MovieChat Forums > The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) Discussion > Most OverRated Horror Movie... EVER

Most OverRated Horror Movie... EVER

posted 9 years ago by lrrymccmmn
53 replies | jump to latest

Yes... I said it.

Don't know why I'm stating ***SPOILERS***... because there's nothing to spoil.

I love my horror and sci-fi and this is by & by the most overrated POS, non-plot having, pointless conversations, worst script, over-saturated scene containing, kill the bitch already because the endless screaming is making me puke.
The editing was bad... the random cliché of "what's over there" actions by every character was bad. Let's pick up this dude (which is fine) and let's let him a dozen acts of weird psycho *beep* until finally we decide to let him out (which is not logically fine).

The conversations on "where's my knife", "Is he gonna find us", and "hey, let's go do stuff normal people wouldn't just go do in any situation" just wore me down. I watched the whole thing to be fair, but the 2003 remake was FAR and AWAY better than this junk. At least the characters had a point and connective conversations to the situations they were in; along with some character depth with all the characters involved. At least they didn't overly stare at a room for 5 minutes when it took 5 seconds to realize you shouldn't be there.

Sorry...just can't believe this is the highest rated version of this script. And I'm not gonna pay it respect just because it's the original and supposed to be classic. I wasn't expecting an Academy Award nomination, but 7.5 on IMDB and 90% on RT makes me wonder if I was supposed to smoke something before watching it.

Sorry... thanks for letting me ramble. You can bring it on now.

[–] halcyonsummer 9 years ago

If you don't like it, you don't like it.

However, as to having no plot, I disagree. If anything, the plot of the remake was more desperate seeing as they had to introduce a dead body for the kids to get rid of. This one keeps it simple and is void of such contrivances.

This is a classic "wrong place at the wrong time" scenario. Violence often happens in this world without any real rhyme or reason. The creators have also referred to this film as an updated Hansel and Gretel, whose similarities should be obvious to anyone who is familiar with the fairy tale.

Devising some elaborate scheme to get the kids to the town and then to the house would be trying too hard when all you really need to know is that some kids out for a summer afternoon drive ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is far scarier and true to life than any Hollywood plot you can come up with.

[–] halcyonsummer 9 years ago

I'll also add that the original feels like something you could walk away from saying "That could happen to me", whereas with the remake, how often are you going to find yourself in a van after leaving Mexico with a few pounds of marijuana on your way to a rock concert when you pick up a hitchhiker who shoots herself in said van? Come on.

[–] theblackestmagic 9 years ago

Excellent post and analysis. 'TCM' is in many ways a modern(for the 70s) and much more chaotic retelling of a macabe fairy tale/fable, by way of The Brothers Grimm, of young innocents walking straight ahead into an inconceivable and real life nightmare of horrors.

These characters are also all destined for a truly disastrous fate by way of some terribly malevolent force(s). Just take note of Pam's reading of astrology. It's not there merely for some kind of hippiesh babble but rather to lay out that these people are ultimately trapped by the very worst type of fate and what that fate eventually has in store for them all. A similar scenario was also laid out for the character of Laurie Strode in 'Halloween'(remember the discussion in the classroom scene). So the fact that 'TCM' doesn't contain some type of intricate plot is really irrelevant when all is said and done. 'Night of The Living Dead' and 'Halloween' didn't have intricate plots either, but both films are still horror classics are they not? I mean were the plots to those two films really THAT much more complex when compared to 'TCM'? I personally don't believe that they are.

[–] lrrymccmmn 9 years ago

Not gonna argue with anyone whom likes it, because I wouldn't want anyone telling me I'm wrong for not liking it. HOWEVER...

I don't think you have to be born of one generation or another to appreciate it or not... we don't all know each others' age and it would be an assumption to say older=1974 & younger=2003. Sometimes, bad movies are simply that. And for me to say that the remake is better, is NOT saying that the 2003 TCM is gold... it is not.

My points go strictly to the level of quality in the 1974 version vs the 2003 version.

Acting? Horrible in 1974. Tones are overtly performed and facial expression are overly exaggerated. Both girls did the worst scared screaming ever recorded... along with never taking a breath in between.

Dialog? Many times pointless, with no substance. How many times are we going to talk about that pocket knife, which never comes into play? How many times are we going to wonder if some hitchhiker you dropped off an hour ago is going to find us? And so on...

Characters? In 2003, depth is established through relationship issues, drug/money-making desires, trying to get to a concert, interactions with strangers are more complicated than 74's "You got gas? No. Look at that house! Don't go there."

Filming? I won't compare technical differences. But, the footage from 1974 almost comes off like a bad Thursday night movie from the same era. And the hard cuts between scenes & angles, with no smooth transitions, constantly reminds me that I'm watching a movie.

Again, I'm not bashing anyone that enjoyed it or enjoys the older horror films. I'm simply pointing out what I thought were glaring issues with why this movie is so highly rated. There are countless horror films, along with countless other genres from the same timeframe, that simply excelled in all the major parts that sum up for a film to be considered good or great.

Thanks for listening.

[–] tribalmaggot 9 years ago

The original film plays like a slice of life film gone horrifyingly wrong. Do you like Dazed and Confused?
And i disagree on the acting, Marilyn Burns at least is fantastic. Other than Michael Shannon, i dont think ive ever seen someone play completely *beep* insane quite so well, especially not through facial expressions. Its truly tragic.

[–] theblackestmagic 9 years ago

I thought that the acting, as a whole, was very naturalistic. The characters came off as completely ordinary, everyday young adults. There was no flashy acting, no attempts at being scene stealers and no attempt either to make any of these characters a bunch of deep and misunderstood rebels with complex personal histories. These where happy go lucky types(with the exception of poor Franklin) who embodied much of the naivete and carefree spirit of that particular generation of young people. And thus it could be argued that this sort of hippie mentality and world view is what ultimately led these very unfortunate characters to their doom.

[–] Mezmerize 9 years ago

Every time I read some drivel like this, I think about how much better life would be if I shot myself right through the mouth. But then I realize that's too similar to a dumb scene from one of the crappiest remakes of all time.

I find this film intricately disturbing to this day, but the first time I watched it in middle school, I was unimpressed. Then I viewed much more horror from years prior, and realized just how important this movie is. Probably 65% of the horror you enjoy so much, wouldn't be possible without this one.

It IS a generational thing that leads to this movie being labeled as over rated, and it's a damn shame, too. It may be overhyped, especially if you've watched a considerable number of horror films made after this before you watch this, but the context is extremely important to remember before the first viewing.

If I wasn't as open minded as I am, I might've ended up writing some ignorant garbage myself, and wasted a load of people's time.

[–] lukejbarnett (1869) 6 years ago

a lot of movie watching is about expectations. for instance going into watching suspiria for the first time i thought it was going to be extremely disturbing and extremely scary so i was really disappointed and i didn't like it because i couldn't enjoy it while watching it because i kept being let down by it not living up to how scary and disturbing as i thought it was after reading about it.

but thinking back now after being removed from the experience of watching it for the first time i now really appreciate how brilliantly filmed and made it is. it's a work of art if there ever was a work of art film. it's just not really scary or disturbing at all.

now if there ever was a horror film that is underrated and not given anywhere near the amount of credit and respect and acclaim and popularity that it deserves it's black christmas. this is it! this really is it, this is you could say the best horror film ever made. it is that good. it's so unnervingly scary on a visceral and psychological, primal, physical, realistic(it could happen to you), eerie, black as hell, cruel, cold, malicious, even evil, and wicked, and unconcerned with the audience's tolerance of fear and scariness and disturbingness level.

this is the benchmark that all slasher films have to try to reach but they never have as far as i'm concerned except maybe the redeemer: son of satan which was so scary and disturbing it was like i was changed after watching it and not in a good way, in a wicked way, i felt really grimy and dirty after watching it. that film is really sick and wrong in an ethical way. both of these films were so powerfully scary and disturbing that i kept thinking "please stop, please end movie!" "end this torture!"

[–] theblackestmagic 9 years ago

The way I see it, and I realize that I'm generalizing a bit here, the original 'TCM' has always been for lovers of true classic horror cinema and the remake is for the super-slick MTV generated and post-'Scream' audience. I'm just truly glad that I'm with the former.

[–] tribalmaggot 9 years ago

^what they said. I also just rewatched both films and the remake completely falls flat - the hitchikers suicide motive doesnt even make sense (and whered she pull that gun out of?), although i did like the through the head shot after she shot herself. There are too many scenes that exist solely to create tension - like at the end when the survivor girl is running up the stairs to get out of the house and Leatherface grabs a hold of her leg. Hes trying so hard to pull her back but he has a running chainsaw in his other hand, why doesnt he use it? Or if his intent is to keep her in tact (why?) Why not drop the saw and use both hands? Then the family is just too evil its actually cliche. The original family is more realistic, and lastly the original house was way more unsettling - between tue grandparents and the bone furniture theres really no comparison. I could also make an argument that the remake made a mistake not doing the dinner scene, or that Marilyn Burns acting (and the fact that she was clearly insane by the time she got to the gas station and that even though she survived she didnt win) really makes it. But thats really just opinion.

[–] Lovetvshows 9 years ago

The remake is awful. Leatherface almost has a superhuman strength that is not believable. As far as the character developed goes most young people actually talk like the group of young people in the original TCM. I remember in the late 70's people at a high school dance talking about a guy's boots for most of the evening. Most young people are not going to talk about the meaning of life. The original TCM is an excellent movie because it is realistic and gritty. You actually feel that you are a voyeur watching a group of young people being killed off one by one.

[–] tribalmaggot 9 years ago

Having recently rewatched the remake and its prequel, Leatherface barely even features. And when he does hes sort of just an attack dog, the movies are more about Hoyt.

[–] saragooner-86-130769 9 years ago

Your first mistake was taking Rotten Tomatoes (or IMDB) ratings as gospel. Having said that, even though it's certainly not my favourite horror movie, I wouldn't at all say it's the most overrated horror movie ever, or overrated at all for that matter.

[–] snoho 9 years ago

Another fan of that remake! It must make you bitter that it's impact/impression on the GP was NOTHING in comparison to the original . Who cares what you think at the end of the day Texas Chain Saw Massacre is still going to be an all time horror classic no matter how much you hate it. I don't care how much more polished the remake is it's dull in comparison to the first.

[–] mikebmc 9 years ago

It's like watching a snuff film jacked to ten. Kudos

[–] merttemizsoy 9 years ago

I liked the movie except the last part & the end. Jim Siedow was very succesful as "Old Man". But the last part of the movie is really not good.

[–] jospehine_b 9 years ago

I don't think it's the most overrated EVER, overrated maybe yeah, but not the most for sure. There's a thing that it was sort of the first to do that docu thing real well, so it def stands out for that and was pretty chilling and nauseating overall

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]