Well, I grudgingly saw the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake yesterday. Usually I'm the first one to criticize these unnecessary remakes (for example, I will never see Gus Van Sant's sacreligious Psycho remake, and I'm thinking of standing outside the theatre and boycotting former-cool-director Tim Burton's upcoming remake of Willy Wonka) -- make all the arguments you want defending remakes like these, but it doesn't change the fact that they represent a lack of imagination and originality coming out of "Hollywood." Yes, there are definite exceptions (Martin Scorsese's Cape Fear and John Carpenter's The Thing come to mind), but, most often, you get junk like the awful, cgi-infested Haunting remake and Burton's boring Planet of the Apes (what's happened to Burton's creativity? Well, I'm getting off track.)
The TCM remake had other strikes going against it, too, in my opinion. The big one -- it was produced by, I honestly believe, one of the worst directors in the last ten years, Michael Bay. Thankfully, Mr. Fast-Cut-Edit didn't direct the thing. The other strike was the casting of teen beauty Jessica Biel in the main role. Nothing against her -- I just didn't think she'd live up to the terrified, shrieking brilliance of Marilyn Burns in the original. Well, she didn't, but she wasn't terrible. I was impressed.
So, anyway, with these strikes in mind, I went in with pretty low expectations, so maybe that's why I was delightfully surprised. I'm gonna swallow my pretentious pride right now and admit that the TCM remake isn't bad. In fact, a lot of it is downright dark and disturbing. Despite being produced by Bay, the direction isn't all fast cuts and mind-numbing edits (something that was actually done well by Tobe Hooper in the original TCM), and, here and there, it's pretty damn scary. It's also one of the most violent movies I've ever seen (and I have seen a LOT of these kinds of movies.) It's like the filmmakers wanted to take the reputation of the original (which really isn't that graphically violent at all) and make the new movie as gory and bloody as people who never saw the original assumed it was. The violence is so disturbing in this movie because the Sawyer family (namely that lovable, huggable Leatherface) don't just kill their victims -- they keep them alive for a while, hanging on hooks, missing limbs, and work on them slowly -- so there's a lot of sadistic torture and realistic pain portrayed throughout the last half of the movie. I'm almost surprised, in fact, that this got past the ratings board with a mere "R" rating. Also, unlike the original, it's the guys in this one that get the worst of it, a pretty interesting role reversal in the slasher genre.
Forget about Rob Zombie's everthing-and-the-kitchen-sink, MTV-video mess House of 1,000 Corpses -- the TCM remake is the real '70s/'80s slasher homage of the year. It's like a throwback to some of those dark and depraved slashers that came out seemingly every other week back then. Trust me, this is not at all like the typical teeny-bopper "slashers" that have come out in the wake of the Scream movies. This one is truly twisted. I actually had a nightmare about this movie the night after I saw it -- I haven't had a nightmare from a scary movie since I was ten!
One criticism: Leatherface is given some unneccessary background (and you even get to see his face), but, fortunately, he is given just enough screen time to be effectively scary. I don't agree with the reviewer here who wanted to see more of him -- too much Leatherface would be overkill, he's best used sparingly for maximum shock effect. But, in a brilliant casting move, R. Lee Ermey (Full Metal Jacket) pops up in one of those roles he plays to the hilt (incidentally, he was also fun in the Willard remake earlier this year -- another remake that's pretty good. Hmm, maybe I need to rethink my whole "remake philosophy"...)
So, to conclude -- no, this doesn't quite have that manic, low-budget creepy brilliance of the original, but I do think it's ten times better than Leatherface: TCM III and that ridiculous fourth one with Renee Zellweger and Matthew McConaughey (which were every bit as much remakes of the original as this one is, if you think about it). So, all of you purists out there who might be resisting this remake of an American horror classic, do like I did -- go see it with low expectations and you might be surprised. It will give you the willies.
The TCM remake had other strikes going against it, too, in my opinion. The big one -- it was produced by, I honestly believe, one of the worst directors in the last ten years, Michael Bay. Thankfully, Mr. Fast-Cut-Edit didn't direct the thing. The other strike was the casting of teen beauty Jessica Biel in the main role. Nothing against her -- I just didn't think she'd live up to the terrified, shrieking brilliance of Marilyn Burns in the original. Well, she didn't, but she wasn't terrible. I was impressed.
So, anyway, with these strikes in mind, I went in with pretty low expectations, so maybe that's why I was delightfully surprised. I'm gonna swallow my pretentious pride right now and admit that the TCM remake isn't bad. In fact, a lot of it is downright dark and disturbing. Despite being produced by Bay, the direction isn't all fast cuts and mind-numbing edits (something that was actually done well by Tobe Hooper in the original TCM), and, here and there, it's pretty damn scary. It's also one of the most violent movies I've ever seen (and I have seen a LOT of these kinds of movies.) It's like the filmmakers wanted to take the reputation of the original (which really isn't that graphically violent at all) and make the new movie as gory and bloody as people who never saw the original assumed it was. The violence is so disturbing in this movie because the Sawyer family (namely that lovable, huggable Leatherface) don't just kill their victims -- they keep them alive for a while, hanging on hooks, missing limbs, and work on them slowly -- so there's a lot of sadistic torture and realistic pain portrayed throughout the last half of the movie. I'm almost surprised, in fact, that this got past the ratings board with a mere "R" rating. Also, unlike the original, it's the guys in this one that get the worst of it, a pretty interesting role reversal in the slasher genre.
Forget about Rob Zombie's everthing-and-the-kitchen-sink, MTV-video mess House of 1,000 Corpses -- the TCM remake is the real '70s/'80s slasher homage of the year. It's like a throwback to some of those dark and depraved slashers that came out seemingly every other week back then. Trust me, this is not at all like the typical teeny-bopper "slashers" that have come out in the wake of the Scream movies. This one is truly twisted. I actually had a nightmare about this movie the night after I saw it -- I haven't had a nightmare from a scary movie since I was ten!
One criticism: Leatherface is given some unneccessary background (and you even get to see his face), but, fortunately, he is given just enough screen time to be effectively scary. I don't agree with the reviewer here who wanted to see more of him -- too much Leatherface would be overkill, he's best used sparingly for maximum shock effect. But, in a brilliant casting move, R. Lee Ermey (Full Metal Jacket) pops up in one of those roles he plays to the hilt (incidentally, he was also fun in the Willard remake earlier this year -- another remake that's pretty good. Hmm, maybe I need to rethink my whole "remake philosophy"...)
So, to conclude -- no, this doesn't quite have that manic, low-budget creepy brilliance of the original, but I do think it's ten times better than Leatherface: TCM III and that ridiculous fourth one with Renee Zellweger and Matthew McConaughey (which were every bit as much remakes of the original as this one is, if you think about it). So, all of you purists out there who might be resisting this remake of an American horror classic, do like I did -- go see it with low expectations and you might be surprised. It will give you the willies.
Tell Your Friends