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.

Night of the Living Dead (1990).

Review #2138: Night of the Living Dead.

Cast: 

Tony Todd (Ben), Patricia Tallman (Barbara Todd), Tom Towles (Harry Cooper), McKee Anderson (Helen Cooper), William Butler (Tom Bitner), Katie Finneran (Judy Rose Larson), Bill Moseley (Johnny Todd), Heather Mazur (Sarah Cooper), and Russell Streiner (Sheriff McClelland) Directed by Tom Savini.

Review: 

If you remember, George A. Romero and John Russo wrote a film called Night of the Living Dead in 1968. Russo was the one who came up with the idea to make a narrative about a runaway that sees aliens harvesting corpses for food in a cemetery that Romero combined with ideas of a flesh-eating ghoul and some stuff "inspired" by Richard Matheson's book I Am Legend (1954). When the original intended title of "Night of the Flesh Eaters" was changed to what you see today, the copyright notice was accidentally removed. The Dead series went two ways: Romero did his first follow-up with Dawn of the Dead in 1978 while Russo wrote a novel called Return of the Living Dead in the late 1970s that got turned into its own film in 1985. Anyway, Romero wanted to make a remake of the film in part because of the worry that someone else might do one first because of the lack of copyrights and such; a five-year battle had been spent in lawsuits with Continental Releasing that saw them get the rights but little money because the company had gone out of business. The fact that he was approached by Menahem Golan of the 21st Century Film Corporation made it all too easy, and he is credited as the sole screenplay writer (as based on the 1968 film by Romero and Russo) alongside executive producer while Russo served as a producer with original producer Russell Streiner. The film was the first (and so far, only) theatrical effort by Tom Savini, who had thought about being the one for effects work for this film but was instead drawn to serve as director (his previous experience in that field was episodes of Tales from the Darkside). Calling it an apparent nightmare where the producers only let less than half of his ideas come through (combined with cuts made to avoid an X rating), the result was a minor flop with audiences. Nine years after the release of this film, Russo came up with his own revised version of the 1968 film and called it the "30th Anniversary Edition" that saw a handful of new scenes to try and give a "more modern pace." 

The movie follows the original for a good deal of its beats, whether that involves the opening sequence of the cemetery that leads to a character dying at the hands of falling onto a gravestone, the confrontation in trying to get a car running with a fiery end, and a character being "another one for the fire." There are a handful of differences, with probably the easiest being the fact that the character of Barbara is given something to actually do in this one after the graveyard sequence. Granted, there were interpretations that called the original some sort of subversive film within 1960s society. Sure. I think that is people just trying to dance around just not saying "oh look, zombie film, what a fun one". The splatter film had its innovators, and Romero is right there at the forefront that made it great exploitation. The remake doesn't exactly improve on anything done, but I was fine with the overall result because its familiarity works to the advantage of being something I like to see rather than just loud noise. Todd asserts a confident presence just as much as one had seen with Duane Jones twenty years prior, even if the conflict between him and Towles is probably more hotheaded than before to moderate results. Tallman fares better because there is more reason portrayed here (look, if you want catatonic, Judith O'Dea did exactly what was to do back then) that gets to go through the wringer with weary timing that gets to handle the climax with useful results. The effects were meant to not be overblown in gore (so as to respect the original), which basically means one gets stuff that was inspired by such events like an autopsy or death camp footage that works about on the level one would hope for 1990. The 88-minute runtime is slightly shorter than the original film that may or may not be as cynical as the original depending on how you interpret the ones who stand in the presence of hunting the undead that didn't get killed in the first days. As a whole, it stands firmly in the middle: it doesn't do anything great with this familiar material, but as a remake that managed to be moderately entertaining (and a cash grab attempt for Romero and company), one can't go wrong here with a decent time here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next: Sisters.