We are introduced to a character, Frank Keller, that just achieved 20 years in service, that can't see really something after the retirement (that is what he hears of a lot, about the retirement) and that not long before he had a divorce (one the guys from his job is now with his ex-wife. Frank is like "we have been working together for like 6 years but we have never go for a beer yet somehow you stole my wife", and we will see Frank apologizing more than once with that guy). On the other hand we have the murders: three murdered men, similar circumstances, certainly only one murderer. The third murder is of a man we know, the expected murder, expected by Frank and by another detective (John Goodman's character Detective Sherman Touhey from Queens).

This film, Harold Becker's Sea of Love (with Al Pacino as Frank Keller, Ellen Barkin as Helen Cruger and John Goodman. Also Samuel L. Jackson appears at the beginning of the film as a criminal who thought he was going to meet the New York Yankees but soon received, like many other criminals, the bad news: no Yankees, only arrests. From the IMDb trivia section: "The apprehension of criminals by arranging a "Meet the Yankees" breakfast was based on an actual event"), has two parts, the first one is the one I liked better and the second is just about a love relationship, the whole thing with the murders is sort of just a pretext. And is typical stuff with the woman disappointed after finding out that Frank lied, and is predictable since you always know Pacino and Barkin's character will end happily together (and well the detectives found out who the murderer was just out of luck).

Sea of Love is an entertaining film with a first part that is simply that, a fast-paced entertainment and a second part that, like I said, is predictable, with a sexy Barkin and with really bad scenes (for instance take the supermarket supposedly very sexy scene, very bad music is what stands out in that part!). In the Wikipedia page of we can read that Sea of Love is "credited as the film that pulled Pacino out of his slump of film failures that occupied much of the 1980s". Pacino had 5 performances in the 80s: in Cruising, Author! Author!, Scarface, Revolution and Sea of Love. Now, I have seen only De Palma's Scarface and Sea of Love (just yesterday I saw it for the very first time), I think Pacino is just f****** great as Tony Montana and just good as Frank Keller, never really great, he entertains just like the film itself and certainly this performance is extremely far to be one of his best (from the IMDb biography of Pacino: "It marked the second phase of Pacino's career, being the first to feature his now famous dark, owl eyes and hoarse, gravelly voice").

And the song, here we can hear bits of Phil Phillips' song more than a couple of times, including a very funny interpretation by John Goodman. Actually the first version of the song "Sea of Love" that I ever listened was the version of the great Tom Waits (my favourite). The original version, by Phil Phillips, was first released in 1959 and Tom Waits' version in 1989 on the soundtrack of this film. But I listened Waits' version for the very first time just a couple or so years ago on Waits' latest album, the 2006 "Orphans: Brawlers, Bawlers & Bastards" and just this year thanks to my mother (she loves that song as much as I love Waits' version) I listened, finally, the extremely famous original (and she listened the version of Tom Waits and she was like "what is this?", certainly not quite her cup of tea but I do liked the original) version. The song eventually made me remember about that film of which I read positive comments some time ago and then I found out that Waits' version was originally released on the soundtrack of that film, pretty much it was time to finally give Becker's Sea of Love a shot. So Sea of Love is just light entertainment to see once, nothing that you must check out.


Awesome blend of love and suspense. A top class thriller with Al-Pacino at his best. A record "Sea of Love" is played in all the crime scenes.. All the victims were killed after sex... The police suspects the hands of a woman.. The Investigation officer, Frank Keller(Al-Pacino) finds himself in love with a prime suspect. As they get closer he finds more clues to suspect her. Every time he was sure she did it, he finds his suspicions baseless... One day Keller finds the the list of all victims in his love's house along with the "Sea of Love" record. Story goes through twists and turns... The movie will put the viewers at the last inch of their seat.


I was. I went to this movie when it came out simply because it had Al Pacino in it, and half-expected some sort of cheesy love story. And so began my love affair with Ellen Barkin; one of the hottest babes ever to hit the silver screen.

Here she is at her steamy best as a femme fatale with a mysterious past who is linked to a murder being investigated by alcoholic cop Al Pacino. Inevitably, she ends up exciting more than just his tastebuds and the result is a conjunction even more sizzling than her bayou romp with Dennis "Remy" Quaid. All of this is played out against the backdrop of continuing murders being investigated by Pacino and his partner (excellently played by John Goodman), and the result is a taut, sexy thriller in the best traditions of film noir.


Detective Frank Keller(Al Pacino, in a perfect star vehicle)is a middle-aged lonelyheart, recently divorced, whose ex is married to his partner. He begins thinking about his mortality as his 20 years of duty on the force has come up and longing for a female presence in his life has weighed on the mind.

He's on a case regarding a swinger who was shot in the back of the head while listening to an oldie record 45 titled, "sea of Love". A chance meeting with another detective from another precinct, Det. Sherman(John Goodman in a terrific performance)points to a possible string of killings as they find both their cases have the same MO. They decide to work together when they find that prints match from both of their cases and both males had put poems in the singles-ads. Frank wants to try this himself, with both he and Sherman believing the killer is a female with wrath towards ladies' men as the motive.

Keller, after going through several dates with many women who answer the ad(..which came from a poem Frank's mom wrote), begins a steamy love-affair with a sexy divorcée into kink. That female is Helen Cruger(Ellen Barkin, heating the screen), and she has Frank feeling like a teenager. But, Frank begins questioning their relationship when he begins noticing little signs that may point to Helen possibly being the very killer he's investigating. This is true center of the story and a conflict plaguing Frank who is just head-over-heels for Helen.

I must say this is one of my favorite Pacino performances because he wears weariness like a badge on his face. I felt Pacino plays him right showing a cop really damaged by a failed marriage and hitting the point in his life where he could retire from the force which brings up his age which torments him. Then this seductive gal comes along and throws him for a loop, rejuvenating him. I think Barkin is flat-out hot as the love-interest. I think she provides just the right amount of mystery that has us questioning her much like Frank eventually does. The film has a great dynamic between Pacino and Goodman which only makes it even better.


I have watched this film several times and aided by a gap of a few years between viewings and a bad memory, so i cant remember the twist, it is very enjoyable.

I think it is very underrated because there are so many police/romance films- the initial impression is that it follows that well trodden path but the dialogue is v good, the story is good and the characters are great.

The Al Pacino character in particular- he is a proper grown up complex person brought to life on screen- doesn't have all the answers, messed up a things but keeps plugging away.


This movie is absolutely excellent and SO under-rated I can hardly believe it. The New York Police Department is trying to catch a serial killer whose victims are all men who've placed "lonely hearts" adverts with rhyming poems. Everyone thinks these crimes are being committed by a psychopathic woman so the NYPD place an "ad" of their own and 2 detectives (played by Al Pacino & John Goodman) pose as "lonely hearts" and try to snare the murderer. What elevates this film beyond the norm is the fantastic chemistry between Pacino & Goodman and the anguish driving Pacino's character. He plays a divorced detective who's probably lonelier than most of the people who place such adverts and falls madly in love with Ellen Barkin, the prime suspect. To say any more would spoil things so watch it for yourself, it's a great movie.


The movie does a nice job of contrasting Pacino as an insightful, sensitive, and articulate dude when sober, against someone who inevitably says and does really stupid things when he's blotto. I like the fact that the movie doesn't beat you over the head with this message.

Pacino gives another outstanding performance, and he is beginning to look like the ultimate winner of the Pacino/DeNiro sweepstakes, based on lifetime achievement (although neither career is far from over).

This makes a good double-bill with "The Big Easy." They both feature Ellen Barkin at a time in her career when sizzling sex scenes seemed to be written into her contract.


This was Al Pacino's first box office success of the 1980s. In 1983, "Scarface" came out and didn't do much business - the critics took a beating on it and Pacino's career suffered quite a deal throughout the decade - "Cruising," "Revolution," and "Author! Author!" didn't help much, either.

"Sea of Love" transformed everything for him. It was a success financially and (somewhat) critically, and it helped him get more roles in the '90s.

Looking back now, in 2005, it still holds up as entertainment, and sleazy entertainment at that, but the ending is too routine, insulting and oh-so-typical of the genre; it's the "trick 'em at the end" leg-puller where the murderer is revealed to be the most stupid of characters and you can't believe the film's ended on such a low note.

The rest of it is actually pretty good. Pacino delivers an unusual performance as a socially and sexually awkward cop who meets a murder suspect (Ellen Barkin) and falls for her, only to realize she may be targeting him next.

"Basic Instinct" got away with copying a lot of this a couple years later, but I prefer "Sea of Love." It's erotic and sleazy and entertaining without resorting to cheap tactics like full-frontal nudity. Then again you do get to see Ellen Barkin naked and that's never a bad thing.

The movie focuses on its characters, and I liked that. I just wish the ending would have been up to par with the rest of the production.

It's an entertaining movie, but don't expect anything of substance.


Sea of love is the film that crawls under your skin and stays there. It's simple but distorted love story is the centerpiece of a synopsis that tries to show how desperate and dangerous can loneliness be. Al Pacino as Frank Keller is in one of his best performances there, and his character is a middle-aged man caught between a broken marriage and a dangerous job that leaves a little time for personal life. Ellen Barkin is perfect in her role and she and Al Pacino light up the screen in several ways. John Goodman is fantastic and his performance helps a great deal, to the solid, good acted and plausible life story. That's why it deserves 9 out of 10 any day, and especially on hot summer nights.


The first half of this movie is a crime mystery. The second half is a love story. I thought that I would know what happened next and for the most part I was right. Thre were a few surprises and i admit i did not see the ending coming. Although once I saw it kinda made sense who the killer was.

I just thought that the movie was repetitive in its dialog in some parts. Al Pacino is his usual self in one of his come back roles were he has picked up the deep voice and the dark eyes. Besides one scene in a Shoe store i think his performance is rather average. No where in the league of later works such as Scent of a Women and Glenn Gary Glenn Ross. In the confines of the script the actors did what they could so i give it a generous seven.


This movie made me feel real sorry for one of the old ladies that is trying to get a date. Even years from seeing the movie at the theater, I think about that lonely old heart. What I didn't care for was the ending of the movie. I had this big ole buildup with Ellen Barkin and that was the end? Please! Give me an ending that is just as suspenseful as the rest of the show was. I just felt like the director took an easy way out after entertaining me the entire film. The acting is fantastic, the script is wonderful, casting unbelievable, the ending just kind of sucked. And guess what, I have a stack of 45s and I'm still waiting for them to become valuable.


There are actors who always attract people's attention no matter what role they play and no matter what the film is about. Al Pacino is one of these guys. Most of his movies are great! And this is one of these good ones. The plot might not been so original, but it is good and moves the film beautifully.

Det. Frank Keller (Pacino) is a policeman who investigates a series of crimes until the moment he falls in love and gets deeply involved with the main suspect, a very beautiful and sexy woman, played by Ellen Barkin. The performances are really good and the film pace is just breathtaking.

My rate 8/10


Sea of Love is a decent film. Pacino is in good form after a long break in the 1980's. Hes a lonely alcoholic cop in search of a killer. Not a top flight thriller but delivers with nice plot twists. Also has good performances by John Goodman and Ellen Barkin too.


I have always loved Al Pacino, ever since seeing his early films in the seventies and early eighties such as Dog Day Afternoon, The Godfather, (parts 1 and 2)And Justice For All, Author! Author!, etc. The only early ones I haven't seen are Serpico and Cruisin', but I've enjoyed them all.

I really liked this one too, it was sexy and suspenseful and the music made me jump at several moments. As for the love scenes, I'm sure that Mr. Pacino was in his forties by this film and Ellen was much younger, but their scenes together were quite steamy. And the surprise ending, well...you just have to see it to believe it. It wasn't The Godfather, but it was dam good. But then maybe I'm just a sucker for sad-eyed, medium statured Italians. I recommend this film for diehard Pacino fans.


I loved this movie. It was suspenseful and kept my interest throughout. Al Pacino and Ellen Barkin were perfect in their roles. Both were playing characters of a type that they had played before -- so perhaps not too original. But the film was well made and carried the viewer along. Although some of it was obvious, I for one had not guessed the ending.

Overall, this movie interested me much more than did a top-20 box office film I saw this past weekend at the theater (which shall remain anonymous here). Pacino played his role very well; his performance harkened back to his prime in the 1970s when he could be absolutely riveting on screen. Ellen Barkin in this film is playing the sexy kind of role that she played all during the 1980s. She is very good in this one. John Goodman was also very good as the police partner of Pacino. His sort of light easy attitude (even when he was very serious) played very well against Pacino's dark and brooding persona.


Sea of Love isn't going to be written up in anyone's Master's Thesis on the Meaning of Cinema. It won't last decades in the canon of great film. It's just a steamy murder mystery that happens to be very well played indeed. There are few plot holes -- none that are really big or infuriating, and the murder investigation plays out well.

Pacino is a cop with a mid-life crisis and drinking problem. He meets John Goodman, who has discovered they're both investigating very similar murders with a sexual angle. Ellen Barkin may or may not be the killer, but Pacino's attraction to her is too great to resist, even knowing the risks.

Barkin doesn't have much to do beside emanate steam, but she does that quite well. Pacino is understated, with an edge of desperation. The mystery will keep you going, in that kind of Basic Instinct way of not knowing if any given sexual encounter will end in murder. Characters have a realistic and gritty feel to them, although Barkin is far too beautiful and sophisticated to be a down-on-her-luck single mother.

Recommended.


Ellen Barkin remains one of moviedom's sexiest actresses, exuding both a sensuality and an intelligence that are exceedingly captivating. "Sea of Love" is probably her best role, and Pacino is likewise excellent. Highly recommended.


Want a film to remake for the next century? This is it. It was already remade once, sort of. Watch for the similarities between this and BASIC INSTINCT (men are murdered, woman is prime suspect, cop falls for suspect). But this film is a true original.

Pacino returned from his self-imposed exile from Hollywood to make Sea Of Love with his favorite producer, Martin Bregman. After a string of flops in the early 80s Pacino fled to the New York stage scene, finding himself so to speak. Bregman coaxed him out to do this sexually charged thriller about a tired cop caught in a sexual dilemma during middle age.

Bodies of men are turning up in New York City. Two common denominator - the song "Sea Of Love" playing on the turntable, and they all placed ads in the personals. After composing an ad themselves, Pacino and his team (including partner John Goodman) set to staking out the resulting "dates."

After wading through an ocean of desperate ladies, Pacino zeroes in on the ravishing Ellen Barkin. Ellen has never looked better (trust me, women as beautiful as her do not place personal ads, let alone answer them). Two problems arise - she immediately becomes a suspect, and Pacino falls head over heels for her. Playing an intricate game of cat and mouse, Pacino tries to learn her true nature all the while combatting his own desires to possess her for himself.

Pacino turns in an inspired performance as the single man who didn't NEED to find a woman, but once he does, he'll risk anything to have her. John Goodman got some of the best early notices of his career as Pacino's partner and switch-off man during the "dating process" (would have been a whole 'nother film if Goodman had met Barkin, huh?)

Also, look for Samuel L. Jackson in an extremely brief role in the opening scene, featuring what has to be the most inventive bust in screen history.


Disney was busy trying to lift the art of animation to new heights by having his artists do an "under the sea" type of thing, long before anyone would be seeing films like PINOCCHIO or THE LITTLE MERMAID.

MERBABIES is thin on plot but the art work is gorgeous and the visual elements are what make it worth watching. A dazzling array of sea creatures are having a circus-like parade that includes a number of sight gags with the creatures taking on the looks of elephants, donkeys, horses and other animals. Finally, just when the atmosphere couldn't be any cheerier, everyone scatters at the approach of a hard breathing whale (as in PINOCCHIO).

The merbabies ride to the surface surrounded by a sea of bubbles and emerge atop the water, safe from the monstrous whale.

Easy to see that Disney was doing experimental procedures for PINOCCHIO before its release two years later.

Visually stunning, if a bit too cute for some tastes. All of the art work is first rate and much more impressive than in the earlier Disney shorts from '33 and onward.


A Walt Disney SILLY SYMPHONY Cartoon Short.

The MERBABIES are frolicking beneath the salt waves - swimming & playing with various sea creatures. An elaborate underwater circus parade & performances fill much of their day, culminating in a rise to the surface in the expelled breath of a whale at sunset.

While the plot is virtually invisible in this little film, there's much to fill the eye as the colorful images cavort about the screen. The real significance of this cartoon is that it gave the folks in Disney Animation some excellent experience in working with the particular aspects of underwater scenes (bubble movement, light & shadow) which would be so important in the under seas sequence in PINOCCHIO.

The SILLY SYMPHONIES, which Walt Disney produced for a ten year period beginning in 1929, are among the most interesting of series in the field of animation. Unlike the Mickey Mouse cartoons in which action was paramount, with the Symphonies the action was made to fit the music. There was little plot in the early Symphonies, which featured lively inanimate objects and anthropomorphic plants & animals, all moving frantically to the soundtrack. Gradually, however, the Symphonies became the school where Walt's animators learned to work with color and began to experiment with plot, characterization & photographic special effects. The pages of Fable & Fairy Tale, Myth & Mother Goose were all mined to provide story lines and even Hollywood's musicals & celebrities were effectively spoofed. It was from this rich soil that Disney's feature-length animation was to spring. In 1939, with SNOW WHITE successfully behind him and PINOCCHIO & FANTASIA on the near horizon, Walt phased out the SILLY SYMPHONIES; they had run their course & served their purpose.


Merbabies was a truly enchanting short. The animation is stunning, with beautiful underwater backgrounds, and fluid movements, and the music was a delight to the ears and was strongly reminiscent of a Tchaikovsky ballet score.

The characters, especially the adorable Merbabies, were completely likable and there are some truly entertaining bits, like the part when the seahorse tries to get through the hoop. I will admit, Merbabies is thin in terms of story, and I was saddened when the Merbabies turned to sea foam at the end.

Still, it is very beautiful, and I would definitely watch it again. 9/10 Bethany Cox


The movie is very good...if you're into this kind of thing. It's nice to see a franchise splatter film that is intense and gory without being cheesy. Many of the current crop of splatter films are played intentionally cheesy for humor. Which is fine, but they shouldn't ALL be like that. This movie has some humor in it, but it's a darker humor, and not meant to be cheesy or campy.

Everything that comes to mind when you hear the words "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is in this movie. No wussing-out in this one! Murder, torture, cannibalism, insanity and a touch of the surreal. Oh yeah, and a chainsaw. No punches are pulled, so this flick is not for the squeamish.

Tonally it wasn't as surreal as the original, but it had a better (read: creepier) tone than the 2003 remake. Plenty of blood and guts. R. Lee Ermey plays a major character instead of a bit-player like in the 2003 remake, and the film benefits from this.


Prequel to the 2003 "Texas Chainsaw..." giving us the origin of Leatherface and his twisted family. That's all done within the first 20 minutes...then it's just a virtual redo on the original with four likable 20-somethings being captured and tortured by Leatherface and his family. Considering it's basically a remake of the 2003 film, it works remarkably well.

It takes place in 1969 and has two brothers (Taylor Handley and Matthew Bomer) going to enlist (after being drafted). Along are their two girlfriends (Jordana Brewster and Diora Baird). But they're stopped by crazy Sheriff Hoyt (R. Lee Ermey) who is Leatherface's uncle...and the "fun" begins.

Very grim and graphic with no humor and shot in muted color...just as the 2003 one. The gore is strong and disgusting (this got trimmed to get an R rating) and I can't say I liked it...but it did it's job. It scared me. I was cringing in my seat a few times and jumped more than once.

Another plus is ALL the acting is good. Brewster, Handley, Baird and Bomer are all good-looking and likable--when the violence starts you really are horrified at seeing such great characters being tortured. Ermey is on hand giving another terrifying performance as Hoyt. His character is so twisted, violent and sick that when he got a taste of his own medicine my quiet audience broke out in applause. Also there's good old Leatherface and his chainsaw chasing everybody.

In some ways I applaud a grim, graphic R rated horror film that pulls no punches--I HATE the watered down PG-13 crap we usually get. But unlike some (like "Scream") this is pretty unrelenting and wears you down. But it scared me and that's exactly what it's supposed to do. An 8.


Please don't get me wrong, this is a good horror film. To those looking for gore, it is there any there is plenty of blood shed. I would speculate several scenes have been cut to appease the mpaa. Had this film been release before Hostel, The Hills Have Eyes, or the Saw Franchise, more of the film would have ended up on the cutting room floor. The film is being advertised as it will show up how Tommy Hewitt became Leatherface. Anyone looking for any real discovery to this information will have to look somewhere else. Truthfully the only real incite into the Hewitt family origin is how a homicidal sexual deviant was able to become a Sheriff. Being a prequel, the lack of background information is, to say the least, disappointing.

I don't want to get into specifics, but there are several parts where the film feels as though it being recycled. Some scenes feel as if they were rehashed from other Chainsaw films, needless to say they did not live up. Add to this the typical slasher clichés (don't go upstairs/down to the basement, etc) and it only adds to the predictability.


Texas Chainsaw Massacre:The Beginning is a fantastic slasher film that brings us back to the classic era of 1970's slashers.I loved this chainsaw film simply because it answers all the whys and provides you with leatherface's history.Definitely gorier than the previous film and far more cringe inducing.This is first non cheesy slasher i've seen in ages which is a very nice change for me personally.

The acting in the film is very good there are some very intense performances and some graphic scenes.It's shot very 70's slasherseque which overall gives it a creepy aura.The storyline is very easy to follow yet very disturbing and depressing at the same time.Overall fans of The Devil's Rejects and The Hills Have Eyes see Texas Chainsaw Massacre:The Beginning it's well worth the admission fee.


Impresively taking "Texas Chainsaw" back to its roots, horror fans and cinema-goers alike should definitely give this prequel to the daring 2003 remake a chance. Although the remake in 2003 was excellent and had a tighter, more involving plot than this film, it breaks a barrier because rather than directly approaching the style of the remake and trying to live up to its success, this equally grisly thriller ignores all of the gloss, cinematography, pacing and story that it was inspired from. Instead, it goes back to the film style which made the nightmare in 1974, a more direct homage to the in your face horror that started it all.

This story is in 1963, right before the events of the 2003 film which took place in the early seventies. Jordana Brewster plays Chrissie, who is on a fun road-trip across Texas with her friends, Eric, Dean, and Bailey, played well off of each other by Matthew Bomer, Taylor Handley and Diora Baird.

Shortly after the terrifying, recognizable psycho Leatherface commits his first murders, a cross story involving an encounter with some nasty bikers throws the doomed teenagers flipping across the road in a surprisingly brutal accident.

After Sheriff Hoyt arrives (R. Lee Ermy in another chilling performance), to take control of the scene, the nightmare begins for Chrissie's friends as she watches them get taken away in his police car, unknowingly headed for the house which would become a place of torment and nightmares for years to ensue.

Appropriately gory and no-holds barred, Jonathan Liebesman creates a tight, slick and sadistic thriller in the eyes of Chrissie as she endlessly attempts to rescue her friends from a demented madman's clutches. This is a highly worthy and satisfying entry in the horror series that will make an indelible mark on your imagination, if not already done by the seemingly endless spew of remakes and graphic horror films.


I've been a Texas chainsaw fanatic since i saw the original (when i was about 8) and all the sequels obviously tried hard (except the one with Bridget Jones in which was an utter waste of time) but ultimately failed to be worthy of following up such a classic. the remake was OK, it looked great and had some quality violence but didn't really hit the spot.

but when i had finished watching this one (a prequel to a remake?) I've got to say i was very impressed, of course it had problems. the odd character didn't seem to have much of a purpose other than to die horribly and scared teenage girls still have that tendency to walk towards the screams of pain rather than leg it, but the grimness and violence of it all was pretty much relentless. there was no crap attempts at humour (other than the 'sherrif' but thats laughing at how out of order he is) and once it gets going it doesn't stop until the abrupt ending.

it looks great, the violence is above and beyond what you expect to see at a cinema (i don't know all the cuts made to the us version but the UK version seems to be about 8mins longer) and it felt like i was watching something that deserved to have 'texas chainsaw massacre' in the title.

if you like horror and gore films you should have a great time, go see.


This movie was gore merely for the sake of gore. There was zero suspense knowing that all of the characters would die. The problem I've always had with the Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies is this idea that the state police never seem to come knocking after these gruesome deaths occur and the victims go missing. It's a kind of oh well we'll just overlook that one glaring plot hole, but unfortunately it's a big one and just too big to ignore. This Chainsaw film just seemed utterly pointless based on that fact and completely insulting to average intelligence. At least in the 2003 film, the main character, Jessica Biel, manages to escape. Every single character is so one dimensional and disposable that I didn't feel anything for the characters. What I did feel was sympathy for the actors playing these meaningless parts. I just sat there waiting for the next one to die and other than being mildly curious about what kind of morbid way they would be offed, I was far from being on the edge of my seat. The first act of the film is by far made the least amount of sense and just seemed like filler to get to the gory stuff and chainsaw scenes. The subplot with the bikers made zero sense. There is absolutely no explanation why the biker chick just suddenly starts pursuing the jeep out of nowhere to rob it. Uh where was her boyfriend and what was he doing? At least in the 2003 film, there were a lot better struggles and chase sequences and at least the setup made more sense. This film's ending was by far the biggest slap in the face of the horror genre. After sitting through 91 minutes of grotesque, sadistic torture the one single remaining character is killed in the most clichéd ways imaginable. This movie deserves to be banned - banned for being stupid beyond belief.


This movie started off like any other horror flick. Especially a Texas chainsaw massacre flick but this movie answers so many questions from the first one and really makes it look like this movie should come first. The blood effects are amazing and the storyline was fresh and overall the movie was amazing! It took a little getting used to because although it was a lot like the first one it was very different. I won't spoil it for ya but this one makes the first one look like a Teletubbies Christmas Special! If you love gore, suspense, terror, and the symbol of all that is just plain wrong then The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning is just your slasher!


Rather than focus on what this film is not I will focus on what it is. From what some people will say TCM the beginning, (as the TCM Predecessor has been accused of)are, too predictable, not enough plot.....etc etc etc, all comments from individuals who obviously are watching the wrong watered down horror movies for the wrong reasons. If you want to watch a good old fashion blood and guts horror movie that delivers on the darkness, the atmosphere, the killing, all that makes a horror movie good (and not bad as is lost on most movie reviewers) then see TCM the beginning. It is a throw-back, just as the remake was to a time when the horror movie market was not dominated with slews of PG-13 watered down,"psychological horror" ripped off from real Japanese horror movies and only made worse by US film makers. I for one am glad that movies like TCM the beginning come out now and again to the same Criticisms that should be praised rather than scored, but then again i am of a generation that applauds the blood, and Gratuitous violence and dreary depression or horror, instead of going eeewww thats gross! It beats the heck out of the Japanese rip off PG-13 flicks and it definitely beats most of the 90s horror departure from the excellent horror of the 80s film makers who weren't scared to show blood, guts, nudity etc. That is just my general overview if you are the type of person who wishes to see a huge hulking serial killer demolish people, rather than some little bug eyed kid, or old man with a fisherman's hook then by all means see TCM the beginning, otherwise stay home and complain about the lack of all elements that have ruined most horror films over the past decade.


There is an idiom about the way a human being feels painwhen a surge comes, it makes a brief period of time, sometimes only a matter of seconds, feel like an unbearable eternity. Sometimes situations like a pulled muscle or a banged kneecap are hard to endure without just a minor yelp of protest.

The same idiom can be applied to "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning," a film that runs 84 minutes, but is packed with so much gratuitous meat, gore, slime, urine, drool, grime, screaming, agony, sadism, misogyny, and outright misanthropy that it feels like 10 hours10 long, extremely unpleasant hours (and that's putting it generously). This is the most uncomfortable 10 hours (I mean 84 minutes, sure...) I've ever spent in a darkened theater. "The Beginning" is not only a repulsive film within the horror genre (which has been on a rapid downhill slide some are calling a "renaissance")it could very well be the worst film I've ever had to misfortune to waste my cash on. Period. By the time the credits roll, you'll officially know how Marsellus Wallace felt in the basement of that pawn shop.

I have seen many horror films in my quarter-century on this earth, from early black-and-white classics, '60s kitsch, gritty '70s realism (including Tobe Hooper's original "Chainsaw"), '80s slashers, '90s badness, and a healthy dose of uber-gory European selections from the likes of Fulci, Argento, Pasolini, Deodato, Buttgereit, etc. I'm far from a prude when it comes to cinematic violence, and it takes a lot to offend my otherwise salivating horror sensibility But "The Beginning" is absolutely wretcheda rock-bottom low in horrorand film in general. If ever there was a case where I would put my stamp of approval on the protest, censorship, banning, or outright incineration of a film into the stratosphere so that it may never be viewed by human eyesand I am usually against such thingsthis would be it.

This is a film that produces zero scares, but an overflow of disgusting, artless imagery wrongly assumed to BE scary. Its villains are grotesque, unfunny inbred sickos, and its 'heroes' (including 2 guys who resemble Christopher Atkins and Robby Benson, and their girlfriends, with less definition than their Gap-model looks) exist only to have all manner of beating, torture, and mutilation inflicted upon them. Chainsaws and other sharp implements are plunged into flesh in gory close-up. The Vietnam War is cynically exploited to analogize two characters "coming of age" and "becoming men" while suffering the torments of the savage Hewitt clan (also given an un-ironic layer in R. Lee Ermey's war veteranship). In a slasher film where the overriding intentions appeal only to the basest, most reprehensible urges in man, trying to infuse "commentary" into the proceedings comes off as profoundly as a monkey reaching for guano.

Like so many low-budget horrors of the 1950s-'70s, the title of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was a misnomer. The film featured a handful of deaths, only one of which was committed with the titular weapon (and, even then, only shown a few drops of blood); the movie was an absurd comedy of sorts, shrouded in a gritty, documentary-style realism that fueled the terror brewing beneath. There's a good word: "terror." Hooper's 1974 original is, as others before me have said, brilliant for what it doesn't show; it created a terrifying atmosphere and utilized locations and techniques that made the events seem very real. By comparison, the 2003 remake was slick, overproduced, and took the carnage of the title quite literally, offering little more than a plot less torture show, and "Beginning" takes that nihilism to a whole new level.

This time around, it's the subtitle that's misleading, as any insight into Leatherface (oh, excuse me"Thomas Hewitt")'s madness is limited to a gratuitous shock-prologue and vague flash-cuts over the opening credits. "The Beginning" then dives into a story we've all seen too many times before. To those who have seen the 2003 version: it's the same thing. And to those who haven't, it can be summed up as simply as: 2 young couples relentlessly tortured for 84 minutes by a family of cackling psychopaths.

Seriously, that's all there is. It's a nihilistic, grueling, and utterly unredeemable excuse for inflicting pain under the banner of "horror," when it is really anything but. (If Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes company has proved anything to the world, it's that he hasn't the foggiest idea how to scare people.) Horror's recent shift toward hard-R films where dismemberment and gore are the order of the day ("The Devil's Rejects," "Hostel," etc.) has been a thorn in my side as of latenot that I have any problem with these elements of horror, but that few filmmakers know how to back up their excesses with a good, scary story. The underrated "Wolf Creek" is as grimif not morethan "TCM: The Beginning," but at least gives us a trio of realistic, likable characters whose side we are squarely on, counterbalancing the actions of the psycho terrorizing them; evil is not vanquished, but, at the end, there is a faint sense of hope regardless. "The Beginning," in all its proudly repulsive glory, gives us villains who aren't served a lick of justice, and heroes who, by the insulting, sick-joke climax, have all met with the service end of Tommy Hewitt's 'saw.

It's not an ironic sort of injusticeit's merely depressing and infuriating. 'Irony,' in this case, would be knowing that "High Tension" was threatened with an NC-17 while this geek show passed through the ever-astute MPAA with an easy R. "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" shook my soul with ragea truly vile, worthless bit of cinema with no redeeming qualities. If ever there's been a reason to abort a worn-out franchise, this is definitely it.


There are a lot of things that astonish and disappoint me in this world...but this ridiculous piece of garbage film getting a 5.9 rating on the back of a LOT of perfect ratings is one of the most disappointing and disturbing of all. In fact, I dare say when I was leaving the theater, the only crime I felt had taken place was fraud! The cast is essentially the same...two girls (one brunette and one blonde) and two boys (one brunette and one blonde) are substituted for the "original" two girls and two boys with the same hair color and the same general appearance. Insert a couple of bikers, some inane "facts" about how "Hoyt" became sheriff, "Leatherface" was born and raised, and so on...and what you have is the original remake remade with a B class feel.

The contradictions in this are appalling. For instance, Leatherface is one bad mutha...he's huge, he's powerful (lifts one guy up off the ground, impaled on a chainsaw), and he causes the ground to shake when he walks. Yet he hides in a car, he can't be seen by a passing vehicle, and his stealth like nature allows for a very stupid and very gory finale that perhaps gives this wretched fraud the only genuine feeling of originality it deserves. Its original in this...but its also very, VERY stupid! This movie is throughly pointless. Hoyt wasn't the actual sheriff...well there's a shocker. Gee, could a man in a dead town be pretending to be a sheriff? Or that Leatherface had birth defects? Or that his mother gave birth to him on the floor of the slaughterhouse as she was dying (yeah, this was one grotesque scene...I can't even imagine someone being proud of producing that scene...let alone choosing to keep it in the movie), and he found a home away from home in the confines of the slaughter house? I'm of course off on a tangent here...but literally there is NOTHING in this movie...nothing at all. Simply put, this is a rehashing of the remade TCM, repackaged as a beginning chapter that simply was not needed. If you want to see Leatherface, do yourself a favor and watch the DVD of the remake- it makes more sense than paying money to go to the theater and watch the same movie for an inflated price!


* MAY CONTAIN SOME MINOR SPOILERS* Well kiddies, just got back from taking in an afternoon matinée of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre; The Beginning" & I got 4 words that best describe it: BRUTAL,GRUESOME and INTENSE! The film is gorier & more unrelenting than its predecessor from 2003. And actually we learn almost from the start, that Leatherface isn't the antagonist who got the whole grisly ball of wax rolling, it was his Uncle-the Sheriff wannabe (played of course by Lee Remey). We are shown the would-be mother of Thomas Hewitt (aka Leatherface) giving birth to the deformed child right on the floor of the slaughterhouse where she works. She abandons (well, we are led to believe it was her) said child in the dumpster behind the slaughterhouse where he is subsequently discovered by a hobo woman & taken to his permanent place of residence. From there, we are shown snapshot glimpses of his early childhood (I use this next term very loosely) "development." Fast forward to 1969, where little Tommy is now 30 years old, face covered virtually all the time with a dingy blue scarf, and of course he is employed at the local slaughterhouse where he's referred to in usually hush tones as "retard". All is "well" until the day when the place is shut down by the Texas Board of Health for obvious & serious health code violations. The little town down in Texas is now a ghostville USA because of the plant closing and the only inhabitants left are the deranged Hewitt clan (sounds just like Michigan under Governor Granholm-LOL). During the remainder of the film we see how dear old Uncle transforms little Tommy from a mere butcher of dead animals, into the chainsaw wielding maniac we've all come to know & love so well. And as a pleasant bonus, we also are given glimpses into why the "Sheriff" is such a twisted wacko. TCM for what it lacks in suspense, it more than makes up for with gruesome deaths, intensity, some gore & sheer madness. Wait till you see how the old dude in the wheelchair (from TCM 03) gets in that exact condition (both shocking & hilarious). Some of the scenes do mirror those from the original (dinner table scene from TCM 74) & others from TCM 03. So yes, a little of TCM the Beginning will feel like 'old hat' but then again we're not talking Shakesphere here. I also think many will be surprised at the ending of this film. Is "Texas Chainsaw Massacre; The Beginning" as good as TCM 74?-NO! But it does offer one thing I wish the original 74 version had done. We find out exactly why, the family are cannibals & it has nothing to do with having the best bar-b-que either. This film is a good (not great)installment in the series. My only real complaint outside of the lack of suspense, is that we are never really shown Leatherface's mug. I can't decide if that is a good thing or not or intentional on the directors part to perhaps keep the mysterious aura of Leatherface intact. Side note: I do hope this is the last of the TCM films because I feel there is nothing left of interest to do with this franchise that we haven't already seen.

BloodStone's Recommendation: A good, noteworthy addition to the TCM legacy & definitely worth a look.

BloodStone's Rating: 8.0


In August, 1939, a worker has an abortion while working in a slaughterhouse and dies. The deformed baby is dumped in a garbage container and found by a beggar later, who brings him home. Along the years, the freak creature called Thomas is raised by the Hewitt family in spite of having psychological problems, working in a meat plant. In July, 1969, when the facility is closed, the inhabitants move to other places, but the deformed insane Thomas kills the foreman. His deranged stepfather executes the sheriff that is going to arrest Thomas, and assumes his identity, wearing his clothes, driving his car though the roads in Texas and entitling himself as Sheriff Hoyt (R. Lee Ermey). Meanwhile, the brothers Eric (Matt Bomer) and Dean (Taylor Handley) are traveling in a Jeep with their girlfriends Christie (Jordana Brewster) and Bailey (Diora Baird), Eric to serve in Vietnam and Dean escaping to Mexico. When the group has a car accident, Hoyt arrests Eric, Dean and Bailey and brings them to his house. Christie follows them trying to rescue the trio, trapped in the house of sadistic and insane cannibals, in a trip of horror and gore.

"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" is a great prequel to the classic "Texas Chainsaw Massacre". The story gives a good explanation to the origins of Leatherface, "the ugliest thing ever seen", and the movie is extremely violent and gore, with touches of surrealism. R. Lee Ermey has a great performance in the role of the deranged leader of the Hewitt Family. I had a very low expectation with this film and in the end I had a very pleasant surprise. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Massacre da Serra Elétrica: O Início" ("The Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning")


I would like it be stated first that I really hated the last two Texas Chainsaw movies. Those being the remake and Next Generation. This one however being a prequel to the remake had a raw intensity that I had not seen in years and I loved it. I still like the first three chainsaws better but this was a step up to the old days. R. Lee Ermy brought something new to his performance in this that I felt was vastly lacking in his first attempt and that was a caring of the series. It seemed like the role fit him more in this. Andrew Byrinasli or however you spell it, is cool now because he is the first person ever to play Leatherface twice now, go Andrew. Go see this movie it is cool.


Don't watch the movie if you're looking for anything different from the first re-make of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the one made in 2003. The plot was almost the exact same thing as the first movie. You have 2 males and 2 females. The guys are supposedly on their way to fight for their country in the Vietnam war, 1970's. On their way to some city (on an empty road), they meet a biker gang. One of the chicks from the biker gangs chases their jeep which hits a cow. Their jeep flips over, and the deranged sheriff from the Hewitt family shows up and makes all their lives a living hell. Seem familiar? Same plot writer? I think so. The rest of the movie is no different. You have a deranged mad man chasing down a traumatized girl and her friends all around the Hewitt property. Nothing special, nothing new.

The script isn't exactly brilliant either. It seemed at times when I was watching this movie that all the characters could say was "PLEASE", "NO!!!!", "HELP ME!!!", "OH MY GOD!", "SHUT UP!". Due to this, The characters don't develop throughout the story, so you're wondering why things go the way they do in the movie. The actors were good, but the things they had to say absolutely killed this movie. No point in making a movie that was already re-made.

If you're looking for a new, actually decent horror movie, don't rent this, and especially if you've watched the Texas Chainsaw Massacre made in 2003. It's like watching the same thing over. Not only that, you can predict what's going to happen at the end before you even hit the 30-minute mark. If you need something to kill 90 minutes of your time, but wonder what better movies you could've spent your money on, rent this.


Who says you can't beat a dead horse several times over. Watch any slasher movie and you'll see what I mean. How much more gross can you get. Saw,Hostel,Hills Have Eyes,Freddy VS Jason etc, just to name a few.It's all about how many different disgusting,stomach churning ,vile ways you can kill a human being. Cutting off this,chopping off that,cannibalism, guts being ripped out, people being cut in half,eyes cut off or gouged out. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre the Beginning is another tired old retread of the same guy running around with a chainsaw hacking people up. No plot , just get a bunch of kids to run around and find different ways to hack them up. I like Lee Ermey but can't understand why he would do this garbage. He makes for a hot cop but thats about it. Only draw might be to see some hot chicks before they get offed. Otherwise bottom feeder material.


Yes, this was a horror movie that did what a horror movie is supposed to do when it comes to the slasher genre. It had lots of blood, lots of kills and was rather tense. The fact that Emory was in it and added actual good acting to this flick was a bonus. The story, the beginnings of the Leatherface killing spree. It showed how the family came to be and how some of them got their wounds in the last movie which is set after this one. The only thing not answered in this one from the last one is who the little boy was from that movie. The rest of the story is the basic Chainsaw premise of the two couples stranded in the middle of nowhere, this time a wreck the cause of the problem, a rather gruesome wreck. Well the newly self appointed sheriff comes by and of course this sets off a nasty set of circumstances that leads to lots of blood, some shootings, meat hooks, cannibalism and of course chainsaws. Once again, whereas the original movie was more realistic these last two are by far the most gory. The chainsaw is used a lot. This sequel, or rather prequel is also a lot better than the only sequel I ever saw to the original The Next Generation as that one wasn't very gory at all and itself was sort of a remake of the original. So if you go to this movie and you don't like it because of the violence and blood and stuff what do you expect from a movie with chainsaw and massacre in the title?


Mindblowingly gruesome and gory and thoroughly entertaining roller-coaster ride  takes the updated atmosphere of the 2003 remake and notches it even further in a prequel that effectively delineates the origin of Leatherface and his cannibalistic family. R Lee Ermey returns as the "sheriff" we met in the 2003 remake, realistically caring for his family in his own misguided and brutal way. Especially of note in the cast is Jordana Brewster, who beyond being devastatingly beautiful, is really outstanding in the role of the major female heroine  convincingly and movingly portraying the terror and the resilience of an innocent girl struggling to survive while confronted with unimaginable horrors and witnessing the brutality done to her closest friends. Probably her best moment  beyond the scene where she hides under the table as Leatherface has his way with her boyfriend, is the quiet moment where she stands at the door to the Hewitt home, staring at freedom, inches away, and then reluctantly does the right thing and turns to proceed haltingly upstairs to help her friend. And as her friend, Diora Baird was also quite convincing - and a dynamite screamer. The two young male leads were effective and likable, and sympathetic in their own back story.

The effectswork is terrific yet not overdone, fitting seamlessly into the storyline to visually tell the story of the horrors committed by this family, and the film is very well supported by the music score of Steve Jablonsky, who develops the atmospheric tonality developed for the 2003 remake and crafts a musical design that maintains a constancy of dread and a rhythmic, panic-inducing pulse during the action scenes. The main theme, a horn melody intoned over a rhythmic underworking of fast-moving violins, really drives the film's excitement when it's not creating haunting tonalities during the suspenseful moments. Jablonsky's reprisal of Leatherface's theme is especially moving when he puts on the face of one of his victims, wearing the human mask (the "leather face") for the first time  the score crescendos in a slow ascent of triumph, yet tinged with the horror relevant in that triumph. John Larroquette's narration at the end neatly tied into his opening monologue for the 2003 remake  not to mention the original 1974 film.

As the latest take on the TCM franchise, the film, beyond being a terrific and not-for-the-squeamish horror picture, adds to the TCM mythology and illuminates the dementia behind America's most ghoulish family, although it fails to provide an truly adequate psychological explanation or rationale to the events of the family's cannibalistic origin beyond suggestion that they were a survivalist reaction to circumstances. THE BEGINNING covers the events that started the family's rural rampage of murder; real insight into what makes the family, and the character tick, wasn't really what this film was about.


I watched The Beginning a couple months ago. It vanished so quickly from memory that I forgot to write a User Comment at the time. Unfortunately, even for a sufferable fan of the genre, this installment of the Texas Chainsaw series is just one more sell-out like the others, beginning with the birth of Leatherface and leading all the way to yet another cheese-ball ending. For chrissakes, they even had the guy walk away to a narrated ending, a lone spotlight (a-la Mr. Bean), accentuating the 'island unto himself' theme. Pathetic.

The birth and origins of Thomas Hewitt, with all the questions you never really cared about asking, get answered. From how the family ended up the way they were, to how Leatherface gets his first chainsaw, The Beginning wastes no time cutting through another franchise.

One performance that stands out, simply because in my opinion, he's one helluva actor, is R. Lee Ermey. From the Texas remake, till now, the scriptwriters successfully figured out how to turn the real antagonist in the movie into a lame blow-hard, but Ermey makes the most of his paycheck, plunging into the horrible dialogue, encouraging Thomas to do the horrific until there's no point of return. Unfortunately, for you, the insufferable movie viewer, this is one doozy that no amount of pain medication couldn't cure. Good luck.


This movie Chainsaw Massacres the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, it really messes up the backstory.

I never did like the way "leatherface"s name changed from Francis to Tommy in the 2003 remake.

In the remake what is up with all the old cars if this bunch only killed 33 people in 4 years?

Why did they make leatherface to where he came from another family, he is just as psycho as the rest, now there is the thought that maybe they raised him to be psycho and he may have been OK if they hadn't?

I always found it more sinister that the Sheriff was actually the real Sheriff that had been elected by the community and he was that crazy.

Where did the kid go from the remake?

Prequels are always anti-climatic since you know what happens to the main characters later.


It is nice to see such a good horror film, better to see if you know the background, that is real story on which this film is made.

Even though film is picks up well from beginning and doesn't allow spectaculars to move from the seat, after some time you can easily predict what will happen next. At some places director could have reduced the human body cutting scenes. These scenes are more ugly than horror. Also they have not shown anything happening in the outside world even though policeman in first scene is killed and these 4 friends disappears. That is bit surprising. Also all 4 friends looks energetic throughout the life of their characters even though they do not eat or drink anything after their accident...It is one more goof in the film.

This film is good entertainment for horror film lovers.


Horror fans beware of the Hewitts House Of Horrors. The 2006 Prequel makes its 2003 predecessor look like a breezy Sunday drive. Few movies today contain all the elements of the good old fashioned Late 70's Early 80's slasher genre. TCM - The Beginning gave us that and a whole new platform for other horror movies of today to live up to. Hostel took us to a place of no return TCM-The Beginning guarantee's you wont be coming back. People in the cinema were...erm...nailed to their chairs in what was unfolding on the screen. The ticketgirl was telling all who went to see it 'Good luck.' Never have I been in a cinema whilst watching a horror movie where not one person has a comment, this movie was pure astonishment followed by the occasional boo scare and gargled scream. Not for the faint hearted and far superior then any of the Texas Chainsaw's before it.


TCM:B is not bad compared to conventional crappy horror. It shows the "beginning" and birth of our favorite horror star Leatherface, and his mad family. (read plot summary for details). So here's the wrap-up: The good: Better gore, better use of the chainsaw by Leatherface, nice cinematography, nice story which underlays the first one.

The bad: more or less the same story, nothing original out of the ordinary. Ermey stole most of the madness, with less leatherface on screen The ugly: plot holes/gaps, bad editing, shaky camera at the end Now, the trivia in the IMDb says there were even more gorier scenes that was cut. This was sad. 'cos basically, the golden rule of a sequel to any horror is that it should be scarier/gorier/bloodier than the first one. Though there were some nice gore scenes, it wasn't enough to surpass the first one.

Anyways, wait for the unrated DVD if you want to see the gore. Otherwise give it a pass.


Film Review: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre:The Beginning Starring: R. Lee Emery and Jordana Brewster Directed By: Jonathan Liebesman Okay, before I go into reviewing this film I should let you all know where I stand on the 2003 remake of 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. When I first heard they were making it, I wanted to vomit in my mouth. But curiosity got the better of me and I went to see it on opening day. To my surprise it did not turn out to be the big piece of s**t that I was expecting. I really liked some parts. Other parts....not so much. I'll break it down for you.........

Liked: R. Lee Emery Jonathan Tucker All of the intense scenes between Emery and Tucker. The hitchhiker shooting herself in the beginning. The scene where Leatherface turns around and is wearing the face of Jessica Biel's boyfriend. The scene where the guy got his leg sawed off. Leatherface's pop out scene at the end. (I know it's cheesy but it still made me jump.) Hated: Jessica Biel's character. Leatherface's mask. The scene where Leatherface took off his mask. Leatherface's grand entrance with the chainsaw. (And who the f**k said "BRING IT!" back in 1973?) All Of The baby bulls**t! The House.

So I guess I would give it 7 out of 10 Moving on to the prequel I must say that I thought this film was better than the remake. Quite frankly, I enjoyed the hell out of this film! The plot involves two young men on their way to Vietnam. A series of unfortunate events leads to a horrific car accident that helps them to land in the clutches of the evil sheriff played by R. Lee Emery. You can pretty much figure what is going to happen from here, right? This film gives a hilarious and gory history to the members of the Hewitt family which we were introduced to in the first film. The scene that shows how exactly how R. Lee Emery became the sheriff is hands down one of the funniest moments I have seen in a film all year. Oh and can I just tell you that Emery OWNS this f**king film! He gets plenty more screen time in this one and some great dialogue to work with as well. The writing in this film goes above and beyond the call of the average slasher movie screenplay. As does the acting. In addition to Emery you get a fine supporting cast as well. Jordana Brewster is every bit as talented as she is beautiful and her character is much more likable than Biel's whiny character from the remake. In fact all of the teens in this are likable and that's not very common for a film of this genre.

Time to talk about our old friend, Leatherface. The film starts out with his birth and subsequent adoption by the Hewitt family. We then get to see him as young man working at a meat packing company. This is before he starts wearing human skin so he dons a real black leather mask to hide his deformity. It's a s**tty job and Leatherface is treated very poorly by his boss. But don't fret! Leatherface takes care of this a**hole in one of the film's most brutal death scenes.

Speaking of death scenes, this film is chock full of gore. There is a face carving scene that almost made me hurl. Actually.....I kind of want to hurl right now just thinking about it. Gorehounds should get their jollies from this one although something tells me that they are just going to bitch about how it wasn't gory enough. And to them I would like to say please enroll in the service, head over to Iraq and see some real f**king gore so maybe then you'll all stop trying to act like bad asses.

One of the complaints many had about the remake is that the cannibal aspects were missing. They are fully restored in this one.

The pop out scenes are in full force as well and I must admit that I did jump a few times during the course of the film.

How will this one fare at the box office? From the looks of what I saw last night, not well. The 10:00 show was only half full. Not a good sign for an opening night. It will be quite sad if this film tanks because it's much better than the remake.

So to sum up I guess I would have to say that if you hated the remake and found no redeeming value in it then 'The Texas Chainsaw: The Beginning' is not for you. However if you didn't hate the remake chances are you'll end up loving this one.


I never seen the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", but the remake looks very interesting & entertaining. Leatherface character is now a legend in horror movies. When he took a face and put it on himself, you feel very uncomfortable in your chair.

The sequel of the remake shows the beginning of of cannibalistic, inbred psychopaths family, who kill teens in Texas... Two mos important characters in this movie is Sheriff Hoyt & Thomas Hewitt (Leatherface). The torture them more, than in remake, who been released 3 years ago. Actors acted very creepy, but entertaining. They been so real. They accents makes you feel like in Texas. Acting was nice too. The emotions of teens was like it will be in true life. Dean & Eric fighting ,becouse they are brothers & they will give their life, if other will survive...

Sadly, the ending was surprised. They all dead, in other hand - it looks logical. If Chrissie would be survived, she tell everyone about it and the family would be masked and we don't knew, hot the remake comes out...


OK, I understand that there are a couple of good fx in the film. A decent chainsaw kill, etc... but come on, this film was a complete bore. It lacked any tension. Yes, it is a prequel to the remake, so you pretty much know where it's going. By the way, I actually like the remake more than the original. But this film had nothing. Did they even have a script? Or did they simply say, these are the characters, and this is where they need to be by the end of the film... "Action"...

Story, Story, Story!! What is it with screenwriters these days? Story development is the least expensive part of film-making. You're already paying for the actors, you have the crew, etc... now how about a decent story! We know these are bad people. We know where they end up. Now how about adding a few other family members with some backstory, that we can see. At least that would have given the "Family" someone to lose, so you don't go into the film seeing the main characters and knowing exactly what is going to happen. The outsiders will die, someone will lose his legs, and that is it. BORING! I am tired of horror films with no character development, no story development, and really no tension. I love the genre, but have hated most of the horror films made in the last 5 years... can someone please show Hollywood how to make a decent horror film?


It takes a lot to make me wince, given the numerous gore movies that hit our shores like Hostel, Severance and the likes, and surprisingly, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, surpassed the rest in actually making my hair stand on ends.

Perhaps it's because I wasn't immersed into the mythos of the chainsaw wielding psychopath and his family of cannibals. Supposedly based on one of the most notorious criminal families in Texan history, these folks operate like the characters from Tsui Hark's New Dragon Gate Inn, exploiting the innocent who happen to cross their paths, being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Already this cliché has been used to death (pardon the pun) in movies of the same genre, but this was one of the first (The original was released in 1974), ,with a number of sequels (one even starring Viggo Mortensen), and remakes (one starring Jessical Biel recently, produced by Michael Bay).

So what is it that makes Thomas Leatherface Hewitt a hit? It's the weapon baby. The chainsaw is music to the ears, and it is raw power. In the right hands, it's a lumberjack's weapon of choice in sawing down some trees. In the hands of a psycho, plunging it into someone brings about a sickening squishy sound of metal grinding against flesh and bone.

And that, is the sick pleasure one gets when watching the movie. There is nothing too brainy about the storyline, given that it's a prequel trying to explain how things came about, and because it's something that chronologically had happened before, there's no prize in guessing who survives, or not, which makes the finale a bit of a bore. I think I am, and the audience too, are sick in wanting to watch our eye candy cast, whom we don't really give a damn about, become target practice for one of the cult killers of cinema.

There are supporting characters who join in the fray, but ultimately, it's still focused on one of the first two couples who have their opportunity to make or break with our killers on the loose. It's a mixture of capability - some utterly useless and cowardly, while others, like Chrissie (Jordana Brewster, she's hawt!) had more to do than just looking good, or scared, or shitting in their pants.

To watch this uncut, uncensored in R21 glory, and anticipating those moments when Leatherface discovers the joy and pleasure of using the chainsaw, makes this movie the largest guilt trip I have undertaken this week. And to think I watched this before my week long hiatus too :P

Welcome to the slaughterhouse.


I tried to watch this and actually lost interest, except of course when "Leatherface" was sawing off the face of a hapless victim, in the fashion of Ed Gein.

One of the problems is the female lead; just couldn't have an interest in whether she made it or not. R. Lee Ermey is always a good addition; couldn't help but wonder how much he was being paid for this, and how did he end up doing this after doing the great Kubrick film "Full Metal Jacket".

In fairness, I loved the first TCM and even Part 2. Maybe there was just something missing in this one. Perhaps the next sequel will be better. They could get Dennis Hopper in the cast again.


Upon reading the production of this film nearly 2 years ago I was excited to see another TCM movie. The original series were great and the remake of the original was all right. When I finally saw this movie I was this disappointed for many reasons.

001. It offers very little background on Leatherface and The Beginning shows him to be a ruthless killer. Yet in TCM (remake) he has feelings. This movie made him be a monster like Freddy and Jason.

002. Who in the hell cast Jordana Brewster? This woman does nothing in this film except run and whine. I'm glad she was killed off. Sorry, Jordana but TCM just wasn't for you.

003. Why does Hollywood always want to kill everybody? Sure it was great for the first few remakes but in every movie you lead the audience to believe someone will actually survive and you kill them off like 10 seconds before the credits? Get some new material!

004. One good thing about the movie is how the Sheriff came to be. He kills a cop then passes off a masquerade of being one. He's even more evil and bigamist than the first. The whole soldier/marine torture was just brilliant and the bubble wrap almost death was alright. It had me going!

Things that made no sense:

001. The biker chick. What a waste! She makes the survivors crash into a cow on the road; planning to rob them and the damn woman gets shot by the Sheriff. Dumb! Thanks Sheriff!

002. The hook impaled in the woman was too gory. Why?

003. The fat lady that says "Oh my, my, my". It was hilarious when they shoved her against the door. She must weigh 500+ pounds.

004. The birth scene should have had more details and more background on Leatherface.

005. Leatherface's personality in this film. No more sensitivity. Just steel heart!

Throughout, the movie provided a few good scares. Too much hyped scenes and the ending was just dumb. Why make a movie if you plan to kill everybody? You could've let Jordana survive like Jessica Biel in TCM and Burns in TCM The Original. Hollywood needs to reconsider what they plan to produce and remake. If not before long, hit movies like Grease, Jaws, The Godfather and Scarface will be remade. Stop the remakes and be creative. Overall, the movie did not pass with me. 4/10 stars. Sorry!


As with 98% of horror movies from the 90s to present this film is missing that "raw" video, which made horror movies in the 70s and 80s so scary, they felt real, it was the basic nature of them, the true to life scenarios and the film quality itself that gave it that gritty realism. This movie, while entertaining, is your typical cinematic horror movie just like the previous Texas Chainsaw. In my opinion it is hard to capture that raw, uncut feel that makes a horror movie scare me, Besides the amazing work done in House of a 1000 corpses no movie prior to that from the 90s to present scared me, simply entertainment. And while House of a 1000 corpses didn't make me scared for my life it definitely captured that 70s vibe and quality that is missed by so many of these films.


This movie has a great plot. It's fast paced and fun. And it's full of surprises. There's lots of southern flavor here, even a funeral with a jazz band playing and lots of people actually dancing at it. This movie is a classic. It's best to see only the uncut version.


This film is available on video as "Scalpel", and it's quite interesting. Lansing is a crazed plastic surgeon who makes a disfigured dancer look like his missing daughter to claim a $2 million dollar inheritance. However, things get complicated when the real daughter reappears. Some interesting plot twists and decent acting makes this mystery worth a look.


Now I am a sucker for "what if" stories, and what better to have Germans occupying an English village during the war.

What we have in this gem of a film is a great story, we see the villagers pull together and overcome the foe in heroic fashion. We are not spared the horrors of war, I think particularly of the scene when the telephone operator having summoned the courage to kill her German captor is killed trying to contact someone for help, you don't see anything but because of that it is all the more powerful. You are on the edge of your seat hoping the eggs with the message on will get through. We see a lady driving in her car, singing to herself, we then cut to the home guard being mown down on the road, their bodies cleared just as the woman drives round the corner. The two scenes together make for a powerful contrast. Bloody good stuff.

The pace continues through the film at such a rate that you do find yourself on the edge of the seat, the acting is great, though some may find the clipped English accent a little annoying, I liked the fact that there are a number of different accents from cockney to Yorkshire all making the "in it together" message more powerful. When the villagers start to fight back we get to see some hero's, none more so than the lady at the manor house who to save the children throws herself onto a grenade, I remember seeing this scene for the first time and being very moved by it, and every time I watch it again it has the same effect.

As a piece of propaganda it must have worked like a dream as a film it is well made and acted, what more could you want. Even more impressive is that it has aged very little.


Despite its rather tortuous title this is a great piece of British WWII propaganda with a simple message: The Nazis are a bunch of child-murdering blackguards, and we Brits will see through their dastardly plans and overcome them using our doughty pluck and the intelligence of our womenfolk and children.

The film begins with the arrival of a sizeable detachment of British troops arriving in a sleepy village which is coping admirably with the rigours of rationing and getting by without their menfolk, who are away fighting. However, it soon transpires that the British troops are, in fact a crack team of German paratroopers who have come to jam British radar in preparation for the invasion. Not only that but the local lord of the manor is a dastardly fifth columnist. The women of the village become suspicious of the newcomers due to the funny way they write numerals and the fact that they have German chocolate with them. This is all to no avail though as everyone takes their worries to the traitorous squire.

As it is a propaganda piece, the ending comes as no surprise. What is interesting though is the subversion of the class system: the dodgy poacher and his little scamp of a sidekick who are the true heroes, where the 'officer class' of the village are portrayed as either incompetent or downright villainous. The film was based on a Graham Greene story, and his perfect observation of the British way of life is superbly translated to the screen.

Compared to the other, more famous propaganda films (I'm thinking here of Humphrey Jennings), the quality of production (film stock, sound, lighting etc.) is very high, and it is hard to imagine that this was made in a time of war.


This is a pretty well done piece of English wartime film, made in 1942 and clearly intended to buck up the English as they faced the possibility of a German invasion. In the story, the small village of Bramley End is occupied by German paratroopers, who infiltrate the village disguised as English troops, along with the help of a local "Quisling" named Oliver Wilsford, played by Mervyn Johns. Seen with the benefit of hindsight, the story is rather far-fetched, since there really was no serious threat of a German invasion after 1940, but of course those making the movie (and those watching it) didn't have the benefit of hindsight, and so it has to be seen for what it is: a well done bit of movie-making encouraging the English to fight back in case it did happen.

In Bramley End, a pretty good (and ultimately successful) fight was put up once the locals got over their shock, and the fight involved men, women and children; soldiers and civilians alike. The Germans (as expected) are portrayed as ruthless (although, given the context, I thought they might have been portrayed even worse than they were.) Although it clearly was propaganda to an extent, the movie didn't have what I would consider to be a typical "propaganda" feel to it, which I appreciated, and which makes it interesting rather than dated even today. Speaking from a North American perspective, I confess that at times I had a bit of trouble following the accents, but the flow of the story was clear enough in spite of this, and I thought Oliver's ultimate fate at the hands of Nora (Valerie Taylor) represented poetic justice.

The movie opens and closes with a narration which is set in the post-war era, and is perhaps the only thing that seems really out of place today, with references to Hitler getting what was coming to him (I don't think he really did) and speaking of the invasion that finally came (which it didn't.) Aside from that, though, I found this movie quite enjoyable. 7/10


Went the Day Well? is one of the British war movies made during WWII that were meant to strengthen morale and inspire steadfastness. The little English village of Bromley End welcomes a large number of Royal Engineers who are to work on a secret project. However, the Royal Engineers in reality are English-speaking German soldiers in British uniforms, parachuted into England to set up a counter radar apparatus which will disrupt England's radar network.

Gradually the villagers begin to suspect things aren't right, and then realize what they're dealing with. The Germans cordon off the village and show their true, ruthless nature. The villagers need to break through the cordon to alert authorities and get help. They also decide they must take action themselves to stop the Germans. This is complicated because the village houses a traitor. The climax is the Battle of Bromley End, with British Home Guard troops arriving while the Germans, attacking the manor house where they must set up their equipment, are held off by the brave men and women of the village.

If you're fond of older Brit movies you'll recognize some fine actors: Leslie Banks, David Farrar, Thora Hird, Basil Sydney, Mervyn Johns. The film is a well-constructed and effective bit of wartime home-front propaganda.


I also saw this movie uncut on T.V. Ontario. I could not change channel. I found it very entertaining. This would be one I'd love to own and am just sorry that I did not use my p.v.r. to record it. I liked the idea of using the boy to go for help. I just wonder how a man could live with himself knowing he was betraying his friends and his country. I thought it very fitting for the woman who discovered he was a German to use one of the Germans' guns to kill him.

Who was the narrator at the beginning and end? I'd like to know more about him.

Everyone says it is propaganda.Did not the Germans also have their own propaganda? Propaganda or not I am glad I saw it.


This superbly rendered propaganda film must have been seen by a young Jack Higgins as so many elements appear in his novel and subsequent film of the classic "Eagle Has Landed" -- albeit the much more sympathetic presentation of the Germans in the latter.

The really creepy thing about this film is that the Nazis, although unquestionably evil, show more restraint against their civilian prisoners than Bob Kerrey showed in Vietnam or that the "Dirty Dozen" showed against the female Germans they burn alive in the climax of that insanely over-praised flick.


In WWII England a troop of surveyors are dispatched into a characteristically happy-go-lucky and scenic village, though really they are a select assemblage of German officers with orders to seize control of the township on the horizon of a covert German attack in a few days. Director Alberto Cavalcani is smart. Rather than this information creeping up on us like a twist, we grasp this from the start. When one of the villagers grows suspicious, we are in an enhanced state of tension. The Germans hijack the parish, a handful among which refuse to lose hope of alerting the unsuspecting free world around them.

Do not make the mistake of presuming that it is an insincere propaganda yarn, considering its era. This is in fact quite an electrifying tale of survival. If so many can overlook the propaganda of obsolete films like Battleship Potemkin, there is certainly room for this picture. It stands out, owing much to its unexpected flashes of violence that are sincerely exhilarating and often frank and uncompromising in terms of the drama. It is not gritty like most modern war films. The quaintly timeless English ambiance, and the consistent theme of it maintaining its spry morale, is a clever and natural juxtaposition to the taut aggression of the conflict, which is thus more well-defined. The relatively unfamiliar cast is plainly high- quality.

At its hub, yes, it's a work of propaganda exploiting a thriller story to enrapture its WWII-era British spectators. But mind you, it is based on a story by English writer and WWII MI6 spy Graham Greene. Nevertheless, the English were righteous in that war, remaining the only European country the Germans intended to occupy but never could. This piece grows to be as riveting as any other good movie, and what's more, its unexpected violence causes it to project with particular prominence.


Alberto Cavalcanti's outstanding piece of wartime propaganda is worthy of Hitchcock at his best. It's a surprisingly bleak and sometimes vicious study of British resilience, light years away from the dull Hollywood sentimentality of "Mrs Miniver". It's about a group of Fifth Columnists who take over a small British village in 1942 in preparation for the German invasion and of how the villagers fight back.

It has all the usual stereotypical villagers, (the post-mistress, the squire etc), but these clichéd parts are turned on their heads with surprisingly suspenseful results. Good performances, too, from everybody in a film that is largely undervalued, certainly in this country where we are inclined to acknowledge our 'heroism' but draw the line at going beyond that, as this film does, somewhat uncomfortably.


"Went the day well? We died and never knew, But well or ill, England, we died for you" is a poem, in its original form, which was written during The Great War of 1914 - 1918 and then used, in part and in principle, as the title to the Alberto Cavalcanti (1897 - 1982) directed Ealing Studios film Went the Day Well? Based on a short story entitled "The Lieutenant Died Last" by (Harry) Graham Greene (1904 - 1991) who too wrote The Third Man (1949) and Brighton Rock (1947). This is the telling of a past event, in a similar vain as the narrator in Our Town (1940), that once happened on the Whitson weekend of 1942, in the sleepy English hamlet of Bramley End.

Those who have seen the John Sturges 1976 film The Eagle Has Landed will have a vague idea as to the narrative of Went the Day Well? This too was based on a 1975 novel written by Jack Higgins, which it seems, bears more than just a passing resemblance to the 1942 film itself. This classic war film, The Eagle Has Landed, stars Michael Caine as the leading German Paratrooper and with Jenny Agutter, Robert Duvall, Donald Sutherland and Donald Pleasence, an involving cast and well worth the look. What separates this 1976 version of German occupation of little England and the 1942 film is that it was Went the Day Well? that hits home the hardest.

Set during some three years into the actual conflict of World War II, and with its stark realism, stereotyping brushed a side for a moment; this is, for its time a brutal and violent film, considering. The time for this sleepy village to awake and face its demons has firmly landed on its doorstep. The transformation of idyllic rural Englishness has to be tested to its limits, on their own and with time running out, even the softest of hearts have to learn the hardest rule; in order to survive, this little village of Bramley End must, with shocking and disturbing new qualities', adapt to their new surroundings.

Even by today's standards this looks tame, but the way in which it is done here shows the true message of the world war II propaganda film. Complacency is not the order of the day during the then real threat of a German invasion. As the war time audience were led to believe what may happen by letting your guard down will only endeavour you to you worst fears. Even in this scenario it is the pulling together of all, from the village post mistress to the Lady of the Manor and finding common place to ward of these fifth column infiltrators. This is England and the people who are only too willing to lay down their lives "for the sake of the children", they, in principle of the first world war poem, died for England, and freedom. This is the true message of this great, well-constructed propaganda war effect from Ealing Studios.

There are some very dark moments here, very dark moments indeed, for the times in which it was made, of bravery and courage, and too, the hands-on violence towards the women and their children. While the men do do their bit, the focus of aggressive and boorish behaviour from these fifth column activists concentrates more on the women folk and it is they that are seen pulling together and doing their bit too, Went the Day Well? is an equal opportunities film that relies on the shock value of the predicament of imprisonment by the invading Hun and its, and in return, brutal treatment of the villagers' wives and daughters.

One can only imagine the reaction during its showing around British cinemas on its release to the way in which these fighting heroines were severely treated. It is the job of Went the Day Well? to project the spirit of camaraderie from all spheres of life, and to inject and provoke the feeling of pride for ones efforts to fight the might of the German war machine, wherever they may land. This is the purpose of this film, and it does it very well and even then if it fails in its job to stir up nationalistic pride, then, perhaps, the day did not go too well.


Although clearly made on a low budget (there was a war on, you know), this movie still has the power to shock, albeit mildly.

At the time of its release in 1942, Britain still stood alone. In fact, the immediate threat of invasion had, by now, abated. German attempts to gain air superiority over British skies as a prelude to conquest had already failed during the summer of 1940, in the 'Battle of Britain'. The Luftwaffe got such a drubbing that Hitler's proposed 'Operation Sea-lion' had to be deferred indefinitely. In the meantime, his own appetite for slaughter remained undiminished. So, in 1941, he launched 'Operation Barbarossa' against the East, and effectively sealed his and Germany's doom. By 1942, there were simply insufficient resources available to invade Britain as well.

Nevertheless, it was evidently deemed needful that the public be reminded of its possibility, and this faded little propaganda piece does things very well.

The credits roll with a drive down one of England's 'country lanes' (of which we are later reminded in song during a radio broadcast) as a reaffirmation of the homely way of life that stands in peril. And this leads us to the quiet rural hamlet of 'Bramley End'.

A company of German paratroopers turn up disguised as British soldiers on manoeuvres. That scenario itself seems plausible enough. Indeed, the idea was reprised in a later movie 'The Eagle Has Landed'. But what is highly unlikely is the matter of their arrival in British vehicles. Where, pray, could these have come from? Parachuted in as well? Or did the Germans just wander into the nearest army camp and requisition them, using all of the right forms, all of the appropriate authority, and knowing just who to address? And were the vehicles likewise handed over without a check on their validity? This is a gaping hole in the plot.

But it's the only one there is, and if you can get your head around it, what follows is a drama of progressively spiralling intensity.

Movie censorship in Britain was pretty strict right up until the 1970's, and as I say: there was a war on. Yet there are some surprisingly barbaric events following plot discovery in which - it has to be said - the English women are depicted as the most drastic. Not the least of which is a member of the fairer sex of this 'sceptered isle' burying a hatchet in the back of a Teutonic head, whilst another coldbloodedly guns-down a quisling with whom she had a love interest. Hell hath no fury. This is definitely an item to motivate the ladies, and must have had a powerful effect when it was shown at the height of WW2.

Everyone mucks in (as you were expected to do). A schoolboy hero is shot in the leg whilst running for help, and all the men engage in a running battle that sees no German prisoners taken. There's little or no 'gentlemanly' conduct; it's kill or be killed and our civilians are depicted as no less ferocious than enemy soldiers. That must have sailed pretty close to the wind in its day, especially as, at other times, the krauts were invariably (and correctly) depicted as the most cruel. If anything, the moral of the story seemed to be that if they got across here it was freedom or slavery, and you did whatever you had to do. I know of no other movie in which Germans are offered no quarter.

The relationships and acting are sometimes just a little stagy at times, but still mostly quite believable. There are some nice lighting effects too; I particularly liked the 'morning mist' events, when the citizens of Bramley End begin to turn the tables.

I mentioned above that the British trucks were the only plausibility glitch, but that's not quite true. Most of the English-speaking Germans don't just speak English; they speak the mother-tongue, with a fluency that could only have been derived from being British. There's not so much as a hint of Guttural Teutonic expression. Also, there's no explanation as to how the traitor came to be, what his motives were, and so on.

My DVD is a little faded now. There's some slight vignetting and the sound isn't quite up to snuff in parts. Yet this is a movie that can still entertain well. Definitely one for the daughters of Boudicca.


Having recently found this at a local DVD store I was sufficiently intrigued enough to buy it. Having finally sat down to watch this film early this morning I was rather surprised by this little UK propaganda film. Unlike many of its counterparts (either American or Birtish that I've seen anyway) this film went beyond simple propaganda needs and became an intriguing thriller in its own right.

The film's cast helps to sell much of the story. From Basil Sydney and David Farrar as the officers leading the attack to Leslie Banks as their ally in the village to the young Harry Fowler along with Valerie Taylor, Frank Lawton and Muriel George amongst others the cast all seem perfectly natural in their roles. All in all the result is that it's a fine cast telling a fine story.

The main selling point of this film though is the story. Years before Jack Higgins would turn the concept into his bestseller (and later still a fine film) called The Eagle Has Landed writers John Dighton, Angus MacPhail and Diana Morgan would take a short story by famed writer Graham Greene (The Third Man, Our Man In Hanvana etc.) and create a fascinating tale. From the moment Mervyn Johns gives his introduction to his epilogue for the story the audience is aware that this is a World War II propaganda film without any doubt. Yet it soon becomes apparent that this is far more then that. The story soon becomes a tale of deception, double crosses and the power of the ordinary person in a time of war. While the film's propaganda message will be lost on many modern viewers, the story is a compelling one to be sure.

The production value's are handsome as well. Tom Morahan designs make for a highly convincing English village which one imagines couldn't have been easily built during wartime. Famed composer William Walton (soon the become famous for his work on the Olivier Shakespere films) provided a fine score, especially at the opening and closing of the film. yet the highlight of the production side of the film is the wonderful cinematography by Wilkie Cooper. Cooper's cinematography, from sunny summer days to the moodiness of a night of desperate attempts, perfectly fits each moment and situation.

The film isn't perfect of course. While the story is intriguing in itself, there is something of a mistake made by having the opening and closing done by actor Mervyn Johns. While they serve a fine purpose as propaganda pieces (and of course bookends) the opening gives away quite a bit very early on which dampens the surprise that comes as the film progresses. There's also the staging of the battle sequences that, like many films of this era, seems rather dated today with all its hollering and men falling over. These are relatively minor problems though when compared with the rest of the film.

With an intriguing story, nice performances and handsome production values Went The Day Well? is an intriguing film. While at times an obvious piece of World War II propaganda as a thriller it stands up quite well nearly seven decades on from when it was made. With its timeless tale of the power of the ordinary person it is a film that speaks even now.


OK everyone else has given a good synopsis of this movie and you should realise you're not getting Citizen Kane here but a solid piece of propaganda produced on the cheap and quickly when such things mattered in Britain, ie a horde of Nazi stormtroopers were waiting to invade thirty miles across the Channel and the British people better be ready to deal with it when the time comes. The fact that we now know that the real threat of invasion had already passed by that stage no one knew for sure at the time that such was the case.

The acting is at times stiff and the dialogue can be a bit facile at times but when the acting and dialogue are good they are excellent. Look at the postmistress in the moments before she gives the German sergeant his comeuppance, watch her facial expression and wonder whether the Nazi was getting what she'd have liked to have given her late husband, all very edgy for 1942. The women and children do get the bravest roles and even if, like the lady of the manor or the daffy post office assistant, they are a bit hopeless at first they rally magnificently.

There are some very significant and subtle moments; the first active resister is the Christian minister, the British serviceman rallies the village defence is a sailor, the dreadful night ends and daylight breaks through just at the point when the villagers learn the outside world is on the way to help, the villagers are prepared to wreck their own beautiful and historic mansion house without a moment's hesitation in the fight to beat the Germans.

There are other enjoyably subtle moments too, "Oh Duck Madame!" when the shooting starts, "Not again" when the sailor shouts the same and surely I can't be the only one to pick up on the servant Bridget? The only named character without dialogue and who is told what to do by her fine bossy aristocratic English mistress but who seems as if she would rather have nothing to do with the whole affair.

Would I be wrong in guessing Bridget is from Ireland?


Hidden in the midst of straight-to-video releases, this film is a head and shoulders above the rest, and it boggles my mind that it did not achieve theatrical release.

While the subject matter is somewhat unoriginal (Games a man must play to land a "perfect woman" and the pros & cons of commitment/marriage), the film has a magnificent script that gives these themes a freshness not seen since Swingers.

Perhaps the film's strongest suit is the cast. Reynolds, Bellamy, O'Connell, and Livingston work great together, and never once does the witty dialog seem forced or unbelievable. The interaction seems realistic, and most importantly, personal (from the male standpoint, anyway). The film is smart and thoughtful, giving a variety of perspectives on the subject matter.

The only beef I have with this film (no pun intended) is that the ending is a bit abrupt (I won't give anything away, but you'll see what I mean). I felt a little more elaboration might have tied things up a bit better. However, don't let this deter you, Buying the Cow is a must-see.


What is wrong with Hollywood? They pump up virtually unwatchable action flicks and bury real gems like Buying the Cow. This movie was intelligent, original, insightful (to a point) and funny. I feel sorry for everyone involved in this production -- because some distributor someone dropped the ball. If you liked Office Space, The Castle, Happy Texas, or Romy & Michelle's High School Reunion, watch this movie.


4 years after the movie was made, I stumbled upon a gem. I was sucked in 15 minutes after it started and couldn't leave my couch even to hardly run to the bathroom. It was that great. A true representation of relationships, what guys and girls are looking for and a true replica of the men I have dated in the past. It made me wonder why I was asking the guy I have been with for 4 years for a commitment. I like to think I walked away from this film with a few more laughs and some good insight on what it is guys want or think they want! The cast was inspiring and a fun look at where some of them were just 4 years ago and how far they have come. I wish there was some more movies that made me laugh and think out loud.


I originally caught "Buying the Cow" on Starz, and I found it to be funny and enjoyable. Don't expect to garner any answers to life's questions, but what do you expect from a "straight-to-video" movie. I laughed-out-loud at alot of the jokes in this movie, and definately would suggest this movie to my friends.

I think the saving grace for this movie, is the fact that both guys and girls can find humor in the situations and commentary that you see in this film. If your girlfriend drags you to the video store, and insists that you rent a romantic comedy, you can't go wrong with "Buying the Cow" (more emphasis on the comedy than on the romance... but she won't know that)

(SPOILERS!!!)

Perhaps the funniest scenes deal w/ Mike Hanson (Ryan Reynolds) as he deals w/ his newly-discovered homosexual tendancies. I had to cringe (in a good way) when he almost gets shot as a would-be pedophile.