Come anticipate The Texas Chainsaw Massacre with me

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I don't actually want to see it so badly but I only heard about it the other day and saw the trailer for it today and, haha, it had this mortal coil doing 'song for the siren' on it.

does anyone else want to ask for people to come anticipate with them?

― RJG (RJG), Saturday, 18 October 2003 20:21 (twenty-two years ago)

ebert gave it ZERO stars!

I love the in-theatre trailer though, great sound.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Saturday, 18 October 2003 20:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Saw it last night. All thoughts of this movie have been replaced with anticipation over a new version of Dawn of the Dead, which there was a trailer for...

― Dale the Titled (cprek), Saturday, 18 October 2003 20:30 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm kind of curious. The original is a lot of fun, but frankly not a movie with much wide appeal. House of 1000 Corpses is pretty damn close to a remake of it, with better production values and so on, but keeping all of TCM's essential traits intact.

So I'm not sure I really see the point of it, in other words; 1000 Corpses does the faithful remake bit, unofficially (which is no fault of the folks making TCM), and why bother with an unfaithful remake?

I've seen TCM a bunch of times now, in various contexts -- my ex taught it in a few of her classes, which was interesting -- and when you're watching it in that sort of setting, where it's dark and you can't get up to grab a drink, and you can't interrupt the movie with smart-ass comments, the thing that strikes you is that by the end of the movie, it isn't the gore that's gotten to you. It's the screaming. There's a hell of a lot of it, and the third act has screams almost all through it, which absolutely gets under your skin.

I'd be really surprised to find that in the remake, when those screams could so easily be replaced by Sum 41 covering "Whisper to a Scream," or Puffy rapping over "Don't Fear the Reaper."

― Tep (ktepi), Saturday, 18 October 2003 20:31 (twenty-two years ago)

(xpost; Dale, how much screaming was there?)

― Tep (ktepi), Saturday, 18 October 2003 20:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I really really really like the original. Very few horror movies actually convey the HORROR that the original TCM oozes. I can't expect the remake to match that, though how great would it be if it did? As for Dawn of the Dead, I'm VERY skeptical of it coming close to the original, though crazier things have happened.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Saturday, 18 October 2003 20:35 (twenty-two years ago)

The first time you see the original TCM it's tragedy, the second time it's farce.

Tep, I agree that the screaming on TCM is v. powerful and unsettling and almost makes the film (see also: The Blair Witch Project, esp. in a cinema)

Who has remade 'Dawn of the Dead'?? I was still hoping that Romero wld somehow get around to making a part 4...

― Andrew L (Andrew L), Saturday, 18 October 2003 20:37 (twenty-two years ago)

I think very few horror makers -- in movies, books, the gamut -- understand the type of horror at work in TCM, and how to invoke it. (I don't think I do, either.) I'd almost think Hooper just tripped over it by accident, if it weren't for Poltergeist being an absolutely genius horror movie.

Anyway, point being: one of the reasons I think the movie works the way it does is the entire lack of explanation. Why the hell do we have this wacked-out cannibal family? We don't know. They don't get a Bond villain speech.

If the remake changes that -- and it's one of the things Rob Zombie was obviously aware of in House of 1000 Corpses, except I think he ruined it by having everyone talk to the camera in interstices -- they missed the point.

(xpost again; yeah! re: Blair Witch. The movie doesn't creep me out anymore except for the very last minute or so, but I can get creeped out remembering seeing the last half or so for the first time.)

― Tep (ktepi), Saturday, 18 October 2003 20:39 (twenty-two years ago)

what makes the film for me is the DARKNESS, I'm talking visually here, the really really low-light cinematography is somehow so filthy and awful

(xp)

― s1utsky (slutsky), Saturday, 18 October 2003 20:40 (twenty-two years ago)

I bought the original on a cassette in the US when it was still unavailable here. I have watched it twice, I think. andrew L is almost right; I think, maybe, it is farce the first time and tragedy the second.

milo from '24' is in this new one, haha. and the main girl was in that 'seventh heaven'?

haha, oh, yeah, and leatherface is played by butterfingers from 'hudson hawk'! sweet!!

― RJG (RJG), Saturday, 18 October 2003 20:43 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm a thimble of ethics away from suggesting everyone corral a classroom of freshmen to watch the original TCM with :) You get about fifteen minutes of "oh man, look at their hair!", some engaged silence, and lots of nervous laughter, pencil-fiddling, and paper-shuffling. It's a really weird experience.

(Before I sound too sadistic, this was a class on horror, and most of the people in the class signed up because they were horror fans.)

― Tep (ktepi), Saturday, 18 October 2003 20:53 (twenty-two years ago)

"Welcome to Accounting 101. We're going to start out with a little film; could someone hit the lights?"

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Saturday, 18 October 2003 21:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh God, I want to teach accounting now.

― Tep (ktepi), Saturday, 18 October 2003 21:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Dude, I saw the original in class over two days..in advanced writing class. [We were looking at different ways of writing about primary texts or something, and this film was brought up in I-forget-which-famous-film-theorist's-article as a critique of capitalism ((the family = literally eating other people to feed themselves = capitalistic society))...basically there was no real reason to see it except that our gay south african prof was the coolest motherfucker in academia anywhere] In the middle of the day, in a darkened room (not our regular classroom) with all the shutters pulled down, exactly two late Octobers ago.

You can imagine the terror. Our teacher actually got up and went out in the last part, saying "oh I have to leave now guys, I just can't see the rest, sorry!"...LEAVING us all there alone, for fuck's sake. Hahahaha I think this one girl flipped out and started screaming when he came back in at the end, since she thought he was Leatherface..

Something about the combination of that hazy 70s cinematography and the score is so eerie and atmospheric, especially the first half right when they stumble upon the house. I remember reading that Hitchcock particularly liked TCM and was taking notes when he saw it..

― Vic, Saturday, 18 October 2003 23:00 (twenty-two years ago)

The last time I saw the original TCM was one of the most entertaining movie watching experiences of my life. It was probably the fifth time I'd seen it, and I wasn't drunk but I might as well have been. I was just like "Fuck yeah! ...Ohh..!..Oh SHIT!! LOOK OUT!!! oh NOO! ETc." the whole time. That's what watching a movie should do to you!

― Dan I., Saturday, 18 October 2003 23:47 (twenty-two years ago)

That's what Smiles of a Summer Night did to me!

― s1utsky (slutsky), Saturday, 18 October 2003 23:50 (twenty-two years ago)

I was like that with the first 1/3 or 1/2 of Jeepers Creepers (which is still some of my favorite first-1/3-or-1/2 in horror moviedom; it just lost a lot of ground after that).

― Tep (ktepi), Saturday, 18 October 2003 23:54 (twenty-two years ago)

I hope Michael Bay eats a shit sandwich with this one. The original TCM is brilliant and gritty while this one will suck.

― Cub, Sunday, 19 October 2003 00:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Remakes aren't always bad. Cronenberg's 'Fly' was better than the original, 'Last House on the Left' was better than 'Virgin Spring', and had a better soundtrack too. Did you know that the guy who played the main baddie wrote it?

― dave q, Sunday, 19 October 2003 09:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Remakes totally aren't always bad! Ben-Hur was a remake!

― s1utsky (slutsky), Sunday, 19 October 2003 17:24 (twenty-two years ago)

(not that it's my favourite movie or anything, my point is they're nothing new)

― s1utsky (slutsky), Sunday, 19 October 2003 17:25 (twenty-two years ago)

"you can't make up an idea."

― RJG (RJG), Sunday, 19 October 2003 17:26 (twenty-two years ago)

the theatrical trailer is great - the tv one not so much

the Dawn Of The Dead remake was written by the guy who wrote the scooby doo movie (did anyone see this?) and stars ving rhames and sarah polley - trailer looks unremarkable aside from the scary updated zombies-who-can-RUN thing, à la 28 Days Later

― jones (actual), Sunday, 19 October 2003 17:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm surprised by how much I like the Scooby Doo movie, but a) I never liked the cartoon, and b) it's a movie I tend to put on while I'm working/cooking/playing Gameboy/grading papers/reading, not one I sit down and watch raptly.

― Tep (ktepi), Sunday, 19 October 2003 17:52 (twenty-two years ago)

forgot to mention: rumour had it awhile back that romero was trying to get his own 4th Dead picture off the ground but couldn't get it financed since he isn't "hot" anymore :(

― jones (actual), Sunday, 19 October 2003 18:03 (twenty-two years ago)

this was terrible. boring, way too gory, nothing genuinely spooky/creepy and it wasn't till the credits rolled that i realized i was looking at jessica biel in an inhumanly tight t-shirt rather than shannon elizabeth.

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Sunday, 19 October 2003 18:07 (twenty-two years ago)

the first Dawn was totally totally brilliant.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 19 October 2003 18:21 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, I love it

― s1utsky (slutsky), Sunday, 19 October 2003 18:37 (twenty-two years ago)

All thoughts of this movie have been replaced with anticipation over a new version of Dawn of the Dead, which there was a trailer for...
nonononononononooonooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't want to see either TCM or DOTD.I'll wait till I can getem on dvd for free.

― brg30 (brg30), Sunday, 19 October 2003 19:23 (twenty-two years ago)

ten months pass...

did you ever see this, RJG?

― cºzen (Cozen), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 22:16 (twenty-one years ago)

I am (re-)watching this on DVD right now and just about dying to see the original (for the first time).

― cºzen (Cozen), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 22:20 (twenty-one years ago)

two years pass...

there's ANOTHER chainsaw out?!?!?!?!?? prequel!::!#L WTF

― am0n (am0n), Monday, 9 October 2006 14:58 (nineteen years ago)

I hope Michael Bay eats a shit sandwich with this one. The original TCM is brilliant and gritty while this one will suck.

-- Cub (cubhea...), October 19th, 2003.

...and he was right!

the remake sucked because it went for a hollywood post-"Seven" style of "gritty". it was just too slick.

― latebloomer: just raw dead fucking, babies! (latebloomer), Monday, 9 October 2006 15:23 (nineteen years ago)

the prequel looks even worse, if imaginable

― latebloomer: just raw dead fucking, babies! (latebloomer), Monday, 9 October 2006 15:24 (nineteen years ago)

the Dawn of the Dead remake wasn't half-bad though, actually.

― latebloomer: just raw dead fucking, babies! (latebloomer), Monday, 9 October 2006 15:29 (nineteen years ago)

true dat. it was pretty fucking awesome actually

― am0n (am0n), Monday, 9 October 2006 18:20 (nineteen years ago)

I quit watching the original TCM halfway through, I suspect I'd prefer the remake (if it was more Cabin Fever/Dawn of the Dead remake than Hostel/Saw).

The new one is tempting (R. Lee Ermey!) but I doubt it's worth $12.

― milo z (mlp), Monday, 9 October 2006 19:39 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.