The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003).

Review #2112: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003).

Cast: 

Jessica Biel (Erin), Jonathan Tucker (Morgan), Erica Leerhsen (Pepper), Mike Vogel (Andy), Eric Balfour (Kemper), Andrew Bryniarski (Thomas Hewitt / Leatherface), R. Lee Ermey (Sheriff Hoyt), David Dorfman (Jedidiah), Lauren German (Teenage Girl), Terrence Evans (Old Monty), Marietta Marich (Luda Mae), Heather Kafka (Henrietta), and Kathy Lamkin (Tea Lady in Trailer) Directed by Marcus Nispel (#2108 - Friday the 13th [2009])

Review: 

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) is an undisputed horror classic, let us get that out of the way. Tobe Hooper and Kim Henkel crafted a worthy production that came first from Hooper coming up with a story based on "isolation, the woods, the darkness, and the unknown", one that found elements of news coverage of graphic violence and the exploits of serial murderer Ed Gein to make for a feature film (Henkel also cited killer Elmer Wayne Henley). Of course, one can't stop at one horror film, because everything needed the idea of a sequel to follow up such vaunted interest. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986) was a demented riff that saw Hooper return to direct, while the next two films in Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990) and The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1995) reached smaller and smaller audiences. But then comes a new millennium and perhaps a new era in trying to mine audiences for money based on name value, for which one sees the name Platinum Dunes step in (as created by Michael Bay and others with the express purpose of making cheap features). Hooper and Henkel served as producers on this film, and both share the same cinematographer and opening narrator (I'm sure this time around John Larroquette was not paid in marijuana). This was the directorial debut of Marcus Nispel, who had been born in Frankfurt in West Germany. He had worked in advertising before moving abroad to study at Brooklyn College and the New York Institute of Technology before eventually being a director for commercials at the turn of the 21st century. The film was written by Scott Kosar in his feature writing debut (incidentally, he has written a handful of remake scripts but also The Machinist). A prequel, retaining a few cast members from this film, was released with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006). Incidentally, the next film to bear the Chainsaw label in Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013), tried to serve as a follow-up to only the original that saw it have its own prequel a few years later (to throw you for a loop, thanks to 2022, there are now three Texas Chainsaw Massacre films that all have Larroquette as narrator). The film was released on October 17, 2003 (one thing I will give the film credit for, a horror film being shown in the fall season).

It is amusing, in a sense, to touch upon a film that must have seemed vile and horrific if one had never really seen that many horror movies before that one. The fact that the film runs at 98 minutes is the least surprising thing in the history of all things. I don't exactly remember the acting of most of the folks in the 1974 film, but somehow that film had a raw energy to it that was unsettling and unnerving in what you saw and heard. This film, on the other hand, is everything you could see coming in a "Young Adult Horror Trap" movie, one that is somehow grisly in its levels of gore without being at all interesting in any sort of way with doing anything fresh. It is strange to watch another film set in 1973 that has the same narrator as a film made in 1974 that happens to be shot in a cleaner view by the same man as before only to see a movie that is pale in every facet. Biel (perhaps best known previously for starring on 7th Heaven) is decent, even if one knows from nearly the first minute that she is on screen that she is the Final Girl, but at least when Marilyn Burns was in the previous rendition, one got a real sense of fear and terror from her reactions to what was going on. Here you just see the motions. It is Ermey that nearly lifts the film from the doldrums of remake hell when it comes to the ham that arises from an obvious role that he chews with great interest. He slithers with good ol' boy nature that gives one a rise more than any other time in the film, and that includes the parts with Leatherface, who I somehow have forgotten about unlike the times spent in the first two features.

Obviously, one can't just do a shot-by-shot remake of the first but consider that the framing device of the original was a group of young folks were driving back in a van after checking to see if a grave was desecrated - now we see young folks driving to a concert after buying weed. In short, it is like trying to put ice cubes in soda to make it taste better...flat soda. You've got a good deal of the hallmarks present in other horror films with nameless youths, whether that involves the situation where it seems like the dolts should just leave but do not do so, the aforementioned supporting presence more interesting than the main people, the incredibly obvious Final Girl, a set place that seems to loom larger on the inside, a villain of fairly indestructible tenor (lose an arm and get back to me), and blah blah blah it is conventional stuff. The only people who could get into this are either folks who really appreciate having a watered-down version of something already seen before or ones who seem to believe that they really aren't watching a "safe" film of terror. They probably watch it with casual interest with friends. But for folks like me, who aim to watch (and talk about) as many films as possible on their own, this is nothing more than a boring disgrace that surprises in no regard. Perhaps one has better memories of the film when it was fresh two decades ago, but all I see here is mush ready to be pushed away.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Next up: The Undead.

Redux: The Ring.

Redux #140: The Ring.

Cast: 

Naomi Watts (Rachel Keller), David Dorfman (Aidan Keller), Martin Henderson (Noah Clay), Daveigh Chase (Samara Morgan), Brian Cox (Richard Morgan), Shannon Cochran (Anna Morgan), Jane Alexander (Dr. Grasnik), Lindsay Frost (Ruth Embry), Amber Tamblyn (Katherine Embry), Rachael Bella (Rebecca Kotler), Richard Lineback (Innkeeper), and Pauley Perette (Beth) Directed by Gore Verbinski.

Review: 

This was the third feature film of Gore Verbinski, a Tennessee native that grew up as both a filmmaker and a man interested in playing guitar. He directed numerous commercials after graduating from UCLA before Mouse Hunt (1997) was his feature film debut. Oh, but you aren't here for background when it comes to a review dedicated to re-doing an old review. Enclosed here is the entire review of what I thought about the movie in 2012, as a 15-year old in his second year of doing reviews.

This is a remake of a 1998 Japanese film named Ring (which was based on the novel also named Ring). Anyway, this film has some scares that don't use sneaking up on people, found footage, or gore, but by disturbing images that keep you invested. The acting's decent, with Watts doing a good job. The little kid feels like a Sixth Sense type of kid, which isn't necessary. This film feels fine, until the end. I feel this is a confusing end that makes you wonder this: Why? Why do you need this type of ending? Why not just end on a good end rather then twist end us, setting up the basis for a sequel rather then just easily close out this film that is decent, with scares, and...a setup for a sequel.

Pretty short, huh? I gave a movie a 7-star rating and I didn't even bother to make a useful case for why. I can at least give myself credit for listing it as a remake of Hideo Nakata's Ring (1998) which in turn was an adaptation of the Koji Suzuki novel of the same name that had a key distinction: no psych-meter to attempt to solve the horror-mystery like in the novel. That movie had a slow build in narrative threading to play on expectations with spirituality and calm pacing involving the threat of Sadako. The 2002 movie (as scripted by Ehren Kruger) has its own approach to its threat, now named Samara, based on the same idea of a ghost that is manifested after death with a grip of rage to seek vengeance on the living while never sleeping. So yes, you watch a VHS tape (yes) and possibly die in seven days. Incidentally, the film was 130 minutes when it came to its original version before being trimmed to 115 that mainly involved making it a bit less graphic along with cutting a character played by Chris Cooper that showed up for just the start and climax. Two decades later, The Ring is a decent movie, one that represents the time that it was made in capturing anxiety and unease without verging into gore. Granted, no movie is good or bad just because they don't play into the gore angle for horror (unless you happen to be squeamish or really into things), it all goes down to execution. After all, the VHS tape that makes it all possible is brief but unnerving enough to lurk in your mind. I think it works out quite well in keeping the tension at a reasonable length when it comes to the human element, complete with a gloomy setting in the state of Washington (mostly Seattle) to make it fit. Watts makes a solid presence to hold the film up in ordinary withered charm that works to the tension required when it comes to balancing mystery and family devotion, which works best when paired against her on-screen son Dorfman, who lurks in nerves without saying much. Henderson is casually there, but really the attention goes to Cox, hostile but alluring when presented in the second half of the film to bring it all together. 

Having seen both films, at least one can say the ending works just about right for a film that involves a cycle that does not yield to simple actions. I think the original film has a better resolution when it comes to the final decision made, although each have pretty decent choices to show its creature without going overboard. One could have ended without going back to the TV, but you need that little bit about what kind of sacrifice is needed to "combat" the threat. It is debatable as to which film is the better one, since the 1998 is probably a bit more subtle in subverting expectations while the 2002 film carries its own way of getting from point A to point B without falling into the remake trap of repetition without innovation. A 2005 sequel to the film followed in The Ring Two, directed by Hideo Nakata. It did not end well, to say the least. A 2017 film called Rings was released by Paramount Pictures. As a whole, the appeal of Ring definitely kept the attention of filmmakers in Japan busy, evidenced by the eight features (Sadako DX was released in October of 2022) with varying plot relations to the books or previous films. As for The Ring, the legacy of the film is the fact that it managed to be a quality remake that stands on its own in calm suspense for the 21st century.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Rings (2017). We are almost done.

The Ring Two.

Review #1755: The Ring Two.

Cast: 

Naomi Watts (Rachel), Simon Baker (Max Rourke), David Dorfman (Aidan), Elizabeth Perkins (Dr. Emma Temple), Gary Cole (Martin Savide), Sissy Spacek (Evelyn), Ryan Merriman (Jake), Emily VanCamp (Emily), Kelly Overton (Betsy), James Lesure (Doctor), and Kelly Stables (Evil Samara) Directed by Hideo Nakata (#1747 - Ring (1998))

Review: 

"To me, I wouldn't look upon myself as a horror film maker somehow. But whenever I make horror movies, ideally I would like my audience to be really scared and to keep the scariness inside them at least for a few hours, or possibly a day or so. That happened for Ringu, or the American version."

Sure, there are a few ideas you could do when it comes to a horror movie that involves people watching a tape and dying seven days later. Of course, in trying to draw from the double-edged sword of being the sequel to an Americanized remake of a Japanese horror film, one can see where the clichés may fall in, but it is striking to see that this came from the director of the original theatrical feature that started it all with Hideo Nakata. Actually, Nakata wasn't the first one in mind for the sequel, since he actually had wanted to venture past being known as a horror filmmaker (he did a handful of dramas in his native country). It should be noted that he appreciated the 2002 remake that had been done by Gore Verbinksi, one that certainly had more room to expand on what had been done before while standing on its own. After attempts to bring in Noam Murro (a commercial director) failed, Nakata was tapped in. It should be noted that a short film called Rings is included with the DVD of this film, featuring Ryan Merriman, Emily VanCamp, and Kelly Stables that deals with a cult of kids that like to share the experiences they have with the tape (which if you remember has to be passed on to someone before a week is over)...of course no one has apparently seen day seven, but I'm sure you know where that would go, as the story for the short film closes with the opening scene of the theatrical film. Of course, the only ones to return from the last one is Watts, Dorfman, and Stables (well, she was the stunt person for Samara, but now she replaces Daveigh Chase in playing the overall character). Nakata really thought that this triangle of characters would hold up for a script he believed was "very simple but very strong" (one that would be different from his own Ring sequel, which he had done in 1999, just to remember). Ehren Kruger returned to write the script for this film (having done the 2002 film); Nakata would not return back to the Ringu series until Sadako (2019), incidentally.

It is maddening to see just how much of a letdown this movie is, one that seems to be the bastard son of good intentions and studio notes. The aforementioned short film (16 minutes) is both a blessing and a curse, because it actually proves more intriguing than the feature film (110 minutes) that comes after it. No seriously, the premise of the short film seems more interesting to make a feature out of rather than the collection of clichés that come from the overall movie; imagine having folks that are trying to play chicken with death. Instead, the feature has shifted its focus from a killer tape to a hodgepodge that seems reminiscent of The Exorcist more than anything (at least that didn't have CGI deer). Trying to escape just doing a re-hash of what happened before has only resulted in a hollow experience that does nothing particularly new or particularly worthy enough to care, particularly since the triangle just can't keep interest up to begin with. This isn't to say that Watts does a terrible job, but she seems constricted here, mired in a mystery readily apparent to the audience way before the character figures it out. Dorfman is mildly interesting, but the moody tension that had been present the first time around just doesn't stick as well here; the case worker segment is an especially apparent waste of time in that regard, since it wastes Perkins in a shocking amount of time (hell, it uses Cole for just one scene...for attempts at humor!). Baker has the apparent charisma of television static on a clear night, while Spacek is more amusing in her one-note scene than anything. As a whole, most of this proves quite pointless, from its attempts to building lore that doesn't really go far to having its interesting scenes start and end the film (the climax certainly doesn't leave much to draw from the well, at least). There is nothing here that seems readily tense or interesting enough to hold an entire experience, and it perhaps is not surprising that there would not be another sequel in the American line for over a decade. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The circle of five reviews in three days is nearly complete. Halloween - The Week After Part 3 ends the same way 2020's version ended...with a Rob Zombie movie...The Devil's Rejects.