VILE film. Absolutely purile - the violence and gore in this film made me feel ill - it wasnt scary it was just disgusting.

 

Exactly, not scary, just blood and guts for no other reason than for just some puerile, juvenile attempt at 'shock' value; no dark sense of humour that the original '74 film had, no sense of irony or wit, no sense of the surreal, no quirks, just a depressing catalogue of gratuitous violence which served no purpose. It's not 'extreme' or 'transgressive' in the sense of, say "Wolf Creek" or "Devil's Rejects" and the themes these films put across, it's just tacky, dumb and pointless... Whoever came up with the idea for the 'birth' scene in the abbatoir should be frankly ashamed of themselves. There's just no reason for it, none. Does it add any dramatic insight into the characters...? No.

 

Personally, I would've liked to have seen a film which actually concentrated on Thomas, as a kid, as a teenager, and actually came up with some sort of real insights as to why he became a killer and what psychological damage was done to him - when I heard about this idea being touted around first, I actually thought that this is what the film was going to do... But, should've known better really, the same boring old 'let's kill a handful of teenagers' c**p as usual.... And absolutely ZERO tension, surprises or suspense because you knew that they would all have to die anyway, otherwise the events in the 2003 film would never take place.... There was a good film waiting to be made, but as usual they pissed it away....

In the vain hope that I might be wrong someday.... Well, that and a mate of mine fancied seeing it too (and he hated it even more than I did....)

 

It dont cost me anything anyway, other than time, I've got one of these unlimited monthly card things....

 

same here, plus i try to get a couple or more films a day and if i can time it right can get a lift back with my mum from the flicks when she fins work.

I just saw this film at the cinema last night, and it was vile. Not scary, just vile and disgusting. I thought the charactor's had some interesting dialogue that made me care about them (for about a second), but overall they were typically underdeveloped charactors that were only written to be slashed and hacked. I HATED the introduction about Leatherface's birth. Pathetic! They might as well have said he was an alien or something. I hated how they tried to give the family a motive, killing humans to EAT!? pathetic. All this film really did was spoil what the texas chainsaw massacre is and leave me feeling sick.

 

It was just a series of depressing and disturbing events. I could go through the rest of my life without seeing this again

Edited October 16, 200618 yr by Ozmead

I just saw this film at the cinema last night, and it was vile. Not scary, just vile and disgusting. I thought the charactor's had some interesting dialogue that made me care about them (for about a second), but overall they were typically underdeveloped charactors that were only written to be slashed and hacked. I HATED the introduction about Leatherface's birth. Pathetic! They might as well have said he was an alien or something. I hated how they tried to give the family a motive, killing humans to EAT!? pathetic. All this film really did was spoil what the texas chainsaw massacre is and leave me feeling sick.

 

To be fair, in Hooper's original they were cannibals too (as well as graverobbers), but he kinda twisted it to make them out to be cannibals who were actually in business and selling the human meat back to those who they saw had wronged them, ie, it actually had an idea in its head.. That and the original had a sense of humour about it as well, albeit a totally pitch black one... Of course neither of the remakes have had any subtlety or sense of wit about them and any humour is of the totally unintended variety....

 

I didn't really feel sick at this film, just incredibly bored and disappointed at what lesser talents have chosen to do with what was once a pretty strange and frightening concept...

Yeh - Im in agreement with you Ozmead. IMO the only thing the film had going for it was the acting and some of the characters that you cared about - but the film isnt a horror imo its just pathetic. I didnt like the hills have eyes but the gore in that film was what made the film scary, the gore in this film was pointless and just vile.

Yeh - Im in agreement with you Ozmead. IMO the only thing the film had going for it was the acting and some of the characters that you cared about - but the film isnt a horror imo its just pathetic. I didnt like the hills have eyes but the gore in that film was what made the film scary, the gore in this film was pointless and just vile.

 

There was a point to the violence and gore in "Hills Have Eyes", it was actually thought through and well written, 'extreme' in the best sense... Beyond R Lee Ermey as 'Hoyt', there is nothing really to recommend TCM - The Beginning....

 

so the history boys or last kiss would be a better bet then????

Why can't they just leave things alone, I loved the first film, hated the remake I knew this would be c**p from the moment it's preview came on tele. If they are going to do something like this I wish they'd put a bit of effort into it, it could have been a good film telling how it all started but they have to be stupid with it.

Exactly, not scary, just blood and guts for no other reason than for just some puerile, juvenile attempt at 'shock' value; no dark sense of humour that the original '74 film had, no sense of irony or wit, no sense of the surreal, no quirks, just a depressing catalogue of gratuitous violence which served no purpose. It's not 'extreme' or 'transgressive' in the sense of, say "Wolf Creek" or "Devil's Rejects" and the themes these films put across, it's just tacky, dumb and pointless...

 

devils rejects did this kinda thing much better.

 

this was a kinda paint by numbers kind of film (with 5 different shades of red :lol:), the westlife of horror movies (it exists, loads a people like it, but ultimately so-so effecting no emotion).

 

the first remake was better, but then again that has Jessica Biel in it :lol: :lol:

 

however there was some black dude who came in asked me if this was the right film, sat6 down ate his nachos and then buggered off (after 15 mins), so i dont know if he really hated it or just wanted some where to eat some food???

so the history boys

 

actually i enjoyed it much more than the history boys, which i think only appeals if your over 72 (apart from the guy who must have been about 90 snoring with his mouth open behind me) :lol: :lol:

Love this film was just a good as the other one!

 

I just didnt like the fact we knew that the "sheriff" wasnt going to get killed (as he's in the first one) still enjoyed watching him get his head smashed in :lol: Things did make sense though like the guy who had his legs cut off etc.

 

4/5

Love this film was just a good as the other one!

 

well its almost just like watching the other one with a different cast :lol:

 

however what i would have liked to see, after the girl gets the chainsaw through the chest and dies in the most horrible violent way, she comes back to life, the twist being that its actually an x-men prequel :lol: :lol:

 

now that would have made an interesting sequel