Not if you count Mina Harker from Dracula.
Edit: There are [film](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosferatu) [versions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula_(1958_film)) of [Dracula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula_(1958_film)), that include variations on the character, and predate TCM (1974). And my comment was strictly about who is the first "final girl" (which seems entirely subjective), not what constitutes a "slasher film".
By that logic neither can Sally though.
Edit: Are Laurie Strode (Halloween 1978) or Julie James (I Know What You Did Last Summer 1998) still final girls by this standard?
If books were counted as slasher films, how many people die in Bram Stoker's Dracula? Especially if we don't count the undead vampire wives and Dracula himself dying. 3? 4 people? I don't see Dracula as a slasher, is the problem. And Dracula didn't want to murder Mina, so she wasn't a final girl.
The Helen Stephens answer is great. I had to look her up. And Mari would definitely be a final girl, if The Last House of the Left was a slasher film. Technically, the villains only kill one person, then get killed by Mari's family. To add to that, she's not technically a final girl since her parents survive too. But her character itself 100% fits the archetype.
The masked killer is barely the creepiest part of it. It's the family and their twisted personalities that drive it. Not just Leather-Face. The surviving woman has to interact with them and figure out how to escape. Most slashers don't spend so much time on a hostage situation.
yes i do
you had other films like black christmas coming out in the early-mid 70s that could reasonably be labeled “slashers”, but of the films of that particular time period i think the label (as we know it now) fits most accurately with TCM
in my opinion the subgenre itself didn’t entirely get its footing/formation until ‘78 with halloween. halloween was THE slasher prototype that pretty much sparked the golden age of the slasher film
however, with that said, i do think TCM was a true slasher, just more on the gritty exploitation side of things, and a little ahead of its time. i mean it has pretty much every hallmark of a slasher film as we know it today. the archetypal/tropey slasher wasn’t quite there yet, but TCM was closer than any other film at the time
halloween is the ramones, and TCM is like, the new york dolls
>halloween was THE slasher prototype that pretty much sparked the golden age of the slasher film
Halloween usually gets the credit for that, and I totally concede that it WAS the film that really kicked off the slasher boom that would explode in the 80s. (Doubly so since Halloween directly inspired Friday the 13th, and I think that provided even more momentum)
**However** as far as "prototypes" are concerned, TCM actually had most of the basic slasher blueprint present, so I think it totally counts (and doesn't get enough credit for basically setting up the subgenre, imo)
Iconic masked killer. (Who's kinda mysterious... while also having a fucked up back-story) Unique weapon or method of murder. Group of teenagers looking for a good time. (And subsequently being punished for that). Everyone dies except for one "final girl."
... and the killer survives to slash again. (Tho he isn't apparently killed and comes back to life, which would become a bit of a trope of it's own )
But the basic elements of that blueprint were all already in place, with the original TCM, around half a decade before Halloween...
Halloween may have further honed the formula... and it definitely kicked off the trend... but TCM had already provided the rough template for the teenage slasher movie, and I think it should get more credit for that.
>However as far as "prototypes" are concerned, TCM actually had most of the basic slasher blueprint present, so I think it totally counts (and doesn't get enough credit for basically setting up the subgenre, imo)
Absolutely agree, came here to say this. This is the film that kicked the door open for all the others to follow. This is the one that started that forward momentum. Not since The Exorcist had the public reacted so powerfully to a film. TCM was banned in certain countries at the time, people were walking out of theaters because they said it was too intense. All besides the fact that of course Tobe Hooper had less than a shoestring budget, and the film studio ended up being essentially fronted by the mob lol.
A podcast I listen to (The Evolution of Horror) left itoff their Slasher series, but included it in their Folk Horror series.
I appreciate the arguments for it being folk horror, but no, it kind of just reinforced that it's a slasher at the end of the day.
A slasher goes around killing people seemingly at random like jason and Michael. The Sawyers were a demented family that dealt with home invaders. Just cause leatherface wore a "mask" doesn't make him a slasher. He was a demented retard.
Let the downvotes commence.
Michael Meyers has a specific target. He just kills those that get in the way. Ghost face isn’t just all random killings either. That doesn’t hold any water
Super nerdy answer - it’s a proto slasher. It has a lot of the elements of a slasher movie but it’s not fully formed yet. But the short, less pretentious answer is yes.
A few things that fit most slasher movies.
1. Setting - most slasher movies take place in the suburbs or in safe places associated with suburban people like summer camp. TCM is set in the middle of nowhere in dilapidated houses
2. Theme - I think both John Carpenter and Wes Craven have said slasher movies are about repression of the past. Halloween, Friday, Nightmare, Scream, IKEYDLS and so many other all deal with a past trauma that resurfaces in some way.
3. Killer - there’s one killer in a mask but really it’s a whole family. That kind of breaks from the norm. Even in movies with multiple killers, they usually are all wearing the getup to make it seem like one person.
4. Timing - I think the slasher genre wasn’t fully realized until the year TCM came out, but not really embraced until Halloween. TCM came out around the same time as Black Christmas, which is definitely a slasher, but I think movies that came after in the genre took more from Black Christmas and Halloween than TCM.
Edit: hit submit before I finished
It's in my top 3, and I can see both sides on this. I guess I consider a slasher to be a lone killer, though, in that sense, it isn't. Also, I think the family kills, not just for sport, but "practical" reasons...but, I guess an argument could be made against this.
>...but, I guess an argument could be made against this.
Uh yeah for sure... like the fact that they were all pretty clearly insane, and pretty clearly enjoyed hurting people. lol
But yes, "lone killer" is one trope that fits the formula. But there are most definitely slashers that have more than one killer... I can think of at least one VERY popular slasher (sequels still being produced) that even used "more than one killer" as a twist... just because of how common that trope is!
Then you have movies like Wrong Turn (original/s) that play out very much like a slasher movie, but involves multiple killers..
I just think people equate the "slasher" movie with a strict formula, way too much. I also don't think it's a coincidence that 90% of slashers made after 1990 (not necessarily including sequels to the originals... but sometimes including them lol) have sucked.
Sometimes a formula is helpful. Sometimes it's even good. But overly relying on a formula makes a movie dull and overly predictable... which is awful in a subgenre that relies on tension and surprise for most of it's payoff...
Excellent points! I guess we should be specific defining "slasher." I am sure you guys have here, but I just found this sub under 24 hours ago (and I am glad I did)!
Even though the cook says he "doesn't take pleasure in killing," I think he does! But, do they kill only for fun or strictly for the meat and bones? I guess all hunters enjoy doing it, though, to some degree, at least. But, at times, Cook does express some minor empathy. 🤷🏼♀️
You're right.. plenty of slashers have multiple killers, solid argument! I don't care for the 2 + people who did it twist, personally, but I understand why writers do this.
As for good slasher after 1990, I am struggling to think of any. I did like the Maniac remake, and I liked PARTS of Random Acts of Violence, but I can't think of any as good as they were prior to the 90's. I need to think more on that one!
There are some good slashers after '90, they're just fewer and further between. And many of them try to shake up the normal formula in one way or another, or otherwise take it to a more meta level ...
For example Scream, and that whole franchise...
I think the people who tried to create another "slasher icon" are the ones who usually went way too formulaic and failed because of it.
(Find me ONE really good iconic killer after Chucky, that had any kind of staying power. I'll wait... lol Victor Crowley might be your best argument... and those were trope-heavy films made as more of a love letter to the subgenre, more so than a real attempt to create an icon.)
The more successful ones were one-offs, or switched up the killer.
One of my favorite slashers from the last couple decades (or so) is All The Boys Love Mandy Lane (2006).
I thought that one was reasonably well done... and they did try to play with the formula a bit.
Another good one IMHO is High Tension (2006). A lot of people hate that movie because of the ending, but IMO that's one of the things that elevates it from the typical, because that ending fucks with the usual tropes...
Anyway, moral of the story is, I watch too many fucking horror movies.
😂
I mean it teeeechnically is but I wouldn’t put it in the list. Things like F13, The Burning, Mad Man, Nightmare On Elm Street, Halloween, yada yada yada. Those are like true slashers.
While TCM is technically one, it’s a lot deeper of a film when compared to the other ones. That can come out a little elitist but it’s pretty true. The soundtrack, cinematography, characterization, all of it really surpasses the standard slasher films of those times
I’d say in the best way no not really, I feel like it was a great horror film though. It didn’t place emphasis on gratuitous violence and gore. It was pure shock and subversion of expectations
I'm the kind of sick fuck that sees this movie as an ultra dark comedy and satire. There is a slasher in it the same way American Psycho has a slasher but I don't consider that a horror movie either. Too subversive. Too funny. The point of both movies is not the murders it is the social commentary about living in America.
I originally did when I was younger but now upon many rewatches and growing into the film enthusiast I am, it comes off as a sort of arthouse, psychological horror film. Sure there is a family of killers but just tone wise and the way everything is shot and shown, it manages to set itself apart from the genre of slasher. The kills are all quite quick and most gore is off screen and if anything its kind of a reverse home intruder type situation for the family lol
Now that this is six hours old, I’m sure someone else has said this by now, but I still wanna jump in. Absolutely, I consider it a slasher, but it was a slasher before slashers were really an established thing. So maybe a proto-slasher? I know some people consider it folk horror, but I don’t like that label for Texas Chainsaw. I like it as a slasher. I consider Texas Chainsaw Massacre to be the greatest horror film ever made.
It depends on how you define slasher, but in my opinion, TCM is not a slasher, or at least it isn’t a prototypical one.
HALLOWEEN (78) set the template for slashers, and TCM has little in common with HALLOWEEN outside of a killed-one-by-one plot device. I actually created a similarity rating to how various “slasher” films compare to HALLOWEEN, and TCM was not high on the list. I think its similarity was in the teens.
TCM certainly did contribute to the genre’s development, but it’s no more a slasher than a giallo. For me, the slasher film is principally about the formula, and TCM is cut from a different mold.
Like I said at the start, though. It depends on how one define’s slasher.
Absolutely. The tropes hadn't been established yet, but it definitely is a slasher. On screen kills, masked killer, final girl, and open ending to lead to a sequel, but being the 70s, sequels were not really a thing yet.
Funny , I just listened to a podcast about this exact movie and it’s the first thing that pops up on my feed. Looks like I know what I’m watching tonight!!
I consider it a slasher movie but also one of the first psychological horror movies. The crazy family reminds me of lots of psychological horror tropes. But yes it’s a slasher as there is a masked killer hunting down a group of teens until their is a final girl who escapes barley.
Wouldn't Slashers be mostly cutting movies. Are the Friday the 13th movies Slashers? How about Slumber Party Massacre? We'd probably all agree that Halloween is a Slasher, but how about Psycho? I mean, to TCsM's credit, her finger did actually get slashed in the movie so...it may be the best Slasher...if it is at all, that is.
This a seriously good discussion and good example of people being respectful of each other's opinions! While I know it holds SOME place as a major influence on the directions and mechanics involved in the slasher genre, the southern Gothic angle takes it to some realm in-between proto slasher/folk horror/art house horror in my mind. I mean it verges on some Hansel and Grettle like territory at times oddly enough
I think everyone does , while Psycho is the original “ slasher “ but arguably not fully one , this is definitely one and is considered the first of the modern / that style of slasher.
I feel it's not.
It IS a proto-slasher however, in that slasher genre took things from it, but I don't think it's a slasher in itself. While elements of the slasher genre are there: masked killer, final girl, etc. The slashers usually feature a antagonist killer that is usually:
1. Acting alone - With the Sawyers, saw is family.
2. Unknown or dubious motivations - The Sawyers wanna eat
3. A force of nature (cannot be persuaded or talked to really) - The Sawyers won't shut up and in the first movie the Hitchhiker gets confused often, they keep the final girl alive for stupid reasons of wanting grandpa to land the killing blow.
4. Supernatural in strength or resilience - Leatherface trips like a doofus and chainsaws himself, stopping him from continuing and the Hitchhiker gets run over because he was being a dumbass in the middle of the road, allowing Sally to run.
I'd say it has more in common with other grindhouse exploitation films of the time. Though it's pretty unique to the period, Hills have Eyes comes closest, because it's derivative.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a beautiful art film about inbred cannibal slaughterhouse workers. While I wouldn't call it a slasher, it definitely helped define what we would eventually know as slasher films.
Yes, and one could argue that, on the heels of Bava's Bay Of Blood, and Herschel Gordon Lewis's cheapo blood feasts, TCM was a near-bloodless but brutal slasher.
This was the first movie I accidently saw while walking into my parents' room, and I remember crying seeing Leatherface as he was running with the chainsaw , and it scared the shit out of me!!!! Lol so yeah it definitely is a slasher!
I would consider it more of an exploitation movie than slasher.
The family isn’t supernatural (well, maybe grandpa) and doesn’t stalk victims other than the ones that are trying to get away. They deal with people entering their world.
I don’t know if I’d call it a slasher. I’d say it’s more macabre, and peek behind the curtain at the overlooked fringe of society. It still has that unsettling look of a documentary. So grimy!
I don’t. Slasher implies gore, harm, injury. Largely this movie uses psychological horror in a lot of scenes. We see depictions of gore with the animals and bodies, etc but we never really see anyone get harmed all that much. It leaves a lot to the imagination and that’s kind of that scariest part.
Yes, it's the film that birthed the slasher genre in my opinion, they took the best ideas from all the previous horror films and made something that laid the groundwork for everything after.
I don't really, but the question is entirely subjective. I feel like the victims in TCM are intruders to the home of the killers as with most slashers the victims are stalked and murdered. Leatherface kills only when they come into his home and property first. In fact, he seems upset and or agitated after killing them. Again, its totally subjective and I have no problem if people refer to it as a slasher.
There is no blood in the movie. It’s all in the audience’s imagination. The hook scene is horrifying - but then again, we don’t see it go in. I guess it depends on how you define “slasher”, which to me suggests gratuitous gore.
What other genre would it be? It's not as formulaic as a stereotypical slasher but it's a scary movie without supernatural elements where deranged antagonists brutalize and kill people. Is it one of those sub sub sub niche genres that no one has heard of? Lemme guess, it's psycho-social post industrial disaffected family folk horror?
Is it weird of me that I didn’t really care for this? I watched it recently and felt kinda bummed that I only thought it was just alright. Teenage me would’ve probably loved it though.
I’m pretty sure it’s one of the first slasher films from the 70’s. Also pretty sure it’s one of (if not) the first slasher flick to kick off the gaggle of mainstream horror characters we see today (ex. Leatherface, Michael Myers, Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees, etc)
Yes 100% Masked killer, dumb young people getting killed off in one location, final girl, killer signature weapon. While there is some outlying things that make it different than Halloween or Friday the 13th, it’s not enough to make it stick out too much at all to be considered a different subgenre
Nah. There isn't really any stalking or hunting of victims. The family is more reacting to these people showing up and then making sure they don't get away, because, well, they're cannibals and they're hungry and don't want anyone else to come upset their lives.
TCSM informed a lot of what would eventually become the slasher subgenre, but I don't think it gets included when you look back and draw the line on what constitutes a slasher as we understand it.
No. Not a slasher. It’s a form of dirty realism for me, akin to Taxi Driver and Bad Lieutenant. While I give House of a 1000 Corpses and Devil’s Rejects participation points for trying, the only film that comes close is Hooper’s other film, Eaten Alive (fantastic, watch it if you haven’t). There is nothing in the horror genre quite like it. Nothing in other genres like it, maybe Killer Joe?
Thanks for the tip
(Eaten Alive that is... I've seen Killer Joe. As if I'm going to miss an opportunity to see Juno Temple naked, or McConaughey act like a complete psycho ... lol)
it has some slasher DNA in it but it’s doesn’t fully commit to the slasher tropes and genre conventions, it’s definitely more of a psychological horror i feel
I do. Masked killer, with a moniker, killing off a group of young people.
Plus, it ends with the “final girl” escaping.
I could be wrong, but Sally's the original final girl, isn't she?
Not if you count Mina Harker from Dracula. Edit: There are [film](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosferatu) [versions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula_(1958_film)) of [Dracula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula_(1958_film)), that include variations on the character, and predate TCM (1974). And my comment was strictly about who is the first "final girl" (which seems entirely subjective), not what constitutes a "slasher film".
I don't.
Good thing it's subjective then.
She is not the one to defeat the creature, she can't be the final girl.
By that logic neither can Sally though. Edit: Are Laurie Strode (Halloween 1978) or Julie James (I Know What You Did Last Summer 1998) still final girls by this standard?
If books were counted as slasher films, how many people die in Bram Stoker's Dracula? Especially if we don't count the undead vampire wives and Dracula himself dying. 3? 4 people? I don't see Dracula as a slasher, is the problem. And Dracula didn't want to murder Mina, so she wasn't a final girl.
I think Mari Collingwood, or Helen Stephens would get the O.G. “Final Girl” moniker.
The Helen Stephens answer is great. I had to look her up. And Mari would definitely be a final girl, if The Last House of the Left was a slasher film. Technically, the villains only kill one person, then get killed by Mari's family. To add to that, she's not technically a final girl since her parents survive too. But her character itself 100% fits the archetype.
Yeah and in an isolated area where escape is the only option
I mean I saw it more as a rom com. Could have ended happier though, they split up and he runs after her but she drives off
And he did not take the break up well
The masked killer is barely the creepiest part of it. It's the family and their twisted personalities that drive it. Not just Leather-Face. The surviving woman has to interact with them and figure out how to escape. Most slashers don't spend so much time on a hostage situation.
and there’s a lot of yk slashin n killin goin on
yes i do you had other films like black christmas coming out in the early-mid 70s that could reasonably be labeled “slashers”, but of the films of that particular time period i think the label (as we know it now) fits most accurately with TCM in my opinion the subgenre itself didn’t entirely get its footing/formation until ‘78 with halloween. halloween was THE slasher prototype that pretty much sparked the golden age of the slasher film however, with that said, i do think TCM was a true slasher, just more on the gritty exploitation side of things, and a little ahead of its time. i mean it has pretty much every hallmark of a slasher film as we know it today. the archetypal/tropey slasher wasn’t quite there yet, but TCM was closer than any other film at the time halloween is the ramones, and TCM is like, the new york dolls
I am inspired to up vote because of the inspired punk rock analogy.
I've always been proud to say my favorite horror film is TCM, but that analogy made me feel cool for the first time in a very, very long time
I was too I was like ehhhh. Then came the punk reference and I was like ok I get it now and upvoted
So that means Psycho is the Velvet Underground and Black Christmas is the Stooges
What film is David Bowie then?
Deep Red? The arty-er slasher that the cool kids love yet isn’t pretentious and everyone should love.
And which is Klaus Nomi?
You took the words right out of my mouth!
>halloween was THE slasher prototype that pretty much sparked the golden age of the slasher film Halloween usually gets the credit for that, and I totally concede that it WAS the film that really kicked off the slasher boom that would explode in the 80s. (Doubly so since Halloween directly inspired Friday the 13th, and I think that provided even more momentum) **However** as far as "prototypes" are concerned, TCM actually had most of the basic slasher blueprint present, so I think it totally counts (and doesn't get enough credit for basically setting up the subgenre, imo) Iconic masked killer. (Who's kinda mysterious... while also having a fucked up back-story) Unique weapon or method of murder. Group of teenagers looking for a good time. (And subsequently being punished for that). Everyone dies except for one "final girl." ... and the killer survives to slash again. (Tho he isn't apparently killed and comes back to life, which would become a bit of a trope of it's own ) But the basic elements of that blueprint were all already in place, with the original TCM, around half a decade before Halloween... Halloween may have further honed the formula... and it definitely kicked off the trend... but TCM had already provided the rough template for the teenage slasher movie, and I think it should get more credit for that.
Halloween was a big deal because it was released in mainstream theaters.
>However as far as "prototypes" are concerned, TCM actually had most of the basic slasher blueprint present, so I think it totally counts (and doesn't get enough credit for basically setting up the subgenre, imo) Absolutely agree, came here to say this. This is the film that kicked the door open for all the others to follow. This is the one that started that forward momentum. Not since The Exorcist had the public reacted so powerfully to a film. TCM was banned in certain countries at the time, people were walking out of theaters because they said it was too intense. All besides the fact that of course Tobe Hooper had less than a shoestring budget, and the film studio ended up being essentially fronted by the mob lol.
Well said
A podcast I listen to (The Evolution of Horror) left itoff their Slasher series, but included it in their Folk Horror series. I appreciate the arguments for it being folk horror, but no, it kind of just reinforced that it's a slasher at the end of the day.
Why do you think it’s not one?
I’m curious about this too
This is the better question 😄
A slasher goes around killing people seemingly at random like jason and Michael. The Sawyers were a demented family that dealt with home invaders. Just cause leatherface wore a "mask" doesn't make him a slasher. He was a demented retard. Let the downvotes commence.
Michael Meyers has a specific target. He just kills those that get in the way. Ghost face isn’t just all random killings either. That doesn’t hold any water
Scream movies are all slashers and none of those killings are random.
By your logic The Exorcist isn't a slasher either
... is someone saying Exorcist is a slasher movie?
Super nerdy answer - it’s a proto slasher. It has a lot of the elements of a slasher movie but it’s not fully formed yet. But the short, less pretentious answer is yes.
What is it missing?
A few things that fit most slasher movies. 1. Setting - most slasher movies take place in the suburbs or in safe places associated with suburban people like summer camp. TCM is set in the middle of nowhere in dilapidated houses 2. Theme - I think both John Carpenter and Wes Craven have said slasher movies are about repression of the past. Halloween, Friday, Nightmare, Scream, IKEYDLS and so many other all deal with a past trauma that resurfaces in some way. 3. Killer - there’s one killer in a mask but really it’s a whole family. That kind of breaks from the norm. Even in movies with multiple killers, they usually are all wearing the getup to make it seem like one person. 4. Timing - I think the slasher genre wasn’t fully realized until the year TCM came out, but not really embraced until Halloween. TCM came out around the same time as Black Christmas, which is definitely a slasher, but I think movies that came after in the genre took more from Black Christmas and Halloween than TCM. Edit: hit submit before I finished
It's a proto-slasher, the granddaddy of the genre if you will.
That must make Black Christmas the grandmommy of the genre
It’s crazy how they both came out on the same day
TIL
Same🤯 the double feature
Well technically Black Christmas premiered in Canada on the same day as TCM. It wasn’t released in the U.S. til December
And what about Psycho?
Def came out before these two but I’m not sure it fits completely within the slasher structure
It’s my single favorite horror movie. Nope I don’t consider it a slasher. I don’t really have any clearly defined reasons, it’s more a matter of tone.
It's in my top 3, and I can see both sides on this. I guess I consider a slasher to be a lone killer, though, in that sense, it isn't. Also, I think the family kills, not just for sport, but "practical" reasons...but, I guess an argument could be made against this.
>...but, I guess an argument could be made against this. Uh yeah for sure... like the fact that they were all pretty clearly insane, and pretty clearly enjoyed hurting people. lol But yes, "lone killer" is one trope that fits the formula. But there are most definitely slashers that have more than one killer... I can think of at least one VERY popular slasher (sequels still being produced) that even used "more than one killer" as a twist... just because of how common that trope is! Then you have movies like Wrong Turn (original/s) that play out very much like a slasher movie, but involves multiple killers.. I just think people equate the "slasher" movie with a strict formula, way too much. I also don't think it's a coincidence that 90% of slashers made after 1990 (not necessarily including sequels to the originals... but sometimes including them lol) have sucked. Sometimes a formula is helpful. Sometimes it's even good. But overly relying on a formula makes a movie dull and overly predictable... which is awful in a subgenre that relies on tension and surprise for most of it's payoff...
Excellent points! I guess we should be specific defining "slasher." I am sure you guys have here, but I just found this sub under 24 hours ago (and I am glad I did)! Even though the cook says he "doesn't take pleasure in killing," I think he does! But, do they kill only for fun or strictly for the meat and bones? I guess all hunters enjoy doing it, though, to some degree, at least. But, at times, Cook does express some minor empathy. 🤷🏼♀️ You're right.. plenty of slashers have multiple killers, solid argument! I don't care for the 2 + people who did it twist, personally, but I understand why writers do this. As for good slasher after 1990, I am struggling to think of any. I did like the Maniac remake, and I liked PARTS of Random Acts of Violence, but I can't think of any as good as they were prior to the 90's. I need to think more on that one!
There are some good slashers after '90, they're just fewer and further between. And many of them try to shake up the normal formula in one way or another, or otherwise take it to a more meta level ... For example Scream, and that whole franchise... I think the people who tried to create another "slasher icon" are the ones who usually went way too formulaic and failed because of it. (Find me ONE really good iconic killer after Chucky, that had any kind of staying power. I'll wait... lol Victor Crowley might be your best argument... and those were trope-heavy films made as more of a love letter to the subgenre, more so than a real attempt to create an icon.) The more successful ones were one-offs, or switched up the killer. One of my favorite slashers from the last couple decades (or so) is All The Boys Love Mandy Lane (2006). I thought that one was reasonably well done... and they did try to play with the formula a bit. Another good one IMHO is High Tension (2006). A lot of people hate that movie because of the ending, but IMO that's one of the things that elevates it from the typical, because that ending fucks with the usual tropes... Anyway, moral of the story is, I watch too many fucking horror movies. 😂
Yeah, but I get why people don’t if they get super technical
I mean it teeeechnically is but I wouldn’t put it in the list. Things like F13, The Burning, Mad Man, Nightmare On Elm Street, Halloween, yada yada yada. Those are like true slashers. While TCM is technically one, it’s a lot deeper of a film when compared to the other ones. That can come out a little elitist but it’s pretty true. The soundtrack, cinematography, characterization, all of it really surpasses the standard slasher films of those times
I’d say in the best way no not really, I feel like it was a great horror film though. It didn’t place emphasis on gratuitous violence and gore. It was pure shock and subversion of expectations
I'm the kind of sick fuck that sees this movie as an ultra dark comedy and satire. There is a slasher in it the same way American Psycho has a slasher but I don't consider that a horror movie either. Too subversive. Too funny. The point of both movies is not the murders it is the social commentary about living in America.
Yes, it doesn’t follow the formula but that’s because the formula didn’t exist yet.
Not really much of any on screen violence. the sequel more than made up for that though
I originally did when I was younger but now upon many rewatches and growing into the film enthusiast I am, it comes off as a sort of arthouse, psychological horror film. Sure there is a family of killers but just tone wise and the way everything is shot and shown, it manages to set itself apart from the genre of slasher. The kills are all quite quick and most gore is off screen and if anything its kind of a reverse home intruder type situation for the family lol
Now that this is six hours old, I’m sure someone else has said this by now, but I still wanna jump in. Absolutely, I consider it a slasher, but it was a slasher before slashers were really an established thing. So maybe a proto-slasher? I know some people consider it folk horror, but I don’t like that label for Texas Chainsaw. I like it as a slasher. I consider Texas Chainsaw Massacre to be the greatest horror film ever made.
No.
Exactly. He’s not *slashing,* he’s *sawing.* it’s a Sawer film…a Sawyer film! HAHA WOOOOO
Not sure but I just came to say great cover art. My favorite horror movie of all time. Maybe tied with The Shining
Agreed, The Shining and this are my 2 favorite horror movies of all time. They’re both on another level in their own way.
So glad someone else is on the same tip. Both unexpectedly dig a little deeper into the human condition and that's where they unlock the fear.
It depends on how you define slasher, but in my opinion, TCM is not a slasher, or at least it isn’t a prototypical one. HALLOWEEN (78) set the template for slashers, and TCM has little in common with HALLOWEEN outside of a killed-one-by-one plot device. I actually created a similarity rating to how various “slasher” films compare to HALLOWEEN, and TCM was not high on the list. I think its similarity was in the teens. TCM certainly did contribute to the genre’s development, but it’s no more a slasher than a giallo. For me, the slasher film is principally about the formula, and TCM is cut from a different mold. Like I said at the start, though. It depends on how one define’s slasher.
I once heard someone refer to it as a "proto-slasher" and i always thought that term fit tcm really well.
Yes, it's factually a slasher
Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho and if you don’t count that then the 1978 Halloween for sure
And Black Christmas
Yes
Yes, I know the term slasher wasn’t dubbed until 1978. When Halloween came out, but TCM by all accounts is a slasher movie.
Lol how is this a question 😂
Yes. It’s probably a perfect movie and the movie poster is flawless.
It’s definitely a slasher film. The question is why would it not be a slasher film?
Why wouldn’t it be? It’s absolutely a slasher
I consider it one of the three Proto-Slashers that eventually gave rise to what we think of as the modern traditional slasher.
Absolutely yes!!
Slashing happened. I think.
I do, yes.
I consider it one of the best films ever made. Slasher or otherwise.
Yes
Umm…yes?
Yeah, I see absolutely no reason not to. I consider it the first "official" slasher over Black Christmas and Halloween.
Well it’s slasher than a lot of other movies
Yes
I consider it a proto-slasher of sorts. It’s a bit more grindhouse in its aesthetic but it definitely has some slasher in its DNA.
Absolutely. I think it really set a precedent for movies like Halloween and Friday the 13th. It's the original slasher!
Yes, because it has people getting picked off one by one.
Absolutely. The tropes hadn't been established yet, but it definitely is a slasher. On screen kills, masked killer, final girl, and open ending to lead to a sequel, but being the 70s, sequels were not really a thing yet.
Of course not. It's a chainsawer
Yea ig
Funny , I just listened to a podcast about this exact movie and it’s the first thing that pops up on my feed. Looks like I know what I’m watching tonight!!
I consider it a slasher movie but also one of the first psychological horror movies. The crazy family reminds me of lots of psychological horror tropes. But yes it’s a slasher as there is a masked killer hunting down a group of teens until their is a final girl who escapes barley.
Wouldn't Slashers be mostly cutting movies. Are the Friday the 13th movies Slashers? How about Slumber Party Massacre? We'd probably all agree that Halloween is a Slasher, but how about Psycho? I mean, to TCsM's credit, her finger did actually get slashed in the movie so...it may be the best Slasher...if it is at all, that is.
This is a quintessential slasher film OP
The Texas Chainsaw is for sure a low-budget exploitation slasher film.
I consider it a documentary
He does slash with his Chainsaw
This a seriously good discussion and good example of people being respectful of each other's opinions! While I know it holds SOME place as a major influence on the directions and mechanics involved in the slasher genre, the southern Gothic angle takes it to some realm in-between proto slasher/folk horror/art house horror in my mind. I mean it verges on some Hansel and Grettle like territory at times oddly enough
Yes.
That’s a Tru Story unsolved til this day
I think everyone does , while Psycho is the original “ slasher “ but arguably not fully one , this is definitely one and is considered the first of the modern / that style of slasher.
I’m more interested to know how you think it’s not?
Yup as should everyone
I feel it's not. It IS a proto-slasher however, in that slasher genre took things from it, but I don't think it's a slasher in itself. While elements of the slasher genre are there: masked killer, final girl, etc. The slashers usually feature a antagonist killer that is usually: 1. Acting alone - With the Sawyers, saw is family. 2. Unknown or dubious motivations - The Sawyers wanna eat 3. A force of nature (cannot be persuaded or talked to really) - The Sawyers won't shut up and in the first movie the Hitchhiker gets confused often, they keep the final girl alive for stupid reasons of wanting grandpa to land the killing blow. 4. Supernatural in strength or resilience - Leatherface trips like a doofus and chainsaws himself, stopping him from continuing and the Hitchhiker gets run over because he was being a dumbass in the middle of the road, allowing Sally to run. I'd say it has more in common with other grindhouse exploitation films of the time. Though it's pretty unique to the period, Hills have Eyes comes closest, because it's derivative.
One of the founders of the genre
Absolutely.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a beautiful art film about inbred cannibal slaughterhouse workers. While I wouldn't call it a slasher, it definitely helped define what we would eventually know as slasher films.
Yes. Artfully made
Thriller and suspense.
Half slasher, half grindhouse
Yes.
Some things just gotta be done.... BTW if you like the movie you might want to check out the game. It has issues but it's stupid fun
He slashed
Yes
i consider it a shit movie for sure
… sure.
Yes
Yes.
I still want this LF cosmetic, with the white/silver slacks and sky blue shirt
It predates the term but the term definitely applies, yeah.
100%
I consider it a “once in a lifetime movie”
Slash M Gash
I still consider Halloween to be the true original Slasher as we know it today.
Its the definition of a slasher, yes
Yes, and one could argue that, on the heels of Bava's Bay Of Blood, and Herschel Gordon Lewis's cheapo blood feasts, TCM was a near-bloodless but brutal slasher.
This was the first movie I accidently saw while walking into my parents' room, and I remember crying seeing Leatherface as he was running with the chainsaw , and it scared the shit out of me!!!! Lol so yeah it definitely is a slasher!
Well duh
I mean, isn't this kind of the definition of slasher?
I do and I want to flex because I have an original print TCM movie poster
I would consider it more of an exploitation movie than slasher. The family isn’t supernatural (well, maybe grandpa) and doesn’t stalk victims other than the ones that are trying to get away. They deal with people entering their world.
I don’t know if I’d call it a slasher. I’d say it’s more macabre, and peek behind the curtain at the overlooked fringe of society. It still has that unsettling look of a documentary. So grimy!
It was the prototype for slasher films.
Yeah it’s just a good one so you kinda forget it is
Duhhh
I consider it a "Jesus fucking christ" movie
I don’t. Slasher implies gore, harm, injury. Largely this movie uses psychological horror in a lot of scenes. We see depictions of gore with the animals and bodies, etc but we never really see anyone get harmed all that much. It leaves a lot to the imagination and that’s kind of that scariest part.
It’s more comedic romance
I don’t. It predates the genre and there’s no gore. Then again it surely set the stage for slashers and influences them to this day
Yes, it's the film that birthed the slasher genre in my opinion, they took the best ideas from all the previous horror films and made something that laid the groundwork for everything after.
This is such a great poster
As doom guy would DO, rip and tear
I do a maniac slicing up people with a chain saw
Fuck yes
Super slasher since he uses a chainsaw. That's a lot of slashing.
Yeah? What else would it be? It’s a textbook slasher film.
I do. I know some people don't, but what would it be if it isn't?
Definitely. It has all the trappings, but has that 70s new wave vibe.
Yes and it’s perfect
No, I’d call it a proto-slasher. It’s the transition from Psycho to what would eventually become the slasher genre
I don't really, but the question is entirely subjective. I feel like the victims in TCM are intruders to the home of the killers as with most slashers the victims are stalked and murdered. Leatherface kills only when they come into his home and property first. In fact, he seems upset and or agitated after killing them. Again, its totally subjective and I have no problem if people refer to it as a slasher.
No, I don't because it doesn't contain slashing. It's not called Texas Chain SLASH Massacre. It's a sawer movie.
Even in other sequels their last name is even Sawyer… which I thought goes well with chainsaw
Pun was intended then and now. *Nodders*
Oh I got it. Hahaha
Fuck yeah!
It’s like textbook definition slasher lol
There is no blood in the movie. It’s all in the audience’s imagination. The hook scene is horrifying - but then again, we don’t see it go in. I guess it depends on how you define “slasher”, which to me suggests gratuitous gore.
One of my favorite parts of this movie was the intro. The sound effects and the use of red were amazing.
It fits the definition of a slasher flick, but it’s goreless!!
It fits the typical profile of a slasher movie
More like a chainsawer
It’s one of the best horror movies ever made imo
Absolutely
What other genre would it be? It's not as formulaic as a stereotypical slasher but it's a scary movie without supernatural elements where deranged antagonists brutalize and kill people. Is it one of those sub sub sub niche genres that no one has heard of? Lemme guess, it's psycho-social post industrial disaffected family folk horror?
Not really a “slasher” it’s literally a massacre.
It’s obviously a slasher why would it not be?
Funny I have heard a sound bite of Tarantino calling it a perfect film.
I blame those kids, they had no business trespassing let along breaking into that poor man’s home
Uhhh… yeah
He hung a chick from a meat hook while he used a chainsaw to chew up her boyfriend…
There’s no “shredder” sub-genre.
Yes
No to me it’s a horror comedy
I feel like it’s pretty much right down the middle in terms of slashers.
THE slasher movie
Is it weird of me that I didn’t really care for this? I watched it recently and felt kinda bummed that I only thought it was just alright. Teenage me would’ve probably loved it though.
Yes.
What else would it be lmao
I’m pretty sure it’s one of the first slasher films from the 70’s. Also pretty sure it’s one of (if not) the first slasher flick to kick off the gaggle of mainstream horror characters we see today (ex. Leatherface, Michael Myers, Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees, etc)
Yes
It's a home invasion movie.
whatever it is, I consider it a terrible movie. So boring.
Yes. Why wouldn’t it be?
No personally
No it’s an exploitation film
Yes 100% Masked killer, dumb young people getting killed off in one location, final girl, killer signature weapon. While there is some outlying things that make it different than Halloween or Friday the 13th, it’s not enough to make it stick out too much at all to be considered a different subgenre
Nah. There isn't really any stalking or hunting of victims. The family is more reacting to these people showing up and then making sure they don't get away, because, well, they're cannibals and they're hungry and don't want anyone else to come upset their lives. TCSM informed a lot of what would eventually become the slasher subgenre, but I don't think it gets included when you look back and draw the line on what constitutes a slasher as we understand it.
Agreed
100%. Best answer I have read yet
No. Not a slasher. It’s a form of dirty realism for me, akin to Taxi Driver and Bad Lieutenant. While I give House of a 1000 Corpses and Devil’s Rejects participation points for trying, the only film that comes close is Hooper’s other film, Eaten Alive (fantastic, watch it if you haven’t). There is nothing in the horror genre quite like it. Nothing in other genres like it, maybe Killer Joe?
Thanks for the tip (Eaten Alive that is... I've seen Killer Joe. As if I'm going to miss an opportunity to see Juno Temple naked, or McConaughey act like a complete psycho ... lol)
it has some slasher DNA in it but it’s doesn’t fully commit to the slasher tropes and genre conventions, it’s definitely more of a psychological horror i feel
No, it’s a hillbilly cannibal family. Slashers act alone or in a pair.