by Vern	Oct 7th, 2006 01:03:22 PM
I mean I got no criticisms of the gore, I'm not saying there's too much or too little in this one. But it's not like there's a huge amount in here. Go check out the new DVD of TCSM part 2 when it comes out this Tuesday, THAT is a balls out gorefest, and they make it fun. That one was released unrated so it pretty much put the kabosh on any Michael Bay studio sequel coming close to topping it in the grossout department. Just so we're on the same page, where was the gore in this one? I remember he cut off a guy's face, and there was the soup I mentioned. Anyway, I didn't find it even mildly intense or scary, but if you did then more power to you. Glad to see somebody got something out of it.
Chain Saw fundamentalism by Vern	Oct 7th, 2006 02:03:13 PM
I know a couple of you complained that this review was too short and not in-depth enough (unless I got that backwards, no time to check) so I got a few more thoughts. First of all, yes, I am more hardcore about the original CHAIN SAW than any normal human being. That should be clear from this review alone and it should go without saying that your reaction to the movie may vary. But I probaly should've also said that if you liked the remake, I would think you would like this. Then again if you liked the remake I got no idea where you're coming from so I could be totally wrong. If you want to really get me where it hurts, you could point out that my attachment to what the character of Leatherface used to be is like the way most of the people here felt about X-Men 3. But it's subtly different because I think in the case of X-Men they knew when they were changing the characters but felt it didn't matter, here I think they just don't get the original movie and forgot that Leatherface wasn't Jason. I think they don't even realize that they look down on the material. That's my guess. But I assume in part 3 it will take place in the modern day and Leatherface will have a long black leather jacket and sunglasses because kids don't like those retard killers anymore, this is 2008. Anyway despite my chain saw fundamentalism I believe that my primary criticisms of the movie could easily be shared by a more casual fan. It's not like they didn't tell us this was "the beginning of fear" and make a huge deal about this prequel thing. So how come they don't bother to actually do that? I just read a review on some place called Freeze Dried Film, the guy was pretty much opposite of me (loved the remake, thought it was brilliant that they left out the classic dinner scene from the original) but made these same criticisms. And you know what, even if the movie totally disrespected the original and didn't make sense as a prequel, it could still win me over by kicking my ass on horror terms or general entertainment. For example DAWN OF THE DEAD is my #2 horror movie after CHAIN SAW, I think the remake is a hollow, substanceless version, I was raised anti-fast zombie, and yet I loved that movie on its own terms. Oh well, some of you guys liked the prequel, that's cool. Here is a good tagline I made up. "TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE: THE BEGINNING. This time... it's a little bit earlier."
i liked... by El Borak	Oct 7th, 2006 02:15:47 PM
how the dumbass bitch from the film said that this was a prequel to the "original" from 2005!!! on jimmy kimmel.
Boo by team america	Oct 7th, 2006 02:53:22 PM
ooooooooooo
oh and... by El Borak	Oct 7th, 2006 02:53:51 PM
if you think the original tcm sucks you have some serious problems. you must be under 20 years old or a retard.
If a late summer 2007 by sentient	Oct 7th, 2006 03:18:00 PM
If a late summer 2007 release date is done for friday the 13th remake. You can expect even worse results than TCM 3 and thats my statement. That film was also rushed and mistreated in order to make a date.------------------------- The Friday remake is alot worse... No script done. No real development time between now and then. It's a Rush'Out to get it to come to theaters a few months back from Rob Zombies remake.------- I think Hollywood is catching on that the remake trend could go south at any moment. I'm growing more and more tired of it myself. I think it works because most teens are oh so newly exposed to horror in general and they dont have an adult horror fans mind or memory/seen-it-resume. These newbee's are helping Hollywood continue it's rapefest.-------------- I find my Horror film taste changing with my age. Chainsaw remains important to me, same could be said for the original Dawn, Night, Marvin, Phantasm, Funhouse, Suspira, Psycho, The Haunting, Frenzy, The Burning and a few others. I've lost alot of my Halloween love because I've seen it too much.. It doesnt have the power for me anymore. Nightmare, Friday the 13th, Childsplay- sure I can watch them but I wouldnt say that I balls out fucking love em like I love the other films. and these gusy like Eli and Mike T and Rob Z. Theyre not even close to Romero, Carpenter, Tobe, or Dario as far as Quality, Shock and Adding something new Strong, Unseen, Loud, and Undeniable as thier own to the horror world. ------ I can take Devils and break the film down scene by scene and tell you where the shock moment and kill happened in another film.----- Where are the real new renegades of horror?!?!?!? The ones who will scare me again. Did I grow to old, or did the forumula get to easy? I dont get scared anymore and it sucks! But I keep my love for the ones that got me.
Spoiling the ending. by evergreenoldboys	Oct 7th, 2006 04:20:29 PM
Hey Vern! I know you didn't like the flick, but goddamn dude! Did you really have to blab the ending without a spoiler warning? "In the end Bruce Willis helps little Haley Joel solve his ghostie problem, and without giving anything away, there just MAY be a possibility that Bruce Willis is ACTUALLY FUCKING DEAD! HOLY SHIT I HAVE NEVER, EVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT, if that is what happens, but who knows. Anyway, he has some flashbacks and realizes he was a fucking ghost the whole time, finds his peace and transcends, the end. Do you really think this movie needed a realistic true crime feel like the original? Why try to do that again when the original did it so well? This is the slick comic book version and it's quite fun like that. Man, I can't believe Bruce was dead the whole time...
Being one who hated the original films... by bishopfan85	Oct 7th, 2006 04:47:46 PM
Maybe I just didn't get it, or maybe I just couldn't accept it but even as a kid the original Texas Chainsaw films did VERY little for me as a viewer. I hated Leatherface and thought he was nothing more than a goofy guy who was told to just go out there and act a fool (the image of him falling and cutting himself in the leg with his own chainsaw still makes me shake my head to this day). The latest creations of chainsaw has brought on a more serious tone to the idea of a group of backwood yokels who've decided to eat passers by because it somehow makes more sense then to move 30 minutes up the road to an area that has fast food joints, civilization and grocery stores. There are a TON of things wrong with this and all Texas films that has NOTHING to do with the direction but with the idea itself. Ed Gein was a solo artist and the Manson's had their "Satanic Cult" thing going for them as an excuse. The excuse created for why an entire family would collectively agree to choose to live this way doesn't cut it. Leatherface having a skin disorder and being "picked on" growing up may help to explain him being ok with killing people but why is the Mother or the Uncle or anyone other than psycho dad and Tommy on the rampage? Starting out, the "Sheriff" and Tommy should have been hiding what they were doing from the family and when it was finally realized that the plan is to eat people, Mama especially should have been given some cock and bull story about how the world is against them and they've been left no choice. A few "self defense" stories couldn't hurt either to justify their selection in who's edible and who isn't. Hurricane Katrina proved that there are people out there who would prefer to stay in a dead town then move on but I'm pretty sure that when they realized they wouldn't have anything to eat, they knew it was time to take a hike. Now I am aware that there is a religious extremist thing going on with the family but it doesn't in anyway explain how they could justify their choice in living. If "Sheriff" had been able to somehow convince the family (and the audience) that he FIRMLY beleived that GOD wanted them to act this way and that there was NO OTHER CHOICE, then I would begin to worry about which Chainsaw flick was better than the other. But as far as I'm concerned, outside of the gore there isn't much to any of these films and sadly enough, many of the knock off films have done a much better job simply because they could come up with a better rationality for their killers actions.
"a better rationality for their killers actions" by BitterMan23	Oct 7th, 2006 05:32:08 PM
So i guess you dislike Halloween too? They had no explanation for why he was after the girls. Man, thank god the apparently superior sequels explained that he was a pawn for a druid ritual that needed the death of an entire family, culminating in the sacrifice of a newborn in order to appease the gods for the festivity of Samhain, otherwise it would be totally stupid.
Vern. by Red Ned Lynch	Oct 7th, 2006 05:55:38 PM
This is quite possibly the best review I have ever seen on this site. Stand proud, baby, stand proud.
And about spoiling the ending... by Red Ned Lynch	Oct 7th, 2006 06:00:44 PM
...if that's the ending, sorry, but it wasn't Vern who spoiled it. Remember back in the bad old 70s when even low rent horror movies had endings that came from the plots, that could be "spoiled" as opposed to an option 1: The twelve times dead monster man stays dead, or option 2: the twelve times dead monster man jumps out right at the end? That's not an ending you "spoil". Now the ending of Tourist Trap? There's an ending you could spoil. The ending to this was just exposed.
Immortal Fish by Red Ned Lynch	Oct 7th, 2006 06:07:56 PM
I hated this sequel even worse than the remake, and I hated the remake plenty, so I don't qualify for the parameters you set as to who should answer this question. BUT. If I HAD to sit through these movies, and being a hopeless horror fan I did, at least grant me tight and revealing clothes on Jessica Biel and Jordana Brewster. Anachronistic or not. I mean please. No, actually, a hippy bare midriff thing would have been okay too. Maybe better for Brewster. Forget it.
vern ruining the ending by ectocriminal	Oct 7th, 2006 06:11:26 PM
yeah but no...glance through the reviews on rotten tomatoes and witness paid reviewers who not only give away the ending but, more importantly, describe the more gruesome and shocking imagery from the film, thereby taking away from its intended potentcy upon a first time viewing. vern vented his disappointment about the end of the film, but if you don't want anything about your tcm tb to be revealed, then don't read the fucking reviews. plus, there's a spoiler warning thingee on the main page around the story. so stay classy evergreenoldboys, and have a great night.
Sentient... by Red Ned Lynch	Oct 7th, 2006 06:21:33 PM
...hurtfully sad. Hurtfully true.
I like my Vern long and rambling... by Alonzo Mosely	Oct 7th, 2006 07:04:37 PM
Stop trying to cut his balls off people, you are as bad as the Hollywood guys who don't get some classic 70s movie they insist on remaking...
Red Ned Lynch, when watching a horror flick set in 1950 by Immortal_Fish	Oct 7th, 2006 07:11:16 PM
There had better be a poodle on the bitch's skirt, not fucking Hello Kitty.
Vern -- You're right about the X-Men 3 analogy by Immortal_Fish	Oct 7th, 2006 07:16:21 PM
What were they thinking with that sequel? They changed everything from the comics. Magneto was a frail, old man. Rogue was a screaming little girl. Wolverine was a 30-something chick magnet. Jean Grey was pre-menopause. Cyke was a creampuff that was no leader. And Iceman was more like Frostboy. You're absolutely correct -- that sequel was nowhere near as close to paying the same level of respect to the source material as X-Men 1 and 2 did. (/sarcasm)
Sorry about the spoiler by Vern	Oct 7th, 2006 08:48:11 PM
I was under the impression that people who don't want to know what happens in a movie don't read a long ass review marked "spoiler".
Now I will respond to Richier 1-2-3 by Vern	Oct 7th, 2006 10:47:01 PM
Obviously I disagree with you but my question is, how old are you? Alot of people seem to see this movie when they are young and think it's crap, then when they are older and have lived a little more and seen more movies they go back and say, holy shit, NOW I see what they were talking about. NOW I like this better than fucking WRONG TURN or some shit. I am guessing you are a young individual and despite my not-even-exaggerated comments about your Paris Hilton generation, there is still hope for you. Some day years from now you'll see it again and you'll understand. The downside is that when you see the remake again after that it will raise your blood pressure. anyway thanks Richard.
Saw the new one recently... by CowboyBob250	Oct 7th, 2006 11:37:35 PM
...it was okay... I laughed a little. The '03 remake I thought to be much better, managed to be scary without alot of 'jumpy' stuff, which too many horror movies rely on. I'm stoked to see the Beginning.
oops.. by CowboyBob250	Oct 7th, 2006 11:39:13 PM
meant to say "Saw the OLD one recently..."
Vern you're funny as shit, man. by DEFENDERS	Oct 8th, 2006 12:38:52 AM
This line had me laughing so hard my chest hurt. "Now we'll never be able to watch those other movies the same way again. Every time we see the chainsaw we'll think wow, there it is. The chainsaw he found sitting there that one time. It adds so much depth to the whole thing." top notch shit, man. Your wealth of film knowledge is valuable. At this level of criticism it's only fair that you take the next natural progression and move onto the creative side of things. Seriously. Maybe someday I'll look you up. If you don't already have a development deal by then. Anyway great work and insight, man. Keep watching flicks and posting your commentary. Tron-1 (DAC)Defenders of Action Cinema P.S. Yesterday I was hype to go see TCM. Then you gave the warning that they fucked us on the prequel tag and I got sad and didn't support opening day. Now I'm looking at it as just a new take on Leatherface. So I'll go see it with lowered expectations. To everyone, I strongly recommend TCM 2. It is the template for a ton of horror flicks. And in a sick way it's very, very, funny. The whole scene where they show up at the radio station and he's picking meat from his head and eating it and the chase that ensues is so gold. Out.
Chicks in the '70s by BannedOnTheRun	Oct 8th, 2006 04:53:38 AM
BSB speaks the truth about chicks being tough back then. We kids ate meat regularly and there were no laws requiring us to wear bike helmets. Hell, I don't think they'd invented bike helmets yet. Wiping out on your ten-speed on loose gravel? THAT was gore, in 3D, natch. P.S. Haven't seen the remakes... no dinner scene? That scene WAS horror.
Is it just Americans that never had hipster jeans back by half vader	Oct 8th, 2006 04:57:21 AM
... then? What are you guys on? Haven't you ever seen a photo of Robert Plant (never mind the chicks), for crying out loud? As for the rest of the review, loved the line about snorting off the breast implants. That's classic Vern.
I just mention Led Zep because by half vader	Oct 8th, 2006 05:01:57 AM
My uncle had a poster of Plant and Page (in lowriders) in the early 70s when I was a little kid. That thing scarred me for life. That and the Bowie/Ziggy poster on the other wall.
About that spoiler warning... by evergreenoldboys	Oct 8th, 2006 07:55:17 AM
I saw no spoiler warning..Just an outline and the word "poile". I assumed this was Vern's subtle way of telling us he thought the film was a "poile" of shit or that it should be poiled out of theaters...How was I to know? I'm not really upset (in case you were wondering.), nor was I spoiled (I was at the premiere...). Seriously, this review takes longer to read than the movie does to watch so I don't think there's too much danger of people actually getting that far into it. I read spoiler laden reviews all the time and it doesn't bug me a bit. But graphically describing the very end of the film simply as a set up to say that you'd have preferred it if Leatherface had had an all out gun battle with the cops? Yeah, how very in the spirit of the TCM.
Ectocriminal and his futuristic jeans by evergreenoldboys	Oct 8th, 2006 08:12:06 AM
ECTOCRIMINAL- "i don't think your average attendee of this film will even realize that they didn't have low cut jeans in the 60s." WIKIPEDIA (I know that's not the most reliable fact source available, but I just smoked a bowl of the good shit and I'm feelin' pretty fuckin' lazy...)- Under hip-hugger- "Hip-huggers, the precursor to low rise jeans, rose to popularity during the late 1960s, with the ascendance of the hippie counterculture and psychedelic music. " Under Low-rise jeans-"Hip-hugger jeans have been popular in the past during the 1960s and into the early 1980s." God, guys! You really think these hip-hugger jeans are a recent invention? Are you fucking serious? Next thing you'll be telling me about these brand new naked big haired troll dolls you saw right next to the never before seen pet rocks... ALSO: ECTOCRIMINAL. Lighten up, chum. You feel like insulting me and the best you've got is "so stay classy evergreenoldboys, and have a great night. "? Dude, in this talk back alone we have stuff like: "Seriously, my ass is wide open any time you need to drop a load, bud. And (YOU) can eat them after I give birth."- Stay classy? How colorfully insulting!
Amanda Krueger and the thousand maniacs by blacklodgebob	Oct 8th, 2006 09:53:44 AM
...would be a great band name
the original is visceral by El Borak	Oct 8th, 2006 10:09:13 AM
when a door opens, "something" comes out and a head gets wacked it's so quick and unexpectedly frank. it's like, "what the fuck was that!!!" and the uncomfortable, ill, sickening tension that film creates is unparalleled. all the way to the abrupt ending you're unsure what the the hell's happening. it's unsettling and it's genius.
Evergreen by Vern	Oct 8th, 2006 10:19:30 AM
Hiphuggers aren't the same, they are still at waist level, which was low at the time. But I don't really care too much about the jeans, I just thought it was a funny aspect of these movies, not a dealbreaker. As for the "all out gun battle" you're referring to, all I meant was that Leatherface should have to work for his meat. Not that he would have a gun and shoot it out Chow Yun Fat style. If the cops lived to take a couple shots at him it would be more challenging for him, it would show that he's new at this and makes mistakes (almost as if he were some sort of interesting movie character in an entertaining movie), and it wouldn't seem like the exact same shit we've seen a thousand times. Of course they don't have to make every decision I want them to make but I couldn't help but feel this was a lazy, dumb movie that steered clear of every possible chance to do something new and fun. That was one noticeable example. Did you like the way it ended?
Although let's be honest... by Red Ned Lynch	Oct 8th, 2006 10:28:36 AM
...who read the line "Not that he would have a gun and shoot it out Chow Yun Fat style" and didn't feel that the world might be a better place if they could see that, just once, on screen?
Seriously... by Red Ned Lynch	Oct 8th, 2006 10:30:09 AM
...and you have to really visualize it for it to be effective. The Gunnar Hansen model, with all his tics and twitches. You know it would make you happy.
vern-did I like the way it ended by evergreenoldboys	Oct 8th, 2006 02:56:44 PM
Well, I'll say this: It took a retarded amount of suspension of disbelief. Leatherface is this huge dude hiding in the back seat of the car and she doesn't even notice...and he's got a RUNNING chainsaw. Can't she hear it? Smell the gas fumes? What the fuck!!! So, you're right. It's incredibly dumb. BUT, I did like the ending, brainless as it was, because of the cool visual execution of it. When you try to compare this film to the original TCM of course it's gonna' look kind of bad. In my opinion, the original TCM is not just one of the best horror movies ever made. It's one of the best movies ever made PERIOD As a popcorn horror flick, TCM TB is fun due to it's high body count (no survivors....OK. Now I'm fucking up the ending too. If you've gotten this far down into the talkback and you feel spoiled, consider it punishment for having too much time on your hands.) and what I thought was some visually impressive death and gore. Bovine ramming. WHEEE!!!
I really enjoyed the 2003 remake... by El Scorcho	Oct 8th, 2006 03:33:28 PM
but this was pretty crappy. Vern is right. All of the explanations and motives ruined everything. I didn't buy any of it. It was unscary and overall lame. The pacing was tight. That's the only good thing when compared to the 2003 version. The original is lots of fun because of the fact that it is pure 70's and amateur-ish. This new stuff is all MTV/WWE horror. Gory? Yes. Scary? Not so much. And I actually did like the 2003 remake. But not this one. The unknown is what's scary. Not an explanation for everything. They really should have left this alone.
Vern and Scholars... by DEFENDERS	Oct 8th, 2006 03:39:30 PM
Been thinking about these things a little bit today. And I was saying well it least they can't fuck up Friday the 13th with a "prequel" because it started at the beginning. Then I think I heard somewhere that they are going to remake the first one. Is that right? -------------------------So anyway I was just at the beach and I saw some toddlers having a Spider-Man birthday party. And I was thinking to myself this is the first time they've evr heard of Spider-Man. I read comic books and right now they are doing Civil War in marvel. You know with the continuity from the beginning. From 40 years ago, right? So I've also been reading the "ultimate spider-man" series which just reached issue 100. now these came out when spiderman the movie came out so they weren't supposed to be here now. But they are. And the concept behind them is now just telling the original spiderman story OVER for a new generation. So I was like why would they do that? And I was thinking 40 years, 550 issues is a lot of time. So I softened up a little. Because what if a kid wants to get into Spiderman and he's like well I don't wanna have to read 500 issues of back story and forgoes spidey altogether. So I wonder if that's whats happening with these 'reimaginings"? Like if we examine it from another perspective will it be a little acceptable? ------------- Then I'm thinking, like when you reimagine something, do you make it out of respect for the next generation? Or does this make the new generation lazy and disrepectful as far as the classics go? As evidenced by the smoke in here, you can see I've been thinking about this a little. and also since we are really in the first century of certain types of entertainment, when is time to really do a remake of a classic? 50 years? a decade? 25 years? 60 years? You know what I'm saying? Tron-1 (DAC)
And I usually agree with Vern by hktelemacher	Oct 8th, 2006 05:31:39 PM
I think he missed the boat with this one. As far as Texas Chainsaw flicks go, it was fairly strong. I don't want to go point by point because that would take up way too much room, but what I will say is this -- I don't think this particular backstory/explanation did any serious damage to the kind of rural legend mythology the Sawyer (or Hewitt, as the case may be) family had. It really just fleshed out what was essentially alluded to in the Hooper original - that the motley family of mouth breathers already instilled with super psychotic tendencies lost their jobs at the slaughterhouse and kept the business practices alive on the home front. Had there been a little more Steinbecky dust bowl poverty that jumpstarted the cannibalism sooner than 1969, it might have sold better, and I agree that Leatherface's childhood would have made a very interesting at least brief post-credits sequence rather than the montage of report cards we get - but the total revisionist history of it wasn't as godawful as all hell. I thought Harry's review really nailed this one - the birth was kind of a tall tale thing, on the nose or no. Leatherface has fetal alcohol syndrome and that's a pretty gruesome detail. And the Scarlet O'Hara "as God as my witness I'll never go hungry again" was pitch perfect. I thought the iconography was very strong and in tune with the rest of the legendary aspects of it. Yeah, Leatherface in the back seat was a little too tried and true and altogether unbelievable - but that's a big urban legend staple, the guy in the backseat of the car. I guess that DeLuca teaser for LEATHERFACE had everyone pumped on how he got his chainsaw, but why does it need to be Arthurian? Or even Conan's sword? A scenario like that would have been lambasted for it's lameness. He lost his job and took a souvenier home from the office, off his bosse's desk no less. Stick it to the man, Tom. I though the victims in this one were quite strong as far as young and pretty horror victis go, and they were sure as hell more likeable than the wet noodle crew of milquetoasty cardboard people that were the bodycount in the Hooper original - a film I out and out love like no other, by the way - but c'mon, the only thing watchable about those folks were the girls asses and Franklin's spastic and gleefully politically incorrect fits of handicapped angst. One just wants to see those kids murdered. These ones at least had some other shit going on. The Viet Nam stuff at least gave them something interesting to talk about, rather than the stock young person babble. The black comedy elements (like the push up scene and it's pay off) were solid, and I thought Leatherface was well, Leatherface. The fact that Vern has even seen SEE NO EVIL is worrisome to his horror pedigree, and if he wants elaborate and creative kills - the third SAW movie is coming soon so hey buddy, enjoy the claptrap. But at least there were no institutions or doctors giving us expository psychiatric evaluations of his tendencies. Sure some of it was demystified - but how much explanation does this character merit? I guess being underwhelmed by this movie taking it's obvious course is to be expected - and while I'll admit it was nowhere near perfect and there was no deviation from the formula - it is what it is, and if this exact script had been filmed 30 years ago it would be a bonafide classic. Maybe that's the problem. When we say we want old school horror, do we really want old school horror or just old school sensibilities?
You guys are pretty tight on chain saws but you know by half vader	Oct 8th, 2006 08:01:18 PM
fuck-all about fashion. Which is fine if you admit your mistake like a man (it's not like this is some girlie talkback). Nice sidestep there Vern but I don't think even you were robbing English music festivals, Carnaby street or even Haight-Ashbury back then. Having said that like Bob Dylan sang you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows (as long as you know what you're talking about). ;) Right. I'll get back on track now. I reckon whether you disagree with everything else or not, Telemacher's last point is a good one. P.S. To the guys that said Vern should get his own site, welcome. You're a bit late to the party, man.
I must say... by 9SilentNine9	Oct 8th, 2006 08:36:42 PM
I DID enjoy this movie. But I only say that in terms of the recent stream of "horror" movies that get theatrical releases lately. And to be honest... I've never really watched any of the origonal TCM's. So I can't comment on the continuity. I liked this movie but alot of you hold a solid point. Objectively... this doesn't put forth what alot of people are going to expect. It's almost a cheap ploy in the way that it's once big gift box of sadism anxiously waiting to be opened. But in response to that I would have to say that it delievers at least that much... not that that necessarily "makes" a film. As primarily a fan of the horror genre I really need to catch the origonals. Perhaps I may be offended too if that were the case. But again... "objectively" this movie will deliver to audiences. And R. Lee. Ermy's role being expanding to pretty much the main character of the movie was great. I suppose that almost makes the movie less about leatherface, really, which is probably the beef with most diehard fans. And concerneing what vern said about the chainsaw... I would have to agree... but it was fun to watch nonetheless.
How many chainsaws can be found at a butchery? by Immortal_Fish	Oct 8th, 2006 09:22:39 PM
How many cleavers can be found at a logging mill?
HK Telemacher/ 9SilentNine9 by Vern	Oct 8th, 2006 10:10:56 PM
Thanks for the comments. Let me clarify a little. I don't feel the backstory really "did damage," I even was fine with the birth even though it was more Elm Street than Chain Saw. Ermey's line right before the credits was good and had me hoping I was going to like the movie. I do think the whole idea of doing a prequel to this is misguided but that's fine, I just wish that once they decided to do it they would've gone full hog and made a believable how-it-all-began story. Any explanations were half assed and it mostly just amounts to seeing him put on a face the first time, eat a person the first time, pick up a saw the first time. You're right, the slaughterhouse closing is alluded to in the original, but I've always thought it was grandpa that worked at the slaughterhouse (maybe because that's what they say in part 2). I don't care about continuity, it's just that to me it makes more sense to be passed down from a previous generation and they were raised that way. Anyway, it's one thing to imply it, when you actually show it it has to hold up to more scrutiny. As for the chainsaw - the part 3 trailer is hilarious, but I would never want something like that. But again, they're the ones that wanted to make a prequel, so they know we are going to notice this is THE HISTORIC FIRST TIME that Leatherface picked up a chainsaw, so they could've come up with something less ridiculous than "it happened to be sitting there in a slaughterhouse." I've never worked in a slaughterhouse, so I could be wrong, but I don't believe chainsaws are used in slaughterhouses. Electric saws yes, probaly not chainsaws. Finally, I want to say that this particular hardcore fan was not upset that they focused more on Ermey. Actually I think that was one of the big mistakes of the remake, they thought it was The Leatherface Show and had almost no family interaction. Ermey's character is clearly the best, and it was good that he was interacting with Leatherface, but they're still one hitchhiker short of a Chainsaw movie. Anyway thanks again I appreciate the insights.
Bovine Ramming? by BannedOnTheRun	Oct 9th, 2006 04:21:32 AM
I'm there. Gratuitous cow slayings in O Brother, Where Art Thou, Napoleon Dynamite, and Barnyard (well, my director's cut) have awakened my love of a previously unknown genre that I believe only a viewing of Isolation can satisfy.
Vern: Re: Chainsaws in slaughterhouses. by FatPaul	Oct 9th, 2006 07:49:59 AM
I've never actually worked in one of those places, but I do watch a lot of bad movies, so I'd like to draw your attention to Ringo Lam's Maximum Risk, starring Jean Claude Van Damme. It's not much of a movie, but there is a scene at the end where a villain attacks Van Damme with a chainsaw in a meat packing plant. When Van Damme finally shoots the villain, his fall is delayed because the chainsaw has to slowly cut through an entire pig first. Best scene in the whole movie. Anyway, back to the point, I believe this scene proves once and for all that the makers of the Chainsaw prequel are completely justified in their placement of logging equipment in a slaughterhouse. It also proves that they are Jean Claude Van Damme fans.
"the Original classic"?? by Snookeroo	Oct 9th, 2006 10:33:21 AM
"The Original Classic" was a piece of trash. That anyone would waste money on the prequel to a sequel of a piece of trash is mind numbing. That anyone would bother posting a message on a thread about a prequel to a sequel of a piece of trash is downright flabberghasting. Well looky at me, I'm flabberghasting.
Well, Vern... by Childe Roland	Oct 9th, 2006 11:05:12 AM
...you and I still disagree on the relative merits of the remake (I didn't hate it...I'll know next week if my ho-hum memories of the original are off base as I've got it on my Saturday night viewing list), but I'll be damned if your ideas for a prequel don't sound a helluva lot better than what they apparently went and did. I don't know why studios like this don't just hire you as a one-man focus group while they're still shooting and have some dailies for you to look at. I think you'd have a lot of creative types who have forgotten what it means to do something other than a paint-by-numbers formula/genre movie slapping their melons and asking why the happy fuck they didn't think of that. But then they can say they did, because you agreed when you submitted your comment card to accept the free popcorn and soda-pop they provided in exchange for any and all good ideas you might have...kind of like Awesomeo the robot. But with more value-added. I'm glad to hear R. Lee is in form. That will make it worth a rental. Too bad they didn't give him more to work with. What's the boobie count on this one? I mean, if it's an R-rated movie, we should see at least side boob a couple of times, right?
Hey Vern, don't know if you've seen this, by Turd Furgusen	Oct 9th, 2006 11:08:32 AM
but I thought it was damn funny. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =YS67yMLPtPQ Great review once again.
a nitpick back to Vern by hktelemacher	Oct 9th, 2006 12:20:52 PM
I believe the hitchhiker did say he worked in the slaughterhouse in the original.
Hitchhiker did work in the slaughterhouse by magic_ninja	Oct 9th, 2006 12:52:08 PM
"I was the killer!" Nubbins says while in the van.
you're right by Vern	Oct 9th, 2006 02:03:00 PM
"I was the killer." And also I gotta admit there's good reason to believe Leatherface worked there (he has all the slaughter equipment at his house). But they also say in part 2 that Grandpa worked there, so that's where I got the multi-generational business. Of course that doesn't mean they were thinking that when they made the first one. As for Snookeroo, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the original classic is THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE, 1974, directed by Tobe Hooper, never seen in its entirety by Michael Bay. If you say that one's garbage then I don't know what to do for you there, bud.
I forgot to mention by Turd Furgusen	Oct 9th, 2006 02:22:52 PM
If you see any 20% in the HTML that I posted, take it out. All I can say is that I'll never look at Benny Hill the same.
Vern, please stop defending your POV to movie retards by www.valiens.com	Oct 9th, 2006 02:56:46 PM
Dudes, if you liked the Chainsaw remake on some super aweful B-movie jerkoff level then I'm with you. I don't agree in this case, but I understand the indefensible liking of steaming movie shit. However, movies are not all about taste--that's just a line you hide behind when you have none. There are objectively good and bad examples of the craft because it is a craft. You may love a dribble glass but saying it's just as good at getting water to your mouth as any other glass because both are glasses and you like that one better is WRONG. All of this is to say, THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE REMAKE WAS FUCKING HORRIBLE! Objectively. So Vern, please, pretty please with sugar on top, don't feel like you have to explain to morons that they are not morons so they don't go all apeshit moron on ya. Ditto this for the so-called prequel.
Thank you Vern, for calling out Harry, kinda by chillzatl	Oct 9th, 2006 03:09:15 PM
I can't give you a full pass, because you didn't come down on his "studio plant" self like you should have. But at least you wondered aloud how anyone could find this movie to have redeeming qualities, much less "good" as Harry did. Your take on the movie was spot on. They butchered the legend of a screen legend, one that was campy, but at the same time human. Now, in two remakes, we have a new version that is basically a tank with a chainsaw and no thoughts in his head other than cutting people up.
most people by El Borak	Oct 9th, 2006 03:24:17 PM
don't even know what the "original" is.. sad.
See, now, valiens... by Childe Roland	Oct 9th, 2006 05:25:12 PM
...for a guy who tossed the word "objectively" into an entirely opinion-based post, you seem pretty sure of yourself. But even Vern has admitted that the remake wasn't all bad as far as just being a movie goes. His problem (and feel free to correct me if I'm missing the point, Vern) was that it shouldn't have been a remake of the movie he loved so much and, if it had to be, that it should have tried to capture more of what made the original work for him. I've seen both. Admittedly, it's been about 15 years since I saw the original, but it didn't impress me as much as it did Vern (I've promised to watch it again and will so he and I can talk/type more about it). I saw the remake again recently and thought (even on a second viewing) it was better than average modern horror fare (kind of like saying "X-Men wasn't bad for a comic book movie...that doesn't mean X-Men was a great movie). I thought it was well shot, had a pretty solid cast and prominently featured two of the most shapely young bosoms to ever poke their nipples through a perpetually wet t-shirt. Not a great movie, by any stretch, but certainly not "objectively" bad (you might want to look that one up, since I'm pretty sure you're comparing the remake directly to the original in your analysis and even Vern, who is pretty much in agreement that it doesn't stack up, will tell you there's nothing "objective" about that comparison). In this case it most definitely is a matter of taste (ain't nobody hiding behind no lines, neither). You want an "objective opinion?" Check back with me next week. I neither love nor hate the remake and have no nostalgia whatsoever for the original (kind of wish I did because it's one of those few movies where I don't know exactly where Vern's coming from), but I'll able to tell you which I thought was the better horror film after I watch the original again this weekend.
Childe by Vern	Oct 9th, 2006 07:52:18 PM
You're mostly right about my take on it. I think visually the remake is nice and it has a few inspired touches, mainly involving R. Lee Ermey. So yes I agree that on its own on some basic levels it is a little better than just another crappy studio horror movie. On the other hand it's full of lame cliches (that by the way weren't in the original), badly contrived "BOO!" type scares, purposely unlikable protagonists and that ridiculous BLAIR WITCH gimmick at the end, which are probaly what Valiens meant were "objectively bad." I think on a primal scare people level it's not executed as well as many recent horror movies like The Descent, Hills Have Eyes remake, Dawn of the Dead remake, Wolf Creek, even Hostel or High Tension (as painful as that twist ending is). But many people are actually scared by squeaky rats and shit and, in my opinion, this is America. Or whatever country you are reading this from. Anyway, I definitely agree that I am far from objective on this matter, and not trying to be. This is movies, not science. Anyway, I look forward to hearing what you think when you watch CHAIN SAW again.
You are right on Vern by JustyHakubi	Oct 9th, 2006 09:58:20 PM
I didn't really read through all of the talkback, but I did read your comments. You observation is exactly what I thought. I saw the movie on opening day. I didn't really even know this one was coming out, I just walked in and saw the marquee. Anyway, there is one part that is not really generating any commentary. That is the birth itself. That whole scene could have been played out so much better. They had a spark of inspiation when the poor fat lady was giving birth. Unfortunately, the spark just died out before they had a chance to develop it. This was a major portent of the crappy writing skills of the staff. Emotionally that whole scene with the lady givng birth could have been more drawn out. I felt sorry for her initially but before that pity could have been developed into something deeper, something that could have given more to the Tommy and the mother (the father too) the lady drops dead and Tommy is chucked into the dumpster. If that initial scene was played out more creatively the story could have branched into something that could have been respected as canon. The movie had a few glimmers, but overall was a steaming dump.
questions for vern and the gang by ubersnarf	Oct 9th, 2006 10:29:53 PM
Ok, I'm not a fan of the original, I was about 26 when I saw it, and I respect it, I just am not a horror fan. Which leads me to a question. A lot of you are saying horror movies don't need gore to be scary. But isn't there a whole separate genre of movies that are scary without gore (suspense/thriller)? Like, does gore actually make something horror, or is there another identifying feature? I mean, would anyone consider Blair Witch Project to be horror? And does a movie like that (very high on character fear without any tangible reason for said fear) interest you folks as horror fans? Or do you like horror BECAUSE you want to see the actual events and people that would cause fear? I ask because I'm writing something (don't worry, I have no connections, it'll never get made, I just want to do it RIGHT) that is in my mind a pure suspense movie, but I could see how it might be deemed horror.
Ubersnarf by JustyHakubi	Oct 10th, 2006 07:59:02 AM
Personally, I don't think that blood and gore make a movie any better just being in the movie. Like any other element of a movie it really depends on how it is used and the impact that it has. The Original TCSM was not really a gorey movie, much of it was edited out. It was the actual production of the film, the camera angles, the score, the direction which made it a great movie. The original Halloween, probably one of the best horror flicks ever made, was not terribly gorey. So from my personal standpoint, no, its not the gore that makes the movie. You could have had buckets of blood and limbs flying all over place in this remake and it still would not have saved this movie. Writing and mood make a good horror flick. A gorey film is simply a sub-genre of horror. Gore has its fans, but I wouldn't call them the majority of horror fans, just probably the most vocal. Simply put if your film is written well, and filmed in a manner that actually evokes emotion in people then it will be good.
Gore's a device... by Childe Roland	Oct 10th, 2006 02:50:28 PM
...(or a former vice president and current environmental activist) which can be used to create shock or gross out value in a film (of any genre). Some might characterize Fargo as gory, but it's hardly a horror film just because one guy gets shot in the face and fed through a wood chipper. Movies can be scary without gore (in fact, some of the scariest ideas in film have been strongly implied but never shown). I think Night of the Living Dead would be just as scary (and actually a tighter film experience) if not for the various cuts to zombie/ghouls munching on chunks of people (I thought one of the scarier munching scenes was when the one zombie/ghoul ate the bark from the tree...had me wondering just how voracious these things were). But there are definitely places where gore works as an integral and even artistic part of the narrative experience (thinking of the first two Hellraiser films here, as an example). The risk a film maker runs with gore is that there are different ways audiences will take it. Given what we all see on the nightly news, it's getting harder and harder to shock folks or show them anything they haven't seen before. Folks are getting desensitized to horror or, and some might argue this is worse, are actually seeing it as funny. So if you do a horror film with excessive gore, there's the very strong risk that the only audience you'll appeal to is the "Oh, yeah...did you see that eye pop out? That was hilarious!" crowd and marginalize the potential impact of your film. I think it needs to be used carefully and consiously if you're really trying to scare anyone. If you're just going for a fun Jason X-style semi-humorous romp, though, have at it.
"Paris Hilton generation" by CuervoJones	Oct 21st, 2006 05:11:37 AM
hahaha

Talkbacks

VERN vs. CRAPPY TEXAS CHAINSAW REMAKE: THE PREQUEL!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks