Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III.

Review #2262: Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III.

Cast: 

Kate Hodge (Michelle), William Butler (Ryan), Ken Foree (Benny), Toni Hudson (Sara), Viggo Mortensen (Edward "Tex" Sawyer), Joe Unger (Tinker "Tink" Sawyer), R. A. Mihailoff (Leatherface), Tom Everett (Alfredo Sawyer), Jennifer Banko (Little girl), Beth DePatie (Gina), and Duane Whitaker (Kim) Directed by Jeff Burr (#1104 - Stepfather II)

Review: 

You know, the idea of making another Texas Chainsaw Massacre film didn't make me roll my eyes like I thought it would, even with the first film officially turning 50 years old this month. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986) was a decent audience favorite in the annals of "made some money". Sure, some people hated it (a horror sequel that the establishment can't get behind? waiter, this dish is cold!), but the eyes of a cult following always wins out, and I sure liked it just fine. Anyway, The Cannon Group had the rights to the series purchased by New Line Cinema, who naturally thought of wanting to do their own Chainsaw movie. The film was written by David J. Schow, who is mostly known for his horror fiction, which is sometimes labeled as "splatterpunk". He wrote a handful of screenplays for film (direct-to-video and features) along with TV; interestingly, he would go on to co-write the screenplay for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006). Jeff Burr was brought in to direct after ideas of asking Tom Savini and Peter Jackson failed (Jonathan Betuel also came in and out) before they went with Burr. Burr made roughly over two dozen features (some for video) that were generally in horror (with few exceptions such as Eddie Presley [1992]) prior to his death in 2023 at the age of 60. The movie was quickly shot in the summer of 1989 and was shot in California of all places. The rating of the film was meant to be an R but take a guess at how it worked out with the MPAA; the original rating was an "X" before several minutes were cut from it (remember that the last one had been released unrated), particularly with the ending that basically saw the negative cut right then and there before a release not in the fall of 1989...but in January 1990. They apparently fired Burr and then re-hired him (and then they let him go after production ended to help edit a new ending, thanks to Michael Knue). The middling audience reaction led to New Line ditching the rights, but the next in the series would come out with even less fanfare in The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1995).

What? I was fine with this movie. Honestly, this was pretty surprising. Sure, it may not be as horrific as the original feature or as darkly glee as the second feature, but I thought it was suitably entertaining in the same way that one is seeing a wind-up toy refined for enjoyment. It is familiar and semi-glossy without making me think of it as a huge sellout because the characters are semi-compelling. It is familiar goop involving the dangers of, well, picking up a conversation with people on the backroads in Texas that I can accept. When talking about the film and its troubles with the MPAA, one statement included by Burr (whether by them or him) is that the films "all revolve around an alternate family unit who does not have any conventional morality." Really the films all seem to play around with different perspectives on the same idea of loopy people who just do whatever they please, which here is cut and dry when talking about a creepy child or Leatherface spelling "f-o-o-d" with a learning tool. To introduce the film when it comes to the travel is Hodge and Butler, who may be ordinary, but they at least are useful lambs to the eventual terror. Undeniably, the highlight is Foree. The power of Foree is that a test screening liking him so much ended up influencing a decision to edit the film (without the knowledge of Burr) so that his character doesn't die at the end (evidently the last shot wasn't exactly the choice of Burr either). Playing a survivalist who just happens to hit the backroads only to encounter weirdos is a useful task for a character actor to chew on, so points to Foree there. Evertt and Unger, and (in particular) Mortensen, are weird enough on their own to fit the standard set from before with goofy abandon. The mask for its title character may not be as ideal in grim quality as before, but the character is one driven by seemingly seeing everything as food that I find to be a strangely curious one to view as a pitiful creature (pity, no pity, you get the idea). Regardless of how the film would've been in a different moment where the loser MPAA didn't get in the way of its violence or with someone not as weird in franchising as New Line, I found this to be a solidly average movie (the 85-minute runtime is short as well). It is not better than the two films that preceded it, but it did not offend my tastes or expectations when it comes to making a play on familiar aspects with loopy flair. There is enough for me to like to actually say one should at least give it a shot when it comes to saw action.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Frankenstein looms.

Macabre (1958).

Review #2261: Macabre.

Cast: 

William Prince (Rodney Barrett), Jim Backus (Police Chief Jim Tyloe), Christine White (Nancy Wetherby Tyloe), Jacqueline Scott (Polly Baron), Susan Morrow (Sylvia Stevenson), Jonathan Kidd (Ed Quigley), Philip Tonge (Jode Wetherby), Dorothy Morris (Alice Barrett), Howard Hoffman (Hummel), and Ellen Corby (Miss Kushins) Directed and Produced by William Castle (#369 - House on Haunted Hill (1959), #1071 - 13 Ghosts, #1418 - The Night Walker, #1703 - Undertow)

Review: 

Admittedly, the gimmick used for the film is probably more interesting than the final result. If one remembers correctly, William Castle had a serviceable career in the eyes of B-movies and quickly made stuff. But he had a yearning for more, and it was the success of the 1955 French film Les Diaboliques (which had aa message at the end telling people not to spoil the ending they just saw to others that hadn't seen it yet) that inspired him to make his own shockers for the masses...complete with a campaign. Of course, Castle wasn't particularly new to doing campaigns. One time, in his days of theatre work, having gotten the chance to lease one out, he had to come up with a German play for his German-born actress to act in (ask yourself why that would be a rule for a theater guild in the 1930s), so he did that over a weekend. Then, he turned a telegram inviting his actress abroad into a chance to call his star "the girl who said no to Hitler"...and then secretly vandalized the theatre with swastikas. Anyway, Castle bought the rights to an obscure-ish novel in The Marble Forest (as written by a few writers of the "Mystery Writers of America", who used the psuedonym Theo Durran). He had Robb White (a partner in the production company with Castle) write a screenplay around it; Castle would utilize White (an adventure novelist and occasional film/TV writer) for four further features. Macabre was the first of what became seventeen films from 1958 to 1974 that had their tinges of horror to go with the occasional gimmick to promote it. An audience member was given a "$1,000 life insurance policy from Lloyd's of London" in case they died of fright from the film; Castle mortaged his house to do the film. Incidentally, a few months after the release of this film, The Screaming Skull (as distributed by American International) had an opening prologue that said the film was so frightening that it might kill its viewer (unlike Castle though, they didn't actually contact an insurance company or hire nurses for the premiere).  

For all the nice things in general one can say about Castle as a filmmaker and in general when it comes to cheap little horror movies, this just isn't that good of an experience. It is a very average and very drawn-out movie for 72 minutes that honestly begs to be twenty minutes longer somehow. There actually are a few flashbacks in the film that try to string us along when it comes to the mystery of just why someone might want to mess with a guy by burying their daughter alive. The sordid stuff that comes (flings with women, people lurking around graveyards, phone calls of terror) is basically the stuff you might see in a crime drama or a soap opera, but the movie just isn't as compelling as one would wish it could be. One could've called it anything other than Macabre, because even though the definition involves "gruesome" things, it just ends up making one believe that the end result fits under "generic". Prince has a bit of punch when it comes to the unraveling of what one really is beyond first impressions, with that panic for the initial pursuit at least being handled with Scott for something worthwhile...for a time. The twist is just straight out of the soap playbook that basically throw the book back at the viewer, but with a lack of cast to begin with, the mystery of what lies beneath the box isn't exactly a hard one to stab a guess on. Backus sounds like he should have more to chew on beyond mild aggression that barely registers even after the story "turns" to flashback. One can see that slow step from making B-flair in say, noir trappings (but with a funny gimmick) to the eventual turn in curious horror (B-flair or not, you be the judge). In general, it is a perfectly mediocre movie, being more known for a gimmick than being good, but if you are curious for what lies beneath the works of William Castle in what he is best known for, go and lurk for oneself.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Return of the Vampire.

Review #2260: The Return of the Vampire.

Cast: 

Bela Lugosi (Armand Tesla), Nina Foch (Nicki Saunders), Roland Varno (John Ainsley), Frieda Inescort (Lady Jane Ainsley), Miles Mander (Sir Fredrick Fleet), Matt Willis (Andreas Obry), Ottola Nesmith (Elsa Walter), Gilbert Emery (Dr. Walter Saunders), Leslie Denison (Detective Lynch), and William Austin (Detective Gannett) Directed by Lew Landers.

Review: 

Believe it or not, I actually was trying to find time to do this film for quite a few years. Sure, it probably doesn't sound like much, what with the title being probably the most generic one could ever do...but it is Bela Lugosi playing a vampire again. Sure, Mark of the Vampire (as directed by Tod Browning in 1935) had you going with the idea of Lugosi as a lead vampire (until that twist), but, well, here you get the real deal. This is for a movie that is basically a discount version of Dracula (1931), complete with a subservient person that, uh, turns into a wolf. It was released by Columbia Pictures, who could be efficient in cheap B-moviemaking, which is probably evident pretty quickly here, complete with select stock footage shots (the climax involves WWII footage, take a guess what that means). The film was written by Randall Faye and Griffin Jay based on an idea by Kurt Neumann; Faye was a regular writer (and sometimes director) on plenty of cheap features from 1926 until he died in 1948. The movie was directed by Lew Landers, who actually had a handful of experience in horror as a journeyman director, as he went from actor to assistant director by the early 1920s before becoming a director of pretty much anything and anywhere, such as The Raven (1935), which also featured Lugosi as star (Landers would then shift over to TV by the 1950s prior to his death in 1962). It wasn't quite the last time Lugosi played a vampire, but further efforts were, well, comedies such as Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) and Mother Riley Meets the Vampire (1952). The movie was released in the same year as Universal's Son of Dracula and ended up being a decent hit.

You have to remember that Lugosi was basically typecasted after the success of Dracula (1931), particularly because of his Hungarian accent (of course by that time he was a naturalized US citizen). He couldn't get that many starring roles unless it involved horror or being with studios beyond Universal Studios. Chronic sciatica (and taking drugs to treat it that left him addicted) did not help matters for an actor that was relegated to doing stuff for studios such as Monogram Pictures. This was one of those rare times in the 1940s where he could actually do something as a star for a name studio, and I think he handled it confidently enough to make one want to see it as more than just a cheap Dracula imitation. Lacking the elegance befitting of the older film for something more akin to a creature of the night, he carries the film when required to do so to go with a movie that is generally paced well enough to let things go where they need to without overextending itself. Sure, it was made during the war, but there sure is something to making a vampire feature involving "bombing raids" with complete seriousness for a runtime of 69 minutes. Inescort and Mander prove suitable presences to do the investigative aspects required (the "vampire pursuit" is a bit cheekier when you consider the ending is addressing the audience!). Foch plays the object of pursuit patiently enough to make one go with the usual flow. Willis doesn't exactly have the werewolf makeup do him many favors, but the dilemma of a once-devotee is at least semi-compelling enough to view in the lens of trouble and toil to be free. I kind of like the idea of having a vampire tale told in two different war-time settings (the opening quarter of the film involves Emery and Inescort during 1918 putting a stake in the vampire only to inspire questions about putting a stake in a "living" person 25 years later!), complete with the vampire trying to impersonate a concentration camp escapee. It is the kind of brazen horror film that one can appreciate even as a clearly average movie, and the fact that Lugosi was there to lead the way rather than be trapped by a hokey foundation is a worthwhile thing to say when recommending a decent way to start the horror season.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Welcome to October. It probably won't be as busy as last year's extravagant event, but we will try to cover plenty of new ground in horror, whether that involves sequels long awaited or remakes to go along with new directors and familiar ones. For example, the next review is Macabre and the one after that...is Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III.