The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

The problem with Leatherface is that he doesn't kill
enough. He could start with the reviewers here...
 Image via hauntedshop

In 1974 Tobe Hooper made the controversial horror film The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Today this film is still considered to be one of the most scary movies ever made. These reviewers, then, must have upper lips made of stone:

we all know that the way the movie was made was very poor (What do you mean? It was made cheaply if that's what you mean) but the film in itself is absoultely rubbish (Is it? Thank goodness you're here to pass judgement on all films for everyone).i think that anybody giving this a high mark is going purely on its so called status (First of all, maybe people [like me] just like it. And second of all it isn't a 'so-called status' it is its status. Rightly or wrongly [and its rightly by the way] that is the status it has).through the film the scariest moment is when the lady is put on the hook (No. That is the goriest moment. I'm guessing you are a fan of torture-porn then? The whole film makes the viewer uneasy. That, my simple friend, is true horror) but nothing much ever comes from the chainsaw.he whirls it about a bit running through the woods and never does much killing (For shame!).another stupid bit is that leatherface[the man with the chainsaw] is under the rule of his scrawny little dad (Well yes. The whole point is that Leatherface is not evil per se, just intellectually disabled and controlled by his evil family).to top it all off the end is worse than pathetic with the lady driving off and the chainsaw man left in the middle of the road again waving it around (Thanks for telling everyone who hasn't seen it how the film ends. Moron.).the end is ebrupt (abrupt),the sound is awful (It was a low budget hooror flick from the early 70s. What were you expecting?),the way it is made is awful (Strange then, that Roger Ebert [who did not like the content] admitted that it was well made. Much more so than it needed to be) and overall the film as a whole does not live up to its expectations (Well, not if you're expecting the gore of Saw crossed with the brilliance of The Godfather any way...).see it just so you know that the hype is all wrong. (See it just so you know that this idiot is all wrong)

Well, without any ado, here's another for your sick pleasure:

I'd wanted to see this film for a number of years (Bully for you), and was really excited when I finally got my chance.........Bloody hell was I disapointed! (Why? Did the film explode in your machine?) Loosely based on the horrific real-life crimes of Ed Gein....'loosely' is definatly the right word to use (I'm sorry, are you criticizing the film for only being loosely inspired by Ed Gein? 'Cause that seems a little bit petty to me. This isn't a biopic). When the title sequence rolled I will admit to thinking this was going to be a really atmospheric and scary film (Which most normal people agree it is), the prodution may of have been bad, but if a story is good enough it will shine through. Besides a grainy film and lack of music can be very creepy (It sure as hell is in this case I can assure all of you at home). Unfortuanatly little happened in the first half of the film (It's called suspense! Why do none of you imbeciles know what suspense actually is? I just answered my own question there didn't I...) and the acting was very dodgy. When the action did start it was stupid more that scary (VIOLENCE ISN"T SCARY! It's just shocking. To be really scary, you need an atmosphere and a sense of unease and dread. This film has those films in spades), and scenes of Leatherface with chainsaw reminded me of Benny Hill for some reason (God, you must be fucked up from watching too much Hostel...). Only one scene involing the motel owning relative of Leatherface and one of the young teenagers, came across as slightly disturbing (The whole film is at least slightly disturbing. Ridley Scott once said that the film became disturbing right from the moment they pick up the hitch-hiker, and that it doesn't let up. Texas..., if you didn't know, was incredibly important to the look and feel of Alien). I recommend people see this film, if only to see for themselves how dull this so called cult horror really is. (Was this written by exactly the same guy as the last one? Because that's quite a similar ending, and both are credited to 'A Customer'. If it is, I will attack you with a chainsaw for fixing the film's Amazon rating in favour of your stupid ideas...)

 Now, here's a review written by a comic genius...:

This has to be the scariest film ever. Within ten minutes of the film starting, my legs were already sticky with poo, and when the first of those poor, unfortunate young people died, I turned off the film and called an escort because I was too scared to spend the night alone.

The individual shots are very scary. They add a lot to the atmosphere, and had me hiding behind the sofa before I had even seen the terrifying Leatherface.I was particularly terrified by the shot of the dead armadillo. I will never watch this film again. It has scarred me for life. Never watch this film unless you want to live out the rest of your days in abject terror. I am now seeking counselling to try and overcome the mental trauma caused by such a harrowing experience.

Shame computers don't do sarcasm... (It's a shame your not as funny or knowledgeable as you think you are...)

Well, that's it for Halloween week here at Weeding Out The Idiots, service will resume as normal tomorrow. Watch out for those monsters at your door tonight - keep those shotguns loaded!

Scream

Oh God! It's horrifying! It's not like he's the killer  from a
horror film or anything...   Image starstoreblog

Continuing the week's halloween/horror theme we have Wes Craven's 1997 hit Scream. A parody of slasher films, Scream combined laughs with terror and was a hit with both audiences and critics alike that revived the slasher genre (perhaps a dubious honour, given the quality of most of those). Someone ought to tell these people. I believe that I can be that someone:

"Scream" is nothing more than a teen, stupid, oversexed and horribly overrated version of "Halloween", John Carpenter's classic (It does have its similarities, yes. But. It isn't a 'version' of it. It's a completely separate, original film). More than a homage, it's a copy (No it isn't. Aside from some references made in the film, the film's set-pieces are entirely different.). Remember: "Go to the McKenzie's house, call the police" (Yes, this was a deliberate reference. Remember, this is as much a parody of slashers as it is a horror). Nothing new in this movie, nothing at all (Y'know, except most of the film. For example, I'm pretty sure Halloween didn't have 3 rules of a horror movie...). The characters are just young, very willing fans of horror movies who don't ask for nothing but getting stabbed (This sounds like the old rapist defence of 'she was asking for it'. Anything you'd care to admit to us?), and the killer's suit is grotesque (I believe that may have been the point, you simpleton), making him a mental defective (What does that even mean? Did you wander in from the 50s? We don't do lobotomies anymore by the way) - and ridiculized by the Wayans Brothers in their raving film, "Scary Movie" (Well that's hardly Craven's fault is it?). And what about him, the killer, what about his personality? (What's your complaint here? What about his personality?)

The ending is totally stupid (SPOILER ALERT. Yes, I've done what the reviewer should have done. Thoughtless bastard): all those characters who die but come back- that woman reporter who has a van crash but comes back to save Sidney just in time, that young man who gets shot in the chest, that policeman who gets stabbed in the back (Well they didn't actually die. They were just injured weren't they. It's not like any of them had been pronounced dead by Dr. McCoy. You just presumed they'd died)

 -, and guess why? ('Cause they weren't dead?) Just because they're good... (Of course. You've opened my eyes to the cruelty of Craven)(remember: "I thought you were dead", another dialog  taken from another John Carpenter's classic, "Escape from New York" (Another dialogue? You've never mention Escape From New York before! And anyway, I'm pretty sure other films have had the line 'I thought you were dead', many of them from before EFNY was even thought of) - hey, Kevin, give Big John a break!) I'm sorry, but it doesn't make sense to me. (Well it wouldn't. You do, afterall, have more teeth than brain cells)

The only positive element of this film is an astounding young actor, Skeet Ulrich (I'm sure your praise will make up for his complete lack of major awards). The rest is no new and no good. (And that's not a fucking sentence! It would be 'NOTHING new and NOTHING good'. Idiot)

Now, to be honest, I don't really know what to do with this next one. It barely hangs together as it is. It just goes all over the place:

This movie was very horrible, what a suspense ! With excellent characters and memorable plot, I mean with this fisherman who wants to kill everybody with a fish-hook. Oups ! I made a mistake it was in I will always know what you did last summer for 20 years. But it doesn't matter, this is the same kind of movie with murders of teenagers with a lot of humor (involuntary humor). This movie was perhaps marvellous (for some people) when it was released, but in 2 or 3 years, I don't think that we will know what they did last summer. Don't worry !, you could enjoy at this time Friday the 13th part 20 with a similar plot. Evil never die ! (like money-makers). This movie is very representative of the use of gratuitous violence by Hollywood for targeting people with a commercial product. Wes Craven himself said that cinema was another way for making money. I agree with him, but in that case, does it mean that cinema became useless as a medium of creativity and imagination? Teenagers are in a age where contestation is a way of asserting their personality, this is normal, but Hollywood producers are aware of that fact and insert gratuitous violence in that contestation because they can make a lot of money. This commercial process leads to movie like Scream where there is no plot, no acting, but a lot of gore and violence used as meaning of expression. The characters in that movie are very weak, are they really representative of the young generation of the United-States ? or are they only caricatures of young people trying to convince the real young people that in the USA the life of a student is so delicious and violent ? What. The. Fuck? What does any of this mean? Are you saying that because many of the slashers that came after are very similar to Scream, that Scream is crap? That seems a little unfair to me. Also, Scream is intended to be funny, presuming 'involuntary humour' (yes humour. Not humor, you're on a British site for God's sake) meant 'unintended humour'. And it's I Know What You Did Last Summer, not whatever stupidly long title you though it was. Finally, Amazon has a reviews feature, not so that you can rant about things, but so you can share your opinions on a product in a clear and rational manner to other potential buyers. Save your rants for blogs, like this we do. Oh, and learn to write.

 Well, that's your lot for today. But don't worry, there are plenty more crappy Amazon reviews to come...

Dawn Of The Dead

Clearly drying paint has all of these thrills and more...
Image via filmsquish

Continuing the halloween theme of this week, today I am stepping bravely into the crappy world of Amazon reviews of the legendary film Dawn of the Dead. Released in 1978 Dawn of the Dead revitalised the zombie genre just as its predecessor (Night of the Living Dead) had a decade before. Or is this legacy undeserved? These reviewers certainly believe so:

 I bought this film under the impression that it was great film, how wrong I was (Well, you're certainly wrong now). The acting is wooden (Do you know what wood is?), the people seem like they are enjoying being stuck in a mall full of dead caniballs (Well yes. That was kind of the point. If they wanted something, they just took it. How isn't that fun? Oh, and zombies aren't technically cannibals as they're no longer really human). The zombies make-up is appalling, they look crap (They look like corpses. Because that's all they're supposed to look like. Animated corpses.), and the film is over 2 hours long, making it unbearable to watch (2 hours is just normal length for a film you amoeba). Avoid this trash at all costs and watch the remake as it is 100 times better. (What? You think the remake is better? Whilst Snyder's version doesn't shit all over the original like most modern remakes, it's not a patch on Romero's. It certainly hasn't had the lasting effect of this one.)

I had a witty segue here, but I've forgotten it so you'll have to make do with this picture of a giant squid instead. No I don't know why either...

Anyway, here's the next review:

My friend gave me a loan of this to watch and it was over two hours of dull monotonous drivel (I'm forced to ask if you have a brain, or wether you are in fact operating purely on instinct?). OK the effects were quite good for the time, but they were too few to make up for the main characters just sitting around doing nothing for three quarters of the film inside their shopping mall (Look. Effects are not a replacement for story, they are merely to augment it. Just ignore what that naughty Mr. Bay says.).

They could have decided to fight back, and eliminate some of the zombies (Well they did a bit didn't they. But there were fucking loads, and they felt there wasn't an awful lot of point), and reclaim the country (Excuse me? For all they know they are the last people on Earth, why the hell would they try? And that's before you get to the problem of a handful of people killing hundreds of millions of zombies...), but no they decide to twiddle their thumbs for almost two hours (It's called surviving). I almost cheered when the looters turned up and stormed the mall. (Well aren't you a sourpuss)

Anyway if you have two hours of your life that you don’t want, then go watch some paint dry it will be time better spent than watching this rubbish! (Well, if paint drying is better than one of the best horror films of all time, then I'm there!)

To round off today's post, here's a less-than glowing review from amazon.com:

I gave the remake GLOWING accolades (Well, at least we know your movie tastes are a bit shonky straight from the off I suppose). Someone in a chatroom (I should have known not to listen!) said that the original was much better (It's not just people in chatrooms by the way. Critics agree. Unless all people in chatrooms are professional critics, but that seems slightly unlikely to be honest). So I waltzed over to Circuit City (It must have taken ages to waltz there, you probably would have been better off walking) and purchased this. Sigh. I'll NEVER get that $35.00 back (Well, you'd better just shoot yourself now then, eh?). I feel so bad for having purchased this (It's not a snuff movie. It's nothing to be ashamed of. Quite the opposite in fact). This movie was not scary (At times, it's not meant to be). The zombies were not scary (Why? Because they don't run? They're zombies! They're not supposed to be able to run! They're corpses, with all the rigor mortis that being a corpse entails. Making them run would also have meant doing away with the criticism of consumerism that is at the heart of the movie. But I bet that went right above your head). The characters were completely insipid. Perhaps I wouldn't have felt cheated if I'd watched the original before the remake, but had I watched THIS drivel first I wouldn't have WANTED to see the remake--or anything else remotely connected to the movie (That's a bit petty). However, I thoroughly enjoyed the remake (More fool you), which I had to watch 10 times before it no longer scared me at all (Pussy). But this--I don't get it (No. On this we are in agreement. However, the fact that you're too thick to 'get it' is entirely your fault. Not the film's). It wasn't even REMOTELY close to the remake (Again, we agree. But I suspect we may differ on which one is way out in front). How does it get so many positive reviews? (Because it's a legendary piece of filmmaking that has inspired almost every zombie movie that came after in some way or another. It is also important for its biting criticism of many facets of life in the 1970s, most of which are as relevant today as they ever were. That's before we get onto the merits of the film itself, which include but are not limited to the strong direction, the strong acting, the [for the day] excellent effects, the engaging story and the mixing of fun with the scenes of violence and horror. There that'll do for starters. If you want more, contact Empire magazine who listed it in their The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time, or The New York Times who named it in their Best 1000 Movies Ever Made'.)

I'll see you again next time with more horrifying amazon reviews! (Did you see what I did there? Did you?) 

Halloween

Yeah, he's not at all scary. I definitely invite him round
for afternoon tea...        Image via hauntedshop

Continuing Paul's halloween theme from yesterday, today I will cast my rage-filled eye over Halloween. The 1978 original is considered one of the best horror movies of all time, and the progenitor of the 'slasher movie'. These reviewers, however, seem impervious to its, err, 'charms':

i read the previous reviews of halloween and they all gave it high marks (As well they should. It is a horror film that was exceedingly well put together). i dont even see why (Ah.). its terrible (Only a sith deals in absolutes...). a kid kills his sister and stops talking so is put in a mental hospital. when he escapes he goes and kills teens. sure it invented the 'slasher' generation (I think you mean genre. I don't think the film had sex with every woman on the planet to create a whole generation of half-man half-film mutants) but that doesnt make it a good film (No. It's pacing, camera angles and revolutionary ideas do.). also the killer michael myers is the WORST killer EVER in a film (In what way? He is an unstoppable killing machine, who doesn't speak or have real motive for his crimes. He's up there with the best). who the hell created him???? (John Carpenter and Debra Hill.) the only good thing about halloween is the acting of jamie lee curtis, though that isnt enough to save the film (I'm sure she will be delighted with this praise). 
personally i think that if you want a smartly made horror film go for the friday the 13th films (You deride this, then recommend Friday the 13th? Worse, you seem to rate that films shite sequels above this. God you're an idiot.). they are classic and totally worth checking into, with jason a great killer who you will end up supporting as he is so great. (I think you've missed the point.)

Here's another review jumping out from the closet, knife in hand:

 I'm surprised that this film is so highly rated and applauded (I'm surprised you're surprised). The film is not genuinely scary (It kind of is) and leaves much to be desired. The film feels like a high scholl project (School. Apparently you need to go back there...). The camera angles are awkward and annoying (Strange then that prominent critics singled out the camera angles for particular praise, hmm?), lacking any feeling of claustrophobia. As for the score, it is very repetitive and in my opinion reminiscent of Englebert Humperdinck's 'I'm a better man' track (Again, the simple music was and is praised. It doesn't get in the way of the film, or drag you out of the world Carpenter has created). The film feels cheap (Well it was made cheaply) and I felt cheated watching it (Why? Did you believe it was going to leap out the machine and tap-dance every couple of minutes?), after 30 minutes i was bored (Only people with small minds get bored), but I kept watching because i've heard so many amazing reviews of the film, personally the end titles provided more enjoyment than the entire movie (Are you sure you watched it right?). It is a shame to see Donald Pleasance (Pleasence actually) being under used in this appalling (In your opinion) film. Finally I do wonder why the film still has an 18 certificate, the scenes of violence aren't explicit it enough to warrent this certificate. (It could be the general tone of the film, or it could be that the BBFC has better things to do than re-classify every film every few years)

Some of the people who knock at my door on Halloween are more frightning! (Jehovah's witnesses are quite scary) 

DON'T MAKE THE MISTAKE TO BUY THIS FILM, IF YOU MUST SEE IT WAIT FOR IT TO BE SHOWN ON TELEVISION (I THINK THE BBC SHOW IT YEARLY) (Oh no! But I've already bought the film! What shall I do? WHAT SHALL I DO?)

Now we travel to America to escape the monster, but lo! It has followed us:

I thought movies were supposed to have little things called "plots." Well, Halloween has absolutely *no* plot whatsoever (Yes it does. See here for full details on this). The film is downright boring (Hardly. There's a madman with a big knife running around murdering people). The first hour of the film is sooooo boring and slow. The last hour isn't exciting, but it is more suspenseful than the first 60 minutes of the film (I think you'll find that the first half was building suspense. You see, suspense is really a lack of action but we know it's going to come). I was surprised at how much nudity there was in this film as well (It's a slasher. What were you expecting to see? Mickey Mouse doing a jig?). I can't imagine a mother (or father) letting their child watch this film (Well no. It's an 18 [or R in your stupid system] rated film about a psychopathic murderer. Which part of that screams 'family film'? Please don't mark a film down for not being child-friendly when it clearly isn't trying to be). It's gruesome and demented (Again. Slasher film. Not Mickey Mouse). I did not like one single solitary thing about Halloween. I do not recommend it at all. (So based on your hang-ups, you slate the film? Nice objective view there.)

Just when you think the monster is dead, it rises up once more:

why do people like this trash it isn't scary nor interesting (Scariness is personal opinion, but the film is certainly interesting, especially its impact on the horror films that followed) and the movie is slow paced that it looks like director John Carpenter shot this while walking slowly (Not walking slowly!) and the movie is low budget there is hardly any blood or good special effects (It doesn't need them. What special effects would have improved the film?) instead fans like it for its so-called suspense (It's not 'so-called suspense' it is suspense) and laughable scares (It's easy to make someone jump, saying boo will make them jump. It's even easy to make someone scared by using extreme gore. It's far harder to scare people with suspense, but this is real fear, not surprise or disgust. Carpenter achieves this). The main plot is a boy who murdered his sister and returns years later to kill babysitters in his hometown. Halloween is no treat but a trick (I see what you did there. Very witty.). Fans of horror films should rent something better (Fans of horror films probably already own this. Or should do, if only for its legacy). The only good part is when Jamie Lee Curtis is laying on the ground and in the background Michael Myers sits up slowly looking at her. (That is a terrific piece of camera work)

I think we have stopped the monster. For now...
Come back next time when we continue this Halloween season with another horror classic (you know, if I can be bothered...)

Halloween Special

So, I'm weeding out a special Halloween product just for your idiotic pleasure. Now, I'm not going to say all people with strange fetishes are idiots - after all, they comprise a decent number of readers on my other blog - but what do the following two words suggest to you:

Sexy. House.

 They suggest, I hope, that something is missing from my sentence. If I said, for Halloween, my lady-friend was to be dressing as a sexy house, you'd probably think you'd misheard, or I'd missed something out of my description (Thinking I meant a sexy houseplant, perhaps. Actually, that's still strange.)

 But no! The sexy house costume is a real thing for Halloween. No longer is sticking your penis inside a letterbox, only to be rejected by angry occupants a nightmare you have to bear.

Yea, is this doing it for you too? Mhh...

Image via CostumeSuperCentre.

So, in standard Weeding out the Idiots form, I've broken down the description with some mockery:

GO AS A COUPLE (Really? Is that how couples costumes work? I planned on wearing both myself. While crying. Into a box of tissues. On my own.) . EACH COSTUME SOLD SOLD (Sold sold) SEPARATELY**This walking peep show (Good show, my girlfriend wants to adopt David Mitchell. Probably to dress him like this) costume has a hidden kitty behind the front door. (Ah, because pussy is a slang term for a woman's vagina. I see what you've done there, it's very clever) Costume features a dress with windows and a door in just the right places (Those would be the boobies and aforementioned vagina. You know, if you want to really objectify a woman.). **PRICES FOR FEMALE COSTUMES ONLY. MALE COSTUMES CAN BE ORDERED SEPARATELY BY ADDING AN ORDER QUANTITY BELOW. (For 40 quid. For that piece of shit. Seriously)**

I mean, really. What people get up to in the privacy of their own homes is, of course, their own business. But if you fantasise that your companion was a big house and you were mortaring her up and wearing a crappy little blue hat, then you may have problems. And ladies: Are there any of you out there who worry your men aren't finding you house-like enough? Can't be bothered putting on the weight? Then maybe this is the costume for you...

 It's £40. 40! And that's on offer! And it's sold out! Who bought this? Why? Who wants to fuck a detached family home? Or be a human sized house riding atop a miraculously unharmed builder?

Well, me. But that's beside the point.