Texas Chainsaw Massacre Review

There is no denying that horror and exploitation movies have a world of their own, inhabited by connoisseurs who scrutinize these grisly works with the precision as one might view Fellini’s 8 1/2 or Jonze’s Her. And although my personal stance is of utter repugnance towards these mostly gore-fests, it would be vacuous to evade them completely, for once in a blue moon, some movies rise from the standards of these pulp reels, and establish them worthy to considered seriously. Over time, Texas Chainsaw Massacre with ‘Last House On The Left’ and ‘Night Of The Living Dead’ has grown in reputation as a serious work which encapsulates the terror that true horror emanates. And after watching it, I can see why. It is four times a better movie than what the title seems to promise.

It follows a group of friends as they wade through the outlying areas of Texas on their way to the ancestral home of a character bound by the wheelchair. A chance encounter with an uncanny hitchhiker materializes and things start going south, ending up with almost all these friends meeting up with terrible fates ranging from the ponderous sledge hammer to the serrated chainsaw at disposal.

One of the reasons why Texas Chainsaw Massacre works has to be the depiction of violence. Unlike other low-budget gore fests whose violence is mainly concerned with giving the viewer an inherently flawed human anatomy class when it happens on-screen, Tobe Hooper, the director of this movie, makes sure minimal attention is drawn towards the act. On the other hand, the camera focuses on the helpless reactions of the characters who have the grave luck to witness the atrocities being committed on their pals.

Most of the horror is atmospheric, with the ravaging fields of Texas set against the backdrop of a setting sun with a chainsaw yielding cannibal providing a genuine tingle to the hairs on my neck. But does the plot justify the horror that ensures ? No, it does not.

My foremost problem seems to be the spoon fed lines of Franklin following the terrifying encounter with the meshuga hitchhiker. All though none of the other characters seem to reciprocate his fears (which they should, considering how such an event will surely perturb people), the lines which Franklin says is completely directed to give the audience a sense of fear of the impending fate of the characters although it is completely unnatural to the scenario being played out. There is a huge cringe worthy moment where Franklin in a fit of anger mimics Sally’s laughing pitch which is probably one of the worst scripted comedy moments I have seen in recent times.

But none of these minor mishaps outweigh the principal quandary :- Isn’t what Sally endures much of her own flawed decisions ? The final character in this madness to endure is Sally, but to truly love and feel terrified of this movie, one needs to sympathize with the impending doom on the characters. Not giving too much away, Sally and Franklin have an argument which is a complete farce in the name of logical reasoning and seems to be played out only for the sake of playing out the climax.

But as much there is to criticize, there is to applaud in Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It deserves to be considered in the same vein it is now – as a serious work of film-making. I would be lying if I said at its best Texas Chainsaw Massacre failed to scare me. Unfortunately, I would also be lying if I said the moments which lead up these terrors justify the artistry of the latter.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a good movie. The only reason I am dissatisfied is because it showed the promise of being something much more.

RATING :- 5.8 / 10

THANKS FOR READING. IF YOU HAVE LIKED/HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS / HAVE ANY  DOUBTS, PLEASE SHARE. I WILL RESPOND TO IT AS SOON AS I CAN. AND PLEASE SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE. YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE TOO https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011549616628 YOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL ME ON castlebang786@gmail.com OR favebook2011@rediffmail.com

Photo Rights : Google Images, Wikipedia

Copyright : All written content on this site, unless otherwise noted, has been created by the website owner. As such, the content is the property of the website owner. This content is protected by Indian and international copyright laws. If you wish to reproduce, re-post, or display any of our content on your own site please only do so if you also provide a link back to the source page on this website and properly attribute authorship. Our preference is that you seek our permission before doing so. If you see anything on this website that has not been properly attributed to its originator please contact me. In response, I will attempt to correct the attribution of the offending material or remove and/or replace it. All material on this website is posted in accordance with the limitations set forward by the Information Technology Act, 2000. If a documented copyright owner so requests, their material will be removed from published display, although the author reserves the right to provide linkage to that material or to a source for that material. As a website devoted to discussing and reviewing movies and television I will at times, for illustrative purposes, present copyrighted material, the use of which might not always be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available  for purposes such as criticism, comment, and research. The website owner believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material because the articles published on this website are distributed for entertainment purposes

Advertisements

The Conversation Review

On the outer side, Francis Ford Coppola’s The Conversation looks like a nerve-wracking thriller, but the truth is, it is not about the plot as much as it is about the character. It is common to be mistaken by this fact and then be disappointed about this movie, because it creates an environment where it does actively pursue the plot. But all it is about is a character pursuing his innermost fears in an out-of-proportion blown morality crisis. The thrilling stuff is just the backdrop of it all.

The man at the center stage is Harry Caul, played by Gene Hackman, who is a professional surveillance expert. He maintains a neutral status about his line of work, for he believes that whatever the tapes he has recorded amount to, he has no responsibility.Until a case pops up where he develops a concern for the two individuals in question and things start going haywire.

Now when I say things start going haywire, it also, and mainly concerns his personal life. This is a character of so many layers and the movie explores the nature of his personality by using the moral crisis. The real mystery is not the plot, it is the character.

The plot on the other hand delves into the ethics of the world of surveillance. It attempts to open the doors of closed rooms  that we are so often thrilled and petrified of. And this is one of the few movies (Ace In The Hole is the only other one I recount) in which the theme explored holds relevance to the modern time rather than the one in which it was made and to more horror, I think instead of waning, this relevance is bound to enhance.

The movie encapsulates the master storytelling ability of Coppola with eerie silence used to generate paramount fear to best effect. Coppola transcends Hitchcock’s ability to explore obsessions, and let’s just say, that Palme D’Or was rightfully deserved.

The Conversation is one of the most engaging thrillers ever made, for it manages to create thrills out of the most inexplicable elements of cinema – emotions. And whether you like it or not, believe me, after watching this movie, there will be an irregular check of the sides of your telephone or the curtains. Just in case….

Rating : 9.2 / 10

THANKS FOR READING. IF YOU HAVE LIKED/HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS / HAVE ANY  DOUBTS, PLEASE SHARE. I WILL RESPOND TO IT AS SOON AS I CAN. AND PLEASE SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE. YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE TOOhttps://www.facebook.com/pages/Demanded-Critical-Reviews/1565666967024477?ref=hlYOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL ME ON castlebang786@gmail.com OR favebook2011@rediffmail.com

Photo Rights : Google Images, Wikipedia

Copyright : All written content on this site, unless otherwise noted, has been created by the website owner. As such, the content is the property of the website owner. This content is protected by Indian and international copyright laws. If you wish to reproduce, re-post, or display any of our content on your own site please only do so if you also provide a link back to the source page on this website and properly attribute authorship. Our preference is that you seek our permission before doing so. If you see anything on this website that has not been properly attributed to its originator please contact me. In response, I will attempt to correct the attribution of the offending material or remove and/or replace it. All material on this website is posted in accordance with the limitations set forward by the Information Technology Act, 2000. If a documented copyright owner so requests, their material will be removed from published display, although the author reserves the right to provide linkage to that material or to a source for that material. As a website devoted to discussing and reviewing movies and television I will at times, for illustrative purposes, present copyrighted material, the use of which might not always be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available  for purposes such as criticism, comment, and research. The website owner believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material because the articles published on this website are distributed for entertainment purposes.

Chinatown Review

Can you believe it? We’re in the middle of a drought, and the water commissioner drowns. Only in L.A – Morty

In 2013, I watched two masterpieces from the world of cinema. The first was ‘Argo’ directed by Ben Affleck on the Iran crisis and the second was ‘Inception’ directed by Christopher Nolan on subconscious espionage. They both occupy a very special place in my movie watching experience. See, when I was watching these movies, my attention was completely on the screen, undiverted. It was pure classic escapism. For the run time of those movies, I was shoved into a sort-of one dimensional space with just the frames of the movies as my companion. And as the story progressed, every second was an adrenaline rush for me.

I consider the thriller genre as my favourite genre of all time. Why ? Because it has the pure  cinematic essence which I look out for. That essence which in which there are only three components existing in the run time of the movie, the projector – audience – screen. And both Argo and Inception had that thrill which leaves you dumb founded. Now combine the tension, thrill and urgency of both the movies, and you get Roman Polanski’s Chinatown.

Roman Polanski’s Chinatown is about Jake Gittes (Jack Nicholson) who is hired by the wife of Hollis Mulwray (Darrel Zwerling) the chief engineer of Water and Power Department of Los Angeles to investigate about an affair she suspects her husband of having. Jack investigates and exposes the affair, and the story breaks out the next day in L.A.Times. But, something unexpected happens and Jake gets caught up in a web of lies, deceit, corruption all leading back to Chinatown.

There are four movies which every aspiring film-maker who hopes to make his entry in the thriller genre ought to see. They are Inception, Chinatown, Primer and The Fountain. I love the first two, the same courtesy hasn’t been extended by me towards the latter two. Why ? All four of them have mind-blowing scripts and great performances and function soundly on the technical aspects as well. So what is it that distinguishes the prime two from the latter two ? What is it that makes the difference from being a great movie and an average movie ? It is a 7-letter word that makes all the difference – BALANCE. There are so many things going on in the run-time at the same time in all these movies. But, the first two lets the audience soak it in and comprehend the complex plot. While the latter two expects its audience to be as intelligent as the movie itself. But unfortunately not all of us are Nikola Tesla or Charlie Kauffman. We are plebeians with a normal level of comprehensive skills and intelligence. That is what amazes me the most about Chinatown, the balance.

I haven’t seen a movie in my life which is as complex as Chinatown. But even I, a 14-year old, could comprehend it with ease. Roman Polanski would have made a great teacher I presume. The movie is stylish. The noir effect is mind-numbing. Once again we see the balance being displayed. It is stylish, sexy some may assert with its catching lines and beautiful women and the mythical effect of the cinematography, but never for a second does it go over-the-top. It maintains that beautiful sublime balance between a smart movie and a popcorn fare.

Jack Nicholson is stupendous (as always) in this role. Although my favourite Nicholson performance is his role in The Departed by Scorsese, this comes in at a good, hell-worthy second. After watching this movie I realize, Jack would have made a great James Bond. He has that amazing balance between being that stylish, uber, sexy one-line cracking detective to being a hell serious detective. What Daniel Craig did in the 21st century, Nicholson could have done in the 20th century. He would have given James Bond that redemption that the character deserved. He is unforgettable here and leaves a mark on the mind and senses like none another. Dunaway as Evelyn is fabulous. It is one of those few characters that I have seen in cinema that work like a Rubix Cube. You always sense a shroud of mystery around her character that leaves you digging for more.

As any great movie, it is an inspection of our society. Grim, entangled in lies, deceit, adultery, corruption and what not. As much as it is a thriller, it is a grim morality play. Nicholson here succeeds as a characters because he looks at the story from our viewpoint, not as a personal conflict of any sort, but purely as a mystery. It is when the personal factory kicks in, that he appears confused for the first time, when layers of his smart-ass personality are peeled, and we actually see him transparently, a man befuddled and enraged and more than that, tired at the misery around him. He is as shocked and helpless as we are at the climax, which may upset many I presume for its stark reality. It is not for its depiction of stark reality that we are horrified, it for its willingness to accept that all stories do not have a happy ending. We have always seen movies as a portal towards a mystic world similar to our own, but full of hope. But hope is always present as a dominant force in the moving of the plot. It is shattered just at the right time, when Nicholson is in Chinatown again, which is a symbolic representation of the real world. All the hope is vapourised from Nicholson and he comes in terms with the reality. He accepts that world is a grim place where morality is a thing of the past. He realizes that the only thing he can do is to do as little as possible. And he forgets, because after all, it is Chinatown.

  Rating : 9.4 / 10

THANKS FOR READING. IF YOU HAVE LIKED/HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS / HAVE ANY  DOUBTS, PLEASE SHARE. I WILL RESPOND TO IT AS SOON AS I CAN. AND PLEASE SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE. YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE TOOhttps://www.facebook.com/pages/Demanded-Critical-Reviews/1565666967024477?ref=hlYOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL ME ON castlebang786@gmail.com OR favebook2011@rediffmail.com

Photo Rights : Google Images, Wikipedia

Copyright : All written content on this site, unless otherwise noted, has been created by the website owner. As such, the content is the property of the website owner. This content is protected by Indian and international copyright laws. If you wish to reproduce, re-post, or display any of our content on your own site please only do so if you also provide a link back to the source page on this website and properly attribute authorship. Our preference is that you seek our permission before doing so. If you see anything on this website that has not been properly attributed to its originator please contact me. In response, I will attempt to correct the attribution of the offending material or remove and/or replace it. All material on this website is posted in accordance with the limitations set forward by the Information Technology Act, 2000. If a documented copyright owner so requests, their material will be removed from published display, although the author reserves the right to provide linkage to that material or to a source for that material. As a website devoted to discussing and reviewing movies and television I will at times, for illustrative purposes, present copyrighted material, the use of which might not always be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available  for purposes such as criticism, comment, and research. The website owner believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material because the articles published on this website are distributed for entertainment purposes.