(Credits: Far Out / Thomas Hawk)
The horror genre has always polarised audiences. Some people love the thrill and suspense, finding a sense of catharsis or excitement within the tension. Others couldn’t think of a less appealing viewing experience, turned off by the gore, violence, and paranoia that comes with your typical scary movie. Certainly, there are many grotesque and shocking horror movies out there that are enough to have you on edge for a few days after watching them or perhaps even unable to sleep.
Brutal movies like Cannibal Holocaust and Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom have built up reputations for being stomach-turning, although their legacies live on in modern horror, where it seems as though anything is possible. From slashers and zombie flicks to torture porn and cannibal movies, there are so many horror subgenres out there which have left people disgusted, uncomfortable, terrified, and repulsed. For film critic Roger Ebert, horror was not his genre of choice, and he built up a reputation for being critical of it.
Still, that didn’t mean that he gave one-dimensional reviews. Ebert recognised the skill that went into making many horror movies, praising good set design and performances, for example. Overall, though, he couldn’t see the point of many scary movies. This proved to be the case when he watched Tobe Hooper’s debut feature, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, released in 1974.
“Horror and exploitation films almost always turn a profit if they’re brought in at the right price,” Ebert wrote. “So they provide a good starting place for ambitious would-be filmmakers who can’t get more conventional projects off the ground. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre belongs in a select company (with Night of the Living Dead and Last House on the Left) of films that are really a lot better than the genre requires. Not, however, that you’d necessarily enjoy seeing it”.
The film follows a group of teenagers as they arrive in their van at an old house that two of them used to live in. However, it doesn’t take long for the group to wander into harm’s way, with each member of the group meeting the terrifying Leatherface, a murderous cannibal who wears a mask made of human skin on his face.
He slices up his victims with a chainsaw, leaving Sally Hardesty the last person standing – doing all that she can to escape. Hooper makes the film feel incredibly realistic; there is a sense of griminess palpable in practically every scene.
Ebert acknowledged this, describing Leatherface’s house as “a masterpiece of set decoration and the creation of mood.”
He added, “All of this material, as you can imagine, is scary and unpalatable. But the movie is good technically and with its special effects, and we have to give it grudging admiration on that level, despite all the waving of the chainsaw.”
He called the movie “a grisly little item,” giving it its dues while also wondering why anyone would actually want to watch it. Describing it as “violent and gruesome and blood-soaked” and a “real Grand Guignol of a movie,” he claimed, “It’s also without any apparent purpose, unless the creation of disgust and fright is a purpose. And yet in its own way, the movie is some kind of weird, off-the-wall achievement. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to make a movie like this, and yet it’s well-made, well-acted, and all too effective.”
Related Topics
Subscribe To The Far Out Newsletter
This post was originally published on here
