Texas 3: The Saw is Family

Maire says:

Remember how The Exorcist II really had nothing to do with The Exorcist? Texas 2 is sort of in the same boat, except that it’s actually good.

So here we are with Texas III, which tries to pick up after Texas 1. And then it falls into the 3rd in the series trap. It wants to be good. You want it to be good. But somewhere along the line we all realize that it’s not going to be great. In fact, it’s not even going to be good. But we soldier on anyhow, and are we rewarded for our efforts?

Well, Ken Foree is stellar as always. And hey, isn’t that Viggo Mortensen? Oh, it is! But alas, despite the gore and tension, the end just really goes to schlock. So no, we’re not rewarded for our efforts, but I hear there are some big names in 4, so it’s sure to be great, right?


Corey says:

I could take this entire review and talk about how awesome the trailer for this movie is.  Instead, here it is. Ok, now you’ve seen the best part of Texas 3.  That being said, 3 has its merits.  For one, it’s got Ken “No More Room in Hell” Foree in it, which I think is pretty neat.  He seems like a nice guy, and he gets into quite arguably the best duke-it-out-with-Leatherface-while-a-chainsaw-dances-in-the-water-in-the-background scene ever put to celluloid.

Other than that, the fun in 3 is few and far between.  Viggo “dont call me Strider, dammit” Mortensen does a pretty good job of trying to fill the wacky brother role of the family, but everybody else feels too goofy and watered down.  None of the other family members (even you, Bubba) don’t have distinct enough personalities to allow you to figure out which wacko is which.  And why is there a fucking kid?  Who’s idea was that?

Movie Exec: “You know what would be creepy?  A wacko kid!  That’d be an awesome twist!”

Oh.

One of the standouts of this film was the soundtrack.  This bad boy is just dripping with late 80’s crap metal everywhere, and I fucking love it.  Hell, Sacred Reich is on there! I haven’t thought about them since I was wearing big stupid pants and had blue hair.  In fact, them being on there kind of sums of this film nicely.  Texas 3, unfortunately, was a product of the times it lived it.  It reeks of late 80’s/early 90’s stereotypes and how to fit the venerable series into those tropes.  If the first two films hadn’t been so groundbreaking, this might not be a problem.  But they were, so it is.

Salty says:

While The Texas Chainsaw Massacre bears the distinction of being one of the most imitated original horror films of all time and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 2 bears the personal distinction of being my favorite movie of all time, Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III’s main distinction is that it has one of my favorite theatrical trailers of all time. I think that theatrical trailers are an art unto themselves; there are trailers that use little to no footage from the film (Pink Flamingos), trailers that don’t use any dialogue so you won’t know that they are foreign (Don’t Open the Window) and trailers don’t really relate to the film at all (Videodrome), but the best trailers are the ones that use original footage – stuff that you don’t even get in the movie. The Leatherface trailer is one of the latter, and oh boy is it a doozy! Just go watch it.

As for the film itself, Texas III is not bad (not bad does not mean good). The story is familiar: two siblings (neither of them blowing raspberries) on a cross-Texas adventure meet up with the family of chainsaw killers with a lot of obvious fodder along the way – only now the family is different. Drayton is way off, and the wacky hitchhiker is now much less crazy Viggo Mortenson (who does not wear a Sonny Bono wig). They decided to try to humanize Leatherface with this sad awkward Speak-and-Spell scene (a digital picture of a clown is not food - good name for a song by The Locust; bad way to tell me that Leatherface is mentally handicapped). Plus, grandpa is dead (really dead, it’s not that he just looks dead this time) and now we have… smoking post-tracheotomy grandma and… a little cannibal girl, both of whom are presented without explanation, and this leaves the film feeling a lot iffier.

The movie overall is a toss-up between the decent (kitchen scenes) and the lame (Did you know that if you drop a running chainsaw in the swamp, it will not only continue to run, but wave itself back and forth in the water? I may be crazy, but I suspect that this won’t actually happen.) and as it is so often in life, mediocrity wins.

Maire	Corey	Salty
☆	☆☆	☆☆

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2: Electric Boogaloo

Maire says:
Ok, so the original film was pretty intense, wasn’t it? Obviously the best way to follow that up is with slapstick! Don’t get me wrong, this is still a gore flick. Enough so that, on first viewing, you may not realize it’s meant to be funny, which will leave you feeling more horrified than its predecessor.

There’s a lot that can be said about this film. First, Dennis Hopper is in it. Maybe this isn’t surprising to you, but it was to me. Granted, I only really knew of him from his name and those Ameriprise Financial commercials, but his was not a name I equated with slasher movies.

Second, Bill Moseley. I’m sure Corey and Salty will have plenty to say about Bill and his character Chop-Top, so I will leave it to their masterful words.

Third, the Older Brother (he's not the Dad) character. If there is a stereotypical doggoneit dagnabit character portrayed better than Jim Siedow’s, well, I owe you $5.

Fourth through twenty-seventh, well, just watch it. You’ll enjoy it. Though, to fully appreciate Texas 2, you need to watch it with Salty. There may be no other person who can glean so much joy from this film as he does.

Corey says:

If Texas the first is a grandaddy of horror and terror, then 2 is the goofy uncle that’ll sneak you a beer when no one is looking while telling you stories of how he used to light bottle rockets out of his butt. 
The films are fundamentally different in approach, yet the quality of execution is just as high.  The maddening tension and fear of Texas are replaced by larger than life characters, each with their own amazing personality (and hilarious quirks).  That’s not to say that 2 isn’t a horror film, mind you.  It’s just one of those few films that rides that narrow gap between horror comedy and horror absurdity.
One of the things that Salty pointed out to me on this viewing that I hadn’t previously noticed is the set design.  If you look at the weird cave lair thing that the Sawyer folken are holed up in this time around, you notice how much time and care went into designing a place that a crazy family would hang out while winning multiple chili cook offs.  There’s the bones of old victims, coupled with that crazy network of cobwebby tunnels and pipes.  The whole place looks... well... lived in.
Speaking of chili cook offs, I love how Drayton comes off as a greedy capitalist in this film.  When he’s not yelling at his idiot family for doing some idiot thing, he’s scheming and trying to weasel his way into generating more money from his family business.  And who’s to say he’s not good at it?  After all, he’s won multiple chili contests, and that sort of thing will catapult you into financial stardom in a place like Texas.
On a final note, Texas 2 isn’t my favorite in the series.  But it sure as hell is the one I quote the most.

Salty says:

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is the best movie ever made.

We start out on a cross-state road trip with two rowdy yuppies raising hell on the way to a college football game in – you guessed it – Texas. The young punks manage to piss off the wrong awooga-horn-blowing, confederate-flag-yielding truck (in Texas?! you exclaim. Yes. There are Confederate flags in Texas) with a game chicken, and a few hours later, in the midst of a prank phone call to our favorite Bedazzled DJ, Stretch, the kids are pursued by the truck which now has a chainsaw-wielding corpse riding in the bed. That’s right! The partially mummified corpse of a Vietnam veteran begins to attack the college kids car with a chainsaw from the bed of the truck, which is going upwards of 60 mph (in reverse). Next thing you know the driver’s head has been cut in half and it’s all been caught on tape by Stretch, who is persuaded into honking the recording out on her radio show to try get into serious journalism.

This is just the beginning of the film ladies and gentlemen, just the start of this masterwork. The rest of the movie is filled with fry-houses, aching bananas, crazy armadillo hats, Sonny Bono wigs, plot-driving trap doors, handicapped skeletons, fake brick walls full of discarded viscera, Christmas lights, food trucks, and Mr. Shark. Ever wonder how many times you would have to strike a stranger’s face with a hammer before it stopped being horrifying and started being funny? What does it look like when Death eats a cracker? Would a Vietnam-themed amusement park attract tourists? What would you do if you woke up to find a dear friend was wearing your recently cut-off face? Some questions will be answered, others merely posed - this is a bizarre and wonderful film that totally redefines what it means to be a Part 2.

The film, as a sequel, brilliantly revisits ideas conceived by the original, while simultaneously providing more depth. As it turns out the crazy hitchhiker from Part 1 (who was run over by the Black Maria) has an even crazier identical twin brother who got a metal plate in his head after getting wounded in Vietnam during the events of the first film (you know the plate is there because he has picked away and eaten the burnt scabby skin around it with a wire hanger that he sanitizes with a lighter). The identical twin, Chop Top and the corpse from the truck, Nubbins, expand the family without giving the feeling that new characters are just thrown in, and it’s great to spend more time with the surviving Sawyer brothers: Drayton is more pissed at the world than ever (but I think that that’s due to his hems); Bubba is starting to wonder about the joys of S-C-E-X, and, don’t worry, grandpa is still the best. Dennis Hopper has been added as Lefty, the renegade uncle of the wheelchair-bound raspberry-blower Franklin from the original film. In my opinion Dennis Hopper can do no wrong and this is his defining performance.

So the Part 2 aspect of the film is used expertly, but you may be concerned about the rest of the key elements – as would any fan of Patton Oswalt. The Massacre is admittedly minimal due to budget cuts (only 2 on-screen deaths), but fear not, there is plenty of Chainsaw. How much chainsaw? In addition to the aforementioned partial decapitation, and the live skinning of a chronic spitter, we get a chainsaw swordfight (I admit that this has already been done in Motel Hell), and plenty of phallic allusions. But it’s not just the bad guys that have access to the saws: Dennis Hopper comes right back at the family of chainsaw killers with not one, not two, but three chainsaws. Three chainsaws!? Yes, three chainsaws! You may be wondering how he manages to lug three chainsaws around. Two words: Chainsaw holsters. Oh yes! It’s a chainsaw extravaganza all up in this motherfucker – they even throw in an electric knife, just to cover the bases.

So we get a little Massacre and a lot of Chainsaw, which leaves the Texas. There is more Texas than a pair of rattlesnake cowboy boots, darlin’! The Texas is the best part of the movie. No character could abide any other part of the Union. From old hymns to “Remember the Alamo”, the dialogue reeks of Texas in the best possible way. What better place for a family of cannibals to win awards for their excellent chili? (The secret is in the meat.)

Thanks to Stretch, the movie has a great soundtrack (though no inavitadegotta, baby), and there is an excellent all-synthesizer score that always makes me think of some weird, jazzed up organ. What else can I praise? How about the set design? Brilliant! The home of the chainsaw killers is a delight to behold in real time or frame-by-frame to take in the subtler touches. Casting? I could think of none better. The costumes? Perfect! Do I like every aspect of the movie? Yep. Even the ending? Yeah, I even like the ending. Brazos.

Maire	Corey	Salty
☆☆	☆☆☆	☆☆☆

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: the Franchise Introduction

Texas, as it’s affectionately known here at House of Sequels, is not an easy franchise to review. Each of us have our preferences, and while we are all delighted with our favorite devices, they do come few and far between, and none of them work for all three of us at the same time*. Though really, shouldn't all films end with a dancing chainsaw silhouette fade out?

The series follows a, let's say, loving and close knit family deep in the heart of Texas. Yes, they're a little misunderstood, but aren't all families?  Here we have a family down on their luck.  They've lost their livelihood, and they're just trying to make it in a world that is slowly passing them by.  The Sawyer family is trying the best they know how to keep food on the table.  Hell, we here at the House have eaten lungs, hearts, tripe... even whale! What's to say any of you wouldn't do what you had to do to keep your family fed?

*The exception is Texas 2, which is just all around great. Yes, even the ending.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Government Film About the Dangers of Picking Up Hitchhikers

Maire says:
First off, did you know that this movie’s wikipedia page has 160 cited references? If that doesn’t say “cult classic,” I don’t know what does.

While Psycho definitely brought the slasher genre to the forefront, Texas makes full use of its elements. Yes, we know there are going to be bloody deaths, but man, it does a great job of building tension. By the end of the film, you’re hoping for the last death, wanting the movie to be done and over already so you don’t have to suffer the tension any longer.

And then the finger scene happens. And you feel horrible about yourself for watching it.

But you still don’t get that last death. Instead, you get a happy(?) ending and the first of our “dancing chainsaw” fade outs.

Oh god, the tension is still there...

whimper

Corey says:

Oh boy, here we go.

One of the reasons that we started the House was to document the fact that, yes, we actually watched all of these films. Even if no one reads our blog, we have a testament to the fact that we took on this Sisyphean task. But the problem arises when we tackle one of the greats. What can we possibly add to the conversation? What can I say about Texas that hasn't already been beaten to death?

Then, I remember that the House is for my reactions to films. How do I feel, 15 or so years after the first time that I viewed Texas? For the most part, I'm just as horrified as I was the first time I saw the film.

The thing that gets me the most about Texas (and the thing that most people tend to forget, if you ask Salty) is that the horror of the movie is not Leatherface. The horror is that there's a whole family of psychopathic wackos. Ol’ Bubba is important, sure, but he’s more of a supporting role to a crazy hitchhiker, a domineering (but loving) older brother, and a grandpa that’s still one of the best slaughterers in the state. In fact, the film would still be great (though maybe not a legend) if Leatherface weren’t present at all. He works as less of a character and more of a catalyst, providing impetus to the horrors that are already being wrought. He’s the salt in a soup, the hops in a beer. The movie isn’t built around him, he is built around the movie.

One of the other things the film excels at is the plodding tension and horror, without much actual gore. All of the sights and sounds are ground in gritty realism, never glorifying but at the same time never pulling any punches. Much like the slaughterhouse background of the Sawyers, the film delivers atmosphere brutally and efficiently. When Sally Hardesty wakes up for dinner, it’s terrifying to her, not because of the freaky bones on the table or the dead (?) man sitting at the table with her, but because of how we got to this moment. We’ve been hung on hooks. We’ve had to run. We know we’re the only one left. And now, just a quiet meal, where we’re the guest of honor. It’s enough to break anyone.

On a final note, Franklin is an amazing character. For one, he’s in a wheelchair, and the film doesn’t make a huge deal out of it. Just another one of those touches that, hey, this is real. Also, he’s a dick. And I love him for it. Every time I see that scene where he’s giving the raspberry, I crack up. But then I remember what’s going to happen to him, and it makes me a little melancholy.

Salty says:

Horror movies steal from one another constantly. It’s a fact. The producer of Friday the 13th admits he told his screenwriter “Write me a movie like Halloween”. All movies do it, but with horror it’s like a riot: everyone is stealing everything they can and no one cares who took what except the overtly pretentious spectator. I am sort of fickle when it comes to the thievery. I had to get rid of my copy of High Tension after I saw Intensity - not that Intensity was that good (fuck you Dean Koontz), but it’s like finding out your favorite porn star has gotten AIDS. It ruins the magic, you know? This is also why I can’t love Night of the Demons, when I watch it, all I can think is I could be watching Evil Dead. But I like Slither and Night of the Creeps, and I love David Cronenberg and he just makes one movie over and over (it’s a good movie). The issue is complicated.

Although dozens, if not hundreds, of movies have shamelessly “borrowed” from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (especially House of 1,000 Corpses), I have yet to see anything made prior to it that bears a remote resemblance. It’s the first movie made for mass audiences that feels like you shouldn’t be watching it, because not only is it violent, it’s chaotic, so you’re never really sure what you’re going to see or if you want to see it. The grainy quality of the film helps, so does the hydrocephalic gas station attendant and the self-mutilating hitchhiker. Also the chainsaw – let’s face it, no one would want to go see The Texas Massacre, that just sounds too religious and depressing.

The film is a Rubicon and rite of passage. Every horror fan has a “first time I saw The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” story, same as parrot-heads have a “first time I heard Margaritaville” story (and consequently a “first time I realized that I was an 50-year-old drunk with too much money” story). At fourteen my friend and I raided his miscellanea-riddled attic in the midst of a caffeine-fueled all-nighter. Our plunder was a pillowcase that we were certain was crusted with dried blood, a couple of Slayer tapes and coverless VHS copy of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I crashed about a third of the way in, but I kept waking to screams and chainsaw sounds, watching grizzly pandemonium and then slipping back into unconsciousness. I remember waking up at dawn as the end of the film played and wondering how it had come to this blood-drenched girl literally raving mad as she fled from the dancing Leatherface into the too-orange dawn and not being sure if I had seen that fat man blow raspberries at his peers or just dreamed it. I was sure that I would be watching the film again.

The movie is just off-kilter enough to make sure that you, the viewer, are interested without ever reaching a disenchanting moment of absurdity. It is, after all, based on highly exaggerated fact, and the reality is driven home by details. The setting, the characters, the plot, the unique but believable look and feel of the movie all amalgamate into this wild awful thing, but the details are what make it just right. The jittery muscle spasms you see after blunt force trauma to the head are a real phenomenon. The jerk of being dropped onto a meat hook yips with reality. Those bones you are seeing are real human bones (ordered from India according to the commentary; one wonders how much director Tobe Hooper worked on Return of the Living Dead before leaving the project). The movie is a complex recipe but all the ingredients are on full display, there are just too many to get mix correct again. So, it’s forgivable that other filmmakers have been unsuccessfully trying to emulate it ever since; it’s too hard not to (but you can at least try not to Rob. Come on man, seriously).

Maire	Corey	Salty
☆☆	☆☆☆	☆☆

Good News, Everyone! We've Watched Them All!

With Dominion and The Beginning behind us (not to mention some colossal delays because of yours truly), we've come to the end of the Exorcist series.  In some ways, I feels this may be one of the more divisive series as far as House of Sequels consensus goes.  Some films that I thought would have been an easy perfect score (the original) didn't make it, and I totally cock blocked (to Maire and Salty's surprise) II from the dreaded shitpickle.  That's what makes this series (and this project) so interesting, though.

We all get different things out of films.  Some of us obsess over directors and camera angles.  Some of us are obsessive gorehounds.  Some of us love awful acting and cheap sets.  And that's all ok.  The beauty of horror is that we can all come together and discuss what we like, what we don't like, and the community is always better for the conversation.  

The Exorcist series has everything.  It has pure, classic horror.  It has hokey 80's sentiments.  It has beautiful characters that are in every film.  And, it has shitpickles.  But, the fact that 3 humble students of the craft can't come together and tell you which is the best is a testament to not only how diverse the series is, it's also a monument to how awesome the horror community as a whole can be.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go eat some pea soup.


Franchise Ranking

The Exorcist	☆☆☆☆
The Exorcist III	☆☆☆☆
Exorcist II: The Heretic	☆
Exorcist: The Beginning
Dominion: The Prequel to the Exorcist

The Exorcist: The Beginning / Dominion (The Same, Yet Different)

Maire says:
Since these two movies are the same, yet different (just like you and me!), you get a two for one review! If you were not aware, these two films were shot simultaneously, so, I can only believe, there’d be a failsafe if one was completely terrible. The problem is, they’re both horrible.

And on to the plot!

Ah yes, the ol’ let’s-just-dig-up-this-thing-that-was-obviously-buried-for-a-reason-because-there-certainly-won’t-be-any-ill-effects plot device.

• Hmm, this centuries old tomb surely is structurally sound. Oh wait, OH NO!!!

• Ah yes, excavating this buried temple in a remote part of Africa is definitely a good idea. Pazuzu-who?    

Of course hilarity ensues.

If I had to pick, The Beginning is better than Dominion if only for the crazy homicidal kid. There are some seriously effed up deaths caused by this kid. It’s kinda great! Also, it has much less lame-o Pazuzu. Granted that’s not saying much. Pazuzu is still in there a lot, but he’s just not as lame as in Dominion.
 
That last paragraph may have the titles confused, but since none of us want to rewatch either, you'll just have to take my word for it.

Corey says:

If one of my compatriots didn't talk about how these films got made, or if you don't know, go ahead and read up.  I'll wait here.

Got it?  Ok, good.

These films run together in my mind, mainly due to the fact that they share so much of the same footage.  Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are bad films.  They are awful on their own merit.  One (don't ask me which one is which) has terrible cgi dogs, or wolves, or something.  It also has the British military doing what they do best: treating colonists like dirt.  And, it has a sexy female lead who ends up being the possessed.

Quick aside.  Dear not-at-this-point-in-time Father Merrin:  Just bang the hot chick.  You get some sweet action, and the fans get to see some boobage.  For real, more skin would have maybe at least kept me from wishing I was watching anything with Ray Romano in it.  Maybe.

The other film has a bunch of scenes with Nazis and Jews that totally make sense, a possessed kid, and the return of our old friend Pazuzu! Well, to be fair, I don't remember if both films had Pazuzu, but I think it was only the one.  Also, the church buried in the desert was cooler looking in this one (I think).

There is one scene that both films share, though.  One diamond in the rough.  One shining moment of cinematic brilliance that will rouse you from you drinking game induced haze.  

A baby. Born stillborn. Covered in maggots.  And it looked AWESOME.

So kudos, whichever director filmed that bit! Not only did you film the coolest scene in these train wrecks, it made it into both films!

Salty says:
When the House of Sequels was first conceived, I thought it would be cool if every post that I did was positive about the movie, and that even if I didn’t like it, I would try at least to make my response fun or entertaining – I just want to amiably agree to disagree with fans of each bad film - because, as a fan of horror, I have to be willing to accept criticism about the movies I love, but I find it a little offensive the negative reviews are malicious, not to mention a waste of my time. Who wants to read about someone ranting about something that they hate? (No one, Internet, no one wants to listen to you rant about things you hate) So, I at least tried to make my reviews for The Heretic and Psycho (’98) sort of fun in the way I pick on them, but these Exorcist sequels are really making it hard for me.

We at the House of Sequels watched Dominion last in the franchise and I was prepared, if not expecting, to like it much more than The Beginning. After all, I like Paul Schrader (I own Taxi Driver and Bringing Out The Dead and I really like both movies and I have been trying to track down a copy of the mysteriously hard to find Rolling Thunder for a while), but Dominion is bad, and if I were a producer on the movie and I saw the dailies, I would have fired him too. I know that’s harsh, but this movie is just a failure.

I give it credit for trying to do something unique with the series (something that The Exorcist franchise does have to its credit is a very, very diverse set of films, and they kill a kid, which is a filmmaking move I respect because the moment you kill a kid in your movie you know that a part of the audience just checks out). That said, I just don’t understand what this movie is going for. Why anyone would want to make it or most importantly, why I would want to watch it? If you have a reason to like it let me know (and I mean really like it, not I like it because it sucks so bad it’s funny), I would be genuinely interested to hear it

As for the other film, I can’t lie; I went into The Exorcist: The Beginning expecting it to be terrible and it was and is. Why does The Exorcist need this many sequels? Because it’s a bankable title, I get that and respect it, but, at the same time, the film doesn't lend itself to follow-ups. Taking into consideration the way the story of the original plays out, I just think that it is much harder to make a likeable follow up than it would be to make one for say Nightmare on Elm Street (which I think gives additional credence to very likable The Exorcist III). Doesn’t the fact that this film is a prequel already suggest that there is little room for movement in the series?

As if the beginnings of the film weren’t precarious enough, add fact that the film is a salvage.  It's a picture cut partway through production given to the credited director to save it from being a turd, and I am not saying that you can’t polish a turd into an acceptable product, but I am saying that if you polish a turd with a bunch of bad CG and swap out some of your actors, you are going to get a shiny turn with a bunch of bad CG hyenas and some different actors.

The only really great part about The Beginning is that after reviewing it with Dominion, we here at the House of Sequels don’t have to review anymore Exorcist movies.

Maire	Corey	Salty
☆	☆	☆