Ask anyone who has ever seen the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre about the film and more often than not they will launch into graphic details about the violence contained within the film. Simple fact is though that they will be wrong. Yes the film is violent, but a majority of the violence in that film either occurs off camera or from a wide angle not showing much- if anything. What the film really is, is a visceral attack on the viewer as the film grabs you and never lets you out of its firm grasp until the 85 minute running time is done. What people think the first one is, is exactly what the third one is though. A gory experience where the violence is graphic and almost always occurs directly within the shot. It could've been a lot worse- or better- had the MPAA not been so involved. In fact, what garnered the film a ton of notoriety at the time was the fact that the director, producers and the MPAA battled extensively over the cut of the film until it was trimmed down into an acceptable R rated film.
The MPAA originally saw a cut of the film and slapped the dreaded X rating on the film. New Line Cinema rightfully saw that as a kiss of death and began cutting aspects of the film out in trying to get an R rating that would help them to release it wide in theaters. The studios were still stinging from the second one being released without a rating (which royally pissed off the MPAA) and they wanted a commercial hit in this reboot of the series. According to the documentary on the unrated DVD, eventually it devolved into New Line cutting one or two frames out of certain shots and having to send the film back to the board over and over again. They did get the R rating finally and released the film to theaters where it basically died a quick death opening in 11th place to 2.6 million dollars. It dropped to 15th the following week and then dropped out of theaters. So while it was mired in controversy and bombed at the box office the question remains: Is it a good film? The answer, like I am sure the process of talking with the MPAA, is complicated.
At the beginning we see Leatherface destroying a recent victim when he gives chase to another girl looking in a window. From there the film turns into an almost remake of the original film. We have our protagonists that meet up with a weird hitchhiker and unsettling gas station attendant. A confrontation occurs and the guy and girl think that the good cowboy hitchhiker has been killed by a villain. Further down the road they get chased by Leatherface which leads them to crash into another car driven by a survivalist named Benny and begin looking for help. From there they start to see that these backwoods hillbillies are all sort of tied together in one way or another and things look bleak.
We get the return of a character which leads to a dinner scene that takes up a large portion of the last third of the film before an ultimate confrontation with the chainsaw wielding maniac. In one ending she conquers the family and in the alternate ending she sees that in the end they will never be defeated. Neither ending really works particularly well because they both push into territory that comes out of nowhere. The ending they went with is a groaner because a character mysteriously survives being attacked and in the other we have a more vague depressing ending, but it feels out of place with the rest of the film.
The problem with rebooting a franchise by using the basic premise of the original is that you inevitably lead to comparisons between the two films. That is especially going to happen when you use set pieces that are almost identical to the first film. By using the dinner scene in the third one the director and writers were going to bring up comparisons to the first film's very recognizable moment. What makes it work here is that they really amp up the craziness without incorporating the same vibe as in the first film. In the original, the dinner scene is about as uncomfortable as any piece of film can be as you feel dread for the woman because they family is only interested in hurting her. In this film, the still want to hurt the woman but there is a macabre sense of humor at play as they truly seem to delight in what they are doing. Also, they really play up the Leatherface as a rebellious teen angle in this scene. By finding a different note to play this scene with they make it their own.
Sadly though, that is the best aspect of the film. While it does things differently it still relies on too many of the same familiar beats of the first film. Arguably this film has the best cast of any with Ken Foree and Viggo Mortensen holding down their roles well and bringing some nice gravitas to the proceedings. So in the end you have a film that is a good but not great film but as sequels go it is pretty good.
Also, it had a very sweet Excalibur- Lady of the Lake- type trailer.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3 Trailer
No comments:
Post a Comment