This movie set the stage for the onslaught of classic modern horror of the late 70's and early 80's. Tobe Hooper's vision paints a drab and disturbing picture of a family of cannibals who hunt their victims using any means necessary for survival. Caught up in this whole mess is a group of young people, unaware of what lurks down an old back road of Texas. Hunger is our most probable urge as human beings, and this family takes this idea to the extreme. Each family member is their own character with their own feelings and their own personalities. One such character, Leatherface, stands out for the fact that he was born without a face, thus using human skin to gain an identity. This is what sets him apart from other slashers such as Michael Myers and Jason Vorhees for they hid behind masks. It's safe to say he's not the only insane one in this bunch. Every one of them are one fry short of a happy meal and I am sure they like it that way. Gunnar Hansen did a great job of playing Leatherface, sculpting a faceless killer who slew not for fun but for survival. His perfect killer image was later destroyed by other actors in later sequels. Many people refuse to watch this movie in the first place because of what they've heard and because of the title. Strangely, some even walked out of the theaters on the previews for this thing. That's just how strong this movie actually is. There's really a lot less gore in this movie than most people think. It's Tobe Hooper's great directing that pelts the viewer with suspense. The last 10 minutes of this film are some of the most exciting, terrify shots ever put on film. All because of Leatherface, many people's nightmares will be dominated by the hum of a chainsaw.


Texas Chain Saw Massacre, this movie is a legend in the horror genre. I have heard so much about this movie, the interesting thing is, my mom told me it's one of the bloodiest movies she's ever seen, then she paused and said "Wait, actually there wasn't that much blood it's just creepy". So I had to see this movie, was it really that scary? Is it really that bloody? Is it really that creepy? I had to see for myself, so of course I bought the movie, it was on sale, watched it during the day, not much effect, was pretty disappointed. But then my friends came over and we wanted to watch a scary movie and they all saw that I had The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, we turned off the lights, turned on the surround sound and then the screams came as I realized this is one messed up movie!

Sally Hardesty and her wheelchair-bound brother Franklin travel with three friends to a cemetery where the Hardestys' grandfather is buried to investigate reports of vandalism and corpse defilement. Afterward, they decide to visit an old Hardesty family homestead, and on the way, the group picks up a hitchhiker. The man speaks and acts bizarrely, and then slashes himself and Franklin with a straight razor before being forced from the group's van. Franklin tells Kirk and Pam about a local swimming hole, and the couple heads off to find it. Instead, they stumble upon a nearby house. Kirk decides to ask the residents for some gas, while Pam waits on the front steps. Receiving no answer but finding the door unlocked, Kirk enters the house and is immediately murdered by Leatherface. Pam enters soon after to find the house filled with furniture made from human bones. She attempts to flee but is caught by Leatherface and impaled on a meat hook. At sunset, Sally's boyfriend Jerry heads out to look for the others. Finding the couple's blanket outside the neighboring house, he investigates and finds Pam still alive inside a freezer. Before he can react, Leatherface appears and kills him, stuffing Pam back inside the freezer afterward. With darkness setting, Sally and Franklin set out to find their friends. As they near the killer's house, calling for the others, Leatherface lunges out of the darkness and murders Franklin with a chainsaw. She is captured and invited to Leatherface's house for a family dinner she'll never forget.

Movies from the 1970's are so special to me, the reason why I think some of the greatest horror movies came out of that decade is due to the fact that directors didn't hold back like today. Most directors of today's Hollywood are too scared of the censors or go too far and make the audience gag rather than scream. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre I'm sure Tobe Hooper wasn't exactly expecting this movie to become the classic it has. Leatherface is frightening and I'm not so sure I'd accept an invitation from him and his family for dinner. I think they made the Manson family look like the Cleavers, you haven't seen a horror film until you've seen The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.

10/10


The (original) Texas Chainsaw Massacre, is without a doubt in my mind, the most impressive horror film to date. No other horror film stays with you in the same way. You feel not only fearful for the characters, but at times feel afraid for your own safety. The natural lighting and loose, improvised acting style creates a strong sense of reality that no other horror film can possibly achieve. Under a thin layer of dated aesthetics (1973 style of dress) lies the most dangerous, horrifying and psychotic world ever committed to script or screen. As the first of its kind, this movie set the mold for the modern horror film, though none were ever to realize any comparable distinction. It gave birth to the "slasher" genre (for better or for worse) . It is also one of few timeless films that has managed to combine horror and avant-garde styles, successfully. Unlike its remake, this one is more of an exercise in minimalism and simplicity (think even Dogme). The expert subtlety of the filmmakers; Tobe Hooper (writer/director), Kim Henkel (co-writer) and Daniel Pearl (cinematographer) results more in

psychological terror than in gore. The air-tight script, jarring realism and attention to detail are unparalleled in practically any film, horror or otherwise. And last, but by far not the least Marylin Burns PHENOMENAL performance is the only in cinematic history (a close second by that of Shelly Duvall in The Shining) that evokes such a nature of desperate and primal fear. You truly believe in every single one of her screams that her life is hanging by a single, thin thread.


The Indie film community's head is so far up it's own ass with delusions of grandeur that they actually fail to see, at times, the area where their own films succeed. And is it any wonder? When Tobe Hooper's 1974 opus was released, it quickly became a mainstream hit. I specifically remember it becoming 'The film to sneak into' for kids. This automatically robbed it of any following it had with indie film fans despite being one of their own circuit's films. They instead dismissed it as a pointless exercise in graphic gore(there's actually very little), while praising lousy later films like 'Blair Witch' to the skies because of so-called deeper meanings. A shame they could not see that Hooper had crafted perhaps the ultimate statement on post '60's America, and one that remains unmatched in it's power.

The film makes no doubt about what state the country was in: Decay. Everything in the film reeks of death. From the prologue with the corpse 'art'(not as much a stretch considering the kind of art produced in this era), the Dead Armadillo in the film's opening; a Texas national landmark, it would seem, to the dried up 'Ol swimming hole, to the heroine's once-thriving home now populated with spiders and rats. It doesn't take sides, either. The 'Good 'ol ways' represented by the homicidal Sawyer clan as a nightmare parody of the American bible-belt family are obviously the villains, but the 'new' generation, itself dying out since '68, isn't presented as any more desirable. Both are mercilessly ridiculed. Even the heroine survives only by sheer luck. She's not the intelligent, feminist heroine(despite being of the 'free love'generation)that Laurie Strode of 'Halloween' is, she survives because of the killer's(s) incompetence. It's almost as if the film is saying that the ignorant, rebellious youth have emerged scarred from the real world they ran off unprepared for(The doomed protagonists are all jaded ex-hippies), and are all limping back home(Sally does visit her old house as a form of shelter)to the comforting arms of the 'old folks' who warned them; who react violently and vehemently, telling them 'I told you so!', but still give them relief: Death.

Speaking of the 'heroes', isn't it bizarre how the heroine's crippled brother Franklyn is treated like a nuisance by them? Even though we don't see it; it's obvious that they have frequently ridiculed him(His reaction in the abandoned house to their laughter best reveals this, as he can't stand to hear their mocking laughter even if it is not directed at him and he knows it). Yet, in contrast to the lead's treatment of the childish invalid Franklyn, the Sawyer family treats the two characters most similar to Franklyn(mentally and physically); Leatherface and Grandpa; as valued kinfolk, they are accommodated and appreciated in their family unit. Although the older brother heaps much verbal abuse on the Hitchhiker & Leatherface, it is no more than your usual stereotypically portrayed hick family on 'Hee-Haw'. They're close-knit, and as Franklyn says after the Hitchhiker slits himself and endures it: 'Gotta admire that".

Add to the fact that Franklyn is the the only character in the film to come close to communicating with, and in a sense, relating to, one of the Sawyers(Who starts up a genial, at first, conversation about knives and killing with the Hitchhiker); and it becomes more disturbing. Almost as if, under different circumstances, Franklyn would occupy the same position as Leatherface(If he could walk)or Grandpa if he were a member of the Sawyer clan, as if the hitchhiker recognizes this. It's also strange considering this take, that Franklyn is the last of the leads to die. I'm not saying Leatherface spared him for last out of mercy(He had just met Franklyn when he kills him), but because they are similar symbolically. Even Hooper has called Leatherface a 'big baby', and that seems to apply to Franklyn as well.

Bizarre, the cannibals accept the handicapped(in their own way), and the 'heroes' see the handicapped as a burden, much like how former hippies who were drafted and returned maimed or crippled were rejected by their former friends for 'killin' babies' in 'Nam. Even more strange is that it's Franklyn who inadvertently causes their deaths when he gives them the faulty directions to the swimming hole, as if he's unknowingly getting his revenge.

Obviously, I see the film as a social commentary. But I would not simply call it another entry in the cycle of other post '60's downbeat dramas, but a hybrid of that mentality with the 'Old Dark House' genre of years past. Compare the film with Whale's 1932 film of the same name; you'll see what I mean. Even that film's macabre humor and invalid patriarch character are referenced. TCM is an update on that genre with post '60's cynicism. As that stands, it may not be the first slasher film, as it's often called, but the last, and best 'Old Dark House with a homicidal but oddly funny family' type of film ever made.~


Who knows out of what strange game of fate or as if the universe conspired upon its creation and everything that came to pass did so that Tobe Hooper would make The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Like a blood spattered, low-budget Orson Welles of 70's exploitation, the immensity of his debut will forever haunt him and his career.

The task of committing TCM to words is a difficult one, not because the proper words don't exist but merely because they can only describe the surface and never convey the essence and the heart and what can only be felt in one's own skin and maybe that of others. Sounds of animals and howling of beasts and the clanking of rustling metal speak TCM's language. The dissonant chord that sounds in the soundtrack as the movie fades from black to flashes of decaying flesh is TCM's lingo and what defines it is disorientation.

Indeed the first shot proper that opens the movie, that of a rotten head and as the camera zooms out we see the whole dead body in a grotuesque posture like some sort of zombified jester sitting atop a gravestone, offers no clue and safe grip for the viewer. After the opening credits roll, we are served an orange sun burning in a blackened sky and that dissolves into the image of a dead armadillo laying on the street. We're 5 minutes into the movie and we're provided no clues of typical genre orientation, no protagonists of any sort. As the eye scans the image for something to cling to, narrative or otherwise, there's nothing there save for decay and death.

And then TCM starts rolling and picks up steam and never stops. Apart from how original or not the concept is (crazed backwoods family terrorizing city kids) it's the approach that makes all the difference. Hooper achieves sensory terror and doom by piling on images and sounds, each of them spilling to the next frame starting an avalanche of horror. A close shot of cattles as the van drives in the background, a seedy gas station, a crazed hitch-hiker the kids pick up, an abandoned house. In the interior shots of the abandoned house the blacks are crushed and we only see silhouettes moving against the textures in the walls and those are juxtaposed with exterior shots where the whites wash out, like some kind of rural hell, a land of some other order that is coming apart under the weight of its own abandonment.

Even when the sensory chaos is broken for a while so that our genre expectations can be fulfilled as the crippled guy Franklin mutters to a couple that leaves the abandoned house to make out "Yeah, see you in an hour or so" (followed by a drone in the score) and we just know he's never gonna see them again, a typically ominous foreshadowing common in slashers, that only lasts for seconds. Then Hooper cuts back to puzzling images, feathers on the ground and some kind of dreamcatcher made of bone (?) and weird buzzing sounds in the score, like otherwordly insects flying unseen. TCM constantly tips its own axis, content to be left out of balance.

The first encounter with notorious chainsaw-wielding Leatherface is as disorienting as anything that comes before it. He appears out of nowhere like a beast in a frenzy and the carnage begins. And for a movie of TCM's reputation there is surprisingly no (or at least little) explicit gore. Yet the violence is startling and raw as the images that preceed its outburst spill into it and add their own touch of the morbid. Eisenstein must have been clairvoyant when he spoke of how powerful montage can be.

We're also given glimpses to Leatherface's tortured, crazed soul, bits of characterization like a gesture and a look of his eyes. Not a psycho killer out of sadistic pleasure perhaps, he looks more like a savage beast defending its territory or a wild dog scared of intruders trespassing in his nest.

Like an avalanche of macabre images that is impossible to stop once it starts, TCM whizzes by in a manic pace. The chase scene where Leatherface hunts down Marilyn Burns, scared out of her wits and howling like a wounded animal, is shot through branches of trees, as if the landscape is conspiring to ensnare the victim and so hunter and hunted run in the fields and inside a house and then back outside while the titular chainsaw is buzzing away in a constant reminder of gruesome death. Even when Hooper overplays his hand (as in the dinner scene) it's all done with deliberation that cannot be ignored, like maybe the director is as insane as the characters he's depicting and he takes great pleasure in basking in their insanity.

TCM simply has to be experienced, no critical analysis can do it justice. Without bucketloads of gore, without the slick look of high budget, it remains one of the most bleak, atmospheric and aurally violent movies of all time. What happened to Tobe Hooper's career after it is anyone's guess, but TCM is good enough to top entire filmographies of other directors. It has been imitated countless times, remade and given sequels and prequels to, but there's something primeval about the original that can't be recaptured.


I was 11 years old. I'd given an older kid 50p to borrow his copy of Texas Chain Saw Massacre. I took it home and put it in the top-loader. It took me a fair while to press down on that chunky silver 'play' button, recollecting the stories I'd heard about the film. Rumours were flying around the school - the filmmakers had gone mad whilst making the film and killed each other - Leatherface was real - it was a documentary and the killings are all real. Chain Saw was a snuff movie. So, I pressed down the hefty button and braced myself for what was to come, eyes peeled, resisting the need to look away as if I were looking at a traffic accident. When the film was over I felt disturbed. I hadn't witnessed real human killings, I hadn't just seen a snuff movie, but Chain Saw had reached deep down inside of me and planted a seed of unease, I felt cold to my very core but I didn't know why. As the years passed my recollections of the film became more and more distorted. Most notably my memories of the killings within the film - bloody, gore-filled scenes. Blood. Lots of blood.

The reason I have rambled on about these events is that, until re-watching the film, I appeared to share the same memories as those that had seen it around the same time as me. This is a testament to Chain Saw's masterful construction, a film powered by the age-old technique of suggestion. There is hardly a drop of blood shown within the film, yet people will remember it in bucket-loads. In fact, director Tobe Hooper only shows us what is necessary, maybe because of the low budget he was working with (Hooper's later output would suggest this), but it forced creativity from the filmmaker that is sadly lacking in his other work (Poltergeist may be an exception, but Hooper's direction was steered by Spielberg on that one).

Okay, the story: A mini-bus carrying five teenagers drives through Texas. Pre-emptively they drive past a slaughterhouse as cows await their death. The tone, and their fate, is set, and it is only a matter of time before the teenagers will become meat to a local cannibal family. Their ordeal begins when they enter a sinister old house (don't they always?) and start to snoop around. Before you know it one of the teens, who you're expecting to be the lead, is struck over the head with a mallet by Leatherface (Gunar Hansen), an obese retard with a skin mask. As he falls to the floor, his body twitching, Leatherface closes a sliding metal door and finishes the job where we cannot see it. From here on in it's basically a matter of picking off teens one by one with the use of the mallet, a meat hook and, of course, the chain saw.

What is essentially a by-the-numbers plot is raised above par by the style and atmosphere of the film. From bizarre shots of solar flares to the hot, sun soaked imagery of Texas, Chain Saw seems to be sweating horror out of every pore. The locations are macabre beyond belief, in particular a room with hanging animal bones and bone constructed furniture, and the whole film has a hot, musty orange glow about it that almost makes you smell the dead human meat in the cannibal house.

The performances are relatively functionary from the cast, although Marilyn Burns puts in a good turn as the tortured 'final girl', making us feel that her life is truly at risk. Even though all she does is scream and plead for her life, she does so with such energy and realism that it is difficult to watch her. Most disturbing of all is a scene where the grandfather of the family, a man so old he can barely move, is given a hammer to deliver a deathblow to her head. The family holds her over a bucket as the old man raises the hammer to strike her, but he is barely able to hold it, let alone hit her with it.

Chain Saw is full of images that will horrify and disturb, but unlike many other films that do the same, Chain Saw will leave you breathless with its unrelenting assault on the senses; from the images on display to the ear-shattering sound design that allows Leatherface's saw to intrude your living room and slice at your nerves. Texas Chain Saw Massacre is one of those few horror films that will unnerve you to a degree of unrest because it hits home where it hurts. Its savage, raw power and its total lack of reason give the impression you are watching something you shouldn't be. A bit like the traffic accident I mentioned earlier. In fact, you never really have time to think about what you are seeing until after the film has ended, which leaves an indelible image of a skin-masked madman waving a chain saw around his head in anger.

So, if you watched Chain Saw a good few years ago and remember it being a standard slasher flick with lots of gore, revisit it and see just how effective suggestion can be. If you've never seen it - what are you waiting for? This is low-budget film-making at its best and a lot can be gained from repeat viewings. If you can watch it more than once that is


So much has been written about THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE these days that it seems almost redundant to write a review about it. Needless to say, TCM is one of my top films of all time. It's so good on so many levels that it would take a book to write a perfect review of this once-maligned flick. Some people, who have never seen it before, wonder what's so great about it after watching it for the first time, well, this is probably because TCM is the most copied movie of all time and TCM will look too familiar to newbies. You can literally trace x number of horror movies (or even action movies) back to this film. The thing is, TCM is a groundbreaking movie but few people back then noticed it. Mainly because when this low budget movie was originally released by its unscrupulous distributors it was dismissed as another trashy drive-in horror movie, when in fact few realized the brilliance to be found within it. After TCM was released, few horror films could afford to go back to Hammer style horror or the usual boring fare. You can really see the difference in movies made before TCM and those made after TCM became a big hit. The unrelentingly blunt, chaotic, savage, take-no-prisoners attitude of TCM was unlike anything anyone had ever seen before and this aspect of TCM is what makes it truly groundbreaking. Horror movies or even movies in general simply couldn't be cutesy or quaint anymore.

The film is unsettling and funny. It's totally original with its brazen, full-throttled approach to horror when most films made in those days were static, slow and poky. The level of energy this movie has is truly amazing. For a low budget flick, the camera is stunningly fluid and rarely static. The editing is sharp. The music is ominous but never overwhelming. The look of the film is perfect; it's looks so natural and un-Hollywood like which adds a lot in creating the uneasy atmosphere of the movie. But the direction by Tobe Hooper is inspired brilliance and even though Hooper often injected bits of black humor here and there which could have made the film less authentic, the humor never overtakes the story (which is probably what many didn't like about the sequel, which, btw, I recommend too) because the rawness of what's occurs on screen is never pulled back. The direction is perfect for this gruesome horror story. What's really remarkable about TCM is that there isn't a "weakest link" about it. Even though the budget was almost next to nothing and the conditions of making the movie were, according to many articles, hellish, the film doesn't have one weak element. Everything fits perfectly. Technically, the film is amazing. There isn't a scene that feels excessive or some performance that wasn't good. Everything is top notch.

TCM is filled with classic moments: the beginning, with the flashes of the corpses; the scene at the cemetery; the hitchhiker in the van; Kirk facing Leatherface; Pam and the swing shot; Pam falling in a room filled with bones and feathers; Pam and the hook scene; Leatherface surprised by Jerry; Sally being chased by Leatherface (the scene is only screams and chainsaws, for a whole 6 minutes. Amazing!); Sally being poked by Drayton; Sally at the diner table (yikes!); Grandpa and the hammer; Sally being chased by the hitchhiker and Leatherface during the chaotic "live-wired" ending; a crazed Sally in the pick-up truck. The film is one amazing moment after another, from beginning to end.

The actors are mostly unknowns to us today but that doesn't mean their acting wasn't good. The entire cast is excellent and game, ready to give their all. What I really like about the script is that everyone comes across as real. Some characters are even unappealing, like Franklin, the guy in the wheelchair, which you won't see done in movies these days. Today, everyone has to be cute, fun and likable, but in an edgy kind of way. Franklin is a real pain in the ass but having him in the movie makes the film feel more realistic. As for Marilyn Burns, well, she's probably the most underrated "scream queen" in history of film. While other actresses have made a career out of horror films and eventually moved on to other genres, Marilyn has been unlucky in this aspect. You'd think her career would have taken off after TCM but it didn't. The release of the TCM early in the 1970s is probably one reason why her star never shone like Jamie Lee Curtis. The "fans boys" that followed Jamie Lee's films were too young when TCM was released. As for the actors who played the Sawyer family, well, there isn't enough praise in the world for them. Jim Siedow is totally unforgettable. The same for Gunnar as Leatherface. But the greatest performance in TCM is surely given by Edwin Neal, the hitchhiker. Man, oh man, what a performance. His performance is so unbelievably believable that I wonder: was he even acting?

Another great thing about THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE is how it captures the feel and attitude of its time. It's a great time capsule. It's so in the moment, that watching it is like traveling back in time and being there in 1973 or 1974. And remember, this was a very troubled time. Vietnam. The Manson Massacre. Richard Speck. Nixon, etc. TCM is a true statement of the time it was made.

But the thing that always gives me the creeps when I watch TCM is the scene at the beginning, when they drive by the cattle ranch and we see the poor animals while Franklin talks about how they are killed and everything. This gives the whole movie its queasy, black humor subtext: the folly of mass consumerism. The general public doesn't see how animals are killed in slaughterhouses. Our meats are always packaged neatly and look appealing. But we never see the real horror behind the benign act of buying some ground beef at a store. The story of TCM is sorta like what happens to the cattle but instead we see cannibals processing their food which, obviously, comes from humans. Hooper seemed to be using the whole horror story as a statement about mass consumerism gone horribly wrong. Sally running away from the Sawyer house is like the cow that got away from the slaughterhouse.

All in all, THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE is so good that it's one of those rare gems that can be truly appreciated as a straight horror movie, as a black comedy and even as an art film. Personally, I think the film gets better and better with time. There hasn't been anything done like it since. The whole movie was the result of catching lightning in a jar. It's a one of kind film experience that can never be duplicated.


"The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" could be one of the finest examples of horror film-making, maybe even film-making in general. It does not have much plot, but instead exists solely to put the viewer in a state of distress. I remember watching this for the first time and how utterly freaked out I was.

Despite being a grueling experience, the movie really does not have much explicit violence. Some of the murders happen just out of the camera's frame; only once do we actually see a chainsaw penetrate flesh, and it happens to be one of the villains. What earns the film its grisly reputation is the unrelentingly grim tone, and by playing this to the maximum, Tobe Hooper manages to make you think you are seeing something that you are not.

Hooper starts the film off at a relatively slow pace with a small group of young people on a road trip in a hot van, and it slowly builds in intensity as one by one they fall victim to a family of psychotic degenerate cannibals inhabiting a rural house that they are unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity of.

Some people might expect the most unsettling aspect of the movie to be the violence, but what I found even more upsetting is the way the deaths of the characters come suddenly and unexpectedly (to them, anyway). It went beyond most slasher films, especially the first two deaths, a couple called Kirk and Pam. Happening upon the dreaded house almost by accident, first Kirk goes inside and is immediately murdered with a sledgehammer to the head. Then Pam begins to get suspicious when he doesn't return. The camera finds her sitting on a swing outside, completely unaware that her boyfriend is already dead inside the farmhouse. When she goes into the house looking for him, she is seized, screaming, by the bizarre "Leatherface", who hangs her on a meat hook through her back. In agony and shock, she is forced to watch Leatherface dismember Kirk's corpse with a chainsaw, all at once aware that Kirk is dead and that she herself is certainly doomed, when just ten minutes beforehand, they were outside looking for a swimming hole. Later, another character goes looking for them and happens upon the house as well, finding Pam inside a locked freezer. The most horrifying thing is that she is not dead yet, sitting upright in shock but then hopelessly shoved back inside by Leatherface, who has now killed her would-be rescuer.

These nihilistic scenes signaled an abrupt shift for the film, which up until this point had been a little boring. The sudden plunge into savagery was like a trap springing on the viewer, and the effect was extremely memorable. The remainder of the film dealt with the plight of the final victim, Sally, who endures what has to be one of the most grueling experiences a horror-movie heroine ever had to face.

Grotesque and fever-pitched once it gets going, "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" was quite a shock for viewers in 1974. In this sense it was a lot like "Psycho"; before it, there wasn't much to compare it to. Rather, it set the stage for numerous films that came after, and it may not resonate with younger audiences who are more accustomed to the films that have been made since.


SPOILERS !!!!!!!!!!!!!

2003...within less than a year, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre will turn 30 years old. I find this very hard to believe because this movie hasn't aged a single day. And although cinema has gone through a major evolution in the past 30 years, most nowadays thrillers don't come even close to TCM when it comes to atmosphere and "creepyness". This is horror in the purest possible form and it'll rank always high on the list of movies that influenced cinema the most. That's probably why some suckers have decided to remake it... By the end of this year, a new TCM will be shown in theaters and I ask you why ? Is it to satisfy younger fans and blow them away with stunning visuals and sound effects. That isn't necessary at all. The original still has the ability to impress any public...and how !!!

The most powerful aspect about this movie is without a doubt the choice of the innocent victims. The diabolical family didn't intend to chase the group of youngsters, they just happened to be there and fell into their hands. It could have been anybody. This form of random terror is usual stuff nowadays but back in 1974, this scared a lot of people. Of course there are many other great elements to find in TCM. For example Leatherface and the rest of his family...( including the Chainsaw ). Never in this movie is really explained what drives them to such madness. Sure you can make up many theories about the fact the closure of the slaughterhouse and such but you'll never a 100 % sure about the origin of the madness. They're freaking maniacs and you don't want to come across them. Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one big thrill, in fact. The grave robbing, the terrifying news bulletins and the demonic house ...all these elements contribute in making this movie one of the most memorable and important films ever !

TCM is loosely ( better say VERY loosely ) based on a true story. That is to say : Leatherface owes his existence to the horrible serial killer Ed Gein. Without a doubt the most influential psychopath in American history as he was also the base for other horror milestones such as Norman Bates and Hannibal Lector. We have Tobe Hooper and Kim Henkel to thank for all the rest of this terrific movie. They've created this low budget piece of cinema and by doing that, they changed the horror industry forever. Tobe Hooper continued making good horror during the 70 ( Eaten Alive ) and in the early 80's he even was a star for a little while ! Steven Spielberg let him direct his production Poltergeist which was a huge success as well.

TCM is coming straight from the best horror decade: The 70's. Very recently we've this discussed this wonderful 10 years of horror here on the message boards of this website. The amount of highlights in this decade is incredible and almost impossible to list...You've got The Exorcist, Halloween, Suspiria, The Omen, The Wicker Man, Last house on the Left, Dawn of the Dead and tons of other immortal titles. Texas Chainsaw Massacre sure is one of them. This version will always be superior...even if the make 10 remakes and a 1.000 more rip-offs

Greatest "rewind"-moment : The character of Pam who fall down in the Leatherface house. When she looks around the camera follows her view and you see nothing but human bones ! Terrific piece of horror


"Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is one of the key developments to modern horror cinema. "Psycho" showed that a monster could be anyone and could be located anywhere. Still, there were several elements that hearkened to traditional suspense narratives. It was 1960, and the country had yet to experience true horror. Than Vietnam had begun, and the nation witnessed the cold reality of violence on their TV sets. "Night of the Living Dead" came along and invented the modern horror film than. The horror was created by the government and on the home front, not a mystical dreamland. Still, there were several classic and traditional "monster" movies released in the next few years. "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was released and the film industry took notice. The traditional, more naive horror movie was dead. Nearly seventy years of horror cinema seemed irrelevant.

This was all with good reason. "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was one of the most visceral and disturbing horror films ever made. In addition to consistent scares, there were several elements that have been prevalent in most horror films ever since. It had a darker than dark sense of humor, yet was done without any camp or irony. The chuckles made it all the more uneasing so Tobe Hopper could catch you off guard. Plus, the "heros" are just as unlikable as the villains, if not more so. The opening scenes in the van show a group of people no one in their right mind would want to be around. It is only at the end when Sally in placed into situations of intense danger do we feel any sympathy towards the protagonists.

But get past all the historical significance, this is an excellent film. Even over thirty years after release, it is still terrifying, which can not be said of many well-remembered horror films. The performances are average, but no one goes into this film expecting Olivier. The direction by Tobe Hopper is masterful minimalism. Simply put, the man knows how to build tension. Its a shame he never made another great film after this, and eventually directed the incredibly overrated "Poltergeist". Still, whether or not it was a fluke on his behalf, this is a great film. (10/10)


Oozing death and decay from its opening frames to its intense and gruelling finale, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is a tour de force of raw cinematic horror and one of the finest films ever made. Based on the real life story of Ed Gein, a grave robbing cannibalistic murderer, the movie is a dark journey into the depths of sheer hopelessness and absolute brutality.

Made on a shoestring budget by director Tobe Hooper, this 1974 classic of screen terror utilises inventive cinematography combined with a truly ominous soundtrack (but surprisingly little gore), to bring to life the story of five teenagersSally, Pam, Jerry, Kirk, and wheelchair-bound Franklin who stumble upon a charnel house occupied by a family of maniacs.

Setting the oppressive tone immediately, Hooper commences his gruesome proceedings with a news report about a spate of grave desecrations in Texas, whilst simultaneously showing us a grisly 'work of art' assembled atop a tombstone, made from the decaying remnants of a freshly exhumed corpse.

The 'artist' responsible for this macabre sculpture is a crazy hitchhiker, who is picked up by the unsuspecting group of friends, who are on their way to visit a house (which belongs to the family of one of the girls). The hitchhiker is unceremoniously booted out of the van when he goes bonkers, cutting one of the teens with a razor.

But he is not the only lunatic in the area, and it isn't long before the hapless youngsters meet the other members of his murderous family, including the legendary Leatherface, a maniac in a butcher's apron and a human-skin mask with a fondness for heavy-duty power tools! One by one, the teens fall prey to the crazy killers, until only Sally is left; she endures a night of terror at the hands of cannibalistic clan, before making a break for freedom, only to be pursued by the hitchhiker and Leatherface (brandishing his revving chainsaw)...

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is a relentless assault on the senses which presents its audience with a series of powerful sequences which are guaranteed to shock and disturb. Whether it's the first victim twitching uncontrollably after being clubbed on the head with a lump-hammer, witnessing the next being hung on a meat-hook or watching poor old Sally being held down to be 'whacked' by a cadaverous old man, the nightmarish images of Hooper's movie will stay with you long after the film has finished.

Much imitated, but never bettered, TCM is genuinely worthy of its status as one of the most highly acclaimed horrors of all time.


Lets get real, people, there is no good reason for a filmmaker to force some kind of point on someone. Do you watch films to get lectured for 2 hours, or because you enjoy films? When you look at a bed of roses, do you try to figure out what they mean? No, you enjoy them for what they are. Why should it be any different for any other visual or aural experience? If you want a lecture, go watch an episode of 7th Heaven.

With that said, "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is a film without much of a point, and rightfully so. It is shocking not because of graphic violence, but because how the violence is handled - we are left unaware of the full extent of the murders, forcing us to use that wonderful thing called imagination. These days many films have forgotten that lost art of giving the audience the credit it deserves by allowing the viewer to imagine what may or may not be. As Fritz Lang once said "It is best not to show acts of violence on screen because the viewers will imagine the worst". "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" had an interesting approach to this method: the violence was implied, sometimes vaguely shown, and its after-affect celebrated in its full and splendid glory. The result is an unfinished painting, yet enough evidence is provided so that anyone with some imaginative sense can paint in the missing parts. Of course, it's an unfortunate fact that not all of us are blessed with this gift of imagination, and those poor individuals are unlikely to appreciate what they see here. So, if you like horror and gore, but lack imagination, please feel free to check out those lame Scream movies, or the 945867987 episodes of Friday The 13th, or EvilDead. But if you're able to use your brain, then you should be able to recognize "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" for the important work of art that it really is.

Highly recommended jolly-good family fun for all!!


This Was probably the one of the best movies i've ever seen. It is a bit of everything eerie,scary,Psychological, and shocking. When i first saw the tcm i was on the edge of my seat. None of it's sequels can compare to the First tcm and, i heard there making a remake it will be nothing like the original.This was a very good movie and, i recommend it to anyone who's in for a real scare. 10/10


A group of teenagers on the road in Texas stop off at the wrong farm and encounter a family gone awry. Once abattoir workers, the decay of the Southern rural economy has left them unemployed, and the direction less father and sons take to using their butchering skills on passing people. One by one, the kids encounter members of the grisly family.

I did enjoy this movie and it did make me jump a few times. it was not as gory or bloody as the remake. it still had the same impact as the remake even without the blood and gore.

The one thing that really got mad was that guy in the wheelchair is one got to one of most annoying people on this earth, i just could not stand him.

I did enjoy the hitchhiker part which was really good but I do prefer the remake scene as it was shocking and Leather Face was really scary in the movie, did make me jump in one scene also there were few creepy moment around dinner table.

The remake did have spine -chlling ending but this ending was really good to, as it show how mad you can get after being in such a really bad nightmare.


Now I love horror movies, all types like but I just didn't think this was as cracked up as people claim. With some great chase scenes and performance by Marilyn Burns this film amounts to nothing in my mind. What was so scary? Okay so maybe it was scary back in the day and I'm not judging others opinions but I just didn't find anything interesting in this movie. It was boring and the characters were flat and not interesting as they were annoying.

I'm glad I watched it and I don't hate it but it's just no classic in my mind. It was just more people go out to Texas to get butchered and barbecued, I just didn't see an interesting enough plot. I also forgot to mention Jim Seidow's performance which was another fine performance and it has some great chase scenes but that's it.


Not exactly the best horror film film ever, but miles and miles from the worst. This was absolutely great! I loved it. The family in this film was at it's creepiest, and the chase scene gave me chills. Definitely worth watching for any horror fan. In recent years, this movie was redid, and I might add, severely ruined. Don't watch TCM 03 or the beginning. Watch the movies in order, because rather than get better down the line, they get worse. The first two Texas Chainsaw films are great, and I really enjoyed them. One of my favorite moments in this film was the ending. The final suspense chase, when finally the truck driver shows up, and one cannibal is ran over, then Leatherface chases the girl, and the long awaited ending is near. Bang! He's hit with a wrench, and she escapes. I let out a big sigh of relief at this ending. It really made me feel as if I were in the movie. Tobe Hooper definitely knows how to thrill an audience. I really wish I were alive to see this in theaters, this is definitely a must see!


This film is without a doubt a complete masterpiece, and the remake has nothing on this work of art. This film does not rely on gore to scare people, but pure disturbing scares, sounds, and an atmosphere that cannot be matched by any film. This film will go down in history as one of the all time greats that completely changed cinema.

The sad thing about this though is that not many people saw this film that are a part of the new generation, except they saw the new version of the film and refuse to see this masterpiece because it's old even though to this reviewer, this film is without a doubt a timeless masterpiece that will never be topped no matter how hard anyone tries.


This time I'll start with the warnings. This movie is R-rated for a reason. I mean the title alone should give you a hint that this is a scary movie. in my opinion ghosts and monsters aren't scary because they're obviously not real. But the moment a movie show something terrifying that could be real, it's scary.Even though this is a more graphic film, the influences from Psycho and Night of the Living Dead are visible. I believe this movie qualifies as a slasher film.

Another thing that makes this such a scary film is it's visuals. The movies low budget makes it looks eerily real. it has an almost documentary feel to it, and therefore are more believable. Also was was surprised to find that the skeleton ornaments in the film, was real. Apparently Tobe Hooper couldn't afford fake skeletons, but found an Indian company that sold real ones for a low price. This definitely freaked me out while watching it.

Tobe Hooper definitely made film history with The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and he started a phenomenon. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre along with, Psycho, Night of the Living Dead, Jaws and Halloween made horror films what it is today. A genre that before had been frowned upon and never really explored, was taken to the next level with The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. And since horror has been a widely accepted genre.

So any films have been inspired by The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, heck even a guy at my age who makes amateur movies made a scarily good and similar film to this. Another film which is like an urban version of this is; American Psycho, a film which I also recommend.

This movie also set the standards for low-budget films a lot higher. the fact that this brilliant horror masterpiece came out of so little, is all thanks to Tobe Hooper. Many great director took inspiration from Hooper and made some really scary and cheap horror films. Take The Evil Dead (1981) 10 film students, $375,000 and still a great film. The budget for The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was only $140,000.

I give this movie a 8/10.


If you're looking for a scary movie with a simple plot this is the one to get. It isn't nearly as scary as it probably was in the 70s but you'll jump a few times.

The plot is as simple as it gets. A group of friends and a younger brother who tags along all go on a trip. They run out of gas and find their way to abandoned house. Little do they know they'll be killed off one by one.

The characters are pretty one dimensional. I did like how you learn more about the younger brother and his brother's relationship. That helped me actually care about the characters.

In conclusion, this is a great teen flick. The plot is easy to follow, the characters aren't complicated, and it's as scary as heck!


The story is surely interesting, and all actors have performed their part very well and with all the resources it had  it was a sure formula for success!? But a big "NO" is the answer. The movie fails to connect and I felt as if I am viewing a sober re-make of 70-80's movie "Raj Tilak". This is a movie for all students studying Script writing and Director (in that order). It perfectly shows "What one should avoid" when writing a script and directing a movie. I am 100% sure that each and every scene and detail is well crafted out in the script  word by word, image by image, page by page, and that is reflected on the screen.

But the whole approach is immature  coming from a veteran director. The characterization is poor, each scene is like a stand alone scene of enacted on stage, each single scene is stretched to unbearable limit of irritation, the music on the over-stretched scene is jarring, the sync sound is badly recorded, each dialogue is a pick-up from 60-70s pot boiler, and even with range of emotions given to the characters, all actors are under-utilized and wasted.

A good movie on paper does not necessary result in a good movie on screen  is the big, loud and clear message one gets after seeing this crap.

Only saving grace of this movie is the cinematography. On the other hand, if you blindly follow Hollywood players, or believe that purely by eliminating songs and putting in gorgeous imagery you automatically transcend all flaws of the typical feelbad-flick and will get to watch a better film, then this one is for you.


Even giving it the benefit of the doubt, I can't find too many redeeming qualities in Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

The plot has become the standard story for the next four decades of horror flicks, the characters are as generic as they can be, the violence isn't even scary nor disturbing...

Horror movies have different ways to scare the audience: the most common are gore (i.e. physical violence/torture) or psychological distress.

TCM fails at both.

The violence is pretty much par for the course, with nothing overly graphic or nauseating.

The psychological aspect is totally absent: it's impossible feeling empathy for the victims, and the murderers are so implausible and cartoonish you almost expect Uncle Fester to show up at dinner table.

Not scary, not unsettling, just grotesque and dull.

I'm aware I can't judge the movie with today's standards, but despite its status of Cult Movie, groundbreaking work etc etc, I just can't bring myself to care much about it.

As scary as this may sound (and it IS scary to say), the glossy and Hollywood-style remake was better. At least it didn't look like an high-school project filmed with grandpa's old 8mm


A vanload of kids driving across the country run afoul of a crazed degenerate family of vicious redneck killers in remote rural Texas. That's it for the (admittedly slight) set-up, but the plot is basically inconsequential as this one's really all about creating and sustaining a supremely dark, grim, and unsparingly harsh mood that gets under your skin and makes you squirm like a hapless fish caught on a hook. Director Tobe Hooper's masterful talent for crafting a raw, rattling and uncompromisingly fierce intensity that slowly, yet surely builds to a nerve-wracking fever pitch in the harrowing last third (the infamous diner table sequence is particularly horrifying) has never been matched or surpassed in either any of the subsequent sequels or in the needless and atrocious overly graphic remake. Hooper's strong evocation of the bleak, dusty and desolate Texas backwoods projects a profound sense of dread and unease which never lets up for a minute. Moreover, Hooper's wise decision to keep the violence largely off-screen enhances rather than detracts from the film's alarming power to scare and disturb; this welcome and refreshing concession to the viewer's imagination ensures that the movie never deteriorates into a mindless and revolting bloodbath while still allowing the jolting outbursts of sudden brutal violence to retain their ability to startle the audience. The admirable refusal to provide some kind of explanation for why the horrific goings-on occur qualifies as another major asset; instead Hooper and co-writer Kim Henkel merely present a stark and unwavering depiction of random gratuitous violence and unbridled savagery as if such horrible things happen all the time. This movie is further enhanced by a wickedly funny sense of black-as-coal gallows humor, with the loony hick clan -- the weary, bitter old man (marvelously played by Jim Siedow), unhinged hitchhiker (a deliciously batty portrayal by Edwin Neal), and the freakish, squealing, gibbering Leatherface (an astonishingly bestial and bloodcurdling Gunnar Hansen) -- serving as a strikingly grotesque caricature of your typical American family. Marilyn Burns makes for a fetching and pitiable luckless damsel-in-distress as Sally while Paul A. Partain contributes a memorably obnoxious performance as the extremely whiny, hateful and unsympathetic cripple Franklin. Kudos are also in order for the wondrous wealth of inspired macabre touches: a chicken in a birdcage, the armchair made out of human bones, and the aged grandfather (John Dugan in hideously wizened make-up) who drinks human blood. The spare, droning and dissonant experimental score by Hooper and Wayne Bell adds substantially to the picture's considerable unsettling impact. Daniel Pearl's grainy, but polished cinematography offers several smooth and sinuous tracking shots that are positively breathtaking to behold. Essential viewing.


I just finished watching this movie like 3 minutes ago.I was amazed by how much of a great horror movie that was.I was really surprised by how much i liked it.I can understand why they call this movie classic,because it is.It's a cult classic.Certainly one of the best horror movies ever made.And one of the best horror movies i've ever seen.Believe it or not,there's not much blood or gore in this movie.Just a lot of disturbing images. This movie is more meant to disturb you than gross you out.I did have two problems with the movie,though. First,some of the lighting during the night scenes weren't good.I had to turn the brightness up on my TV during the night scenes.Second,some of the scenes kinda linger on and you just wait for something happen and when it does you think "Finally!" But other than that this was a great movie.I really recommend for any person who enjoys scary movies.


I Thought that the Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a fantastic film. The year is 1974. A group of five close friends are heading through the back roads of Texas on the way to their grandfather's vandalised grave. Among them are Sally Hardesty, and her brother Franklin. They encounter an hitchhiker (Neal) who slashes both himself & Franklin with a wicked-looking knife. The others manage to get the hitchhiker out from the vehicle, but shortly afterwards, they are forced to stop & wander over to a small, sinister looking house nearby in hopes for gas. What none of them realise is that this house is the home of Leatherface and his evil, demented family of cannibalistic psychopaths. One at a time, the teens are murdered by the evil Leatherface in horrifying ways. I thought that this was a great film in the end.


I really expected to like this film. I love a lot of foreign cinema; I have a real soft spot for coming-of-age movies; I enjoy slower paced storytelling; and I'm happy to spend time with interesting characters even when there's not a lot happening in a film.

...But I only managed to sit through half of this before I just got so frustrated with it I had to turn it off.

I know that only sitting through half of it doesn't really qualify me to pass comment on the film as a whole, but what I saw was so incredibly tedious that I couldn't bring myself to watch the rest of it. The voice acting was unconvincing, the characters were two dimensional - and not especially likable - and I have to disagree with the other people who have commented and say that I didn't even find the photography especially impressive.

As a project, compiling a year or so of photographs into a sequence that could be presented as a narrative is quite an interesting idea, and this could have been quite a sweet short film. However, there were points where the story that had been attached to the images seemed so lazy and simplistic (it reminded me of Christine Jesperson's art projects in 'Me And You And Everyone We Know' in places), that the final product didn't fulfil it's potential. And I just don't think there was enough to it to justify a feature-length run time.

If you haven't seen the film already, some alternatives I would recommend seeing instead are 'How The Garcia Girls Spent Their Summer', 'Duck Season' and 'XXY'.


Experimental cinema at its best. This is by far one of the freshest Mexican features in recent years. The film is also a very personal journey for Jonas Cuaron. Even though the film might scare some people because it is composed of only pictures and dialog. A coming of age film, that reveals itself photo after photo, and a very funny approach to the Mexican and American cultures. Always charming, almost improvised, the voices are top notch, weird and sometimes distracting, but very intimate indeed. Few flaws in here, more than a movie, it's an experience. I had personally only seen this format previously used by Chris Marker. A very good debut film by Jonas, with only $8,000 dollars as its budget.

9/10 Carlos Reyes, Cine Azteca


Who said that one must have a screen play first and then add the images to make a film? How about having visual images first and then thinking about what narrative can build out of the images? Well, the Mexican director Jonás Cuarón's first feature AÑO UÑA is exactly such an experiment. This, however, is not the only refreshing aspect of this film. Unlike other experimental films which can be disturbing, AÑO UÑA demonstrates that an experimental film can simultaneously be light (a love story between a horny teenage Mexican boy Diego and a twenty-something American girl Molly) and personal (Diego is Cuarón's younger half-brother and Molly Cuarón's girlfriend). With thousands of pictures he took during a year of his life but no prewritten script, Cuarón was totally free to compose the narrative. Viewers have to remain patient for the first few minutes (as the film begins slowly with a sequence of his beautifully shot photos) before the story gradually unfolds. By literally imposing a fictional narrative onto reality (spontaneous slices of daily lives), Cuarón's AÑO UÑA makes us rethink the relationship between fabrication and reality. Composed of only photographs and dialogues, AÑO UÑA is probably not considered a film. Strictly it is not a film. It is more than a film, as it offers us an experience of time in a highly intimate and original style. The delightfully funny comments about the cultural differences between America and Mexico as well as about growing up are assets of the film.


Jonás Cuarón seems to find his role as a director in his spectacular debut "Año Uña" (Nail Year), who tells the story about a girl form USA and a boy from Mexico who fall in love during an awful summer. I was really impressed with the movie because it he told the story with a completely original and fresh concept based in only photographs. Such a challenge!... This will not be the first thing we're gonna watch of him, so lets put all eyes on, he have such a great talent! The voice performances of the actors who lead them were astonishing when the main thing to pay attention to is to your ear (very clever). This movie was premiered during the XXII Guadalajara International Film Festival 2007.


Do you remember "Before Sunrise", with Ethan Hawke and Julie Delphy?

If you do, the general premise of this movie goes more or less like this: It's "Before Sunrise", but instead of Vienna you get a motel room, and lots of steamy sex.

It's quite simple, really. Daniela (Lewin) and Bruno (Valenzuela) meet at a party, and end up in a motel. And they have sex.

While I certainly can't complain about the sex scenes, the interesting part of the movie is what happens after (Or, uh, in between) them.

From being two total strangers having sex at first (They can't even remember each other's names!), they end up revealing themselves, their lives, their fears, and all that jazz.

The talk starts sloppily at first, but soon they get all the big topics covered. Past relationships, religion, fate, sex, 80's cartoons, death, etc.

It's somewhat tender and ironic, too, when you notice that, in the end, they're trying to seduce each other in a very childish and innocent way when they have already spent three condoms and about half an hour doin' it.

The dialog flows really good and it's very well paced. The acting is superb. Valenzuela is known around these lands for being somewhat of a expression-less actor, but he achieves a good performance.

Blanca Lewin is, however, the one that steals the film, in my opinion. I've always been her fan, so perhaps I'm a bit biased when saying this, but you're completely captivated by her character. As Daniela starts revealing herself, all the way to the (shocking!) revelation in the end, (Well, not that shocking, really) you just can't turn your head away from her.

So, really good writing, high doses of eroticism, acting that's not only above-par but a hole-in-one (or whatever better than that, I'm not much of a golf person), good directing and Blanca Lewin. What else can you ask for in a movie? Okay, maybe explosions and ninjas, and this film doesn't have those two, but it's pretty much covered in all of the remaining categories.

It gets a 9 because the ending comes out as a little bit too abrupt, in my opinion. But then again, 90 minutes seems to be just the right time.


I recently saw this at the 2007 Palm Springs International Film Festival and five minutes into the film I noticed several people walking out on it. I guess they didn't realize that it's title In Bed was a film about two people in bed. This is no bed-in with John and Yoko though. It's a nice character study of two people out for a one night stand in a hotel room after meeting at a party. Lots of lovemaking and small talk turns into confessions of the soul. It's a darkly lit room and only takes place in one room with no additional scenery so it has a little of a claustrophobic feel to it at first but the fairly weak script is delivered well in word and expression from it's two talented and attractive cast members Blanca Lewin as Daniela and Gonzalo Valenzuela as Bruno. Lewin is clearly the star here and I would like to see more of her. Well, I've seen about as much of her as nature created but I would like to see her acting again. I can't believe this film had two costume designers in the credits since there are only three items, one bra, one pair of panties and one pair of men's underwear in the entire film. Two set decorators seem a little excessive too unless they created this set from scratch but it looks like an actual hotel room that they simply brought their cameras into. This is a very small low budget film and has it's flaws but it worked for me and I liked it. I would give it a 7.5 out of 10.


I may have seen only one other film from Chile, and was pleasantly surprised by the interesting concept and fair execution of this one by director Matías Bize. Two strangers at the end of their 20s meet for a one night encounter of casual sex in a motel. They may have done it many times in the past, but this night will prove to be different. The film starts with the two having sex, this is where many other stories in movies end, but here this is just the pretext for a dialog and a possible relationship. A relationship that will probably not last beyond the night, but its temporary nature gives it the occasion of intensity and sincerity. These do not come instantly however, it takes several rounds of dialog (and more sex) to start peeling off the layers of convention and get to the intimate truth, insecurity, intimacy of each one of the two characters. Sex is only the external layer of a relationship, and the most superficial of all, it hides rather than it represents what the man and the woman in the couple really are, and it takes special circumstances and dialog for the truth to pop out - this is the essence of the story that is being told.

Such a movie cannot keep the interest of the viewers even for its about only 80 minutes without good acting, and we get indeed here two excellent actors that pass well the screen and the challenge of explaining their characters beyond the physical appearances, which as with the story is the principal acting problem they face. Playing almost at nude in the perimeter of one motel room and yet building complex and human characters is not an easy task for an actor. Both are more than OK, Bianca Lewis is even close to bright. Director Matias Bize succeeded to make an interesting and different film, I wonder if he will be able to avoid closing himself in the formula or format of experimental films and rather continue to follow the emotional dimension he brought to screen in 'En la cama'.


I saw this movie at NY New Directors/New Films. Was skeptic at the beginning. I haven't seeing "Saturday", another movie by Matías Bize. The plot is simple. Two strangers having sex in the motel. They introduce themselves only afterwords. They start talking, telling truth and lies. Slowly they start revealing their true past. As one can notice they start flirting and seducing each other. When spiritual connections between two of them establish viewer realized that under different circumstances it would be a happy couple. However they will go their own ways... Excellent dialogs. Way above ordinary play of Blanca Lewin and Gonzalo Valenzuela


Despite presenting a situation that normally in any spectacle would become tedious, pointless, and plain claustrophobic - two strangers having sex and talking for just one night in a cheap motel room - "En la cama" succeeds for its authenticity and no holds barred approach, shining a light into two different individuals and the dynamics of men and women. The film is sexy, funny, and poignant.

Actors Blanca Lewin and Gonzalo Valenzuela give a bravura performance as the twenty-something couple who spend over 80 minutes mostly nude in bed baring more than just their bodies. Through their uninhibited lovemaking and conversation, the film explores the possibility of true communication, intimacy, and sexual fulfillment between perfect strangers; the fact that they may never see each other again can allow them to be themselves. From the powerful eroticism of their first coitus to the awkward moments that follow to their comical character flaws to the poignancy of their revelations as the night comes to an end, the film does not judge its characters nor indulges itself in haughty romantic notions or cheap sentimentality. Its clear-eyed, realistic approach provides the vision to sustain our interest.

Although "En la cama" presents a similar situation to the excellent film "Before Sunrise," which also portraits two young strangers sharing just one night, they are totally different and cannot be compared. In "Before Sunrise," hormones and the idea of anonymous sex is certainly not the primary force that brings the couple together while beautiful, classical Vienna shines magically around them creating an ideal romance - that once in a lifetime opportunity that brings you the love of your life, seize it or you'll live to regret it. On the contrary, the characters of "En la Cama" get together to have pure sex, after which they don't even remember their names, spend the whole movie in one nondescript motel room (other than it has a sign reading "sexit"), and there are no romantic possibilities for them. Yet, their revelations are deeper as their intellectual differences, emotional wounds, and flaws manifest through the course of the night.

Without a question, this film is a giant step in Latin America cinema, effortlessly combining the nudity and sexual frankness of a classic such as "I'm Curious - Yellow" or more recent "The Dreamers" with the philosophically-different buddy films such as "My dinner with Andre." A must-see for lovers of those genres.


Alright, about my rating first: I realize that this movie is not 10/10 quality, for it is a good one, but we have all seen better. However, in it's own category, it shows some qualities, that are rarely seen at cinema.

Namely: Well done sex scenes.

People, seriously, why is it so hard to make them? In most movies you see, they're either toned down and flat, or over the top and out of place. This one's on the other way taking it to the extreme. The whole film is about two young people on a one night stand in a motel room. There are no other actors, and no other set. Just these two, who came to have sex. And to have it as many times as possible. The night is long, and they already paid for the room, so it's perfectly understandable.

The story is about the two getting closer and closer, until their relationship turns from 'total strangers' to 'uncomfortably close, for a one night affair'. And that's another interesting thing about this one. I bet everyone of you has memories of sitting through a movie with a larger audience, coming across an unexpected, kinkier scene, which makes all of you feel embarrassed. Well, this movie doesn't screw around, that's for sure, and maybe because you know what to expect, and because of this film is well written and executed, you'll never once feel that cringe. As a matter of fact, the dialog parts may be much more tense, and uncomfortable. Why? Because a one night affair is not about talking. One might bump into things he or she doesn't want to get involved, or let the other get involved in.

Let's get back to the sex. I really didn't count it, but they're having sex about five times throughout the movie! It's quite a big number for a 85 minutes movie, which tries to tell story actually. But all of them work just fine. It's due to the cast of course, both the actors come off as really likable, good looking, young and fresh, and a strange kind of chemistry is present. As they getting to know each other, slowly, their relationship changes. And here comes another reason why these scenes work so well: good timing and direction. See, it's not just a movie, where these two screw five times and then they talk. The sex scenes are fully integrated into the plot, the have reason to be where they are, and they're executed and played out in a manner that reflects to the actual mood, events and dialog. It means we get about five completely different sex scenes in one movie, on about every significant point of the plot, where they are more than needed.

Deepest regards to the director, for this is truly an accomplishment, not too many could've pulled off.


First I would like to say I really enjoyed this movie. I don't mean to diminish it, but it was very obvious to me how it was strongly based on Richard Linklater's movies: Before Sunrise, Before Sunset (and Tape, because the whole movie takes place in one room).

There is a scene that is a clone of the famous Before Sunrise scene where the protagonists hear the song "Come Here", by Kath Bloom, and exchange furtive looks towards one another. In "En la Cama" they hear a song an exchange looks in the exact same way. Unfortunately, I think this scene is very pale (the acting and the setting) if compared to the Before Sunrise one, and is a bit out of the context of the movie (it definitely doesn't make sense in a motel bed right after the two made passionate wild sex). I prefer to think it was made as a tribute to Before Sunrise, rather than a shallow copy, a way for the director to say "This is really inspired by Before Sunrise, I love it too!". I strongly believe the director watched those movies and asked himself, "what if I did this with the protagonists in a motel bed, during a one night stand?".

But it doesn't mean this movie has nothing to add. It feels like an antithesis of Before Sunrise/Sunset, and shows the concept of the movie (= deep communication) applies in other contexts as well. It is also shows a great irony in today's society, where people will go to bed without knowing each other (and this probably happened even before one night stands even existed...). Sex is trivial, while reaching each other's inner thoughts, feelings and truths is the unexpected, obtrusive and life altering act.

The acting is very good and realistic. The dialogs are great and keep you enticed to the movie. The plot is good and has a lot of depth, but I think it has some minor flaws (no big deal, though). The sex scenes are very artistic, but I wouldn't take my kids to watch it.

If you like Before Sunrise/Sunset, you will enjoy this movie a lot (but don't worry, it won't replace them in your shelf). If you liked this movie dialogs or any part of it (besides the sex scenes), you should watch Before Sunrise as soon as possible.


Lemme get this out of the way. I bought this movie because the actress on the cover (Blanca Lewin) was very good looking and wearing little clothing. I expected nothing more than an 85-minute skin flick with little to no story. Boy was I wrong.

Sure there is plenty of nudity in the movie, but it was much more than that. Unlike most bimbos who populate movies like this, Daniela was a real human being. She was flawed but beautiful, mature but childish in a way. Over the course of the night she spends with a stranger, she slowly reveals herself through conversations ranging from 80's cartoons and movies to relationships and personal experiences. By the end of the movie, I was surprised that I cared for her more than any other character I've seen in any movie save for one. Blanca Lewin gives an amazing and unforgettable performance in a movie that takes a serious look at relationships and society in general. I highly recommend it.

4/5 stars.


The story arc gets an A+: At the beginning of the film, two strangers have already met and are already embracing one another In Bed. On the physical plane, the only touching they know is sexual, the only emotion, lust. At the end of the film, after having created a deep bond through knowledge of each other, beyond only sexual knowledge, both the physical and emotional planes are almost familial in nature. Sexual touching and lust have escaped them. Their embrace, In Bed, as the film ends reflects this change.

The film begins with about three minutes of moaning and groaning (which transforms into grunting and groaning, if you know what I mean) by the couple having sex. It started to annoy me about half way through because there wasn't anything attractive or interesting to look at. This is one of those directorial choices that are difficult to make: annoy the audience and hope they understand later why it had to be done that way. The director didn't want to titillate the audience with shots of what turn out to be attractive bodies, he wanted to make clear the couple were engaged in a deeply lustful encounter--for each other, not the audience.

I applaud that decision but confess I reacted to most of the rest of the film that way. I found myself annoyed very often throughout this film, a reaction I don't think the director had intended.

The entire film is shot in a motel room. The couple are in bed the whole time except for a quick bathtub break to give them a reason to get naked again.

To be fair, other viewers could easily like this film a lot more than I did. If you find the couple attractive (I found them both very attractive) you're halfway there. The other half depends on the delivery and content of the stories they share with one another. That's where the film failed me.

For example, we learn at the very beginning of the film (after the moaning, groaning, and grunting stops) that these two people don't know each other's names. The boy asks, "What's your last name again?" and the girl responds, "I think you don't remember my name and that's just a gracious way to ask again." The boy denies that this is the case. He gets busted in short order, but it's not a big deal as it turns out the girl thought she had just slept with someone other than who this boy turns out to be. The conversation went right from "What was your name again", to "Tell me about the other men you have slept with in this motel room." I found that, and most of the rest of the dialog in this film, to be inorganic and improbable. The director has approximately ninety minutes to get these characters to reveal themselves to us. With a certain portion of that taken up by more love-making, he's got to get right to the point.

I often think a joke is only as good as the setup. For others, a string of punch lines might work fine. I didn't like the setups. I did like the people, but I don't think they were very good actors.

A film like this is going to have a least a couple obligatory scenes: One, play a romantic song while one actor turns to look at the other just as the other is turning away. We've all seen the scene before. And two, play an upbeat song for the girl to dance provocatively to so she can show us how adorable and how much fun she is while the guy shows how much fun he is by showing us how much he enjoys her.

I thought both of those scenes in this film were awful. The dance scene was filmed horribly, zoomed in too close, and edited with too many quick edits. Someone once told me that if you see a martial arts film and the camera zoom is very close and the edits quick, it means the performer doesn't know martial arts very well and the director must try and present the illusion that they do. I say, ditto for provocative, getting to know you dance scenes.

Having said all this, I still think it's possible for someone else to enjoy this movie. It wants to be a sweet art house film and succeeds in that.

I felt the dialog and the director's capturing of it were awful. If others find resonance with the way this couple is filmed talking to one another they will like the film. As for the naked bodies and sex, there's better (9 songs, for example), but this couple is attractive and they have very attractive, real looking bodies, IMHO.


En la Cama is a film about a guy and a girl who have a one night stand, and end up opening up to each other like they never have to anyone before, and it seems at times that they wished their relationship was more than a one night thing. The concept is good, but the film seems like a bad version of "Before Sun Rise". The conversation the two leads have (while in bed, the whole film happens in a motel room) sounds a bit forced at times, and is quite dull. The sex scenes are done in quite a brutal way, and are longer than necessary and the camera seems to hide, sort of like we are spying on them, and also there are a lot of out of focus shots. I don't get why it was shot that way, it makes us miss any looks of delight they might give each other while playing and being childish, and it makes it hard for the audience to connect, care, and feel what the characters are going through. Is not all bad, it has its moments, but they are wide apart and manage to get cheap laughs. Half the audience feel asleep during the film, and is not that long at all. The acting is alright. Valenzuela gives quite a convincing performance, and does a good gob with the mediocre script, but Lewin falls short, she can't make the words her own. This could have been a good movie, but it seems like it was done in a hurry, missing potentially good moments that may have helped character development and it lacks intense moments, making it a slow, dull film that doesn't give its viewers anything new. The whole idea of the film is that its easier to have true intimacy (meaning a true connection, not sex) with a total stranger, because we never have to face them again. I got the point, but I didn't feel it. And what good is a movie if it doesn't make you feel??? En la Cama is an improvement in Chilean cinema, thanks to its technical details, but still it has a long way to go, it needs to figure out how to truly reach the audience. ( a little trivia: the fire escape in the motel room says SEXIT)


This movie is a complete turd, a goddamn pastiche for snobs. How can you make a movie with no budget for actors, landscapes, car pursuits or explosions? take a couple, put them into a room for the entire run, and keep them saying topics on every topic from "look, mommy, I have no Willy" to "this is the meaning of life and death". Let have balls and instead of kitsch theology talk about Heidegger the next time. And the special mention goes to it's spectacular "I would be able to make MTV videos if I wanted to, but i don't" montage.

Whatta poor French cinema imitation!!Pure rubbish!!!!!!

I'll add a couple comments more since IMDb asks me to do so... although I think that it's boring and unnecessary to say that the actors are as charming as a brick is; that the movie is interrupted by a stupid "amateur home musical video clip" in order to promote the latest (Chilean maybe?)radio hit; and that it's pretentious sensibility is absolutely laughable


Boring.

If you are going to treat us to nothing but two actors for 85 minutes, at least have a decent script. The acting is good, but the actors can's salvage the script.

This movie seems to be a little like fusion jazz or extreme prog rock: made by musicians for musicians - anybody who isn't a proficient player (and appreciates great technical skill) will find it boring instead of marveling at the odd time signatures and fast scale runs. My brother (who is a movie maker himself, his short films have been featured in film festivals in Cuba, L.A., France, Russia, etc) and his movie-industry related friends liked it, nice photography, editing, etc.

But for "plain old me who doesn't make movies", the script is boring, and the "plot twists" are so far-fetched that I simply couldn't maintain the suspension of disbelief. **SPOILERS** "Boohoo, I killed my little brother"?! A big stack of unsent wedding invitations a week before the wedding?!? Give me a break! A beautifully-shot dancing sequence... that doesn't do squat for the story, character development, hello? Maybe it was inserted for giving the film a bit of energy?

My opinion: A waste of money. (And my wife went as far as declaring it "Worst Movie Ever" ;)


If you have already seen this movie please just ignore this comment. If you are about to watch it for the first time please just forget about it. It is a waste of time.

The movie starts with two strangers making love in a motel room without even knowing each other's name. Between the 3-4 rounds of sex they have (when they are "regenerating") they start to chat discovering each other and finally they get friends. That is the story in a nutshell.

Although the concept of the movie seems to be quite OK the workout is incredibly dull. Boring meaningless conversations. I could hardly wait till the end of the movie and I felt sorry for the time I had spent in the cinema watching.


'Matando Cabos' is a mixture of the retro, Tarantino and absurd movies. It's a must to all of us that adored the b-movies of the 70s.

The story is not pretentiously developed in a way to be unpredictable, it's more like going out in this trip that you simply don't know what's going to happen next because you simply just don't know, just like in 'Go!'. In this fashion, 'Matando Cabos' results in an entertaining and hilarious urban adventure.

For all of those who are just sick of all those Latin American movies that just try to "portray" the reality of society with stories around prostitution, corruption, crime and injustice, you ought to see this movie. It's a good way to see that in Latin America they also "just want to have fun".


Although it is not a master piece or or anything; it is good to have many good laughs and just have a good time. "Matando Cabos" is about two kidnappings (among other things) that go very wrong. Mr. Cabos is a ruthless business man who has hurt and taken advantage of many. Everybody hates him. On the same night different people decide to get back to him; but things go very wrong, confusion starts and things get mixed up (very mixed up).

The movie is funny from start to finish even tragic things can turn into a funny scene. It's a movie that laughs at the misfortunes of life. It does have some really violent and sexual scenes (not my favorite) but it is part of the way the movie is done. I am not sure if foreigners would like it, it is "Mexican" humor. It's worth the try.


"Matando Cabos" is the title of Alejandro Lozano's debut film, that even when it shares some similitude with American Films, such as "Pulp Fiction" and "Taxi Driver", it stands as a great movie, bringing a refreshing breathe to Mexican commercial cinema.

The major attractive of the film lies in its screenplay. The story is about two best friends, Jaque and Mudo, that are involved on a critical situation when they accidentally kidnap their boss, the sadistic and rich Oscar Cabos, and they hide him on Jaque's car. Meanwhile, a kidnapper's band, directed by the son of Cabos' ex-best friend, plan to take him to ask for money. But they take the wrong person and that's how a series of funny events, plagued with a black humor-screenplay, are shown by a bunch of hilarity characters that add a special charm in the movie.

Of course, this film is far from been compared to "Amores Perros", "Y tu Mamá También" or "El Crimen del Padre Amaro", which were deeper and focused on complex and even controversial issues. On the other hand, in "Matando Cabos" we have a well written and light story from the beginning to the end.

Finally, it's very remarkable the use of f/x for the car-chase scene filmed in the Estadio Azteca, supervised by people in charge of effects for "Matrix", that is the most expensive scene ever done in Mexican Cinema's history and by the way, the best Mexican action film. That's the reason why the film was released on summer, because it's able to compete against the mega-budgeted productions.

One of the best movies of the Mexican commercial films that vindicates national cinema with its fresh air and leaves the door open for future indie and risky films that are changing the face of Mexican movies. Great film, excellent casting, very funny and catchy. Don't miss it.

9 out of 10


Good characters, well paced, with a tight script full of twist and well placed turns. People will often dismiss any movie that is well crafted by comparing it to another movie that's well crafted. In this case I felt like it was more of a good thing instead of "more of the same", sort of like getting a second helping of something great. The movie does build it's central premise (a series of wild coincidences, characters that are larger than life, the fast paced-all in one night action) on other movies that feature similar elements (Snatch, Pulp Fiction, etc) but because the situations and characters are unique I did not feel ripped off. Overall I found this film to be very entertaining. I saw it at Sundance this year (2005). I hope it comes out in the US, I would recommend it to anybody that like to be entertained.


Matando Cabos is a smart comedy about two friends that try to get Cabos a powerful and fearful business men in Mexico City to his home after he get hit. This film although uses a lot of profanity is one of the best comedies produce in Mexico in the last 5 years. It also establish that Mexican Comedy Cinema can do better things than La Risa en Vacasiones or Corazon de Melon. This movie is more oriented to a teenage audience, but it sure be fun to people older than 14 years. Watch this movie give an opportunity to this Mexican Comedy I tell you that your gonna laugh during the whole movie. It is also an important breakthrough to Limon Films its production company to get its film out of the Cineteca Nacional and to a bigger audience.


I find it amusing that so many would bash this movie based on what they thought of Blockbuster movies that have come before it. In many posts, I've noticed people mention movies like Scarface, Reservoir Dogs, Fight Club, and Pulp Fiction. People, if every movie was that good, then those movies would not be considered great films. They would be your typical run-of-the-mill movie that anyone can accomplish. The reason they are difficult to achieve is because not just anyone can do it. I thought this movie was funny. Maybe to a lot of people in the poverty ravaged country of Mexico, it's not funny because of the next to life reality of a severed finger and a senseless beating to a sequester victim, but to us in the U.S who have been desensitized by all the smut we see at the movie theaters, this is a great movie. There were some really funny moments in this movie, including the bus chase scene and the romantic love scene at the end involving el cannibal and Cabos' wife. Also, Ana Claudia Talancon was aesthetically pleasing.


I recommend this movie: "matando cabos" It's a very funny movie, you will forget your problems because you will be laughing since the movie start to the end. There are more good movies in Mexico, like "Como agua para chocolate" , Nicotina , Amores Perros"., so Mexican people are doing a good job with this movies. In my opinion, the actors are good, anyway, this kind of movies are good for distraction, laughing, and when you want to have a very good time and want to forget your own problems. The director did an excellent job with this movie, including the actors were working on it. Some American movies are boring, and they suppose to make you laugh.


If you liked 'Snatch', 'Pulp Fiction' or 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels', then you're in for a treat! This is such a great movie! It's the story of two guys in the night in serious trouble. They have one body, one car and absolutely no idea of what to do with them. I won't say more, but I can tell you, you have to see this movie, it is a perfectly well done piece of movie making and as a bonus you get to see a De Niro's memorable line acted by a Mexican, what can I say? it's hilarious. It's a different, refreshing and funny way of making movies, specially for a Mexican movie. Don't miss it, you won't regret to see this if you have the opportunity. Superb!!! 9 out 10.


I just saw Matando Cabos. I have sent emails alerting my friends to see it before it leaves movie houses here in Phoenix. Familiarity with Mexico and its modern culture are a bonus but not requisite to liking this movie. Previous IMDb comments unfairly compare it to Pulp Fiction. There are very few films that could be so measured. The small audience here laughed out loud throughout. I laughed to the point of tears. This is not a "classic" and gets no 10 rating from me, as would Pulp Fiction. This is, however, the funniest film I have seen all year. It made me wish my Spanish were better, I'd bet this is even funnier than the subtitles present.


In a visual style reminiscent to "Snatch" and cultural references similar to "Pulp Fiction", Mexico does an attempt at making a neo-noir smash hit comedy. It worked! Having a classic but very funny mix-up plot, you add excellent in-jokes and situations that crack you up all over the night. Average acting, like Tony Dalton's, added to Kristoff Racynsky's humorous persona makes this a very good piece of Mexican cinema. My favorite scenes were the cross-eyed "microbusero", the bar brawl and the "damned bird" that wont shut up. As it was expected, the dialog is plagued with cursing, sometimes being funny and others exploiting some curse words way too much. Anyway, the car chase scene in the Ztec stadium is beautiful. The only thing that kept me from praising completely was the ending. It was very disappointing. Tony "the cannibal" was a completely useless character, and all we see him actually do (the bar brawl not included) is him sleeping with Cabos' wife. I personally would have enjoyed him kicking Cabos' ass when he encounters him in the bedroom, instead of beating his poor friend up. That was more cruel than funny. And I would have loved to see the cross-eyed "microbusero" once again.

With some minor flaws, this is the best Maxican film recently. Too bad the same production company was the same to give us "Km 31"


There are some people that only sees sh*t in the Mexican movies nowadays instead o supporting, I mean I don't really think the people of Sundance don't know anything about movies! The acting is good, the screenplay is hilarious, the fx are quite good, the characters are funny I especially love the "Santo" spoof), the best in show is Joaquin Cosio ("Mascarita"), of course its not the best of the movies but its entertaining and that is something everybody likes right?

If there's one thing i have to say bad in this movie is that Ana Claudia Talancon was wasted in the movie

So to all the people stop discriminating your own product and enjoy this movie because its entertaining!


Who would think a two-hour film (and subtitled for non-Japanese speaking viewers) about tax collectors could be interesting? This was, although nothing extraordinary.....just pretty entertaining with an interesting lead character and strange soundtrack.

I found Nobuko Miyamoro fascinating as the tax collector with all the freckles and the will to get the job done, no matter what it takes. It was interesting to discover how much the Japanese were taxed (at least when this movie was made) and what lengths they will go to cheat on their taxes!

The hot-tempered gangster had some funny lines, some naked breasts were seen here several times to keep things spiced up for the male audience. Generally, this was fun to watch. The constant jazz-type beat on the main song was cool for quite a while but got tiresome toward the end.


I'm fairly certain I saw this film in its original theatrical release in the '80s(memory is dim,) and recently found it on DVD with considerable difficulty. The transfer to DVD is rather basic - no letterbox, a bit dark and very little in the way of special features - but despite disgust at the fact that the film hasn't been digitally remastered and given more than a bargain-basement DVD presentation, I love the film itself every bit as much as I did the first time I saw it.

Philosophically, i.e. in terms of ethical theme, "A Taxing Woman" is one of those stories in which identifying a hero is difficult - no clear black and white, only greys. Ryoko (Miyamoto Nobuko) and Gondo (Yamazaki Tsutomu) are of course the dueling protagonists, but each is anti-heroic, something I ordinarily can't stand: Gondo is the operator of a chain of Japan's ubiquitous "Love Hotels," where lovers go to find short-term lodgings for their trysts, who's got a complex system in place to evade Japan's horrific taxation; Ryoko is a tax auditor, later promoted to investigator, who, though admirable in her relentless dedication and competence, is party to some of the most horrendous legal assaults on businesspeople imaginable. The film's moral doesn't crystallize until the final scene - Gondo states a defense of his right to pursue his own happiness via an oblique reference to kids happily playing in a park below, then makes a dramatic and symbolic statement about the root meaning of outrageous taxation by slicing his finger and revealing to Ryoko his long-sought hidden bank account - via an account number scrawled in his very blood. After he walks away the camera lingers on the back of Ryoko's head, signifying her sudden crisis of conscience over her chosen profession.

In terms of style alone "A Taxing Woman" is an absolute masterpiece. The mood throughout is of a delightful farce in the mold of one of Blake Edwards' "Pink Panther" films, albeit far more subtle, obviously. The music, contrary to some claims here, is truly unique, memorable and nothing short of outstanding, much like Mancini's - fleshing out the farcical cat-and-mouse mood perfectly via two brief, repeating oboe (clarinet?) melodies laid over a bouncy 5/4 time signature that reappear at key points throughout the story.

The outrageous lengths to which the tax auditors and inspectors go to ferret out tax evaders is exaggerated (one would hope - I've never lived in Japan,) for great comedic effect. This isn't a rolling-in-the-aisles slapstick comedy and isn't intended as one, but the bureaucrats' combination of ruthlessness and obsessive yet oddly endearing personal dedication to their task, balanced by the businesspeople's often intricate and similarly humorous schemes to hang onto their property in the onslaught, is the exaggerated core conflict that pulls you into the plot and makes the film irresistibly charming.

The fairly simple plot setup in "A Taxing Woman" derives its incredible depth by the fact that it's almost entirely character-driven - Miyamoto and Yamazaki are such vivid personalities and the opposing chemistry between them so potent that you will find yourself thinking about them for weeks after the fact, as though they were your close personal friends. That is my psychological litmus test for a great film: "Do the characters stay with me long after I've seen it?" "A Taxing Woman" succeeds in spades.

A dose of gritty realism - though with a patina of humor as well - is added to the mix in the character of the violent Yakuza boss Ninagawa, played by Ashida Shinsuke. That element is underscored in the real world by the fact that director Itami was attacked on the street and had his face slashed by five Yakuza in 1992 after the release of his film "Minbo no Onna," a.k.a. "Minbo - or the Gentle Art of Japanese Extortion." He was subsequently killed when he "fell" from a hotel balcony, an apparent but suspicious suicide that was treated by the police as a possible homicide. The world lost a great artist, and "A Taxing Woman" remains a timeless masterpiece. We can only hope that whoever owns the rights to it will finally give it the digital translation and wide release it deserves.


The plot of A Taxing Woman is interesting/enthralling, regardless of the production date or language of the film. Watching tax evasion cases unfold is surprisingly interesting, presented in a manner that shows the more human side of government organizations. (OK, if not the 'human side', at least you get to see what it's like on the inside.) From a cultural perspective, a 1980s Tokyo is also interesting, with shots of the cityscape, pachinko parlors, love hotels, etc.

One last comment: There is nudity in this film, but It adds to the story of the film, justifying why some of the characters do what they do.