I just watched The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) for the first time, to see what the fuss was about.

CGI really was the downfall of making decent films. Now everything has to be a huge unbelievable spectacle. CGI and the over done “Boom” noises. Tedious.

You've got it right there R1. CGI is just something that you can tell isn't real, so it feels less scary. I've said this before, but things like puppetry and physical effects, even when they're not completely believable, are often better because they exist on the same plane as the actors, rather than a different one, if that makes sense.

Also, I think so much of it is creating the right atmosphere. There are too many quick and easy tools to do that now, without directors putting in the effort.

I don't know if it happened like this, but this movie has the feel of Evil Dead about it to me - a director getting his friends together for a low budget film that became a success.

There was no CGI in the original TCM, captain obvious. It didn't even exist at the time, OP. You sound stupid and trollish. Get help.

I only watch old horror movies today. I can’t watch modern horror films. I just can’t get into them.

Try Fright Night 1985 next OP, if you haven’t seen it.

Thanks R5, I've never seen that one, if you recommend it then I will definitely try it next.

I'm sorta like you now too. I am unmoved by modern horror (for the most part), but I'm really enjoying getting into these old horror movies from before I was born.

You're the kind of person I wish I knew in real life, we could have old school horror movie nights. While my friends and I are all into horror, they're mostly into modern stuff, and don't really understand what I see in older movies.

In the early 80’s when I was in college, TCM, Last House on the Left and I Spit On Your Grave were regular features at the weekend midnight movies at a theater downtown near campus. Seeing one of those films that late and coming out of the theater at 2AM in the eerry dark and then trying to fall asleep after getting home was tricky.....I remember coming home after TCM and turning on all the lights in the house....

It was one of the first of its kind, that’s what makes it a classic.

R7, I think I would have trouble falling asleep after the latter two of those movies as well. I don't think I could watch those two, just from knowing what they were about. Would be very stressful.

R8, which is what made it so interesting to watch, I love getting a kind of "history of horror" lesson while I'm watching. I think something that really works in its favour is that it doesn't waste time really. It just tells the story. It also is early enough that it doesn't contain that whole puritanism thing that is in a lot of horror movies by the 80s - if you have sex you will DIE! etc.

Movies are so bright now and don't take a lot of risks. Maybe for fear of offending people? Horror movies in the 70's and 80's were made for very little money and not usually by big studios, so there was no studio head telling writers and directors "you have to cut this scene or else moms in Nebraska will boycott us and the Twitter weirdos will cancel us for this." Horror needs to feel a little unsafe. There's nothing more boring than a safe horror movie where you know who'll live and who'll die and all of the twists before the characters. A lot of the horror classics throw all of that stuff out the window and don't seem afraid of pissing anyone off. They want to disturb as many people as possible.

These movies also had that great, low budget indie spirit where you can feel the joy of the creative team coming through the movie. These are people who aren't just doing it for a paycheck.

The thing I liked about recent stuff like Hereditary, Get Out, The Witch, It Follows, etc. was that they felt like films that would have been made in the 70's or 80's. There's that danger to them and you don't really know where they're going to go or how far they're going to go. However, for every one of those, there are 20 cheap bland Blumhouse movies that all look the same and take absolutely no risks whatsoever.

Marilyn Burns gives one of the all-time great horror performances in that movie. I believe her every second and I can feel my heart racing as her's does.

Yeah... an atmospheric and gut-punch classic to be sure, and a rags-to-riches film story.

I remember reading various write-ups about the making of this film. Everyone kept quitting the project pissed-off, and had to be begged back. It was grueling and no one was getting paid, or very little.

There are interviews with Burns who claimed she kept sticking it out to the bitter end because she knew if the film got finished and released with its initial title, it would be a success. Anyone who saw “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” on a marquee would have to see it, and if they didn’t, they’d tell ten people about the title they seen.

The house from the film is a barbecue restaurant now, although it'd been moved from it's initial location.

Also this was released in a time when horror film promotional campaigns were claiming left and right, “based on a true story” to drum up hype and interest. These claims were often great exaggerations, or flat-out lies. The era of that kind of film promotion seems gone. People just tune into true crime documentaries now.

TTCSM is “based” on the Ed Gein case. There are a few specific detail copied (the wearing of skin, maybe). But the similarities end abruptly there. There was never a cannibal family of chainsaw murderers in Texas (Gein’s crimes were in Wisconsin), but for years audiences assumed it was all based on a real case. Not that Texas isn’t capable of that! (I’m a Texan, I know)

Gein’s case also inspired PSYCHO, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, and AMERICAN PSYCHO.

I’m trying to find the name of the magazine that covered special effects in horror/scifi/fantasy movies during the 1980s. I remember seeing coverage of one scene in “Fright Night” that made me want to see the movie.

So far, everything I’ve seen started in the mid-90s. I could have sworn this stuff was standard.

The low-budget feel (to me) makes it feel more like a documentary.

[quote]It's interesting to go back in time and try and imagine how people felt when they first watched this and the effect it had.

That’s really all we have for a lot of the older movies — that attempt to imagine. That’s because horror is so heavily stuck in genre that as soon as someone does something interesting and new, forget about it, it’ll be done again 900 million times.

Like “Black Christmas” for instance. Not only did it originate the “calling from inside the house” scare, it also originated the scare of looking at the protagonist through the villain’s eyes as the villain stalks her (or him). Both unique and terrifying back in the day, but it’s been copied so MANY times, when you finally get around to seeing BC you’re likely to think, “oh god this old flick pulled every trick in the book.”

First time I saw it I had rented it from the video store. It had been banned in Irish cinemas. I was in college and when I went to bed I had to leave the light on in my room, as I tried to sleep facing the door, with the door locked. I did not fall asleep until dawn.

I had a fear Leatherface might come through the door at any time.

R15, are you thinking of Fangoria?

R1 nailed it. The over-the-top CGI is just too cheesy.

I prefer the psychological horror of '70s flicks, which was really the Golden Era of Horror Movies, IMO.

Thank you, R19!

I saw The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) in a movie theatre and walked home alone in the dark on a stormy night. I was traumatized from the movie and I was sitting in the kitchen, everyone else was asleep and suddenly the power went off. I sat totally still totally silent for several minutes in terrified shock. I don't remember what happened after that but I guess the power came on at some point and I went to bed. Back then, in my hometown the only movie theatre didn't really observe film ratings and I was able to see just about anything. The movie was probably a couple of years old by time I saw it and I was likely in my early teens. I'm not sure what it was about this movie above other really terrifying movies that I had seen that affected me so much but it did stay with me all these years. I saw it again several years ago and the atmosphere was still there and knowing what was going to happen caused me to stop watching before the terrible scene where the girl is slammed onto the meat hook. I haven't really liked those torture type movies that have been popular, I wonder if this movie finished me at an early age for that sort of thing.

[quote] There was never a cannibal family of chainsaw murderers in Texas (Gein’s crimes were in Wisconsin), but for years audiences assumed it was all based on a real case. Not that Texas isn’t capable of that! (I’m a Texan, I know)

Indeed, the rest of the country agrees that if there *was* a family of cannibal chainsaw murderers, they'd live in TX. Or Florida

But because they ate adults and not fetuses - and of course liked to torture young women & handicapped people, TX wouldn't care.

What's great about the film is how it's not very explicit at all. In fact, Tobe Hooper was going for a PG rating if you can imagine that. It does make sense when you think about it. The camera always cuts away before you see a weapon cut flesh. The goriest scene is the end where Sally's drenched in blood and running out of the house. The tone and editing and acting make it seem much more explicit than it really is.

R24, I always thought that was kind of funny, if the movie were indeed rated PG.

"Hey honey, grab the kids and lets all hop in the station wagon to go see Texas Chainsaw Massacre""

R11

[quote] and I can feel my heart racing as her's does

Oh Dear.

[Quote] However, for every one of those, there are 20 cheap bland Blumhouse movies that all look the same and take absolutely no risks whatsoever.

Blumhouse is hit and miss. I enjoyed Happy Death Day and Freaky, but they're more of a comedy. Unfriended was ok. But then you have stupid shit like Fantasy Island and Truth Or Dare.

[quote]Horror needs to feel a little unsafe. There's nothing more boring than a safe horror movie where you know who'll live and who'll die and all of the twists before the characters. A lot of the horror classics throw all of that stuff out the window and don't seem afraid of pissing anyone off. They want to disturb as many people as possible.

Absolutely. I mean, I've seen movies that have made me feel gross after and like I wish I hadn't watched them, but that's kinda the point of horror - you could say that was effective in that sense.

But I went to see Annabelle, actually I think Annabelle 2, with some friends, and I was bored the whole way through. I HATE jump scares because the noise makes me jump even though I'm NOT scared, but other than that I was nearly asleep. I could tell EVERYTHING that was going to happen in that movie and to which characters and I was correct every time. My friends couldn't understand why I didn't like it, I couldn't understand why they did (and they watch more horror than I do).

Even TTCM surprised me in some ways, for being the movie that was then copied ad nauseum. Little things like, when the first two to die go off for a swim, I was like: "Oh yeah, they're going to fuck, that always happens in these movies and then they will die because of it" but no, they literally are going for a swim and find the swimming hole dried up and head to the house from there when they think they can pick up some gasoline. That's such a little thing, but it felt weirdly refreshing.

When I listened to a horror podcast talking about the remake, of course within a few minutes of the film apparently that equivalent couple are fucking. It's just so cliche.

Also, the guy in the wheelchair in this is an asshole. I found him so annoying... but I liked that they were willing to do that. I don't think they would these days.

That I've never really seen anyone in this movie in any other major film* makes this an even better horror film. I can't think of another bonafide 70s horror classic that shares that quality.

*The Sawyer dad was in the sequel and Marilyn Burns was in Hooper's 'Eaten Alive' a couple years after TCM.

Add me to the list of CGI haters. One of the reasons THE THING (1982) is so good is that it doesn’t use CGI.

As a contrast, John Cusack’s 2012 (more of a thriller than a horror film, I know) is packed full of CGI and is completely unbelievable.

It's interesting, because you can see why people thought it was based off of a true crime story, even though they don't specifically say it, the opening narration sort of portrays it that way without saying it. And the home video feel to it gives it almost a snuff feeling in some ways.

It also seems like it's all about the US in 1974, without hitting you over the head with it, if that makes sense? There's no message being thrust in your face, but what is happening at that time (ie oil shortages etc) permeate the film. You could also argue there is a vegetarianism angle to the film, but in that way that is interesting to think about after you watch it, not in a "I've just been lectured to" way. Modern movies are heading more towards the lecturing side of things a lot of the time, and it's kinda irritating, even when you agree 100% with what they are saying.

[quote]It also seems like it's all about the US in 1974, without hitting you over the head with it, if that makes sense? There's no message being thrust in your face, but what is happening at that time (ie oil shortages etc) permeate the film.

I hadn't really thought of that, but that's an interesting point; that whole end of the Vietnam war/you can't trust the government/society is breaking down (hence the massacres) theme is very much there.

I wonder if it's even possible to make a movie like that now (that's not the torture porn realm) since gun violence & mass shooting are an ever present threat, people don't pick up hitchhikers, etc.

BTW, I agree about the wheelchair guy, but it's still kind of shocking

[quote]that whole end of the Vietnam war/you can't trust the government/society is breaking down (hence the massacres) theme is very much there.

Yeah, definitely. It's the kind of thing that's interesting to notice/discuss after you've enjoyed the movie as the slasher it is. I always find that more enjoyable than a movie that sets out to put theme first, before story.

I have to say, I wonder too if it's possible to make a film like that now too.

It's a terrifying film but I started laughing like crazy when the gas station guy attacked Miss Burns with a broom.

The scene toward the end with the grandpa trying to whack Marilyn over the head always makes me chuckle. They keep handing him the hammer, but he's too weak and decrepit to even swing it, and just drops it, maybe three or four times. It's so darkly humorous that it had to be intentionally done.

Grandpa was actually some teen they hired off the street.

What are everyone’s thoughts in the initial (80’s and early 90’s) sequels? I think there were two, maybe three in that time period.

The initial part 2 is very schlocky and “funny” (like going for EVIL DEAD II). It has some amazing sequences (I love the opening scene with the boys driving on the bridge, and also the chili cook off intro) and good ideas, but isn’t a good film. It’s very overblown, including the acting and especially those sets, and abandons the tone of the initial film. The story is all over the place. Of course looking at it NOW it has an 80s charm and no CGI, but still...

A little OT, but it was CGI that killed Tim Burton Movies for me too. There was a a Simpsons where Lisa gave Ralph a valentine because nobody else did (I choo-choo-choose you) he got infatuated with her and Bart caught it on tape when she had to straighten Ralph out. He laughs and says “look, you can see right there where his heart breaks”

That was TB moving to CGI for me.

I read somewhere the mood was focused on because of no budget.

[quote]I read somewhere the mood was focused on because of no budget.

The lack of budget is what definitely gives it a certain look; when they're traveling in that van, they're all hot, sweaty & dirty - and you can practically smell the stink of the house through your TV. As someone else noted, it's the almost documentary look of the picture that definitely gives it a certain feel

Random thoughts. I was 10 when it came out so was too young to go see it but of course it was well-known among older teenagers who raved about how terrifying it was. It really made it so much more enticing since for me it was unreachable until years later on VHS. Movies like this were so much more impactful because audiences weren't yet desensitized to extreme horror like they are now. The graininess of the film makes it more effective too. Like someone said above, now a low budget film can look like a $50M movie with cheap digital cameras but the picture is too clean and bright and has none of the grit that makes these cheap movies on film so much more "realistic". In fact, when some of these oldies like TTCM, Night of the Living Dead and Evil Dead were cleaned up for digital formats like laserdisc and DVD they were TOO pristine and I missed the grainy VHS versions. You realized you were watching a "movie".

i built you a little fry house

I love this film for all the reasons already stated, and I will just say to anyone looking to own it on Blu ray or 4K—avoid the most recent US release; they applied too much digital smoothing (DNR, or noise reduction) and a lot of the grain is missing. It looks too clean and vibrant. There is a UK release made from the same 4K scan, which does not use DNR, and retains all the glorious grain. The label is Second Sight (who recently put out G. Romero’s Dawn Of The Dead and are currently preparing a blu ray of the superior Martin, also by Romero).

[quote] There's no message being thrust in your face, but what is happening at that time (ie oil shortages etc) permeate the film. You could also argue there is a vegetarianism angle to the film, but in that way that is interesting to think about after you watch it, not in a "I've just been lectured to" way. Modern movies are heading more towards the lecturing side of things a lot of the time, and it's kinda irritating, even when you agree 100% with what they are saying.

The takeaway philosophy, for me, is “the old way was better”— which is what the hitchhiker tells the young people in the van, as he’s describing slaughtering techniques. I think it could be applied to most things in modern life, and certainly horror movies in general. .

I like that the film looks cheap and has no well known actors. It adds a layer of authenticity to the film in a similar way as Night of the Living Dead. Horror tends to work better the less you know about the actors and locations.

I do wonder how a film like this would fare today with any of that gloss. Even smaller indie films these days have a gloss that you just couldn't get back in the 70's.

because hollywood and their cheap simplistic "horror" directors think bloody gore, sadism and special effects make a movie "scary"... which is NEVER EVER TRUE...

one of my favorite all time scary movies? the 1964 black and white suspense film "the night walker" starring the great barbara stanwyck..

no gore, no blood, no special effects, but truly scary stuff because of the haunting spine tingling music, the acting, the lighting, the storyline, the settings, and so on...

R37 I thought the initial sequel in the 80’s was a lot of fun. It especially looks good now, even if at the time many fans thought they got it wrong. It more dazzling and cartoon-like. It’s well done for what it is but yea I agree, too over the top. Not creepy enough at all save for a handful of moments. Much of the same cast returns playing the same family roles.

The first sequel was a good time and has one of the all time great jump scares where Leatherface pops out of that room with the chainsaw blaring. I thought I was going to have a heart attack when I first saw that. The rest of the sequels are basically just remakes of the original with the same formula - group of people break down or get stranded somehow and find the Sawyer house and get killed one by one. After awhile, it gets boring.

R1, I agree. CGI and technology in general. I watched some newer spy movie recently, and all I got was CGI stunt scenes, screens with text messages, and computer code sequences generated by some government hacker. There was almost zero dialogue and I was really annoyed with the entire movie.

And this is why I mostly watch older movies.

[quote] Even smaller indie films these days have a gloss that you just couldn't get back in the 70's.

It’s because they’re shot on digital cameras the vast, vast majority of the time. They just look like fancy pay cable series to me when they’re digital like that—not like real movies.

The first sequel is a pretty wild ride, and I'd love to see it in a theater one day, but it doesn't hold a candle to the first one. The next 2 sequels are pretty bad, especially part 4 with Matthew Maconaghey and Renee Zellweger. However, there was a very dark but funny moment in that one, which also happened to involve a girl getting hit over the head.

On a side note, I recently watched 'White Oleander' for the first time, and I liked how they had Zellweger's sad actress character watching one of her old movies, which happened to be TCM 4.

Part 2 isn’t good, but gets points for razzle dazzle entertainment, and has aged well in the capacity of “late 80’s horror.” Maybe. It’s fun. But it doesn’t hold a candle to the original’s atmospheric mood and raw tone, a slow peel that eventually exposes raw nerves.

This was seemingly intentional.

Plus casting Dennis Hopper seemed like a stunt.

The weirdest thing is when they recreated some of the original’s key moments (the girl tied at the dinner table, hitting the head with a hammer, the grandparents corpses in the weird skull tree house thing) but in a way that was showy and obvious. The original family had moved into a supervillain lair made of dead people? How did they pay for electricity and stuff? Where did they have time to decorate the massive space so lavishly?

I remember BLUE VELVET and TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 2 came out around the same time in the summer of 1986. The hype and notoriety around BV and Dennis Hopper probably helped (the already highly anticipated) TCSM2 a lot at the box office.

I want to thank everyone who’s contributed to this thread. It’s been a long time since I’ve read something here that’s been a discussion rather than people being nasty to each other. It used to be like that on the Datalounge.

[quote]Marilyn Burns gives one of the all-time great horror performances in that movie. I believe her every second and I can feel my heart racing as her's does.

I agree and told her so. No other actress has portrayed absolute terror as well as she did in this film. I met Marilyn Burns who also played one of the Manson girls in "Helter Skelter", Ed O'Neal, the hitchhiker, and Gunnar Hansen, "Leatherface" and the rest of the cast at the Monster Mania autograph show in Jersey and have the Steelbook signed.

Trivia... the narration at the beginning was by a young John Larroquette.

Part of what made this film so scary to me is that no part of it isn't within the realm of possibility. There's several scenes that, for me, came close to inducing panic, especially Gunnar Hansen's spinning fugue with the chainsaw out in the middle of the road at the end.

OP, you are right. When I thiink of modern day thrillers, I think of David Fincher's stuff like Zodiac, Mindhunter, etc. All visually "nice" but cold . Actually, they are cold because they are so "nice" to look at; they are antiseptic. Digital cinema and CGI can never do what the great horror movies of the 50s, 60s. 70s and 80s did. Even with dated makeup effects, many of them are far scarier than anything released today. Digital cinema (like LCD tvs) is too bright and not rich enough--thank god for OLED at least.

I really enjoy Rob Zombies films

I wonder if there's something you can do to manipulate digital photography to really look more like these older films. Not just the dirt and scratches like in that Grindhouse movie, but bringing back real deep blacks and blue moonlighting and stuff like that. A scene like Michael coming out of the shadows and attacking Laurie in the original Halloween probably wouldn't look the same today. It'd be so bright that you'd see Michael way before you were supposed to.

There’s yet another “remake” on the way in 2021. This I believe is the second (third?) remake. Don’t be fooled yet again by the trailer and the hype. It will be dull, lame and suuuuuuuccckk!!!!

wasn't the texas chainsaw massacre based on a real event?...

personally, i have not watched this movie, nor will I..

in my advancing age, i cannot abide by anything of horror, gore, brutality... guess i want a rose colored glasses kind of world , but i figure there is already so much true evil and violence in the world, why would i pay to see it to be "entertained"?....

"Terror Train" starring Jamie Lee Curtis was fun early 80s haha

Aspects of the story were taken from the Ed Gein case, R60, but nothing like TCM ever happened in reality.

The original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is the best horror film ever made as far as I'm concerned. Nothing comes close. The randomness of it all makes it extra unnerving. I saw it on the big screen several years ago in a restored print, and seeing it blown up like that really made me realize the visual acumen Tobe Hooper and Daniel Pearl (cinematographer) had. What they were able to craft on such a meager budget is nothing short of astounding. The sound design, too, is bone-chilling. I took my best friend with me to see it (she had never seen it before), and she later told me she couldn't sleep when she got home. She said it felt like she'd watched a snuff movie.

R57 = Rob Zombie

R63, I took my girlfriend to see it about 15 years ago, and the whole theater was laughing—not derisively, but they were the sort of people who’d seen it so many times, it was like a Rocky Horror experience for them. I complained to my gf afterward, and she said “Who cares if they were laughing? It’s just a stupid movie anyway.”

Needless to say we are no longer together.

R64 you made me lol.

Best use of sound ever to elicit emotion:

In the beginning when the camera flashes go off and it has that slight decay fading sound.

When Sally wakes up gagged and tied to a chair you see the close-ups of her eyes along with animal slaughtering sounds pigs I think.

That brings the movie experience up on a whole other level

^^ I really wish they’d release the soundtrack to it. I think I heard the original tapes were “lost”, but they can still create a soundtrack from the 35mm, provided the “music” is separate and not hard-printed with the dialogue.

The original is great.

But i like the 2003 remake too. That movie didn’t feel safe or cgi-dependent at all.

I love horror movies (good ones) and this one is a must see. I thought it was ok, but didn't like it that much. There was no likeable character. The violence is dumb, over the top gross. But the Leatherface character is one of the greatest horror movie creations. I thought the ending was the best part of the movie.

R70 it's really not that violent, though. You don't see much, but it feels like you did. That's part of its genius.

The opening sequence and the title credits are actually the most disturbing things for me about the movie. The hideous "sculptures" of rotting corpses followed by the images of sun spots and the somehow evil-sounding radio announcements. By the time the actual film starts you can practically smell the carrion and scorched blacktop.

A few other things that make this stand out...

The fact the killings are not doled out throughout the movie as later slashers would do. The actual massacre is over fairly quickly in one go, which seems somehow realistic.

The ghastly interior of the cannibal clan's farmhouse (which, BTW, evidently smelled like an open grave), does not match the exterior, which, while eccentric, is rather quaint.

The non-ending, with Leatherface dancing in hysteria is like a distillation of psychosis.

R72 made an astute assessment. Everything you wrote is accurate.

It’s one of the finest ending shots of any film, ever.

R69 I like the remake too, though it's a whole different animal. Far glossier and less gritty—still a good horror movie. All of the main young cast were exceptionally attractive, which, in retrospect, sort of makes it feel ridiculous. I saw it as a young teenager, and Eric Balfour became a big part of my sexual awakening. I remember having the DVD and there being footage of him naked on-set in a making-of documentary in the special features. I jacked off to it many a time.

The 2003 remake was the beginning of the end for modern horror, in my opinion. The exceptionally attractive cast was the catalyst. Modern horror is awful, in my opinion.

OP it's called the art of filmmaking. It is different from the craft of manufactured entertainment.

The three movies of the period that have that documentary feel and that seem all the more real, are Night of the Living Dead, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and The Hills Have Eyes. All seem very realistic, almost as though you're watching it as it happens.

The Hills Have Eyes is HORRIBLE, does not deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as the other two. It’s never been well regarded, and if you watch it now, it’s obvious why that is. I’ve never read a review of it where it got more than two stars or so.

R58, your comment reminded me of one of the things I enjoy about older film is how pitch black nighttime looks in those films. I was watching... The Fog? I think recently and the night is so black, like real night would feel. Movies don't get that so much nowadays.

Even though as soon as it happened I remembered I had already heard about it, I thought the scene where Leatherface drags Kirk's body into the back of the house and slams the door is so good. That whole death happens so quickly so that by the slamming of the door, you're a bit like: "what the FUCK just happened?" I enjoyed that.

At the end with all the closeups on Marilyn Burns' eyes, I didn't know what to do, because my Italian ex had burned into me that if you see eyes like that that aren't blue, you should do the corna, but I don't know if green eyes are fine too, so I was doing the corna throughout that entire scene haha. But the green of her eyes was absolutely beautiful.

[quote] I really enjoy Rob Zombies films

In my opinion his movies are hit and miss, and sometimes wallow too long in the unpleasant, but at least you can tell he is making an effort to capture the feel and look of those grainy low budget shockers of the 70s.

I don't think I've ever seen a Rob Zombie film, though am familiar with some of his music from my teen years. What is a movie of his people would recommend as being the best one of his to check out?

Fans of Zombie's movies seem to like House of 1000 Corpses and really love the sequel, The Devil's Rejects. Personally, I really enjoy The Lords of Salem.

One of the things that really hampers Zombie's movies is that he always casts his wife Sheri, and while she's never downright terrible, she's never very good either.

Also, the dialogue in every film, except in Lords of Salem, seems like it was written by a teenager.

I just looked up Lords of Salem and see Patricia Quinn is in the cast, which is pretty cool!

Even though Coppola's Dracula is not a good movie, it was his rallying cry against CGI/VFX- he made it a point to use all practical effects- stage, spfx makeup, stunts, etc.

CGI/VFI is a crutch, and it's making film makers lazy. Any shark movie made with modern technology cannot hold a candle to good ol' rubbery Bruce on, "Jaws".

I never knew that R87. I’ll have to re-watch it.

I watched ONE Rod Zombie movie "House of 1000 Corpses" and never watched another one because it was SO bad. His movies are trash; no wit, no style, no originality, no cohesiveness, just mindless violence. Garbage. But there are fans of garbage like that. His has his stupid audience.

I saw this film as a teen and found it really scary unlike the Exorcist (1973) which is actually somewhat tedious. The first half of Chainsaw is most effective and after the one survivor (Marilyn Burns) is caught and sadistically tortured it stalls.

I watched a little of Rob Zombie’s Halloween remake and turned it off because of the incessant vulgarity. It was just a very vulgar film which is odd because Day of the Dead is my favorite horror film. But George Romero had a reason for his film. I couldn’t get into Halloween.

Going back to the 80s, most people I know who tried to watch the original say it’s the point where the girl pops out of the freezer that they stop watching, because it’s just too much.

Fun Fact: Gunner Hansen's leg almost got burned filming the ending.

In the ending where the truck driver throws a crowbar at Leatherface and the chainsaw and some cutting his own leg. What's a scene created by practical effects. The actor had a metal plate on top of his upper thigh then it was covered with a couple of beef steaks.

So when you see the chainsaw going through his leg, it is going to the meat. But what you don't see is the chainsaw generated so much heat hitting the metal plate it almost burned his leg.

Yes that ending is insane where Sally just gets into the truck and screams DRIVE and she's just laughing maniacally all covered in blood.

[quote] Going back to the 80s, most people I know who tried to watch the original say it’s the point where the girl pops out of the freezer that they stop watching, because it’s just too much.

I’ve never heard of anyone giving up on the movie after that scene. How many people told you that? And do they say it’s because it’s too ridiculous/unbelievable?

R51, Hooper himself wanted to go in a different direction with TCM 2. One of the original movie posters for it had the cast posing like the poster for The Breakfast Club.

IIRC at one point Hansen (Leatherface) started hallucinating while filming the dinner scene (the heat was unbearable as was the stench and he was stuck sweating in the mask so it was even worse. He attacked Burns for real and slashed her with a prop. She retaliated and for a moment it nearly really WAS the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

R81, you can thank digital film for that. Way too fucking bright.

Huh?

R98, there’s actually no film to speak of. Digital means it’s saved to a hard drive—there’s no chemical process, no film.

Speaking of the truck driver, I did let out a chuckle when he gets out of the truck to help Marilyn Burns as she runs around the corner, and then he sees Leatherface and immediately turns and runs back like: "Oh, hell no!" hehe.

I can’t remember if we see that truck driver get back in his truck and drive away before Leatherface does that closing scene with his chainsaw in the sun?

[quote]I really enjoy Rob Zombies films

Aside from being a hack, he continually casts his terrible, can't act to save her life wife, Sheri Moon Zombie

Rob Zombie is very hit or miss. There's a lot to like about his first two movies, but his Halloween remake is pretty lousy. His white trash aesthetic didn't mix with the franchise at all. Although, I do have to give his sequel props for trying some bizarre new things. There are elements about it that are very strong and unlike anything else in the franchise. The Lords of Salem is probably his best film and most of the characters act more like human beings than trailer trash stereotypes and it has a great mood and sense of dread.

R102 The last we see of the trucker, he's running down the road in the opposite direction of his big rig.

R105, that's what I remember too. They both get back in the truck, then Leatherface starts hacking at the door with the chainsaw, so they both run out the other side. The trucker keeps running down the road, while Marilyn Burns stops the other driver and gets in the back of his vehicle.

R102 R105 I seem to remember that to. The audience assumes that first trucker gets away because Leatherface is preoccupied with his chainsaw dance thing.

But he’s on foot? And seemingly abandoned his rig? Based on the rest of the film it didn’t seem like the the family was easy to hide from out there in the middle of nowhere, even if one of them was just run over.

Plus I remember the trucker being quite heavy. Does the trucker run down the road and hide in the bushes for a while, then come back to his truck when the coast is clear? Would Leatherface be waiting for him? Maybe it was done intentionally to add another little creepy loose-end to the ending. Like... there’s no real escape.

R107, I would hope that he could flag down another vehicle once he put some space between himself and Leatherface, who looked completely unhinged at that point. And given that Marilyn was obviously heading for the police (assuming the truck she was in did not have a CB radio), the clan might not have wanted to waste time chasing him overall. Better to pack what they could and get the hell out of Dodge.

R108 Mmm... good point. I forgot her getting away in a car meant authorities might be alerted shortly.

My feeling at the end was that Leatherface looked like he'd become so unhinged at the fact she had escaped that I didn't even consider he'd try to chase down the trucker. I felt he was so focused on her he probably barely noticed him.

Recent pics of the locations. The road where the last scene was filmed is nearly gone.

Thanks for sharing, R111! I love being able to see locations from movies I've enjoyed.

R111 Wow, thanks for sharing. I can’t believe the house ended up as a restaurant! (Or one of them) Mmmmmm!

R100, my bad, that's correct.

Does anyone remember the batshit quasi-remake "Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation", starring pre-fame McBongo and Renee Zellweger? It's a hoot. The screenwriter of the original wrote/directed it, which makes it even weirder. I rented it from a video store in the late '90s and have loved it ever since. It's an unsung camp classic.

Today they'd cast models with washboard and and boob jobs. And obsess over lighting, sound and props- in a Aspie way. Real life is ugly, dirty and raw.

Agreed, R116. I haven't seen the remake, but on the podcast I was listening to about this movie, they pointed out how non-70s the characters, who were meant to be in the 70s, looked.

From the moment we go inside the van in the original, I knew I wouldn't want to be inside it, you could almost smell it through the screen. Even the hot guy of the bunch, who I WOULD fuck, I still would've been like "let's hop in the shower first!"

But it looks exactly like what you imagine a van trip with a group of friends through Texas in the middle of summer in 1974 would look like. It makes you somehow understand exactly what it must've been like before air conditioning.

One of the things that irritates me about how this movie is represented is that it's common for second-rate critics to characterize the kids as "hippies". They are not hippies.

[Quote] The 2003 remake was the beginning of the end for modern horror, in my opinion. The exceptionally attractive cast was the catalyst.

I don't mind the remake. But i don't understand why the gun in the vagina scene was necessary.

Always wondered who the windshield washer was, he wasn't part of the family.

That's an interesting scene on reflection, R120.

The kids get to the petrol station and the guy running it tells them to stay and have some barbecue (ugh!) and wait for the petrol to arrive, rather than to go poking around on other people's properties. It seems like he is trying to warn them away from danger, but of course later on we realise he is part of the family.

Was he hoping to keep them there and somehow get them killed later, or was he initially just hoping they'd go away and leave them all alone, until it turns out they discovered the house and then he got in on it? I'm not sure what to think.

R120 I've watched this movie so many times and for some reason I've never given the attendant a second thought. It's almost as if by the time Leatherface shows up, I forget all about the other weirdos. But it is odd that he doesn't show up again.

R121 Maybe the old man enjoys watching unsuspecting people eat what they think is beef and pork, but is actually human meat.

Maybe the old man hires a new attendant every few months to work at the gas station and live in that small apartment rent free, (always someone on the fringes of society, who won't be missed,) fattens them up, and then, after a while, brings them back to his house for Leatherface to slaughter and turn into sausages while the other psycho makes furniture and tchotchkes out of the bones. Then, if anyone ever comes around looking for the missing men, the old man just tells them they left the area.

Oooh, that's a good theory R122! And damn creepy too. After all, if he doesn't want random kids exploring the area then where else do the family get all those human bones they decorate the house with? Hmmm.

I just remembered too that Franklin is chewing on a sausage from that place once they go exploring, bleugh!

I can attest when Sally runs into the store and the old man goes out to get the truck and leaves that door wide open for so long the whole audience was cowering down in their seats. Everyone just knew Leatherface would run in and he doesn't which makes it so great. Watching it was almost interactive. You saw all the blood and guts and there wasn't any.

Yes, R124! Honestly, I was expecting to see the owner somehow murdered in that moment, just the open door for that long was really tense and effective.

I think OP is just the '70s Horror Loon, who wants us to keep repeating conversations we've had about the same horror movies before.

Who is the clown who thinks no modern horror is good but glorifies unscary frivolities like FRIGHT NIGHT?

The 2011 remake was better. Even the crappiest horror movies have good production values today -- even if that's just creating run-down ruins like CHAINSAW MASSACRE's. THE DESCENT, HOSTEL, ZODIAC, CHAINSAW 3D, THE INVISIBLE MAN remake and GET OUT are some of my favorite horror films.

Dear r9,

"The whole Puritanism thing" is an interpretation and projection of movie critics. It was NOT intended by the horror filmmakers of the '80s to have their killings serve as a cautionary tale against sex.

All teen movies back then had to have gratuitous sex. It just so happened that in a slasher, most people had to die, too. Some survivors and Final Girls of '80s slashers were promiscuous, like Nancy of ELM STREET.

Interesting piece on the Wikipedia page, under the themes of the movie. Has anyone else watched it and found it hard to eat meat afterwards? I'm vegetarian already, but if I had watched it when I was a carnivore, I think it may have put me off too. Those shots of the cattle waiting to be slaughtered are interesting, because it kind of contrasts that with the young people in the van too - waiting to be slaughtered as well.

[quote]The Texas Chain Saw Massacre has been described as "the ultimate pro-vegetarian film" due to its animal rights themes. In a video essay, film critic Rob Ager describes the irony in humans being slaughtered for meat, putting humans in the position of being slaughtered like farm animals. Director Tobe Hooper has confirmed that "it's a film about meat" and even gave up meat while making the film, saying, "In a way I thought the heart of the film was about meat; it’s about the chain of life and killing sentient beings." Writer-director Guillermo Del Toro became a vegetarian for a time after seeing the film.

[quote]The house from the film is a barbecue restaurant now, although it'd been moved from it's initial location.

!!!!!

The house from the movie about a family that sells cannibal barbecues to the public is now a public barbecue restaurant? Are you fucking kidding me?

Link, please. This can't be true.

R130, it's called We Slaughter BBQ! 😮

You're welcome for all the background info I have shared on DL that you have copied, r14.

But the Sawyers and Ed Gein have more in common than you suggest. They were all psychopaths. Gein decorated his house with human flesh and bones ‚— including skin masks from victims' faces as lampshades.

The reason you have the Sawyers carving up people like livestock carcasses is because Gein would kill his victims, skin, clean and carve them just like deer. He was a deer hunter who ate and served venison. So he treated his victims like that.

He was also a sheltered, isolated person living in rural farm and ranch lands with an overprotective mother. So what if Wisconsin isn't Texas? You can get away with a lot of sick shit when you live in the middle of nowhere and it's scary for victims because there's no one to turn to.

Tobe Hooper improved the themes by making CHAINSAW MASSACRE about joblessness and unemployment in America. The Sawyers lose their work to modern slaughtering techniques and ranches. So they take their revenge.

So what if it's only "loosely based" on Ed Gein. It shows something that could happen with real and interesting problems as a direct result of a true-life horror story that was largely the same.

If it's called "We Slaughter" then it's a deliberate joke and tourist trap because of CHAINSAW.

As long as everybody gets it.

Even before I was a vegetarian, I had trouble with sausages because of the "what on earth is in them" worry. And I definitely wouldn't be able to eat at that place, haha.

However, it seems to have pretty good reviews!

[quote]After all, if he doesn't want random kids exploring the area then where else do the family get all those human bones they decorate the house with? Hmmm.

R123 Plus Leatherface seems to have an anxiety attack after he kills the third victim (guy w/ glasses). He was probably really confused as to why there was so much "fresh meat" showing up at the house without his dad/uncle (old gas station man) accompanying them like he usually did, and in the afternoon instead of nighttime, no less.

This may have even been the first time Leatherface killed a woman, given how an old man running a gas station in buttfuck nowhere most likely wouldn't have been able to hire a female to be an attendant. That could explain why Leatherface wears the dead girl's face to dinner. It was something new.

So who knows how long this family had been killing unsuspecting young men who'd been hired to work at that gas station. Maybe ever since the slaughterhouse mechanized.

Not so fast, Bootsy @ R17.

“The call is coming from inside the house” was an old urban legend long before 1974. The film FOSTER’S RELEASE also depicted it before BLACK CHRISTMAS.

Yeah, you're right R135, that makes a lot of sense. He was having a breakdown at that point because he was freaking out over these people who keep showing up to his door, wondering where they are all coming from, and whether there would be anymore. Probably it was a "one at a time" operation for a long time, and suddenly it's all overwhelming him.

I will say, when I watched this, I was slightly confused over the third death, because I wasn't 100% sure if it happened or not - for a moment I thought maybe he'd only had a glancing blow and run away. It's interesting how quick the deaths are and apart from the girl on the hook, there isn't much in the way of lingering on their deaths.

R17, I watched Black Christmas recently too, and I also enjoyed it. These earlier movies that don't feel like they are following a "must hit all these certain points" list are very interesting to watch, when you're used to the modern idea of what a slasher should be.

I also thought that had a really effectively creepy use of a voice on the phone. That was unsettling.

R135, although Leatherface is wearing a female mask, it is just that - a mask.

R128, Nancy from Elm Street is certainly not promiscuous - she puts off her boyfriend the night of Tina's murder; she is not shown sleeping with anyone nor is it implied that she is sexually active with anyone but her boyfriend - and not necessarily even with him.

TTCSM made me feel nauseous the first time I saw it. I was in 8th grade 1999. I wasn’t a horror movie fan at the time (I am now) so this was unsettling. It is so well done. Not much to add other than that. Loved the final scenes. Gramps was creepy asf. It was horrifying to place yourself in Sally’s position.

I saw Black Christmas because of DL and loved it. So freaking good.

You all have me wanting to rewatch this again. I wasn't floored by it when I first saw it as a kid, but each new viewing has gotten better and scarier. I can't think of many other movies like that. Black Christmas is sort of that way.

R141 I rewatched it today because of this thread. I'd never noticed the 'happy dance' the grandpa does in his chair as he's sucking Sally's blood.

That dinner scene is so disturbing when they all start mimicking her terror. So fucked up and really horrifying.

I appreciated the black humour too - they keep crowing about how Grandpa is the best slaughterer, but he's so feeble he can't even hold the hammer properly, hehe.

I've heard a couple of people talk about it being an offensive portrayal of people from the ... (what do you call it in the US? Boondocks? We call it the outback here in Australia), but honestly? Not for one moment did I think of these people as meaning to be representative of a whole area, just that they were their own fucked up family living in an out of the way place and getting away with horrible things. There were other oddballs around of course, like at the cemetery, but I think that just added to the feeling something was off. There were pretty regular people at the cemetery too, plus two of the main characters grew up in the area.

I like the 2012 prequel to THE THING. The 1982 original's special effects are rather campy now.

The wheelchair thing isn't shocking anymore, it's played-out.

Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger both killed other dudes in wheelchairs, as well as other handicaps. It shows how cruel they are, but it's now a cliche.

I liked it alot. I was on the edge of my seat until they poured the blood over her head and all hell breaks loose! A.classic!

Really only the original, CHAINSAW 3D and the 2003 remake are good movies, r37.

I appreciate the campy comedy that Hooper was going for with 2, etc., but they don't hold much water.

Boo on Rob Zombie. That's the real "torture porn."

It's CHAINSAW MASSACRE without even a shred of character, social realism or literary value.

I’ll never understand why they can’t come close to making a horror movie like this. You don’t need a lot of sex, blood, torture. Grainy, creepy, realism is all you need.

All I know about Rob Zombie is below, from my teen years (the video is quite campy which makes me surprised that he makes the type of horror movies it sounds like he does). It doesn't sound much like I'd want to watch any of his movies. Despite liking a lot of horror movies, I'm not so big on what they call "torture porn", unless it can sell itself as having some other redeeming value, as R148 mentions.

So, this is Rob Zombie sans makeup?

Sorry, but... I WOULD. At least, at the time this picture was taken.

Agreed 100%, R149. I've realised over the last few years that an unsettling atmosphere is so vital to an effective horror movie, and it's in short supply these days.

r67 reminds me of another thing Ed Gein had in common with Leatherface: they both dug up dead bodies to play with before getting into murder.

That opening shot at the cemetery with the dead body "Scarecrow" or whatever you would call it, was really creepy and beautifully shot (if one can say something so gross is beautifully shot).

I think THE DEVIL'S REJECTS is Rob Zombie's best, r83. At least there is some tension and fight porn. Zombie's victims don't usually struggle or have much of a chance.

At least the cops fight back and Zombie shows you they can be just as criminal as the criminals they pursue.

It's part of a trilogy, so you might have to sit through some torture porn crap to fully appreciate.

Another weird thing is that Sally and Franklin aren't even real outsiders to the area. Not only had they been to their grandparents house when they were kids, their father grew up there, practically within walking distance to Leatherface's house!

Rob Zombie has no clue. You really can't get gonzo horror when you hire recognizable names, an Oscar nominee to boot. And the house of 1000 corpses was actually "The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas" Chicken Ranch on the Universal back lot....ohhhh scarey.

I think r120, r121 and r122 are all the same person, talking to himself.

Leatherface ain't the only psycho out there ...

To those of you younglings just discovering this movie, keep in mind there's only *one* person in it that get's killed by chainsaw.

r135 = r137.

Nobody gives a shit about the gas station attendant.

[quote]I think [R120], [R121] and [R122] are all the same person, talking to himself.

I am R120 asking about the window washer but I am not R121 or R122 but I have posted other thoughts, this is called conversation. Perhaps you don't understand the concept.

Go suck on a chainsaw, R158/R160.

As you've been told on horror threads before, r139, ELM STREET absolutely confirms that Glenn and Nancy have fucked before when they're making out and Nancy tells him, "Glenn, not now. We're here for Tina now, not ourselves."

@ 0:40 in the clip.

"Not now" means it's okay later and it's been okay in the past. When Glenn listens to Tina and Rod's fucking noises, he frowns and declares that "morality sucks." That means he could be fucking Nancy if Tina weren't under so much stress.

And how do you explain all the other '80s Final Girls who clearly were NOT virgins?

Ginny Field of FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 2 clearly had a sexual relationship with camp founder Paul and used it to get away with bad behavior. Ellen Ripley had a daughter. Chris Higgins wasn't a virgin in FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 3 -- she had been raped by Jason years before! Sarah of MY BLOODY VALENTINE is such a slut that she has two boyfriends and one of them goes psycho trying to kill them over it. And the list goes on. Just because a couple of film critics construed an anti-sex message in a genre where normal people having sex get killed, and Kevin Williamson made jokes about it in SCREAM, doesn't mean that's what was intended or what most viewers took away from these films.

It's funny how r139 copies everything I have to say about horror movies, except for the the facts that contradict his own misconceptions before discussion.

BTW, I can W&W my own posts, too.

Alice From F13 was having an affair with the married Steve.

[quote] there's only *one* person in it that get's killed

Oh, dear.

R159, that is very true!

I have to say, all that running around with a chainsaw made me very anxious, just worrying that the actor would trip and cut himself. I believe the scene where he cuts into his own leg was done with meat placed on top of a metal plate, and the friction did burn the actor? Freaky.

I've been enjoying our conversation R161.

Whoops, and apologies to R94 who told the metal plate story already. I thought I'd read it elsewhere, but it was right here, didn't mean to repeat your story for you, mate.

R156, or someone, please remind me. Were Sally and Franklin from an abattoir family too? There is a lot of talk at the beginning of the film about abattoirs and how cattle are killed, and Franklin knows it all because of their family, right?

So is the idea that they grew up in that area when people worked the abattoir, including their family and the clan next door? And that while Sally and Franklin's family moved on, the family next door stayed and became what they did?

I heard that the one actor had a metal plate on his leg to protect him from the chainsaw but the friction from the chainsaw caused the metal to get really hot and it almost burned the guy's leg.

R163 Er…I have never been told about Nancy’s sex life on any other thread. And my post, if you bother to read it, allows for her being sexually active with her boyfriend (although she could be anticipating a make-out session). Point is, a relationship with a boyfriend does not make a girl sexually promiscuous. It makes her sexually active. That’s a different thing.

How do I explain all the other 80s Final Girls who were not virgins? I don't. Some were, some weren't. I've never argued otherwise.

As for copying and contradicting you elsewhere…I have no idea what you’re talking about.

Is there a more irritating character in horror films than Franklin? I bet Sally was relieved when Leatherface sawed him in half.

Well, “sexually active” getting killed is what people cite when claiming there’s a “Puritan message.” But it does not explain all the sexually active characters who survive in the slashers.

There was no “Puritan” agenda on the part of the filmmakers and most viewers didn’t take that away, either. Wes Craven, Sean Cunningham and Victor Miller have all debunked this publicly. Your objection is unfounded.

"My" objection? The only thing I've said in this thread even remotely connected to your subject is that Nancy is not presented as sexually promiscuous. And she isn't.

I haven't addressed this topic elsewhere on this board, because I don't find horror films especially Puritanical. Except for the ones about the actual Puritans, but that's different.

R173 is a bit of a nutcase, isn’t he.

[quote] [R67] reminds me of another thing Ed Gein had in common with Leatherface: they both dug up dead bodies to play with before getting into murder.

Does the original TCSM (‘Chain Saw’ is two words in the original film’s title—respect the ‘S’, please) actually make it clear Leatherface is the one who did the digging at the cemetery? Seems like it would have been a multi-digger affair.

And I’ve never thought that he was actually wearing the face of the murdered girl at dinner. Earlier in the film, after the terrifying sledgehammer murder in front of the sliding metal door, I believe there is a close-up of his mouth, and he does seem to be wearing a mask made of some kind of skin.

Christ, what a movie!

Ed Gein liked to wear the skin of older woman so he could pretend to be his mother. I assume Leatherface is wearing Mama or Grandma Sawyer.

Other than the murdering and repurposing of his victims’ skin, Gein was basically a sweetheart, right?

Every picture I see of him, he always looks like a sweetie-pie.

R176, at some point Hooper talked about how Leatherface wears different masks throughout the film, because they originally envisioned him as a blank with no personality, who wore a mask to assume a given role. The female face he wears at dinner is a "pretty girl" mask that is supposed to represent his role at dinner as the "mom" in the clan, cooking and serving. If you look carefully, I'm pretty sure it's just a plastic face mask, essentially a Halloween gag-style thing.

He's called Leatherface because he wears a mask made of human leather. It's looks like a Halloween mask because obviously the actors were not wearing human skin.

R179, yes, but he wears different masks and one of them is a more standard design - the "girl's face" mask he wears to serve dinner.

[Quote] Who is the clown who thinks no modern horror is good but glorifies unscary frivolities like FRIGHT NIGHT? The 2011 remake was better.

What a crock of shit. The remake was silly compared to the original.

[Quote] I like the 2012 prequel to THE THING. The 1982 original's special effects are rather campy now.

I prefer the campy effects compared to the prequel. They still freak me out.

r175 is a bit of a cunt, butt-hurt about being contradicted by the facts, so trying to split hairs with ever-pettier facts, isn't she?

It's a good thing she can't spoil my enjoyment of the TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE.

r174, even if you want to claim that you're not just a sock puppet of r9, you still rushed to r9's defense and neither of you have proven the '80s slashers had a "Puritan" streak. Showing the sex and nudity was relatively new to cinema in the '80s and anything but "Puritan."

Also, if you want me to write "loose" instead of "promiscuous," then fine. You really got me there — the burn of the century!

I'll show you silly!

I do love John Carpenter's THING, but special effects that elaborate tend to age poorly.

R183, OK…one last time.

I did not rush to R9s defense. I pointed out that Nancy was not promiscuous.

I have already said I don’t find horror films Puritanical, so proving that they are would not be very high on my list of things to do.

“Loose” has exactly the same connotations as “promiscuous.” Nancy may be sexually active, but she is in a monogamous relationship with her boyfriend; rejects his overtures when she feels they are not appropriate; does not dress provocatively; and seems to be a responsible person for her age. Again – she may be sexually active. She is neither loose nor promiscuous. How this is not transparently obvious I’m not quite sure. Unless there is a Director’s cut I haven’t seen where she fucks the football team.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, along with Halloween and The Exorcist, are probably my top three favorite horror films of all time.

TTCM is raw, gritty, and brutal and never fails to disturb me when I watch it. And yes, to answer your query, I do think the low-budget and cinéma vérité style has a lot to do with the film’s success as a horror pick. Watching it, one gets the distinct and disturbing feeling that if this massacre were to happen in real life, it would look and sound just as the film depicts it.

The ending, with Leatherface twirling and swiveling exuberantly in the dawn light, holding his chainsaw like a dance partner, still chills me.

horror pic*

Dear r186,

The Puritans would have burned Nancy as a witch or exiled her to the forest with a Scarlett Letter if she had had sex outside of wedlock. When I said "promiscuous" and corrected it for you to "loose," it always meant SEX OUT OF WEDLOCK, which was traditionally frowned upon.

I know that's hard for you to understand with yo mama screwing half the city, but Once Upon a Time making out or having sex like Nancy and her friends was considered sinning and slutty.

r9 was referring to a popular theory from critics that the '80s slashers killed the characters who had sex or did drugs, so they were Puritanical morality tales "warning" teenagers against such behavior. I was merely debunking the theory, as the creators of the most famous slashers, Sean Cunningham and Wes Craven, have repeatedly debunked.

Maybe you shouldn't interrupt debates you don't understand, especially because my points remain despite your splitting hairs.

Elm Street was set in the 1980s. In case you didn't notice, that's about 300 years after the Puritans. Nobody gave a shit about teenagers having sex out of wedlock. That wasn't the point.

"Promiscuous" in modern (i.e., late 20th and 21st century usage) means a person engaged in multiple non-monogamous relationships. i.e., not Nancy, at least as she is presented in the Elm Street movies.

And a joke about my momma screwing half the city? Yeah, nothing puritanical about that...

I can't remember now, but was the grandmother's face skinned, when Sally found her and the grandfather in their rockers upstairs? Could Leatherface have been wearing her face at some point in time too? Or am I misremembering?

[Quote] Unless there is a Director’s cut I haven’t seen where she fucks the football team.

That's a cut scene from NOES 2.

[quote]where she fucks the football team.

If that did happen all I'd say was: "lucky bitch!"

It's one of a very few films I've seen that activated my sense of smell, specifically the stench of rotten meat

Yes R194! That, and sweat when in the van. It's really very clever at doing that.

[quote]And I’ve never thought that he was actually wearing the face of the murdered girl at dinner.

I never did either, until I rewatched the movie yesterday. When they have Sally tied up, Leatherface gets up close to her, and either the old man or the hitch hiker asks her how she likes Leatherface's new face, with a sadistic glint in their eye. Sally seems to recognize the face and gets even more frightened.

There's also a deleted scene in which Leatherface gets ready for dinner. Before he cakes on more powder to the girl's face he's wearing, he picks up what seems to be an old woman's face w/ grey hair still attached to it, looks at it, and tosses it away. That must've been grandma's face, no longer needed now that he has a new, younger woman's face.

It's so creepy. And I didn't know much about Ed Gein until I just read up on him tonight, but it makes it even creepier knowing people have really done things like this.

Someone on youtube visited the original filming locations. An interesting video:

R197 I didn't know much about Ed until I watched a featurette on the Texas Chainsaw remake dvd. It was a mistake lol

Thanks for sharing, R198. I've seen some similarly interesting videos of people who've visited Dario Argento locations.

I'm really glad they saved the house. It was actually kinda sad when the video first showed the original area, which is just an uninteresting looking place now.

[quote] Alice From F13 was having an affair with the married Steve.

They never state that Steve is married.

I was a little kid when this was released and couldn’t see it, but I sure heard about it. Everyone had. A friend’s asshole older brother saw it, and described it to us. I was terrified and couldn’t sleep. I was way too young to even hear about it. I don’t remember much about what he said, so who knows, he could have been making it up. I’ve still never seen it.

I’m not big on horror, especially the newer movies, but one recent one I really liked was It Follows. I thought it was great and super creepy, but a few of my friends hated it.

Not big on horror either, and have never seen TCM in its entirety. But late-night insomnia and this thread lead me to YouTube's "Dead Meat" channel with the TCM franchise synopsized film by film by thirst trap James A Janisse. So... thanks, DL!

Tobe Hooper was a better horror director than John Carpenter. They were both masters in creating an exceptional atmosphere in their films, but Hooper's movies were scarier. The Salem's Lot mini-series was the scariest thing ever made for TV. I also like The Funhouse from 1981.

I wonder how much of Hooper's work on Poltergeist made it into the final cut? The whole movie feels 100% Spielberg.

[quote]CGI really was the downfall of making decent films. Now everything has to be a huge unbelievable spectacle. CGI and the over done “Boom” noises. Tedious.

I recently watched the original Chris Reeves Superman, and a couple of the scenes, while smaller in scale than what we see now, felt a lot more suspenseful than the endless collapse buildings, bridges etc. you see now. I also think that the Jurassic Park has aged pretty well in part for the use of animatronics over CGI.

I saw this in the late 80's at a time when the slasher movies had become a lot more slick (Nightmare sequels) and it was effective in its dismal grittiness. I understand what they were going for in the end with the last girl reduced to constant screaming, but after awhile that just became distracting.

R187, I actually felt kind of sad at that ending to TCM. Leatherface was raised in such a fucked up family to begin with. He was thrashing around in angst and anger with his chainsaw as she escaped in the truck. In TCM2, Hooper showed him as having a bit of a love interest in Vanita.

TCM Trivia. In it's initial 1974 New York multi theatre opening, the double feature was a PG rated comedy about making a porn film. Titled "Those Mad, Mad Moviemakers " it's listed on IMBD as "The Last Porno Flick.

TCM returned to NY a year later with a cool ad.

I original TCM was horrifying and I think it is a prime example of being extremely frightening while not showing that many kills. The TCM is scary to me because it's a situation someone could fins themselves in.

I am not into remakes, but the remake was absolutely terrifying starring Jessica Beal. I remember seeing it in the theatre and needing to just take a nap afterwards. I was like on the edge of my seat for whole 90 minutes or whatever it was. It's a hot cast and extremely gruesome. I thought it was one of the best remakes.

John Carpenter and Debra Hill were both horrified when they were named as being two of the people who started the so-called "sex equal death" formula for horror films. Their intention was for Laurie's friends to be more distracted by their boyfriends so that they didn't notice everything Laurie did. Notice how they're talking about this and that while Laurie sees Michael and, by the time she gets their attention, he's gone.

Lynda is killed after sex but Annie never even gets to bang Paul before she's killed. They're simply just not paying enough attention. That's the real moral of the story not "if you have sex with your boyfriend before marriage, you deserve to die." A lot of the best slasher films play with these rules a lot. The final girls of both My Bloody Valentine and He Knows You're Alone have not once, but two boyfriends they're trying to pick from. I blame Scream for really continuing this silly trope. They acted like it was so unique for Sid to have sex with Billy and still live.

R208, I got a laugh from these details in that link:

"Uploaded on: July 31, 2020

Software: Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows"

R182/183/189 — you are a goddamned nutcase. Yikes.

R196, thank you for all that. I need rewatch this film more closely for sure!

I never realised Tobe Hooper directed Poltergeist... that really surprises me, because, as others have said, it feels all Spielberg.

One of the good things about The Texas Chainsaw Massacre too is that there isn't a whole, explained backstory thing going on with Leatherface or the rest of the family. We can glean certain things from the conversation about abattoirs, but that's about it. Too many horror movies take away all suspense by explaining why the killers (or whatever force it is doing the killings) are the way they are.

I have a friend who loves those explanations and wants to know in every movie the backstory, so I get that not everyone agrees, but I always find it lessens the scares, plus kinda fucks with the flow of a movie too.

Is the word ‘abattoir’ actually uttered in the movie?

Apparently at the time some people wondered if they had actually seen a snuff film after watching this. I find that so interesting, and shows how successful the film was in creating the atmosphere it did.

I kinda wish I could've been there to experience what it was like. We're so inundated with movies like this now, they often don't shock at all.

R202 I enjoyed It Follows as well.

R210 the Scream sequels really should have shown Sidney in therapy. Knowing I'd fucked someone who'd killed my mother would have done me in. Forget about all of the murder attempts.

At the end of TCM, I felt like Annie would have just been better off dead. There is just no coming back from that.

Sydney was unrealistically too together in Scream 2 after what happened the year prior.

[quote]At the end of TCM, I felt like Annie would have just been better off dead. There is just no coming back from that.

That's so true, and it really adds to the horror doesn't it? You see her hysterical in the back of that truck, covered in blood and you realise how fucked up she will be for the rest of her life.

The Strangers was another excellent throwback that imitated the vibe of 70s horror flick. I was terrified when I first saw it.

Her name is Sally.

Doesn't Sally die in a mental hospital? I feel like that's in the opener of the TCM or it's disclosed in one of sequels.

That's actually one of the reasons I never like sequels. I don't really want to know what happened to the characters who escape. It's never anything good, and always undercuts the relief I feel on their behalf when they finish the movie alive. I don't know if anyone else feels this way?

She appears in TC:TNG in the hospital being wheeled past Renee Zellweger.

[quote] Apparently at the time some people wondered if they had actually seen a snuff film after watching this. I find that so interesting, and shows how successful the film was in creating the atmosphere it did.

Surely no one actually believed that? Did they see The Exorcist and think it was a documentary? Because that film has a very documentary-like feel to it...

Yeah, I dunno R225, that's just what I heard on a podcast talking about the history of it (The Evolution of Horror). Who knows, perhaps that was just marketing?

Then again, during the very early stages of its release, some of my generation were very unsure about the truth or not of The Blair Witch Project, so... it's not out of the realm of possibilities.

This thread makes me feel nostalgic and somewhat wistful. I used to love horror movies, but somewhere along the way I became disinterested in them. I feel like I haven’t seen a good horror movie in years. I think ya because there just isn’t enough grit with modern day horror films.

I generally don’t like supernatural horror, either.

I totally feel the same, R227. I was really into it, and then fell out of it, big time. I think that's why I'm discovering movies from the 70s and 80s now, going back to the originals, and it's sparked somewhat of an interest again. I'm lucky though in that many of these older films are before my time, so it's not like I've seen them before and have nothing new to watch - it's like watching new films in a way.

R227 You bad girl. You were reading The Fog thread!

I always want the survivor to truly survive. I don’t want to think they died in a mental hospital or a drug addict. Sally surely would have had huge scars from what happened to her but I want to know she made it. Alice in F13 even went back to the area 3 months later to confront what she went through. That is strength even though she (stupidly) ended up being killed. F13 never should have killed off Alice.

I agree with you. Plus, it always feels like an anticlimax or something too. But it usually happens, 9/10. What sequels are there where the final girl (or guy) survives?

The only one I can think of at the moment, and it's a slightly different movie, but it's "When A Stranger Calls Back".

R230 Don’t remind me, I’ve always hated F13 for killing off Alice. Ginny was cool, but Alice didn’t deserve her end!! 😡

[Quote] Sydney was unrealistically too together in Scream 2 after what happened the year prior.

Which i think even Neve pointed out when promoting the sequels.

[Quote] The Strangers was another excellent throwback that imitated the vibe of 70s horror flick. I was terrified when I first saw it.

Have you seen The Invitation??

[Quote] That is strength even though she (stupidly) ended up being killed. F13 never should have killed off Alice.

I thought she asked to be killed off because of a stalker.

R233 I have not seen The Invitation. ::rushes to look it up::

This is why I liked Halloween H20. It's a little too bright and Scream-ish at times, but I liked what they did with the Laurie character. She's trying so hard to have a normal life after everything that she went through, but she's self-medicating to forget and ultimately realizes that's not a life worth living, so she decides to confront her monster (both physical and metaphorical). I found it very empowering and the kind of survivor story I'm interested in hearing.

I, too, hate when they bring the survivor of the last movie back just to kill them in the opening scene or even later on in the film. It worked once in Dream Warriors because at least it was for somewhat of a good cause.

I don’t think Adrienne King wanted Alice killed off. She wanted out. I think Alice should have come in at the end to save the day or trigger Jason. I also really didn’t like them killing Alice off. It was a great scene, though.

When A Stranger Calls Back is a phenomenal movie. It is so scary.

[quote]When A Stranger Calls Back is a phenomenal movie. It is so scary.

I recently rewatched all three in a row: the original, the sequel and the remake.

I thought the sequel was the best of the bunch, and those opening 30 minutes are so tense and really well done.

'When a Stranger Calls Back' is terrifying! I made the mistake of watching it alone one night, expecting something lame like the first one. Boy was I wrong!

[quote]'When a Stranger Calls Back' is terrifying!

And you're not just talking about the mullet the main character has for the second half of the movie! 😜

But no, seriously, you are right. The best of the three by far.

Is the '70s Horror Loon still talking to itself through sock puppet accounts, aggrandizing the minutia of a shallow B-movie with talking points he's overexplored for 10 years on DL already?

Why don't you just set up a gas station in rural Texas where you can sabotage vehicles and kidnap motorists if you're so desperate to capture company?

At least you would encounter voices outside your own head.

R240, you're a fucking idiot.

When A Stranger Calls Back is the rare sequel that's better than the original. Really tense and scary.

R240 Who cares if there's a 1970s horror loon? Who are they harming?

I might watch When A Stranger Calls Back now that the "loon" has suggested it. I thought When a Stranger Calls was pretty "meh," but I haven't watched it in ages. It's interesting to hear that the sequel isn't too bad!

{quote] Is there a more irritating character in horror films than Franklin?

Ahem!

[quote] Is there a more irritating character in horror films than Franklin?

Ahem!

Did somebody say irritating?

Irritating? Us?

R240, definitely check it out, I think you will like it, at least I think you will find it better than the original!

When A Stranger Calls Back was amazing. The opening rivaled the original. Pleasantly surprised. It is hard to top the original’s opening and ending (though awful middle) but it did it proud with the opening.

Agreed, R249. I rewatched them recently and found the opening of the sequel the best. I was still tense and thought it was so well done. I think what helped was that the character does everything right when the guy comes to the door, she's a good babysitter with a level head, and STILL he gets one over on her.

R250 The sequel had a longer opening as well. Both openings were A+. I don’t remember the sequel’s ending but I remember thinking it was good. The original’s ending was so great.

The original could definitely be argued as being great if you took the opening part and the final part and left out the middle. Honestly, on my second watch through recently, I didn't HATE it, but it just doesn't really work as a horror movie, as the tension pretty much goes once we follow the killer. And that part drags too.

The sequel doesn't drag, and even though there are parts that follow the killer, he doesn't lose that ominousness.

My friends watched it as kids on a sleepover in a house that had a brick wall. After watching that film they couldn't even go to the bathroom, because they were terrified of walking past the brick wall, haha. It's really an excellent sleepover movie in that respect too.

It always seemed to be as if the writer/director actually listened to the critiques of the original When A Stranger Calls and decided to make sure the same thing didn't happen with the sequel. In terms of structure, it's somewhat similar with the two scariest sequences at the beginning and ending of the films, but he follows around the victims more this time instead of the killer.

Another interesting thing to me about the entire franchise of Stranger, is that they all end with shots that show the main character is going to be dealing with this forever. That it's not just "we defeated the bad man and life is good now", it's like you see the trauma being imprinted on them. The sequel deals a lot with Carol's character's life after her experiences in the first movie and how that has affected her.

You've still missed the point entirely, r190.

And YES, many people, including censors and anti-smut groups, in the '80s DID care about Nancy and other young adults having sex in movies. ESPECIALLY film critics back then, who were acting as Puritan guardians of the content you watched and calling slashers obscene. It's these critics who first came up with the idea that the slashers were cautionary tales against sex because characters who had sex were killed.

Don't get involved with an argument you don't understand. You have your facts wrong and you don't get what r9 meant.

IT FOLLOWS is a boring Nothingburger.

R18 Why are Irish people allowed to post on this board, we don't need scummy. dirty mics opinions.

It Follows is great. What’s boring are Ari Aster’s stupid movies.

Go fuck yourself,. R255. You keep putting words into my mouth, ignoring what I've have stated and trying to turn me into a straw man for your bullshit argument that no one was making in the first place.

You're a deranged asshole.

Try not to choke to death on all those chunks of tongue you're chewing.

[quote]What’s boring are Ari Aster’s stupid movies.

I have to agree. Perhaps the hype was too much, but I don't enjoy them.

Hereditary was terrific.

I didn't love Hereditary. I don't know what I'm missing that everyone else loved about it.

It perhaps would've been better as a straight out family horror drama, without the demon stuff in it.

It did make me feel gross after, so it was effective, but there was nothing I enjoyed about it, like I do with the horror I like, the pleasurable feeling of being scared, you know?

I also disliked Hereditary. Well-acted to but no avail and full of things that were less creepy than they were disgusting.

Hereditary has been an acquired taste for me. I've seen it 3 or 4 times now and it gets better with each viewing. Some stuff in the last 10 minutes is still pretty silly.

Midsommar had some great moments and I loved the finale, but they could have cut it down to an hour and 45 minutes at least. I'm shocked that there's a cut out there that's even longer. That story doesn't support a run time that long. That Jack Reynor sure is a cutie, though.

Quit talking to yourself.

OP - Going back to watch any old movie to see what the fuss is about usually turns into disappointment and boredom. What was new and fresh then has been replicated and topped a million times since then.

I remember seeing Star Wars when they put it back in theaters in the late 90s and being bored shitless. The first one is dull. Ended up liking 2 & 3. But I had been raised on a zillion movies that built off star wars so the original was dull.

R266, I watched Star Wars 4. 5 and 6 (the originals) last year during covid, because I never had before and wanted to see what the fuss was about. Perhaps you need to watch them as a child and have the nostalgia thing going on, because I didn't think they were that great. Not terrible or anything, but didn't interest me (Indiana Jones on the other hand, I found quite enjoyable).

Which is why I enjoyed my first viewing of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I feel that it does hold up pretty well and I can imagine what it must've been like to be around back then and seeing it. So I was pretty impressed there.

R264, I saw that was available on Amazon Prime. I'm not going to watch it (I've already heard detailed plot descriptions and it's not for me), but I already was like: "It's 140 minutes?" when I saw it, and was immediately turned off... then I noticed the Director's Cut and when I looked at it, it was nearly 180 minutes? 180 minutes of some insufferable people wandering around some pagan group and after awhile, disappearing?

I appreciate that others like his films though, and I'm glad they do. But I don't get it, personally. Hearing about Midsommar has at least inspired me to sometime soon dig out the original Wicker Man and check that one out.

R266 I don't know, I sometimes enjoy going back to see the films that "started" it all within a genre or certain tropes. Seeing it done for the first time, even if I've seen derivatives of it in other films, is usually interesting.

R256, I have to agree. It's just an overwrought movie about young people giving each other HPV/Herpes.

It Follows was brilliant for the first 30 or 40 minutes, but then it just kept going and going and I started to realize it would have been much better as a short. It's a really cold movie and you don't learn much about any of the characters, so you don't care about them that much. There's not a lot of depth there. The cinematography, music score, and concept were fantastic at least.

Has anyone here seen the documentaries In Search of Darkness and the sequel? It's basically a 4 hour documentary about 80s horror movies.

I watched the first documentary over the course of a few days (it's over 4 hours long) and, man, it really made me re-appreciate some 80s horror movies. I went back and watched a few of the films from the doc that I hadn't seen before and I forgot how fun those trashy horror films were. I really used to love horror films when I was young (I even had an account on the Sleepaway Camp message board!!!), but my desire to watch them didn't last very long. I'm not sure why. It doesn't help that most "horror fans" are beyond obnoxious, as exemplified by several of the commentators in those documentaries (but some interviewees were quite good).

I've started to watch the sequel which was just added to Shudder a few days ago. I've already added a few films to my to watch list: Humanoids of the Deep, Dead & Buried, and Graduation Day.

I didn’t like trashy horror movies or campy ones if they weren’t meant to be that way. I liked horror movies I felt could happen. Even Zombies I felt “could” happen so when I finally saw Night of the Living Dead it freaked me out. When Michael Myers is shot 27 times with an elephant gun I am no longer scared or interested.

"Dead and Buried" is a bizarre little thriller which starts off as a weird sadistic cult and just gets more and more gruesome.

Dead and Buried is so good! It’s coming to 4K UHD disc later this summer if you can imagine that. It’s currently on Amazon Prime looking beautiful in regular HD. The actor in the beginning scene (playing the photographer on the beach) is so, so handsome.

[quote] OP - Going back to watch any old movie to see what the fuss is about usually turns into disappointment and boredom. What was new and fresh then has been replicated and topped a million times since then.

This never happens to me. I don’t hold anything against the originals even if they inspire a bunch of copycat movies. Plus everything was done better in the 70s. I’ll watch almost anything from that decade regardless of genre.

I read Gunnar Hansen's book Chain Saw Confidential a few years ago. He gave a lot of insight into the behind the scenes of TCM. It was fun read for a horror movie fan.

“ Surely no one actually believed that? Did they see The Exorcist and think it was a documentary? ”

You can’t make a 1 to 1 comparison between those two movies. They are radically different in terms of production quality and therefore were experienced differently. The Exorcist was a big studio film, based on a best-selling book with a lot of publicity. TCM was a gritty little movie, artlessly shot and produced that kinda came out of nowhere. It was designed to make you feel like you were trapped along with the characters. Also, there were no supernatural elements in it. Just a bunch of really fucking crazy rednecks. In Texas. Which sounds kinda plausible, doncha think?

R271, never heard of that documentary, but want to see it now. I sometimes find I love watching, listening and reading people talk about horror almost more than I enjoy watching it, haha. I remember really enjoying Stephen King's Danse Macabre book for that reason.

It definitely feels like horror isn't so fun anymore.

Very good point R276.

[quote]“ Surely no one actually believed that? Did they see The Exorcist and think it was a documentary? ”

Maybe not, but audiences were definitely affected by it.

Hereditary was good until the 3rd act (they lost me at the Toni "Please please please" scene- I just wanted to smack her face) and like the poster has stated above, "Midsommar" could have used some judicious editing. I will say that I did like the, "Suspira" remake, but they could have completely cut out the old man storyline.

I loved the Suspiria remake, but I'd agree that the Tilda as an old man subplot kinda went nowhere. The women were more interesting and I thought they could have given the investigation elements to the Mia Goth character. The Olga scene is one of the most brilliant, terrifying, and disturbing things I've ever seen in a horror film.

I've been watching the In Search of Darkness docs on Shudder and they have lots of great moments, but a lot of these talking heads show up and I'm always wondering who the fuck they are. There's that one guy who's kinda cute, but strangely annoying. It's like he's reading Wikipedia facts and plot descriptions off of a teleprompter. Is he involved with the production team in some way?

I, three, enjoyed the Suspiria remake, but totally get why people wouldn't. I didn't even mind the old man subplot, but the dance school and the witches was definitely the more interesting part.

Suspiria remake...Cinema Sominex.

I appreciate the aesthetic of the Suspiria remake, and LOVE the Thom Yorke score, but I was meh about it overall. And I adore art-house/foreign horror movies (like Possession and Kwaidan) as well as giallo.

Maybe I should give it another shot.

Thanks to this thread, I just got the Gunnar Hansen book out of my library system, and I look forward to reading it

R280 Yes, I know exactly who you mean from that doc. He was definitely annoying. I enjoyed hearing the directors and actors discuss horror films, most of the horror "critics" and "experts" were painful to listen to. In Search of Darkness Part II seemed to be a bit lacking with interviewees, but they had a few interesting people like Nancy Allen!! I wonder if production was disturbed by COVID-19, so they were not able to interview as many people? I dunno, as much as I like horror I don't care about what the web editor of Fangoria has to say, but I get why their presence makes sense.

I watched Graduation Day last night and, my god, I shouldn't have. They showed all the "good" parts of that film in In Search of Darkness. What a terrible slasher. Boring and confusing in the worst ways possible!

Nancy Allen was looking great in that documentary. Still so beautiful and in a really natural way. She doesn't look like she's had any major work done.

She really did look great and was quite thoughtful with her answers, too! A relief in comparison to some of the other interviewees, that's for sure.

As a Texan I want to say that movie is TOTALLY inaccurate. Most Texas massacres involve guns, not chainsaws.

Even in 1974 r288?

Ok, I really have to get a hold of this documentary. Even with the bits that are annoying, the good bits sound great.

Did anyone watch the documentary series that fellow 'mo, Mark Gatiss, made? There was the History of Horror, which was a three part series, followed by Horror Europa, which was a one off, focusing on horror from the continent. Really great stuff and well worth checking out, though beware of spoilers if he is talking about movies you wish to see.

[quote]And I adore art-house/foreign horror movies (like Possession and Kwaidan) as well as giallo.

Thanks for the recommendations, I'll have to check those two out as well!

I’m watching When A Stranger Calls Back right now, based on the recommendations, and it’s not half bad. What the fuck is up with Jill Schoelen‘s mullet!? What were they thinking!

I know, right, R292? It's hilarious! But the film itself is pretty good. I thought they did a good job of exploring the real trauma that would come with having gone through those experiences too.

One of the things that cracks me up the most about the mullet is that the movie from that point is meant to be set 5 years in the future? Something like that, and by the mid-late 90s that hairstyle would've been obsolete.

I had no idea that there is another TCM coming out:

I enjoyed the original so much when I watched it recently, but it's not a franchise I particularly want to keep watching at the same time. I tend to have a "great job, now leave it alone" attitude to a lot of these kinds of things.

[quote]I had no idea that there is another TCM coming out:

There will always be another TCM coming out:

R295 I didn't either. But why do something original when you could churn out another remake/sequel.

[quote] As a contrast, John Cusack’s 2012 (more of a thriller than a horror film, I know) is packed full of CGI and is completely unbelievable.

It's a Roland Emmerich blockbuster catastrophy flick, this is what he does, and actually does very well. The effects in his films are top notch and needed to tell the story the way he likes it. Sure his films could be made with practical effects without showing a large scale destruction happening in real time but they'd be very different films. I love Emmerich for what he does since he usually delivers. I actually find 2012 very believable and that's because of the well-made CGI. Obviously the stories are totally over the top in many ways but that's Hollywood for you. If I want quiet introspection I go watch a Bergman film. But when I want a relaxing movie night stuffing myself with pizza and ice cream it's films like 2012 I go back to.

Now like you said 2012 is not a horror film per se and there's really no use of comparing it with the likes of the original TCM. Films like TCM are made cleverly using other storytelling hooks and tricks and they certainly tend to work much better without the extensive CGI replacing the psychological horror.

The problem with this franchise is that there's no story left to tell. Every sequel, with the except of 2, ends up feeling like a rehash of the original. A few people break down in the middle of nowhere and end up finding the Sawyer house. It's the exact same story every time and it gets old. I have zero hope for the new one and I think this franchise should stay dead for a good 20 years.