Ebert gives Texas Chainsaw remake 0 stars

[Berandor]

Hey, the D&D movie rocked!

And JohnCrichton: Cool down a little. Anyone who argues box office numbers... you know?

KaiLord: No, I haven't seen TCM (neither have I seen the original), but as for knowing about my spoiler, that's what spoiler reviews are for.
I knew it wasn't a movie for me, but I wanted to be able to talk about it, so I read some spoilers.

And just to show not hypicrisy, but at least misunderstaning:

KaiLord:
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.

Note that I didn't put "seems to be an inferior remake" in quotation marks in my original post, therefore I was paraphrasing, and

nHammer:
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.

(emphasis mine) seems to be calling it an inferior remake, at least to my eyes.

Sorry to dredge this up again (I have at least withstood the urge to post all mentions of box office here)

KaiLord:
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.

Which is why many people call the remake inferior, because it doesn't produce this "yucky feeling".

Bit I agree that, for example, LotR's story has been told. However, it hasn't been told successfully, so I would consider a remake doubtful, but not unnecessary. If the LotR animation film had been a classic, then I'd probably think different (especially if the animation had been any good )

Harry Potter hasn't been told cinematically.

I just think there are enough stories for movies out there that deserve a good to excellent cinematic treatment that Hollywood shouldn't go back and remake classics.

Anyway, all I can say will not change your enjoyment of the movie, and it shouldn't. I'm happy you could enjoy it for what it is, and I'm okay with the fact that it's not my cup of tea, also for what it is. I'm just annoyed at the fact that Hollywood seems to think everything needs a remake or re-interpretation, even when it doesn't.

I even agree that some foreign films may improve in their Hollywood incarnation, simply because the production value is higher. You're opinion of Ring/Ringu is an example of that.

Still, before they remake Ringu, I'd rather they make a movie like May.

Berandor

 

[AFGNCAAP]

Fwiw...

I saw the movie, & I enjoyed it. I did not enjoy it as much as the original (for certain reasons that I'll point out below), but I think it was much better than the 3rd & 4th movies of the TCM "series." The remake was much more of a Chainsaw Massacre than the original--only 1 person was actually killed with the saw in the original, whereas the body count by saw is much higher in the remake.

There are some things about the original movie that I liked over the remake:

* The dinner scene. This was the key nightmare moment of the original, in my mind. It wasn't that the family saw their captive as food, but that they knew that she was a living being with feelings, and enjoyed tormenting her the entire time. The captive could have been replaced with a hog or a cow, and you get the feeling that their behavior would have been the same.

* The ghoulishness. The remake didn't have the gruesome display throughout the house that the original did. No dead & decaying bodies of family members sitting in the same room with the living. No use of the "materials" of the victims throughout the house (like the furniture in the original)--both human and animal. The original had a feeling that the family kept doing the work they did best, though their victims had changed from beast to human.

* The sense of the family unit. The original had 3 brothers (Leatherface/Bubba, Hitchhiker/Nubbins, Old Man/Drayden; 4 if you add in Chop Top from TCM2), & Grandpa. And there was Grandma (who was a decaying corpse). There really wasn't such a clear family structure in the remake. From what I could guess (SPOILERS ALERT):

Spoiler

Grandma ran the store, Grandpa stayed at home. The sheriff and Thomas/Leatherface were brothers. Jebediah was a grandchild (though whose son he was I'm not sure). Then there was the young woman & obese woman, who may have been neighbors or distant family.

* The sense of madness/deficient minds. In the original, the lone survivor lived, but didn't escape sane at all. Leatherface seemed to be mentally challenged. The older brother was a sadist, but seemed to be a bit more "normal" when he wanted or needed to be. The Hitchhiker was a complete loon, and didn't have any sense at all of normality.

Then again, the remake does have its merits. It was more of a Chainsaw Massacre than the original. You get to see Leatherface's actual face (though the mystique of not seeing it was a good element in the original). Leatherface actually wore the "face" of one of the victims in the movie (I'm not sure if he does this in the original--I'm not sure if the "pretty woman" mask he wears in the dinner scene was actually the face of the victim's female friend). R. Lee Ermey was awesome (& very twisted in this movie). Some of the victims actually showed a "fight or flight" response instead of just a "flight" response.

I did my best to watch this movie without any real preconceptions about the original, because I knew I'd ruin it for me that way. I think it's very good, but I don't think it outshines the original. I did like it better than House of 1000 Corpses, though--I couldn't stand the editing style in that movie, & I feel that it has a lot of missing material that should be stitched back in.

 

[frankthedm]

ebert's a twit. See Texas.

he gave 3 and a half starts for the aptly named "Rundown"?! Walken was pathic in that movie. The Rock's character was laughable. And the precious few action scenes were ill timed. The plight of south american gold miners is NOT why i go to an action movie. Nor is having the main character humped by a monky ever excusable.

 

[John Crichton]

ebert's a twit. See Texas.

* sigh *

I thought we were beyond name-calling around here.

he gave 3 and a half starts for the aptly named "Rundown"?! Walken was pathic in that movie. The Rock's character was laughable. And the precious few action scenes were ill timed. The plight of south american gold miners is NOT why i go to an action movie. Nor is having the main character humped by a monky ever excusable.

Ain't it great to have an opinion but not allow others to have one without being critical? I, for one, loved the The Rundown and had a blast watching it. I always say it's too bad that someone couldn't enjoy something that someone else did. If KL liked TCM, sweet. It doesn't matter that I have no desire to see it or Ebert thought it was trash. Doesn't change anything.

I could call you a name but that would be ignoring your opinion of the movie which, by definition, cannot be wrong. An opinion is just that, an opinion. It is not a universal truth. Just dissagree and move on. Besides, you should be thankful for people like Ebert. If he is such a twit, then he is a perfect measure of what you will like and dislike in a film. It's easy: If he likes it, don't see it.

 

[Pants]

I could call you a name but that would be ignoring your opinion of the movie which, by definition, cannot be wrong. An opinion is just that, an opinion. It is not a universal truth. Just dissagree and move on. Besides, you should be thankful for people like Ebert. If he is such a twit, then he is a perfect measure of what you will like and dislike in a film. It's easy: If he likes it, don't see it.

Well... there is Gigli.

 

[Welverin]

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.

No, I meant you (doesn't mean I'm not wrong). I did say round about, and was referring to when I said Jeremy Irons did a bad job acting in the movie and you said he was (generally) a good actor.

I agree with you on the Rundown, see it can happen!

 

[John Crichton]

No, I meant you (doesn't mean I'm not wrong). I did say round about, and was referring to when I said Jeremy Irons did a bad job acting in the movie and you said he was (generally) a good actor.

Ah. I don't recall ever defending the movie itself as I thought it was terrible. Maybe I defended Irons, in general, as an actor. But fair enough. I enjoy movie debates.

I agree with you on the Rundown, see it can happen!

This is true as I found out in the videogames forum! LOL

 

[Welverin]

Ah. I don't recall ever defending the movie itself as I thought it was terrible. Maybe I defended Irons, in general, as an actor. But fair enough. I enjoy movie debates.

That's why I said round about.

 

[John Crichton]

That's why I said round about.

It's all good. I got what you meant even if I didn't put it in my response.