Cast:
Dennis Hopper (Lt. Boude "Lefty" Enright), Caroline Williams (Vanita "Stretch" Brock), Jim Siedow (Cook), Bill Moseley (Chop-Top), Bill Johnson (Leatherface), Ken Evert (Grandpa), Harlan Jorand (Patrolman), Kirk Sisco (Detective), and James N. Harrell (Cut-Rite Manager) Directed by Tobe Hooper (#348 - Poltergeist and #1297 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre)
Review:
"It's crazy as hell. It's a film that's just loony. But at least I got a chance to make a comedy—a very grim comedy—that is receiving an acknowledgement for its stylization. In the past four or five years, it's being seen for the first time."
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) probably should not have become a franchise, since writers Kim Henkel and Tobe Hooper wanted to make a film involving "moral schizophrenia". In fact, Motel Hell (1980) was actually made as an imitator of the film from screenwriters that liked the 1974 film. But, here we are, talking about a sequel film made twelve years after the original. Tobe Hooper originally intended to just produce the film, but budgetary issues led to him stepping in to direct. You may remember him as the director of this film and Poltergeist (1982), after all. The film was written by L. M. Kit Carson, albeit one that was different from the intended approaches that Hooper thought of. Kim Henkel and Hooper wanted to do a film that made fun of Motel Hell with a town full of cannibals, which would have been named Beyond the Valley of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Hooper wanted to amplify the dark comedy that he felt was not recognized in the original film. Yes, you could call him an early example of wanting to give the audience something they didn't expect. Carson, along with Hooper served as a producer, but most will focus their attention on Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus as producers. The Cannon Group, Inc (as headlined by Golan and Globus) loved to specialize in a variety of "B-movies", such as action or ninja movies. This was the third film that Hooper did with Cannon after Lifeforce (1985) and Invaders from Mars (1986), and only this film ended up making its money back with audiences (of course, none of them were exactly critical hits, but hey, there are morons who believe that Hooper didn't really direct Poltergeist all on his own, so things happen). Every subsequent Chainsaw film tried skirting around the end of the second film: Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990) was cut down to fit for R-rated audiences while The Next Generation (1995) had Henkel as director/writer and little success. A remake was done in 2003 that was followed by a 2006 prequel before Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013) tried to act as a direct sequel to the first one. Leatherface (2017) was a new prequel to the series...and then comes Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022), a title stupid enough to only fit a movie that tries to act as a sequel to the original that ignores all the other ones that fittingly premiered on a lesser platform like Netflix. Bottom line: never make a franchise, especially when this film goes the way of Halloween II (1981) in killing its main character before bullshit (read: money) seeps through.
The film was given an X rating by the Motion Picture Association, but Cannon responded to that by simply releasing it unrated (a smart idea, considering how hypocritical the MPA can be about ratings). I can see where Hooper felt that making a grim comedy would be a good idea to counteract what he felt was in his original feature. Hell, the poster of the film mimics The Breakfast Club (1985). In fact, I thought the movie was pretty decent for what it set out to do, serving as a gonzo experiment on how much patience an audience can have with a sequel that doesn't care about expectations beyond having weirdo laughs and a few grisly effects (as done by Tom Savini). Besides, a sequel aiming to do something different beyond just repeating the gore can work out well, provided that one doesn't veer into fan-fiction territory. So yes, a movie that feels queasy and punch-drunk at times is probably the most interesting idea to make rather than try to catch up with the levels of gore already covered in the 12-year gap between 1974 and 1986; besides, with Cannon's specific requirements in budget, the last 20 days of production was as frantic as the original film had been. Movies got gorier by that time, so why not make light of it with a moderate level of gore that goes hand in hand with the terror in loud and weirdness. Truly, a decade away hasn't made Hooper feel any less amused at the absurdity of how things are with handling gore. We've gone from isolated horror to celebrity horror, because now the folks being killed are being turned into chili and the family went from living in a farmhouse to an abandoned carnival ground that seems quite elaborate.
If you can believe it, Williams got the role by screaming down a hallway and pulling the chairs out in front of the director when auditioning (since she saw others enter with a docile mood). She does quite well when it comes to reacting the excess in depravity. Anyone who can handle a scene with Leatherface wanting to show his chainsaw prowess (making this almost a love story) without turning it into parody is clearly on the right path. Consider the contrasts among the other members of the quartet: Dennis Hopper stated this was (at one time) the worst film he was ever in, while Bill Moseley considered it one of his favorite roles. Of course, Moseley was cast because of his participation in a parody short ("The Texas Chainsaw Manicure") that Hooper saw and liked. With Hopper, maybe the fact that he was trying to stay sober (18 months at the time of productions) alongside being in better movies released in that year (you know, Hoosiers, Blue Velvet...) helps to color that perception, and he changed his mind when he did Super Mario Bros. (1993) when it comes to regrets. Siedow was the only actor to return from the original film, reprising his role as "The Cook". These two films are what he is most known for as an actor, as he only acted in four other films/TV productions, and the 2nd Chainsaw movie was actually his final film role. The funny thing is that each do really well in the selling the varying madcap levels of madness required. I admire how Hooper handles the second half when it comes to self-righteous delusion, whether that involves him starting with a little sequence of chainsaw-shopping. Moseley's performance either reminds one of schtick or enjoyable madcap fun - I find him belonging to the latter category, one who oozes through every moment with the right sense of deranged timing. Siedow is just as off-putting as he was in the original in terms of patriarchal ooze, one with a fuzzy chemistry with his on-screen kin that is quite watchable, particularly since he gets to play a chili genius and an offbeat family man at the same time. Leatherface is just the plucky weirdo in the middle, saying his gibberish (and one line of focus) that I suppose will make one forget that Gunnar Hansen isn't playing the role.
As a whole, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is not as enjoyable as the original film, because it obviously is hard to top a classic with grisly execution. It does have a bit of rough pacing at 101 minutes, and the stakes are probably a bit lower when it comes to the overall result, which makes for a movie that works best when not taken seriously. However, I did find myself entirely comfortable with Hooper wanting to do what he felt was best - loony. It embraces the madness with fun rather than run away from things. Far from a bait-and-switch movie, it belongs in the same category with future films such as Evil Dead II (1987) and Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990) in off-the-wall enjoyment in horror sequels that make this an interesting guilty pleasure for those who are curious about horror.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment