Well, I kinda went back on my word with this movie, as I bitched, moaned, and swore never to go see a remake of one of what feels is horror's elite films. How could they do it and why? I personally couldn't see the logic. The closer it got to opening-day though, the more curious I became. Anger was replaced by a need to know what the hell this thing was. Would it be a cheesy, over polished Hollywierd mistake like The Haunting remake? A pretty much needless line for line disaster like Psycho? I felt like I had to know and let our readers (do we have any?) know what the fuck was up, despite my own personal hatred on this subject. Luckily, our cheapskate theatre in town got it opening weekend, so I saw the matinee for a sweet $2. Hell, that's cheaper than renting even with a large drink involved. Felt weird driving over to see it though, like I was going to meet some skank at a sleazy motel to cheat on my girlfriend. I watched TCM and drove on home. Damn, this movie wasn't bad at all, in fact, it was actually pretty damn good in many ways. I guess a great story works no matter who's telling it. Some of the cheesy plot elements I had read about were not in the movie, thankfully. I liked the way the original was paid homage to in some places, like the beginning. They did the smart thing here by not trying to out do the originals psycho family. Let's face it, you're not gonna make a stranger bunch or have them play off one another like in the original. Glad that was not even attempted. The film didn't look overly glossy which surprised me a lot. Sure, there was money involved and it has that Hollywood look at times, but it also has a good feel and tone to it that works with the story. It's violent and bloody, but not overly so, just like the original. There's enough differences in this one from the original to make it stand on it's own. The sets still don't come close to Robert Burns originals though, no way! I went home feeling nowhere near as much rage as I did weeks before. I still say it was a pointless remake, why not just rerelease the original? But since it was done, I guess I have to admit someone did something right here, because the movie does nothing to dishonor the real Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It was a good effort. On the flipside though, Edwin Neal will always be the hitchhiker, Jim Seidow will always be the cook,and Gunnar Hansen will always be Leatherface. You get my drift, right?
Well, I kinda went back on my word with this movie, as I bitched, moaned, and swore never to go see a remake of one of what feels is horror's elite films. How could they do it and why? I personally couldn't see the logic. The closer it got to opening-day though, the more curious I became. Anger was replaced by a need to know what the hell this thing was. Would it be a cheesy, over polished Hollywierd mistake like The Haunting remake? A pretty much needless line for line disaster like Psycho? I felt like I had to know and let our readers (do we have any?) know what the fuck was up, despite my own personal hatred on this subject. Luckily, our cheapskate theatre in town got it opening weekend, so I saw the matinee for a sweet $2. Hell, that's cheaper than renting even with a large drink involved. Felt weird driving over to see it though, like I was going to meet some skank at a sleazy motel to cheat on my girlfriend. I watched TCM and drove on home. Damn, this movie wasn't bad at all, in fact, it was actually pretty damn good in many ways. I guess a great story works no matter who's telling it. Some of the cheesy plot elements I had read about were not in the movie, thankfully. I liked the way the original was paid homage to in some places, like the beginning. They did the smart thing here by not trying to out do the originals psycho family. Let's face it, you're not gonna make a stranger bunch or have them play off one another like in the original. Glad that was not even attempted. The film didn't look overly glossy which surprised me a lot. Sure, there was money involved and it has that Hollywood look at times, but it also has a good feel and tone to it that works with the story. It's violent and bloody, but not overly so, just like the original. There's enough differences in this one from the original to make it stand on it's own. The sets still don't come close to Robert Burns originals though, no way! I went home feeling nowhere near as much rage as I did weeks before. I still say it was a pointless remake, why not just rerelease the original? But since it was done, I guess I have to admit someone did something right here, because the movie does nothing to dishonor the real Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It was a good effort. On the flipside though, Edwin Neal will always be the hitchhiker, Jim Seidow will always be the cook,and Gunnar Hansen will always be Leatherface. You get my drift, right?
