Top critical review
10 people found this helpful
It reminds me of that old Star Wars quote...
on 30 May 2013
"Who's the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"
That's how I feel. I wonder who's more to blame - the film-makers, for making this awful movie, or me for being stupid enough to expect it to be okay.
Now, anyone who chooses to watch a film with words like `chainsaw' and `massacre' is its title should, hopefully, know what they're getting. We know it's never going to be high-art with deep, high-brow, Oscar-worthy performances. However, what we do hope is that it will at least be an entertaining entry into the `slasher' genre. The Texas Chainsaw 3D isn't.
First of all, actually quite liked Michael Bay's 2003 remake and even found something strangely enjoyable about the prequel `The Beginning' so my hopes were reasonably high for this. It's worth noting that it totally disregards both recent outings and goes straight back to the beginning, i.e. it's a direct sequel to the 1973 original. We see the aftermath of the first film, where angry locals destroy the cannibals' house, all but a young girl, who's saved. Now, this is where it gets confusing... the story picks up 20-odd years later when the girl is (clearly) in her early twenties, which, by my calculations, sets the film in about 1995. Yet the exact year (and we know this by the gravestones) is 2012, complete with iphones etc to prove it. Anyway, glossing over that plot inconsistency, we're treated to more of the same... only worse.
Considering this is based on the movie that some might argue `spawned' the entire slasher genre, it plays into every single cliché going. Seriously... in this day and age, where the premise of a couple having sex then dying horribly has been so widely lampooned, i.e. Scream and Cabin in the Woods, why are film-makers still using it?
Again, the clichés could be forgiven if you cared for the characters. You won't. But there could be some decent gore for us to enjoy? There isn't. The `gore' looks totally fake and completely CGI (you'll find better special effects on a made-for-TV movie). What about the story, does it add anything to the genre? Yes and No. It tries. However, everything `new' it comes up with is completely unbelievable and stupid. I won't spoil it for you as there are some things you may not expect to find in a movie like this. Sadly, they're all too far-fetched to be believable.
What could have been a decent attempt to make a sequel to a classic has fallen well short, due to bad special effects, no likeably characters and a completely idiotic story.
As they say in Scream 4 "Never mess with the original."