MovieChat Forums > The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) Discussion > I guess I don't get it....

I guess I don't get it....

posted 6 years ago by artguylarry (498)
10 replies | jump to latest

I only just watched this, even though I've seen the 2003 version several times. What I don't understand is why they're gonna make a movie about a chainsaw killer, but then shy away from the violence of the chainsaw kills. We know what the movie is about, so we know what we should expect from the movie. It's a let down. How this ever got an X rating anywhere is beyond me. This seems a little tame even for an R rated film, even from 44 years ago. Jaws was a PG film and it had more blood than this.

[–] Washingtonnative (2613) 6 years ago

This movie (surprisingly) didn't get an X rating. The first time I watched it, I wasn't impressed. As time went on, I gave it another chance and my opinion for it got better.

[–] CinemaDemon989 (1286) 6 years ago

I always thought it was strange too, with this film being labeled as gory and bloody. It's really not that bad compared to other films. But the disturbing aspect revolves around the rotting skeletons, a guy wearing human skin on his face, placing his victims on hooks, and the whole idea of a cannibalistic family. It goes beyond blood and gore. Its the 'idea', the perception of what's happening. If that makes sense. And for the 1970s, this film was considered absolutely brutal. You have to understand, at that time, no one had ever seen anything like that. It was an unprecedented level of horror. But I can understand by how today's standards, it could be considered tame.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 6 years ago

And the movie has this morbid passing which makes it kinda uncomfortable to watch. I absolutely love it, but I see how it might disturb some people.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Back in the day, audiences had this obscure thing called an imagination. Skilled filmmakers relied on the audience's use of its own imagination to fill in the, shall we say, gory details.

Sadly, the masses lost their imagination somewhere on the way to 2019. Now they need everything spelled out and they need to see every bit of blood and gore possible or they'll say, "That sucked!", never once being aware of how their own lack of imagination is, in fact, what actually sucks.

[–] hurricane (1963) 6 years ago

There's more to making a decent horror movie than gore.

However, I can understand why a title like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre would imply there be a lot more blood than there actually was.

This is one of my favourite horror movies, despite the comparative lack of blood.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

It's not a movie about gore. It's all about the sheer menace and terror.

[–] samoanjoes (57773) 6 years ago

Honestly, I never even noticed a lack of gore. I've always looked at it like they were going for documentary style.

[–] hurricane (1963) 6 years ago

I did hear stories that people saw this movie on it's release, before it got banned in a lot of countries.

Years later, when the film was no longer banned, they watched it again and believed they were watching an edited version due to there being a lot less gore. It was the exact same version, but the film was so effective at disturbing you that people believed they'd seen a massively gory picture when they hadn't.

[–] samoanjoes (57773) 6 years ago

It's possible. I think that's why people think The Exorcist is one of the most terrifying movies.

[–] MartyMoose1977 (222) 3 months ago

This movie came out the same year as Godfather II (1974). This was Legit the first ever Slasher Movie. Halloween didn't come out until 4 years later and NGL Texas Chainsaw Massace scared me way more. The Town that Dreaded Sundown (1976) scared me more as well.