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.

Crimes of the Future (2022).

Review #2132: Crimes of the Future.

Cast: 

Viggo Mortensen (Saul Tenser), Léa Seydoux (Caprice), Kristen Stewart (Timlin), Scott Speedman (Lang Dotrice), Welket Bungué (Detective Cope), Don McKellar (Wippet), Yorgos Pirpassopoulos (Dr. Nasatir), and Tanaya Beatty (Berst) Written and Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future, #1127 - eXistenZ, #1220 - A History of Violence, #1239 - Stereo, #1624 - Shivers, #1712 - The Fly [1986])

Review: 

"Crimes of the Future is a meditation on human evolution. Specifically - the ways in which we have had to take control of the process because we have created such powerful environments that did not exist previously."

It was reported that David Cronenberg was considering retirement from filmmaking because of the difficulty in funding his films. Imagine a world where Maps to the Stars (2014) was thought to be his last directorial effort, and it happened that 2014 was also the same year he published his first novel. But here we are anyway with a film done by him that apparently had been in development once upon a time earlier in the 2000s that never got off the ground now and back again. It was reported in 2002 that he would do a film called "Painkillers", which involved a high pain threshold artist that was offered to infiltrate a subversive group. This inspiration came from a fellow student that attended the University of Toronto with him that had wrote a story about a man who cut off his own hand, to the shocked impressment of Cronenberg. Four years of development in script led to ideas of casting (maybe Nicolas Cage for the lead?), but, well, that film never came to be. So yes, to him, the idea of the body being reality could lead to ideas of a changed world because of how one changes that body (with its perceptions coming through said body (he had cited Arthur Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation). Producer Robert Lantos asked him to re-consider that old script he had done, which after a couple of years wrangling funds ended up being made as what you see. Now, at 79, here he was with a new film that wasn't exactly an audience hit but it's always good to say one is back (Cronenberg is apparently in development of a new film already), particularly since this is the first film of his involving horror of any kind since eXistenZ (1999); he stated that key references to other scenes and moments from select films of his would be seen here, because it would serve as some sort of "continuity of my understanding of technology as connected to the human body."

To this film, surgery is thought to be the new sex. It makes for a relaxed 107 minutes of weird horror (don't let anyone tell you otherwise, it's horror) that won't be ideal for everyone, but it makes for a curious experience to sit through at least once. It is the kind of film that looks as dreary as the future it likes to depict, right down to an opening that would be unsettling for anyone to think about: a kid depicted eating plastics who is then smothered by their mother in quick fashion. That's just one of the crimes committed by oneself against the body. Anyway, the film involves a duo of performance artists that do live surgery to remove newly grown organs that arise in one of them while they deal with constant pain. Mortensen and Seydoux do make an elegant pair when it comes to that refined showmanship pair one would hope for in a film that engages more in glances at the body rather than straight stabs, especially when it comes to scenes such as looking at a new thing done to the body, such as say, small horns or a zipper on the waist. I guess there is supposed to be something quite interesting about weird bureaucracy with McKellar and Stewart, but all I can focus on is the latter's whispery voice for seemingly 95% of the time she is on screen that makes me wonder if I was meant to be taking it as a joke. I do like Speedman's pathetic desperation when it comes to trying to make a point about the new type of evolution with what the film is presenting (are you ready for this): people wanting to adapt with a digestive system fit to eat toxic waste. There is something fascinating about watching people's eyes look upon this surgery involving tattooed organs that makes you wish the eventual conclusion reached some sort of meaningful point beyond that mild sort of peace that comes about with the final sequence. It just doesn't feel as confrontational or as pulsating bizarreness as it wishes to be (at least with some of these fools of wavering degeneracy, which even shows a man with many ears at one point), but I did find something worth looking into with the overall experience to appreciate in the long run. Cronenberg may not have had a profound return to form here, but it is still a curious one to watch within the long arm of his general interest of the body and horror regardless.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

We did it! Well, I did it, but you readers got to see 40 reviews in a month, a new record of quality and quantity. Oh, but I have a surprise, one more horror film later tonight...with X.

A History of Violence.

Review #1220: A History of Violence.

Cast: 
Viggo Mortensen (Tom Stall / Joey Cusack), Maria Bello (Edie Stall), Ed Harris (Carl Fogarty), William Hurt (Richie Cusack), Ashton Holmes (Jack Stall), Peter MacNeill (Sheriff Sam Carney), Stephen McHattie (Leland Jones), Greg Bryk (Billy Orser), and Kyle Schmid (Bobby) Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future and #1127 - eXistenZ)

Review: 
I suppose there is something to be said about violence and how it pervades our lives from time to time, and how people deal with the consequences of said actions in trying to survive and where it can go from there. This is adapted from the 1997 graphic novel of the same name written by John Wagner (writer of works such as Judge Dredd) with art from Vince Locke that Josh Olson turned into a screenplay, which kept parts from the first half mostly intact while re-writing the climax involving Stall and his brother. In any case, this is a nice pulpy tale with plenty of noir elements to go around, having capable performances from its cast that makes this a worthy piece to check out alongside other Cronenberg pieces. In a sense, it feels like a take on the Western genre, with its take on the reluctant gunfighter and his fight to escape the impulses of his dark past. It moves at its own pace for 96 minutes, having its share of violence alongside interesting moments with its characters that allow to seem more than just figures to play around with. Mortensen is wonderful, playing his man with the right sense of balance between trying to toe the line of morals and his true nature, being convincing and selling his paths in two different worlds with plenty of conviction to go around. Bello also shines well, being capable with passion and grace with plenty of chemistry to go around with Mortensen. Harris makes for a worthy adversary when he shows up on screen, showcasing menace with ease and a pair of sunglasses. Hurt shows up right for the climax, but he makes it all worth it with his own degree of threatening nature (with ensuing Irish accent) that makes his time on screen work just as well as any big bad in a noir type of film does. Holmes is decent when needed, as can be said for MacNeill. McHattie and Bryk do well with their moments on screen in the first half, being capable at showing aggression as expected with subtlety. It is a film that makes its violence ugly and shocking without dwelling on going for overkill or distraction. This is a well-done blunt instrument of a film, showing violence and its mingling with identity without becoming just another crime thriller movie. We never find ourselves cheering for when the characters get into a shootout but instead think about the circumstances that drive people to do such things in the first place. This is a effective film that wraps itself in tension and violence without losing its target in all of the ruckus and blood.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Witness (1985).

Review #1185: Witness.

Cast: 
Harrison Ford (Det. John Book), Kelly McGillis (Rachel Lapp), Josef Sommer (Chief Paul Schaeffer), Lukas Haas (Samuel Lapp), Jan Rubeš (Eli Lapp), Alexander Godunov (Daniel Hochleitner), Danny Glover (Lt. James McFee), Brent Jennings (Sgt. Elton Carter), Patti LuPone (Elaine), Angus MacInnes (Fergie), Frederick Rolf (Stoltzfus), Viggo Mortensen (Moses Hochleitner), and Timothy Carhart (Zenovich) Directed by Peter Weir (#960 - The Year of Living Dangerously)

Review: 
Witness is an interesting crime thriller, standing out for its well-done structure and story (which won an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay) with plenty of entertainment value and a game cast. The story was written by Pamela Wallace, Earl W. Wallace and William Kelley, with the latter two doing the screenplay. Kelley had contributed to scripts for Gunsmoke in the 1970s while Wallace served as executive story consultant, and it was the development of an outline for the show that resulted in a film script, originally named Called Home. The script (consisting of 182 pages originally) languished for years, with 20th Century Fox rejecting it due to the fact that they didn't make rural movies. A re-write of the screenplay resulted in Ford expressing interest in doing the movie, and eventually the film found its studio in Paramount Pictures. Weir was hired to do the film after funding for The Mosquito Coast (which was made the following year with Ford) fell through, and this was his first film made in America after several features made in his native Australia.

In any case, it is interesting to see a movie set within the community of the Amish, particularly with the differences shown between the kind of life lived by Ford's character as opposed to the Amish characters and how he adapts to spending some time there. It comes off as more than a crime thriller at times, having moments of passion and romance between Ford and McGillis that helps give the film plenty of energy to go around. Ford is superb, playing his role as if he was in a modern Western drama (and not in a usual action kind of film), resourceful in his pursuit for justice while also taking note of the people around him and how he stands out quite clearly from them. This is particularly notable in one scene near the climax, where he stands up for one of his fellow Amish when they are harassed by town-folk who seem to view them as a curiosity or something to pick at, particularly when mocking their committal to nonviolence in war. McGillis shines as well, being a warm graceful presence with a degree of curiosity, whether when interacting with Ford or with Haas, who does fine for his scenes. The other members of the cast have their moments to shine, such as Sommer and his quiet but lurking presence or Rubeš and his wise and thoughtful presence. It is interesting to see Glover playing against type, although he doesn't have too much on screen. The film never feels flat at 112 minutes, having a fine balance between drama and action that never feels overwrought or disrespectful. You never get the sense of boredom at any real point, with each scene having a real sense of purpose and a well-made look from cinematographer John Seale. The movie has its fun moments, such as the barn-raising sequence or when Ford is trying to get the kid to identify the suspect through a ride-along. The climax is certainly effective enough with a quiet ending that wraps things up just fine. On the whole, this is a gripping tale that has its elements of thriller and romance wrapped within a community story that makes it stick out from other films in an captivating and entertaining way that is a solid pick worth recommending.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.