Halloween 2022: September 21st

Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022)

Yesterday, I said Ghostface was the first slasher icon to return after Blumhouse's “Halloween” made a killing. The next famous masked murderer to revive was Leatherface. In a blatant emulation of Michael Myers' return, the new “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” would continue the original's story while ignoring everything else. Producer Fede Álvarez treated this like a bold approach but it's actually the third or fourth time the franchise has done this. Shortly after filming began, news broke that the directors were fired and replaced. Months later, reports of disastrous test screenings filtered out. Legendary Pictures must've lost faith in the film after that and took a project originally intended for theaters to Netflix. The new “Massacre” debuted this past February, after which horror nerds hotly debated whether it was total garbage or semi-decent. Now that the sawdust has long since settled, it's my turn to weigh-in.

Rich city folks Melody and Dante arrive in the nearly deserted Texan town of Harlow, with eyes towards auctioning off its abandoned properties. Along for the ride is Lila, Melody's little sister. The first building the group looks at is an old orphanage, still occupied by its elderly proprietor and a mute man-child. After Melody has the old woman kicked out under morally dubious grounds, she dies of a heart attack. This prompts her last remaining ward – actually Leatherface, missing since 1973 – to start wearing other people's faces and swinging a chainsaw around again. Soon, Lila and Melody are fighting for their lives as Leatherface rampages through the nearly-empty town. Help appears in the form of Sally Hardesty, the sole survivor of the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre, who is eager for revenge.

Director David Blue Garcia might've been a last-minute replacement, who scrapped all the previous directors' footage, but he manages to make a decent-looking movie. I was unsurprised to read that Garcia – who previously made a little-seen thriller called “Tejano” – has mostly worked as a cinematographer. The oppressive sunlight of southern Texas, so strong in the original, shines through a sunflower field here. The shadows are foreboding, the interiors of the homes feeling fittingly desolate. The entire last act is set during a downpour, bringing some nice dark-and-stormy night ambiance to the proceedings. Some of Garcia's visual choices are a little overdone. There's a few distracting jump-scares and a triumphant use of slow-motion that was definitely misguided. Yet it's still a visually confident film, that's more distinctive than the last few chainsaw massacres.

A lot of horror fans seriously lacking in self-awareness claim the genre has gotten too “woke” now. This crowd had their fangs barred for 2022’s “Chainsaw Massacre.” Leatherface’s foster-mom has a Confederate flag hanging outside her home, disturbing the African-American Dante. Earlier, Melody sneers at an open-carrying good ol’ boy. The guy then makes a comment about “feral hogs,” proving the screenwriter spends too much time on Twitter. Most notoriously, one of Leatherface’s victims records him with a cellphone and threatens the maniac with being “canceled.” What the anti-woke crowd seemed to miss is that Garcia's "Texas Chainsaw" is soundly anti-hipster. Dante and Melody are painted as clueless gentrifiers, determined to wipe out any trace of the native culture in favor of what they deem modern and sophisticated. Melody is humbled upon realizing she really did needlessly evict an old lady, bringing this on herself. Even the gun-toting redneck is revealed to be a good guy. Class tensions has always been a present theme in the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" movies. The new one handles this in a fairly ham-fisted manner, coming close to a wishy-washy "can't we all just get along?" mentality. But Leatherface as the enraged avatar of an alienated working class, striking back at an arrogant group of clueless rich kids, is pretty in-keeping with this franchise. It's hardly a woke new direction. 

More distracting than the sequel's decision to play up the social divides is Lila's backstory. She's a survivor of a school shooting, still sporting bullet wound scars on her neck. This has left her thoroughly traumatized, with a phobia of firearms. Yes, this is another modern horror picture about "trauma," as Lila's fight against Leatherface will see her facing her fears. The script's wimpy both-sides-ism is evident in Lila also conquering her fears of guns. (Though, in keeping with slasher tradition, it doesn't help her much.) It says a lot about how prolific mass shootings have gotten in America that one can casually be an incidental event in a common-place slasher sequel. Honestly, I just wish a trashy, disposable franchise flick hadn't gone there. The specific issues around the gun problem in America doesn't inform Lila's trauma in any way. She could have been scarred by a car accident or whatever and the story wouldn't have changed. If you're going to introduce some real-life horror like that into your movie, your movie should probably become all about that topic. A chainsaw massacre in Texas, fifty years ago, pales in comparison to the firearm massacres that occur all over the country all the goddamn time. 

While I guess I appreciate the sequel's attempts to add some depth to the material, that's not what this "Chainsaw Massacre" is about. For the most part, this is an exceptionally goofy slasher flick. Leatherface shatters a guy's arm and then stabs him to death with the protruding bone. A hotly debated sequence does indeed have our killer doing his thing in a neon-drenched, crowded party-bus. That scene concludes with someone halfway out a window being sawed in half at the waist. And we simply have to accept that our heavyset killer, surely in his late sixties or seventies by now, has no problem chasing after teenagers, taking hits from moving vehicles, or tossing people through the air. The butchery is well-executed though. Garcia adds some suspense to the splatter, as Melody watches helplessly as her rescuer's head gets caved-in with a sledgehammer. Or when she hides under the floorboards from the saw blade. The violence is often needlessly cruel. A broken glass evisceration borders torture-porn territory while a sudden decapitation plays too much like a sick joke. Yet the film mostly has the fun/mean balance we expect from slasher flicks correct. 

By the way, the Sally Hardesty subplot – definitely inserted to make this film similar to David Gordon Green's "Halloween" – ends up having little effect on the story. Elderly Sally doesn't resemble her counterpart from the original much, while child-like Leatherface is mostly reduced to a murderous brute. I also wish the sequel had done more with the suggestion that Leatherface's killings have passed into local legend. The opening scene is set in a gas-station selling novelty chainsaw corkscrews and that's the end of that. Mostly, I enjoyed this one. It's only 82 minutes long, looks good, has a smattering of suspense, gallons of gruel, and features a way overqualified cast. Elsie Fisher and Sarah Yarkin should probably get new agents. 2022's "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is pretty dumb but somehow still not the dumbest entry in this much-abused series. It managed to exceed my admittedly abyssal expectations. Hell, I'd be up for the sequel the post-credits stinger hints at, even if history suggests another continuity wiping reboot is way likelier. [6/10]

Invisible Ghost (1941)

In the thirties and forties, you had the iconic movie studios: Universal, RKO, M-G-M, so on and so forth. On the opposite side of this spectrum, you had the Poverty Row studios. These were generally short-lived companies with limited resources, who quickly cranked out B-movies to play on the bottom half of double-bills. Among classic horror nerds, I think Monogram Pictures might be the most well-known. This is likely because Monogram scooped up classic genre stars when they could get them. After Karloff did a few pics for them, they attracted Bela Lugosi. The former Dracula would make nine movies for Monogram. The first film Lugosi would star in for Monogram was 1941's “Invisible Ghost.”

Charles Kessler was left heart-broken when his wife left him for another man and subsequently died in a car wreck. Every year on her birthday, he has dinner with an empty chair representing her. However, the truth is stranger than that: Mrs. Kessler did not die but was merely left brain-damaged. Kessler's servants have been taking care of her, in secret, on his property. When she wanders out of her hiding place and is spotted by Kessler, he goes into a fugue-like state and strangles a maid to death. His daughter's boyfriend is accused and executed for the crime, causing the man's twin brother to investigate. Every time Kessler sees his presumed dead wife, he falls into the same murderous trance, unaware of his actions. Detectives investigate.

I can not, in any good conscious, say “Invisible Ghost” is Bela Lugosi's silliest performance. Not when “Glen or Glenda?” or “Plan 9 from Outer Space” exists. Yet it would certainly be a contender if not for those later Ed Wood collaborations. For most of the film, Bela plays a kindly man who is friendly to everyone around him. When he spots the visage of his wife – presumably the invisible ghost the title refers to, though she's very visible – his body goes stiff. His eyes become wide, his jaws slack. He sticks his hands out in a downward, claw-like fashion. His murder weapon of choice is his overcoat, which he tosses over his targets. This has the effect of making it look like Bela is hugging his victims to death with a blanket. When combined with the Mr. Burns-like posture, the effect is quite comical.

I've seen a few reviews refer to “Invisible Ghost” as being creatively directed, with some effective black-and-white photography. I guess, compared to the lowest dregs of Monogram's output, this is true. There's some occasionally lively cinematography, such as when the camera darts around a dinner table. The film's best moment has Lugosi sneaking into a shadowy bedroom, creeping up to a sleeping maiden's bed. It's a scene obviously reminiscent of Lugosi's most famous role and represents “Invisible Ghost” at its most atmospheric. The domestic scenes of Bela, his daughter, and the servants hanging out are even kind of cozy. As I've said many times before, I have a soft spot for creaky thirties and forties movies like this sometimes.

Yet, for the most part, “Invisible Ghost” is largely boring. Many of its scenes are flatly directed. The pace drags on horribly, despite the film only being an hour long. Even an utterly ludicrous storyline, which pushes believably even by the standards of forties B-movies, does little to liven things up. After three or more murders on his property, the police never consider Charles as a suspect. (They instead focus on his black butler, which is sadly true-to-life, I guess.) Why Kessler's gardener thought it was reasonable to hide his boss' wife from him, instead of just taking her to the hospital or something, is barely elaborated upon. How this deception has gone on for years, undetected, is also left unanswered. Similarly, why the sight of his wife turns Lugosi into a mesmerized killer is unexplained. The appearance of an identical twin brother is just another of the film's oddball plot elements.

I'll give “Invisible Ghost” this much. The aforementioned African-American butler, played by respected actor Clarence Muse, stops just shy of being a regressive stereotype. That Lugosi would stick with Monogram through so many pictures, including two appearances in their ridiculously long-running East Side Kids/Bowery Boys series, is a testament to the sad state of his career in the forties. “Invisible Ghost” is mostly a snooze, even if the unlikely directions its story bend in prove a little memorable. The film is also in the public domain, leading to it being available on every video site you can think of. At least it'll cost you nothing to watch it, if you're a classic horror nut like me hopeful to dig up a gem among B-movie dross. [5/10]

Creepshow: Skeletons in the Closest / Familiar

The downward slide of “Creepshow: Season Three” improves slightly in its second episode. “Skeletons in the Closest” concerns Lampini, a horror nerd who is opening a museum full of famous movie props that he co-runs with his devoted girlfriend. The rival to his late father, who shared Lampini's hobby, plots to get the guy locked up in prison for literal grave-robbing. They kill the man but his skeleton comes to life and seeks vengeance. “Familiar” concerns Jackson, a lawyer who spontaneously visits a fortune teller during a night out with his girlfriend. The man warns him that an evil spirit is following him. Jackson soon begins to see a demonic entity, forcing him to seek help from the fortune teller again.

Greg Nicotero's previous “Creepshow” episodes featured in-jokes for genre fans. “Skeletons in the Closest” builds its entire story around those in-jokes, quickly becoming insufferable. The museum is full of famous props from film and TV, all of which are named. The second half directly copies “Phantasm,” “Psycho,” “The Shining,” and “Jason and the Argonauts” without any elegance. A sequence told through comic book panel, featuring wall-to-wall movie quotes, is when this officially gets obnoxious. To make this more mastubatory, “Creepshow” itself is referenced. Lampini, played by a mugging Victor Riveria, embodies the sweaty smugness people despise about nerds. His girlfriend, a sexy goth chick, is nothing more than a wish-fulfillment fantasy. Despite doing terrible things, these two do not receive their E.C. Comics-style comeuppance. Instead, Lampini is rewarded for his evil deeds. James Remar is mildly amusing as the rival and there's some fun stop-motion effects. But “Skeletons in the Closest” is mostly an exhausting act of intolerable self-indulgence. 

“Familiar” is directed by Joe Lynch, who made the best episode of “Creepshow's” second season. This might be why it's the first half-decent segment of the third season. The story is no more complicated than “evil spirit torments guy for no reason.” King Bach's protagonist is as thinly defined as you can get. Yet Lynch knows how to build suspense. The sequences of the demon uses shadows, sound design, and creature effects to create some creepiness. The script seems to imply that the fortune teller, who is amusingly money-grubbing, and the girlfriend, played by “V/H/S'” striking Hannah Fierman, have something to do with the haunting. This never actually goes anywhere. The ending is mildly ironic but feels half-formed. Nevertheless, Lynch's direction still makes this a mildly spooky and entertaining episode. [Skeletons in the Closest: 4/10 / Familiar: 6/10]

Chucky: Give Me Something Good to Eat

The second episode of “Chucky” tries to win me over right away by setting itself on Halloween. Jake is now living with his rich aunt and uncle, his popular kid cousin Junior regarding him with suspicion. This increases after the family housekeeper brutally dies, Chucky seemingly being responsible for the death. The doll insists he didn't do it, while continuing to try and convince Jake to murder Lexy, Junior's bitchy girlfriend. At a fancy Halloween party that night, Chucky bounds with Lexy's little sister, who is seemingly on the spectrum. Jake, meanwhile, suffers another humiliation and is pushed even further to the edge.

“Give Me Something Good to Eat” is an episode that devotes several scenes to Chucky's amusing dialogue. He has a back-and-forth with the innocent, not-entirely-understanding Caroline while playing a violent video game. He tries to convince the gifted but naïve child that murder is okay, grumbling to himself in an amusing way. The episode then concludes with a juicy monologue, as the evil doll explains his philosophy to Jake. (A world-view that, naturally, justifies mass murder.) Both of these scenes are so entertaining that they make up for the fact that Chucky, otherwise, doesn't do much in this episode. He hides under the bed Lexy and Junior are making-out on, stabbing up through the mattress, but never delivers a killing blow. Much to his annoyance. Just listening to Dourif's delivery of such acerbic dialogue is pretty entertaining. 

Don Manchini and his team definitely have some deeper themes in-mind with this series. There are obvious social divides between Jake, a child of poverty, and the richer half of his family. This is another factor in why Lexy bullies the kid so viciously. Yet Junior and Lexy are victims too, of parents that push them too hard. Junior's dad wants him to be a track star, like he was. Lexy's mom belittles her own daughter, openly preferring her younger child more. These themes are juicy enough, and the Halloween atmosphere thick enough, to fill up an episode that only moves the overall plot forward a little bit. Hopefully that won't be a problem going forward. Still, I can't bitch too much about an hour that includes Chucky trick-or-treating as Hello Kitty or a shout-out to the razorblade-in-the-apple myth. [6/10]

Halloween 2017: October 8

Leatherface (2017)

Of all the eighties slasher icons, it seems like Leatherface has been the most abused. Following Tobe Hooper's unhinged sequel to his own classic, it seems like few filmmakers actually known what to do with the chainsaw wielding maniac. Over the years, we've gotten reboots, remakes, and prequels, one after the other, none pleasing fans much. So when it was announced that another “Texas Chain Saw Massacre” prequel was in development, I didn't get my hopes up. My anticipation briefly flickered when Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury, the madmen behind “Inside,” signed up to direct the film. Then “Leatherface” sat on the shelf for a few years before finally being released straight-to-DirecTV, a release strategy that raise my confidence. When the film finally came out, it actually received some okay reviews. Was I wrong to pre-judge this one?

The film takes us back to the early days of the Sawyer family. For his seventh birthday, Jedidiah Sawyer is presented with an unusual gift: A chainsaw. The next day, Jed's deranged older brothers kill a young woman. This girl is the daughter of Sheriff Hartman. As revenge, the Sheriff gets Jed taken off to a mental institute, separating the boy from his mother, Verna. Ten years pass. Jed has grown into a young man. After a failed attempt to free her son, Verna engineers a riot at the hospital. Jed, along with three other inmates, escape. With a kidnapped nurse in tow, the group heads back to the Sawyer family home. Sheriff Hartman quickly pursues them. By the end, Jedidiah will complete his transformation into Leatherface.

“Leatherface” is a frustrating film. In some ways, it's the first rebbot that feels like it respects the original. The importance of family to the future Leatherface is a main point of the film. He's loyal to his mother and brothers. In turn, they are deeply loyal to him. Yet the film takes a while to circle back to this point. Most of “Leatherface” is devoted to the four juvenile delinquents rampaging across the south. Something about this is appealing, in a way that recalls Charles Starkweather and other films. The film certainly attempts to capture the depravity of the original – there's a graphic sex scene involving a corpse – while respecting the teen killers as brutal anti-heroes. At the same time, it doesn't feel much like “Texas Chain Saw Massacre.” The chainsaws, leather masks, and cannibalism play a very small role. The entire storyline involving the deranged cop feels especially shoehorned in, a simple narrative device to keep the kids on the run.

Maury and Bustillo's previous films were characterized by two things: Frenzied direction and extremely intense gore. “Leatherface” lacks neither. The bloody effects are vivid and disturbing. During the mental asylum escape, a nurse has her tongue graphically ripped out. A stick-up in a roadside diner climaxes with a massive exploding head. Faces are bashed, heads caved-in, necks stabbed, and brains blown out. It's pretty gnarly stuff and the directors deployed it with maximum impact. Disappointingly, the duo leans on that most dreaded of cinematic styles – shakey-cam – a little too much as well. Several scenes are so shaky, they become difficult to follow. It's not as bad as the equally spastic “Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning” but its rougher than I would've preferred.

The film rounds up an interesting cast of characters actors and relative unknowns. Sam Strike plays Jedidiah, otherwise known as teenage Leatherface. There's something vulnerable about Strike, in spite of his hunky good looks. He plays up Jed's sympathetic side almost too much, making the character's inevitable transformation into a faceless killer seem somewhat improbable.  It's still a solid performance and I can see Strike going on to a decent career. Lili Taylor is effectively unhinged, but believable, as Verna. (Angela Bettis was slated to play the role but dropped out before filming began, forever making me wonder what she would've brought to the part.) Jessica Madsen is sexy and frightening as Clarice, the crazy girl that accompanies the guys on their trip. I'm not a fan of all the performances. Jaems Bloor mugs badly as Ike, an over-the-top psychopath. Stephen Dorff goes way over the top to play the one-note Sheriff Hartman.

Like I said, “Leatherface” just doesn't feel enough like a real “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” movie. There's maybe one instance of people eating people and a single shot of bones used in interior decorating. Despite this, the script is peppered with references and in-jokes to the other films. Hartman is one significant name that crops up. Nubbins is another. Ultimately, a big mid-film twist is what bugged me the most about this one. A character that looks and acts a lot like the classic Leatherface is introduced. Names are limited to pseudonyms at this point, making exact identities difficult to determine. Eventually, we find out that this person who obviously seems to be Leatherface actually isn't. That feels contrived and unnecessary. Why set up all that foreshadowing just to swerve suddenly at the end? Did that twist have any purpose other than just screwing with the audience?

“Leatherface” proves to be a frustrating watch for a fan of this series. It's clear the filmmakers and writers actually had a vision for this one. That actual respect was paid to certain aspects of Hooper's original creation. (For all it's flaws, at least Leatherface gets to keep his nose in this one.) There's certainly some impressive gore, if nothing else. Yet I still feel like a peak into Leatherface's mind, into his origin, could've made for a more nuanced and exciting movie. It's not a bad movie but is yet another “Texas Chain Saw Massacre” spin-off that feels slightly disconnected from the spirit of the original. [6/10]

Isle of the Dead (1945)

Some images reverberate through history. Arnold Bocklin's “Isle of the Dead” series are probably some of the famous paintings that you might not be able to name. They all depict the same thing: Positioned on a small island are a closely cropped group of towering trees, growing up in-between stark stone cliffs. A solitary ship is docked outfront, seemingly carrying coffins either to or away the island. The paintings are so powerful and iconic that they've inspired all sorts of art. Sergei Rachmanioff composed a tone poem inspired by the painting. In 1945, Val Lewton took the title for his seventh horror RKO horror movie. Fittingly, Bocklin's painting appears behind the opening credits. The film similarly captures the same foreboding, melancholy as the painting.

The Balkan Wars of 1912 rage on. The Greek forces are led by General Pherides. While conversing with a visiting American journalist, the topic of Pherides' deceased wife comes up. The two decide to visit the grave, kept on a near-by island. As they arrive on the island, they find the tomb has been disturbed. Staying at a local inn, both men hear stories of vorvolaka, an undead monster similar to a vampire. Both men dismiss the belief as superstition. Soon, a batch of septicemic plague breaks out on the island. As the group is forced to stay inside the inn, quarantine, suddenly stories about undead monsters being to make more sense.

“Isle of the Dead” shares some thematic similarities with Lewton's other films. Like “Cat People” and “I Walked with a Zombie,” the story is set in the place where superstition meets science. While Kyra talks about vorvolaka, the general is more concerned with the plague. Early on, a character makes a bargain, outright betting science against the god Hermes. As the situation grows more grave, and more people die, Pherides begins to wonder if there isn't something to this vorvolaka business. In the last act, someone does rise from the grave and begin to kill. However, as in Lewton's other films, it's kept ambiguous whether something truly supernatural is happening. Into this concept, Lewton and his writers introduced elements of Poe – a beautiful maiden buried alive – and shadows of World War I, which most of the film's cast and crew were still old enough to remember.

Despite the title, “Isle of the Dead” does not seem like a horror film at first. Much of the earlier scenes are set in the daylight, leaving few opportunities for Mark Robson's trademark shadowy direction. The script mostly deals with people trying to survive a plague, talking among themselves inside the inn. However, as “Isle of the Dead” nears its conclusion, the film gets both visually and narrative darker. Robson creates a very intense sequence where Thea wanders through the island's darkened corridors, encountering a Mary that has seemingly returned from the dead. This scene; which is painted in stark black and white, making stunning use of the eerie island noises; may be among the scariest in any of Lewton's films. In this last act, “Isle of the Dead” takes a hard turn into horror, featuring a mad woman stalking and killing people with a trident. So the film rewards your patience in a great way.

In “The Body Snatcher,” Boris Karloff was chilling as a totally amoral villain. In “Isle of the Dead,” he plays a different sort of character. General Pherides is haunted by the spectres of war. He's a man that is always trying to make the right choice, even when that is frequently the hardest thing to do. While quarantined on the island, something gets to him. Part of it is the growing isolation but it's mostly the weight of living under so much death. To a man that has seen as much death as him, the idea of an undead monster is almost appealing. It's a humanistic, deeply nuanced performance from Karloff. He leads a solid cast. Ellen Drew's beauty is haunting and otherworldly as Thea, the strange girl that people suspect of being a monster. Alan Napier is charming and slightly funny as St. Aubyn. Helene Thimig plays Kyra not as a delusional old woman but as someone deeply convinced of their own beliefs.

“Isle of the Dead's” production was protracted. Karloff needed surgeon on his back following the first two weeks, forcing filming to pause for several months. As it took longer to prep “Isle of the Dead,” he actually shot “The Body Snatcher” in the interim. The released film also wasn't a huge hit for RKO either. This one is not quite as good as that previous collaboration. It's slower and more ambiguous. However, if you're willing to wait around, you'll be rewarded with a chilling and thought provoking classic horror picture. [7/10]

Fear Itself: Eater

During its brief run on NBC, “Fear Itself” was either ignored or outright dismissed by most critics. However, “Eater” – the contribution from Stuart Gordon – received some positive notices.  The episode is set Set in a police station caught in the middle of the snowstorm, the episode follows new recruit Danny Bannerman. She is one of four officers in the entire building. That night, Duane Mellor is brought in for holding. Mellor is a towering Cajun serial killer, who was notorious for eating his victims. Bannerman discovers Mellor doesn't just eat people because he likes how they taste. Using voodoo magic, he can also take on the appearance of the people he kills. Soon, it's up to Bannerman alone to stop this madman.

After directing two of the best “Masters of Horror” episodes, Stuart Gordon directed one of the best “Fear Itself” episodes. “Eater” makes great use of its cramped location. The police station, surrounded on the outside by snow, is lit by sea-sick green, florescent lights. Often, the lights flicker, temporarily casting the characters in darkness and disorientated the viewer. This is one technique Gordon uses to create several tense encounters. The episode doesn't immediately reveal the Eater's powers. Danny can tell something is wrong with her co-workers. One guy gets uncomfortably close to her, continuing to bring up the disturbing circumstances of the case. Another passive-aggressively chides her. Everybody is sweaty and sleazy. By the time the killer reveals himself, “Eater” has ramped up to a fever pitch. The final ten minutes are easily the most suspenseful of the series thus far. 

It helps that we actually care about the main character. Elisabeth Moss is introduced as a fellow horror fan, reading a Fangoria knock-off during briefings and correcting her co-workers about “Silence of the Lambs.” She's initially morbidly curious about the Eater but grows more frightened the closer she gets to him. She's also resourceful and tough, staying alive and staying ahead of the guy. Gordon regular Stephen Lee shows up as one of the more obnoxious and gross officers. Stephen R. Hart only appears briefly as the killer but his height and odd facial features makes him perfect of the part. “Eater” is a tight little hour and a thrilling piece of pulp, almost singlehandledly making the whole series worth watching. [7/10]

Wolf Creek: Opalville

Turns out the cliffhanger last episode was a total cop-out. Looks like “Wolf Creek” really is going to drag this out for six whole episodes. Eve drives to Opalville to talk to the parents of one of Mick Taylor's previous victims. The father, a milker of venomous snakes, turns out to be mentally unstable himself. A struggle inevitably follows. Afterwards, Eve gets bitten by one of the snakes. She is then rescued by an unexpected friend. Meanwhile, an increasingly frustrated Mick Taylor gets sloppy in his slaughter, dropping a clue that Detective Sullivan picks up on.

The first half of “Opalville” represents “Wolf Creek” at its most frustrating. The encounter between Eve and the snake farmer is obviously another unnecessary stop, meant to stretch the story out further. The idea of Eve connecting with another victim of the killer is interesting. As is the subterranean dug-out setting. The direction the script goes in next – making the dad a mentally unstable abuser, causing the sequence to explode into a fight and a chase – seems like a totally random writing decision. Mick, meanwhile, has been reduced to cameos in his own show, murdering random people at the beginning and end. If you weren't annoyed enough already, “Opalville” concludes by reintroducing that pointless biker subplot.

However, it's not a total lost cause. After being bitten by the snake, Eve is rescued by an Aboriginal medicine man. It's a random plot choice but a charming one. After seeing the character constantly stressed out for the last couple episode, it's nice to see her meet a friendly person, to see her unwind. It's also promising that Detective Sullivan is starting to do his job. I know Mick Taylor's inability to be caught is part of his mystique as an outback legend. But, seriously, the cops should be on his trail by now. The episode ends on another down-note – throwing in another chase scene and resolving yet another sloppy subplot – but there's only two more episodes left. Surely the show will be getting to the point real soon? [6/10]

Bangers n' Mash 94: Texas Chainsaw Massacres

Did you really think I'd wade through that Tobe Hooper retrospective last month and not get a podcast out of it? Yes, Mr. Mash and I finally covered the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" franchise, one of the few major horror series we haven't gotten to yet. In this fine hour of audio stimulation, we try to answer some of the mysteries of the series: Is the Cook a brother or a father? When exactly does "Texas Chainsaw 3D" take place? What was Kim Henkle smoking when he made "Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation?" Will "All American Massacre" and "Leatherface" ever come out? Why is human flesh so delicious? Naturally, some of these quarries are more easily solved then others.



That'll be it for Film Thoughts tonight. The Sylvester Semester Part II will continue tomorrow. I promise.

Recent Watches: Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013)

Few of the follow-ups to “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” have been good. Most of them haven’t even made that much money. Despite that, Leatherface and his favorite power tool are too iconic to be left alone for long. Platinum Dunes’ last “Chainsaw” movie made well over three times its budget but, as the company had done with other horror properties, they chose to not make anymore and sat on the rights for a few years. As soon as that option lapsed, Liongates and Twisted Pictures – the folks behind the “Saw” movies – scooped up the rights, leading to many puns about the company switching one saw for another. They hoped “Texas Chainsaw 3D” would launch a new series. It didn’t but a few horror fans still found the film to be the best entry in the franchise in years.

Choosing to ignore all prior sequels and remakes, “Texas Chainsaw” opens days after the events of Tobe Hooper’s original movie. After Sally Hardesty made it back to civilization, she told everyone about the cannibal clan in the Texas countryside. The police tried to intervene but not before some good ol’ boys burned the Sawyer home to the ground. Leatherface was thought dead. Some decades later, a girl named Heather receives news that she’s adopted. Her birth parents were part of the Sawyer clan. She’s set to inherent the family mansion. As she drives down with her friends, Heather discovers the mansion isn’t the only thing she’s inheriting. Leatherface lives.

Truthfully, after a nonspecific sequel, a reboot, a remake, and a prequel to the remake, another continuity reset is the last thing the “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” needed. This is clear, as the only thing worse then what Leatherface does to his victims is what this movie does to the series’ timeline. Heather’s actress, Alexandra Daddario, was 26 at the time of filming. One presumes the character is around the same age. If the film is set twenty-some years after the original, that would put the story in the late nineties. Then why do the characters have state of the art cellphones? The filmmakers were apparently aware of this gaff, as they go to great lengths to block any dates. Either way, Leatherface has got to be in at least his sixties by this point. You wouldn’t think he could chase teens the way he used too. He’s awfully spry for a guy his age and size, is the point

The film proclaims adherence to Tobe Hooper’s original but clearly models itself after the remake. It’s hard to believe that the Sawyer family in that original, so poor they had to eat people, could be related to someone who owned a big mansion. Instead, the expansive Hewitt estate seen in the remake is a likelier inspiration. All of the twenty something victims have perfectly sculpted bodies. To prove they’re all former underwear models, they spend a lot of time in their underwear. They’re also all terrible people. Heather’s boyfriend and best friend are sleeping together behind her back. The hitchhiker they pick up is a petty thief. The other friend has stupid ear piercings and listens to terrible music. Despite their L.A. good looks, they’re trashy people. Pretty much everybody in the movie is.

One aspect of the remake series this sequel ditches is the mean-spirited violence. Oh, “Texas Chainsaw 3D” is incredibly gory. Leatherface saws a guy in half right on screen. He smashes a head with a hammer, impales people on hooks, cuts a face off, and chops someone up with a cleaver. The climax has a body torn apart inside a meat grinder. As bloody as these scenes are, the focus on suffering and agony is gone. It’s more like a classic eighties slasher pic, more interested in special effects potential then pain and anguish. It doesn’t reach the grand guignol sick humor of Hooper’s first sequel. But it seems to be reaching for something similar. It’s kind of fun, in a way horror fans may only appreciate.

The whole movie has a similar, sort of goofy Halloween spook show atmosphere. The movie is actually set at Halloween. A notable sequence takes place at a carnival, featuring Leatherface’s quasi-comedic reactions to normal Halloween partiers. The old mansion features a giant iron gate, creepy photographs on the wall, secret rooms, and comically oversized key rings. That brings a certain classical spookiness to the proceedings. Of course, there’s that 3D element too, which manifests in many ridiculous ways. A chainsaw is tossed directly at the camera. While Heather hides inside a casket, Leatherface’s saw buzzes right in her face. Leatherface leaps from the shadows, saw buzzing. (Refreshingly, there’s a lack of obnoxious jump scares.) Not to mention the melodramatic plot, with its birthmarks, dark family secrets, decade old revenge, and angry mobs.

“Texas Chainsaw 3D” is pretty dumb. It’s numerous plot oversights, ridiculous characters, and tacky tone proves that. However, unlike the empty nihilism of the remake, at least the sequel is actually about something. As the lynch mob circles Leatherface’s ancestral home, previously unmentioned members of the Sawyer family arrive to protect him. They all die insuring his safety, burnt or shot. The people who adopt Heather are white trash garbage. Even though she’s never met a Sawyer before, upon arriving at the mansion, she feels an immediate kinship. When she discovers her birth family was murdered, she gets pissed off. She begins the film frightened of Leatherface but, after the killer realizes she’s family, the two start working together. The obvious emerging theme is that blood is thicker. Yeah, it’s ridiculous. But at least the film is trying to do something more then just gross the audience out with graphic murder scenes.

Even that’s not the main reason I like “Texas Chainsaw 3D.” Of all the non-Hooper flicks in the series, this one gets Leatherface the most right. In his old age, Leatherface has basically become a pathetic nerd. He lives at home, in the basement, spending his considerable free time on his hobbies. The film returns the childish element Leatherface had in the original. (He also, pointedly, doesn’t have a facial deformity.) By the end, the redneck mayor and his cronies are beating him with chains, torturing him. Leatherface may be a cannibalistic serial killer but you feel bad for him. When he turns his saw against his tormentors, you cheer. During most long running horror franchises, the audience begins to root for the monster eventually. There’s something perversely amusing about making the brutal slasher more-or-less the hero of the movie. Considering how much personality Leatherface has, I’m surprised it didn’t happen sooner.

“Texas Chainsaw 3D” is a very silly horror film. In many ways, it’s no less crass and pointless then Platinum Dunes’ remakes. Compared to the visceral part one and the inspired gore-comedy of part two, this one comes off as almost embarrassing. Having said that, it’s still more entertaining then any of the other entries in the series. That’s faint praise but, to an old slasher fanatic like me, it counts for something. Despite “Texas Chainsaw 3D’s” uninspiring box office performance, the buzz will naturally be back. A – groan – prequel called simply “Leatherface” has been sitting on the shelves for a while now. It remains to be seen if it’ll match the brain dead fun of this one, whenever it’s released. [7/10]

Recent Watches: Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006)

Despite being a film totally without any interesting elements, 2003’s “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” was one of the biggest horror films of the year. Since Platinum Dunes obviously made the first one to be as commercial as possible, it’s unsurprising that they would produce a sequel. There were two problems through. First off, Dimension Films threatened to buy the rights to the name from Michael Bay, delaying production while more money was allocate to retain ownership. A bigger issue was a narrative one. The remake concluded by cutting Leatherface’s arm off, making future chainsawing difficult. While there were solutions around this – the comic books gave him a hook hand – the producers decided to make a prequel instead. With its uninspired subtitle in hand, “Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning” sawed its way into theaters in 2006.

In 1969, the slaughterhouse and meat packing plant that has supported a rural Texas town shuts down. This directly affects the Hewitt family, especially Thomas, the hulking youngest child with a deformed face. Knowing he’s being fired, he murders his boss, steals a chainsaw, and heads home. Afterwards, his adoptive brother Hoyt murders the town sheriff and assumes his role. Meanwhile, a quartet of teens are headed towards California, the boys about to be deployed to Vietnam. Along the way, they encounter the Hewitt brood, both of them falling victim to an earlier chapter of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Being a prequel, “The Beginning” attempts to lend a mythic quality to several key moments. When the future Leatherface first discovers his chainsaw, triumphant music blares. The creation of his first flesh mask is comparable to Bruce Wayne putting on the cape in “Batman Begins.” A mildly clever moment has Leatherface literally being born on the slaughterhouse floor. After hearing about it for years, there is something mildly satisfying about seeing the meat packing plant that closes and forces the family towards cannibalism.

Yet specifically being a prequel to the shitty remake saddles the film with all sorts of stupid mythology. Yes, this Leatherface has a facial deformity. Before donning his skin mask, he wears some weird Hannibal Lector get-up. Yes, he’s bullied as a kid, making his murders specific acts of vengeance. The prequel even takes the pains to set up minor events seen in the remake. We see Hoyt get his sheriff suit and loose his front teeth. We see Monty looses his legs, in one of the script’s dumbest decision. The family’s cannibalism is explained as a habit Hoyt developed as a POW in Korea. The prequel clinically sets out to resolve every element introduced in the last one.

I said some pretty negative things about Marcus Nispel’s direction in the remake. That it was calculated and too slick. Jonathan Liebesman’s work on the prequel makes me wish I could take it back. Liesbesman’s direction is shaky, to the point of nausea. It’s not just the action scenes that shake, like when victims are running from Leatherface or during either of the film’s multiple car wrecks. Scenes of characters just sitting around and talking feature photography that spins all over the damn place. I don’t know what the point of direction like this is. It doesn’t make the movie feel immediate or gritty. It just makes the film feel unprofessional. I don’t think it’s too much to ask to be able to clearly see what the hell I’m watching.

The violence in the remake was grimy and sadistic, focused on the suffering of Leatherface’s victims. The prequel goes all in on this. The psychological torture Hoyt showed off last time becomes physical torture, as he repeatedly beats a victim with a club. Extended sequences are devoted to the chained up women, crying and panicking. Leatherface beats in kneecaps, yanks bones from flesh, and cuts a face off, all shown in sickening detail. Once the chainsaw comes out, the film delights in limbs being sawed away, bodies being cut in two or run through. There’s even a sickening suggestion of rape. Listen, I like gore in horror movies. But this is just mean, cruelty for its own sake, without flare or art.

The teenage victims in the “Texas Chainsaw” remake were indistinct, underwear model worthy performers with perfect abs, tight clothes, and glistening skin. That’s another trend the remake is disinterested in breaking. Despite being set in the late sixties, these kids look utterly modern. Matt Bomer’s Eric has perfectly trimmed facial hair. Taylor Handley’s Dean looks right out of a CW show, boyish and toned. Diora Baird’s Bailey is introduced in her underwear and spends most of the movie in lingered upon shorts. Jordanna Brewster’s Chrissie wears skin tight jeans and bends over frequently. If it sounds like I’m focusing too much on the actor’s physical appearances, forgive me. There’s nothing interesting about their personalities. Baird spends the nearly the whole movie weeping. Brewster doesn’t go mad like Marylin Burns. Instead, she remains defiant to the end, acting too much like a self-aware bad ass. The boys are both overly macho, thin sketches. There’s no reason to care about any of them.

Despite rarely bothering to make the story feel like its set in the late sixties, the script constantly references the Vietnam War. Eric is a veteran and ready to be deployed again. Dean, his younger brother, has been drafted but plans to flee to Mexico. When Eric discovers this, he’s aghast. (There’s also a subplot about some Hell’s Angels, which feels less like something the actual sixties and more like a sixties exploitation movie.) Hoyt uses this fact as an excuse to torture both boys. He drops lines about “staying the course” and freedom not being free. Wait a minute… “The Beginning” came out in 2006, right in the middle of George W. Bush’s presidency. Is the film trying to make a point about the Iraq War? Is it comparing the sadistic Hoyt and the slaughterer Leatherface to the second Bush administration? If so, this isn’t defined into a clear point. It’s just another unsatisfying aspect of the movie, lingering in the air.

If there’s any joys to “Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning,” it’s in seeing R. Lee Ermey ham it up. Though the character is deeply unpleasant and wholly sadistic, Ermey’s glib sarcasm and long speeches are at least compelling. He’s certainly far more interesting then the rest of the undefined clan. The prequel includes the dinner scene excluded from the remake. It even has the heroine leaping through a window. While that’s kind of interesting to see, compared to the madness of the same scene in the original, it’s so stale. The Hewitts are too calm, their victims’ too comatose. Okay, there’s also a mildly funny scene where a big fat woman is used to block a door.

There’s another reason following up the remake with a prequel was a mistake. The audience already knows the ending. Despite teasing Chrissie’s escapes, she too is murdered by Leatherface. Everyone is dead, except for the sadistic cannibals. It’s such a needlessly downbeat, nihilistic ending that not even John Larroquette reappearing as the narrator can perk me up. The prequel only grossed half of the remake’s total. Since Platinum Dunes is only interested in profits, they did not feel the need to continue the story. The script hints at further victims by giving us Leatherface’s total body count. Yet the prequel being so determined to set up the remake leaves little meat on the bone. “The Beginning” is an ugly, senseless movie, with no heart or originality. It can’t even satisfy as a brain dead slasher flick. As bad as the remake was, the prequel is somehow much worst. [2/10]

Recent Watches: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

For nine years, Leatherface’s chainsaw was silent. The oddness of “The Next Generation” had successfully killed the franchise for nearly a decade. That is until explosion meister Michael Bay and his partner Brad Fuller had an idea. A horrible, sacrilegious idea. Their new company Platinum Dunes – as in a shiny, artificial version of something meant to be gritty and natural – would specialize in remaking classic horror films. And the first beloved title on the butcher’s block was “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.” The final product was blasphemous to true horror fans. Despite that, the remake became the highest grossing entry in the series, birthing a new trend in horror that lasted for the rest of the naughties. Leatherface would only be the first horror icon to be re-imagined for insipid modern audiences.

2003’s “Chainsaw Massacre” loosely adapts the original. A group of teens are traveling across Texas, this time to a Skynyrd concert. They pick up a female hitchhiker, who then commits suicide. Attempts to contact local authorities put them in the path of Leatherface and his saw. Remnants of the original story remain: The number of teens, the van, the hitchhiker, a male lead getting a hammer to the head, the heroine escaping Leatherface only to wander into one of his family members. Otherwise, the story is very different. The remake even leaves some major elements, like the dinner scene, on the butcher house floor. The main aspect 2003 takes from 1974 is the fake “based on true events” element. The story takes place in 1973 while the opening claims original police evidence – from the “actual” crime scene – inspired the film. 

After this “Massacre” made money, a lot of famous horror films from the seventies and eighties would get remade. Many of these films would imitate “Texas Chainsaw’s” visual style. The color palette is mostly grey, with storm cloud-choked skies always overhead. That is when it isn’t black. The aesthetic can best be described as grungy. Every surface is seemingly caked with dirt or grease. The characters are sweaty, the grass is long, the homes are filthy. As sleazy as the film’s look is, it’s also simultaneously slick. The contrast between the whites and blacks is high. The slime and sweat are carefully placed. It’s the car commercial version of Southern fried insanity. There’s none of the natural clutter of the original. Every aspect is calculated and predetermined. This is studio mandated filth, factory made squalor.

The original “Texas Chain Saw Massacre” famously kept most of its gore off-screen. The sequels, generally, did not. The remake follows that lead. Leatherface cracks heads and severs legs, resulting in weeping wounds. We even get a peak into his work shop, seeing him slit bodies and cut faces. Like the torture horror that would become popular soon afterwards, the remake’s violence is sleekly sadistic. A victim is hung on a meat hook, dangling, struggling and suffering. Later, Leatherface dispatches a male crotch first. When the big guy isn’t cutting people up, his family members are playing cruel head games with the teens. This produces a hopeless atmosphere. The original was hopeless too but in pursuit of a wider point. About small town businesses or meat or violence or family. The 2003 version, meanwhile, is the textbook definition of trendy nihilism. The remake is grim without reason, brutal for its own sake.

Another thing I hate about the horror remake fad is how beautiful the casts are. Listen, I like looking at beautiful people too. However, populating your cast with nothing but supermodels removes the material from reality. Further more, many of these actors are badly cast. Eric Balfour as Kemper, the heroine’s boyfriend, is a blank presence. Mike Vogel as Andy is totally indistinct. Jonathan Tucker as stoner/nerd Morgan brings a jangly nervousness but nothing else. Erica Leerhsen plays hippy chick Pepper, degrading into a bitch stereotype before too long. Jessica Biel was the break-out star of the film, mostly because of the tied-off tank top and vacuum-sealed jeans she wears. Biel’s Erin has the most personality of all the teens and even she is mostly defined by her search for her boyfriend. Despite the seventies setting, none of these kids look like they’re from that decade.

Continuations of “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” have a bad habit of fucking up Leatherface. Apparently, the hulking man-child of the original – whose personality was dictated by which mask he wore, who saw humans as a butcher sees pigs – is too complex for hack filmmakers to understand. The remake does the greatest disservice to Bubba Sawyer, who is renamed Thomas Hewitt. Leatherface now wears a mask made of human flesh to hide a deforming skin disease, which has rotted away his nose. He has a tragic backstory, being teased as a child. The cannibalism is barely referenced and his fascination with the flesh is gone. All the personality is sucked out, the most fascinating of modern horror villains reduced to a generic maniac. Andrew Bryniarski brings no subtly or pathos to the part. He’s a shrieking, murdering monster, nothing more, nothing less.

The entries in the franchise not directed by Tobe Hooper also tend to miss the boat on Leatherface’s family. One of the biggest clichés Platinum Dunes rely on is standard anxieties about the American south. See, the teens that traveled from the city are beautiful. The redneck deviants who slaughter them are ugly. Old Monty is a double amputee, showing off his stumps and his colostomy bag. (He also feels up Jessica Biels, if you didn’t already get that he’s a creep.) Leatherface’s mom is morbidly obese. His sister has sunken, meth addict eyes. They’re all generic Southern fried sickos, without the specific eccentricities or personalities of Hooper’s original. Among the villains, only R. Lee Ermey’s Sheriff Hoyt is given anything to do. Even then, Ermey just once again trots out his sadistic drill sergeant act, that cruelty contributing to the film’s already overbearing malice.

1974’s “Chain Saw Massacre” unnerved the audience by simultaneously feeling like a newsreel and a dispatch from a world gone totally mad. Tobe Hooper wanted to make a scary movie and he succeeded. I don’t even know if the remake is trying to be scary. The only real shock tactic in its toolbox, besides the cruel violence and fake-gritty visual design, are lame jump scares. Figures dash through the foreground, accompanied by loud stings on the soundtrack. There’s even a fucking spring loaded opossum. There’s nothing charming about the movie’s desperation to get scares. Instead, it’s a crass and obvious maneuver. “It worked before,” the filmmakers figured, “It’ll work again.”

The producers were intent on making a commercially successful horror film. So they bought the rights to a recognizable name, ignorant of and disinterested in that name’s significance. They cast actors who were up-and-coming and ridiculously photogenic. They hired a director – music video and commercial veteran Marcus Nispel – who would deliver a visually slick film. They utilized the then-trendy elements in mainstream horror, such as grisly gore and a downbeat tone. When that didn’t work, they relied on the same shit talentless genre directors have been using for years, like cheap jump scares and creepy hillbillies. And this blatant, cold and logical calculation fucking worked. Stupid teenagers went in droves, threw their popcorn into the air and leaped into their boyfriend’s laps. “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” made a lot of money and Brad Fuller would apply this same formula to future films. Everybody won except for people who expect something meaningful or creative from their movies. [3/10]

NO ENCORES: Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation (1994)

1. Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation (1994)
Director: Kim Henkel

Neither of the previous “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” sequels matched the original or even managed to make that much money at the box office. Yet when there’s a recognizable name, especially in a genre as sequel crazy as horror, financial backers can always be found. “Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation” was written and directed by Kim Henkel, the co-writer of the original film. It’s the only film he’s directed. Henkel and his producer raised the funds independently, leading to a difficult post-production. The film was reedited for American audiences, re-titled from “Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” and barely released into theaters. When horror fans did say it, most of them hated it with only a few defending the sequel’s quality.

Teenager Jenny has had a fairly unproductive prom night with her boyfriend Sean and friends Barry and Heather. Driving home after the party, they take a weird Texas back road. After finding a crashed car, the group encounters a tow truck driven by Vilmer, an eccentric man. Vilmer is part of a family of backwoods psychos. Among them is the chainsaw wielding Leatherface. While Jenny tries to survive the night, she discover that Vilmer and Leatherface’s insane family are part of a wider reaching, stranger conspiracy.

Kim Henkel has expressed his opinion that “Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation” is the true sequel to the original film. He intended the film to recapture that first movie’s tone and treats the other two sequels in broad strokes. Henkel seemed to approach this goal quite literally. “The Next Generation” is practically a remake. The film recreates several notable moments from Hooper’s original. Leatherface wallops a boyfriend with a sledgehammer before hanging the girlfriend on a meat hook. While chasing the final girl, Leatherface destroys the house’s door. Later, the same girl leaps through a window, the chainsaw wielding maniac taking chase. She escapes to a local business, which turns out to be associated with the backwoods lunatics. Another scene has her running through the underbrush, Leatherface sawing through the branches. The film climaxes at a mad dinner around a ghoulish table and concludes with the main villain swinging his chainsaw in the morning sun.

While “The Next Generation” outright copies the original’s story, it strays from the first film’s tone. The movie has a bizarre comedic streak, often seemingly going for laughs as often as it goes for scares. This is most evident in how the film treats Leatherface. Gunner Hansen’s Leatherface was oddly child-like and sympathetic without loosing a truly unnerving edge. He also, in one scene, dressed up in women’s clothing. “The Next Generation” seems stuck on that last detail. This Leatherface is a limp wristed, wincing transvestite. He constantly shrieks in a high-pitch, obnoxious manner. In the final act, he wears a dress, fake breasts, a long-haired wig, and lipsticks. Why would the sequel transform a genuinely frightening villain into such a bizarre stereotype? Even his regular human flesh mask looks kind of crappy. By treating one of horror’s most iconic villains so poorly, the film seems to be outright insulting fans.

In truth, Leatherface isn’t even the primary villain of the film. That honor falls to Matthew McConaughey’s Vilmer. The patriarch of the family, Vilmer has a hydraulic brace on his leg. Sometimes, the brace spasmodically twitches, beyond Vilmer’s control. More often, Vilmer just screams like a lunatic. He self-mutilates with a knife, puts a shotgun into his mouth, sweats, throws people across the room and stomps on heads. Matthew McConaughey’s performance is entirely unhinged. While the script still treats the character quite terribly, it’s fair to say that McConaughey honors the original’s truly demented tone. He really does seem like a crazy person. (McConaughey doesn't have very clear memories of the film.)

While McConaughey’s Vilmer is a totally bizarre if compelling villain, the rest of Leatherface’s family is not that interesting. In the original, Leatherface would dress like a woman becomes there was no mother in the family. “The Next Generation,” meanwhile, features Tonie Perensky as Darla, Vilmer’s girlfriend. (This makes the decision to play up Leatherface’s cross-dressing even more odd.) Perensky plays the part like white trash, shouting and screaming slightly less then the other characters. Joe Stevens plays W. E., who combines elements of both the Cook and the Hitchhiker. He pokes Leatherface with a cattle prod and peppers all of his dialogue with literary quotes. Both characters are fairly annoying. But that’s not nearly as annoying as changing the family’s nature. They are no longer cannibals. They even order out pizza at one point.

Infamously, McConaughey is not the only future Academy Award winner to star in “Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation.” Renne Zellweger appears as Jenny. While Zellweger shows a decent amount of talent, the script mistreats her. Sometimes the character is smart enough to simply ran away when given a chance. Other times, she willingly gets into the truck of someone who is clearly crazy. At least Zellweger’s Jenny is more memorable then her friends. Tyer Shea Cone is an obnoxious jock, who swears often and is always thinking about sex. Lisa Marie Newmyer’s Heather, meanwhile, says she defies bubble-headed blonde stereotypes. If she does, all those scenes got cut out.

There are many baffling scenes in “Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation.” Jenny gets wrapped in a garbage bag and dumped in Darla’s truck. Within full view of several cops, she has a conversation with her captor. Grandpa has a bizarre cameo, appearing briefly before literally wandering off. During the climax, Jenny jumps into an old couple’s RV. Meanwhile, a random crop duster appears to take out Vilmer. Yet no aspect is stranger then the family apparently being funded by the Illuminati. An agent of the secret order, who has piercings and strange symbols carved into his skin, gives the lunatics a bad review. He then licks Renee Zellwager’s face. In the end, he picks her up in a limo. He explains that the Illuminati wants to expose people to true horror, in hopes of creating life alternating experience. What is any of this nutty shit doing in a “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” sequel?

Despite co-creating that very first film, “The Next Generation” makes it clear that Kim Henkel had no idea what made that original movie work so well. His sequel is a bizarre, tonally inconsistent affair that seems to actively mock what people liked about the original. It feels very cheap at times, which is only emphasized by the incoherent script and the obnoxious characters. McConaughey and Zellwager, after becoming big stars, are rumored to have sued to repress the movie’s release. It worked, as the movie was only released in 20 theaters. Most fans hate “Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation” though a few appreciate McConaughey’s delirious performance. Either way, I can’t imagine this was a sequel that anybody was satisfied with. It’s not shocking Henkel never made another film. [4/10]