Hmmm.....Inside got hyped all to hell and all it was was an OTT gorefest. I will likely be best served to avoid ALL reviews and clips until this one comes out.

Considering I love Inside, I can't wait to see this movie.

i already own this movie when it comes out! i'm sold. i've loved all the new french horror movies (i.e. Inside, Frontier(s), High Tension, Ils). i want to see this SO bad!

inside was excellent...how can anybody say it was jst a gorefest!!??...the hostel and later saw films are just gore pics with fuck all tension,....inside was in deed gory bt it was laced with tension, thats why it felt so unnerving.... MARTYRS??..cant wait if its in the same league as inside!!!

I'd like to see it. Everything I know about it sounds good. I don't like the phrase "this years 'Inside'." It makes it sound trendy and fad-ish. But as far as the film itself, I'm really looking forward to it.

SOunds like something right up my alley! I can't wait to check it out...

come on Weinstein's, give us a release! PLEASE, don't sit on this for forever!

So horror has been replaced with gross outs...horror existed without gore, gore can add to it, but it shouldn't be the tent pole of horror. I will give the film a chance because it sounds strangely familiar...

no thanks, I'd rather watch my dog have a shit then watch this utter crap - and I havent even seen it. French horror is all out gore now - what a sorry state of affairs.

The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre delivered with minimal gore and is a true classic revered by fans world wide. Uber violence and hardgore aren't necassary to scare the living shit out of someone, film makers use (if have one) your imaginenation, tap into the id and unleash hell as you tell your stories.

TEXAS CHAINSAW revered by fans ? what are you smoking ? That is the biggest turd EVER.

I love French horror! Inside was perfect to me a hardcore horror fan. People say French horror is too violent & gory but Hello..watched the news lately, your either in danger of being killed by someone, something or if not your the one doing the killing.

Not seen this yet, but I'm pretty sure its not just a gorefest. The synopsis I've read suggests that at its heart is a pretty twisted idea, similar in vein to The Nameless, which is sure to play on the viewers' mind as much as the grisly stuff.

I think people should embrace these ideas that are coming out France and new horror in general. The idea of physical violence as a focal point for terror isn't new but to me the purpose of what a plot or image or fear in a film is serving, how it's captured, and the devices used along the way is part of what makes it effective. It can make anything have some sort of meaning. Not using violence or gore can come out excellently and has worked very well in the past. In that case it should still work. However, if someone wants to tell a story that involves what people commonly refer to as "gross scary"(as if it isn't psychological capable of really freaking you out) that doesn't mean it is without substance. Psychology is important but really, physical damage is interpreted by your mind and leaves some kind of imprint. There's something honest about physical inflictions, actually getting to that point where you're not running or in fear but caught up in that tragedy that may lead to demise or have affects because of such an event. Personally I'm more afraid of someone breaking into my home or subjugating me than a ghost or something fantastical. I know someone can try to kill me now. I think the realism and exploration of the existential dread attached to this type of horror has more meaning to me so I personally give films like this a chance. Yes, it is showing you the terror. Maybe there isn't that anticipation or that trick of letting your mind wonder what is happening instead of seeing it. However that blunt nature and the depiction of real suffering is a bold attempt and I can see why it would be hard to get into. It's too real. But that's what we have come to in the world today and with the horror genre that's always been about pushing the limits and taking fear to the next level we're bound to get to a point where things will get even more ugly. Comic relief, catharsis, victory might need to take a back seat if it means contemplating the darker realms of the mind and existence. Or maybe I'm just full of crap and want other people to have a reason to be excited about this film. I'm just really excited to see this film. I LOVED Inside. And I think it's safe to say that most people acknowledge the importance of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It may be dated but it isn't a turd. If anyone can't understand why despite their own opinions they've been under a rock and don't pay attention to horror culture. sorry if none of that made sense I just felt like responding to "So horror has been replaced with gross outs...horror existed without gore, gore can add to it, but it shouldn't be the tent pole of horror"

I did put paragraphs in there I don't know why it didn't show up

Glad to finally see some who has the brains to argue a point with me. All I am trying to say is, to me it seems everything has to have as much blood as they can throw at the screen. I like some meat and potatos with my frosting you know. A good case in point was cigaret burns, loved it, it had gore and a great story;(the scene where the guy in the s&m masque chops the girls neck with a meat cleaver and calls it art was quite prophetic of the future of french films.) the gore worked with it and was need to express the point that needed to be made. But flashing gore just for shock and awe with out any real point is well pointless. Being a combat vet I have encountered some truley horrific things that were right in my face, so my view of nessasary violence is a bit different. Yes I know the difference between fantasy and the real world. i have to admit the latest Rambo was pretty much on the mark as how things can be in the world. I could see Inside really happening as well and all the tourist in hell flicks to. peace.

Inside was ridiculous. The focus was entirely on gore and had so many idiotic moments I was pissed after watching it. I can only hope Martyrs is better.

Inside was ridiculous trite. I don't hold much hype for this. What a sad state of affairs when horror films are praised just for how 'br00tal' they are.

a most unfortunate over hyped film was INSIDE - shame on those who liked it.

Shame on so called "Horror fans" who become so emotionally overwhelmed with gore in horror films that they fail to appreciate anything else in the film.....and shame on people who like that turd Neil Diamond.

I guess I'm just out of step or old fashioned because I still think the main focus of a horror film is to scare, not to make the viewer so fucking uncomfortable that the movie becomes an endurance test. Gore for gore's sake gets old fast-it's the context in which it is used that makes it effective. If the only aim of the filmmaker is to bludgeon the viewer with unpleasantness, I'll pass. That'a cheap geek show filmmaking.

Inside was hugely over-hyped. It was still a decent movie, but not nearly as good as people made it out to be. Hopefully Martyrs won't be over-hyped too.

This is what horror is all about in my opinion, I realize that many people cannot appreciate violence and gore to the amount it has been executed in films like Haute Tension, Frontier(s), and A L' Interieur; But for me, this is what a truly visceral scare takes. I appreciate the spooky, moody horror to a certain extent, but for me these films become boring, and honestly a little pretentious. There's nothing more frightening to me than indiscriminate and explicit violence. And I must disagree with many of the other postings that say to much violence is a disregard to true horror, and return that disturbing scenes of violence, as well as many other contributing factors, add to what this new era of "French Extreme Gore" films are really representing... a realistic sensory experience in tension. This is what I feel almost every other critically acclaimed, fanatic zombie or slasher film of our cinematic history fails to include.

tszilla wrote - [I guess I'm just out of step or old fashioned because I still think the main focus of a horror film is to scare, not to make the viewer so fucking uncomfortable that the movie becomes an endurance test.] Like What?...like Inside?.....because Inside has managed to scare the shit out of a huge amount of people who found it a very suspenseful and scary experience. If the film didn't have that effect on you then fair enough. Different things scare different people. That doesn't make it a bad film...It's just not your type of film. tszilla wrote - [Gore for gore's sake gets old fast-it's the context in which it is used that makes it effective.] I absolutely agree with this. The problem is that those people who are "emotionally delicate" see a film with a lot gore in it and become emotionally overwhelmed by it. They only see the gore. tszilla wrote - [If the only aim of the filmmaker is to bludgeon the viewer with unpleasantness, I'll pass. That'a cheap geek show filmmaking.] "Cheap geek show filmmaking" is watering down violence and not showing it as it really is in order to appeal to the masses. Showing violence as it really is...cruel, bloody and ugly.....is ballsy filmmaking.