The near mummified grandfather barely being able to hold the hammer was a deal breaker for me.
That’s it! NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!
[reply][reply]wonder if “I Spit On your Grave” remake is as bad as the last house remake.
Thanks! That’s the other one I was going to mention and brainfarted it off of my post. Are you saying there was already a remake of it? If so, yes, I’m sure it was total crap.[/reply]
there was, and it is.
but to be fair i wasnt a HUGE fan of the original. it (like a lot of films based around revenge after a rape) seemed… like a hollow excuse for violence. it did have some really interesting elements though… but the bathtub scene… ohhh fuck.
is that in the new one? I don’t remember a bathtub scene in the original, and I’m like you in that I wasn’t a fan of the original either. same with last house.
although I got tell ya’ revenge after rape isn’t really a hollow reason for violence. it’s probably how revenge violence was invented.
the remake of the hills have eyes is a perfect example as well.
Never saw the original but the remake was decent enough.
or the overwhelmingly pointless remake of the hitcher.
Didn’t know this was remade. I’d probably agree again with you here. that movie was brutal good!
fucks sake, even Freddy.
Now you totally talking my language! why remake Fred? that guys a freakin legend!! at least wait until robert Englund is buried before you start giving his role to other peeps!! Geeze!! blasphemy!!
in the original nightmare film, freddy isnt a molester. he is a child killer,
I’m pretty sure he was both in the original. he didn’t become a straight killer until he was popping in on nap time. But he had different gloves for different tortures most of them sexual.
I was a big fan of the tv show growing up and robert Englund was very closely involved in that show. mostly it was a Twilight Zone type show hosted by Englund in Freddy make up but occasionally they would throw in an actual freddy episode.
One thing I never got though was how come he was going after teens? I understand those were kids whose parents murdered him and he was exacting revenge BUT HOLY HELL if you have a twisted dick for little girls in white dresses jumping rope the whole world is at your fingertips and you can never be arrested!!! who cares about revenge when you’ve been given heaven?
or rob zombie’s mall-kid remake of halloween. suddenly michale isnt just evil, just a bad seed, he is the victim of rob zombie’s inability to make anythign without steeping it in the most comicbookie white trash possible. he isnt as Loomis int he originals says, ‘pure evil’ he is this vindicated abused child who just so happens to be a beast of a man. and then look at the way Loomis is painted int he remake and its sequel… god, its disgusting.
Never liked the Halloweens to begin with but Fuck Rob Zombie all the same!!
ok, thats enough of a rant from me. haha. sorry.
It’s not too often that we get a good thread going that doesn’t get derailed or hurt someones feelings. I think this is one of those rare threads. Don’t apologize
Late,
grmpysmrf
[reply][reply]wonder if “I Spit On your Grave” remake is as bad as the last house remake.
Thanks! That’s the other one I was going to mention and brainfarted it off of my post. Are you saying there was already a remake of it? If so, yes, I’m sure it was total crap.[/reply]
Yeah there is already a remake. I think it was straight to dvd though.
The near mummified grandfather barely being able to hold the hammer was a deal breaker for me. I’ll concede the paint by numbers teen slasher point (Although this one works for me) but the scariness of grandpappy holding a hammer? Never! That ruined the films momentum and damn near made it a comedy.
I kinda like some of the mysteries explained, for the simple fact that you wonder how the family got away with it for so long. With the new one the explanation is at least somewhat believeable. Whereas, the old one doesn’t even offer an explanation and has the watcher going in ready to make fun of the plot holes.
Don’t get me wrong the old definitely has merit and is still watchable for what it is but it views almost like a sideshow in a dirty backwoods house more than a horrror movie. It’s not the characters that are really disturbing so much as it is the atmosphere that is created by the sets.
In the new one I think the characters do a decent job of creating the suspense.
Forgot the chick blowing her head off at the first scene was pretty gory, But all told, the gore makes up less than 2 minutes of screen time.
Late,
grmpysmrf[/reply]
the stomach stabbing scene when the 7th heaven chick guts her boy friend, the brother getting his junk chainsawed off when he is hanging from the chandelier, so on and so forth…
see, the thing about the original though (along with a lot of movies that i am blown away by) is that you only get plot holes if you want your movie served to you. the things that the original doesnt talk about arent plot holes, they just arent essential to the story. they are extra, they are periphery. how they got away with it, why leatherface wears the faces of those he kills, where the mother is, who the hitcher wants to be, how the grandfather go how he is, why the dog is stuffed, that isnt lazy, it is just not important. its there to make you think, to ask the questions, not to say ‘didnt explain it, plot hole, fuck this shit’.
films, like any art form, should NEVER present you with fully actualized answers, thats just passive entertainment. TCM makes you think, it makes you wonder, it makes you fear, it makes you question. THATS horror. not just blood and screaming. horror is thinking.
is that in the new one? I don’t remember a bathtub scene in the original, and I’m like you in that I wasn’t a fan of the original either. same with last house.
although I got tell ya’ revenge after rape isn’t really a hollow reason for violence. it’s probably how revenge violence was invented.
the original has the bathtub scene… its the amazingly violent (and much famed) castration part… god it is hard to watch… as is the rape scene… sexual violenc eof any sort is mindnumbingly hard to stomach… and i dont meant that revenge after rape is hollow, i mean making a movie out of it is. its like making a movie about a boy that has to kill his hurt dog. its a vapid excuse to draw on emotions that EVERY sane human has.
on the topic of the hitcher…
Didn’t know this was remade. I’d probably agree again with you here. that movie was brutal good!
oh the remake is god awful… i could rant on about that one for days…
[reply]in the original nightmare film, freddy isnt a molester. he is a child killer,
I’m pretty sure he was both in the original. he has different gloves for different tortures most of them sexual. [/reply]
nah, it is never said. he has an almost sexual nature to his actions because of their innate perversions, but it is never SAID.
I was a big fan of the tv show growing up and robert Englund was very closely involved in that show. mostly it was a Twilight Zone type show hosted by Englund in Freddy make up but occasionally they would throw in an actual freddy episode.
LOVE this show. i have the boots of it.
ok, thats enough of a rant from me. haha. sorry.
It’s not too often that we get a good thread going that doesn’t get derailed or hurt someones feelings. I think this is one of those rare threads. Don’t apologize
Late,
grmpysmrf[/reply]thank you for that. haha. yeah, im not trying to hag out anyone here. im always up for some film debate! 
THANK YOU AGAIN, RUSTY!!!
It’s a horror movie, for crying out loud. And the reason stuff like that worked is because it captured a feeling of terror and confusion. It’s a snapshot of an event (real or mythical, it doesn’t matter). In real life you don’t get the origins and psychological explanations of every person you come in contact with. And I assure you, if you are unlucky enough to get abducted by crazy hillbillies you don’t have the luxury of being given the justification for their weird decor, the reason they’re abducting you, etc. etc.
IF YOU KNEW THE REASON FOR EVERYTHING IT WOULDN’T BE A HORROR MOVIE!!! It’d be a stupid documentary or a Cliff’s Notes silver platter serving of something.
That scary (to me) 70’s stuff didn’t need to give you a dossier on each character. They just were there and they did stuff. Real life is full of “plot holes” too. Stuff just happens.
I’m just so sick of everything being packaged into shiny little wrappers and portioned out so that people don’t have to scratch their heads and wonder about anything. WHAT’S THE EFFING POINT???
Now they make a stupid movie . . . . and if there’s things “unexplained”, well, heck, we’ll just make 43 more sequels. Give me a break.
TCM is scary. It’s awesome. And it doesn’t need some jackwad who wasn’t even alive when it came out messing with it. Write your own movie, Jerk!!!
the stomach stabbing scene when the 7th heaven chick guts her boy friend,
That’s done off camera
the brother getting his junk chainsawed off when he is hanging from the chandelier, so on and so forth…
all you see is him dancing on the chandelier there’s no blood or anything specific to puke over
see, the thing about the original though (along with a lot of movies that i am blown away by) is that you only get plot holes if you want your movie served to you.
I don’t think I agree with this. this is just an excuse for bad story telling.
the things that the original doesnt talk about arent plot holes, they just arent essential to the story. they are extra, they are periphery. how they got away with it, why leatherface wears the faces of those he kills, where the mother is, who the hitcher wants to be, how the grandfather go how he is, why the dog is stuffed, that isnt lazy, it is just not important.
I udnerstand what you’re getting at I could agree with you on some points you brought up but I think what it ultimately comes down to is what you already mentioned, lazy story telling. I think knowing how the family gets away with it, why grand dad looks the way he does, some background on the family are essential.
you’re right about him wearing faces some people are just freaks you don’t need and explanation, same with the dog
or where his mother is at.
its there to make you think, to ask the questions, not to say ‘didnt explain it, plot hole, fuck this shit’.
yeah… I’m not buying that.
films, like any art form, should NEVER present you with fully actualized answers,
Who said anything about fully actualized answers? I’m just talking a point of reference.
TCM makes you think,
Not really, it’s more of an excuse to show some fucked up people. if a movies gonna make you “think” really think, it’s going to be for some cause or some way to better yourself or those around you or perhaps take into account something you’ve never noticed before. otherwise it’s just entertainment and a different type of distraction.
it makes you wonder, it makes you fear, it makes you question. THATS horror.
that’s also the discovery channel.
Late,
grmpysmrf
In real life you don’t get the origins and psychological explanations of every person you come in contact with.
you do if it’s hit the news
And I assure you, if you are unlucky enough to get abducted by crazy hillbillies you don’t have the luxury of being given the justification for their weird decor, the reason they’re abducting you, etc. etc.
touche. but I’m not being abducted by a hillbilly I’m watching others get abducted.
IF YOU KNEW THE REASON FOR EVERYTHING IT WOULDN’T BE A HORROR MOVIE!!! It’d be a stupid documentary or a Cliff’s Notes silver platter serving of something.
That’s how TCM is presented, as a documentary.
both new and old
That scary (to me) 70’s stuff didn’t need to give you a dossier on each character. They just were there and they did stuff. Real life is full of “plot holes” too. Stuff just happens.
real life doesn’t have a plot. and movies aren’t real life. let’s not blur them so we don’t end up with more movies on trial for stupid shit kids do after seeing them.
Now they make a stupid movie . . . . and if there’s things “unexplained”, well, heck, we’ll just make 43 more sequels. Give me a break.
Oh c’mon you know as well as I that that is just marketing and has nothing to do with horror or cinema.
Late,
grmpysmrf
[reply]I was a big fan of the tv show growing up and robert Englund was very closely involved in that show. mostly it was a Twilight Zone type show hosted by Englund in Freddy make up but occasionally they would throw in an actual freddy episode.
LOVE this show. i have the boots of it.
[/reply]
Me too!! HAHA I thought I was the only sucker!!
Late,
grmpysmrf
when i sy gore vs violence i mean more fundamentally. the boyfriend getting stabbed/gutted is gory because ti is done for grossout value. even if it isnt shown, its done to make you squirm. thats why the girlfriend is doing it, not the killer. her action of literally goring him is supposed to gross us out, whereas in the original the hammer to the head door slam scene is violent. its harsh, its fast, its done to make leatherface larger than blood or pain. he is pistons and rods. he is a force of nature.
gore is found in blood or guts that are there to gross out out, where as violence is used to bring unease and discomfort. there is a slight difference, but its Dijon to stone-ground mustard, you know?
as for answers, i dont want them, i want hints in my horror films. i want to see the sculptures made from the bones of the dead. i want to see blair witch project, i DONT want to see hostel or cloverfield. i want to have to look at leatherface as something more than natural, not supernatural, but unnatural.
the remake goes for the easy way out by saying ‘here is why someone does something unexplainable’ instead of presenting to you a character who reacts in a steroided way. leatherface int he original hides his/her face and takes on the role of caregiver of provider, of lover of nurturer, and also protector to the family. he/she becomes the mother in a maternal vacuum. he.she also becomes the father when the father role is selfish and uninterested in him/her. the killing is just a extrapolation of his/her need to be loved and taken in by the family. most peopel have some of those root feelings. most people do have a level (whatever the size) of self loathing, and the horror of leatherface is that he/she is an exacerbated and exaggerated form of the fears we all have somewhere… among other things… the remakes give HIM a bad case of acne, and a lot of anger.
see?
identification is horror. questioning who the badguy REALLY is, THAT is horror. if you look at the original carefully, leatherface is in many ways a sad victim, and as a result, not a villain as much as a desperate member of a sick family. the horrible crippled brother, the mean sister, the careless friends, they are in many ways (if you look on an absolute value scale) less caring than leatherface is.
[reply][reply]I was a big fan of the tv show growing up and robert Englund was very closely involved in that show. mostly it was a Twilight Zone type show hosted by Englund in Freddy make up but occasionally they would throw in an actual freddy episode.
LOVE this show. i have the boots of it.
[/reply]
Me too!! HAHA I thought I was the only sucker!!
Late,
grmpysmrf[/reply]
“Freddy’s Nightmares” was one of my favorite shows back in the day. I guess I’ll be talking to you soon about copying some boots, hahahahaha!!! (We’ll see if they’re still as awesome 23 years later).
I loved the format and the packaging of that show . . . . along with its similar more successful older cousins “Tales from the Darkside” and “Tales from the Crypt” and the lesser discussed, but just as awesome, “Monsters”. I loved staying up until 1AM as a kid and watching these shows.
“Nightmare” was a very effective horror vehicle too because everyone could relate to having nightmares in their sleep, and the dreaminess of the films (and TV show, too) carried this surreal reality very well.
[reply][reply][reply]I was a big fan of the tv show growing up and robert Englund was very closely involved in that show. mostly it was a Twilight Zone type show hosted by Englund in Freddy make up but occasionally they would throw in an actual freddy episode.
LOVE this show. i have the boots of it.
[/reply]
Me too!! HAHA I thought I was the only sucker!!
Late,
grmpysmrf[/reply]
“Freddy’s Nightmares” was one of my favorite shows back in the day. I guess I’ll be talking to you soon about copying some boots, hahahahaha!!! (We’ll see if they’re still as awesome 23 years later).
I loved the format and the packaging of that show . . . . along with its similar more successful older cousins “Tales from the Darkside” and “Tales from the Crypt” and the lesser discussed, but just as awesome, “Monsters”. I loved staying up until 1AM as a kid and watching these shows.
“Nightmare” was a very effective horror vehicle too because everyone could relate to having nightmares in their sleep, and the dreaminess of the films (and TV show, too) carried this surreal reality very well.[/reply]
its also gallons better than the friday the 13th tv show. blech.
and yeah the freddy episodes are actually better than the last 3 nightmare films! (not counting new nightmare)
its also gallons better than the friday the 13th tv show. blech.
UGGH!!! How a couple movies about a machete wielding hockey mask wearing crazed undead butcherer (or his mother if we go old school) ended up franchising to a show about some cheesy soap opera star looking d-bags with haunted antiques is beyond me. Makes about as much sense as “Halloween III: Season of the Witch”.
Oh, and speaking of witch, I was actually going to guess you would be a fan of “Blair Witch Project” also (I catch flack from this from people all the time). That, to me, was a wonderful return to the roots of what makes scary films scary and is a beautiful illustration of everything you’ve been explaining. Ironically (I may be remembering incorrectly here though), however, I think Grumpy mentioned also being a fan of that film. I’m guessing he didn’t complain about plot holes and unexplained details because there was all that website tie in and special feature gobbledy-goop that came with the film’s marketing (none of which I’ve seen or looked at — I just love the film by itself).
Anyway, it’s getting late. Cheers, Brothers!!!
[reply]its also gallons better than the friday the 13th tv show. blech.
UGGH!!! How a couple movies about a machete wielding hockey mask wearing crazed undead butcherer (or his mother if we go old school) ended up franchising to a show about some cheesy soap opera star looking d-bags with haunted antiques is beyond me. Makes about as much sense as “Halloween III: Season of the Witch”.
Oh, and speaking of witch, I was actually going to guess you would be a fan of “Blair Witch Project” also (I catch flack from this from people all the time). That, to me, was a wonderful return to the roots of what makes scary films scary and is a beautiful illustration of everything you’ve been explaining. Ironically (I may be remembering incorrectly here though), however, I think Grumpy mentioned also being a fan of that film. I’m guessing he didn’t complain about plot holes and unexplained details because there was all that website tie in and special feature gobbledy-goop that came with the film’s marketing (none of which I’ve seen or looked at — I just love the film by itself).
Anyway, it’s getting late. Cheers, Brothers!!![/reply]
i can prattle on about jason and how fucking stellar the first 4 films (the fifth is really valiant too) are.
as for blair witch, i actually put it in my top 5 fave movies of all time list. i was 9 when it came out (or maybe 8 actually, it was in october i think…) so i remember being really young during the whole ‘its real’ push, and i remember once i was older looking into it, and i LOVE all the attached things, the other docs (i own VHS copies of the other mini docs made for HBO and such… im a nerd) the dossier book, the websites, the whole thing, its all really rich and wonderfully mapped out. the blu-ray is one of the best i have nabbed up, the features are amazing, and the audio mix is wonderful. i think that movies does a better job than even the creators envisioned encapsulating the true essence of horror films and horror-art.
(I may be remembering incorrectly here though), however, I think Grumpy mentioned also being a fan of that film.
Oh yes, you are. I absolutely LOATHE that film, I detest that flick. that was a horrific waste of time and energy I hate myself for seeing it.
i want to see blair witch project,
oooh here lies the difference. see above^
i DONT want to see hostel or cloverfield.
Don’t know what cloverfield is about and won’t watch Hostel based on premise of the movie alone.
the remake goes for the easy way out by saying ‘here is why someone does something unexplainable’ instead of presenting to you a character who reacts in a steroided way. leatherface int he original hides his/her face and takes on the role of caregiver of provider, of lover of nurturer, and also protector to the family. he/she becomes the mother in a maternal vacuum. he.she also becomes the father when the father role is selfish and uninterested in him/her. the killing is just a extrapolation of his/her need to be loved and taken in by the family. most peopel have some of those root feelings. most people do have a level (whatever the size) of self loathing, and the horror of leatherface is that he/she is an exacerbated and exaggerated form of the fears we all have somewhere… among other things… the remakes give HIM a bad case of acne, and a lot of anger.
see?
jesus! I don’t think hooper even put that much thought into the character… not bad though. and I will give you they could’ve gone without showing his face in the new one.
identification is horror. questioning who the badguy REALLY is, THAT is horror. if you look at the original carefully, leatherface is in many ways a sad victim, and as a result, not a villain as much as a desperate member of a sick family. the horrible crippled brother, the mean sister, the careless friends, they are in many ways (if you look on an absolute value scale) less caring than leatherface is.
yeah but if you take that route then where does his caring come from? because everything else suggests he’s a product of his environment and his environment doesn’t lend itself to caring…
good discussion… like gunnar I’m logging off too.
I’m sure this will pick up tomorrow.
Late,
grmpysmrf
[reply]the remake goes for the easy way out by saying ‘here is why someone does something unexplainable’ instead of presenting to you a character who reacts in a steroided way. leatherface int he original hides his/her face and takes on the role of caregiver of provider, of lover of nurturer, and also protector to the family. he/she becomes the mother in a maternal vacuum. he.she also becomes the father when the father role is selfish and uninterested in him/her. the killing is just a extrapolation of his/her need to be loved and taken in by the family. most peopel have some of those root feelings. most people do have a level (whatever the size) of self loathing, and the horror of leatherface is that he/she is an exacerbated and exaggerated form of the fears we all have somewhere… among other things… the remakes give HIM a bad case of acne, and a lot of anger.
see?
jesus! I don’t think hooper even put that much thought into the character… not bad though. and I will give you they could’ve gone without showing his face in the new one.
identification is horror. questioning who the badguy REALLY is, THAT is horror. if you look at the original carefully, leatherface is in many ways a sad victim, and as a result, not a villain as much as a desperate member of a sick family. the horrible crippled brother, the mean sister, the careless friends, they are in many ways (if you look on an absolute value scale) less caring than leatherface is.
yeah but if you take that route then where does his caring come from? because everything else suggests he’s a product of his environment and his environment doesn’t lend itself to caring…
good discussion… like gunnar I’m logging off too.
I’m sure this will pick up tomorrow.
Late,
grmpysmrf[/reply]
well thats the beauty of art, the creator doesnt have to think of every fascet that will attract the attention and adoration of a viewer/experiancer/listener/whateverer. and yeah, judging from the sequel and hooper’s other works, we as the viewers got really lucky with TCM… nothing he has done after has even been near to the same ballpark.
as for the ‘where does the caring come from’ thing, it is human nature to care and feel empathy. it is for the most part socially strained out of us. humans are real tribal animals, we like to and really flourish in packs, so if we just look at the family it can be said that they DO care for each other, in a sort of sickened way, but with leatherface picking u p the slack and playing multiple roles within the family, they become borderline healthy. the father and brother depend on leatherface for untold amounts of things, while he/she depends ont hem to be his/her support. they allow leatherface to feel like he/she is worth something, however at the same time, because he/she does all of this, they are unaware as to how important leatherface truly is, same way you dont realize how awesome a blanket is in the winter until you are out from under it.
Dude, you’re my hero. The fact that you could write a full essay justifying and detailing the importance of Leatherface is just . . . . it’s beautiful, Man.
Anyway, like I said, it’s been a long time, but I’ve always felt Leatherface to be very much like “Blaster” in Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. He’s just a big dopey grown up kid who still possesses a child’s mind despite age and stature. He was born a blank slate and would’ve probably been as gentle as Lenny from “Mice and Men” had he been placed in a better environment. The way he plays with stuff (a bit over-the-top in #2) is just very childlike and innocent (for lack of a better term).
And I too view him with a sympathetic lens. How can you hate the guy? He’s just a big dumb cuddly teddy bear . . . . . who happens to have been trained by bad people to butcher people with a chainsaw.
Your take on the grandpa is interesting. I didn’t really feel that sad regret or anything that you seemed to be alluding to. I just get a massive bleak emptiness. Like the guy has just burned out any cell in his body that could have possibly had any potential for anything even resembling “good”. He just seems a hollow shell and an empty void. A barely living corpse without a soul who’s mark on this world has been nothing but blackness and death. He’s merely a mummy now and was by some already presumed dead and when he dies, he’ll probably still be in that chair, rotting to dust. C’est la vie, Grandpa!
Oh, I really need to get some sleep . . .
This is a great TCM discussion. Rusty’s made some quality points. The fundamental difference in approach between 70s originals and modern day remakes is that the remakes are like taking you the theatre, holding your hand the whole time and occassionally throwing a bit of blood on your face, while the originals drive you to some backwoods, throw you out of the car and tell you “you’re on your own.”
Not everything has to or should be explained. The greatness of TCM means that the viewer isn’t always questioning what is going on and whether it makes sense or not. You’re hit in the face every so often with something terrifying or unsettling. The scenario for the Chainsaw Massacre is totally fucked up but believable. There are some messed up people in remote parts. The original takes you that kind of world. The remake is just teenagers pretending to be in that world but can’t escape their privileged, city slicker essence.
Listen to the sounds of the original film; the animal howls, the cracking bones, that rapid scuttling sound when one of the soon-to-be-victims finds the spider nest in the abandoned house. Such effective film making. You’d never get that in the remakes. Everything has to be polished, even in some hick backwoods. And there has to be some shitty nu-metal song on the credits or something. I had the displeasure of seeing the remake of Fright Night the other night; what a waste of time, whole thing was swamped in laziness from the start, pure cynical “throw in a few stars = $$$” mentality.
But great horror films can still be made. There’s a film out now called Kill List, haven’t seen it but will soon, supposed to be very uncomfortable stuff.
The way he plays with stuff (a bit over-the-top in #2) is just very childlike and innocent (for lack of a better term).
The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is a work of comic genius. So few people understand that film.
TCM 2 is awesome! And yes, it is a comedic tour de force.
There’s a band here in St. Louis called The Saw Is Family. They are having a Halloween show this year and they are bringing up the guy who played Grandpa to hang out and will be projecting an original print of the film over the bands.