# Ebert gives Texas Chainsaw remake 0 stars



## Krug (Oct 17, 2003)

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-texas17f.html

Boy he really DIDN'T like it..


----------



## aliensex (Oct 17, 2003)

Bah!  What can you expect from a remake?  Rollerball sucked hard, now this.  Remakes are for the lazy and untalented.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Oct 17, 2003)

Now Mr. Ebert, don't hold back, tell us how you _really_ feel.


----------



## LuYangShih (Oct 17, 2003)

Occassionally Ebert writes a review like this, and it is his greatest quality as a movie critic.  Anyone remember his review of the first Charlies Angels film?  That made me crack up laughing.


----------



## Welverin (Oct 17, 2003)

This is when you know a movie really sucks.

Of course you didn't mention the important news Bubba Ho-tep got three stars.

I'd like to see a remake of the Princess Bride with a real budget, but on the other hand I'd hate to see a version with a different cast (excluding Prince Humperdink who is supposed to as ugly as Buttercup is beautiful).


----------



## pogre (Oct 17, 2003)

Roger Ebert really admires the first film on a lot of levels, as do I. I could not imagine a remake being successful.


----------



## barsoomcore (Oct 17, 2003)

You knew it was a bad idea when you first heard about it. You may have tried to kid yourself, but you knew.


----------



## Branduil (Oct 18, 2003)

I don't trust Ebert on a movie reviews anymore. His poor taste in review partner really has made me lose confidence in him.


----------



## gfunk (Oct 18, 2003)

I saw the movie today and I have to say that I agree with Ebert's review on a lot of levels.  I ADORED the original and I had high hopes for the re-make.  The problem was that it just wallowed in gore w/o using a lot of effective scenes from the original.

I found myself looking at my watch dozens of times throughout the movie, just waiting for it to end.  Oh, and the ending kind of sucked, certainly not as good as the original.


----------



## ssampier (Oct 18, 2003)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Now Mr. Ebert, don't hold back, tell us how you _really_ feel.




I'm thinking Ebert really *liked* the film. His contempt is just a thinly masked love for the movie. He's just too embarrased to admit it


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Oct 19, 2003)

gfunk said:
			
		

> Oh, and the ending kind of sucked, certainly not as good as the original.



Can you spoil the ending for me?  How is it different from the original?  We rented the original for 



Spoiler



my bachelor party


, so it'll always have a special place in my heart.


----------



## uv23 (Oct 19, 2003)

I think its extrenmely hypocritical of Ebert to give one mindless ultraviolent, no-story movie 4 stars (kill bill) and another 0 stars (TCSM remake). They belong in the same dungheap as far as I'm concerned.

And a  to offset some of the bitterness of my post.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Oct 19, 2003)

Branduil said:
			
		

> I don't trust Ebert on a movie reviews anymore. His poor taste in review partner really has made me lose confidence in him.



 I think he took on Roeper to make himself look that much more intelligent.

 Ebert is just about the _only_ movie reviewer I read anymore - I don't always agree with him but I have found him to be spot on on many occassion.

 Also I can't say I'm surprised that the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre sucked - with the crap material it had to work with hoiw could it do anything else?


----------



## gregweller (Oct 20, 2003)

I guess I must be in the minority here, but I actually enjoyed the movie (and enough people checked it out to make it the number one movie in the country).  It looked good, it sounded good, the cast did a good job of portraying stupid soon-to-be-dead-teenagers.  Of course Ebert comes off as a hypocrite of the Grand Inquisitor who is caught committing unnatural acts with the acolytes variety, when he tries to argue that TCM is vile, while Kill Bill is brilliant. The new version does strip away the political and social subtexts of the original, but in a postmodern sort of way, that doesn't make the movie any less powerful. I'd compare the new version and the old version to different strategies that the Marquise de Sade used in his novels. 'Justine' and 'Juliette' both have a very strong political subtext, but '120 Days of Sodom' is devoid of that context, but that doesn't make the latter any less powerful of a novel (even though, I'll admit, that it's almost unreadable).  And I won't argue that the makers of TCM had any pretensions to Art.  I think that the great Anxiety of the modern age is a sort of pointless violence, and I'd argue that the remake does capture that. But I can't imagine Ebert saying something like that.


----------



## gfunk (Oct 20, 2003)

Barendd Nobeard said:
			
		

> Can you spoil the ending for me? How is it different from the original? We rented the original for
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OK, you asked for it!

SPOILERS.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Original: Leatherface chases girl around with chainsaw. Girl finds truck, hops on board and screaming all the while, as Leatherface chases her down the road.

Re-make: Girl escapes in Sheriff's car (Leatherface's dad), runs over Sheriff multiple times before leaving. Police come to investigate crime scene and "forget" to secure it first. Police die horrible deaths as Leatherface kills 'em (caught on tape, a la' Blair Witch).


----------



## billd91 (Oct 20, 2003)

uv23 said:
			
		

> I think its extrenmely hypocritical of Ebert to give one mindless ultraviolent, no-story movie 4 stars (kill bill) and another 0 stars (TCSM remake). They belong in the same dungheap as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> And a  to offset some of the bitterness of my post.




Did you *read* Ebert's review of Texas Chainsaw Massacre? TCSM didn't get 0 stars because it's violent, nor did Kill Bill get 4 stars because it's violent. He explains his reason behind his ratings. I suggest you check the review out before slinging around accusation of hyprocrisy.


----------



## Knightcrawler (Oct 20, 2003)

Holy Crap!  What a review, I had to stop reading it half way through because I was laughing so hard.  I figure I'll wait until its out on video and then rent it.


----------



## Pielorinho (Oct 20, 2003)

Ebert is a very good writer, and gives a good perspective on film, but his taste and my taste rarely overlap.

Our local newspaper. www.mountainx.com, has my favorite reviewer.  He's a pompous git a lot of the time, but his taste in movies neatly matches mine, and when he hates a movie, he's hilarious.  I think the worst thing he's ever said about a movie is that it "Out-_Pooty Tanged Pooty Tang_."

Daniel


----------



## uv23 (Oct 20, 2003)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Did you *read* Ebert's review of Texas Chainsaw Massacre? TCSM didn't get 0 stars because it's violent, nor did Kill Bill get 4 stars because it's violent. He explains his reason behind his ratings. I suggest you check the review out before slinging around accusation of hyprocrisy.




Yes I did read the review before posting. Speaking of informing yourself before slinging around accusations...


----------



## Kai Lord (Oct 20, 2003)

Wow, I just read the Ebert review and must say it might possibly be the most pathetic and hypocritical review I've ever read.

TCM was "vile, ugly, and brutal" while Kill Bill was "redeemed, justified, illustrated and explained by the style?"  TCM, _not Kill Bill_, is a "meditation on the geek-show movie?"  Good.  Lord.

Ebert is so far gone its not even funny.  TCM was fantastic.  For starters the cinematography rivaled the best work of David Fincher.  You know what I mean, dripping, decaying, and yet strangely beautiful.

The tension was great, I get VERY irritated when a movie resorts to making you jump simply by blasting the speakers (28 Days Later I'm looking at YOU...and a thousand other recent attempts at scary films), but TCM just keeps you on the edge of your seat the whole way through.  Its relentless.  As it should be.

Ebert complains that its "strewn with blood, bones, rats, fetishes and severed limbs, photographed in murky darkness, and scored with screams???"  WTF?  Did he think he was purchasing a ticket to the Texas Oven Mitt Massage Parlor?  The film's based on the dementia of Ed Gein (who also inspired the characters of Norman Bates, Buffalo Bill, and Hannibal Lecter), the guy who made lamp shades and wastebaskets out of human skin, and yes even full body suits and masks.  The guy who went crazy after his wacked out mother died and started digging up graves of recently buried women before upgrading to live ones.

Truly sick stuff, to be sure, and any movie that references or draws inspiration from Gein's work is definitely one to be aware of going into it.  But damn TCM for drawing from the same inspirational source as other ZERO STAR films such as Psycho and Silence of the Lambs.  Damn them for including Gein's fetishes into the Leatherface character, and DAMN THEM FOR HACKING OFF LIMBS.

Why couldn't it be a brilliant and beautiful movie like Kill Bill which had NONE of that?  Severed limbs are for geeks.  Ditto for fetishes.  The whole school girl routine in KB?  She was poor and liked wearing her uniform home, right Roger?  A mature character study of Japanese youth.

What an utterly, utterly AWFUL review.  None of the violence in TCM is played for laughs, none of it.  Kill Bill?  Give me a break, don't even need to go there, its too easy.

Uma's rampage is high art because she's in a more colorfully shot movie?  Yeah, no cynicism or ugliness in her story, because the bouncy soundtrack has us walking out of the theatre feeling happy and exhilirated!

TCM does indeed follow some major slasher film conventions, but it also does them right.  Its Silence of the Lambs meets the original Terminator.  A truly visceral edge of your seat experience.  The characters DON'T behave like stupid horror movie characters (funny that even Roger acknowledges that other critics completely disagree with his assinine claims) and the gore is largely OFF SCREEN.

Spoilers for some of the character deaths:


Spoiler



When Leatherface chases the guy through the hanging linen sheets, he angles in on the guy, swings his chainsaw, and you see a ton of blood splatter the sheets and then the guy collapses and starts rolling around.  Only then do you notice his leg's missing, and even still the focus is on him crawling around and trying to keep from being carried off by his attacker.

Later, when Leatherface knocks the one girl down and slices her up you see Jessica Biel's POV from inside the van, from behind Leatherface we see him lower his chainsaw and the down padding from the girl's coat goes spraying up all around him.  We know she just got cut in half but _they don't even show any blood._



I won't spoil the other deaths but like those two, they are NOT in your face gory and are _nowhere near_ what you see in Kill Bill.  Not. Even. Close.

TCM might not be as elegant as Silence of the Lambs, but if you liked the sheer adrenaline rush go for broke no pulled punches style of the first Terminator or Aliens, I'd definitely recommend it.


----------



## Mark Chance (Oct 20, 2003)

Hmm. A remake of schlock getting bad reviews. Shocking. Just shocking. Almost as shocking as this thread.


----------



## uv23 (Oct 21, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> ...




I give Kai Lord's review of Ebert's review... two thumbs up.  All well put.


----------



## Kai Lord (Oct 21, 2003)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Hmm. A remake of schlock getting bad reviews. Shocking. Just shocking. Almost as shocking as this thread.



Yes, the thread where people trashed Underworld until I set everyone straight on what a sweet movie it was.  The same applies for Texas Chainsaw; I saw it, I'm saying it kicks ass, and I recommend it.    

BTW, for all of you hanging on Roger Ebert's every word, check out what he considers to be a sweet, THREE STAR movie, and pay careful attention to the very first thing he says he looks forward to seeing on the big screen as he enjoys his popcorn....

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1997/06/062701.html


----------



## Welverin (Oct 21, 2003)

*Ah hah, I figured it out!*



			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> ...I set everyone straight




Prepare yourselves people, for I have learned Kai Lord's real name and it is...

Woody Paige!


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 21, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> Prepare yourselves people, for I have learned Kai Lord's real name and it is...
> 
> Woody Paige!



No, no, no.  As established here, Kai Lord is simply a complex algorithm with no physical form.  * sheesh *



Beware the *KaiBot (tm)* - its opinions are deadly.


----------



## Welverin (Oct 21, 2003)

*I don't buy it, not even for a dollar.*

To anyone who watches Around the Horn regularly the proof is indisputable!


----------



## jdavis (Oct 21, 2003)

Good grief. Look Kill Bill was exactly what it was supposed to be, sorry you didn't like it but there was a point to it and a reason for everything that happened, it was what it was and it did that very well, just because you didn't like what it was doesn't mean it didn't do it very well. 

On Texas Chainsaw Massacre: well them advertising it as "based on a true story" makes me laugh. Every slasher movie made in the last 40 years has been influenced by Ed Gein and while Texas Chainsaw Massacre was influenced by him it wasn't "based" on him. He never chased teens around with a chainsaw or killed groups of people, heck for the most part he was a grave robber. He was a very sick man and he did some extremely horrible things but He was from Wisconsin, he never chased teenagers around with a chainsaw and there was never any real massacre (he killed older women when they were alone, with a gun). http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/streiber/273/gein_cf.htm Here go read up on him or watch one of the movies actually about him: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005LDCM/103-1549622-5900635?v=glance or http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000068TPD/qid%3D1066719133/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/103-1549622-5900635 (I've seen Deranged and it is creepy).

As far as the movie goes, well I haven't seen it but the original is going to be hard to beat. Of course by what I have read here (especially Kai Lord's defense of it) I got a feeling it will be another _Cabin Fever_ for me. I'm not really looking forward to it (my wife is, but then again seeing _Cabin Fever_ was her idea too, she feels I still owe her a scary movie night out, like it was my fault _Cabin Fever_ was crappy.)


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 21, 2003)

It's obvious to me, other than him like LoTR, Kai Lord's taste in movies should be judged on the same level as Rush Limbaugh's football commentary.


----------



## Welverin (Oct 21, 2003)

Well Rush's football commentary was fairly accurate, even if his reasoning was stupid.


----------



## Kai Lord (Oct 21, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> On Texas Chainsaw Massacre: well them advertising it as "based on a true story" makes me laugh.



Yes, kind of like saying Rambo was based on a true story because there really was a soldier with the first name "John" who killed the Vietnamese.  Obviously they were trying to make it creepier by pulling a Blair Witch, I must say I'd prefer it if they hadn't done that.  But the original did it too so there you go.



			
				jdavis said:
			
		

> Every slasher movie made in the last 40 years has been influenced by Ed Gein and while Texas Chainsaw Massacre was influenced by him it wasn't "based" on him.  He never chased teens around with a chainsaw or killed groups of people, heck for the most part he was a grave robber. He was a very sick man and he did some extremely horrible things but He was from Wisconsin, he never chased teenagers around with a chainsaw and there was never any real massacre (he killed older women when they were alone, with a gun).



Yes I already noted that.  I said it was based on his dementia, not his specific actions.

There's a lot of info on him here: http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/gein/bill_1.html


----------



## jdavis (Oct 21, 2003)

I saw a red carpet interview with I guess the producer or the director and they went on and on about the "based on Ed Gien" bit. They were talking about how much scarier that made it because it was a "true" story. I had to laugh.


----------



## Kai Lord (Oct 21, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> I saw a red carpet interview with I guess the producer or the director and they went on and on about the "based on Ed Gien" bit. They were talking about how much scarier that made it because it was a "true" story. I had to laugh.



It was probably producer Michael Bay, the guy who directed Pearl Harbor, Armaggedon, and Bad Boys I and II.  When I first heard that he was attached to a TCM remake I couldn't imagine what could be worse.

But don't let his name or the admittedly misleading marketing taint the film.  Bay didn't direct the picture, thank God.  Didn't you see the trailer?  It had the coolest preview of the year, aside from ROTK of course.  

You can check it out here:  http://www.killermovies.com/t/thetexaschainsawmassacre/articles/3276.html

Don't get me wrong, lately trailers have been exceedingly deceiving about what's good and what's bad, but this was a film that delivered IMO.  I just couldn't resist commenting on Kill Bill again because of the ridiculously hypocritical comparisons made by Ebert.


----------



## jdavis (Oct 21, 2003)

Was just looking at some of the Ed Gein stuff and I ran across a documentary called Ed Gein American Maniac which I remembered seeing (I think it was on the tape witht he movie Deranged a friend of mine had). They had old super 8 and still footage of Ed Gein's home and crime scene footage, it was some pretty creepy stuff to see. It's one thing to see this kind of stuff as a movie prop and another thing to see pictures of his actual "collection".


----------



## jdavis (Oct 21, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> It was probably producer Michael Bay, the guy who directed Pearl Harbor, Armaggedon, and Bad Boys I and II. When I first heard that he was attached to a TCM remake I couldn't imagine what could be worse.
> 
> But don't let his name or the admittedly misleading marketing taint the film. Bay didn't direct the picture, thank God. Didn't you see the trailer? It had the coolest preview of the year, aside from ROTK of course.
> 
> ...



I sort of liked the trailer (my wife thought it looked really good). But the creaking and the odd music and the buzzing fly sounds reminded me of Cabin Fever, and if you hadn't noticed I still haven't gotten over how bad it was. I'm sure I'll end up seeing it regardless of what Ebert says (it's not like I got much of a choice) but rest assured that if it sucks I'll be back here to grind it into the dirt.


----------



## Pielorinho (Oct 21, 2003)

Why on earth would Ebert be hypocritical about Kill Bill?  He has nothing to gain from saying he liked the movie.  Credibility?  Pshaw -- this is the man who went on and on about how much he liked Episode 1.  He could give two flips about credibility.

He liked the one movie and disliked the other, and he wrote two essays explaining why.  The fact that they were both violent is immaterial:  a violent movie is not intrinsically good nor intrinsically bad.

It _is_ possible, Kai Lord, for intelligent, sincere people to disagree about the value of a work of art.  No need to go shrilly about Ebert's integrity.

Daniel


----------



## Pants (Oct 21, 2003)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> It _is_ possible, Kai Lord, for intelligent, sincere people to disagree about the value of a work of art.  No need to go shrilly about Ebert's integrity.



It is?!   
I've been living a lie...


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 21, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> Well Rush's football commentary was fairly accurate, even if his reasoning was stupid.



Well maybe so. But I still hold to that.

Pants, I disagree with you all the time. So far we haven't killed each other have we?


----------



## Kai Lord (Oct 22, 2003)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Why on earth would Ebert be hypocritical about Kill Bill?  He has nothing to gain from saying he liked the movie.  Credibility?  Pshaw -- this is the man who went on and on about how much he liked Episode 1.  He could give two flips about credibility.
> 
> He liked the one movie and disliked the other, and he wrote two essays explaining why.  The fact that they were both violent is immaterial:  a violent movie is not intrinsically good nor intrinsically bad.



Considering the complete irrelevance of anything in your post concerning my comments about Ebert's review its obvious you didn't follow anything I said but that's cool, you obviously wanted to use your own mischaracterizations as a platform to launch into this:



			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> It _is_ possible, Kai Lord, for intelligent, sincere people to disagree about the value of a work of art.



Really?  I mean, you're like, _serious_?  Gee thanks.  I'll try and make a note the next time someone rips on a film for featuring dismemberment, brutality, and fetishes it must mean they "sincerely and intelligently" just prefer films like Kill Bill, which have none of that.

And here I thought "hypocrisy" meant:

hy·poc·ri·sy    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies 
The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.


----------



## Oni (Oct 22, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I'll try and make a note the next time someone rips on a film for featuring dismemberment, brutality, and fetishes it must mean they "sincerely and intelligently" just prefer films like Kill Bill, which have none of that.
> 
> And here I thought "hypocrisy" meant:
> 
> ...





So let me this straight.  Ebert liked Kill Bill and hated Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and because they both happen to be violent movies he is a hypocrit.  However you like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and hated Kill Bill and your not?  The fact that he loved one and hated the other and you just the opposite should be a pretty good indicator of an obvious style difference, so it seems pretty clear that it's justifiable and not a bit hypocritical to to say one is good and the other bad.  It isn't exactly an uncommon opinion anyway, if you look around you'll see that the large majority of the reviews for Kill Bill are positive, and most of the reviews for Texas Chainsaw Massacre were negative.  Does this mean that the majority of reviewers are hypocrits, or that Kill Bill is a more appealing and pleasing movie to a larger audience?


----------



## dave_o (Oct 22, 2003)

Oni said:
			
		

> SNIP!




I can say but one thing -- owned.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 22, 2003)

*Big grin* That's Oni folks. Best damn necromancer player I've ever had!  Thanks Oni!


----------



## Kai Lord (Oct 22, 2003)

Oni said:
			
		

> So let me this straight.  Ebert liked Kill Bill and hated Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and because they both happen to be violent movies he is a hypocrit.



No but thanks for playing.    I've already covered all of this but once again, Ebert's hypocrisy comes into play when he chides TCM for being "strewn with blood, bones, rats, fetishes and severed limbs, photographed in murky darkness, scored with screams" and then when he says this:



> "There is a controversy involving Quentin Tarantino's 'Kill Bill: Volume 1,' which some people feel is 'too violent.' I gave it four stars, found it kind of brilliant, felt it was an exhilarating exercise in nonstop action direction. The material was redeemed, justified, illustrated and explained by the style. It was a meditation on the martial arts genre, done with intelligence and wit. 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' is a meditation on the geek-show movie."




There IS no greater geek show than Kill Bill.  I don't hold that particular aspect against it, but good lord, ripping on TCM because its too _geeky_?  Or strewn with blood, fetishes, and severed limbs?  Or saying that the violence in Kill Bill is "explained by the style."  And what's the style?  Cult films from the 70's.  Well if only TCM had drawn on a certain cult film from the 70's to explain _its_ violence.  Oh wait, IT DID.  The hypocrisy is staggering.



			
				Oni said:
			
		

> However you like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and hated Kill Bill and your not?



A hypocrit?  Hell no.  I didn't like KB because 75% of it was poorly choreographed, poorly written, horribly paced and it played rape and pedophilia for comedic value.  If TCM did any of that then yes, I'd be a hypocrit if I said I liked it.  But that isn't the case.



			
				Oni said:
			
		

> Does this mean that the majority of reviewers are hypocrits, or that Kill Bill is a more appealing and pleasing movie to a larger audience?



The critics are definitely wetting themselves over KB, but as for the film more appealing and pleasing to a larger audience, the box office numbers actually support _my_ opinion, but who cares which film has the bigger audience?  I certainly don't think anyone here does.


----------



## Kai Lord (Oct 22, 2003)

dave_o said:
			
		

> I can say but one thing -- owned.



Not so fast...


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 22, 2003)

I could say something crass, biting or saracastic...but I prefer to save what I got for a more worthy foe. Sorry Kai. I ain't biting.


----------



## Stormfalcon (Oct 22, 2003)

A couple points to inject into this debate here:

1) When Ebert refered to the TCM remake as a meditaiton on the geek show genre (first I've ever heard of such a genre), I don't think he was referring to geeks as the nerd kind.  He was referring to geeks as the biting-heads-off-of-chickens variety.  Certainly fitting in the case of this remake.

2) The remake is getting ripped-on in part because it's not as trailblazing as the original was (then again, how could it?).  It's also not as effective in the use of gore to truly scare audiences.  The original used very little and let the audiences fill in the blanks in their minds.  The remake just puts it all out there and leaves little to the imagination.  Is it any wonder why the remake suffers in comparison.

As for the debate between Kill Bill fans and TCM remake fans, I'm staying out of it since I haven't seen Kill Bill as of yet.  However, Kill Bill has the advantage of not trying to remake a classic, at least.


----------



## jdavis (Oct 22, 2003)

Have to see what THM does in week 2, they knew it would open big.

Looks like I will be seeing it Thursday, rest assured the first thing I'll do is log on and compare it to Kill Bill in this thread. Man I hope it's not another Cabin Fever.


----------



## Welverin (Oct 22, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Looks like I will be seeing it Thursday, rest assured the first thing I'll do is log on and compare it to Kill Bill in this thread. Man I hope it's not another Cabin Fever.




Is it wrong for me to hope it is just so I can read your comments on it?


----------



## Oni (Oct 22, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> No but thanks for playing.    I've already covered all of this but once again, Ebert's hypocrisy comes into play when he chides TCM for being "strewn with blood, bones, rats, fetishes and severed limbs, photographed in murky darkness, scored with screams" and then when he says this:




I know you've covered this, I read it the first time.  If your going to quote someone you shouldn't hack up their sentences.  

"This movie, strewn with blood, bones, rats, fetishes and severed limbs, photographed in murky darkness, scored with screams, wants to be a test: Can you sit through it?"  

Thats not chiding it for violence, that's chiding it for being hard to sit through.  Not once in his review of Texas Chainsaw Massacre did Ebert say it was too violent or bloody, only comment on the fact that those are present in the movie.     




			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> There IS no greater geek show than Kill Bill.  I don't hold that particular aspect against it, but good lord, ripping on TCM because its too _geeky_?  Or strewn with blood, fetishes, and severed limbs?  Or saying that the violence in Kill Bill is "explained by the style."  And what's the style?  Cult films from the 70's.  Well if only TCM had drawn on a certain cult film from the 70's to explain _its_ violence.  Oh wait, IT DID.  The hypocrisy is staggering.




Kill Bill might very well be geeky, but I rather doubt that is what Ebert is talking about.  Geek show, like a carnival sideshow where some inbred hick shoves chickens in his mouth and nails up his nose.  Ebert's complaint with TCM doesn't lie with the blood and severed limbs, if that were the case I doubt his review of Kill Bill would have been much better, as he explained rather thoroughly it wasn't the elements, it was how they were used.  Nice little straw man you set up at the end there.  The fact that both draw from previous sources isn't what is at issue here, rather it's presentation.  Your seeing hyprocisy here because you want to not because it exist.  




			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> A hypocrit?  Hell no.  I didn't like KB because 75% of it was poorly choreographed, poorly written, horribly paced and it played rape and pedophilia for comedic value.  If TCM did any of that then yes, I'd be a hypocrit if I said I liked it.  But that isn't the case.




You are, of course, entitled to your opinions and Ebert is, of course, entitled to his.  Neither of them are particularly hypocritical which is what I was trying to get at.  



			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> The critics are definitely wetting themselves over KB, but as for the film more appealing and pleasing to a larger audience, the box office numbers actually support _my_ opinion, but who cares which film has the bigger audience?  I certainly don't think anyone here does.




Personally I think critics are a better barometer of such things and here is why.  Critics opinions are based on having seen the movie.  Box office numbers are different though.  They're based on, in most cases, people that haven't seen the movie yet, they may have some idea what their getting into, but ultimately they don't know whether they're going to like it or not until they actually see it.


----------



## Kai Lord (Oct 22, 2003)

Oni said:
			
		

> I know you've covered this, I read it the first time.  If your going to quote someone you shouldn't hack up their sentences.
> 
> "This movie, strewn with blood, bones, rats, fetishes and severed limbs, photographed in murky darkness, scored with screams, wants to be a test: Can you sit through it?"
> 
> Thats not chiding it for violence, that's chiding it for being hard to sit through.  Not once in his review of Texas Chainsaw Massacre did Ebert say it was too violent or bloody, only comment on the fact that those are present in the movie.



I think its clear the "can you sit through it" is referring to the macabre elements that he prefaced the question with.  The same elements (save for rats) which were prevalent in Kill Bill.   



			
				Oni said:
			
		

> Kill Bill might very well be geeky, but I rather doubt that is what Ebert is talking about.  Geek show, like a carnival sideshow where some inbred hick shoves chickens in his mouth and nails up his nose.



You're the second person who's brought this up, I'm not familiar with "geek show" as referencing the material you mention.  A quick Google search of "geek show," "geek show freaks," and "geek show carnival" pulls up no mention of anything other than geeks in the nerdy sense.

Nevertheless, if that is what Ebert was referring to, I withdraw my previous statements about that particular passage being ridiculous in light of the geeky elements in KB.



			
				Oni said:
			
		

> Ebert's complaint with TCM doesn't lie with the blood and severed limbs, if that were the case I doubt his review of Kill Bill would have been much better, as he explained rather thoroughly it wasn't the elements, it was how they were used.



But it isn't as clear cut as that, since the way the violence was used in each film overlapped the other so strongly.  You can't discount that both films used the carnage as direct and literal references to sequences of mayhem in cult 70's films.

Then you look at what each film brought to the table in its execution of the homage and the source of the homage itself.  This is where Roger and I, (and ENWorld and I), disagree.  *I* think its hypocritical to complain that TCM was vile, brutal, and ugly when KB was all that and more, and then cite a laundry list of KB elements (blood, severed limbs, fetishes, what have you) as things difficult to sit through in and of themselves.

But you disagree.  Good for you.  I realize that Roger doesn't consider his opinion to be hypocritical because he doesn't think murder, rape, and revenge are ugly and brutal as long as they're in the context of a cheery cheezefest like KB.  I do.  Hence the hypocrisy.

TCM is a straight good vs. evil fight.  Hell Jessica Biel even has a white freaking hat in the beginning.  And she doesn't stop being good.  Where's the "good" in KB?  Uma?  Not hardly.  But TCM gets raked over the coals for being cynical and venomous?  Yeah right.

Ha I just realized another bit of hypocrisy on Ebert's part.  He complains that TCM doesn't give as much exposition on who Leatherface's family is compared to the original, while neglecting that KB doesn't give half the exposition Uma's character gets in the *trailer* for KB.  "I was on his team, everything was great, until I wanted out" or whatever she says in the ads.  In the movie its "Bill its your baby BLAM."  Then she wakes up and starts killing everyone responsible with no further explanation for Bill's motives other than he might have thought she got pregnant by another guy.  Another nice call Roger.



			
				Oni said:
			
		

> Personally I think critics are a better barometer of such things and here is why.  Critics opinions are based on having seen the movie.  Box office numbers are different though.  They're based on, in most cases, people that haven't seen the movie yet, they may have some idea what their getting into, but ultimately they don't know whether they're going to like it or not until they actually see it.



For opening weekends definitely.  TCM's opening crushed KB's but that only means that TCM had the better trailer.  We'll see next weekend how TCM's word of mouth compares to KB's.


----------



## Pielorinho (Oct 22, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Have to see what THM does in week 2, they knew it would open big.



THM:  Texas Handsaw Massacre?

As for Kai Lord, I'm backing slowly away. There's a difference between being a geeks and belonging in a geek show, and watching folks who'd be more suited to biting the heads off chickens just ain't my thing.

Daniel


----------



## takyris (Oct 22, 2003)

I didn't understand the geek-show reference when Ebert made it, but I understand it now as the sideshow thing -- my memory had to be joegged a bit.  As for not finding many references to it on Google, um, duh?  The guy eating live chickens and shoving nails up his nose doesn't usually have time to work on that website.   We normal-geeks have pretty much taken the geek term for our own in perpetuity, online at least.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Oct 23, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Yes, the thread where people trashed Underworld until I set everyone straight on what a sweet movie it was.  The same applies for Texas Chainsaw; I saw it, I'm saying it kicks ass, and I recommend it.
> 
> BTW, for all of you hanging on Roger Ebert's every word, check out what he considers to be a sweet, THREE STAR movie, and pay careful attention to the very first thing he says he looks forward to seeing on the big screen as he enjoys his popcorn....
> 
> http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1997/06/062701.html




Just shows what a jaded depraved person you are to think something this utterly putrid is anything but filth.


----------



## Kai Lord (Oct 23, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Just shows what a jaded depraved person you are to think something this utterly putrid is anything but filth.



Ah, my adoring public.


----------



## gregweller (Oct 23, 2003)

For anyone who needs more clarification of what 'geek' means in the context that Ebert was using, I suggest the novel 'Geek Love' , by Katherine Dunn, Here's the Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...2-6622907-6039345?v=glance&s=books&vi=reviews


----------



## jdavis (Oct 23, 2003)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> THM: Texas Handsaw Massacre?
> 
> As for Kai Lord, I'm backing slowly away. There's a difference between being a geeks and belonging in a geek show, and watching folks who'd be more suited to biting the heads off chickens just ain't my thing.
> 
> Daniel



all I can say is oops.  it's not like those two letters are even close to each other on the keyboard, I must have Cabin Fever making my brain go crazy.

Geek Show is a carnaval act thing, it isn't common anymore, probably because freak shows are really not Politically Correct anymore. Try goggle searching "circus geek", I did and I found this on page two: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=geek
_n._ _Slang_ 

1. 
    a) A person regarded as foolish, inept, or clumsy.
    b) A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept.



2. carnival performer whose show consists of bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live chicken.*Our Living Language* Our word _geek_ is now chiefly associated with student and computer slang; one probably thinks first of a _computer geek._ In origin, however, it is one of the words American English borrowed from the vocabulary of the circus, which was a much more significant source of entertainment in the United States in the 19th and early 20th century than it is now. Large numbers of traveling circuses left a cultural legacy in various and sometimes unexpected ways. For example, Superman and other comic book superheroes owe much of their look to circus acrobats, who were similarly costumed in capes and tights. The circus sideshow is the source of the word _geek,_ “a performer who engaged in bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live chicken.” We also owe the word _ballyhoo_ to the circus; its ultimate origin is unknown, but in the late 1800s it referred to a flamboyant free musical performance conducted outside a circus with the goal of luring customers to buy tickets to the inside shows. Other words and expressions with circus origins include _bandwagon_ (coined by P.T. Barnum in 1855) and _Siamese twin._​


----------



## Pielorinho (Oct 23, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Geek Show is a carnaval act thing, it isn't common anymore, probably because freak shows are really not Politically Correct anymore.



To be fair, my understanding is that geeks often had serious mental problems -- retardation, schizophrenia, alcohol and/or drug addiction, or other problems -- and were often kept in conditions that would nowadays be considered felony cruelty for animals.  They might be transported around the country in a cage, be beaten until they performed, or worse.

It's not so much that they're no longer politically correct; it's that we've got stronger sanctions versus slavery these days, and we've got better understandings of, and treatment for, mental illness.

Daniel


----------



## jdavis (Oct 24, 2003)

Well bad news on Movie night, my wife decided she rather clean the house than go see the movie (and here I thought she was excited to see it). One of her friends told her it was nothing but a gorefest, to which I replied "well of course, what part of _Chainsaw Massacre_ was confusing you?"


----------



## Welverin (Oct 24, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Well bad news on Movie night, my wife decided she rather clean the house than go see the movie (and here I thought she was excited to see it). One of her friends told her it was nothing but a gorefest, to which I replied "well of course, what part of _Chainsaw Massacre_ was confusing you?"




Sounds like good news to me.


----------



## jdavis (Oct 25, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> Sounds like good news to me.



You should of seen all the cleaning I got dragged into helping with, what a mess.


----------



## Oni (Oct 25, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> You should of seen all the cleaning I got dragged into helping with, what a mess.




Well at least you've set a scale of sorts now.  The prospect of seeing Texas Chainsaw Massacre is better than doing lots of cleaning.


----------



## Welverin (Oct 25, 2003)

If you could have seen something else I'd say you lost out, but if your wife would have forced you to see TCM you probably didn't.


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 25, 2003)

Just reading this thread I am actually interested in seeing the remake of *The Texas Chainsaw Massacre*.  I just saw *Kill Bill* and really enjoyed it.  If TCM is better than it would be damn near a classic.  However, I'll probably wait to see it when it comes to DVD/cable.  Bay is one of my favorite directors (I know he's just the producer on this one).  The problem is getting someone to come with me.

I scare easy.  

Okay, seriously now.  Next weekend is the *Alien* re-release and the next week will be *The Matrix: Revolutions* so there isn't much time to see a movie that one of my favorite critics hated. *


* Not that it will actually prevent me from ever seeing it but there is only so much time and money in every week to be spent on going out to the movies.


----------



## nHammer (Oct 26, 2003)

Krug said:
			
		

> http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-texas17f.html
> 
> Boy he really DIDN'T like it..




Personally I think Ebert was being too nice in his review. There was no need to remake TCM, it was a complete waste of money. But, you know what? I don't blame the film studios for doing it. The studios know there will be people that are stupid enough to spend money to see inferior remakes of good movies. 

I think the studios would probobly make more money if they rereleased the original instead of wasting the money to remake it.


----------



## Kai Lord (Oct 26, 2003)

nHammer said:
			
		

> Personally I think Ebert was being too nice in his review. There was no need to remake TCM, it was a complete waste of money.



A 9 million dollar movie that has grossed 47 million in nine days.  A complete waste.  *snicker*



			
				nHammer said:
			
		

> But, you know what? I don't blame the film studios for doing it. The studios know there will be people that are stupid enough to spend money to see inferior remakes of good movies.



Good thing you're not one of those stupid people.  Now you get to spend your free time expressing a meaningless opinion on a movie.  You haven't.  Seen.  Care to give your review of The Last Samurai?  I know it hasn't been finished and no one has seen it yet, but since that isn't a prerequisite for you I'd love to hear your thoughts.  Ditto for anyone else who's panned TCM on this thread.  



			
				nHammer said:
			
		

> I think the studios would probobly make more money if they rereleased the original instead of wasting the money to remake it.



*chuckle* The thing's raking in more dough than Krap Bill Vol. 1 (sorry guys, its official, word of mouth for TCM has been more positive than KB) but the original TCM would be making more money than both of them.  I love it.  You should be working for MGM.


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 26, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *chuckle* The thing's raking in more dough than Krap Bill Vol. 1 (sorry guys, its official, word of mouth for TCM has been more positive than KB) but the original TCM would be making more money than both of them. I love it. You should be working for MGM.



Well, TCM is a horror movie, smartly released in October.  It is doing the numbers that it should.

Also, it has not made more than KB yet.  KB is about 9 million ahead but has been out for one more week.  Also, as of right now TCM is playing on twice as many screens.  I couldn't care less about what does better numbers, I just wanted to point it out.  I never route for a movie to be bad.  I loved KB.  If TCM is just as good or better than that is good news for me as I have another good movie to watch.


----------



## Kai Lord (Oct 26, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Well, TCM is a horror movie, smartly released in October.  It is doing the numbers that it should.
> 
> Also, it has not made more than KB yet.



No, but its second weekend take was higher than KB's second weekend, the best judge of first weekend word of mouth.  TCM dropped 47% for its second weekend compared to KB's 53%.



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> KB is about 9 million ahead but has been out for one more week.



Again, no.      KB's currently sitting at 53 million, TCM at 51.  A difference of only two million dollars even with a full week more for the greatly hyped KB.  Check it out:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2003&wknd=43&p=.htm



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> Also, as of right now TCM is playing on twice as many screens.



Wrong again, my young apprentice.      KB: 2,633 screens.  TCM: 3,018 screens.  Last weekend KB was even on more than TCM.



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> If TCM is just as good or better than that is good news for me as I have another good movie to watch.



Check it out.  If you don't like it or its not your cup of tea, at least I can respect that as opposed to blind Ebert lemmingism.


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 26, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> No, but its second weekend take was higher than KB's second weekend, the best judge of first weekend word of mouth.



By 2 mil.  No big whoop.  I will also say again - it is a horror film out in October.  It should do at least marginally well.



			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Again, no.  KB's currently sitting at 53 million, TCM at 51. A difference of only two million dollars even with a full week more for the greatly hyped KB. Check it out:
> 
> http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2003&wknd=43&p=.htm



Ah, I did not see the whole weekend's numbers.  I need better links evidently.   

Also, I didn't think KB was all that hyped.  I didn't see a ton of commercials for it nor was the ad campaign huge.  It's doing what I thought it would do for a QT flick.  Actually, your link shows that TCM had twice as much advertising than its production costs compared to KB's which had none.  heheh 

That can't be right (for KB).  I'd be interested in seeing what the ad budget was for KB.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Wrong again, my young apprentice.  KB: 2,633 screens. TCM: 3,018 screens. Last weekend KB was even on more than TCM.



Oop.  Was looking at last week's numbers again.  My bad.  http://imdb.com/Charts/usboxlast 


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Check it out. If you don't like it or its not your cup of tea, at least I can respect that as opposed to blind Ebert lemmingism.



I would never disreguard a film based on one man's opinion, no matter how much I respect him.  I don't even give family or friends that much power.  If I want to see a film, I'll see it.

But this one will be a renter/cable viewer simply because my next few weeks are already booked.  But I do have to say:  It will have to be one helluva movie to be as good as you claim.  I really dug KB.


----------



## nHammer (Oct 26, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Good thing you're not one of those stupid people. Now you get to spend your free time expressing a meaningless opinion on a movie. You haven't. Seen. Care to give your review of The Last Samurai? I know it hasn't been finished and no one has seen it yet, but since that isn't a prerequisite for you I'd love to hear your thoughts. Ditto for anyone else who's panned TCM on this thread




You're right I'm not one of the people stupid enough to see the movie. Too bad you were. Be condescending all you want, fact is Hollywood will keep making and remaking the same old sh*t as long as there are fools, such as yourself, who support it.


----------



## Kai Lord (Oct 27, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> But this one will be a renter/cable viewer simply because my next few weeks are already booked.  But I do have to say:  It will have to be one helluva movie to be as good as you claim.  I really dug KB.



Well, like Roger, I can only relay my own opinion as well.  It definitely isn't scary in the "turn all the lights on in your house when you get home" kind of way, but its VERY intense.  And even though its an obvious remake of the original, the formula for this one is actually more evocative of Aliens, if that's your cup of tea.

Like Aliens, it starts with a drifter who survived the monster being picked up, the good guys wanting to take the survivor back, an evil "corporation" of sorts that the protagonists go to for help but actually just wants to cultivate the monster, a "kill me" sequence, and a couple other parallels that would be a little too spoiler intensive to reveal.  But yep, very similar to Aliens.

In some ways TCM is even better at maintaining its intensity, because at no point does Jessica Biel suck it up and "go Rambo" like Sigourney Weaver at the end, instead everything she does she does out of shear desperation and terror.  So in that sense its closer to the original Alien.  But it has the juggernaut elements of the original Terminator as well, I don't know, I've just never experienced visceral thrills like the Alien or Terminator films in a slasher flick before.

But the characters don't have a protector from the future or a company of marines to defend them, and you have the "inspired by actual human psychosis" element reminding you that you can't write the whole thing off as something that could never happen (freakishly unlikely, but possible nonetheless).  Throw in some great cinematography, fine supporting performances, and, well, Jessica Biel.  Just a cool, well done movie.

I'm not saying its better than Terminator or Aliens or anything; cyborgs and sleek black aliens will always be cooler than inbred hillbillies, but they did do a really good job, and its the first slasher flick that I might actually pick up when it hits DVD.

And if anyone's keeping score, I've seen four of the "Halloween" films, five or six "Friday the 13th" films, half the "Nightmare on Elm Street" movies, all three "Scream's", both "I Know What You Did Last Summer's", and "Urban Legend."  Of all of them, the first Halloween, the first Nightmare on Elm Street, and the first Scream are the only movies I would actually consider "good."  The new TCM beats all three by a longshot.


----------



## Kai Lord (Oct 27, 2003)

nHammer said:
			
		

> You're right I'm not one of the people stupid enough to see the movie. Too bad you were. Be condescending all you want, fact is Hollywood will keep making and remaking the same old sh*t as long as there are fools, such as yourself, who support it.



What a silly, silly sentiment.  Lord of the Rings is the "same old sh*t", huh?  Or how about the original Matrix, or Spider-Man, or Memento, or Moulin Rouge?  You have no idea what you're talking about.  The best horror/suspense film of the last 29 years ("The Ring") was a remake.  Insomnia was a remake.  True Lies was a remake.  Vanilla Sky was a remake.  Get a clue, dude.  Your oh so discriminating attitude isn't impressing anybody.


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Oct 27, 2003)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> "Out-_Pooty Tanged Pooty Tang_."
> 
> Daniel




Pooty Tang was a great film.  It left a room of grown adults crying with laughter.  Sometimes being THAT bad is just damn funny.


----------



## Berandor (Oct 27, 2003)

Reading... reading... fingers itching... trying not to be drawn in... failing.



			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> The best horror/suspense film of the last 29 years ("The Ring") was a remake.



Where the original was better.


> Insomnia was a remake.



Where the original was better. 


> True Lies was a remake.



Whoa! Indeed, it was. Didn't know that. 


> Vanilla Sky was a remake.



 Where the original... oh, forget it; both films were bad.

I think this wasn't a complaint about general movie fare, but about Hollywood's urge to remake or sequelize successful movies when such a re-interpretation is not warranted.
I don't care whether the TCM is any good or not. It is unnecessary, its story has been told. The movie doesn't add anything of value (except for Leatherface's 



Spoiler



missing nose


.)

With regards to box office numbers, a whole lot of movies made money that I wouldn't consider to be "good", not by a long stretch. They simply appealed to a big group of people who went to see the film once, and the more people it appealed to, the more money it made. 
Kill Bill mostly appeals to film afficionados and Tarantino fans, TCM appeals to teens, fans of the original, and movie-goers looking for a scare. So TCM appeals to a broader range of people, and will likely make more money. Does that mean it's better? No. Does that mean it's worse? Also, no.
If Kill Bill made more money, however, then it would have successfully broken its boundaries and appealed to many more people simply because of its quality. Just like LotR, which drew hordes of people into seeing it, many of whom wouldn't normally consider watching "Fantasy".

The same applies to your "proven" word-of-mouth. Most people I know, when I tell them "Kill Bill is a great movie if you know what's referenced, and TCM is an acceptable way to spend an afternoon, but nothing great." would go see TCM (when faced with only these two choices). Still, I made Kill Bill sound better.
Some proof you got there.


> NHammer wrote:
> _Personally I think Ebert was being too nice in his review. There was no need to remake TCM, it was a complete waste of money._ _But, you know what? I don't blame the film studios for doing it. The studios know there will be people that are stupid enough to spend money to see inferior remakes of good movies. _
> _I think the studios would probobly make more money if they rereleased the original instead of wasting the money to remake it. _
> KaiLord wrote:
> Good thing you're not one of those stupid people. Now you get to spend your free time expressing a meaningless opinion on a movie. You haven't. Seen. Care to give your review of The Last Samurai? I know it hasn't been finished and no one has seen it yet, but since that isn't a prerequisite for you I'd love to hear your thoughts. Ditto for anyone else who's panned TCM on this thread.



You're wrong here. I can actually make a more or less informed statement on the movie even though I haven't seen it.
Based on reviews and capsules, I can tell I'm not interested in seeing the movie. I can also tell that by all accounts, only the production value is better than in the original, while the remake lacks certain punches and details that made TCM such a classic. That doesn't mean the remake is bad, just that by general consensus, it seems to be inferior to the original.

And nHammer doesn't say anything else about the movie. He doesn't criticize the way it was shot, the violence, or anything specific that indeed you would have to see the movie for. He just says he isn't interested, and that it seems to be an inferior remake.
And Last Samurai, by everything I have seen so far, has the potential to be great or really, really suck. Here's hoping.

I don't want to bash you, KaiLord, but cool down a little. As soon as two posters are arguing about box office figures, you know it's serious


----------



## Kai Lord (Oct 27, 2003)

Berandor said:
			
		

> Where the original [Ring] was better.



LOL.  No, dude, the original was dreadful.  I rented Ringu after reading so many claims on the internet that it blew away Gore Verbinski's remake and was shocked at how inferior it was.  None of it was scary, the actor's all sucked and/or their characters were stupid (particularly the "boyfriend") and it was just a cheap, amateur production.  Not cheap like Blair Witch, cheap like your aunt making a home movie on Thanksgiving.

But The Ring, damn what a film.  Utterly gorgeous, a fantastic cast, and oh what a mood!  The original has nothing even remotely comparable to Naomi Watts, Gore's cinematography, the scene with the horse on the ferry, Naomi's kid "you weren't supposed to help her", or the way the ending was played in the remake.  



			
				Berandor said:
			
		

> Where the original [Insomnia] was better.



I didn't see the original so I can't say.  From what I've read it won't be however, just how unnecessarily evil Al Pacino's character was originally written, IIRC.



			
				Berandor said:
			
		

> Where the original [Vanilla Sky/Open Your Eyes]... oh, forget it; both films were bad.



No, both films were quite good.  The original had a slightly better ending and I liked that it was more "dreamlike" and less sci-fi, but the remake was better in other ways.  Either way this one's hard to call.




			
				Berandor said:
			
		

> I don't care whether the TCM is any good or not. It is unnecessary, its story has been told.



By that logic LOTR and Harry Potter films are also unnecessary.  After all there stories "have been told."  



			
				Berandor said:
			
		

> The movie doesn't add anything of value (except for Leatherface's
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Holy crap!  Someone else on this thread who might have actually seen the movie!  Or did one of your friends just tell you that?   So the original TCM was an adrenaline rush in the tradition of Aliens?  Whoa, I guess the remake was unnecessary then....



			
				Berandor said:
			
		

> With regards to box office numbers,



I'm done talking box office.  It was brought up as a flippant counter to the numbers of critics who didn't like it.  I don't otherwise care or judge a film based on box office.  Whale Rider was one of the best films of the year, and was barely a blip on the radar financially (though it certainly raked in a nice profit.)



			
				Berandor said:
			
		

> Based on reviews and capsules, I can tell I'm not interested in seeing the movie.



That's fine.



			
				Berandor said:
			
		

> I can also tell that by all accounts, only the production value is better than in the original,



Actually, no, you can't tell that.  And here I thought you'd seen it.



			
				Berandor said:
			
		

> And nHammer doesn't say anything else about the movie. He doesn't criticize the way it was shot, the violence, or anything specific that indeed you would have to see the movie for. He just says he isn't interested, and that it seems to be an inferior remake.



Uh no he didn't say it "seems to be an inferior remake."  But I'm not going to continue a conversation about another poster.  He can speak for himself.



			
				Berandor said:
			
		

> I don't want to bash you, KaiLord, but cool down a little.



Yes I'm just seething with rage.  That horrible movie must have warped my fragile little mind.


----------



## jdavis (Oct 28, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I'm done talking box office. It was brought up as a flippant counter to the numbers of critics who didn't like it. I don't otherwise care or judge a film based on box office. Whale Rider was one of the best films of the year, and was barely a blip on the radar financially (though it certainly raked in a nice profit.)



Your the one who constantly has brought up box office take. Your right it really does mean nothing, unless you believe that Scary Movie 3 is the best movie ever released in October and is twice as good as either movie talked about here.

You know what there has never been any movie made that has been liked by everyone that's just how it works.


----------



## Kai Lord (Oct 28, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Your the one who constantly has brought up box office take.



Nope.  nHammer stated New Line Cinema wasted their money with the remake and that the original would have made more money.  That's not me bringing up box office take, but it did provoke me to chuckle at the humorous claim.  Nice try though.

Funnily enough, a girl at work lent me the original today.  I just watched it.  Ugh.  Not my cup of tea.  I felt yucky watching it.  In fact I thought it was so unpleasant that I just said "enough, I get the idea, I'm fast forwarding to the end to see how they wrap this up."  Coincidentally I was just a few minutes from the finale so I actually rewound it a bit and finished it.

The original is WAY more of a "geek show" movie, as I now understand the term.  It definitely tries to take you down into a macabre, freakish, carnival type family of lunacy.  That subject matter plus the artsy and psychedelic cinematography and score (particularly during the "dinner" scene), blech.

I'll take the little roller coaster ride of the remake over that any day of the week thank you very much.  Thank God Jessica Biel's character wasn't forced to linger in that freak show world, and merely ran through it at break neck pace.

Ebert and anyone else can have the "extra exposition" of the original.  Its not for me.


----------



## jdavis (Oct 28, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> The critics are definitely wetting themselves over KB, but as for the film more appealing and pleasing to a larger audience, the box office numbers actually support _my_ opinion, but who cares which film has the bigger audience? I certainly don't think anyone here does.



Posted 10/21/03


----------



## Kai Lord (Oct 28, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Posted 10/21/03



 

Yes I addressed that when I said "I'm done talking box office.  It was brought up as a flippant counter to the numbers of critics who didn't like it."

I didn't "keep bringing it up" as you said.  I mentioned it once, and then addressed the claims made by others (nHammer and John Crichton) in a context unrelated to my initial comment.  What a random thing to fixate on, dude.

You want to address any of my actual opinions on either version of TCM, fine.  But the "box office merry go round" ends here.


----------



## jdavis (Oct 28, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Yes I addressed that when I said "I'm done talking box office. It was brought up as a flippant counter to the numbers of critics who didn't like it."
> 
> I didn't "keep bringing it up" as you said. I mentioned it once, and then addressed the claims made by others (nHammer and John Crichton) in a context unrelated to my initial comment. What a random thing to fixate on, dude.
> 
> You want to address any of my actual opinions on either version of TCM, fine. But the "box office merry go round" ends here.



Does it have Box Office ponies on it? How come the Scary Movie 3 merry go round is so much bigger(49.7 million)than all the other fair rides? The first TCM cost $140,000 merry go rounds and made $30,859,000 merry go rounds. Michael Jackson is suing Scarry Movie 3 (I thought he liked Merry Go Rounds?) What if it was a Box office Tilt-a-Whirl? Is this Merry go Round a e-ticket ride? I bet Roger Ebert was too big to get on the merry go round ponies and had to ride in one of the benches. Can I think of any more ways to poke fun at your box office touchiness.....no apparently not.


----------



## Welverin (Oct 28, 2003)

Berandor said:
			
		

> I don't want to bash you, KaiLord, but cool down a little. As soon as two posters are arguing about box office figures, you know it's serious




Bah, I say! John was involved in that and you can get him to argue anything, so that doesn't count. I use his (round about) defense of the D&D movie as evidence.


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 28, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> Bah, I say! John was involved in that and you can get him to argue anything, so that doesn't count. I use his (round about) defense of the D&D movie as evidence.



I'm assuming you meant that KL will argue anything.    I'm actually in that boat as well but I tend to suppress it on message boards.  Plus, I never defended the D&D movie.  I'm just clarifying.


----------



## Berandor (Oct 28, 2003)

Hey, the D&D movie rocked! 

And JohnCrichton: Cool down a little. Anyone who argues box office numbers... you know?

KaiLord: No, I haven't seen TCM (neither have I seen the original), but as for knowing about my spoiler, that's what spoiler reviews are for.
I knew it wasn't a movie for me, but I wanted to be able to talk about it, so I read some spoilers. 

And just to show not hypicrisy, but at least misunderstaning:


> *KaiLord:*
> Uh no he didn't say it "seems to be an inferior remake." But I'm not going to continue a conversation about another poster. He can speak for himself.



Note that I didn't put "seems to be an inferior remake" in quotation marks in my original post, therefore I was paraphrasing, and


> *nHammer:*
> Personally I think Ebert was being too nice in his review. There was no need to remake TCM, it was a complete waste of money. But, you know what? I don't blame the film studios for doing it. The studios know there will be people that are stupid enough to spend money to see _inferior remakes of good movies. _
> 
> I think the studios would probobly make more money if they rereleased the original instead of wasting the money to remake it.



(emphasis mine) seems to be calling it an inferior remake, at least to my eyes.

Sorry to dredge this up again (I have at least withstood the urge to post all mentions of box office here) 



> *KaiLord:*
> Funnily enough, a girl at work lent me the original today. I just watched it. Ugh. Not my cup of tea. I felt yucky watching it. In fact I thought it was so unpleasant that I just said "enough, I get the idea, I'm fast forwarding to the end to see how they wrap this up." Coincidentally I was just a few minutes from the finale so I actually rewound it a bit and finished it.



Which is why many people call the remake inferior, because it doesn't produce this "yucky feeling". 

Bit I agree that, for example, LotR's story has been told. However, it hasn't been told successfully, so I would consider a remake doubtful, but not unnecessary. If the LotR animation film had been a classic, then I'd probably think different (especially if the animation had been any good )

Harry Potter hasn't been told cinematically.

I just think there are enough stories for movies out there that deserve a good to excellent cinematic treatment that Hollywood shouldn't go back and remake classics.

Anyway, all I can say will not change your enjoyment of the movie, and it shouldn't. I'm happy you could enjoy it for what it is, and I'm okay with the fact that it's not my cup of tea, also for what it is. I'm just annoyed at the fact that Hollywood seems to think everything needs a remake or re-interpretation, even when it doesn't.

I even agree that some foreign films may improve in their Hollywood incarnation, simply because the production value is higher. You're opinion of Ring/Ringu is an example of that.

Still, before they remake Ringu, I'd rather they make a movie like _May_.

Berandor


----------



## AFGNCAAP (Oct 28, 2003)

*Fwiw...*

I saw the movie, & I enjoyed it.  I did not enjoy it as much as the original (for certain reasons that I'll point out below), but I think it was much better than the 3rd & 4th movies of the TCM "series."  The remake was much more of a Chainsaw Massacre than the original--only 1 person was actually killed with the saw in the original, whereas the body count by saw is much higher in the remake.

There are some things about the original movie that I liked over the remake:

* The dinner scene.  This was the key nightmare moment of the original, in my mind.  It wasn't that the family saw their captive as food, but that they knew that she was a living being with feelings, and enjoyed tormenting her the entire time.  The captive could have been replaced with a hog or a cow, and you get the feeling that their behavior would have been the same.

* The ghoulishness.  The remake didn't have the gruesome display throughout the house that the original did.  No dead & decaying bodies of family members sitting in the same room with the living.  No use of the "materials" of the victims throughout the house (like the furniture in the original)--both human and animal.  The original had a feeling that the family kept doing the work they did best, though their victims had changed from beast to human.

*  The sense of the family unit.  The original had 3 brothers (Leatherface/Bubba, Hitchhiker/Nubbins, Old Man/Drayden; 4 if you add in Chop Top from TCM2), & Grandpa.  And there was Grandma (who was a decaying corpse).  There really wasn't such a clear family structure in the remake.  From what I could guess (SPOILERS ALERT): 



Spoiler



Grandma ran the store, Grandpa stayed at home.  The sheriff and Thomas/Leatherface were brothers.  Jebediah was a grandchild (though whose son he was I'm not sure).  Then there was the young woman & obese woman, who may have been neighbors or distant family.



*  The sense of madness/deficient minds.  In the original, the lone survivor lived, but didn't escape sane at all.  Leatherface seemed to be mentally challenged.  The older brother was a sadist, but seemed to be a bit more "normal" when he wanted or needed to be.  The Hitchhiker was a complete loon, and didn't have any sense at all of normality.

Then again, the remake does have its merits.  It was more of a Chainsaw Massacre than the original.  You get to see Leatherface's actual face (though the mystique of not seeing it  was a good element in the original).  Leatherface actually wore the "face" of one of the victims in the movie (I'm not sure if he does this in the original--I'm not sure if the "pretty woman" mask he wears in the dinner scene was actually the face of the victim's female friend).  R. Lee Ermey was awesome (& very twisted in this movie).  Some of the victims actually showed a "fight or flight" response instead of just a "flight" response.

I did my best to watch this movie without any real preconceptions about the original, because I knew I'd ruin it for me that way.  I think it's very good, but I don't think it outshines the original.  I did like it better than _House of 1000 Corpses_, though--I couldn't stand the editing style in that movie, & I feel that it has a lot of missing material that should be stitched back in.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 29, 2003)

ebert's a twit. See Texas. 

he gave 3 and a half starts for the aptly named "Rundown"?! Walken was pathic in that movie. The Rock's character was laughable. And the precious few action scenes were ill timed. The plight of south american gold miners is NOT why i go to an action movie. Nor is having the main character humped by a monky ever excusable.


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 29, 2003)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> ebert's a twit. See Texas.



* sigh *

I thought we were beyond name-calling around here. 


			
				frankthedm said:
			
		

> he gave 3 and a half starts for the aptly named "Rundown"?! Walken was pathic in that movie. The Rock's character was laughable. And the precious few action scenes were ill timed. The plight of south american gold miners is NOT why i go to an action movie. Nor is having the main character humped by a monky ever excusable.



Ain't it great to have an opinion but not allow others to have one without being critical?  I, for one, loved the *The Rundown* and had a blast watching it.  I always say it's too bad that someone couldn't enjoy something that someone else did.  If KL liked TCM, sweet.  It doesn't matter that I have no desire to see it or Ebert thought it was trash.  Doesn't change anything.

I could call you a name but that would be ignoring your opinion of the movie which, by definition, cannot be wrong.  An opinion is just that, an opinion.  It is not a universal truth.  Just dissagree and move on.  Besides, you should be thankful for people like Ebert.  If he is such a twit, then he is a perfect measure of what you will like and dislike in a film.  It's easy: If he likes it, don't see it.


----------



## Pants (Oct 29, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I could call you a name but that would be ignoring your opinion of the movie which, by definition, cannot be wrong.  An opinion is just that, an opinion.  It is not a universal truth.  Just dissagree and move on.  Besides, you should be thankful for people like Ebert.  If he is such a twit, then he is a perfect measure of what you will like and dislike in a film.  It's easy: If he likes it, don't see it.



Well... there is Gigli.


----------



## Welverin (Oct 29, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I'm assuming you meant that KL will argue anything.    I'm actually in that boat as well but I tend to suppress it on message boards.  Plus, I never defended the D&D movie.  I'm just clarifying.




No, I meant you (doesn't mean I'm not wrong). I did say round about, and was referring to when I said Jeremy Irons did a bad job acting in the movie and you said he was (generally) a good actor.

I agree with you on the Rundown, see it can happen!


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 29, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> No, I meant you (doesn't mean I'm not wrong). I did say round about, and was referring to when I said Jeremy Irons did a bad job acting in the movie and you said he was (generally) a good actor.



Ah.  I don't recall ever defending the movie itself as I thought it was terrible.  Maybe I defended Irons, in general, as an actor.  But fair enough.  I enjoy movie debates.   


			
				Welverin said:
			
		

> I agree with you on the Rundown, see it can happen!



This is true as I found out in the videogames forum!  LOL


----------



## Welverin (Oct 29, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Ah.  I don't recall ever defending the movie itself as I thought it was terrible.  Maybe I defended Irons, in general, as an actor.  But fair enough.  I enjoy movie debates.




That's why I said round about.


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 29, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> That's why I said round about.



It's all good.  I got what you meant even if I didn't put it in my response.


----------

