Texasin moottorisahamurhat

So: A chilling atmosphere, constant tension, ever-present fear... None of that is in the new Texas Chainsaw Massacre. One star was earned by the music, the other by the bright exceptions (about two scenes that really had something to them). An unnecessary remake. What struck me, however, is that the film is set in 1973, but you can't really tell. Odd. (09.05.2010)

Purely superficial, self-indulgent entertainment. As a maker of music videos, director Marcus Nispel is capable of spectacularly filming things of zero narrative value. The camerawork and its colour filters are reminiscent of David Fincher and, together with the dark music, contribute to the film’s dense and bleak atmosphere. But the non-existent plot build-up, the ineffective scares and the absence of mystery are more reminiscent of the cheap assembly-line productions by 1970s Italian trash directors (Joe D'Amato, for example). On top of that, the film is extremely disgusting. Seven also disgusted me in its own way, but it also impressed me with its wonderfully over-the-top and polished screenplay and deep ideas. I simply found The Texas Chainsaw Massacre repulsive. Count me among its victims. (16.01.2004)

The bleakness of the backwoods setting, where you’d only stop if your car broke down could, be felt much more intensely in the original, but Nispel's film has a certain amount of atmosphere. The casting is pretty good, the representatives of the local rednecks and brutes are really disgusting and their appearance and behaviour adds to the film's impact. But while watching Hooper's original I felt horror, dismay and disgust at Leatherface's family, that panopticon of creepy creatures, Nispel's film didn't produce similarly intense feelings. Some scenes looked spectacular, but they were quite illogical, and the final chase did not avoid the clichés that have been repeated countless times. Leatherface in Hooper's film was a believable character, a weirdo with a rather perverted hobby; Nispel's swung his chainsaw too much, making his behaviour seem unnatural and out of touch with reality. I guess that's why I wasn't scared, there was no deeper experience and Nispel's film became in my eyes just one of many teenage slashers. (17.07.2004)

As a stand-alone contribution to the genre, it’s barely average; as the remake of the horror legend that kick started the genre and remains flawless, it’s awful. In the original, every decision of the characters and stylistic choice had an unshakable position in the overall system and the atmosphere; in this one, the characters behave very stupidly and the violence and most of the editing feel overly stylised, killing all the naturalism and the potential of the harsh Texan setting. Only the male audience will be in danger, because after seeing the scantily clad and sweaty Jessica Biel they may feel their pants very tight. That, plus some interesting ideas and the traditionally good Ermey are the only things worthy of attention. (22.01.2019)

At the moment when the camera goes through a hole in a bullet and it's neither cool nor impressive, but just unnecessarily disgusting, I should have realized that the whole movie would be like that. From minor gossip emerged a total disaster with relentlessly annoying characters, only one powerful scene, and one stolen Blair Witch. 30% (25.04.2006)