Sunday, February 20, 2022

Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022) a Review

At this point I've seen every Texas Chainsaw Massacre film except part 2 (no idea why I skipped it) and I think the one that just came out on Netflix might be the worst of them.

I can't understand why people who keep making these films just don't understand why the first one is a classic--an absolute landmark in horror. The film students who made the 1974 original weren't trying to make Leatherface some kind of antihero with an Oedipal complex with super-human strength and countless chainsaw trick shots. They were just trying to make a terrifyingly real film about a woman being held captive and tormented by a crazy family in the middle of nowhere. No context. No backstory. No sympathetic tone for Leatherface. Just a story about someone trapped in a bizarre situation that no one would want to be in.

For some reason the various remakes that have emerged since 2003's The Texas Chainsaw Massacre decided to make Leatherface increasingly sympathetic, and as one of my friends put it, something akin to a Marvel supervillain. The movie gave Leatherface a name, a backstory, a ton of family context, a career, an overly sculpted mask and even some kind of face disease that ate his nose. Subsequent films went even further down the rabbit hole, like Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013), which dug even deeper into stupidity, gave him escape tunnels under the house, and a beautiful cousin/accomplice whom he hasn't seen since she was a baby. 2006's Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning and 2017's Leatherface were nothing but backstory.

Part of the reason these movies just don't hit like the first is they're trying too hard. Providing too much context for the killer is an enormous mistake in a slasher film because it humanizes the villain and takes the viewer out of the perspective of the victim. The victims in the remakes are mostly vacuous and generally unlikable characters; Leatherface is presented as a cunning and powerful tool of vengeance against society, so it's hard no to root for him. He is, essentially, the protagonist, defending the tranquility of his isolated home against invaders.

The original film is a relentless tale of isolation, terror and survival. The remakes are tales of a butcher with learning disabilities just trying to live his life but kids keep showing up at his house and killing his relatives.  

All the remakes are terrible. But this Netflix film is uniquely terrible. 

First it is as low-brow as it is pretentious. The film lampoons rural southerners and urbane millennials alike, culminating in the unbelievably cringe-inducing "party bus scene" that might be the dumbest moment in all of horror. But it also tries to shoe-horn this socially conscious stuff about confederate flags, racism, school shootings, carbon emissions and gentrification all in the first act. The writers were clearly working overtime to make the film feel "relevant" to millennials but I think failed to get any particular perspective across, so one is left wondering what the point of it all was.

It is also as derivative as it is predictable. Seeing the success of the latest Halloween trilogy, they stole the idea of making the original female protagonist the villain's now-militant foil. They also needlessly stole the villain's mother obsession from Friday the 13th. Lazy screenwriters simply borrowing ideas from other popular horror films is bad enough, but the writers created a final battle so predictable in it's "twists" that anyone that has seen a horror film could easily write every scene out ahead of time. You know the drill: protagonist loses vital weapon in battle, then friend saves protagonist at last moment only to pay with her life, etc. This kind of stuff just goes on an on through the third act.

That's not to say the film isn't entertaining. It is fast-paced, bloody and has some clever shots and situations. In particular, having one of the protagonists stuck in the house with Leatherface while he is butchering her friends, unaware of her presence, holds the viewer in the action and keeps the suspense high, because you KNOW he's going to find her eventually.

Take a look at this photo below. Compare it with the photo at the top. To me, these two publicity shots epitomize the differences between the 2022 film and the 1974 original. One is of a blood-soaked super villain avenging his adopted mother on a neon-lit party bus. The other is of an unknown assailant wearing an unknown woman's face and hair, dressed in a coat and tie because he likes to wear his Sunday best when he's hauling ass down a dusty farm road to slice you into tiny pieces for the pure enjoyment of it. You'll never know why. You'll never know whose face he's wearing, how many he's butchered or why he hasn't been caught. He just IS.

If we're going to keep getting new TCM films, they should go back to the roots. The producers of the first film created something atmospheric, intense and grounded in gritty realism. They did it by studying the real-life horrors created by serial killers Ed Gein in the 1950s and Dean Corll in the early 1970s. Someone wanting to create a really good TCM movie should probably watch some true crime documentaries for inspiration. But honestly, do we really need another one?

14 comments:

  1. I apologize since this comment is going to be off-topic, however, have you considered doing an update to your "best available" hockey masks post?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will say though, I know of at least a couple of projects underway, so I expect vac blanks to return to the community again soon.

      Delete
    2. I second this suggestion! Haven’t been in the market for hockey masks in a few years and wanna know what the current top makers are and if they have changed from who used to be the top dogs.
      Crash and auz were my go to for accuracy in look and material.

      Delete
  2. I could do that. The whole post would be Fiberglassmasks.com right now though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's fair. I just wanted to get your thoughts on the current state of independent mask makers.

      Regardless of who you choose for each entry, I'd love to see a new write-up.

      Indeed, maybe it would be fun to make a single post for each film, comparing the work of each artist and providing an opinion on each hock - Ultimately declaring your favorite. You could even add a poll on each post to see if your opinion aligned with the community.

      Regardless, I've truly enjoyed perusing your site. Great work.

      Delete
    2. Not to get ahead of anything, because this is your site and you've given no indication you will actually do this - However, I'm excited to see a comparison between all the currently working artists.

      I'm really interested to see if you can objectively make a case for fiberglass masks. You see, I've never given them a second thought, because of their name. Why would I want a fiberglass hock?

      Maybe I'm a bit biased - long ago, when these artists weren't around, choices were limited. I ordered a hock from the back of Fangoria that was made of fiberglass. It was kinda a mix between part 6 and 8. Not super accurate to any film. However, it was the coolest thing I'd ever seen, and way better than anything I could buy at the Egyptian Pharmacy or Hollywood Magic.

      Unfortunately, the mask shattered not long after it arrived. Was it because it was made of fiberglass? Maybe? Nonetheless, it left a bad taste in my mouth.

      I'm not sure if you're familiar with Gates of Hell Studios, but the individual that ran it, Cropsy is what he went by, made some of the best hocks in the late 90s early 2000s. However, they were all thick fiberglass... I think it was probably 2001-2003ish when information started to get out that most of the masks were vacuformed. That's when things for way more accurate.

      It's funny, though... Do you remember when New Line Cinema would auction off props from movies that has just come out that previous weekend? They had a dedicated website and everything.

      I won the silicon Kemper mask from the TCM remake - I believe I paid like $1,200. Ended up trading it to a lovely Canadian gent - Mike D.

      I also won the battle damaged mask from Freddy vs Jason. I can't recall exactly what I paid - but I want to say it was between $3500 and 5k... This was 2003.

      When it arrived,I was surprised at just how thick it was - and heavy too. I'm not sure why, but they made it from some resin... Not fiberglass. I suppose, this is my long-winded way of trying to figure out where fiberglass ever came into play for hockey masks, other than erroneously.

      To put a button on that one - I ended up selling that FvJ mask for about 8k in 2005ish. That was a bad move for sure. Looks like it's in the prop museum now. I bet it's worth a mint, considering what that JGTH sold for.

      I digress, however.

      Is fiberglass masks a misnomer, or are they really fiberglass?

      Delete
    3. As I understand it, none of the masks were fiberglass, although I think one of the FX guys from part 5 said the graveyard scene mask may have been. Everything seems to have been vac'd until Jason Goes to Hell, when a few stunt masks were made of resin, and they've all been resin since.

      Wish I was buying props way back in 2005, at those prices I'd have everything right now XD

      Delete
    4. Absolutely.

      I regret selling all that stuff.

      Obviously, hindsight is 20/20.

      It's like saying "if only I had those lotto numbers, I'd be a millionaire!"

      Keep up the good work, my friend.

      Delete
  3. Hit the nail on the head 1000%!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Have you seen The Strangers: Prey At Night? It was way better than i expected and probably the best slasher movie since RZ's Halloween. It avoids many of the tropes you mentioned and is much more of a spiritual successor to the og TCM than this new piece of schlock.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, yes I saw Prey at Night in the theaters, it was a pretty good finale to the Strangers story. I think though that the original TCM had a wild rawness because it was made under extreme conditions that are basically illegal to duplicate now so aside from similarly-produced 70s shock horror like Cannibal Holocaust, it's hard for modern film-makers to really capture that energy.

      Delete
  5. The 70's themselves had a wild rawness that's impossible to recreate. According to Joe Bob Briggs the studios were failing so bad that they started green lighting anything that came from up and coming filmmakers. That's how we got films like TCM and The Exorcist.

    Modern horror thrillers (most of them) are all about crisp and vivid cinematography, stories with botched potential and pacing that's just plain tranquilizing.

    ReplyDelete