Prequel Texas Chainsaw Massacre de Jonathan Liebesman (2005)

[Stéphane]

[i]Jonathan Liebesman (Darkness Falls) will direct the untitled "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" prequel that Platinum Dunes is producing for New Line Cinema, says The Hollywood Reporter. As in the first movie, which grossed more than $80 million domestically, the story follows a group of kids who run afoul of chainsaw-wielding psycho Leatherface and his demented family. The story will reveal Leatherface's origins. The script was written by Sheldon Turner with a rewrite by David Schow. Michael Bay, Andrew Form and Brad Fuller are producing via Platinum Dunes. Mike Fleiss also is producing.[/i]

[Steve]

[Kerozene]

Voila bien un film dont je n'attends rien du tout, Liebesman n'a pas les épaules pour réussir un tel film si j'en juge par son fadasse et crétinoïde DARKNESS FALLS. J'espère me tromper....

 

Mais quelle affiche

[Steve]

J'ai pas vu Darkness Falls, mais son court-métrage de commande pour le DVD de "The Ring Two" était monstrueusement beau et efficace.

[Steve]

Ouch, bon je viens de voir la bande-annonce ( http://www.apple.com/trailers/newline/tcm_thebeginning/large.html ) et je me sens gêné de ce que j'ai dit juste avant.

 

Deux mots : YES MAN

[Toussaint]

Meme si ce n'est pas la fin du monde, c'est quoi cette restriction de merde pour visionner la BA ? Ils sont chiants avec leur plage horaire, d'ailleurs c'est lheure de quel fuseau horaire ?

 

EDIT : un lien direct

 

http://images.apple.com/movies/newline/tcm_thebegining/tcm_thebegining_h640w.mov

[Creepers]

par contre je vois pas en quoi il sagit d'une prequelle d'après la bande annonce...

 

On dirait une suite toute simple avec encore des jeunes qui se font chopper par la famille de tordue.

 

Je pensais qu'on verrai le pourquoi du comment Leatherface est devenu comme ça, les premiers massacres etc...

 

C'est peut être le cas mais la B.A montre presque un copié collé du remake.

[Toussaint]

J'aime bien cette bande annonce, j'avais bien aimé le remake, j'adore ce son d'appareil photo, la nana principale a l'air bien bonne, je sens que je vais aimer.

[Cyril]

[Stéphane]

il a une longue bite Leatherface ...

[Creepers]

putain c'est vrai que ça peut preter à confusion

[Nicolas]

Je crois que c'est un peu l'idée sous-tendue nan ?

[Creepers]

Quoi que la lame de sa tronçonneuse représenterait un prolongement de sa virilité où de sa personne voir même comme étant la seule façon pour lui de s'exprimer et de s'imposer ?

 

Ca me parait trop profond pour une production Mickael Bay

[Superwonderscope]

trop profond pour bay, ça dépend s'il veut la mettre bien profond au spectateur (la tronçonneuse, j'entend).

[Tomfincher]

Sous-tendue, je sais pas... Plutot très tendue, non ?

[Steve]

Une review bien bien négative mais marrante sur AICN

 

My friends,

 

Against all odds, this is actually a lot better than anyone could've imagined. Admittedly, a prequel seems like a bad idea, and the director has only done one movie (that even he says is bad), and he told the Fangoria horror magazine he never even saw any TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE movies before he signed on. But somehow this movie is good ol' horrory fun!

 

That's how my review would start if I was a lying scumbag. But I tell it like it is, so I gotta tell you, if you hated the remake like I did you should skip this one. It's the same old shit. The best compliment I can muster is "It has a couple funny lines." Or how about, "I haven't decided if it's as bad as the remake or not." That would make a good quote on the poster I think.

 

[...]

 

I was skeptical. Number one because I remember the positive reviews for the fucking remake, and number two because I just don't see why anybody who loved TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE would want to make a prequel. I mean, when you meet that family in the original you can't conceive of how they got this far gone. So why would you want to have it explained? Are we gonna explain how Michael Meyers disappeared at the end of HALLOWEEN? Or which one of them was the Thing at the end of THE THING? I hope not.

 

But since I dragged myself out here and sat in this theater ready to watch the prequel, for fuck's sake, give me a fuckin prequel. If you think you're gonna get a BATMAN BEGINS approach, forget it. You get a short explanation of Leatherface's birth (in a slaughterhouse - I believe this is what the L.A. types call "a little too on the nose"), this happens before the credits. His childhood is brushed over in a photo montage. Then he's grown up, the slaughterhouse closes down, most of the people have left the town, and I guess that means there's no grocery stores, or butcher shops, or fuckin berries to pick, so they decide to become cannibals. It's a lifestyle decision, I guess. But here's what you're waiting for. When Leatherface (now named Tommy) leaves his last day of work at the slaughterhouse, there happens to be a chainsaw there (in case they need to cut a log later, I guess) so he takes that with him.

 

There it is horror fans, that's history right there. THERE WAS A CHAINSAW SITTING THERE, AND HE TOOK IT! Finally we understand the story behind this classic American iconography. He found it sitting there. Now we'll never be able to watch those other movies the same way again. Every time we see the chainsaw we'll think wow, there it is. The chainsaw he found sitting there that one time. It adds so much depth to the whole thing.

 

[...]

 

I don't think you even got to see him use the saw the first time, you just see it bloody later, and somebody is cut up. You see him lugging it around, which I guess is cool. The movie doesn't try to make you understand Tommy any better, but it did make me understand the main thing that is wrong with these movies. This "Thomas Hewitt" Leatherface is NOT the same character as the Leatherface/Bubba Sawyer/Junior we know from the original movies. Those Leatherfaces had personality. There's the frightened, squealing retard of the original, the bashful, girl-crazy one from part 2, the walkman-toting teenage rebel of part 3. Hell, this "Tommy" may look better than the screaming slob from part 4, but that one had more substance. He was playful. That scene where he stands behind Renee Zelweger, touching her hair. It showed you something going on behind the mask. You gotta give us something.

 

This "Tommy" character only has a few token flashes of personality. 99% of the time he's just one of those "evil" horror themed pro-wrestlers like The Undertaker or one of those guys. He even wears a mask like Mankind (but not the tie that Mankind copied from the real Leatherface). He's basically the same as Kane in SEE NO EVIL with a different backstory and less creative kills. If this movie was honest they would have rockin theme music and pyrotechnics going off behind him whenever he walks into a scene. He could do one of those wrestler interviews:

 

"Jordana Brewster, when TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE THE BEGINNING opens on October 5th, you're goin DOWN, bitch hog, and all the little leatherfaces around the world won't believe what they SAW!" etc.

 

Because that's all he is. He's not Leatherface. He's a big evil guy who kills. Might as well flex his muscles like David the Demon.

 

[...]

 

Most of the prequelizing is explaining the new characters from the remake. So you find out that R. Lee Ermey's Sheriff Hoyt is not a sheriff, he actually killed the sheriff and stole his clothes. That's a good idea, I like that, but they don't sell it much. It happens and then we move on. They don't even get much humor out of him being a crazy guy who thinks he's a cop, they just act like he really is one.

 

But don't worry, you get a detailed explanation of how Uncle Monty lost his legs. Remember, Uncle Monty? Yeah, I forgot too. The guy in the wheelchair that spilled his pee cup. Thank God I finally know how that guy I forgot about lost his legs. Also you find out that everyone left the town, including police, and that's why they can get away with all these killings. But I think that's another example of Just Not Getting It. Part of what was scary about these movies (and Ed Gein, the supposed inspiration) was that it was all going on right under your nose. Sure, it's a rural area, but it's not the middle of the fuckin desert. It's just that house over there, who knew that was going on inside? Well, not anymore. Now it's an evil ghost town in the middle of nowhere.

 

Other than that important new information, though, it's mostly another rehash. You got another carload of young people (this time the two boys are headed to Vietnam - BECAUSE IT'S A PREQUEL. THE SIXTIES, MAN. PREQUEL.) This time they get chased by a "biker chick", crash into a cow, get snatched by The Evil Fake Sheriff, then they're tied up and tortured and cut and what not. The girls run around screaming, etc. Like in the remake, the girls wear futuristic low-rider jeans.

 

[...]

 

If you just want gore, there's a couple parts, but you've seen worse. This time they remembered that they're supposed to be cannibals, so there's some disgusting soup in one part. Rated R for scenes of disgusting soup.

 

These filmatists at least had the sense to understand the importance of the dinner scene. They don't know how to execute it though. Somehow it's not as scary when the characters aren't as crazed but the camera is rotating around like a big Hollywood movie and the orchestra is telling you how momentous the occasion is. They also redo the part where Sally jumps through the window and runs across the field... but then she goes into the spooky slaughterhouse, just like stupid Whistler's daughter in the remake.

 

Once again R. Lee Ermey is the best part of the movie, but he's still just straight evil and not as interesting as the apologetic evil of Jim Siedow in the original parts 1-2. He has a couple of good lines (probaly not scripted) that show at least somebody remembered that the CHAINSAW movies have humor in them. There's also a scene I liked where some ladies have a tea party with a girl tied underneath the table. And in the last shot Leatherface is kind of hunched over, maybe he might be sad, there might be some personality there. Or maybe he just walks like that. Anyway it's possible that he has personality there, that is one possible interpretation. So I liked that shot.

 

Seriously, part 4 is a crappier movie, it has a way stupider ending, it's not as nicely lit. But it captures more of the substance and tone that is so great about CHAIN SAW. These new movies are just shallow restagings. Don't give me Lenny Kravitz's cousin and tell me he's Jim Hendrix.

 

And I don't understand, if you insist on making a prequel, why you don't take the opportunity to do something really different, put these characters in situations we haven't seen them in before. If this is the first time they ever turn to murder shouldn't there be some kind of tension there? Some kind of gradual slide from weirdo to psychopath? Maybe some parts where they almost get caught? Wouldn't that be more interesting? And besides, you already got a generation of fuckin retards believing this is based on a true story. I heard actual college students discussing it in line. ("And it's a true story, that's why it's scary.") If they HAD to do a prequel they should've gone for more of a true crime feel. Weird details that seem true to life, the kind of little incidents and mistakes that would get worse and worse and build up until everything goes south and a massacre occurs. Instead it's one little thing and then BOOM, we leap into the same old shit again.

 

They don't even make it challenging for Tommy. In the real CHAIN SAW movies he always fucks up and his brothers yell at him, in this one he's just Jason, the unstoppable killing machine. If this is the first time make something different happen. Just SOMETHING. In the end Jordana Brewster gets a car and takes off down the highway, and without giving anything away, there just MAY be a possibility that Leatherface will SUDDENLY SIT UP IN THE BACK SEAT! HOLY SHIT I HAVE NEVER, EVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT, if that is what happens, but who knows. Anyway, he saws her and up ahead there's some cops that pulled somebody over on the side of the road, but the car crashes into them and they all die instantly and he walks away, the end.

 

And that's fine, it's an okay ending, but why not mix it up a little? Wouldn't everybody be more satisfied if the cops didn't die right away, he had to crawl out and they got some shots at him and he had to actually use some fuckin elbow grease? You're telling me if he had to run around and saw up some cops to save his ass it wouldn't be more satisfying for both me and the stupid kids that the movie is made for? Because I think we all would enjoy it together and be friends, and I would apologize for calling them stupid.

 

I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused by me writing one of these "I think they should've done it this way, and this should've happened" type of reviews. But there are a million ways this could've been interesting and they managed to steer clear of all one million. If you're gonna take this great cinematic masterpiece that I love and have the balls to give it a beginning that was never there, at least humor me with a small amount of imagination or cleverness. These guys won't do it, they got nothin. It's just the same old shit, but with a baby at the beginning. If you want to see a bad movie with a baby in it, that one where Bruce is the voice of the baby has been playing on cable lately. Save your money.

 

I would like to sum up by saying fuck Michael Bay, fuck WWE Leatherface, fuck fake scares, fuck fake true stories, and fuck Hollywood for letting assholes like this chew up our heritage, spit it out and say it's been upgraded. Unfortunately, the movie was pretty boring and I just can't work up that kind of hatred, I'm not gonna be able to say any of those fucks. So instead I'll end by saying something nice. But I got nothing nice left to say about the movie so I'll say it about the local radio station dude who introduced the screening. He asked trivia questions and they were all about the original TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE, with only one mention of the remake because it also has narration by John Larroquette. That's the way it should be. The remake is a footnote, the prequel is a rehash of the footnote.

 

[...]

 

APPENDIX: Note to director Jonathan Liebesman

 

Dear director Jonathan Liebesman,

 

Come on dude. Don't do this FRIDAY THE 13TH "PREQUEL/REMAKE" bullshit. Don't let anybody do it. Just pull the plug.

 

I'm sure you're a nice guy. I've seen worse movies than your prequel. But don't listen to Michael Bay on this shit. If he has advice for you about buying sports cars, listen to that. If he says anything about a movie, surprise garbage can battering ram to the face and run like hell. The guy is a maniac.

 

I know you come from South Africa and I have nothing against South Africa. You got rid of apartheid so we're cool now. But I'm an American so just take my word for it that these movies are important to some of us here. FRIDAY THE 13TH is not sacred like TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE, but it's dumb-stupid-fun. Platinum Dunes makes dumb-pretentious-not-fun. Say goodbye to JASON X, say hello to 90 minutes of nicely lit torture scenes. If these assholes start the series over, that's the end of FRIDAY THE 13TH forever. No more fun to be had.

 

Be honest with yourself. You watched the CHAIN SAW remake after you got hired, even you were like "How the fuck did they remake it without the dinner scene?" You can't trust these people. Don't do it bud. Take a stand. Be a conscientious objector. Don't do this to us, Liebesman. Just walk away.

 

thanks bud,

 

Vern

[Cyril]

19,1 Millions de $ pour le film en 3 jours, deuxième au boxoff ricain après le truc honteux de Scorsese.

 

Pour une mise initiale de 16 M c'est carrément pas mal.

[DPG]

On peut au passage signaler que :

 

[Commissaire Tanzi]

Ouais, ben c'est bien nul. En fait, ce serait une prequelle une suite ou un remake, on ferait pas la différence. J'ai pas vu le Nispel, mais celui-ci m'a fait le même effet que lorsque j'ai vu le Jeff Burr et le Kim Henkel, à savoir pas grand chose. Ils refont même la scène du repas avec l'héroïne qui saute par la fenêtre...Putain, j'aime pas le 2, mais au moins, il avait le mérite de proposer quelque chose de différent. Sinon, pour la mise en scène, ça ressemble à un sous-colline à des yeux (la mise en scène et la photo repompe pas mal le remake d'Aja).

Seul point positif, y'a du gore...

[Basculo Cui Cui]

moi jel'ai preferé au nispel voila.

 

et la blonde elle a de beaux tétés.

[stephhorror]

C'est assurément le meilleur film de la saga après le 74 tout simplement !

 

[Cyril]

Pas mieux que les deux du dessus !!

 

J'ai pris un pied monstre à la projection du film (d'ailleurs on a eu droit a un concert de tronçonneuse avant la projection à Gérardmer) et on est plusieurs à l'avoir pris comme ça.

 

Il faut prendre le film comme une juxtaposition d'un gonzo dans le monde du gore, une succession de scènes ultra violentes raccommodées tant bien que mal une à une par un scénario prétexte.

 

Quand ça fait mal, ça fait mal Le film va super loin et même si ce n'est pas gore (dans le sens étalage de bidoche) les coups portés et les situations sont carrément extrême.

 

Je le reverrais avec beaucoup de plaisir, vraiment un très bon divertissement.

[Nicolas]

C'est quand même pas terrible et c'est le genre de film qui m'énerve typiquement tant cela sent le baclage scénaristique de haute volée.

Et c'est d'autant plus rageant, que le réalisateur n'est pas si manchot que ça... mais quand même se taper un stand up Lee Ermey interminable, se taper des bikers débiles et des claquages de grosses malsaines, l'en faut un peu plus pour ressortir avec le sentiment du film de Nispel d'avoir vu un film qui ose. La version formatée du film de Nispel.

Je sauverai le score, redoutable.

[Kerozene]

Enre deux pour ma part:

 

Le +:

Une brutalité sauvage qui ma fait faire

 

Le -:

Le vide scénaristique dénoncé par certains et mis en avant dans le Mad de janvier avec son amorce de film au fond engagé qui finit n'être qu'un film enragé sans fond ().

[El rectificador]

Ben pour ma part, j'ai plutôt assez apprécié...

Une certaine atmosphère se dégage du film, certain grace au thème musical récurrant, tentant de reproduire l'original mais quand même loin de la tension créée par le bruit de la troncçonneuse...

Quelques scènes bien , une animailté assez flambante...

Donc un bon moment, sans être un chef d'oeuvre tout de même...mais le meilleur après le maître !!!