Was the remake better?

[fudgeflaps]

The Fly.

[IdolDroog]

I wouldnt agree with the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. The original doesnt really work with todays audiences. It's creepy fair enough but lacks any realistic heart-in-mouth moments which I personally thought the remake was FULL of. The locations, the true terror of what the characters were experiencing really hit the empathy nerve with me and I genuinely felt for them.

The combination of fast pace, well timed and genuine fear really worked with the new "capable" Leatherface who not only is built like a brick shithouse and is scary looking by anyones standards - but he also runs! fuck!...try getting out of that one. + he's pissed off lol.

I was surprised more people didn't like it at the time, the events are just simply horrific, and the sound effects help make it!

[Jock Strap]

Comparing The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre with the remake is like comparing The Beatles with McFly. What is wrong with you?

[Fred]

The Postman Always Rings Twice. Actually made three times, by Visconti in the 40's (as "Ossessione"), the 1946 film noir version with Lana Turner and the Lange/Nicholson version made by Bob Rafelson in 1981. All decent films.

[mike,,hunt]

well i don't think you will ALL agree with me but in my humble opinion i thought the remake of the hills have eyes is better.

[IdolDroog]

I DID say that given its context of its era with its audiences it's not a direct comparison - like all remakes really. But the original really lacked the "horror" i was expecting when I first bought it during my video-nasty phase about 8 yrs ago. Tbh it was the one banned film i was most disappointed with, but it has grown more and more on me every time I see it.

That said, I think theres a lot to be said for empathy. I can't relate to a bunch of 70s slackers...maybe some 00's slackers were what I needed. Maybe a modern cinematic approach, maybe an updated leatherface. Who knows, but personally I found the remake to be much more heart-in-mouth.

Im no ignoramus with horror films either, they were my life for a very long time - I just happen to like updates. Some films are just nice to see in an uptodate context. That doesn't detract from the original TCM's originality, influence, importance or style....They are both great but in different ways.

[Jock Strap]

The original TCM was the most disturbing film I have seen apart from Man Bites Dog.

[Jacques]

Man Bite Dog - not seen that for about 10 years, good film though

[IdolDroog]

But in what era did you see the original TCM - 1974?...That will affect how you read the film as an individual compared to someone of my age/generation who saw much worse stuff at a younger age and thus were a little numb to the disturbing aspects of the film because we were looking for sheer flat out horror/gore/violence.

I saw it as a horror film buff who imported all the banned films in the late 90s as a 16 yr old boy and had seen pictures of the film and read about it for years EXPECTING a horrific bloodbath only to find a lack of that.(though im not realy a gore fan - its just what i expected). Anyway - that completely affects my reading of the film.

[Jock Strap]

I saw the film in 99 in Australia just before it was finally released in the UK.
Yep.....I am desensitised to screen violence but it is a disturbing film. I can take gore splatterfests like Friday The 13th and Day Of The Dead and they are almost funny in it's explictness. But TCM has little blood and gore. It is disturbing in another, deeper way. That is why it is so effective.