This review going to sound more like a rant so bear with me. I just got back from seeing The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning and before I sat down to write my review I decided to read some of the reviews that were written by mainstream critics and those written by fans of the horror genre.
Many of the mainstream critics don't attack the quality of the film at all. Most of them don't say the film is shot poorly or is horribly executed. As I skimmed through several of their reviews a common thread came up: these critics just don't appreciate horror of this caliber. I'm not saying this film will go down as a classic but disliking a film because it's bleak, brutal, and depressing does not make it a very credible review. The last time I checked being tortured and watching your friends get killed right in front of your eyes was supposed to be bleak, brutal, and depressing. There is nothing happy or refreshing about it. There are many different types of horror films. Some of them scare you by building suspense and some just attack all your senses by being purely visceral and emotionally draining. This is what The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning is. It's completely intense and it doesn't hold back. For fans of R rated horror, this is their dream come true.
I'm a big fan of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre and I consider it not only one of the scariest films ever made, but also a pretty good piece of cinematic art. For something called Texas Chainsaw Massacre there is very little blood in the film but it attacks all of your senses by presenting the "torture" as if more is going on then there actually is. It plays with your mind and its documentary style adds to the intensity. The 2003 remake is not on the same level as the original film but as recent horror films go, it's a very intense experience. I know some people are against remakes but i think the 2003 version improved upon some elements in the original film (namely character development) and presented a story that wasn't just a carbon copy of the original film. It's a completely adequate companion piece.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning is an even better companion piece. Again, this film doesn't achieve the pure style of the original film but the brutality is on full display here. I think that recent horror films have certainly been a new breed. I felt the same way about the Hills Have Eyes remake which is also a brutal piece of horrific art. In many ways this prequel is much better than the 2003 remake is both style and execution. You can tell this is still a Hollywood production but I think the gritty style of the period is captured pretty well here. It almost reminds the viewer of the low budget style of classic horror films of this type.
This film takes place a few years before the events in the remake (1969 to be exact).On one last road trip before they're sent to serve in Vietnam, two brothers (Handley and Bomer) and their girlfriends (Baird and Brewster) get into an accident that calls their local sheriff (Ermey) to the scene. Thus begins a terrifying experience where the teens are taken to a secluded house of horrors, where a young, would-be killer is being nurtured.
I was surprised to see that this film is shorter than the 2003 film but it seems to move much slower. There is a fair amount of getting to know the characters before they're sent off to be tortured and this benefits the film. It makes several scene later in the film all the more hard to watch because we're connected to them on some kind of an emotion level. A scene involving Chrissie having to look on as her boyfriend is held captive, is actually one of its best because emotion balances out the horror that is taking place.
The film is compromised mostly of unknown actors, with Jordana Brewster leading the pack. Brewster has appeared in a few movies (The Faculty and The Fast and the Furious to name a few) but she has yet to break out. She holds her own here and while it took me longer to warm up to her than it did for me to warm up to Jessica Biel in the previous film, she actually gets much better as the film goes along. R Lee Ermy returns as Sheriff Hoytt and is given much more screen time. This is an example of dark humor actually being quite frightening. This guy is a force to be reckoned with and at times he's more terrifying than Leatherface himself. The rest of the cast play their roles well and I definitely bought the fear from all involved.
As for Leatherface, I think he's much scarier here than he was in the 2003 film. He's more brutal and much more intense and when used correctly, for instance during the chase scene towards the end, he's his very own force of nature.
Judging from the other reviews I read for this film (the ones done by fans of the horror genre) I think this will be a definite hit amongst its intended audience. The mainstream critical reviews prove that these types of films aren't for everyone. However, if you're looking for a entertaining and brutal experience then this will not disappoint. I just wish these professional critics out there would lighten up and try to appreciate films like these for what they are, instead of casting off because the intensity is just too real for them.
Many of the mainstream critics don't attack the quality of the film at all. Most of them don't say the film is shot poorly or is horribly executed. As I skimmed through several of their reviews a common thread came up: these critics just don't appreciate horror of this caliber. I'm not saying this film will go down as a classic but disliking a film because it's bleak, brutal, and depressing does not make it a very credible review. The last time I checked being tortured and watching your friends get killed right in front of your eyes was supposed to be bleak, brutal, and depressing. There is nothing happy or refreshing about it. There are many different types of horror films. Some of them scare you by building suspense and some just attack all your senses by being purely visceral and emotionally draining. This is what The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning is. It's completely intense and it doesn't hold back. For fans of R rated horror, this is their dream come true.
I'm a big fan of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre and I consider it not only one of the scariest films ever made, but also a pretty good piece of cinematic art. For something called Texas Chainsaw Massacre there is very little blood in the film but it attacks all of your senses by presenting the "torture" as if more is going on then there actually is. It plays with your mind and its documentary style adds to the intensity. The 2003 remake is not on the same level as the original film but as recent horror films go, it's a very intense experience. I know some people are against remakes but i think the 2003 version improved upon some elements in the original film (namely character development) and presented a story that wasn't just a carbon copy of the original film. It's a completely adequate companion piece.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning is an even better companion piece. Again, this film doesn't achieve the pure style of the original film but the brutality is on full display here. I think that recent horror films have certainly been a new breed. I felt the same way about the Hills Have Eyes remake which is also a brutal piece of horrific art. In many ways this prequel is much better than the 2003 remake is both style and execution. You can tell this is still a Hollywood production but I think the gritty style of the period is captured pretty well here. It almost reminds the viewer of the low budget style of classic horror films of this type.
This film takes place a few years before the events in the remake (1969 to be exact).On one last road trip before they're sent to serve in Vietnam, two brothers (Handley and Bomer) and their girlfriends (Baird and Brewster) get into an accident that calls their local sheriff (Ermey) to the scene. Thus begins a terrifying experience where the teens are taken to a secluded house of horrors, where a young, would-be killer is being nurtured.
I was surprised to see that this film is shorter than the 2003 film but it seems to move much slower. There is a fair amount of getting to know the characters before they're sent off to be tortured and this benefits the film. It makes several scene later in the film all the more hard to watch because we're connected to them on some kind of an emotion level. A scene involving Chrissie having to look on as her boyfriend is held captive, is actually one of its best because emotion balances out the horror that is taking place.
The film is compromised mostly of unknown actors, with Jordana Brewster leading the pack. Brewster has appeared in a few movies (The Faculty and The Fast and the Furious to name a few) but she has yet to break out. She holds her own here and while it took me longer to warm up to her than it did for me to warm up to Jessica Biel in the previous film, she actually gets much better as the film goes along. R Lee Ermy returns as Sheriff Hoytt and is given much more screen time. This is an example of dark humor actually being quite frightening. This guy is a force to be reckoned with and at times he's more terrifying than Leatherface himself. The rest of the cast play their roles well and I definitely bought the fear from all involved.
As for Leatherface, I think he's much scarier here than he was in the 2003 film. He's more brutal and much more intense and when used correctly, for instance during the chase scene towards the end, he's his very own force of nature.
Judging from the other reviews I read for this film (the ones done by fans of the horror genre) I think this will be a definite hit amongst its intended audience. The mainstream critical reviews prove that these types of films aren't for everyone. However, if you're looking for a entertaining and brutal experience then this will not disappoint. I just wish these professional critics out there would lighten up and try to appreciate films like these for what they are, instead of casting off because the intensity is just too real for them.
