|
Post by Rebel on May 19, 2010 2:36:12 GMT -5
I have just got done watching TCM 1 and 2. Right in the middle of 3 right now before I go to bed. I think I am going with Gunner on this poll. TCM the original IS better than the remake, had to watch this again to remind me (been so long since I've seen it). TCM felt DIFFERENT and was a let down for me as the feel went away. Blah. I guess I'll see which is better 2 or 3 once this movie is done.
|
|
|
Post by Uncle Creepy on May 19, 2010 16:28:05 GMT -5
havent seen 3 in a long time
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on May 19, 2010 16:49:22 GMT -5
3 to me was okay. It was cool that Kane Hodder played LF in most of the scenes but it was a poor and unncessesary attempt to make Leatherface into a slasher, sorry folks LF is not a slasher.
|
|
|
Post by Chainsaw on May 19, 2010 17:26:55 GMT -5
Part 3 doesn't really do it for me either.It's OK, I'll watch iit once in a great while but there's no atmopshere, it just reeks as a 90s cash in. Part 2 is also a movie I enjoy though. Like Jeremy said, it is a great mix with comedy done just right. Part 4 is a disgrace to everything Chainsaw and just blasphemous treatment of Leatherface. Here's my rankings
TCM- 10 TCM 2- 7 TCM3- 5 TCM4- 0
Remake- 6 The Beginning- 8
Also on a side note Transformers was a bigger slap in the face to the cartoon than any of the horror movies were to their originals. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Drayton Sawyer on May 19, 2010 18:05:25 GMT -5
I've heard that before. I never watched the cartoon. But I heard a lot of the fans of the cartoon HATED the movie.
|
|
|
Post by Zombified Jeremy on May 19, 2010 19:09:54 GMT -5
TCM 3 is a generic but watchable movie, with the future Aragorn in a fun role.
What I find amusing about it is how they had Ken Foree's character mauled in the swamp, but he shows up at the end with no more then a scratch.
This can be attributed to test screenings, as he was supposed to die, but viewers liked him, so they reshot the end to have him survive.
|
|
|
Post by Rebel on May 19, 2010 19:39:59 GMT -5
I agree with yall that 3 was okay but trying to make Leatherface in to a brilliant slasher. They changed his look as well. He looked like a guy I'd see logging trees for a living ;D I prefer the look of him in 1 and 2 even though I am not sure which movie 2 or 3 I preferred. 2 had WAY too much comedy and kinda was a massive let down to me from the greatness that was 1. I think if they combined the second and third installment of what worked on both of those in to one movie would have been better. *Sigh* I have not seen 4 yet but I get the feeling it will be a late term abortion. Somebody told me Leatherface is a . . . transvestite or something?
|
|
|
Post by Drayton Sawyer on May 19, 2010 21:55:51 GMT -5
4 was their first attempt at a remake. I think the whole transvestite thing was their attempt at taking certain aspects of the original LF further. It didn't work. It's definitely the worst TCM ever made. But there are a few cool things in it.
|
|
|
Post by Rebel on May 20, 2010 14:50:45 GMT -5
What is . . . cool in it? :S I felt suicidal watching it though. That was just plain terrible. I could tell they tried to mimic the original but it failed in every way possible.
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on May 20, 2010 15:08:24 GMT -5
Yea I agree with rebel...NOTHING was good in that...that.....whatever the fuck that was...
|
|
|
Post by Zombified Jeremy on May 20, 2010 15:34:13 GMT -5
The TCM franchise is barely that, as each successive film was a sequel to the original, so there is really no continuity to speak of.
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on May 20, 2010 15:51:57 GMT -5
Yep.
|
|
|
Post by Drayton Sawyer on May 20, 2010 21:15:36 GMT -5
I liked some of the new victims and Family members. Not enough to say it was a good movie though. If they'd had those characters in a well written story it might have end up passable.
|
|
|
Post by Rebel on May 21, 2010 0:46:36 GMT -5
I think TCM does better on it's own without even mentioning the sequels at all. A film that got worse in a really BAD way with each passing sequel. Not many franchises start off on a start THAT bad, which is sad since the first is so good.
|
|
|
Post by Drayton Sawyer on May 21, 2010 2:07:40 GMT -5
I may be in the minority. But I thought Part 2 was a brilliant sequel. I loved it. 3 and 4 definitely were nothing special. But Part 2 was a bunch of fun.
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on May 21, 2010 13:51:12 GMT -5
Some people have very different tastes on things.
|
|
|
Post by Rebel on May 21, 2010 15:01:16 GMT -5
Is this really even a question........I would never watch the sequels, saw few minutes of the 2nd and was really stupid, watched the prequel with Fire, it was OK, so Id have to say Gunner Hanson So true, out of all the franchises at least the sequels ADDED SOMETHING to it. These it seemed each movie was its own separate intitiy. The first is a documentary feel to it and great. The second is dark comedy. The third is a slasher. The 4th is a transvestite? Yeah Abraxis if you want to have a marathon of thinks that may make you want to slt your wrist, watch number 4, I dare you!
|
|
|
Post by Uncle Creepy on May 21, 2010 21:24:46 GMT -5
after watchin part 4 i wanted to sue the producers of the film to get the 90 min of my life back
|
|
TCM1974
Checked into Bates Motel
THE SAW IS FAMILY
Posts: 20
|
Post by TCM1974 on Jan 13, 2012 15:04:17 GMT -5
Gunnar Hansen all the way he gave Leatherface such a unqiue personality that none of the actors or anyone else could ever do
|
|
|
Post by Stinger on Jun 14, 2012 19:58:29 GMT -5
I went with Gunnar Hansen. I know I'm in the minority, but I really enjoyed part 3.
|
|