« I'm back! | In your face, AP! »
October 19, 2003"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre"
My girlfriend and I walked out of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" last night with about half the film to go. She suggested we leave once she noticed that I was averting my eyes for many of the scenes. I was watching her face during the worst of it, and based on the look I saw there, I wasn't missing a thing.
Roger Ebert and I don't always see eye-to-eye on movies, but I think his review of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was right on the money.
"The new version of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is a contemptible film: Vile, ugly and brutal. There is not a shred of a reason to see it."
"There is no worthy or defensible purpose in sight here: The filmmakers want to cause disgust and hopelessness in the audience."
"I like good horror movies. They can exorcise our demons. "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" doesn't want to exorcise anything. It wants to tramp crap through our imaginations and wipe its feet on our dreams."
Perhaps more unsettling than the film itself is the fact that screenings of it were selling out as late as 10:55 last night (the screening I partially attended), and it topped the box office this weekend. A friend of mine from school whom Hope and I randomly encountered in the CinemaStar parking lot, equally disgusted by the film, said that he overheard a conversation between two girls who had already seen the movie once and were back for more. To not know what you're getting yourself into is one matter. I was guilty enough of that, although I fled as soon as I realized just how disturbing "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" would prove. But to go back, knowing exactly what sort of abattoir tour you're in for? Indefensible.
Posted by patrick at October 19, 2003 09:46 PM
CommentsThe real question is, "Why the hell did they remake this film?" Other than the obvious answer -- MONEY!!! -- does anyone in a position of power in Hollywood even think anymore?
"Well, you know JC, our core demographic wasn't even born when the first film came out. Hell, some of their parents weren't even born. But they all know the title. Look at these marketing studies we did..."
I could understand it if they remade some obscure horror film from the 70s that five people had heard of, because now they could do it justice with better special effects and (yeah, right) a good script. But what's the point of remaking a movie that some people consider a classic of the genre, crappy editing and camera work and all?
Didn't anybody learn when Gus Van Sant planted his head firmly up his ass and remade "Psycho?"
Next Up: "Citizen Kane" starring Ben Affleck as Charles Foster Kane, Jessica Biel as... uh... Mrs. Charles Foster Kane and Matt Damon as Rosebud. (Although a lot of people already think Ben calls Matt "rosebud," and whoever gets that joke is a bigger film geek than I thought.)
Posted by: Jon Bastian at October 21, 2003 11:04 AM
Post a comment