Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3D...

[MoonSylver]

I might be in the minority - but I thought the "Texas Chainsaw" remake was far better than the original. I never cared for the original anyway - it was always a bit hokey to me (basically a cheap exploitation film). Plus, it was a pleasure to have multiple close-up shots of Jessica Beal's fine ass(ets) as well. I liked "Texas Chainsaw: The Beginning" as well - so I'll certainly be checking this one out. j.p. True, the first one basically is that, but that's also looking at it from the distorted lens of history. It was one of a new wave of pretty shocking & here-to-fore unseen types of films. It's definitely a film that is more than the sum of its parts, IMO. That said, the remake is a pretty fine film of its own...other than what happens to Leatherface... As for Jess Biel, her ass distracted me so bad it was the only thing I could remember from my first watch of the film. i had to watch it again just to say I saw it!

[MinionZombie]

Look familiar?

[LouCipherr]

Look familiar? Yes, Bill Moseley looks very familiar...

[DjfunkmasterG]

Whomever wrote the article is moron, TCM 2 was in 1986 - - - Updated - - - Might I also add, they are not doing a very convincing job of making the film feel like the 70's. The actors are way too modernized. The costumes aren't even close, and the hair styles are WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY OFFFFFFFFFFFFFF Also, if you're going to re-do this for 3D, you CAN STILL play with the color palette, and make the film stock look more 70's-ish. Come on, Hollywood doesn't even fucking try anymore.

[MinionZombie]

I got the impression - or seem to remember reading - that it isn't set in the 1970s, but a while later. I'd have to dig a description out again, but the TV are recliner are calling my name.

[MinionZombie]

Some behind-the-scenes B-Roll footage in rough form with no on-set audio: This marks the first time we get to see sight of familiar faces from the franchise popping up - see who you can spot. It's a Chainsaw movie, so I'm gonna see it, but aside from the connections to the original movie (and the familiar faces), I'm not exactly brimming with excitement.

[aaron2]

The trailer looks good! Though i really find the poster very creepy and seriously dead daring! I have seen the Texas Chainsaw:The Beginning and did not like it so hope this time it is better

[Purge]

I got the impression - or seem to remember reading - that it isn't set in the 1970s, but a while later. This. I'm looking forward to it because it's a direct sequel to the original, although Yeager seems to be a bit lankier than Hansen. Maybe Leatherface discovered P90X.

[MinionZombie]

Mark Kermode's review: He thinks it's shit. Blu-Ray.com's review: http://www.blu-ray.com/Texas-Chainsa.../?show=preview They also think it's utter shit. One bit that made me laugh, but also go "EH?!" was this: After the Sawyer Farmhouse ambush of 1973, which left survivor Sally a psychological wreck, the community of Newt, Texas is aching for revenge, silencing Sheriff Hooper (Thom Barry) as they burn the property to the ground, seemingly killing everyone inside, including family leader Drayton (Bill Moseley). However, an infant has survived, placed into the care of a bitter couple for safekeeping. 40 years later, the baby has grown up into a 20-year-old named Heather (Alexandra Daddario), a supermarket butcher who longs for a better life. If that's really the case in the movie, then good lord. Sounds like the references to the original are more kept in one bit up-front that isn't done very well, and then it's just another shonky-as-all-buggery rehash. The more I saw of it, the dodgier it looked ... particularly *sigh* "Trey Songz" (whoever the hell that is) being in it (one preview clip displayed the most hideous underacting I've ever seen, in a moment which seemed to suggest he didn't actually give much of a stuff about being chased by a chainsaw-wielding nutjob) ... these reviews confirm it. ... Over on Daily Dead it got a 2.5 and a 3.5 out of 5 (the latter coming from someone who ... *sigh* ... hasn't seen the original movie).

[Neil]

Tops the US box office! - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20930368 Horror film Texas Chainsaw 3D has unexpectedly topped the US box office, ending The Hobbit's three-week reign. The movie, set immediately after the events in Tobe Hooper's classic 1974 slasher picture, made $23m (£14.3m) in its opening weekend. It immediately made back its $20m budget for film company Lionsgate.

[bassman]

That's insane. How could this rehashed stuff beat out Hobbit and Django??? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I bet "A Haunted House"(AKA Scary Movie 17) or whatever it's called, will also kill at the box office. I imagine the people behind this Chainsaw entry are already planning a sequel....

[Purge]

Saw it Saturday night.   I wanted to see it mostly to find out what happened to the Sawyers after the first one, so I figured the opening would be interesting and the rest of the flick would be by-the-numbers. I was right. The acting was weak and there were those "little things" that made the crowd groan, like how their van couldn't smash through the gate in front of the mansion or how Heather got right back up after being plowed into by the police cruiser. I also think it was a major mistake to make Leatherface seem sympathetic at the end. 4 out of 10.

[MinionZombie]

I was about to come here and post about it raking in $23m at the box office - in spite of the torrent of dreadful reviews - unbelievable. You could have totally done something really cool with the property, but it seems that they just opted for utter tosh instead. In terms of sequels, I read that, yes, they always planned on sequels. Indeed, at one point they planned a trilogy and - get this - they were going to start with #2 (which was apparently going to only take place in a hospital ), and then the second flick would be #1 in the trilogy so you'd see why the events of the first-in-the-trilogy-but-second-in-chronology happened, and then the third would be the third (following the second chronologically, but the first in terms of release) ... yeah, sounds like an idiotic idea to me too, so no surprises that didn't go ahead, but forshame that they just threw out this junk with one of the biggest and dumbest plot holes in cinema history - that 39 years later, a baby girl can grow up to be in her mid-twenties. Deary me indeed.

[LouCipherr]

That's insane. How could this rehashed stuff beat out Hobbit and Django??? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You're right, you shouldn't be. When we have a viewing public that causes shows like "Honey Boo Boo" to rake in ratings like there's no tomorrow (here in the US at least), well, it makes things like this a whole lot easier to understand. I'm not surprised this movie was labeled as crap. I mean, c'mon. They remade ANOES - it sucked. The remade Friday the 13th - it sucked too. RZ remade Halloween - an atrocious abomination. They remade The Thing (you can call it a "prequel" all you want, but if it's named the same as JC's.....) - garbage. I guess they haven't caught on to the "pattern" yet over there in Hollywood.

[slickwilly13]

It is just a flash-in-the-pan top ticket selling movie. After it fizzes out, The Hobbit or another movie will take number one.