Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III

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.

If you watch this as a remake and not a sequel, and then you'll understand it, because that is what it really was meant to be according to all involved as well as Tobe Hooper, who was on board for a while as an adviser. Otherwise, the storyline from TCM part 2 to this one won't make sense.

I saw this when it was first released in the theater and didn't think too highly of it, but then I saw the uncut, unrated version recently and it improved more than 100%.

It's spooky, atmospheric, relentlessly frightening, with a very good job by R A Mihailoff as Leatherface, whose brutal and monstrous characterization of Leatherface seems to be the basis for the current Leatherface character by Andrew Briniarski. There's no cowering to others in the family, transvestite behavior, or silly screaming as in other versions. Also this one has a great chainsaw, plenty of great character actors doing what they do best, as great characters.

The film would have been better had the squeamish producers left in the X-rated violent scenes as they were originally. Would have been top notch if the (hideously deformed) Leatherface unmasking had remained, a bit that was eventually used to a degree in the 2003 version. Could have been a 10 had someone like Savini been involved. As it is, still superb.

Review based on the unrated version.

A college-aged couple, delivery driving a car from California to Florida, are sidetracked by a police investigation of a body pit found at a construction site in the Texas countryside. (Camera flashes, illuminating the corpses (in the unedited version, anyway) are a good reference to the first film) The next day, the couple have a bizarre experience with a psycho hick apparently killing a cowboy at a small gas station. While trying to get away and find help, they're detoured onto a side road ... and that's when the real fun begins.

An over-sized truck begins stalking them, then throws a dead animal at them. In the excitement, they drive off the road and puncture a tire. While changing the tire, a hulk with a chainsaw attacks them. Narrowly escaping him, they only end up nearly in a head-on collision with a weekend warrior.

The three of them eventually team up; the couple are just trying to live through the night, but the weekend warrior wants to go after our new friend with the chainsaw.

This has dialogue far superior to the original, and isn't as silly and over-the-top as the underrated Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. It's graphic, but it uses its gore and bloodshed almost as part of telling the story, as well as referencing the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre (through camera angles, props, and bits of dialogue) without going so far as to rip off that film. The music score was surprisingly effective, and did not distract from the movie itself.

David Schow did a great job with this screenplay, for the most part, but film falls into the "undying killer" mode in its repetitive final third, where seemingly every character (Tex, Alfredo, Leatherface, Benny) returns from the dead for one last encore performance.

Unfortunately, the theatrical version of the movie was seemingly edited with a chainsaw, and released in a horribly truncated version, missing several minutes of footage and rendering much of the plot incoherent. Thankfully the unedited/ unrated version has been released on DVD.

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

Made on a shoestring budget with mostly unknown actors (aside from Viggo, who went on to A-list-ish status, and Foree, who was known to genre aficionados), obviously, there is nothing groundbreaking in this 3rd chainsaw outing, as can be said of most slasher sequels. Tobe Hooper's original said and did everything that needed to be said and done (i.e., its documentary style, iconic villain, the creation of the slasher-film template, the fire-red and orange burning sunsets, its post-Vietnam worldview, its commentary on animal cruelty and decay of the nuclear family, etc). It is an unparalleled masterpiece for a reason, and even Hooper's follow-up didn't hold a candle or need to exist (although it is 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, which keeps viewers invested (the same can't be said of most slasher films of this era, which typically featured bottom-of-the-barrel talent). They deliver solid performances in a movie with uniformly solid performances.

The cinematography by James L. Carter 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, and the POV of the voyeur (note Kate Hodge's reactions during this scene: she seems genuinely freaked out and uncomfortable). It's no surprise that Carter went on to a successful career. He remains faithful to the mood of the original without plagiarizing, while still taking some new chances.

The film is atmospheric and dread-inducing from the jump, from the mundane car conversation that introduces the protagonists, 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 serving as knowing winks to Hooper's original, but because the film modernizes them, it grounds viewers 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 cinema verite style of Hooper's would have proven awkward and derivative.

And how about that "truck-chase/changing the tire" sequence? I *live* for moments like this, as it has that particular old-school scare factor that exhilarates, rather than oppresses. There's the ominous, minimalist score, slow-burning pacing, the effective use of a lantern light, and again, acting that sells it. Kate Hodge's display of fear and hysteria is realistic and palpable, as are boyfriend Ryan's (William Butler) reactions of incredulity, anger, and frustration. There is a commendable attempt at realism here, resulting in a genuinely tense and nerve-jangling scene. Also, dare I say that it comes closer than any other entry in the series to matching the "flashlight fight between Sally and Franklin" from the original? It's that uncomfortable mix of anxiety, panic, and helplessness 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, who 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.

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.