TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion
…because
film is largely subjective
Texas Chainsaw
Release Date: 4 January 2013 Runtime:
92 Minutes
Review Date: 26 February 2013 Rating: 2.5 (of 6)
I guess I should
preface this by saying I know that there are diehard lovers of the original
film. I am not among them. The best thing about that film to me was John
Larroquette’s narration. I wasn’t too
impressed with the sequels as I remember—the 4th was atrocious (though
I think I enjoyed the 2nd upon first watching but on subsequent
viewings it no longer held whatever charm it had initially).
That being said,
nothing irks me more than the pompous pretention of people making a new film in
a series, inserting it somewhere in the timeline and deciding to ignore all the
ones that transpired afterwards or in between. This
was done with Halloween: H20 which ignored
everything after the first 2 Halloween movies
(H20 was the 7th entry)
and with Superman Returns, likewise,
taking up after the 2nd film in that franchise (of which there were
4), discounting the others. I can’t understand the logic as you’re
immediately alienating that very fanbase you wish to court.
Texas Chainsaw is supposed to take place after the original film, not only ignoring
the 3 sequels but totally disregarding the reboot of the series just 8 years
ago as well. So, this new one is
supposed to take place minutes after the original film’s conclusion, of which
they show a bunch of clips, and then it cuts into this new film and it’s not
supposed to be jarring that there are new people playing the roles that don’t
look like those playing them several seconds earlier.
That aside, they
show a clip in Leatherface’s (known here as Jed) house where there’s only like
4 family members present—I don’t remember the exact number from the original, but
that seems about right—but all of a sudden now, they cut to their opening of
the film with new footage and there’s magically at least 8 in the house and
we’re supposed to believe that.
Unfortunately, if
you turn a blind eye to these transgressions and approach this as a totally new
flick, even then, it’s not that good of a film.
I apologize now as the sheer amount of problems presented in this movie
makes my take on it seem like a rambling mess as I try to filter it through my
mind, so buckle up or get off now.
The original was
released in 1974 and then this film establishes, after the intro flashback to
the original, that we’re in 2012 per a headstone. You’re talking 38 years later. However…well, I guess I should dive into the
plot first: moments after the original
film, Leatherface and his entire family are supposedly massacred by the town
hillbillies, except for a baby later renamed Heather, who we can make believe
was just a day old for sake of math.
Subsequently, now present day, her Grandma’s (that was apparently
dissociated from the family as she wasn’t in the house) estate finds Heather
and leaves her everything.
So let’s assume
the massacre happened when Heather was a day old in 1974. It’s now present day so she should be 38
years old. There’s no way this character
looks anywhere near 38 and in fact the actress that plays her (Alexandria
Daddario) was only 25 at the time of filming.
It would also mean that the hillbillies that massacred the family, let’s
assume for all intents and purposes here, that they were all freshly minted
18-year-old adults—a lot of them were a lot older, but there may have been some
that were 18, just for math again—it’s 38 years later, so they should all be
56. Maybe you can buy 1 of these actors
being 56 but that’s a stretch and, remember, that should be the youngest among them. So again things don’t jive. These are the MAJOR plot holes plus I’m sure
it wasn’t a legal adoption by any means when baby Heather was stolen and taken
in, so how she was tracked down by grandma’s estate later is flimsy, though
they do credibly explain it but I still don’t very much buy it.
And then you have
the fact that Heather inherits this estate and she’s going there with her
friends. On her way, they pick up this
hitchhiker, complete stranger they don’t know, but once they get to the estate,
go inside, relatively quickly determine they need to go shopping for dinner,
she decides to leave this complete stranger who they have no idea who he is
ALONE at the estate when she hasn’t even taken stock of the valuables in the
house yet. Like, what kind of thinking
is this? I mean, unless you’re trying to
show that this character is about as slow as her retarded Chainsaw Massacre
cousin, it makes absolutely no sense.
And also, after
this bomb was dropped on Heather—she didn’t know she was adopted, she wants
answers—she gets this estate and the guy in charge of the estate says, “here’s
a letter from your grandma, I’m sure she explains everything, read it,” but
instead—I don’t know about you, if this kind of bombshell was dropped on me,
that would be the first thing I do, I’d read the fucking letter—she just puts
it aside and goes about her business.
So, again, are you trying to establish this character as mentally
fucking slow as her retarded chainsaw wielding cousin? It makes no sense as nothing about the
character prior or after makes you think she’s unintelligent or some
go-with-the-flow, no-cares hippy.
Then, other than
that, there are the little things, of which there are many. I’m always astounded by abandoned properties
that have been deserted for decades and decades (for perspective, long before
1974 in this case) and yet still have electricity. Uh, that doesn’t seem realistic to me, the
electric company tends to shut off power when bills aren’t being paid. And I guess one can argue that, after all
these years, perhaps the meat packing factory was still in the family, grandma still
paying the bills and kept the power running, but that’s a stretch and kind of
asinine.
Also, if Jed was
locked in the basement when his caretaker died, how'd he survive with no food
from the time between grandma’s death and cousin Heather’s arrival? And if Heather had opted not to help, why was
grandma okay with Jed starving to death, alone and forgotten, in the basement?
When an officer
is exploring the estate where something macabre has obviously happened, blood
everywhere, sharing the walk-through live with his superior and the mayor via
cell phone video, why didn’t anyone call for or send back up?
Also, the mayor's
son (which was supposed to be a surprise reveal but was obvious from his first
appearance with the mayor early on) would be seeking vengeance so it’s unrealistic
that by the end scene after the end credits, transpiring sometime after the
events of the picture, he still hasn’t.
Or is this the set up for a sequel?
It seems quite sorry that Clint Eastwood’s son had to resort to
appearing in this film.
And then,
furthermore, just to knit-pick now because the rest was so ridiculous,
Heather’s blouse gets pulled open—one can assume the buttons were broken off
but we’ll ignore that part—she just escapes being tied up, running away, trying
to get the ropes off of her hands, her life still in danger but somewhere along
the line (offscreen) she happens to find the time to button her blouse back
up. That doesn’t seem too realistic.
Now, after the
bombshell and tragedies going on all around her, I can see Heather going a
little loony, but even so her biological family was kind of fucked up and
probably deserved to die anyway, most if not all shown as murderers, kidnappers
and accomplices in the original, so the fact that she decides she’s now going
to be the caretaker of the Chainsaw Massacre just seems kind of, again,
stretching the realms of realism. Especially
since, hello, he’s the one who just
killed ALL of your friends! And savaged YOU TOO, until he realized you
were a relative.
I’m also left
wondering where this grandma came from, that she had so much money when it
seemed like the rest of the family did not.
This also totally obliterates the original sequels as there were family
members that were alive and well and even in the same house if memory serves (I
may be mistaken regarding the latter).
The only silver
lining: If you ever wondered about seeing a little more of Alex Roussea from Lost, there are a couple nice (albeit
totally and blatantly gratuitous—as in, almost uncomfortably, cringe worthy
even to a full-blooded male with hormones coursing through his veins) tracking
shots of her ass. However, clothed. Surprising a film such as this has absolutely
no nudity. Haha.
But ultimately my
review is negative. I know they were
pushing it as a 3D movie, I only saw it in 2D, but I highly doubt that makes
the difference. I really want to give it
a 2, but if you’re a horror person I can see giving it a 3, something you might
like to give a chance for yourself being that it’s part of an established
franchise, so we’ll reconcile with a mid-ground 2.5.