La matanza de Texas III

There are several reasons to dislike this movie. First, the level of studio interference was considerable. That explains the atrocious ending grafted on against the director's wishes. The studio was looking ahead to a sequel more than they were concentrating on making this picture work. Second, because of the huge success of the first film (among genre fans) anything which followed was going to draw a lit of criticism. Do the filmmakers simply mimic the original, or do they completely break the mold? Usually what you get is a mishmash of both theories and that's what you have here. That said, "Leatherface" is lot of fun if you like a balls -out gore fest with some humor and better production values than the budget warranted. Director Jeff Burr creates a deliciously-crazed atmosphere while driving the

story home. This is also a very fine looking movie and kudos go to the director of photography, whose name escapes me. The cast is excellent. Mortensen looks like he's having a lot more fun here than in the "Rings": movies and Kate Hodge is very under appreciated. There's a good role for genre veteran Ken Foree too and he delivers the goods. By the way, the chainsaw in this one is a real beaut. "Leatherface" is a very solid B-movie effort.

I'm actually really surprised at all the positive reviews for this film here, considering its horrible reputation.

Made on a shoestring budget with no-name actors (at least at the time, of course, Viggo went on to A-list-ish status) obviously, there is nothing groundbreaking in this 3rd chainsaw outing, as can be said of most sequels. Hooper's 1974 film said and did everything that needed to be said and done (its documentary style, iconic villain, the creation of the slasher-film template, the fire-orange burning sunsets, the post-Vietnam worldview, the subtle commentary about consumerism, animal cruelty, and decay of the nuclear family, etc....). That film is an unparalleled masterpiece, and even Hooper's follow-up didn't hold a candle or need to exist(although it was crazy, offbeat, quality cult filmmaking on its own terms), so a third entry would seem a complete waste of time.

So why even pay part III any attention? My adoration for it is based largely on the first half, which is very well done and far superior to the second. For starters, Kate Hodge and William Butler, as the film's yuppie protagonists, are natural and absorbing and never take viewers out of the film (something that can't be said of most slasher films of this era, which typically had bottom-of-the-barrel talent).

The cinematography is also imaginative and stylized. The entire "gas station peepshow sequence," for example, is fantastically shot and executed; the angle of our heroine through the cracked mirror, the claustrophobic lighting, the pov of the voyeur. And note Kate Hodge's reactions during this scene: she seems legitimately freaked out and uncomfortable, and her reactions of fear and confusion in the scenes that follow are equally convincing. It's a solid performance, in a film with uniformly solid performances.

The pacing in the first half is also impressive; from the mundane car conversation that opens the film to the bizarre "body pit" sequence- which was so absurd, it bordered on parody-to the armadillo murder scene, to the gas station sequence: all of these moments serve as knowing winks to Hooper's original, but because the film modernizes them, it benefits viewers as it keeps them in the "now" instead of the "then". And thankfully, the film sticks with the aesthetic of its time, because, while it would eventually show its age, attempting to match the documentary style of Hooper's original would have felt derivative, redundant, and out of place. So kudos to Burr and cinematographer James L. Carter, who later proved himself a real talent with more mainstream gigs, for remaining faithful to the mood of the original without plagiarizing, but still taking some new chances.

And how about that "truck-chase/changing the tire" sequence? I LIVE for scenes like this and sadly, modern horror films just don't take us here anymore: the ominous, minimalist score, slow-burn pacing, the effective use of that lantern light, and again, Kate Hodge's display of fear and hysteria feels all too real, as do boyfriend Ryan's (William Butler) reactions of incredulity, anger, and frustration. There is some commendable attempt at realism here, resulting in a truly tense and nerve-jangling scene. Also, dare I say that the atmosphere here comes the closest out of any film in the series to matching the "flashlight fight between Sally and Franklin" from the original? It's that uncomfortable mix of anxiety, dread, and panic that Hooper perfected so well that I think gets overlooked in this sequel.

Okay, so that's the first half. The second half is less ambitious and becomes, as I mentioned earlier, almost a parody of the first film, with an uneven mix of horror and (attempted) black comedy. There are hints of wit and social commentary to be sure: the mocking by one of the chainsaw clan of the elitist boyfriend's underwear ("California!"), Ken Foree's completely out-of-place military survivalist, to name a couple. But these clever bits are treated as afterthoughts, rather than organic byproducts of the story (although the scene where Leatherface grapples with the Speak and Spell is curiously touching). Contributing to the dip in quality is some abrupt editing and rushed pacing, which I suspect is the fault of the studio and MPAA, which butchered (no pun intended) the heck out of the film.

With that said, there is still enough well-choreographed action to make the second half more than watchable. And witnessing Kate Hodge's transformation from genteel yuppie to traumatized badass makes it worth sticking around. A nice homage to Sally in the original.

But then comes the final shot, which is almost as if director Burr threw up his arms and said: "Alright, time for the trendy 80's slasher movie ending....we all got bills to pay". And of course, it leaves room for yet another sequel. Shame, shame, New Line.

And there you have it: LEATHERFACE, the wildly uneven, sometimes ambitious, consistently amusing, what should have been the final word on an already dying franchise, and more notably, sub-genre that would never quite be the same. As we all know, SCREAM followed 6 years later, and the slasher film became a cultural artifact only to be mocked, parodied, and "post-modernized" for a new generation of filmgoers, most of whom weren't alive when their genre forefathers were in their heyday. So with that in mind, we should be grateful for earnest little works like TCM III, which, while far from perfect, mark the end of an innocent and unpretentious era of irony-free slasher filmmaking. Sigh.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3 was a pretty good movie, that at least I enjoyed and had fun watching. The movie was rather chilling and was pretty thrilling at times. The acting here was okay, but the biggest name cast member in the film was Viggo Mortensen (Psycho, A Perfect Murder). The rest of the cast was unknown by movie-goers, but they weren't too bad. If you want te be scared and entertained, rent Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3. I give it a 7 out of 10.

No matter how many sequels, reboots, spinoffs, or rehashes The Texas Chainsaw gets, none will compare to the original. That's a given. But there are some installments in Leatherface's interesting journey throughout the decades that are solid enjoyable movies on their own, such as the 2003 remake and this one. Here I feel like the campiness of TCM2 met the thrills of the original TCM in a healthy middle ground. There are some ridiculous one-liners, but they're placed fittingly unlike the second movie where the comedy felt forced and sloppy. The acting in the movie is above average too, with your standard "now famous but previously in a crappy horror sequel" actor to boot.

The main reason this is better than its predecessor is because it actually has suspense; not a lot of it but it's there. The creepy moments somewhat resemble scenes from the original but none of it feels rehashed. There are characters you can root for, and Leatherface is actually (kind of) scary again. There's also a satisfying climax, fit with heavy metal and cheesy lines that belong in a Marlon Wayans movie. It's just a fun popcorn horror movie with some gore, a couple thrills, and a decent amount of laughs. All in all, a movie is meant to entertain, and for the most part, Texas Chainsaw Massacre III did exactly that. Worth a watch for hardcore slasher fans.

This second sequel to the horror classic is something of a letdown, purely because of the storyline. While the first sequel, dominated by Dennis Hopper's crazed performance, explored the key figures in a novel way, LEATHERFACE is a film that's content to simply emulate the first movie's storyline. Once again we get unwary travellers falling foul of Leatherface and his family, and an extended climax involving a family dinner. It's all way too familiar, and of course lacks the sheer intensity of Tobe Hooper's original classic.

The film's tone is wildly uneven throughout, and even in the would-be horror scenes it's hard to take it seriously. The movie feels like a spoof; it has a light-hearted tone that sits at odds with the grimness of the plot. Still, on the plus side, it's very fast paced, and it features a great deal of crowd-pleasing horror elements that are sure to win the hearts of splatter fans, although as with the original, it's never quite as gory as you think it's going to be (and I'm talking about the uncut version).

One of those crowd-pleasers is Ken Foree, Mr. DAWN OF THE DEAD himself, playing one of the film's would-be victims. Foree is a delight, and they sure play up to his potential, portraying him as a real ass-kicker of a man. I couldn't care less about the two characters who are supposed to be the leads, but Foree hooks you right from the start. The rest of the actors are less than impressive, and in particular the guy who plays Leatherface is just a stock heavy; there's certainly none of the hulking, imposing brutality that Gunnar Hansen brought to the role.

Of course, one of the draws watching this film today is seeing a pre-stardom Viggo Mortensen playing in a decidedly odd type of role, completely different from what you might expect; I enjoyed his performance, even if much of it is played for laughs. And that's the trouble with the film as a whole: we're back to that spoofy tone, that whole non-serious feel that everyone's laughing at the premise rather than getting to grips with the horrifying implications of it. Take the ear scene, for example, or the string of increasingly ridiculous and unbelievable things that happen at the climax (including the fate of one of the characters, which makes no sense whatsoever; blame a substituted ending for that one, after the original didn't go down too well with test audiences). In fact, come the end, I enjoyed this more as a bizarre comedy than as a genuine horror outing.