It feels wrong to rate it higher due to the solid script from the first movie

I would rate this movie higher but, really, what was the point of it?

Sure, it did have 2-3 good moments but I feel dirty for giving it a higher score because it's just a (not very good) copy of the original.

I have to give it 3/10 on principle. The original script was and still is very good, but that's all this movie has to offer. Admittedly the production value is strong (video, audio, effects), but that's pretty much it, the acting is sub-par - I couldn't help but compare every scene with the original which completely took me out of the movie.

They could have done soooo much more with it as well, they could have really fleshed out some of the scenes from the original, which, admittedly they did with the Paul killing Karen scene, as in the original it was quite brief and you didn't really see anything. When I saw that scene I was thinking 'okay, this might have potential', but the rest of the movie just fell pretty flat.

If you'd have not seen the original, you could definitely appreciate this movie more, bad acting and all, but considering I gave the original an 8/10, I couldn't help but compare them and this movie just didn't cut it.

I think they could have instead written a fresh script, new characters, better actors, and continued on from the first/second movie. At least then it's something new. Or even had a remake, but not make it the exact same script, characters etc. Similar to Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) - it had a similar storyline to the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), but that's about it, and it was one of my favourite movies of all time (10/10)

And yes, like the other thread, Marcy's boobs definitely helped, but relying on a pair of boobs to help bump a rating... come on now.