What do the words "Crushing Disappointment" mean to you personally? Think about that one for a second. Certainly in your long list of disappointments, there is bound to be a new release film you saw that didn't fit the awesome-amazing-godly vision you anticipated in your head. However, reading reviews of older films, I rarely see this term used. If someone dislikes an older film, they say something like: "It's just the most overrated movie of all time." But very rarely do I ever see anyone have the audacity to say an older film is completely worthless, then give an intelligent reasoning for their opinion, even if they were completely disappointed with the older film. Maybe this is because we as a society have some sort of ludicrous respect for older films, even when they don't deserve it. Though I was not completely disappointed with The Texas Chain Saw Massacrefar from itI will give intelligent reasoning as to why those blind-eyed by nostalgia need to realize this film has not aged in golden perfection. Also, I'll try to help those who were completely disappointed with this film to understand why it isn't total trash.
Because I lived in a semi-sheltered household, I didn't grow up on horror movies. In my recent years, I count this as a blessing, because I can review films without any nostalgic bias whatsoever. Nostalgia is the problem with so many reviews I read of this movie. Someone who saw The Texas Chain Saw Mass cure at the age of 5 and went in their pants is going to grow up proclaiming to the masses that it is "THE scariest movie of all time!" While, in opposite, a 20-year-old man viewing the film for the first time is going to say that "Hostel was more terrifying than this cheesy crap!" because Hostel is more modern and he can relate to it more. It's all a matter of perspective. Personally, I didn't see anything scary about this movie whatsoever. I can, however, see how someone would think that. Just because something is old and was effective to an older audience does not mean it's effective to a modern audience. If you want to live in absurd denial that The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is the scariest movie of all time, no exceptions, then may I ask who is being more immature: you, or the "kids" you claim no nothing about horror?
In the opposite spectrum, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is in the top 5 most important horror films of all time, like it or not. That isn't an opinion. In its time, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was a purely original idea, and to this day there has never been a film like it. While some will argue that it's far "inferior" to the "superior" remakes, they fail to see that the original was far more groundbreaking. The remakes strayed from the original plot and pumped it full of clichés. The original The Texas Chain Saw Massacre gave built a far more complete atmosphere and refused to explain any of the events that transpired in the film, except in the opening monologue. This is a far more original form of storytelling, and, to me, and most other people, is far more effective. It is inarguably more realistic.
But what The Texas Chain Saw Massacre doesn't have is flawless production value. Compared to movies today, this is almost like watching an indie YouTube video. The production value has aged, and it's important to understand that. Hooper's directing is still very technical and well-done, but that just can't blot out the deeply aged edge. For example, it's very obvious that Hooper was trying to shoot for a PG-rating initially. The lack of on-screen gore is very annoying at times, because by today's standards, it's incredibly tame, even if it was on-screen. Also, the acting from the secondary characters is very unbelievable, even laughable, at points. I personally can appreciate all this lack of polish, because it's far more unsealing than the clean-cut politically-correct remakes.
Overall, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre may not hold up to the blockbuster status, but it doesn't have to. It wasn't meant to. It was one of the first examples of pure, raw, anti-stylistic intensity captured on film. That's what its legacy is built around. That's why The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was so important in its time.
Like it or not, find it cheesy or unnerving, find it scary or laughable, you can't deny that the film still has something that very few other moviesmodern or notdon't have. Intensity. Uncertainty. Confusion. Originality. Even if you find the film purely disappointing, can you name a whole lot of other horror movies that have these characteristics? I can count them on one hand. And The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is the granddaddy of them all.
7/10
Because I lived in a semi-sheltered household, I didn't grow up on horror movies. In my recent years, I count this as a blessing, because I can review films without any nostalgic bias whatsoever. Nostalgia is the problem with so many reviews I read of this movie. Someone who saw The Texas Chain Saw Mass cure at the age of 5 and went in their pants is going to grow up proclaiming to the masses that it is "THE scariest movie of all time!" While, in opposite, a 20-year-old man viewing the film for the first time is going to say that "Hostel was more terrifying than this cheesy crap!" because Hostel is more modern and he can relate to it more. It's all a matter of perspective. Personally, I didn't see anything scary about this movie whatsoever. I can, however, see how someone would think that. Just because something is old and was effective to an older audience does not mean it's effective to a modern audience. If you want to live in absurd denial that The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is the scariest movie of all time, no exceptions, then may I ask who is being more immature: you, or the "kids" you claim no nothing about horror?
In the opposite spectrum, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is in the top 5 most important horror films of all time, like it or not. That isn't an opinion. In its time, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was a purely original idea, and to this day there has never been a film like it. While some will argue that it's far "inferior" to the "superior" remakes, they fail to see that the original was far more groundbreaking. The remakes strayed from the original plot and pumped it full of clichés. The original The Texas Chain Saw Massacre gave built a far more complete atmosphere and refused to explain any of the events that transpired in the film, except in the opening monologue. This is a far more original form of storytelling, and, to me, and most other people, is far more effective. It is inarguably more realistic.
But what The Texas Chain Saw Massacre doesn't have is flawless production value. Compared to movies today, this is almost like watching an indie YouTube video. The production value has aged, and it's important to understand that. Hooper's directing is still very technical and well-done, but that just can't blot out the deeply aged edge. For example, it's very obvious that Hooper was trying to shoot for a PG-rating initially. The lack of on-screen gore is very annoying at times, because by today's standards, it's incredibly tame, even if it was on-screen. Also, the acting from the secondary characters is very unbelievable, even laughable, at points. I personally can appreciate all this lack of polish, because it's far more unsealing than the clean-cut politically-correct remakes.
Overall, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre may not hold up to the blockbuster status, but it doesn't have to. It wasn't meant to. It was one of the first examples of pure, raw, anti-stylistic intensity captured on film. That's what its legacy is built around. That's why The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was so important in its time.
Like it or not, find it cheesy or unnerving, find it scary or laughable, you can't deny that the film still has something that very few other moviesmodern or notdon't have. Intensity. Uncertainty. Confusion. Originality. Even if you find the film purely disappointing, can you name a whole lot of other horror movies that have these characteristics? I can count them on one hand. And The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is the granddaddy of them all.
7/10