The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning

More or less restages Tobe Hooper's 1974 original, including its much-loved family dinner scene.

"The Beginning" is a better movie than the 2003 remake, even if the plot is understandably similar. There are only so many ways hapless teens can get brutally slaughtered, after all, but Liebesman and company keep things appropriately creepy, right down to aping the look of the 1974 original.

The whole fear-of-obese-hillbillies device is starting to smell as stale as Leatherface's playroom. Does this horror trend simply reflect a national fear, as giant radioactive ants personified the Bomb in the 1950s? If so, maybe it's time for us all to go on a diet; America needs fresh fodder for its boogeymen.

Just another trip down a very dusty road.

Sadly, this movie is a far cry from the atmospheric, even thoughtfully crafted original, which made you truly scared for the unkempt, everyman victims. But this latest version, though just as grisly, is literally hackwork, and stars a forgettable, airbrushed cast of slaughterees.

The new prequel isn't really a slasher movie at all. It's a mess, with too much to say, and an odd genre in which to preach.

Putridly written, directed and acted.

Более или менее перестраивает оригинал Тобе Хупера 1974 года, включая его очень любимую сцену семейного ужина.

Not a movie that will jump out at you but a movie from a series that brings you the atmosphere and story that you've come to love

I thought that this film had the exact same format as the remake predecessor. It satisfied the stunning lead lady criteria and checked the chainsaw killing box with a big bold tick. The effects are gory, the woman damn sexy and the whole thing just a formulaic copy of the less than original remake. At least the sequel to the original did something sufficiently different to distinguish it from its predecessor. This satisfies as a wild ride that will leave you on the edge of your seat or hiding behind your fingers without originality.

The only thing mature about this movie is the acting. The rest I can't imagine being enjoyed by anyone past the 13 or some sick sadist. It was quite literally just random gore with no symbolism, no coherent storyline, no logic. Just an over-the-top blood soaked mess. I know what you're about to say:"B-But horror is supposed to be gory!" Yes but there are movies that do this better and still have a competent writing such as Hatchet.

For those who have lost track of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise, here's the deal with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning: It's a prequel to the 2003 remake The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, not a prequel to Tobe Hooper's original 1974 The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. And it has no connection with Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation, starring Matthew McConaughey and Renée Zellweger before they knew better. Got it? Okay. Here's everything else you need to know about The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning: It's really gory and really dull. Mostly just dull. And it's far worse than a cash-in prequel to a mercenary Texas Chainsaw Massacre sequel has any right to be. Hooper's film has a blood-drenched reputation, but it built its scares out of skillfully crafted suspense. Like its 2003 predecessor, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning relies on made-you-jump shocks and more fake entrails than a Jaycees haunted house. It wastes no time in getting to either, but it's still a tremendous waste of time. In drill-sergeant mode, as always, character actor R. Lee Ermey returns as the patriarch of an inbred, cannibalistic Texas clan which, this time out, terrorizes two attractive, unfortunate couples. The male half of one (Matthew Bomer) is on his way to re-enlist for service in Vietnam, not knowing that his brother (Taylor Handley) plans to dodge the draft in Mexico. That whole question quickly becomes moot once Ermey and his adopted, leather-faced "nephew" start chopping them up one by one, a process that sadly takes up much of the movie. There's a lot to dislike about TTCM: TB, beginning with the fact that it repeats whole scenes from its immediate predecessor. They didn't work that well the first time around, and they aren't improved here. Really, the film is only worth considering as part of a trend of films that seem to exist to show audiences what torture looks like in graphic detail, almost as if torture had become some kind of national anxiety. But that couldn't be the case, could it?