Ebert gives Texas Chainsaw remake 0 stars

[MrFilthyIke]

"Out-Pooty Tanged Pooty Tang."

Daniel

Pooty Tang was a great film. It left a room of grown adults crying with laughter. Sometimes being THAT bad is just damn funny.

 

[Berandor]

Reading... reading... fingers itching... trying not to be drawn in... failing.

The best horror/suspense film of the last 29 years ("The Ring") was a remake.

Where the original was better.

Insomnia was a remake.

Where the original was better.

True Lies was a remake.

Whoa! Indeed, it was. Didn't know that.

Vanilla Sky was a remake.

Where the original... oh, forget it; both films were bad.

I think this wasn't a complaint about general movie fare, but about Hollywood's urge to remake or sequelize successful movies when such a re-interpretation is not warranted.
I don't care whether the TCM is any good or not. It is unnecessary, its story has been told. The movie doesn't add anything of value (except for Leatherface's

Spoiler

missing nose

.)

With regards to box office numbers, a whole lot of movies made money that I wouldn't consider to be "good", not by a long stretch. They simply appealed to a big group of people who went to see the film once, and the more people it appealed to, the more money it made.
Kill Bill mostly appeals to film afficionados and Tarantino fans, TCM appeals to teens, fans of the original, and movie-goers looking for a scare. So TCM appeals to a broader range of people, and will likely make more money. Does that mean it's better? No. Does that mean it's worse? Also, no.
If Kill Bill made more money, however, then it would have successfully broken its boundaries and appealed to many more people simply because of its quality. Just like LotR, which drew hordes of people into seeing it, many of whom wouldn't normally consider watching "Fantasy".

The same applies to your "proven" word-of-mouth. Most people I know, when I tell them "Kill Bill is a great movie if you know what's referenced, and TCM is an acceptable way to spend an afternoon, but nothing great." would go see TCM (when faced with only these two choices). Still, I made Kill Bill sound better.
Some proof you got there.

NHammer wrote:
Personally I think Ebert was being too nice in his review. There was no need to remake TCM, it was a complete waste of money. But, you know what? I don't blame the film studios for doing it. The studios know there will be people that are stupid enough to spend money to see inferior remakes of good movies.
I think the studios would probobly make more money if they rereleased the original instead of wasting the money to remake it.
KaiLord wrote:
Good thing you're not one of those stupid people. Now you get to spend your free time expressing a meaningless opinion on a movie. You haven't. Seen. Care to give your review of The Last Samurai? I know it hasn't been finished and no one has seen it yet, but since that isn't a prerequisite for you I'd love to hear your thoughts. Ditto for anyone else who's panned TCM on this thread.

You're wrong here. I can actually make a more or less informed statement on the movie even though I haven't seen it.
Based on reviews and capsules, I can tell I'm not interested in seeing the movie. I can also tell that by all accounts, only the production value is better than in the original, while the remake lacks certain punches and details that made TCM such a classic. That doesn't mean the remake is bad, just that by general consensus, it seems to be inferior to the original.

And nHammer doesn't say anything else about the movie. He doesn't criticize the way it was shot, the violence, or anything specific that indeed you would have to see the movie for. He just says he isn't interested, and that it seems to be an inferior remake.
And Last Samurai, by everything I have seen so far, has the potential to be great or really, really suck. Here's hoping.

I don't want to bash you, KaiLord, but cool down a little. As soon as two posters are arguing about box office figures, you know it's serious

 

[Kai Lord]

Where the original [Ring] was better.

LOL. No, dude, the original was dreadful. I rented Ringu after reading so many claims on the internet that it blew away Gore Verbinski's remake and was shocked at how inferior it was. None of it was scary, the actor's all sucked and/or their characters were stupid (particularly the "boyfriend") and it was just a cheap, amateur production. Not cheap like Blair Witch, cheap like your aunt making a home movie on Thanksgiving.

But The Ring, damn what a film. Utterly gorgeous, a fantastic cast, and oh what a mood! The original has nothing even remotely comparable to Naomi Watts, Gore's cinematography, the scene with the horse on the ferry, Naomi's kid "you weren't supposed to help her", or the way the ending was played in the remake.

Where the original [Insomnia] was better.

I didn't see the original so I can't say. From what I've read it won't be however, just how unnecessarily evil Al Pacino's character was originally written, IIRC.

Where the original [Vanilla Sky/Open Your Eyes]... oh, forget it; both films were bad.

No, both films were quite good. The original had a slightly better ending and I liked that it was more "dreamlike" and less sci-fi, but the remake was better in other ways. Either way this one's hard to call.

I don't care whether the TCM is any good or not. It is unnecessary, its story has been told.

By that logic LOTR and Harry Potter films are also unnecessary. After all there stories "have been told."

The movie doesn't add anything of value (except for Leatherface's

Spoiler

missing nose

.)

Holy crap! Someone else on this thread who might have actually seen the movie! Or did one of your friends just tell you that? So the original TCM was an adrenaline rush in the tradition of Aliens? Whoa, I guess the remake was unnecessary then....

With regards to box office numbers,

I'm done talking box office. It was brought up as a flippant counter to the numbers of critics who didn't like it. I don't otherwise care or judge a film based on box office. Whale Rider was one of the best films of the year, and was barely a blip on the radar financially (though it certainly raked in a nice profit.)

Based on reviews and capsules, I can tell I'm not interested in seeing the movie.

That's fine.

I can also tell that by all accounts, only the production value is better than in the original,

Actually, no, you can't tell that. And here I thought you'd seen it.

And nHammer doesn't say anything else about the movie. He doesn't criticize the way it was shot, the violence, or anything specific that indeed you would have to see the movie for. He just says he isn't interested, and that it seems to be an inferior remake.

Uh no he didn't say it "seems to be an inferior remake." But I'm not going to continue a conversation about another poster. He can speak for himself.

I don't want to bash you, KaiLord, but cool down a little.

Yes I'm just seething with rage. That horrible movie must have warped my fragile little mind.

 

[jdavis]

I'm done talking box office. It was brought up as a flippant counter to the numbers of critics who didn't like it. I don't otherwise care or judge a film based on box office. Whale Rider was one of the best films of the year, and was barely a blip on the radar financially (though it certainly raked in a nice profit.)

Your the one who constantly has brought up box office take. Your right it really does mean nothing, unless you believe that Scary Movie 3 is the best movie ever released in October and is twice as good as either movie talked about here.

You know what there has never been any movie made that has been liked by everyone that's just how it works.

 

[Kai Lord]

Your the one who constantly has brought up box office take.

Nope. nHammer stated New Line Cinema wasted their money with the remake and that the original would have made more money. That's not me bringing up box office take, but it did provoke me to chuckle at the humorous claim. Nice try though.

Funnily enough, a girl at work lent me the original today. I just watched it. Ugh. Not my cup of tea. I felt yucky watching it. In fact I thought it was so unpleasant that I just said "enough, I get the idea, I'm fast forwarding to the end to see how they wrap this up." Coincidentally I was just a few minutes from the finale so I actually rewound it a bit and finished it.

The original is WAY more of a "geek show" movie, as I now understand the term. It definitely tries to take you down into a macabre, freakish, carnival type family of lunacy. That subject matter plus the artsy and psychedelic cinematography and score (particularly during the "dinner" scene), blech.

I'll take the little roller coaster ride of the remake over that any day of the week thank you very much. Thank God Jessica Biel's character wasn't forced to linger in that freak show world, and merely ran through it at break neck pace.

Ebert and anyone else can have the "extra exposition" of the original. Its not for me.

 

[jdavis]

The critics are definitely wetting themselves over KB, but as for the film more appealing and pleasing to a larger audience, the box office numbers actually support my opinion, but who cares which film has the bigger audience? I certainly don't think anyone here does.

Posted 10/21/03

 

[Kai Lord]

Posted 10/21/03

Yes I addressed that when I said "I'm done talking box office. It was brought up as a flippant counter to the numbers of critics who didn't like it."

I didn't "keep bringing it up" as you said. I mentioned it once, and then addressed the claims made by others (nHammer and John Crichton) in a context unrelated to my initial comment. What a random thing to fixate on, dude.

You want to address any of my actual opinions on either version of TCM, fine. But the "box office merry go round" ends here.

 

[jdavis]

Yes I addressed that when I said "I'm done talking box office. It was brought up as a flippant counter to the numbers of critics who didn't like it."

I didn't "keep bringing it up" as you said. I mentioned it once, and then addressed the claims made by others (nHammer and John Crichton) in a context unrelated to my initial comment. What a random thing to fixate on, dude.

You want to address any of my actual opinions on either version of TCM, fine. But the "box office merry go round" ends here.

Does it have Box Office ponies on it? How come the Scary Movie 3 merry go round is so much bigger(49.7 million)than all the other fair rides? The first TCM cost $140,000 merry go rounds and made $30,859,000 merry go rounds. Michael Jackson is suing Scarry Movie 3 (I thought he liked Merry Go Rounds?) What if it was a Box office Tilt-a-Whirl? Is this Merry go Round a e-ticket ride? I bet Roger Ebert was too big to get on the merry go round ponies and had to ride in one of the benches. Can I think of any more ways to poke fun at your box office touchiness.....no apparently not.

 

[Welverin]

I don't want to bash you, KaiLord, but cool down a little. As soon as two posters are arguing about box office figures, you know it's serious

Bah, I say! John was involved in that and you can get him to argue anything, so that doesn't count. I use his (round about) defense of the D&D movie as evidence.

 

[John Crichton]

Bah, I say! John was involved in that and you can get him to argue anything, so that doesn't count. I use his (round about) defense of the D&D movie as evidence.

I'm assuming you meant that KL will argue anything. I'm actually in that boat as well but I tend to suppress it on message boards. Plus, I never defended the D&D movie. I'm just clarifying.