Connect with us


[Good Scenes In Bad Movies] The ‘Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)’ Edition!

I thought the 2003 remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was serviceable. Neither as fun as Friday The 13th 2009 (sue me, I love that one) or as abysmal as A Nightmare On Elm Street 2010. The Wolfman sort of feels the same way. He doesn’t exactly like it, but he can’t outright hate it (even if it’s of course nowhere near as good as the original). Sometimes finding a saving grace in a film comes down to finding just one scene that really hits it out of the park. And that’s precisely the point The Wolfman (@TheWolfmanCometh – on the boards) aims to illustrate here in his column!

We’re going to, on occasion, start examining good scenes that outpace the general quality of the film that contains them. And we hope you’ll come along for the ride! Head inside for his take on The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2003!

Whether you actually like the movie or not, I don’t think there’s any question within the horror community of the impact that The Texas Chain Saw Massacre had in 1974 and how that impact can be felt to this day. Almost 40 years after its release, we’ve seen hundreds of copycats or movies with similar themes that involve a mentally or physically deformed individual or group of individuals who are killing anyone who stumbles into their path. I think the biggest strengths of the original, as is the case with most classics, would be factors that were seemingly outside the production’s control. For example, the poor quality of film used on The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is what makes everything feel so grimy, filthy, and real (similarly to how the shark looking awful in Jaws caused Spielberg to barely show the creature). I won’t go on and on about all the reasons why the original is so good (but you’re more than welcome to by reading the review on my personal blog), but I wanted to emphasize its lo-fi feel to contrast it with what went so wrong with its remake in 2003, which cost roughly $10 million.

Using a similar style to the original, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre opens with footage “recovered” from investigators of the Hewitt household, and even got John Larroquette back to do the voiceover. From there, we see a group of coeds on their way to see Lynyrd Skynyrd, as was common practice in 1973. After picking up a hitchhiker who appears to be in need of assistance, the gang learns that there isn’t much they can do to help her, made clear by this hitchhiker pulling a gun out of her bathing suit area (the bottom parts, no less) and shooting herself in the head. When the gang pulls into a local gas station in hopes of getting help from the town sheriff, they instead receive help from R. Lee Ermey, who I’m willing to bet has never helped anyone do anything except cry over their physical imperfections. What follows is a bland series of chase scenes involving a big guy with a chainsaw chasing around Jessica Biel, and every time she thinks she’s made it away safely, we realize that the Hewitt family is quite large (figuratively and literally) and Leatherface (the most leathery-faced member of the Hewitt clan) catches up to her. She ultimately tricks him by putting a pig in a locker (huh?) and chopping his arm off. She then went on to get married to Adam Sandler and Kevin James… or something, I can’t really remember.

Being judged on its own, I can’t say this movie is awful, but compared to the original, it holds absolutely none of the fear or, dare I say, charm of Tobe Hooper’s 1974 version. Some of the cinematography was decent, causing moments where you felt like these characters really were driving through Texas in 1973 (based mostly on sweat), but that’s about it. The violence wasn’t really all that graphic, or at least not any more graphic than anything else in 2003. Then again, the original didn’t rely on gore to get its terror across, so I guess it’s a moot point. It was entertaining to see R. Lee Ermey chewing up the scenery around him, but it also really only showed just how much more talented he was than everyone else involved, making them look terrible by comparison. You didn’t care about any of the characters or whether they lived or died, but again, not too different than the characters in the original. I could see where the remake tried to go by highlighting the familial aspect of the original, but I think all the family members were just watered down versions of characters we’ve seen in other films in their generic creepiness. In fact, I think it was the almost cartoonish interpretations of the family members in the original that, when juxtaposed against the horror of the events at hand, made that film all the more successful. All that being said, there was one particular segment I found quite enjoyable.

One of the weirdest scenes in the original film is when a hitchhiker (Edwin Neal) is picked up and he proceeds to thoroughly creep out everyone in the van. From taking pictures of them that he sets on fire, to telling stories of when he used to work at a slaughterhouse, to straight up cutting people, he successfully creeps out them and the audience. The remake tried to do things a little differently, possibly knowing that they couldn’t even try to achieve the same effect that this scene had in the original, and they instead turned it into an ominous and foreboding moment. As I already mentioned, it involved a girl stumbling, crying, and bleeding her way down a dirt road. When she’s picked up, her ramblings don’t make sense. Once she tells them “You’re all going to die”, she puts a gun in her mouth and shoots out the back of her head. We see screaming and flailing, but the best part of this segment is when a camera starts in the driver and passenger seats, pulls back to see the reactions of the characters in the back seat, continues to pull backwards THROUGH the recently opened hole in the hitchhiker’s head, her head flops backwards towards the camera with a well-timed “thud”, and the camera continues out through the hole created by the bullet in the back windshield. Although the acting in that scene (if you want to call Jessica Biel frantically screaming “acting”) isn’t all that good, the practical effect is a really successful one. I have the Special Edition DVD (whoops, did I just admit to that?) and saw a little behind-the-scenes segment talking about that scene and how all it took was the prosthetic of the actress’s head and an endoscopic camera on the end of a long pole. The pole is what held the head in place, so as soon as the camera/pole rig was clear, the head flops. Simple, effective, and a cheap way to make a nice, gruesome gag that reminded me a lot of some of the shots accomplished by Raimi’s team on the Evil Dead movies. There were a few other moving parts to that scene, but that’s the gist of it. Another reason this scene is noteworthy is because up until this point, between the opening sequence and the look of the film, it really isn’t all that bad of a movie. But pretty much everything after that sequence is garbage.



  • joesey

    I loved this remake it got me jumping and screaming in the theater

  • Kroork

    I loved the remake!!! One of my favorite movies !!!!!

  • Dns88

    ‘good scenes in bad movies’?? seriously? Its like the best remake of a horror movie ever! I thought the acting was good,i could feel the tension troughout the whole movie and honestly,it scared the crap out of me! :p and when you say ‘you dont care whether they live or die’ ummm i dont agree on that,cuz i was actually crying a little when Erin stabbed Andy in the basement. But i do agree with you on one thing. The hitchacker scene was the best one!

    • EvilHead1981

      I totally disagree. The Fly, The Thing, those are more worthy of “best remake of a horror movie ever”. TCM, was decent, but it’s flaws prevented it, IMO, from being good. One glaring thing that stood out to me was how Leatherface was portrayed. It’s like they took the original at face value(LOL at the pun) and made him like Jason Voorhees with a chainsaw, because that’s what PD’s Leatherface is. Gone are the remotely sympathetic aspects, or the remotely psychotic aspects. New Leatherface is just deformed(which he wasn’t in the original, Tobe Hooper said so) and pure beast of agression. It’s kinda like what Rob Zombie did with Michael Myers(which is why people joked that Freddy was going to be like that too, and have some 8-foot tall wrestler portray him…LOL). It’s kinda the whole “horror bleeding into itself, loosing any individual uniqueness” that was trend I so hated during this time(early 2000s). People say, it was the new people making it their own, I say it was the new people making unique horror ideas into “what everybody else is doing”.

      • Rosey Thorn

        Wait, wait, wait – you liked the remake of The Thing? Your argument is invalid.

        • The Wolfman

          I’m going to assume he meant John Carpenter’s “The Thing”, as that was a remake of “The Thing from Another World”, not the remake/prequel that just came out.

  • Taboo

    The fuck? How is this a bad movie? Seriously this site…

    • EvanDickson

      @Taboo read the article. He doesn’t hate the movie – even though he has the right to!

      I personally think the TCM remake is so-so. Better than NOES, worse than F13.

      • GhettoWerewolf

        Eh, I read the article, and it seemed to me as though he scathed it.

        • GrimDingo

          Cause it was kind of crap

  • KeepDoubting

    Yeah I gotta agree with what everyone else is saying. I loved this remake.

  • GhettoWerewolf

    Dude, what movie were you watching? The remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was one of, if not THE, best remakes I’ve ever seen, horror or otherwise. I believe your whole problem stems from Jessica Biel and the fact that she’s done some shitty movies in her time, and, trust me, she’s done some shitty ones. But you have to look past that, and whatever other misconceptions you have about this film or the people invovled. It’s a really great horror film with a lot of suppense (though I’ll admit I wasn’t scared by it, but I rarely do get scared by films). I just genuinely don’t understand your hatered of this film. Although I was pretty young when it first came out, I was a huge fan of the original, and hoped that it would stand up to it. After watching it the first time, I loved it. Then, when I got a little older, so that I could truly judge the quality of the film, I watched it again, and still loved it. So, as I said before, I truly do not know what movie you watched, but the one I watched was an amazing film, and quite possible the best remake I’ve ever seen.

    • The Wolfman

      My dislike for this movie has NOTHING to do with Jessica Biel. In fact, I think the only thing I mentioned about her was that in the clip provided, her acting is kind of goofy. She’s decent enough, but it’s not like there weren’t dozens of other actresses who could have done just as good. Also, you end with “best remake I’ve seen”. I’m glad you liked this movie so much, but it being the best remake YOU’VE seen means that it’s just your opinion, which you’re entitled to.

  • Rosey Thorn

    While I agree with you that the Friday the 13th remake is underrated (it’s a fun slacker comedy), I think that the 2003 Texas Chainsaw is also pretty great in its own way. And stop shitting all over Jessica Biel’s acting. She delivers better scenes than nearly anyone else in this film, and is one of my favorite new-gen genre actors. Did you watch The Tall Man? Super disappointing as the follow up to Laugier’s last film, but Biel’s acting made it possible for me to sit through the whole film.

    • The Wolfman

      I didn’t “shit all over her”, just pointed out that she wasn’t that memorable, especially compared to doing scenes with R. Lee Ermey. And yes, I have seen The Tall Man, and yes I thought it was terrible, and I was glad to see her taking a less “sexy young coed” role, but still not really worth much else.

  • BelaManiac

    I have to agree with everyone else here. This is one of my favorite remakes. The Friday remake was complete shit but to each their own, right?

  • Lionel-Cosgrove

    I also loved this remake. I hold it right up there with the Dawn Of The Dead remake for doing something new with a classic.

    • The Wolfman

      I think Zack Snyder made some interesting choices with the Dawn of the Dead remake and is pretty entertaining in that respect. Although, to say that this remake did something “new” doesn’t feel like the right word, because so many movies have been made with a similar premise, but it definitely went in a “different” direction.

  • The Wolfman

    Just to clear some things up, I did not HATE this movie. Being judged on its own, not comparing it to anything else, it’s decent enough, certainly not terrible. If R. Lee Ermey hadn’t been in it, this movie would have been completely forgettable. HOWEVER, compared to the original, yes, this movie is pretty awful and could never come close to being as effective as the original. And yes, it is better than other horror remakes that have been done, but considering the amount of remakes out there, and the amount of subpar movies getting remakes for no real reason, saying it’s the best remake isn’t saying much. Either way, I’m glad to see the discussion, because I welcome any opinions different from mine and am glad to see I’m not the only one sharing my opinion.

    Here’s my more in-depth review on my own site:

    • JVoorhees86

      You have no reason to try to defend this article. Personally, I’m shocked at all the love the TCM remake is getting by everyone. This movie was torn apart when it was released. Horror fans were pissed that they attempted to do a remake of one of the greatest horror movies every made(IMO). The remake is NOT a great movie, nor is it a bad one. As remakes go, it’s one of the better but let’s not be fooled into believing that this is a good movie; entertaining: yes, but good: no. I read your article and agreed with everything you had to say. I may not agree with other articles you’ve written but I certainly enjoy reading them.

      • The Wolfman

        Thanks dude! Glad you can enjoy reading them, even if you don’t agree with the message. I look forward to writing more (once I have more time).

  • GrimDingo

    Thank you for reminding me of this scene, I had completely forgotten about it, along with the rest of this movie except for R. Lee Ermey cause he’s just awesome. Thats a pretty great scene and shows some gosh darn creative film making, if only the rest of the movie could have followed suit. This remake was pretty bleeeh but my favorite of the Platinum Dunes remakes is definitely their Friday the 13th. Nightmare on Elm Street was just fucking stupid

  • LAPD

    I don’t get what you DON’T like about this movie? This movie was downright disturbing, in a good way. I think the only remake that trumps this is the Dawn of the Dead. The Friday the 13th remake was a complete piece of crap, and you love that. So, whatevs…..

    • The Wolfman

      What I didn’t like was, well, basically everything? Since there were less things that I enjoyed about it than things I did enjoy, I figured it’d save time to point out the good things then all the bad things. Also, two different people wrote the intro of the article and the rest of the article, and it was Evan who loved F13th remake, not me.

  • WalkingDeadGuy

    I agree with the other comments above, this was a good film; definitely one of the better remakes of the last 10 years; not as great as ‘The Ring’ and the ‘Dawn of the Dead’ remake, but on the same level as ‘The Hills have eyes’ and ‘Last House on the Left’ remake I think. I get that this is just their opinion, but how is this considered a “bad” movie??? Bad movies are movies like ‘NOES’ remake, ‘Freddy vs Jason’, ‘Black X-mas’ remake, ‘Jeepers Creepers 2’ (BTW: the opening “scarecrow” scene in JC2 is a great example of a good scene in bad movies)

  • Zombie-Killa

    It’s not perfect, but the 2003 remake is a guilty pleasure for me. How can you hate a movie with R. Lee Ermey portraying a sadistic sheriff?

    Oh, and that scene is SICK. I can still remember the collective “holy shit!” reaction in the theater years ago. Epic moment.


    I thought the remake was better than the original (I’m sure I just pissed off millions of horror fans saying that). The second half of the original was extremely boring for me so I typically fall asleep. The F13 remake was fun too and the first 15 minutes were amazing

    • M.a.r.y.

      agree with you about this film and the original The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,

      haven’t seen F13 remake though

    • The Wolfman

      First person I’ve heard who’s ever liked the remake over the original, and you know what? Awesome! Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. I mentioned in the beginning that you don’t have to like the original to understand why it had such an impact on all horror movies. Thanks for reading and putting in your 2 cents!

  • M.a.r.y.

    ARE you kidding me????
    this film was one of the best remakes I’ve ever seen!!

  • R. Lee was great.. but he makes a point. he outshines everyone in the movie. the extended family takes away from leatherface and it makes him more a generic villain.. probably the best of the PD remakes and leagues above ANOES. but that is not to say it was all that good. while there was some great cinematography it looked too slick.. one of the defining things of the original was that it was rough and raw.. the remake was too glossy.. and like almost every horror remake lately you just wait for the cannon fodder to be mowed down. even TCM.. or Friday and especially NOES i just wanted ALL of them dead. leatherface lost his personality.. freddy was some melted cat looking thing.. and even Jason.. in the later films much like micheal meyers had some odd personality. not in the remakes though.

  • best remakes ever? Decent servicable. Scarface_ The Fly_ were good remakes.

  • ThunderDragoon

    Wow, you guys really need to have us vote on these things because this remake was great. I guess just because it’s a remake it’s considered bad. That’s bullshit.

    • The Wolfman

      No, it’s not bad because it’s considered a remake, it’s bad because it’s doing things that’s been countless times before. It just HAPPENS to be a remake of a highly regarded horror movie.

  • lovezoid

    ‘Some of the cinematography was decent, causing moments where you felt like these characters really were driving through Texas in 1973 (based mostly on sweat), but that’s about it.’

    It’s the same cinematographer as the original, which is why they at least get the look and feel mostly right. I think that actually elevates the material quite a lot. Love R. Lee Ermey in this, and Jessica Biel does massive justice to the iconic slasher white tank-top, it’s really quite beautiful.

    • The Wolfman

      Hadn’t looked into enough to see that it was the same cinematographer. Thanks for pointing that out!

  • Jerv23325

    The problem with this site and this article is that it is so out of touch with the horror community that it’s laughable. TCM 2003 is widely considered to be one of the best horror remakes around.

    He is of course entitled to his opinion, but being a public forum for thoughts he should also expect the backlash that comes with posting your opinions. Especially ones that go against public opinion.

    Personally, the fact that he thought the F13 remake was better than made me zone out. Sorry, but that is a better basis for good scenes in a bad film!

    • The Wolfman

      How is it out of touch with “the horror community”? Are there newsletters that come out that post the official statistics of what the best horror movie remakes are?

      You’re right, I am entitled to my opinion, and everyone posting how they feel differently is entitled to their opinion. I expect backlash with everything I post, especially because people who disagree are always more vocal than those who do agree. Doesn’t mean I’m taking back what I think or getting offended. I’m glad there’s a discussion going on!

      Also, Evan wrote the intro and I wrote the article. He likes the F13th remake, not me. Just wanted to clear that up.

  • I love this movie. It’s a great, gory film. However, it really can’t be compared to the original. At all. The original is so wonderfully creepy and eerie. The remake is just a good-old bloody and fun film. I actually agree that the remake is “bad” in that it is so typical and predictable — so I understand the point that is being made here!

    • The Wolfman

      Thanks for reading and sharing your opinion, Olivia!

  • Bloodshy

    When I read the headline I was like “WTF”? A movie like “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” remake is considered as a “bad” movie these days? We live in strange times I see… For me, TCM’03 is a good movie with lots of good scenes. This was one of the few movies that really scared me at the theaters. Still love it.

  • Incinerated

    Ha, all these comments are news to me. Aside from the look and Ermey’s twisted character, myself and others I’ve talked with, and read the opinions of, always thought this was a generic remake. I also felt it was tame in that it couldn’t even get with the times and at least deliver some gore to go with the bore. TCM:Beginnings at least managed to be horrifyingly violent and bleak. That along with Ermey’s stronger presence make the prequel a better film than this remake, imo. Maybe I missed when this finally became good and I should re-watch it. As it is, I agree with The Wolfman and enjoyed his highlighting a good moment from the film. That was a wicked shot.

    • The Wolfman

      Thanks! I agree that I thought the prequel to this remake was better than the remake, and I think that prequel had a few more direct references to the original. The dinner scene in that movie comes to mind as an example. I also agree that I have no idea where all of these people who love this movie have been hiding, because I’ve never spoken to anyone or read any single review that looked at this movie in a positive light. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, of course.

  • divisionbell

    What??? Not only is this not a bad movie at all, it’s a perfect example of what a remake should be. It was scary and really well done. Aside from the awful child, this movie is pretty much flawless. The original was scary (for its time) and original, but it doesn’t hold a candle to the new one.

  • anthonyd1

    I also agree that this is one of the best horror remakes ever. And it is also the one of the most successful remakes at the box office. I will never forget seeing this remake opening night in the theater. Gave me chills when Leatherface slammed that door shut.

  • Dream-Master08

    THIS REMAKE WAS AWESOME!!!!! I wont say it was better than the original in its entirety, but there are aspects that are far better in the remake than the original. I mean just think about the trailer…The best trailer for a horror film in quite some time. I totally disagree with the idea that The Friday the 13th remake was a good film. Maybe that should be the next “Good scene in bad movies” editorial.

  • DANTEarg

    Ok, just for you to know in argentina the original was called “El loco de la motosierra” motosierra=chainsaw. and the remake was called “la masacre de Texas” Anyway, I just can´t compare one film with the other. For me they are two different things, both are extremelly beautifull. I think Jessica Biel´s Erin is now an iconic “scream queen” alongside Laurie Strode From Halloween and Sidney Prescott from Scream. I can´t remember why but this film wasn´t realesed in Argentina, not even on DVD. So i bought it from amazon and it was the best buy ever. As a horror fan it has a special place, because I waitted too fucking much to see it, and i absolutely loved every second of it.
    Evan, would you please tell us why u liked F13th so much? That is something that i would love to read.

    • The Wolfman

      Thanks for checking in all the way from Argentina! Awesome! Thanks for reading and hopefully you read future installments as well.

  • joe31183

    This movie was awful! This writer is the same one who messed up The Amityville Horror remake. It is just one “exciting” thing after another. Like no moments of quiet suspension, it’s all bang bang bang until the end. Also it’s one where every move the characters make you’re thinking “Are frickin’ stupid or something?” The writer does this to set up a scary scene because if the character reacted like a normal, real life person would, they couldn’t make that silly scene. Same thing with Amityville; one suspenseful thing after another. If it wasn’t for the creepy imagery in Amityville that movie would have completely sucked. And this guy over “fleshes” the story out. The originals were very simple ideas, but this guy has to make them extremely complex and it just takes away from the quiet creepiness. So yeah I hated this movie.

    • jd

      I started a new post, but you pretty much hit the nail on the head here. Reading all of the posts where people rush to defend this movie is frustrating. The whole thing is a very quick cut, action, action, action, slick cinematography music video. Biel is fine but, as Wolfman said, her role could have been played by any starlet who looks good in a tank top. In fact, the camera’s focus on her curves was gratuitous and took away from the overall impact of the film. It may be decent on its own and it may be some people’s fav remake (crazy people?) but compared to the grit, anxiety and gut-wrenching terror of the original it is the pop-culture equivalent of junk food.

  • Joe-Banger

    Wow! And you call yourself a horror fan! LOL! To each their own. The only scene I didnt like was when erin cut off leather faces arm. I could see her badly wounding him with that cleaver but not taking his whole arm off! Not believable to me. Yes Even this time I read the whole article and you made some interesting points and comparisons between the original and the much needed remake. I waited over the years to see the original because I listened to the hype over the years and when I was 23 I finally saw it and it was not scary! If anything it was funny! Good article but next time please pick a truly bad film with maybe one good scene.

    • jd

      oh, now i see why these shitty remakes keep getting made.

      • The Wolfman

        OH SNAP

  • betz

    im surprised at how much Wolfman is responding and having to keep re-explaining himself. IDIOTS!!!

    …TCM 2003 was great tho but nothing compared to the OG!

    • The Wolfman

      Since you said the PLURAL form of idiots, I’m assuming that wasn’t directed at me. I keep responding because I encourage discussion on why people like this movie, but no one has given me a reason to think this is a good movie. I’m also hoping that someone who commented and saw my response might read my response and understand what I’m saying.

      However, if I read wrong, and you were calling ME an idiot, well, uhhh…I have no retort.

      • betz

        not you, im jus sayn.

      • mav07

        It was a technically sound picture. Cinematography/lighting, sound editing, color correction, score, Costumes, Make-Up effects, set design etc…
        The film student nerd is coming out of me now.

        The entire package made this film great. I’m talking all the way back with the teaser trailer. Still one of the greatest trailers i’ve ever seen. The poster was very creepy without giving too much away. The film itself, and then the dvd art/package. All perfected to a T!
        With the movie, they basically threw out the term “remake” and created the “re-boot.” This was not a shot for shot remake with the same scenes, same characters, same fucking dialogue. It basically held up it’s middle finger to other remakes AND the original and said “FUCK YOU, we’ll take it from here.” It took the same basic idea and amped it to 11. Better direction, better sets & actors obviously due to more money. Way, WAY better make-up. The only complaint I remember from die hard fans of the original is that the remake didn’t have the dinner scene. It’s a remake! WHY does it need the exact same scene that we have already seen?
        Don’t get me wrong, I like the original. But like “Carpenters The Thing” and Snyders Dawn of the Dead, I believe it’s VERY possible to out-do the original. And I think “Chainsaw 03” did that.

  • Cozen

    Great scene and good article.

    The 1974 TCM is truly art in filmmaking. The 2003 remake is merely serviceable as a horror film (as previously stated). Now that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, unless in the context of juxtaposition with the original. I can “like” the remake because I love and respect horror and anyone that produces it. I can also laugh at the thought of it usurping Hooper’s masterpiece. My views fall closer in line with The Wolfman, just maybe not as lopsided.

    ^^^ agreed, carpenter’s Thing and The Fly are worthy of best remake honors.

  • undertaker78

    I agree with others that this was an effective remake. It’s not even close to my favorite remake but to say it’s a “bad movie”, while complimenting Friday the 13th, is a bold statement to make. I’m not even a fan of Jessica Biel and I can even admit she does some stellar work.

    Good remakes: Dawn of the Dead, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (’78), The Thing, The Blob, The Fly, The Hills Have Eyes, Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

    Bad Remakes: Friday The 13th, The Fog, Black Christmas, The Wicker Man, When A Stranger Calls, The Haunting.

    • The Wolfman

      One person (Evan) said he liked F13th, I (Wolfman) wrote the article. But yeah, I think those lists are pretty close to what most people think as far as good/bad remakes.

  • anezka

    I believe the biggest problem with this remake is that the original is so good that it is really difficult to compare. I mean, it is not that the TTCM is bad, it is just not as good as the original and it makes the film looks worse than it actually is. I enjoyed the remake, but there is nothing like the original Leatherface.
    And I gotta say I don’t have anything against remakes, except for Nightmare on Elm Street (which is just awful), I almost always enjoy them, even when they are not as good as the original.

    • The Wolfman

      Considering how there have been some GREAT remakes, I always goes into watching a remake with an open mind. You’re right, this movie is unwatchable, it’s just very bland and generic, and did NOT need to be called “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”. Had it been named something else, and replaced Leatherface with random chainsaw person, and it just would have been an okay, albeit unmemorable, movie.

      • anezka

        Yeah, I would say so. It would be one more standard slasher movie. The kind you have some fun watching people being killed and after a couple of months you don’t even remember how they died. But it would certainly look better if there was no such comparison with the original and memorable Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

  • Cozen

    ^yeah, I actually fast forwarded NOES remake to the end after 45 minutes of giving it the benefit of the doubt. Then I fast forwarded the end. I generally watch movies all the way through…even bad ones.

    Question: would the opening scene of the NOES remake qualify for this article, or would it have to be titled “decent scene in a horrendous movie?”

    • The Wolfman

      Considering that I don’t even remember what that scene was, I can’t really say. All I remember about the NOES remake was misleading the audience by having us question whether or not Freddy Krueger actually DID rape all those little kids.

      • mav07

        I actually wish they would have actually made Freddy innocent in the end. How shocking and cool would that have been for the remake! It would have made a lot more sense and it would have elevated a terrible movie to a terrible movie with a balsy ending. I KNOW the writers/producers questioned themselves wether or not to make him innocent, but sadly they made a poor decision.

  • aus10

    The first time I saw this thing, my jaw dropped. Cool scene. Not too bad of a remake.

  • Cozen

    ^if I recall, the opening scene of NOES refake was a kid in a diner that slit his own throat. Something to that effect. Of course it was really Freddy doing the slicing.

  • I LOVE this remake! It’s one of the only good remakes of a classic horror movie. Honestly hated most of the original. Thought everything up until Sally is at the dinner table was terrible and the kid in the wheelchair was annoying as hell! I’m disappointed in you Bloody-Disgusting

  • austintexas

    I will never understand why there are so many people out there ready to discredit this movie the second they hear the name. I remember a few months before its release, people were going apeshit at the mere thought. Everyone was expecting a failure. Everyone wanted a failure.

    That wasn’t the case. Not only was it a good remake, it was a damn good horror movie. Period. This article mentions terrible actors. Really? In no world is Eric Balfour a bad actor. The rest of the teens are respectable, the way they are potrayed (whether because of the actors themselves or the script) make you feel for them. Though I guess it would be hard to not be rooting for the cast when faced with such horrors.

    Don’t get me started on Jessica Biel. In the context of what this film was, what was bad about her performance? Nothing. She was believable, and she nailed the part of the final girl. It wasn’t oscar caliber work, so what.

    This film is one of the last horror films I was truly frightened by. Andy’s amputation and the ongoing scenes involving him are potent and chilling. My only complaint with the entire film is Peppers death.

    The original is a legend, rightfully so. I, personally can’t bear to sit through the entire thing. It has not aged well, and while many admire the sheer realness of the entire ordeal, I can’t get past the annoying characters and bad acting.

    I love many older horror films, Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, Psycho, Prom Night, Fright Night, and the original Hills Have Eyes to name a few. This has nothing to do with my age, or the age of films.

    I think the biggest problem with this article is the fact that it was even included to be in these segments at all. It would appear, by the rest of the comments, that inclusion was a mistake. I thought these articles were supposed to be about films that are universally panned.

    So perhaps for the next article you should pick a more suitable title like, I don’t know, Saw V.

  • Evan3

    Been awhile since I saw this, but I remember it being terrible (and yes, still better than NOES) My guess is most of the “defenders” and “supporters” of this film have never seen the original and don’t realize what an affront this was (for the record, I don’t like the original either, but I sure respect it). Bland and generic as they come,but what more would one expec from a Michael Bay production?

    Also @austintexas – This movie has only a 36% approval rating on Rotton Tomatoes and was on many “worst of 2003” lists. I would call that pretty close to “universally panned.”

  • austintexas

    On this site, the official review of TCM 2003 is 4 skulls. User reviews are 4.5 skulls. The entire Genre is practically universally panned by your standards. Critics have their place, but more often than not they don’t get the horror genre.

    Michael Bay produces, writes, and directs horrible films. Nobody is debating that. Platinum Dunes however has made 3 decent films. TCM, TCM:B, and the first 20 minutes of F13.

    Generally, I agree. Remakes can almost never live up to their originals promise. You can hate this movie all you want, but it’s a tad idiotic to suggest it’s universally panned. Every film, no matter how bad, has its fans. This film has a little too many fans to simply blame it on being naive.

  • mav07

    If you go through and read some of those reviews, you’ll see that most of the complaints were “it’s too gory”, “too brutal” and “just so gruesome.” So you can’t really take their word for it. I guarantee they didn’t have anything bad to say about the technical aspects of the movie, and if so, they are fucking retarded and don’t know anything about filmmaking. Those reviews basically state that most mainstream film critics are giant pussy’s.
    Just look at the “viewer rating” on Rotten Tomatoes; which was 67%. and as austintexas stated, genre fans liked it even more.

    • Evan3

      @mavo03 and @austintexas

      You are right, to each their own with films. But, I just can’t believe you don’t recognize that this is lackluster at best (although, it is probably the best PD horror film outside of several glorious minutes of Julianna Guill in F13).

      But, give me a break, this isn’t The Exorcist, NOES, or Halloween or The Descent or anything genre-breaking. Also, I find it borderline outrageous to claim that critics don’t know anything about filmaking if they panned the filmmaking process, I am sure they are better qualified at judging technical aspects than you. Also, I am more inclined to trust critic ratings than RT “viewer ratings,” a group that bestowed 82% approval to Twilight – which has less merit than this frankly.

      Lastly, I love horror – and many times critics don’t “get it.” But, horror is an overall poor genre. I would say it takes me five films to even hit a DECENT horror film, and generally 15-20 to get a good one. But, I revel in the bad and the good outweighs the mounds of crap. Nonetheless, horror is still a rough genre to love – in my opinion only thriller and rom-com fans have more crap to put up with than us.

      • The Wolfman

        In my opinion (remember opinions?!), Rosemary’s Baby and The Shining are two movies that come to mind that are good regardless or their genre. A movie like The Descent isn’t necessarily a good movie, but I think it’s a great HORROR movie. I don’t think we need to involve critics in what is regarded to be good or bad, but it’s people speaking on behalf of an entire community that gets crazy.

        Through everyone I’ve ever discussed horror movies with, we’ve all agreed that this movie is bad, in varying degrees. Clearly there are people who enjoy this movie more than I did, but that doesn’t mean it is universally praised. Also, it’s not universally panned. This is an editorial, and my OPINION is that it’s bad and I thoroughly encourage all this debate/discussion.

        • mav07

          based on the amount of backlash, your opinion is wrong. By a show of hands, who all enjoyed the movie….? You’re clearly out-numbered here. So when the main theme of the article is “Good scenes in “Bad” movies”, you should probably pick a movie that IS universally panned. NOT something based on just your opinion. Fair and balanced, journalism 101, right? Everyone IS entitled to their own opinion, but this is not a basic review of a film so that doesn’t really count. If your goal was to create a debate, then well done I guess but it’s not much of a debate when the majority is against your “opinion”

          • The Wolfman

            Glad I was finally able to convince you of my opinion! It’s always a good feeling when you can persuade another person into realizing that this movie was a piece of shit. We should do this again!

          • mav07


  • VictorCrowley

    One of the best trailers ever came from this movie. I thought the flick itself was about the best of the remakes, which isn’t saying a lot. But still, it was nice to see Leatherface get restored to a hulking badass versus the near trans-sexual emo sissy he/she became in TCM4. Andrew B (yea, don’t feel like googling right now) was the best Leatherface since Gunnar Hansen IMO. Although Dan Yeager is a super cool guy and seemed stoked to do TCM3D, I really have to question that casting decision after seeing how tiny he seems compared to Andrew. But, TCM2003 gets a pass from this horror fan. It’s not bad and who doesn’t like seeing R. Lee Ermey back on the big screen?

    • The Wolfman

      As a young Wolfpup, I remember seeing TCM4 on HBO late at night (probably hoping for boobs or something) and it was my first introduction to Leatherface. Boy oh boy, I was confused, and I agree, this did pretty much erase Next Generation from most people’s minds.

      • VictorCrowley

        I can only imagine seeing TCM4 before any of the others. That would almost be like watching Halloween III or Jason Goes To Hell first.

        Not surprising, TCM4 does have it’s cult following, as most um………..not-so-blockbuster films do. I’ve just never seen what the allure is there. I can understand the wanting to see something different and funny, but not when it completely castrates the whole franchise. I remember a friend giving me a tape of it back in ’97 I think. I was exited to see some good Leatherface carnage, but was left with a huge WTF complex.

        Glad we got the remake. Contrary to how I feel about some of the others, it was exactly what TCM needed.

  • Milk

    I don’t see how this is a bad movie. I’ve seen -bad- movies. Oh BD.. you’re at it again.

    • The Wolfman

      I don’t see how this is a good movie. I’ve seen -good- movies.

  • WalkWithMeInDarkness

    I’m a little late to the party, but for me, both versions are good. Yes, classics are classics, but i agree with a lot of you that this is a better remake than most. But I also completely respect The Wolfman and everyone else who feels differently. As horror fans, we’re not going to agree on everything, but i’m sure we all have at least one favorite film in common. Or maybe not, i don’t know.

  • Антон Борисович

    The Texas Chainsaw Massacre best cinema

More in Editorials