Review - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning

[Chris]

Starring: Jordanna Brewster, Taylor Handley, Diora Baird, Matthew Bomer, Lee Tergesen, R. Lee Ermey.
Director: Jonathan Liebesman
Certificate: UK-18, US-R, CAN-18A, AUS-R
Runtime: UK = 91 Minutes (Uncut)/US = 84 Minutes (Cut)
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJoN2yc4_mw (See Bottom of Review)
Official Site: http://www.texaschainsawmovie.com/

The Plot: Set in the 1960's, four youth's are traveling across America, two of which have been drafted into the army for the war in Vietnam. Unfortunately for them they stumble across the Hewitt house which houses the entire Hewitt family including the snarling Sheriff Hoyt (Ermey) and the legendary Leatherface, violence and torture ensues...

What's Good: R. Lee Ermey as the sadistic, yet darkly funny, Sheriff Hoyt is brilliant, considering the film is mainly centered on him this is a good thing, Hoyt is probably the most OTT character Ermey has played since Drill Sergeant Hartman in Full Metal Jacket. The film also shows the origin of Thomas Hewitt, also known as Leatherface, following him from his blood soaked birth to the chainsaw wielding maniac that has a penchant for chopping up unlucky teens we all know today. The violence is much more graphic than the previous 2003 film, with plenty of limbs being lost during the running time of the film, apparently though the US version of the film has been cut by 7 minutes in order to achieve an R rating, when originally submitted to the MPAA it was given an NC-17, so in total 17 scenes had to be cut, unfortunately if you live in the US you'll just have to wait for the 'Unrated Edition' to come out on DVD to see the film in all its uncut glory. There is also more back story to this film than the previous 2003 film which consequently adds to the 'believability' of the story and therefore makes you care about the characters more.


What's Bad: The film itself is more of a remake of the 1974 original than the 2003 version was, with certain scenes giving a real sense of deja vu, not necessarily a good thing as it doesn't bring anything new to the table. While the film was much gorier and more violent than the previous film, I feel that it could have shown more, the camera usually cuts away and leaves it to your imagination, its doesn't do this all the time though, but nevertheless I feel it could've been more violent. The story is also your usual predictable teen horror affair where it’s not just a question of if, but when the next person is going to get mutilated. It's also not scary in the slightest, I didn't jump once...


Conclusion: Despite those criticisms I did really enjoy the film, but if I had to choose between this film and its predecessor, I’d have to choose the 2003 version. It's a good film to watch though and I’d highly recommend it, but it could have been better in my opinion.


8/10

Trailer:

[Hells_Zargon]

Might go and see this along with Saw III during half-term.

[~Wayne~]

Looks good, I wanna go see it!