Rate 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' (1974)

THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE 1974

6/10


THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE PART 2 isn't the first example where a sequel and its predecessor are part of different sub-genres, but I think it's the first example where the director of both is the same one (Tobe Hooper). Some of the characters in THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW (is it supposed to be one word or two?) MASSACRE 1974 did things that felt funny to them, but that doesn't mean the audience was supposed to laugh too. Said things were strange and shocking. The intended effect was discomfort. Therefore, I think following it up with a comedy was a bad idea (despite Hooper's insistence that it was the natural progression), especially one where the tone is so wacky. What makes the situation more muddled is that some moments are serious, but in a way that doesn't match the rest of the movie. Putting all that aside, it's just a boring movie, despite Richard Kooris' great cinematography. Without spoiling anything, the climax consists mainly of the villains being annoying and the ending is unsatisfyingly abrupt. You're probably thinking "Wait... Didn't the 1st installment do that too?" Yes, but it worked because the atmosphere and scope were different. An innocent person was trapped inside a house with a group of deranged murderers who enjoyed taunting her. Even the camera angles got tighter and tighter. There was no transition between the last shot and the black screen with no sound because it was a way for the viewer to take a breath after the intense ride the serial killer known as Leatherface and his family has put the victims and the audience through. Here, I kept counting the minutes for it to end... and when it did end, I groaned.

3/10


LEATHERFACE 1990: TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE PART III

1/10


TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE PART IV: THE NEXT GENERATION a.k.a. THE RETURN OF THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE

1/10


THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 2003 is not as thrilling as the original (partly due to Glen Scantlebury's editing in some scenes), but at least it gets to the point a lot faster. Sure, it's 20 minutes longer, but that's because screenwriter Scott Kosar tried to expand the concept as much as he could. He deserves a lot of credit for (finally) subverting the "A person died and we have to hide the corpse because we're afraid that we'll be falsely accused of murdering them and/or we'll get in trouble for something else we recently did" trope. What confuses me is that the heroes (if you can even call them that) talk and behave like modern people, so why did Kosar bother to set the story in the early 1970s again? Oh, well, at least they're not forgettable like their counterparts from the 1st installment. Jessica Biel and Jonathan Tucker's performances are bad, but Mike Vogel, Eric Balfour and R. Lee Ermey's are decent.

4/10


THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE PART 2 2006: THE BEGINNING

3/10


Even though it remains close to its exploitation thriller roots, TEXAS CHAINSAW 2013 tries to use more traditional techniques from the horror genre (including badly-executed jump scares) than its 6 predecessors, which means I no longer have to be so forgiving when it comes to the lack of a proper atmosphere. The infidelity subplot is completely expendable and "Do your thing, cuz!" is one of the dumbest lines I've heard in a long time! Alexandra Daddario, Tremaine "Trey Songz" Neverson and Tania Raymonde's performances are very bad. You wanna know what I hate more than sequels where some of the original actors come back to play different characters while some of the original characters are played by different actors? Sequels that do that while also showing clips of the original film alongside the opening credits, because it makes these changes even more distracting. Also, don't just put the file on your timeline and trim it. Showing those clips in order like the "previously on" segment of a TV episode is lazy. At first, this movie shows them with some editing effects. They're basic, but at least it's something. At a certain point, those effects go away for no reason and all that's left are bits of that classic without anything truly transformative. Most titles released during the 3D craze of the early 2010s would show beings or objects getting close to the camera to the point of annoyance. Even thought that happens here too, I must single out the scene where Heather Miller (the protagonist) hides inside a coffin and Leatherface tries to cut into it. The fact that his chainsaw is the focus of the shot isn't just a gimmick to make it seem like it's about to come out of the screen. This is Heather's point of view, and the inside of the coffin is also part of the shot. The viewer can feel what she's feeling. Not just the fear of being massacred, but also the claustrophobia. That's why it works. Many slasher franchises start out by showing isolated events and eventually show the killer in situations that involve large groups of people (in order to reinforce the idea that they're an unstoppable force). I don't know why it took until 2013 for that to happen to this franchise, considering it had sequels until the early 1990s, but better late than never. It's not just about seeing Leatherface loose at a carnival, but also how a mob showed up to his house right after the events of the 1st installment and ended up making the situation worse. If they were characters who thought they were doing justice, it would've been deeper from a narrative point of view, but unfortunately, they come across as cartoons who are (kind-of) aware of how evil they aware. By the way, Heather discovers the truth behind everything I just described between the 55 and 70-minute marks. Since it's something the audience is already aware of (aside from 1 or 2 details), it feels like filler. Why not take the prologue and show it in its entirety during this part as a flashback? It would've been new information for the audience instead of us having to wait for Heather to catch up. If it's because the makers wanted the plot to "start with a bang," then they could've shown Leatherface murdering a random person in present day. And by "present day," I of course mean the early 1990s, since the characters age around 20 years. What's that? This takes place 40 years later? How does that make sense?!

3/10


LEATHERFACE 2017 had the potential to be the most creative installment, because of how it deviates from the franchise's formula. Unfortunately, the end result isn't entertaining in the slightest. Stephen Dorff and Lili Taylor's talents can't save it, but they do prevent it from being as boring as the 2nd and 3rd sequels. There's a scene where a nurse named Lizzy White trips inside an abandoned RV and... Let's just say that it seems like Sam Raimi took over directing duties for a moment. It feels out of place considering how different the overall tone of the movie is. Since this is a prequel, we already knew that the title character wasn't going to die or become a good person, but we didn't know all the details, especially when it comes to other characters. Therefore, a certain something that happens between him and Lizzy during the climax caught me by surprise. It's the only scene where all the filmmaking elements come together and something worthy is executed. The opening credits are arguably the worst ones of any mainstream production. I'm not exaggerating. It's a common mistake to show them during a scene, but to leave them on the screen for so long is a rookie mistake. The credits can't remain if the shot changes, because it's extra information that your eyes have to process. Go watch any movie or TV show and you'll notice that there are long gaps between each credit. It's because the person in charge of that task has to find shots that last the right amount of seconds.

1/10


TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 2022

3/10