Texas chainsaw??

davidjohn1985davidjohn1985 Posts: 340
Forum Member
Whats this new one a remake?
«1

Comments

  • PunksNotDeadPunksNotDead Posts: 21,125
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes a remake just like the one in 2003, watch the original 70s film its a classic:)
  • shirlt9shirlt9 Posts: 5,085
    Forum Member
    I was a 60s child ..it scared me for years..lol..watched it at my friends on video then had to walk home..
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,305
    Forum Member
    Yes a remake just like the one in 2003, watch the original 70s film its a classic:)

    It's a sequel to the original 70s movie actually.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,274
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CJClarke wrote: »
    It's a sequel to the original 70s movie actually.

    Yup. Forget all sequels and remakes. This is a direct follow-on from the 1974 classic.
    Gotta give credit to the film-makers for the guts to do that.
    And before somebody says that Leatherface would be in his 60's or something, this is only set a couple of decades after the original events.

    Personally I'm glad this is out alongside sentimental stuff like "Les Mis" and "Pi".
    I'm seeing it tomorrow.
    I know it's not the average DS-er's thing though.
    Been amazed by the amount of advertising it has got.

    BTW, another thread for this was started on;

    http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1774715
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,920
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm a child of the TCM era but I never actually watched it at the time. I was aware of it's classic pedigree. Watched it fairly recently with anticipation. It was absolute bobbins I thought. Probably on account of me not being 12.
  • shirlt9shirlt9 Posts: 5,085
    Forum Member
    Ginger Nut wrote: »
    I'm a child of the TCM era but I never actually watched it at the time. I was aware of it's classic pedigree. Watched it fairly recently with anticipation. It was absolute bobbins I thought. Probably on account of me not being 12.

    Thats exactly why..the original film was an introduction to horror for many of us..Im not sure I would be terrified now in my mid 40s but at the time it scared me to death..but then so did Hammer House of Horror back then..lol
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,679
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There were some crazy stories about the original, i remember the one where someone claimed they actually killed Mexican immigrants in the movie.

    Amusing thing is by todays standards, the original and even the remake are decidedly tame.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,274
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ginger Nut wrote: »
    I'm a child of the TCM era but I never actually watched it at the time. I was aware of it's classic pedigree. Watched it fairly recently with anticipation. It was absolute bobbins I thought. Probably on account of me not being 12.

    I don't think it was the fact that you weren't 12. More likely to be the fact that it isn't 1974 any more! :D.

    Jeez. Bela Lugosi's Dracula was scary in the 1930's and plays on CBBC now (well..it doesn't... but you get the picture).

    Have a sense of film history people!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,073
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Love the original :) I cant wait to see this.
  • PJ68PJ68 Posts: 3,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    the original is brilliant, more a black comedy in some parts i think. it's still very disturbing
  • BlurayBluray Posts: 661
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Early reviews are negative to average.

    One i read says it starts out well but soon descends into usual horror stuff with usual horror characters making usual stupid decisions.

    Although it hints at a late twist which is quite clever.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,305
    Forum Member
    Just got back from watching it, the poor/average reviews are spot on, it's pretty crappy. It's only saving grace is that it's funny, although that is completely unintentional. It basically contains every horror cliche in the book (girl falling over while running away, girl running UP the stairs, spooky thing in the mirror that wasn't there before, girl making the dumb decision to close herself in a coffin and whimper loudly to escape, etc... i'm not saying that a horror movie shoudn't feature this kind of stuff, some of it is part of the horror movie DNA, but the way they are deployed here is like the screenwriter was just ticking boxes). The intense dread that was there in the original movie is non-existant here, it's not scary, the characters are insanely dumb, and even the gore is pretty rubbish thanks to some ropey CGI. I was mildly entertained, but for all the wrong reasons.
    The ending is just pathetic, the way that they try to make us root for Leatherface totally robs him of any menace whatsoever. And don't even get me started on how moronic it is that Heather seems to just forget that about an hour earlier Leatherface was carving up her friends and trying to kill her, oh it's okay now i know we're releated!:rolleyes:

    I've got a soft spot for the 2003 remake, and that film is miles better than this one, so Texas Chainsaw 3D doesn't even compare to the 1974 classic. I hope that they leave it a few years now and try again, because there is massive potential for another good film featuring Leatherface, but sadly this isn't it.
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    The original might've scared people in the 1970s but it doesn't these days. I saw the original for the first time about 14 years ago with a load of other students at my university's cinema. It was a full house. I can't remember what prompted the first snigger but after 30 minutes nearly everyone was bellowing with laughter. This continued until the end of the film. It was really hilarious. We just sat there and laughed and laughed. The prolonged sequence when Leatherface chases the girl through the wood with the chainsaw, and she escapes the house by leaping through an upstairs window, is still one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

    :D
  • jamespondojamespondo Posts: 6,040
    Forum Member
    The original might've scared people in the 1970s but it doesn't these days. I saw the original for the first time about 14 years ago with a load of other students at my university's cinema. It was a full house. I can't remember what prompted the first snigger but after 30 minutes nearly everyone was bellowing with laughter. This continued until the end of the film. It was really hilarious. We just sat there and laughed and laughed. The prolonged sequence when Leatherface chases the girl through the wood with the chainsaw, and she escapes the house by leaping through an upstairs window, is still one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

    :D


    A horror movie from 25 years ago is hardly likely to be scary to when in a room with a bunch of 18 - 21 year olds! Every old and new horror has to be watched in the correct context to be effective in fearful sense.

    The clever thing with Chainsaw is that was intentionally filled with black humour. Hell, even the title is over the top.
  • AneechikAneechik Posts: 20,208
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Are we getting the R-rated version or uncut?
  • Danny_SmithDanny_Smith Posts: 345
    Forum Member
    I like the texas Chainsaw movies and I can't wait to see this, wish it would come out on dvd soon :(:)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,274
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CJClarke wrote: »
    Just got back from watching it, the poor/average reviews are spot on, it's pretty crappy. It's only saving grace is that it's funny, although that is completely unintentional. It basically contains every horror cliche in the book (girl falling over while running away, girl running UP the stairs, spooky thing in the mirror that wasn't there before, girl making the dumb decision to close herself in a coffin and whimper loudly to escape, etc... i'm not saying that a horror movie shoudn't feature this kind of stuff, some of it is part of the horror movie DNA, but the way they are deployed here is like the screenwriter was just ticking boxes). The intense dread that was there in the original movie is non-existant here, it's not scary, the characters are insanely dumb, and even the gore is pretty rubbish thanks to some ropey CGI. I was mildly entertained, but for all the wrong reasons.
    The ending is just pathetic, the way that they try to make us root for Leatherface totally robs him of any menace whatsoever. And don't even get me started on how moronic it is that Heather seems to just forget that about an hour earlier Leatherface was carving up her friends and trying to kill her, oh it's okay now i know we're releated!:rolleyes:

    I've got a soft spot for the 2003 remake, and that film is miles better than this one, so Texas Chainsaw 3D doesn't even compare to the 1974 classic. I hope that they leave it a few years now and try again, because there is massive potential for another good film featuring Leatherface, but sadly this isn't it.

    Whilst I agree with yourself and the reviews on some of the points, and the fact that it's nowhere near as good as the 1974 classic (despite what any "youngsters" say here. You never lived through the "video nasty" era! That was a sad time for us horror fans!), and the really good 2003 remake ... I can't really get myself to hate on it. I quite enjoyed it. It's miles better than previous sequels and "The Beginning". :D

    Yes ... there are plot-holes you can drive a sherman tank through ... there are questionable decisions made by leading characters and somewhat dubious attempts for sympathy ... but damn it all, it's good horrorific fun which we haven't had on the big screen since "Piranha 3D" (ignore the s*** "3DD").

    I thought with the gang of stereotype teenagers, it was just going to be Scooby-Doo split-ups in the mansion, and Leatherface picking them off. The fact that it isn't this and takes a different direction should at least be acknowledged and applauded.

    Also the 3D effects and the horror effects are mint! The coffin sequence allows the chainsaw to come out of the screen and about 6 rows into the audience! :cool:
    It's also probably the first "chainsaw" film that isn't coy about showing Leatherface in "action" with the chainsaw, if you get what I mean. An admirable lack of CGI blood as far as I could tell as well. It's used for some of the most outrageous gore pieces, but there seems to be mostly practical effects.

    No masterpiece, lots of faults, but :p I enjoyed it.
  • thats_racistthats_racist Posts: 1,422
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Wulfster wrote: »
    Yup. Forget all sequels and remakes. This is a direct follow-on from the 1974 classic.
    Gotta give credit to the film-makers for the guts to do that.
    And before somebody says that Leatherface would be in his 60's or something, this is only set a couple of decades after the original events.

    Personally I'm glad this is out alongside sentimental stuff like "Les Mis" and "Pi".
    I'm seeing it tomorrow.
    I know it's not the average DS-er's thing though.
    Been amazed by the amount of advertising it has got.

    BTW, another thread for this was started on;

    http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1774715


    The new film is set in 2012 - at one point a character uses an iPhone and the date is seen on a gravestone.
    What they have done is ignored the 1974 date of the original film - on the police files etc. the date is obscured.
    This is because
    Using the 1974 date would make Heather 39. Why they didn't just set the film in the 90s is beyond me - other than the iPhone scene
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,305
    Forum Member
    Wulfster wrote: »
    An admirable lack of CGI blood as far as I could tell as well. It's used for some of the most outrageous gore pieces, but there seems to be mostly practical effects.

    There was a lot of CGI blood mixed with some of the practical effects, the worst offender though was:
    The meat grinder at the end, the CGI on that bit was truly awful and some of the worst i've seen in a theatrically released film, it almost looked like an old PS2 game as he was getting sucked into it. That scene would have been so much better had they used purely practical effects.

    The bit where the guy on the meat hook gets chopped in half with the chainsaw was pretty good though, i'll give it that one.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,274
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CJClarke wrote: »
    There was a lot of CGI blood mixed with some of the practical effects, the worst offender though was:
    The meat grinder at the end, the CGI on that bit was truly awful and some of the worst i've seen in a theatrically released film, it almost looked like an old PS2 game as he was getting sucked into it. That scene would have been so much better had they used purely practical effects.

    The bit where the guy on the meat hook gets chopped in half with the chainsaw was pretty good though, i'll give it that one.

    Yeah, the bit with ....
    ... the meat grinder was the CGI bit that was blatantly obvious.

    It just seemed that the rest of the gore sequences weren't so CGI-dependant as other horror films of recent yore.
    The hammer-hitchhiker scene and the meathook scene could easily have been over-done with CGI tricks, and they seemed to use mostly prosthetics

    Best special effect was easily Alexandra Daddario's "birth-mark" towards the end. You know the scene I mean ... :D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,305
    Forum Member
    Wulfster wrote: »
    Best special effect was easily Alexandra Daddario's "birth-mark" towards the end. You know the scene I mean ... :D

    Oh yes, that was the best scene in the entire movie:p
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,920
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Wulfster wrote: »
    I don't think it was the fact that you weren't 12. More likely to be the fact that it isn't 1974 any more! :D.

    Jeez. Bela Lugosi's Dracula was scary in the 1930's and plays on CBBC now (well..it doesn't... but you get the picture).

    Have a sense of film history people!

    Rubbish. Nothing to do with film history.

    It's a poor movie which would have amused me as a kid.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,274
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ginger Nut wrote: »
    Rubbish. Nothing to do with film history.

    It's a poor movie which would have amused me as a kid.

    Tell that to the BBFC in the 1980's ....
  • ZapomaticZapomatic Posts: 705
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Saw this yesterday and thought it was absolutely hilarious, as did seemingly everyone else in the cinema. Never heard so much laughter during a horror film!
  • Sunny BSunny B Posts: 7,359
    Forum Member
    If this is a sequel to the 1974 original then where does the 1986 sequel fit into the timescale?
Sign In or Register to comment.