Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 33 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 33
  2. Negative: 13 out of 33
  1. What a superb job director Marcus Nispel has done re-creating, yet also revising, 1974's grisly, gristly, protein-centric masterpiece.
  2. Has no pretensions about sneaking up on you -- it simply charges, motor humming and blades flying, carving the spot where masochism and entertainment meet.
  3. Adding R. Lee Ermey to the Leatherface clan was a masterful move.
  4. 63
    The film delivers with enough consistency to warrant a qualified recommendation for those seeking a few extra scares at this time of the year.
  5. 63
    Manages to pull off an adequate amount of scares, when compared to most horror flicks in theaters this Halloween season.
  6. This particular reconceptualization actually does an impressive job of capturing the nasty dread of the original. It certainly is a vast improvement over those previous remakes/sequels.
  7. Reviewed by: Kim Newman
    The look, created by Hooper’s cinematographer Daniel Pearl, and expert art direction is persuasively nasty… but somehow that buzzing saw doesn’t sound as scary as it used to.
  8. The gruesomely unnecessary remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is such a smorgasbord of slimy grunge that to call the movie gross wouldn't do it justice -- it's downright sticky.
  9. 50
    Chainsaw is produced by Michael Bay (Bad Boys I and II), which explains its soullessness. But nothing explains the flaw in this bad boy: How can a movie scare you when you’ve seen it all before?
  10. A lot more violent and a tad less creepy than the 1974 original, the much-changed remake delivers enough gory, belligerent mayhem to keep horror fans screaming.
  11. Director Marcus Nispel, a rock video vet making his feature debut, knows how to ratchet up the tension. His remake is a far, far better-looking thing than the original. There's also more humor, especially in the over-the-top performance of drill sergeant-turned-actor R. Lee Ermey as the loudest of the inbreds.
  12. Reviewed by: Peter Hartlaub
    The remaining twisted population that likes this kind of movie will enjoy a horror film that is surprisingly stylish.
  13. Reviewed by: Mike Clark
    The new version has a few jolts, some occasionally effective smoke-and-mirrors photography and a lead (7th Heaven's Jessica Biel) who could teach a grad course on walking provocatively in blue jeans.
  14. 50
    As the eviscerations ensue, the truth becomes undeniable: This is easily the most gruesome, most pointless, episode of "Scooby Doo" ever.
  15. Gruesome enough; what it lacks is a distinctive revolting personality of its own.
  16. 50
    While it’s far from bad, it also falls far short of the icy frissons produced by the original.
  17. 50
    Seems to understand its source material, but has no idea how to improve on it.
  18. Reviewed by: Kevin Carr
    Everything that made the original Chainsaw a classic is ground into the dirt in this new version.
  19. 40
    Still and all, the makeup special effects are as over the top as anything in Hooper and L.M. Kit Carson's 1986 Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, and -- for those of us without the sense to steer clear of this sort of thing -- that's saying something.
  20. There's nothing wrong with remakes, but as this movie amply proves, there's often nothing right about them, either
  21. 38
    This new, presumably improved Chainsaw is just as humorless as the original, but it's also slicker, glossier and resoundingly artificial.
  22. Simply go out and rent the original. In the thin ranks of killer-power-tool flicks, it's still the standard to beat.
  23. 33
    For those who've seen the original, no surprises will be unearthed other than an altered story (not for the better) and more gore.
  24. An overproduced, video-director remake, slick and grue-marinated and loud as a sonic boom.
  25. 30
    Rather than exhilaration, this bilious film offers only entrapment and despair. It's about as much fun as sitting in on an autopsy.
  26. Reviewed by: Scott Foundas
    Initially promising, but quickly disappointing.
  27. Reviewed by: Richard Harrington
    Weakens, dilutes, disinfects and otherwise undermines the legacy of Tobe Hooper's 1974 original.
  28. 25
    Significantly more gruesome and noisy than its predecessor, and boasting more nasty-looking fluids than all the works of David Fincher combined, this version leaves few corpses unturned in its unstinting campaign to please gorehounds.
  29. I don't know if Nispel and Scott Kosar, who make their feature film debuts here, are the worst director and writer in the world, though they might well represent the United States if anyone holds a competition. I do know they deliver a total of zero laughs, scares or surprises in this remake of the infamously creepy 1974 picture.
  30. Efforts to expand the envelope of grotesquery make the film repulsive and suspenseless, and it sorely misses original director Tobe Hooper's grisly, wily sense of humor.
  31. 20
    This new SAW film is so utterly unimaginative it doesn't even count as hommage; it's just a smudgy copy of a still chilling original.
  32. Offers the same crudely effective variation on the hatred and fear of hillbillies in "Deliverance."
  33. A contemptible film: Vile, ugly and brutal. There is not a shred of a reason to see it.
User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 140 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 54 out of 81
  2. Negative: 22 out of 81
  1. Sep 22, 2011
    Terrible, just terrible. What Marcus Nispel demonstrated throughout the movie is how much blood he can present to the audience and how far his movie can fall into the Abyss of failure. Full Review »
  2. Dec 24, 2010
    Just gross gore. There is NOTHING scary about this film. Films like this ought not be called 'horrors,' since they just gross people out. There is not a single psychologically frightening scene in this film... Made for teenagers, really. Full Review »
  3. AndrewG
    Aug 7, 2009
    Hardly produces a scare, or even a minute thrill. Poorly acted, poorly directed, and on a whole, very poor.