Mark Kermode On Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3D

[RockerBlocks]

He was talking about how the movie was only focusing on gore. .

This is not a review this is a cry baby who didn't get what he want.

If you saw the movie what's your say?

[SolemnBoy]

I haven't seen the new remake but I agree that the original was a good movie because it relied more on suspense and being disturbing rather than being full of gore. The 2004 (or 2003, whatever) kind of failed in my eyes because it focused too much on the violence, which made everything less scarier. The original absolutely terrified me because you never really saw what was going on. When they actually show dismemberment or chainsaw mutilations etc. you're like "Oh okay..." and it loses its value as a horror movie. Although that's just my own opinion ^_^

[monk]

I don't bother listening to critics - it's just one person's opinion, after all.

For example: Barry Norman (BBC film critic) thinks Woody Allen is the funniest person who ever lived - not to me, he ain't!

[Kinkiki]

He was talking about how the movie was only focusing on gore. .

This is not a review this is a cry baby who didn't get what he want.

If you saw the movie what's your say?

Rocknrolla, wut u watchin in ere grrl?!

[RockerBlocks]

I haven't seen the new remake but I agree that the original was a good movie because it relied more on suspense and being disturbing rather than being full of gore. The 2004 (or 2003, whatever) kind of failed in my eyes because it focused too much on the violence, which made everything less scarier. The original absolutely terrified me because you never really saw what was going on. When they actually show dismemberment or chainsaw mutilations etc. you're like "Oh okay..." and it loses its value as a horror movie. Although that's just my own opinion ^_^

I'm rather a fan of both but i do tend to agree with this.

The original can not be beat.

But i do suggest going to see this one, As I think you may enjoy the story line of this one.

One of the victims is actually the a relative to leather face. Which brings an interesting concept!

[RockerBlocks]

rocknrolla, wut u watchin in ere grrl?!

wut u think gurl!?

[Kinkiki]

wut u think gurl!?

aw hell to de naw grrl! Dun u be a corruptin' ur sqeaky cuteness wiv sumin' all blud n gore!! N how iz meh awesum sistah farin' on dis day?

[SolemnBoy]

I'm rather a fan of both but i do tend to agree with this.

The original can not be beat.

But i do suggest going to see this one, As I think you may enjoy the story line of this one.

One of the victims is actually the a relative to leather face. Which brings an interesting concept!

If someone I know is going I'll probably tag along c:

[Counselor]

I haven't seen the new remake but I agree that the original was a good movie because it relied more on suspense and being disturbing rather than being full of gore. The 2004 (or 2003, whatever) kind of failed in my eyes because it focused too much on the violence, which made everything less scarier. The original absolutely terrified me because you never really saw what was going on. When they actually show dismemberment or chainsaw mutilations etc. you're like "Oh okay..." and it loses its value as a horror movie. Although that's just my own opinion ^_^

*hasn't seen any, toddles in*

You're right about the presentation, though. If people fear most what they don't understand, showing the audience exactly what is happening only dulls the imagination needed to breed fear. Giving understanding takes away the power of the thing.

*toddles off*