User Score
6.0

Mixed or average reviews- based on 132 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 76 out of 132
  2. Negative: 42 out of 132
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. LinT.
    Jan 18, 2007
    4
    I made the mistake of buying some fast food before sitting down to watch this one and all the meat certainly didn't make me want to take a bite out of my double melt. I've never seen a movie with so many people covered in (and becoming) meat.
  2. Jun 12, 2011
    5
    This movie actually really surprised me. When I saw the previews for this movie I scoffed at the thought of them trying to make a prequel. This movie actually did a pretty good job of explaining some of the habits of the family as well as a little bit of leatherface and why he is the way he is. The acting was also pretty good for a horror movie. Overall not nearly as good as the originalThis movie actually really surprised me. When I saw the previews for this movie I scoffed at the thought of them trying to make a prequel. This movie actually did a pretty good job of explaining some of the habits of the family as well as a little bit of leatherface and why he is the way he is. The acting was also pretty good for a horror movie. Overall not nearly as good as the original but still a fairly good watch. Expand
  3. ClintM.
    Oct 8, 2006
    4
    All blood, all gore, no real scares, just lots of gross outs ... nothing like the initial remake, which was FAR superior.
  4. Jan 15, 2013
    6
    That's what I call a horror, disturbing, vulgar, slasher, thriller, gory, amazing, shocking, breathtaking film! Not Micheal Bay's The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake for 9 years old, a PG horror, I HATE Micheal Bay's The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the prequel "movie I am reviewing" is way to better, GOD! Worth the watch!
  5. AlecB.
    Feb 2, 2007
    6
    the movie is alright nothing spectacular or great. the movie shouldve been longer than 84 min to tell the story of how leather face became to be. no need for gore when u dont need it like half the movie does. i was suprised though with the end and they did good on that part. still the 2 newer ones dont come close to being as good as the original one
  6. JR
    Oct 12, 2006
    4
    This movie just follows the mold of the stereotypical horror flick that you
  7. Jun 15, 2011
    6
    Great movie...quite thrilling. All the people acting in the movie have done a great job i bet. But i still duno why some people hate this movie..wat ever! I enjoyed this movie...Happy watching!
  8. Jan 19, 2013
    5
    Movie very gore and pessimistic. Only entertaining.
  9. Aug 4, 2013
    5
    Fine, but not great. Not scary or whatsoever at all and I think that this "reboot-prequel" is the worst that I've ever saw. I hope to not watch a movie like this again in my life...I doubt.
    I liked the atmosphere, makeups and some other little things. Stop here. Cheers!
Metascore
29

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 18 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 18
  2. Negative: 11 out of 18
  1. Reviewed by: John DeFore
    50
    The whole fear-of-obese-hillbillies device is starting to smell as stale as Leatherface's playroom. Does this horror trend simply reflect a national fear, as giant radioactive ants personified the Bomb in the 1950s? If so, maybe it's time for us all to go on a diet; America needs fresh fodder for its boogeymen.
  2. Reviewed by: Gregory Kirshling
    25
    Unlike "Hostel" or "Wolf Creek," TCM:B is rank and depressing.
  3. Reviewed by: Peter Debruge
    20
    Auds would be well advised not to attempt "Beginning" on a full stomach.