|
Post by HiderInTheHouse on Jun 24, 2011 10:40:39 GMT -5
I'll be at the theaters opening night!
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Jul 20, 2011 14:41:09 GMT -5
You know this is actually sounding better and better by the day,not only is Moseley playing Jim Seidow's role of Drayton/Cook,but there are roles for Gunnar Hansen,Marilyn Burns and John Dugan,the original Grandpa is returning as well.Most importantly,they are forgetting all that Hewitt family BS,and returning to the original clan.Therefore making the Platinum Dunes duo virtually non existant,which suits me fine.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jul 21, 2011 9:43:34 GMT -5
Where'd you hear that from? I'd like to know, as blindly making statements like that without back-up has gotten us into trouble before here.
If that's true, I really doubt just changing the name will make much difference. It's supposed to be about a serial killer chasing after people with a chainsaw, the family doesn't have much to do with it.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Jul 21, 2011 16:06:54 GMT -5
Whoa, nelly. Lots of hostility in that post, GL. I can confirm that I have heard similar rumors to what Matt has said here. Is it fact? Who knows? I know that there is enough buzz around this movie that I want to see it in the theaters, and if this was just a third Platinum Dunes film, I would likely have just skipped it entirely and watched it on cable
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Jul 21, 2011 16:10:13 GMT -5
It's being reported on all the major horror sites at the moment(Dread Central,Bloody Disgusting,Fangoria et al).
I wouldn't really say that the family doesn't have much to do with it.They were just as important in the original TCM,in fact if you recall,we are introduced to several family members before Leatherface.It's just that he was the most memorable and notorious and therefore took centre stage in the franchise.You may also recall that despite the title,only one person was actually killed by a chainsaw in '74.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jul 22, 2011 9:56:17 GMT -5
It's a film about a family of psychopaths, whatever their last name is makes no difference at all. I really fail to see what calling them Hewitt or Sawyer has any real merit to the quality of the film overall. That was my original point, HNT, sorry for not getting it across earlier.
And that, Matt, is the entire genesis of my dislike for the entire series and this particular film in general. My first Horror film ever, after having shied away from them for over 15 years because I was afraid of the gore and violence within them would give me uncontrollable nightmares, and instead I get a dull, completely dry slasher that left me bored to death and pissed that I had wasted my time with a hair-brained, ludicrous reason if this was one of the best the genre had to offer. I still find it hard to believe the affection for him as a slasher icon when one Friday film has more kills than this entire franchise (excluding the two remakes; otherwise, it's actually really close between the first four and Friday Part 5) and to see only one done in by chainsaw and not even on-camera at that! Talk about leaving a truly terrible initial impression.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Jul 22, 2011 11:35:27 GMT -5
THe love for Leatherface as a slasher villain is because he is scary as hell. He just is more real and believable than Michael Myers or Jason Vorhees. Yeah, F13 has way more kills, but they are generic silly slasher films that are far from realistic or believable. What TCM has that F13 doesn't is rather well summed up in reminding you of the meathook scene in the original. yeah, not much is shown. IT is largely hinted at. What you do see, though, is a woman who is quite realistically and believably in pain. It isn't silly, and it isn't bloody. But it does realistically show a terrified woman in unimaginable pain. That is what makes the film so effective. I can relate more to the kids in it, and the killers seem more real.
Let me be clear, although I enjoy Part 2 as a comedy, the original is the only really great TCM film. It is different than the other slashers you mention, because I don't think the love for it is love of a long running series as much as love of one of the most effective single horror films ever made
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jul 25, 2011 9:54:17 GMT -5
That's all well and good, but if, like me, you're tricked into watching it solely for the promises of gore that's plastered all over the video cover, you're going to come away bored and royally pissed off like I was. It is a massive let-down in that regard.
"Hey, he's going to impale someone on a meathook, finally! Oh, wait, they cut to her face before the moment of impact, so you can't see anything."
"Yes, he's going to chop someone up with that chainsaw! Oh, man, it's filmed from over the victim's shoulder, we can't see anything."
"Ugh, what does having to watch all these retards sitting around a dinner table laughing like maniacs have to do with a massacre? They're not even close to hitting her with that mallet, you can't let the blood flow if you don't hit them with anything."
Those were just some of my initial reactions to certain scenes in the film (you should know which ones I mean from the context) which to me left me with such a bad experience that I almost gave up watching these kinds of films from the start because supposedly one of the best was just flat-out terrible. I stayed away from them because I was scared that these were films I shouldn't be watching, that the bloodbaths and gore displays promised were too much for me to handle, and if this one promises to be one of the top ones in the genre and it's this bad, why should I undertake the others? I have since come to my senses and think a little higher of this one, but if you look at it from this perspective, you can see where I'm coming from.
It has nothing to do with how scary or realistic he seems (which to me, I judge how effective they are by the cleverness of their kills so he falls even further down in that regard) or how good the film overall is. If you title something with a massacre, deliver on it.
|
|
|
Post by CT on Jul 25, 2011 17:57:47 GMT -5
I guess you "getting tricked" is a byproduct of something TCM gets praised for: being scary and suggestive without endless gore or deaths. The hype was built off of this and I can see how some may have gotten the wrong idea due to it, but in the end I think most agree it's a positive attribute of the film rather than a flaw.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jul 26, 2011 10:08:23 GMT -5
Indeed, it is, as I've come to appreciate that aspect in later viewings of the film. However, on first impression if you know nothing about it, that is something that really pisses me off. I really wish we'd stop looking at stuff like this with affection merely because of it's historical legacy and see that, as a film itself, it's really not that good. Just because it came before us doesn't mean it's perfect.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Jul 27, 2011 17:11:12 GMT -5
I agree that the age of the film is not a reason in and of itself to praise it. I do not agree, however, that the original TCM was a film that has been at all overhyped. I think it is considered a genre definiing film because, in my estimation, it remains one of the scariest, most effective, and most believable horror films of all time. As for "creativity of kills" I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but to me the lack of exotic or weird kills and fake looking splatter effects was exactly what made TCM work. Sure, its fun to see zombie Jason smash a chick in a sleeping bag into a tree trunk until she dies. It isn't scary, though, because it is absurd. This film includes deaths that look and feel like real people in real pain getting murdered. It isn't fun in the same ways as those other films are. It isn't fun because it is too realistic and discomforting to be fun.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jul 28, 2011 10:27:12 GMT -5
Indeed, that is a feature of the film that is very heavily featured and does tend to get the film a lot more watchable for repeat viewings. It's one of the few that I've had a positive experience with on a rewatch, as usually I tend to lower (sometimes drastically) on repeat viewings yet this one went up drastically, mainly because I had a little more respect for those tactics.
But I do feel that the film is overhyped in the genre. One, Leatherface is a total joke of a killer. He's only responsible for three kills in the film, one by chainsaw, another whacked with a mallet and then the meat-hook scene, and none of them provide any gore at all. There's more bloodshed to be found when she jumps out the window to escape them, which severely limits how threatening the killer is when he never does anything to physically induce fear beyond his choice of weaponry. For a killer to work, they have to induce the fear that they can take your life any time they want with anything they want to, for their disregard for the sanctity of human life is the genesis for why we fear them to begin with. Here, he runs around in a dress, a truly laughable mask that, while displaying the realism that a killer in such a situation would exploit in real-life through their handiwork skills at crafts, but there's still not a lot there beyond his size. He gives more of an impression of a mindless doof who just happens to kill people out of luck than skill. Plus, the fact that, once captured by the family, they do absolutely nothing to prevent her escape, despite being in the presence of more people that should prevent that anyway. By mocking her instead of tormenting or torturing her, they fail to keep her restrained and thus allow the escape of the one person in the film who had very little survival experience. Those are points that draw the film if you were to look at it from a slasher-film perspective.
Plus, the film, as a whole, is exceptionally dull. The small cast and absolutely nothing in regards to finding other potential targets results in such a long time in between anything interesting happening that it's likely to bore you before you get to the lack of any good slasher material here. It's about forty minutes before we get the first kill, and that amount of time with these characters is just wrong and makes it to be maddeningly slow-going, as it never proves to be a true horror film until they get to the house. It seems to be a thriller about a group of youths stuck on a road during a travel, and the bait-and-switch like this never works because the expectations about the sort of film it is never pans out.
To me, this is a rather overhyped film.
|
|
|
Post by CT on Jul 7, 2012 12:26:55 GMT -5
Well, back on topic, I'm pretty excited about TCM 3D now!
|
|
|
Post by Clathian Salvator on Jul 7, 2012 15:53:05 GMT -5
Ever since the horror that was part 2 I really have no interest in seeing tcm films. Nothing really against 3d though.
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Aug 31, 2012 14:20:07 GMT -5
Here's the poster - I think I can see RZ's version of Michael Myers on the top shelf! Are you drooling yet Leather?
|
|