You may as well shoot those expectations into the sun.That's some rambling review from me today, but hey, it fits with the film. Now, onto the remake. My expectations are truly through the roof, just sky high.
You may as well shoot those expectations into the sun.That's some rambling review from me today, but hey, it fits with the film. Now, onto the remake. My expectations are truly through the roof, just sky high.
It was. The actors started going kind of crazy during the filming of the dinner scene because the body odor and sweat and food in the dinner scene rotting made the stench unbearable, to the point that crew started passing out. The scene where the actress gets her finger cut open, they actually cut her and had her bleedTCSM is still so freaking disturbing because it's so gritty and dirty. You can feel and smell the atmosphere.
That had to be a miserable shoot.
#12 The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)
Look what your brother did to the door! Ain't he got no pride in his home?
Quite a major one for me to be viewing, but while I've seen chunks of the film inevitably over the years, I've never actually just watched the whole thing through til now.
There's very little I'll be able to say that hasn't already been said in the last forty years about this film, but in any case, I do have thoughts to share. In short it's masterful. Horror films are for what? Scaring? Disgusting? Thrilling? Making you jump? But how often are they primarily for just that, horror? Well this one is. This film isn't made for gore, or for jumpscares, it's made to horrify and every frame is aimed at that goal. Even knowing the most famous scenes, having seen the most famous shots, I think it still succeeded with me.
I'm drawing a line between "scare" and "horror" here, but I think anyone who's seen this film knows what I mean. Long before Leatherface starts offing our group of nondescript young adults, the film is uneasy, discordant, on edge. Even once the killing starts, it's all about the sense of wrongness. Rather than being interested in gore, the film is interested in the idea of gore; it's happening, but it's all out of focus and left to your mind to fill it in. The raw camerawork and the soundtrack of grinding, chattering and howling make a real one of a kind eerie atmosphere, without even touching on the crazed performances from the villains.
There's no "slickness" or "coolness" here, and I'm not just referring to many modern horror films but even classic slashers from the same generation. Halloween for instance has its composed shots and carefully measured scares, and it's a great film, but this has a unique nightmarish quality. Jason Vorhees or Michael Myers are cool, badass villains people often root for, to see their increasingly silly kills. Leatherface, at least here, is not badass, he's a squealing nut. On the note of Halloween being more composed, that is not to say it's poorly shot, because I'd in fact like to give a special shoutout to the cinematography, which produces some beautifully ugly visuals.
To summarize, this is a filthy fever dream of a film and I loved it. It's a must see for all horror fans.
That's some rambling review from me today, but hey, it fits with the film. Now, onto the remake. My expectations are truly through the roof, just sky high.
Said it earlier in the thread but the original's mask looks terrifying. It looks sloppily-sown together and doesn't fit quite right and the eyes holes are often shadowed making the mask even creepier. It looks like something made in the basement by a backwoods psycho family. And there's the fact that Leatherface has different masks for different roles/"personalities" in the original.#13 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
Here's your pants!
Remember how I said the 1974 film is a filthy fever dream? This one is an oil slick.
Pretty much everything I wrote in my review of the original, you can just toss out the window for this Platinum Dunes, Michael Bay produced remake. While telling roughly the same story, except with more plot as is required now, it takes the opposite approach on pretty much every aspect of the original film.
On a certain level, this is the right thing to do for a remake. If you just did everything the same way, trying to recreate everything exactly as it was, you'll not only fail to capture it, but what's the point of a remake at all (this killed the Thing "prequel"/remake, along with the digital monster). However, in this particular case, it might handle things differently, but it doesn't make for a very compelling film.
Everything is as you would expect from a modern slasher remake. It's slick, it's filmed stylishly, it has a music video director at the helm, a desaturated colour palette, gruesome gore galore, jumpscares aplenty, backstories spelled out plainly, irritating characters, an action climax, and an omnipresent loud orchestral soundtrack.
Does this mean it is "bad"? It's shot well (interestingly, it has the same cinematographer as the 1974 original, what a difference a director makes), as the Friday the 13th redo by the same director was, it has the explicit violence and murder the audience expects and doesn't rely on digital effects. When that's all I have to say about it, the only conclusion to be made is that it is generic. It is 400 other films released in the last 20 years but with a chainsaw and a famous character name in it.
It's a film I saw, and won't remember. I will not forget the 1974 film.
PS, when the hysterically stereotypical sheriff appeared, I instinctively made the "pwet!" sound miming tobacco spitting. Then he actually spat tobacco. At least I got one good laugh from the remake.
#13 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
Here's your pants!
Remember how I said the 1974 film is a filthy fever dream? This one is an oil slick.
Pretty much everything I wrote in my review of the original, you can just toss out the window for this Platinum Dunes, Michael Bay produced remake. While telling roughly the same story, except with more plot as is required now, it takes the opposite approach on pretty much every aspect of the original film.
On a certain level, this is the right thing to do for a remake. If you just did everything the same way, trying to recreate everything exactly as it was, you'll not only fail to capture it, but what's the point of a remake at all (this killed the Thing "prequel"/remake, along with the digital monster). However, in this particular case, it might handle things differently, but it doesn't make for a very compelling film.
Everything is as you would expect from a modern slasher remake. It's slick, it's filmed stylishly, it has a music video director at the helm, a desaturated colour palette, gruesome gore galore, jumpscares aplenty, backstories spelled out plainly, irritating characters, an action climax, and an omnipresent loud orchestral soundtrack.
Does this mean it is "bad"? It's shot well (interestingly, it has the same cinematographer as the 1974 original, what a difference a director makes), as the Friday the 13th redo by the same director was, it has the explicit violence and murder the audience expects and doesn't rely on digital effects. When that's all I have to say about it, the only conclusion to be made is that it is generic. It is 400 other films released in the last 20 years but with a chainsaw and a famous character name in it.
It's a film I saw, and won't remember. I will not forget the 1974 film.
PS, when the hysterically stereotypical sheriff appeared, I instinctively made the "pwet!" sound miming tobacco spitting. Then he actually spat tobacco. At least I got one good laugh from the remake.
#13 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
Here's your pants!
Remember how I said the 1974 film is a filthy fever dream? This one is an oil slick.
Pretty much everything I wrote in my review of the original, you can just toss out the window for this Platinum Dunes, Michael Bay produced remake. While telling roughly the same story, except with more plot as is required now, it takes the opposite approach on pretty much every aspect of the original film.
On a certain level, this is the right thing to do for a remake. If you just did everything the same way, trying to recreate everything exactly as it was, you'll not only fail to capture it, but what's the point of a remake at all (this killed the Thing "prequel"/remake, along with the digital monster). However, in this particular case, it might handle things differently, but it doesn't make for a very compelling film.
Everything is as you would expect from a modern slasher remake. It's slick, it's filmed stylishly, it has a music video director at the helm, a desaturated colour palette, gruesome gore galore, jumpscares aplenty, backstories spelled out plainly, irritating characters, an action climax, and an omnipresent loud orchestral soundtrack.
Does this mean it is "bad"? It's shot well (interestingly, it has the same cinematographer as the 1974 original, what a difference a director makes), as the Friday the 13th redo by the same director was, it has the explicit violence and murder the audience expects and doesn't rely on digital effects. When that's all I have to say about it, the only conclusion to be made is that it is generic. It is 400 other films released in the last 20 years but with a chainsaw and a famous character name in it.
It's a film I saw, and won't remember. I will not forget the 1974 film.
PS, when the hysterically stereotypical sheriff appeared, I instinctively made the "pwet!" sound miming tobacco spitting. Then he actually spat tobacco. At least I got one good laugh from the remake.
You know for a film that takes a complete left turn from the original tonally this is still really horrific. Perhaps moreso than the original the more I think about it. Between the gore, Chop Top, Leatherface acting like... that, and everything else going on here this is a lot to deal with. I'm not one of them but I can see why some people would hate this lmao.
Overall this is still slowly growing in my favor. I really appreciate the willingness to just do its own thing (and honestly in most of the other TCM films regardless of how it actually works out in the end) and I'm glad the risk paid off. I'm not sure how Tobe felt about this film or the franchise/series afterwards but I wonder what a third entry from him could've been like if he ended up doing one.
Trying to run through the Halloween series even though none but the original will matter at this point before the new film.
This is still really good, perhaps a bit better than I had recently thought. Sure the plot developments aren't very nice and the tone can feel off (mainly since this is such a close continuation of the original) but there's a lot to like. The biggest positives for me are the setting and score. The mostly deserted (seriously where was everyone?) hospital is a great setting and is pretty effective in helping build a mood. Meanwhile the score while there's a lot of tracks from the previous film redone is also a treat. Not sure if I'd say I prefer this score to the original but similarly to that one, I can't imagine anything else being used for the respective film.
At times I do kinda wish the new film would've kept this as canon even if it meant heavy retcons of the sister angle still. This film for better or worse has always felt like a singular entity with the first and I don't know if it will ever change.
It's too bad this spends so much time drawing you in with impressive aesthetics, an interesting villain, and general moodiness only to end up so basic in the end. In an alternate universe where this wasn't a run through 00s torture porn type messiness it's a really solid outback thriller.
I'm sure there's films like this that are worse by far but most of those also didn't show promise like this did so they don't sting as bad.
This sure was a Takashi Miike film. If you've seen any of his work you probably know what that entails and if not um.. beware?
This started off well enough but then kinda just settled into being a bit boring for me for most of the middle portion? I did watch this pretty late at night so maybe it was on me but I expected a bit more overall. There's a lot of wild stuff going on here but it felt like a lot of the impact was muted since I wasn't as engrossed in the film overall. Things started to pick up again near the end but it was too late and it was over soon after.
Will definitely have to revisit this to give it another go. Maybe it will grow on me.
I don't know, I didn't expect much from this particularly. I just wanted to see the critters be cute and ream things which they did in massive amounts. Could it have been better? Sure, but that's okay.
Very curious to see how the following entries go whenever I get to them.
It was kinda okay I guess. It wouldn't have fixed everything but I can't help but feel like this would be easier to swallow if the effects weren't like they were.
6. Pet Sematary (1989)
A new adaption is coming out next April, so why not on looking into this adaptation. Haven't read the book (or well, any Stephen King book for that matter lol. I should someday), but overall this was an decent film with a interesting premise about grief and death, and it really kicks things up in high gear near the end when Gage comes back. I think I was pretty meh at Pascow through (and why he seems to appear to Louis), and also Ellie being a psychic I guess, which apparently King likes using.
Be interesting to see how this upcoming adaptation turns out, in particular Gage and Zelda, but the kids with the masks seem to be a new thing (or were they in the book?).
I remember really not liking this movie when I saw it theaters. That entire catalog of horror remakes from Platinum Dunes really does not appeal to me. They all seem to lose that grit that comes with low budget filmmaking, and have a very high production/studio feel that contrasts a bit too much with the source material for me.
I also really disliked that he's all deformed like Jason in the remake, whereas he's clearly "normal" looking underneath his mask in the original, like Michael Myers was in the first Halloween, because his problems are all mental. Let Jason be Jason and let Leatherface be Leatherface.Said it earlier in the thread but the original's mask looks terrifying. It looks sloppily-sown together and doesn't fit quite right and the eyes holes are often shadowed making the mask even creepier. It looks like something made in the basement by a backwoods psycho family. And there's the fact that Leatherface has different masks for different roles/"personalities" in the original.
The remake looks like a fancy movie prop with perfectly-done Frankenstein-style stitches
12. Quarantine
This one was kinda short notice. I got back late from something else so I just turned on TV so see what horror films were on to fill my quota. I've never seen REC so I can't really speak for comparison. As far as found footage movies go this is one of the better ones, but that's not saying much. I also hate that they used the ending as the poster.
REC is a good movie, but wouldn't recommend it now since you've seen Quarantine. which I think was a short for short remake, where there's even the same dialog, if I remember correctly. REC 2 was an interesting sequel about the same event but from different perspectives. but if you like trainwrecks, go watch Quarantine 2.
Rec and Quaratine are actually quite different in several respects despite being the same story and REC is the the more effectively-told and creepier version IMOREC is a good movie, but wouldn't recommend it now since you've seen Quarantine. which I think was a short for short remake, where there's even the same dialog, if I remember correctly. REC 2 was an interesting sequel about the same event but from different perspectives. but if you like trainwrecks, go watch Quarantine 2.
October 13, 2018
A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge
Synopsis: Jesse and his family move into the infamous house that Nancy lived in on Elm Street. He soon begins his journey into the hell that Nancy found herself in and comes face to face with Freddy Krueger. Except this time, Freddy wants to use him to continue his killing spree outside of the dream world...
Review: The first sequel (of many) to the classic "Nightmare on Elm Street" franchise. The film continues in the 80's fashion of horror movie with the cheesy music, terribly bad special effects and campy acting. However, I felt they tried to make Freddy a bit darker and violent in this film. The take on Jesse being Freddy's vessel to hurting people outside of dreams/nightmares was interesting and one that led to make other 'dream/reality' theories that takes place in the later films. Again, Robert Englund is on point as Freddy but he really doesn't shine as Freddy until a few more movies in. Not as good as the first and probably the weakest in the set of sequels, it is still a fun watch and seeing Englund as Freddy is certainly worth the 90 minute ride.
- 7/10
A special shoutout to how incredibly tiny Danielle Harris looks in these films, especially next to the likes of Kane Hodder or Tony Todd. Sometimes it's like she's still just Jamie Lloyd.Films 14, 15 and 16 - Hatchets 1, 2 and 3
I'm grouping these all together because I watched them one after the other tonight, and they are essentially just one long film anyway, with parts 2 and 3 starting at the exact same point the previous episode left off. I had only intended to watch the first one, lent to me on DVD, but then I saw that parts 2 and 3 were on Prime Video so here we are.
So what have I learned having watched Victor Crowley wander round his Louisiana swamp killing people for four hours? Not much is the honest answer, other than the spectacle of folk having their arms torn off does get a tiny bit boring after a while, no matter how much blood gets pumped from the stump. Creator Adam Green knows this, to be fair, and does his best to be inventive with the gore, sometimes at the expense of realism. I think in real life it would be quite tough to decapitate someone with their own intestines, but I suppose I might be wrong. And who cares about realism anyway.
I feel like I sound a bit negative about these movies, but actually I really enjoyed them. Danielle Harris is excellent in parts 2 and 3, and there's a great Sid Haig cameo at one point. While the story is only really there as an excuse for all the blood and guts, it's an interesting tale nonetheless, and almost all the characters are entertaining. All three movies are dumb, gory fun, and it's good to sometimes watch things you don't need your brain switched on for.
There is a Hatchet 4, but I'd have to pay extra to see it, and I think I've had my fill for now.
Films I've watched so far
12. Quarantine
This one was kinda short notice. I got back late from something else so I just turned on TV so see what horror films were on to fill my quota. I've never seen REC so I can't really speak for comparison. As far as found footage movies go this is one of the better ones, but that's not saying much. I also hate that they used the ending as the poster.