Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...
Wait a minute... they’re doing a remake of THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE? What the fuck? This isn't real, is it? Those spoilers... they're not real... are they?
Hi Harry,
Long time reader here. I just wanted to throw my $0.02 in on the new Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie that I saw tonight. First and foremost, to all of you TCM fans out there – GIVE THIS MOVIE A CHANCE!!! PLEASE!!! THE FUTURE OF HORROR MAY DEPEND ON IT!!!!
Now on to the review. I’ll first go the non-spoiler route. I love the original TCM. I think it’s one of the greatest horror flicks ever made, right after The Haunting (1963, of course), and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. When I heard about the remake, I balked. Who wouldn’t, really? There are just some movies that shouldn’t be remade. Then I saw the trailer for the new TCM. It was at this point I made the conscious decision to see the new movie, not as a remake, but rather, as a “sequel.” It couldn’t be any worse than The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, right?
Right. I went into the new TCM with little hope of it being a decent sequel, and I was pleasantly surprised. I had read Mr. Beaks’ review of the film and he’s got it nailed, to some extent. The first half of the movie is inspired. It hearkens back to such great fright flicks as TCM, The Hills Have Eyes, and Deliverance. I was so pleased with the first half that I can almost forgive the second half of the movie for dropping the ball.
As a friend of mine (who owns the live action role-playing game Dark Confrontations) said, “As long as the ending is gang-busters, then everything else can be forgiven.” This holds true. The ending of the new TCM is totally anti-climactic, bringing in elements that are mentioned earlier in passing but don’t cause any empathy with the audience. As a semi-spoiler, perhaps it is the familiarity with horror movies that draws this critique, but the movie ends in the middle of the night during a horrendous thunderstorm and not much is resolved. I know that daybreak is supposed to dispel the “boogeyman,” as per the cliché, but there’s a reason that this holds true. Who is scared in daylight?
Before I get to the true spoiler-ridden part of the review, I’ll say this. The movie is good. It’s worth your money. It was nice not to see a vacuous teen horror movie, like those that have been filling the cinemas lately. It’s brutal, it’s inspired, and it’s beautiful. So what if the final act doesn’t hold up? Support this movie so that we may see others that will. Oh yeah, and if R. Lee Ermey is reading this, you rock. I hate that you got the shaft in the second part of the film.
Now for the spoilers.
I know that I said I went into the movie trying to put the original more or less out of my mind. But I couldn’t. And that leads to the biggest critique of the remake. For me, the original TCM is not about Leatherface. It’s about the family. There are two scenes that always stick out in my mind as being the greatest scenes of pure horror ever captured on film. The first is where Marilyn Burns has been captured by the “father” and is in his truck. He alternately comforts her and beats her with a broomstick, cackling wildly. The other scene is the dinner scene at the end, as Grandpa tries to kill Marilyn Burns but can’t; there has never, in the entirety of film history, been anyone who can scream like Marilyn Burns. The terror that is captured in her eyes as she shrieks in that scene mars everyone I’ve ever talked with who has seen the original.
Both of these scenes bring me to my biggest complaint about the new movie. In the new one, we are treated to many scenes involving Leatherface; so many, in fact, that we forget there’s a family around him who supports his villainous acts. Late in the movie, when R. Lee Ermey gets run over by Jessica Biel, the audience cheered. For the life of me, I couldn’t understand why. Sure, he was an asshole; but by the point he gets killed, he had been totally forgotten. Within the 30+ minutes that preceded this scene, there was nothing involving his character at all. It was a hollow victory.
What made the first TCM so powerful was the family. Leatherface is the most memorable, sure; but he’s also the most gimmicky character in the original. Everyone in that family was evil, down to their cold black hearts, which don’t pump blood like you or I, but a black viscous substance. When I heard that R. Lee Ermey was playing the “father,” my heart jumped with joy. Little did I know he’d get the shaft. He is a fantastic character actor with a fantastic character, and he was fucked over. Sgt (?) Ermey was brilliant in the underrated Willard. I could not wait to see him as the patron of the family, the one who ran the show. However, this was not meant to be. As far as the family went, the most we got was a superfluous subplot involving a baby. If the worst the family has done is to steal a baby, then I really don’t care about them or their murderous intentions.
On the other hand, I did appreciate Leatherface getting his arm cut off. I was not expecting that. It was a nice touch and the only thing that really grabbed my attention after Jessica Biel killed the boy on the meat hook (a nice touch, I thought, that brought out the moral relativism of being in such a situation; it curtailed nicely with the fact that I’m reading Battle Royale right now – GO READ THIS BOOK!!!!)
The new TCM is an incredibly flawed movie; a brilliant first act does little to make up for a boring third act. There are some brilliant nuances for fans of the original, plus a cameo by Mr. Knowles (though, to be fair, it pulled me out of the movie). Again I say go see this movie. There is nothing else that even approaches it that’s out on the market right now (save the vastly overrated, but still brilliant, House of 1000 Corpses). Hollywood should make more movies like this. I often felt as though the script was trapped in the conventions of the big-budget horror genre to truly express itself. I love love love love love horror movies, and if everyone bands together and tells Hollywood that these are the movies we want to see, then maybe they’ll make more of them. Maybe they’ll even be better. Hell, I’d be happy if Rob Zombie was able to express himself without any censor hanging over his head.
The horror genre is finally coming back after many years in VHS seclusion. Horror/slasher/splatter fans out there, let your voices be heard! Yes, this movie is far removed from what we really want to see, but the more people who see it, the larger the testicles of producers in Hollywood grow. Get thee to a cinema! GO!
PS – What is Platinum Dunes next remake? Are they in charge of The Toolbox Murders? And why haven’t we seen much of The Toolbox Murders on this site? I love Tobe Hooper and I worship Angela Bettis. Please, Harry, give us more horror news. You’ve done a fantastic job so far, but I often feel as though some of the latest movies go under your radar.
PPS – Sorry about the bad grammar.
Call me Martrell.
Next up is our very own… the one and only… Quint!!
Ahoy, squirts... Quint here, just in from the kick-ass AICN/Alamo Drafthouse Rolling Roadshow event that has been in bold purple on the left side of the main page for the last couple of weeks.
My morning was spent interviewing the man himself, Mr. R. Lee Ermey. It's a great interview... he talks about CHAINSAW, working with Peter Jackson on FRIGHTENERS, working with Kubrick and even talks about masturbating to Marilyn Monroe. That interview should be up in the next few days...
At any rate, I've had a rather troubled history with this CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake. I was firmly against it when it was announced. I saw the original CHAINSAW before my balls dropped. It was a trippy ass movie for a young kid. My first solid memory of the film, the screening that set the awesomeness of the film into my psyche, happened at the AUSTIN FILM FESTIVAL about 5 years ago. It was a double feature of CHAINSAW and A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET with Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper there to talk about their films. It was the first time I saw either on the big screen and has long since been one of my favorite movie memories.
So, I was dead set against the film. What's the point in remaking a classic? I was handed the script about 10 months ago told that it was actually pretty cool and to give it a shot. I'm the kind of person who always has hope for a movie. I don't want a movie to be bad, I don't hope a film fails just so I could say I spotted the stinker before a frame of film rolled on it. So I read the script with an open mind...
And was disappointed. It was far better than a huge pile of shit, but it had some fatal flaws. It would have made a great sequel. As a remake it was doomed and I'll tell you why. The remake is based on the premise that the film we all know, the story that was brilliantly told in '74 by Tobe Hooper and Kim Henkel... well that wasn't what really happened. That's just a movie that is based on what really happened. This film... well, this one is what REALLY happened. To be fair, the end product doesn't have the narrator say "THAT WAS JUST A MOVIE, THIS IS THE REAL THING" but it is still going along that path, just a lot more subtly.
If Marcus Nispel had shot the film to look ultra-documentary style realistic, then he might have had a chance. The film looks beautiful. The cinematography by Daniel Pearl is superb. But because it looks so slick, this "real story" looks too clean. Hooper's original LOOKS like a documentary. This LOOKS like a movie.
Also, in '74 the cliches of the genre hadn't been set up yet, so when we see the kids in the van, they feel like real kids. I don't know any of the people in the movie. They were complete strangers. Any one of them could be next. They were all fucked as far as I could tell.
It kills me because this film is trying so hard to be a different kind of horror film, but the age-old cliches are still firmly in place. When we first see the teens in the van, two of them are dry humping each other, two of them are smoking weed and there's one who abstains... Guess who survives?
Now, I'm not one to have any sort of complaints with this set up. Many of my favorite cheese-ball slasher flicks do the same thing, but they also don't try to hold themselves above it...
I want to point out that when I saw the film, I wasn't expecting it to even come close to living up to the original film. I was just hoping for a movie I could watch and not be reminded that it was done far better 30 years ago.
I know this review has so far been me trashing the film. I really don't want to give the impression that it's a miserable failure because it's far from that. It's not even just mediocre. It's a good film. It's beautifully shot, well acted (for the most part) and has some really inventive (great pullback at the beginning... you'll know it when you see it) and tense moments...
However, the editing and direction do a lot to try to counter the successes. For instance, you'll have a very tense moment... Jessica Biel is hiding from Leatherface... she's peeking out of her hiding spot and sees him enter the room... looking around. He hears a creak and approaches her... Then something happens and you're pretty sure you get a good idea of what it is, but since it cuts every quarter-second to a completely mismatched angle, it's hard to keep up with.
And they messed with Leatherface. The rumors are true. We see Leatherface's real face and come to find that he wears other people's faces because his nose was rotted off by skin cancer. Say whaaaaat?
A lot of the gore was cut down, too. To me, it felt like it could be one of two things: One, the MPAA gave them shit and they had to trim. Very likely possibility. Two, they held back. To me, it felt like they had the balls to suggest certain scenes (the meat-hook scene or dis-arming scene) but then lost their nerve when it came to actually putting the movie together... maybe fearful that it'll make the movie too much like a horror film instead of this brilliant thriller they thought they were making.
Alright, let's focus on the good for a moment. R. Lee Ermey is a rude, disgusting motherfucker in this film and I loved every scene he was in. Seeing Ermey feel up dead bodies is probably one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen. I remember the script not having much in the way of his Sheriff character and he confirmed that this morning saying he ad-libbed most of his stuff. He has some really fucked up thoughts running through his head to think up this shit, godbless'im.
The cast is alright. I loved all of the family members. I had only seen one of them before the film and that's because she ended up working on a short film I co-wrote. They were all strangers to me. Jessica Biel is a good actress and extremely cute, but she was still Jessica Biel running away from Leatherface, not that poor fucking girl.
Like I mentioned before, the cinematography is outstanding, even if it didn't make it that "documentary" film it was trying to be. The lighting is impressive (if at times unmotivated and out of nowhere) and it makes for a very, very pretty film.
I don't know, I think my main problem lies within this whole remake business. I will always have the original and I don't see the remake tainting the original in any real way... But if this film had tried to be a sequel... set sometime between film 1 and 3 maybe... then I might not be so critical of the film. I don't know if that means I have a bias or that I'm unfairly comparing it to the original... But when you REMAKE something, you know you are going to be comparing it to the original. That's unavoidable. I still think it was a big mistake.
Kudos go to New Line for having the balls to get behind R-rated horror. There're too few willing to do that these days. Hopefully the next one will be a little bit less frustrating for me.
My main advice is if you thought this was a bad idea from the get go and the trailers have done little to convince you that you're going to get something better, then don't dish out the bucks to see it. If you're on the fence, it's matinee city. I don't know how popular my opinion will be. Most of my friends around me shared my views, some to a farther extreme, but I also talked with a few people who think the movie is great. It's always best to figure this stuff out for yourself. I guess I'm in the shakey-hand area. It was "Eh..." for me. I hope you folks enjoy it more than I did.
That's it from me, squirts. I'm tired and it's time to go to bed. I'll be back very soon with two interviews (including the one mentioned above with the old Gunny himself) and a few upcoming Criterion releases to talk to you folks about. 'Til then, this is Quint bidding you all a fond farewell and adieu.
-Quint
email:aicnquint@yahoo.com
Wow. Keep in mind, that was Quint. He’s the most forgiving horror fan I know, and I mean that in a good way. That boy loveseses him some horror moobies. So far, two fairly mixed reactions, and no raves. Odd. Now, here’s another guy who seems less than enthused about the picture after catching it in Boston. Seems level-headed about it, too. He’s not some raving nutball fan of the original who refuses to even give the new one a chance. He just seems disappointed...
Hey there,
This afternoon I was able to catch an advance screening of the TCM remake in Boston. I'm a huge fan of Tobe Hooper's original classic, so the idea of a remake was anything but pleasant to me for quite some time - particularly one produced by Michael "the anti-christ of American cinema" Bay and directed by a guy with nothing more than a background in Janet Jackson music videos. Having read some surprisingly positive reviews before going in, however, I was somewhat hopeful for an entertaining horror affair. I had also been caught off gaurd by the film's effective trailer, as well as some impressively creepy stills floating around the web. Call it morbid curiosity, but I found myself wanting to see the flick more than I initially imagined when I walked into the theater. So when the lights dimmed, I was anxious.
When they came up, however, I was somewhat dissapointed. You see, this remake isn't particularly bad. In fact, its actually got its fair share of creepy atmosphere and fun, gruesome mayhem (the film's money shot is within the first fifteen minutes shortly after a character pulls out a gun from a very uncomfortable place). The photography is beautiful and Marcus Nispel crafts some rather tense set-pieces. The filmmaker exercises more restraint than most music-video directors in his initial outing in terms of editing, pace, and style. It's not choppy or overdone in any way whatsoever from a technical standpoint. Even the cast, from the somewhat likable teens to the psycho locals, is dead-on (though I'm admittedly a little tired of seeing R. Lee Emery play the same boistrous role in every film he's in...but I guess its what he does best).
So where's the problem? Well, I could start by talking about Scott Kosar's inane, horrendous script that has zero competence for act structure and dialogue, or regard for any of its characters (or rather regard for originality in the fate of any of its characters). But that's not what truly bothers me...
Like I said, the film isn't particularly bad. The most dissapointing aspect of it is that the film is not particularly good either, which renders 2003's "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" exactly what myself and a lot of other horror fans feared it would be: pointless. For all of its highlights, the film in no way improves upon the original. Sure, it may look prettier, but its got nothing on the way Hooper's version had a low-budget, semi-documentary feel. The latter is not amateurish, but more effective in making the premise of the TCM scarier, especially if the filmmaker wants to make the audience think its been based on a true story. The opening narration in the new version is put to some cheesy, "recovered" black and white footage that simply pales in comparison to the white on black scrawl of Laroquette's original narration. The ending, which reverts to some of the same black and white footage, is in no way as frightening as seeing Leatherface contort in anger on a sunlit road with his chainsaw roaring louder than ever. And this may just be me, but I found the ending's visual aesthetic similar to the final few frames of "The Blair Witch Project," which hurls the film into a rather off-putting, lame finish (hopefully you'll understand when you see it).
The moment that really makes you realize the film is headed in a different, less effective direction than the original is when the hitchiker appears. She's not there to divulge the depressing history of the fucked-up little Texas town, but to play victim to its token rednecks...and nothing more. Minus the original's backstory, every psycho local in 2003's "TCM" becomes a caricature of every psycho local you've seen from the numerous backwoods horror films that have stolen from Hooper's TCM. The town and its residents are not characters but conventions instead. The hitchiker also paves the way to a rather pointless subplot about a kidnapped baby and what may have happened to its family (which is rather obvious in context).
Speaking of pointless, how about the fact they try to give Leatherface a medical condition and lazily attempt to explain why he wants to cut people up? He even takes off his mask at one point to reveal...well, I don't want to say, but its oddly enough remeniscent of Vincent D'Onofrio's character in "The Salton Sea." And once Leatherace enters the picture, by the way, that's pretty much all you get. His crazy family is all but abandoned halfway through, and the film relies too much on one single menace to provide the thrills. In fact, the last twenty minutes is really a showdown between Jessica Biel and Leatherface that is often more ridiculous than riveting (Biel plays the heroine rather well, but Kosar's script too often forces her character to make decisions that are predictably dumb).
I wasn't expecting to say this, but Leatherface is actually in the film too much. I loved how the original made every member of the family insanely menacing, culminating in the fantastic dinner scene (missing in this new version) where grandpa makes his entrance. True, Leatherface has been a horror favorite baddie for years, but the film turns him into a routine monster and not the character I used to want more of. I guess its true what they say, be careful what you wish for. But then again, who was really wishing for a remake of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre anyway?
-LessThanJim
Wow. Again. I guess I’m surprised after hearing David Poland say “this one is about as close to movie perfection as you can get.” Guess we’re going to be seeing some fairly diverse reactions on this one, and I’ll bet that one ends up slapped across a TV spot any day now. Can’t wait to see what Harry thought, since I know he’s had a bizarre like/dislike relationship with it since the first announcement, even after they cut his head off and… well… you’ll see… For now, these mixed reactions seem to be the rule of the day...
"Moriarty" out.
