I've a gory story in mind and wanted a decent idea of what directors could get away within the MPAA 'R' rating category.
This gore junk ain't my usual bag, but when critically analyzing these films I'm surprised at how suggestive the shots are rather than all out disgusting.
A lot of brief frame number edits of the graphic stuff and a lotta just-off-camera shots.
FWIW, I watched most of each of these with the subtitles turned on and fast-forwarded 2X.
(2007 by Rob Zombie) - 5/10
Agree with many of the critics that say the first third is good
, but it all falls apart when the child goes to the asylum and then as an adult. Then it turns been-there-done-that-unremarkable meh-fest.
It was nice seeing a lot of industry character actors in there. (Kinda like what Stallone did with Expendables.)
(2009 by Rob Zombie) - 4/10
Completely different feel to it.
You got better things to do or watch, surely.
(Also, same budget, less than half the revenue from the predecessor.)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning
(2006 prequel to the 2003 remake) - 6/10
If you just enjoy gory documentaries of stupid people doing weird sh!t you might like this more than I did.
Frankly, if Jordana Brewster wasn't so [expletive] good to look at I would've watched more of it in FF mode.
Technically and visually it was done well.
Story's just stupid.
The Hills Have Eyes II
( 2007 sequel to the 2006 film) 2/10
Mutants look terrible, and not in an impressive way.
Could have been better.
IDK WhereTH the budget was spent.
Wes Craven. (chuckle)
(2012 sequel to the 2009 film) - 3/10
More ridiculous and implausible splatter thriller gruel.
The title and premise are poorly developed.
The point, purpose, and motivation are elusive.
It's a crazy guy in an attrition film.
Turned it off or forgot the ending... musta turned it off. I don't remember that ending.
Another 'The Watch': "Let's put a bunch of well knowns in a film, It'll sell tickets just on their names alone!"