Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 18 Critics What's this?

User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 129 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 18
  2. Negative: 11 out of 18
  1. Reviewed by: Sam Adams
    This is not a slick, jokey horror movie in the post-"Scream" mold, but a genuine attempt to strip the coating from the audience's nerves. It's nasty and brutish, if not particularly short.
  2. 50
    "The Beginning" is a better movie than the 2003 remake, even if the plot is understandably similar. There are only so many ways hapless teens can get brutally slaughtered, after all, but Liebesman and company keep things appropriately creepy, right down to aping the look of the 1974 original.
  3. Reviewed by: John DeFore
    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.
  4. 38
    Who will survive and what will be left of them? If you don't have a pretty good idea, this is not the movie for you. If you do, rest assured you've seen it all before.
  5. Sadly, this movie is a far cry from the atmospheric, even thoughtfully crafted original, which made you truly scared for the unkempt, everyman victims. But this latest version, though just as grisly, is literally hackwork, and stars a forgettable, airbrushed cast of slaughterees.
  6. Reviewed by: Rocco Colella
    The new prequel isn't really a slasher movie at all. It's a mess, with too much to say, and an odd genre in which to preach.
  7. 0
    Putridly written, directed and acted.

See all 18 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 26 out of 44
  2. Negative: 12 out of 44
  1. MilesM.
    Oct 3, 2006
    Classy gore...tasteful carnage truly in line with the Leatherface tradition
  2. Terry
    Oct 15, 2006
    A great movie.
  3. Apr 15, 2011
    I Donno why people are so boring come on this was a good movie and i must say that the youngsters who starred in this movie were amazingly believable especially the blonde chick, i gave this a ten beacause it deserves it Expand
  4. [Anonymous]
    Oct 16, 2006
    Not great or really much different from the last version, but still not bad. Didn't think it was deserving of being panned by most critics. Definitely was one of the goriest movies I have seen. I left the theatre feeling the same as I did after seeing The Hills Have Eyes: like I needed a shower. Expand
  5. Aug 4, 2013
    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!
  6. Jul 3, 2013
    This completely rehash the remake and the original '74 classic. What it does is answer questions that were never asked in the first place. It fails like every horror prequel ever made, it relies on blood and cheap scares instead taking the basic steps in making a horror movie. A complete failure. Expand
  7. MeghanR.
    Nov 2, 2006
    The beauty of the original Texas is its almost total lack of blood and gore. The Beginning could be the most disgusting movie I have ever seen. Its abuse of blood and violence was unnecessary. It's chilling premise could have been as effective as the original, but it was lost. There's a difference between scary and gory. This was not in the least scary. Covering my eyes was my way of protecting my dinner and maintaining it in my stomach. A waste of time, money, and brain cells. Disgusting. Collapse

See all 44 User Reviews