Comments on watching and making films.

Monday, February 11, 2013

Texas Chainsaw 3D

**I did not see this movie in 3D.**

There are some experiences you have in the movie theater that are so utterly confusing and depressing, you don't even know what to say about them. This was my experience with Texas Chainsaw 3D. The original film is, to this day, one of the best horror films ever made, but in the forty, or so, years that have followed, Hollywood has desperately tried to capture that magic again, but never has been able to. All of the follow ups, short of (surprisingly), Marcus Nispels Platinum Dunes produced remake, have been a sorry attempt to make a franchise out of lightning in a bottle. This newest addition is no different than all of the others.

Texas Chainsaw 3D's first mistake is immediate. The film begins with an opening credits sequence, which is, basically, a highlight reel of the original film. By the time the credits are over, one is left to wonder - Now that I've seen all of the most important parts of the original, why am I still watching this? And that's just a few minutes in. It gets worse. The film is supposed to be a direct sequel to the original. The next mistake it makes, though, is that, once you've sat through the aforementioned highlight reel, they immediately change the story. We pick up at the farm, probably half an hour or an hour later, and the sheriff, who, at this point it is presumed, has talked to Sally (from the original film), has come to the house to arrest Leatherface and the three other members of his family - The Old Man, Grandpa, and the Hitchhiker. Now, SOMEHOW, in that short period of time, those four people grow to, like, TWELVE people. WHO ARE ALL OF THESE OTHER PEOPLE??? A shootout ensues, Leatherface manages to escape, and a baby girl is torn away from one of these (illegitimate) family members. She grows up (and, mind you, if this film was actually following logic, would be in her late thirties or early forties at this point) to be an artistic butcher shop worker named Heather (assumedly in her early to mid twenties, because, apparently, she went into stasis for twenty years). When Heather finds out that she is inheriting a piece of property in Texas, it is revealed that she was adopted (even though she was actually stolen). Looking to discover more about her roots, her and a small group of friends head up to the farm where, of course, they discover Leatherface and craziness ensues.

You could write a BOOK about everything that is wrong or ridiculous about this movie. That anyone, on the money side, who read this script thought that it was a good idea is BAFFLING. I'm not going to bother going into everything, it would take too long, but just know that this film is RIDICULOUS and, honestly, most of the horrible sequels that have been made to the original film are better than this one.

One thing I do want to mention, though, that ABSOLUTELY KILLED ME, was the fact that they brought Gunnar Hansen back (the original Leatherface) to play an unnamed member of the (illegitimate) family, who dies in the opening flashback sequence. If this  is, in fact, a direct sequel, why not have Hansen play Leatherface? What was the point in bringing in some other guy to play him?

Again, so much that is ridiculous in this film.

No comments: