Does Silence of The Lambs really count? Was it supposed to connect with Manhunter or were they supposed to be separate films because i thought Red Dragon was the Manhunter of that series, you know since it was the actual first one. Red Dragon was a prequel so that doesn't really count as Silence being a sequel.

Creepshow 2

Definitely Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. Better acting, better story, more depth to the characters... just a much better movie than the original.

Has the world gone mad....

You're definitely in the minority there bro

It's just an opinion, guys... I realise that TCM is a classic, and that it was extreme for it's time. I'm not saying the original was crap! But it doesn't have much of a story, and it ends just as it starts to get good. The sequel? That was my first step towards vegetarianism, I couldn't eat meat for days after watching it for the first time. I've seen much worse since then, but at the time it was just about the most disturbing movie I had ever seen, and that included the original.

You're entitled to your opinion and no one should make you feel otherwise. Personally I'm surprised by it and don't agree because to me TCM is one of the most disturbing, scary films I've ever seen. To your point on not having a story I think it had a really good one and the abrubt ending fit with the movies blunt delivery.

Though I did like Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, it was very campy and played for laughs a lot of the time. Leatherface having a love interest wasn't a good idea either.

Didn't they pretty much do the Granpa scene all over again in it too?

I never realized that an opinion could actually be wrong, but here we are...

Hi Kanda! I just want to make sure... are you talking about TCM2 1986, right? I would agree TCM2 had a more elaborate story, characters and acting... but towards what end, we might disagree.

IMO, I thought a lot of the acting in TCM2 seemed like acting... a bit cartoonish. In contrast to TCM1, where the characters were simple, but followed the documentarian/vérité format of film. I thought TCSM1 displayed the villains as real people who ate people. They were deranged in a simple immature way, but they didn't physically torture people. In TCM2, it seemed like the film was glorifying them, they seemed more cartoonish, smarter, witty, like they wanted to torture, and unbelievable. I don't even remember any of the non-villain characters. It was a black comedy, that I thought was utterly without humor... in the way I wouldn't be laughing while watching TCSM1, because what was happening was so despicable. After seeing TCM2 on the big screen, I wished I hadn't -- I wondered if Hopper was making fun of people who'd be interested in "TCM" subject... so as to be ironic. I've never read Hopper say anything of the sort. It just seemed sardonic in a mean-spirited way; but more so, I wasn't entertained.
Actually, Kanda isn't a bro, she's a sis.
I think the abrupt ending was part of the vérité-ish format: you swoop in and watch what happens, and swoop out. The unresolved issue (story) is part of the deep seated horror of it. I know you're not slamming TCM1. I'm not saying I prefer those type of movies, just that is was self-consistent and effective doing it.
Agree on the ending.
It's not a wrong opinion, ShadyJ, just a different one. HDC members try to be very respectful of each other, especially in the area of divergent opinions. If everyone agreed, what would be the point in posting at all?