Ebert gives Texas Chainsaw remake 0 stars

[Nightfall]

*Big grin* That's Oni folks. Best damn necromancer player I've ever had! Thanks Oni!

 

[Kai Lord]

So let me this straight. Ebert liked Kill Bill and hated Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and because they both happen to be violent movies he is a hypocrit.

No but thanks for playing. I've already covered all of this but once again, Ebert's hypocrisy comes into play when he chides TCM for being "strewn with blood, bones, rats, fetishes and severed limbs, photographed in murky darkness, scored with screams" and then when he says this:

"There is a controversy involving Quentin Tarantino's 'Kill Bill: Volume 1,' which some people feel is 'too violent.' I gave it four stars, found it kind of brilliant, felt it was an exhilarating exercise in nonstop action direction. The material was redeemed, justified, illustrated and explained by the style. It was a meditation on the martial arts genre, done with intelligence and wit. 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' is a meditation on the geek-show movie."

There IS no greater geek show than Kill Bill. I don't hold that particular aspect against it, but good lord, ripping on TCM because its too geeky? Or strewn with blood, fetishes, and severed limbs? Or saying that the violence in Kill Bill is "explained by the style." And what's the style? Cult films from the 70's. Well if only TCM had drawn on a certain cult film from the 70's to explain its violence. Oh wait, IT DID. The hypocrisy is staggering.

However you like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and hated Kill Bill and your not?

A hypocrit? Hell no. I didn't like KB because 75% of it was poorly choreographed, poorly written, horribly paced and it played rape and pedophilia for comedic value. If TCM did any of that then yes, I'd be a hypocrit if I said I liked it. But that isn't the case.

Does this mean that the majority of reviewers are hypocrits, or that Kill Bill is a more appealing and pleasing movie to a larger audience?

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.

 

[Kai Lord]

I can say but one thing -- owned.

Not so fast...

 

[Nightfall]

I could say something crass, biting or saracastic...but I prefer to save what I got for a more worthy foe. Sorry Kai. I ain't biting.

 

[Stormfalcon]

A couple points to inject into this debate here:

1) When Ebert refered to the TCM remake as a meditaiton on the geek show genre (first I've ever heard of such a genre), I don't think he was referring to geeks as the nerd kind. He was referring to geeks as the biting-heads-off-of-chickens variety. Certainly fitting in the case of this remake.

2) The remake is getting ripped-on in part because it's not as trailblazing as the original was (then again, how could it?). It's also not as effective in the use of gore to truly scare audiences. The original used very little and let the audiences fill in the blanks in their minds. The remake just puts it all out there and leaves little to the imagination. Is it any wonder why the remake suffers in comparison.

As for the debate between Kill Bill fans and TCM remake fans, I'm staying out of it since I haven't seen Kill Bill as of yet. However, Kill Bill has the advantage of not trying to remake a classic, at least.

 

[jdavis]

Have to see what THM does in week 2, they knew it would open big.

Looks like I will be seeing it Thursday, rest assured the first thing I'll do is log on and compare it to Kill Bill in this thread. Man I hope it's not another Cabin Fever.

 

[Welverin]

Looks like I will be seeing it Thursday, rest assured the first thing I'll do is log on and compare it to Kill Bill in this thread. Man I hope it's not another Cabin Fever.

Is it wrong for me to hope it is just so I can read your comments on it?

 

[Oni]

No but thanks for playing. I've already covered all of this but once again, Ebert's hypocrisy comes into play when he chides TCM for being "strewn with blood, bones, rats, fetishes and severed limbs, photographed in murky darkness, scored with screams" and then when he says this:

I know you've covered this, I read it the first time. If your going to quote someone you shouldn't hack up their sentences.

"This movie, strewn with blood, bones, rats, fetishes and severed limbs, photographed in murky darkness, scored with screams, wants to be a test: Can you sit through it?"

Thats not chiding it for violence, that's chiding it for being hard to sit through. Not once in his review of Texas Chainsaw Massacre did Ebert say it was too violent or bloody, only comment on the fact that those are present in the movie.

There IS no greater geek show than Kill Bill. I don't hold that particular aspect against it, but good lord, ripping on TCM because its too geeky? Or strewn with blood, fetishes, and severed limbs? Or saying that the violence in Kill Bill is "explained by the style." And what's the style? Cult films from the 70's. Well if only TCM had drawn on a certain cult film from the 70's to explain its violence. Oh wait, IT DID. The hypocrisy is staggering.

Kill Bill might very well be geeky, but I rather doubt that is what Ebert is talking about. Geek show, like a carnival sideshow where some inbred hick shoves chickens in his mouth and nails up his nose. Ebert's complaint with TCM doesn't lie with the blood and severed limbs, if that were the case I doubt his review of Kill Bill would have been much better, as he explained rather thoroughly it wasn't the elements, it was how they were used. Nice little straw man you set up at the end there. The fact that both draw from previous sources isn't what is at issue here, rather it's presentation. Your seeing hyprocisy here because you want to not because it exist.

A hypocrit? Hell no. I didn't like KB because 75% of it was poorly choreographed, poorly written, horribly paced and it played rape and pedophilia for comedic value. If TCM did any of that then yes, I'd be a hypocrit if I said I liked it. But that isn't the case.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions and Ebert is, of course, entitled to his. Neither of them are particularly hypocritical which is what I was trying to get at.

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.

Personally I think critics are a better barometer of such things and here is why. Critics opinions are based on having seen the movie. Box office numbers are different though. They're based on, in most cases, people that haven't seen the movie yet, they may have some idea what their getting into, but ultimately they don't know whether they're going to like it or not until they actually see it.

 

[Kai Lord]

I know you've covered this, I read it the first time. If your going to quote someone you shouldn't hack up their sentences.

"This movie, strewn with blood, bones, rats, fetishes and severed limbs, photographed in murky darkness, scored with screams, wants to be a test: Can you sit through it?"

Thats not chiding it for violence, that's chiding it for being hard to sit through. Not once in his review of Texas Chainsaw Massacre did Ebert say it was too violent or bloody, only comment on the fact that those are present in the movie.

I think its clear the "can you sit through it" is referring to the macabre elements that he prefaced the question with. The same elements (save for rats) which were prevalent in Kill Bill.

Kill Bill might very well be geeky, but I rather doubt that is what Ebert is talking about. Geek show, like a carnival sideshow where some inbred hick shoves chickens in his mouth and nails up his nose.

You're the second person who's brought this up, I'm not familiar with "geek show" as referencing the material you mention. A quick Google search of "geek show," "geek show freaks," and "geek show carnival" pulls up no mention of anything other than geeks in the nerdy sense.

Nevertheless, if that is what Ebert was referring to, I withdraw my previous statements about that particular passage being ridiculous in light of the geeky elements in KB.

Ebert's complaint with TCM doesn't lie with the blood and severed limbs, if that were the case I doubt his review of Kill Bill would have been much better, as he explained rather thoroughly it wasn't the elements, it was how they were used.

But it isn't as clear cut as that, since the way the violence was used in each film overlapped the other so strongly. You can't discount that both films used the carnage as direct and literal references to sequences of mayhem in cult 70's films.

Then you look at what each film brought to the table in its execution of the homage and the source of the homage itself. This is where Roger and I, (and ENWorld and I), disagree. *I* think its hypocritical to complain that TCM was vile, brutal, and ugly when KB was all that and more, and then cite a laundry list of KB elements (blood, severed limbs, fetishes, what have you) as things difficult to sit through in and of themselves.

But you disagree. Good for you. I realize that Roger doesn't consider his opinion to be hypocritical because he doesn't think murder, rape, and revenge are ugly and brutal as long as they're in the context of a cheery cheezefest like KB. I do. Hence the hypocrisy.

TCM is a straight good vs. evil fight. Hell Jessica Biel even has a white freaking hat in the beginning. And she doesn't stop being good. Where's the "good" in KB? Uma? Not hardly. But TCM gets raked over the coals for being cynical and venomous? Yeah right.

Ha I just realized another bit of hypocrisy on Ebert's part. He complains that TCM doesn't give as much exposition on who Leatherface's family is compared to the original, while neglecting that KB doesn't give half the exposition Uma's character gets in the *trailer* for KB. "I was on his team, everything was great, until I wanted out" or whatever she says in the ads. In the movie its "Bill its your baby BLAM." Then she wakes up and starts killing everyone responsible with no further explanation for Bill's motives other than he might have thought she got pregnant by another guy. Another nice call Roger.

Personally I think critics are a better barometer of such things and here is why. Critics opinions are based on having seen the movie. Box office numbers are different though. They're based on, in most cases, people that haven't seen the movie yet, they may have some idea what their getting into, but ultimately they don't know whether they're going to like it or not until they actually see it.

For opening weekends definitely. TCM's opening crushed KB's but that only means that TCM had the better trailer. We'll see next weekend how TCM's word of mouth compares to KB's.

 

[Pielorinho]

Have to see what THM does in week 2, they knew it would open big.

THM: Texas Handsaw Massacre?

As for Kai Lord, I'm backing slowly away. There's a difference between being a geeks and belonging in a geek show, and watching folks who'd be more suited to biting the heads off chickens just ain't my thing.

Daniel