El descuartizador

There are several reasons to dislike this movie. First, the level of studio interference was considerable. That explains the atrocious ending grafted on against the director's wishes. The studio was looking ahead to a sequel more than they were concentrating on making this picture work. Second, because of the huge success of the first film (among genre fans) anything which followed was going to draw a lit of criticism. Do the filmmakers simply mimic the original, or do they completely break the mold? Usually what you get is a mishmash of both theories and that's what you have here. That said, "Leatherface" is lot of fun if you like a balls -out gore fest with some humor and better production values than the budget warranted. Director Jeff Burr creates a deliciously-crazed atmosphere while driving the

story home. This is also a very fine looking movie and kudos go to the director of photography, whose name escapes me. The cast is excellent. Mortensen looks like he's having a lot more fun here than in the "Rings": movies and Kate Hodge is very under appreciated. There's a good role for genre veteran Ken Foree too and he delivers the goods. By the way, the chainsaw in this one is a real beaut. "Leatherface" is a very solid B-movie effort.

A young couple are driving from L.A. to Florida, but when they stop off at a gas station they encounter a crazy attendant with a shotgun. Then they are lured off the main road and take a deserted track that leads them to Leatherface and his cannibalistic family. Now the pairs' only chance of escaping this demented nightmare rests on a well-prepared survivalist, who they had a car accident with and which has left them at Leatherface's mercy.

Well, that just seemed to breeze by with very little impact, but I found "Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" to be rather nasty piece of work that's an exceptionally well-made production. Sure, it's not very explicit because of the MPAA cuts leaving a lot of the real gruel up in the air and causing large continuity shifts in the story. But these factors didn't stop me from mildly enjoying this torturous outing that seems to skip the events that followed on in Hooper's outrageously jokey sequel "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2".

It kind of starts off like the original film by providing a voice over dude giving their own interpretation of what had happened after the first flick and there are scenarios that have that rehash feeling about them. Replacing the goofiness of the last feature is a more serious approach that has some dark macabre wit within the script and some crazy antics. There's even a new gimmick involving Leatherface's glistening new chainsaw! Which is the most frightening item you can ever think of, although it would have been great it he got to use it on someone! The problem with the flick was that it looks too clean and really lacks that iron-fisted and repellently grimy nature, because it never gets truly dirty and that ending is totally out-of-place. Again it might look polished, but there is still a ruthlessly unflinching edge about its shocks, but the thing is they are just far from disturbing and lose that subtle realism. Despite all that it efficiently creates an isolated feeling amongst the sticks, the photography is well displayed and an atmospherically Gothic score amplifies a tight knit awe to proceedings. Although it probably could have done without those instrumental, heavy metal cues.

The short story is draped with many activities (some rather vague) and characters that come from nowhere and disappear and then reappear. It might be basic, senseless and foreseeable material, but really there was only one thing that got to me and they were the unexplained details and one or two illogical moments. Like Leatherface's new clan and that of Ken Foree's character. The performances were ho-hum, but it's the fun supporting roles by Viggo Mortensen as the subtle one minute to nut-job the next and legendary horror figure Ken Foree as the likable survivalist make it even more enjoyable. Kate Hodge is okay in the lead role as one of Leatherface's prey and R.A.Mihailoff steps up to the plate as Leatherface and does fair job at it and brings back some of that fear associated with that icon. Although anyone accustomed to the original knows no one gets near Gunnar Hansen performance!

It's certainly not a great film and does lack the heart of the earlier efforts, but still I didn't mind it and it goes by quick enough if caught in the right mindset.

This second sequel to the horror classic is something of a letdown, purely because of the storyline. While the first sequel, dominated by Dennis Hopper's crazed performance, explored the key figures in a novel way, LEATHERFACE is a film that's content to simply emulate the first movie's storyline. Once again we get unwary travellers falling foul of Leatherface and his family, and an extended climax involving a family dinner. It's all way too familiar, and of course lacks the sheer intensity of Tobe Hooper's original classic.

The film's tone is wildly uneven throughout, and even in the would-be horror scenes it's hard to take it seriously. The movie feels like a spoof; it has a light-hearted tone that sits at odds with the grimness of the plot. Still, on the plus side, it's very fast paced, and it features a great deal of crowd-pleasing horror elements that are sure to win the hearts of splatter fans, although as with the original, it's never quite as gory as you think it's going to be (and I'm talking about the uncut version).

One of those crowd-pleasers is Ken Foree, Mr. DAWN OF THE DEAD himself, playing one of the film's would-be victims. Foree is a delight, and they sure play up to his potential, portraying him as a real ass-kicker of a man. I couldn't care less about the two characters who are supposed to be the leads, but Foree hooks you right from the start. The rest of the actors are less than impressive, and in particular the guy who plays Leatherface is just a stock heavy; there's certainly none of the hulking, imposing brutality that Gunnar Hansen brought to the role.

Of course, one of the draws watching this film today is seeing a pre-stardom Viggo Mortensen playing in a decidedly odd type of role, completely different from what you might expect; I enjoyed his performance, even if much of it is played for laughs. And that's the trouble with the film as a whole: we're back to that spoofy tone, that whole non-serious feel that everyone's laughing at the premise rather than getting to grips with the horrifying implications of it. Take the ear scene, for example, or the string of increasingly ridiculous and unbelievable things that happen at the climax (including the fate of one of the characters, which makes no sense whatsoever; blame a substituted ending for that one, after the original didn't go down too well with test audiences). In fact, come the end, I enjoyed this more as a bizarre comedy than as a genuine horror outing.

If you watch this as a remake and not a sequel, and then you'll understand it, because that is what it really was meant to be according to all involved as well as Tobe Hooper, who was on board for a while as an adviser. Otherwise, the storyline from TCM part 2 to this one won't make sense.

I saw this when it was first released in the theater and didn't think too highly of it, but then I saw the uncut, unrated version recently and it improved more than 100%.

It's spooky, atmospheric, relentlessly frightening, with a very good job by R A Mihailoff as Leatherface, whose brutal and monstrous characterization of Leatherface seems to be the basis for the current Leatherface character by Andrew Briniarski. There's no cowering to others in the family, transvestite behavior, or silly screaming as in other versions. Also this one has a great chainsaw, plenty of great character actors doing what they do best, as great characters.

The film would have been better had the squeamish producers left in the X-rated violent scenes as they were originally. Would have been top notch if the (hideously deformed) Leatherface unmasking had remained, a bit that was eventually used to a degree in the 2003 version. Could have been a 10 had someone like Savini been involved. As it is, still superb.

I'm actually really surprised at all the positive reviews for this film here, considering its horrible reputation.

Made on a shoestring budget with no-name actors (at least at the time, of course, Viggo went on to A-list-ish status) obviously, there is nothing groundbreaking in this 3rd chainsaw outing, as can be said of most sequels. Hooper's 1974 film said and did everything that needed to be said and done (its documentary style, iconic villain, the creation of the slasher-film template, the fire-orange burning sunsets, the post-Vietnam worldview, the subtle commentary about consumerism, animal cruelty, and decay of the nuclear family, etc....). That film is an unparalleled masterpiece, and even Hooper's follow-up didn't hold a candle or need to exist(although it was crazy, offbeat, quality cult filmmaking on its own terms), so a third entry would seem a complete waste of time.

So why even pay part III any attention? My adoration for it is based largely on the first half, which is very well done and far superior to the second. For starters, Kate Hodge and William Butler, as the film's yuppie protagonists, are natural and absorbing and never take viewers out of the film (something that can't be said of most slasher films of this era, which typically had bottom-of-the-barrel talent).

The cinematography is also imaginative and stylized. The entire "gas station peepshow sequence," for example, is fantastically shot and executed; the angle of our heroine through the cracked mirror, the claustrophobic lighting, the povs from the peephole. And note Kate Hodge's reactions during this scene: she seems legitimately freaked out and uncomfortable, and her reactions of fear and confusion in the scenes that follow are equally convincing. It's a solid performance, in a film with uniformly solid performances.

The pacing in the first half is also impressive; from the mundane car conversation that opens the film to the bizarre "body pit" sequence- which was so absurd, it bordered on parody-to the armadillo murder scene, to the gas station sequence: all these moments serve as knowing winks to the first film, but because the film modernizes them, it benefits viewers as it places them in the "now" instead of the "then". And thankfully, the film sticks with the aesthetic of its time, because, while it would eventually show its age, attempting to match the documentary style of Hooper's original would have felt derivative, redundant, and out of place. So kudos to Burr and cinematographer James L. Carter, who later proved himself a real talent with more mainstream gigs, for remaining faithful to the mood of the original without plagiarizing, but still taking some new chances.

And how about that "truck-chase/changing the tire" sequence? I LIVE for scenes like this and sadly, modern horror films just don't take us here anymore: the ominous, minimalist score, slow-burn pacing, the effective use of that lantern light, and again, Kate Hodge's display of fear and hysteria feels all too real, as do boyfriend Ryan's (William Butler) reactions of incredulity, anger, and frustration. There is some commendable attempt at realism here, resulting in a truly tense and nerve-jangling scene. Also, dare I say that the atmosphere here comes the closest out of any film in the series to match the "flashlight fight between Sally and Franklin" from the original? It's that uncomfortable mix of anxiety, dread, and panic that Hooper perfected so well that I think gets overlooked in this sequel.

Okay, so that's the first half. The second half is less ambitious and becomes, as I mentioned earlier, almost a parody of the first film, with an uneven mix of horror and (attempted) black comedy. There are hints of wit and social commentary to be sure: the mocking by one of the chainsaw clan of the elitist boyfriend's underwear ("California!"), Ken Foree's completely out-of-place military survivalist, to name a couple. But these clever bits are treated as afterthoughts, rather than organic byproducts of the story (although the scene where Leatherface grapples with the Speak and Spell is curiously touching). Contributing to the dip in quality is some abrupt editing and rushed pacing- which I suspect is the fault of the studio and MPAA.

With that said, there is still enough well-choreographed action to make the second half more than watchable. And witnessing Kate Hodge's transformation from genteel yuppie to traumatized badass makes it worth sticking around. A nice homage to Sally in the original.

But then comes the final shot, which is almost as if director Burr threw up his arms and said: "Alright, time for the trendy 80's slasher movie ending....we all got bills to pay". And of course, it leaves room for yet another sequel. Shame, shame, New Line.

And there you have it: LEATHERFACE, the wildly uneven, sometimes ambitious, consistently amusing, what should have been the final word on an already dying franchise, and more notably, sub-genre that would never quite be the same. As we all know, SCREAM followed 6 years later, and the slasher film became a cultural artifact only to be mocked, parodied, and "post-modernized" for a new generation of filmgoers, most of whom weren't alive when their genre forefathers were in their heyday. So with that in mind, we should be grateful for earnest little films like TCM III, which, while far from perfect, mark the end of an innocent and unpretentious era of irony-free slasher filmmaking. Sigh.