Unseen Terror 2024: Someone Needs Therapy (Day 23)

The fanaticism for the long running Terrifier franchise is nothing short of fascinating. Exploding in popularity primarily through word of mouth, the gruesome exploits of silent, creepy slasher villain Art the Clown has taken the horror world by storm (whether they’ve embraced it or not is a completely different story), and writer/director Damien Leone’s decision to expand what was once a relatively linear story into a full-fledged one with strong characters is unexpected and admirable. Now arriving eight years after its first full-length entry made its way into the world of modern-day horror (though if you want to count shorts, this is Art the Clown and Terrifier’s 16^th birthday), Terrifier 3 has come to, in layman’s terms, plant high explosives in your chimney. For you see, this marks the movies’ first time outside of the season of the witch and into the time that anyone who’s ever worked in retail before detests with a passion: Christmas!

 

The story picks up immediately after the events of Terrifier 2, where we saw Art (played here once again by David Howard Thornton) get his comeuppance via a satisfying sword decapitation. Turns out that despite getting your head chopped off, you can’t keep a good clown down and, well, he gets better. Now joined by an accomplice in the form of physically deformed, insane survivor Victoria Hayes (a returning Samantha Scaffidi, one of only two performers to appear in every full-length entry of the series), they enter a five-year-long hibernation. When they’re accidentally disturbed by demolition workers, Art resumes what he’s been so good at doing. This time around though, he discovers that he’s woken up during a different holiday, which leads to him grabbing a Santa suit and committing more horrible acts (but now with some X-mas themed flair). Elsewhere, Terrifier 2’s survivors Sienna and Jonathan Shaw are trying to move on with their lives, though the former has been released from a mental health center and is wrecked with survivor’s guilt, while the latter is trying to settle into a life of normalcy at college. It doesn’t take terribly long for the two to discover that perhaps their greatest nightmare has returned, and they attempt to concoct a way to finish him off for good.

 

Let’s get the biggest positive of Terrifier 3 out of the way right now: it is shorter than its predecessor and flows much better than prior installments (though we’re still subjected to some scene lingering here and there). I think this shows Leone’s growth as a filmmaker and understanding the audience a little more. While we’re more than satisfied watching the extravagant and expertly shot murder sequences of these flicks, it’s like watching a “death match” in professional wrestling. There’s a good chunk of people who love the sheer insanity and audacity of it all, but we need a breather from time to time. Speaking of those slayings, to the surprise of absolutely no one, the deaths in Terrifier 3 are chaotically, unapologetically gruesome. For every time that I thought to myself “I don’t think you can top the ‘bedroom’ centerpiece from the second film,” Leone and his crew manage to prove you wrong. If you have any suspicions that Art may have lines he doesn’t cross, then I’d like to point you to a sequence that takes place inside of a mall. Understandably, the movie’s most infamous moment (and what will likely nab it several awards at niche horror-themed ceremonies from the likes of Dead Meat and Fangoria) is a double kill involving a chainsaw that would make fans of 1980s cult favorites such as Pieces very proud and the creators of violent video game series Mortal Kombat blush (side note: NetherRealm Studios, put Art the Clown in your newest game as DLC and watch your sales skyrocket). Simply put, the movie’s kills are like putting Mortician lyrics from pen to screen. In what is perhaps the most pleasant surprise, Terrifier 3 is also a lot funnier than its predecessors. These films were never joyless slogs, but actor David Howard Thornton is really getting a chance to showcase his comedic chops via great body language and little mannerisms that briefly defuse the horrors of what you’re seeing on screen. It’s similar to what we’d see in some of the later-day Elm Street sequels, but with a villain who never utters a single word to the audience.

 

Perhaps the greatest triumph of the Terrifier series above all else though has been the rise of our now recurring heroine Sienna Shaw (played wonderfully by a returning Lauren LaVera). She has emerged from the events of the prior flick with plenty of mental and physical scars, but much like the strongest of horror protagonists (or hell, just film in general), they haven’t weakened her and have made her more alert than ever. It’s akin to seeing the growth of classic horror heroines such as Ellen Ripley or Nancy Thompson, and her performances are the anchor to this gorefest of a franchise. Without going into any spoilers, it’s going to be very interesting to see where her character goes after the events of Terrifier 3, but as long as LaVera and Leone continue to work together, I’m all here for it. Put her in the ‘S’ tier of all-time best “final girls.”

 

At this point in its lifecycle, the Terrifier franchise, for better or for worse, is here to stay and is a testament that you don’t need an astronomically high budget to shock or disturb audiences. They’re very much like that local restaurant that you’ve dubbed “the best *insert food item* in town.” While that statement is a debatable one amongst you and your colleagues, it’s still a very satisfying meal for what they charge. It’s blood-soaked comfort food, and regardless of whether this kind of stuff is your jam or not, I think it’s incredible to see an unrated motion picture top the box office (and to dethrone the highly anticipated Joker: Folie a Deux with relative ease). It’s neat to see things shaken up sometimes. That, and it’s a great big middle finger to that anti-union, “anti-woke” jackass Todd Phillips. If you’ve got the stomach and want a splatterific way to kill two hours, come on down to the clown café again.

Unseen Terror 2024: Quack You Ryhan (Day 11)

It dawned on me while assembling this year’s marathon that for the day when I grew one year older, I had nearly run out of film choices to watch from 1985. I’ve covered nearly all the heavy hitters (most of which I adore). Hell, I could have just cheated and listed off my favorite “Treehouse of Horror” episodes instead, but that would require more time than I expected. So, I decided to go back to the well of a country whose contributions to scary cinema rarely disappoint me: Italy! Specifically, I wanted to watch something that had been in my queue for several years and that would make me squirm a bit. Thankfully Lucio Fulci’s 1982 cult favorite giallo The New York Ripper (originally titled Lo squartatore di New York) was there to welcome me with bloody arms.

 

The plot is your basic “detective looking for a serial killer” trope, but what helps separate this one from the pack is just the all-around weirdness, ugliness, and brutality of it all. When your movie opens with a man playing fetch with his golden retriever, only for his dog to ignorantly bring back a decomposing, severed hand, you know that this isn’t going to be a simple procedural or anything you’d see on CBS evenings. For starters, this movie is super sleazy and grimy. Admittedly, I haven’t been to New York City in more than twenty years, but this movie dives into the darker and more “sensuous” side of the big apple that I’m sure some people reading this may not want to admit exists. There ain’t no Broadway Musical highlighting, but apparently in the world of The New York Ripper, you can attend live sex shows. So, there’s that! The violence is also unrepentantly BRUTAL (as is usually the case with Fulci), with our titular killer brandishing only a switchblade and straight-razors. If you know anything about Lucio Fulci (whose other works include bangers such as The Beyond, Zombie, and City of the Living Dead just to name a few), then you know there is also bound to be some eyeball violence thrown into the mix too, so brace yourself for that. There's also a memorable sequence involving a broken bottle that can be best described as "something you don't see every day."

But while the slayings seen on screen will certainly stick in your mind for a very long time, it’s the very odd (if not slightly jarring) decision to have our titular slasher constantly quacking at their victims while harassing and ultimately eviscerating them. I couldn’t fully tell if that was meant to be genuinely intimidating or if it was meant to be a parody, but I suppose that if you put yourself in the shoes of the people being stalked, it can be a bit disorienting? Even after laying out my rough draft for this, I can’t fully tell whether to put this into my list of “positives” or “negatives,” because it is just so peculiar. One genuine complaint I DO have though is that while the film does manage to do a surprisingly good job at keeping you guessing as to who the killer is (even after a moment that makes it seem SUPER obvious), there is a twist in its final act that comes in from out of NOWHERE that had me audibly asking why that needed to be there. It just kind of blindsides you with unnecessary exposition.

 

 

Lucio Fulci is an “acquired” taste, and The New York Ripper isn’t really an exception to that. It’s gratuitous, mean, and unsavory. I also think you could make an argument that it’s slightly misogynistic too unfortunately (his other contemporaries like Dario Argento tended to write stronger female characters). Still, flaws and all, I really had a ball with this one. If you have the stomach for it and want a nice heap of some blood-soaked cheese, throw this into your queue. As of the time of this review, it’s currently available to stream on Shudder and Tubi!

Unseen Terror 2022: Catching the Hell Up......Again.

How wonderful it is to talk about slashers and maniacs. For the (unintended) second iteration of my "catching up" postings, we have some distinctly different entities released over the course of forty years. One featuring an all-too familiar face from our childhoods, some feeling like they are pandering to the lowest common denominator, and another features a newer character who is destined to go down as one of the most impactful & infamous (if not divisive) figures in modern horror. Let's get to it.

DAY 19:

.

I'm a little surprised that I had never managed to catch Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare in its entirety until this year. I've spent far too much time over the past twenty-plus years being fixated on and fascinated by horror icon Freddy Krueger's evil deeds, but yet never took the plunge with this one. Perhaps it was due to a fairly bad reputation that it's garnered over the years. Perhaps it was due to the fact that it essentially felt like one of the final nails in the coffin of the slasher genre (until Scream brought it back to the mainstream) by having an awful box office intake. Whatever the case, there was no excuse for missing it now since it popped up on Tubi. Plus, I have to be a Nightmare completist. I don't expect to be reviewing the Freddy's Nightmares TV show this year though.

If the title wasn't a dead giveaway, Freddy's Dead was intended to be the final entry in New Line Cinema's once profitable A Nightmare on Elm Street series. Box office receipts had started to dwindle and the folks at New Line (specifically Bob Shaye) felt like it was time to finally move on with different projects. Stepping into the director's chair for this sixth installment was Rachel Talalay, who had been involved with prior Nightmare projects in various capacities (and also wrote the story this time around). Said story begins with the introduction of the amnesiac John Doe who is seemingly the last survivor of the (now) almost childless town of Springwood, Ohio. Through some screwy means, he is taken into a shelter for troubled kids, where he meets their doctor, Maggie Burroughs (played by future L.A. Law co-star Lisa Zane). Hoping to cure his amnesia, Maggie takes John and a trio of her patients to Springwood for a trip. Of course, ol' Freddy is waiting for them to just fall asleep so he can dispatch of them in gleefully creative ways. But could one of these rapscallions hold the key to truly defeating the man also known as "The Springwood Slasher?" And does one of them hold a stronger connection to Freddy that even they would realize sounds crazy? 

Certainly sounds like I'm hyping this up to be a rather grandiose conclusion to this saga, yes? Well, that idea sounds promising, but Freddy's Dead is unfortunately a colossal misfire and proof that maybe killing Freddy was the absolute best thing you could have done to spare this icon any further embarrassment. Nothing really works here. The script is peppered with some pretty lousy dialogue, with Freddy himself going into full-on Bugs f'n Bunny territory (NOT a compliment) and losing any menace he had retained throughout his prior outings. In terms of our protagonists, going from the excellent Alice Johnson (of parts 4 & 5) to the pretty bland and forgettable Maggie is also a shame, especially when you discover just how vital the latter is to the franchise halfway through this flick's running time. It makes you REALLY wish she was written to be more interesting or that they had hinted at her importance in prior pictures (possible spoiler, sorry). Still, you do have a fairly fun performance from Yaphet Kotto here, who gets to beat Freddy up with a baseball bat. Points for that. Speaking of violent behavior, even the kills this time around just feel tiresome. I'd argue that the most impressive death comes via a hearing aid tampering, but that's only because everything else just kind of stinks (especially when the final kill of the film, originally filmed to be in 3D along with the final ten minutes of the actual movie itself, looks even worse). Seeing a creatively bankrupt Nightmare movie is like going to your favorite restaurant to only discover than the menu has been completely revamped and they're using McDonald's hamburgers to make their patties instead of making them in house. It's serviceable, but not what you paid for and will not likely warrant a return from you.

Freddy's Dead is kind of a necessary evil in the Elm Street franchise though. It's not a good film. AT ALL. You could honestly just skip through all of the fluff and watch one of those "Kill Count" videos on YouTube instead (not hating at all, I really like the Dead Meat folks). However, its failure did ultimately lead New Line Cinema back to Krueger's "father" Wes Craven, and he gave us a fan-fucking-tastic return to form for the character (albeit in a "noncanonical" sense) in Wes Craven's New Nightmare. Go seek that out instead if you haven't already.

DAY 20:

Despite sporting what I think is an undeniably awesome poster and tagline, 1984's The Mutilator (also known by the far more fitting title of Fall Break) is ultimately more of a perplexing entry in the absurdly large slasher subgenre than an outright good or bad one. The plot is pretty standard, with a cluster of coeds going to an island property during a break from school and encountering a psychotic madman who may or may not have connections to said island (and one of the characters). The real standout of The Mutilator comes not from its villain or even its kills, but rather its tone. It's very difficult to tell whether or not this was filmed with sincerity or if they were trying to go for intentionally campy. The movie features both opening and closing credits that are shot akin to that of a silly 80s sitcom (complete with goofy, uplifting music). That is certainly.....a choice. If I'm being brutally honest, this is the perfect kind of low-grade slasher that works best with a group of friends and some sort of recreational assistance. My days of drinking regularly are over though, so I wish I could give this a stronger recommendation.

DAY 21

OOF.

Well, 1982's Nightbeast (a loose remake of Maryland director Don Dohler's own picture The Alien Factor) is this year's reminder that perhaps I SHOULD take up drinking again. I found this one to be a bit difficult to get through, but admittedly I was battling some pretty bad food poisoning that day so my opinions and enjoyment may have been swayed by feeling like my body was housing a chestburster from Alien. Maybe I'll revisit this one again someday when I'm feeling better and have a bit freer time away from work. Fun monster design though.

DAY 22

Interestingly enough, I believe that this is one of the few times where I've revisited a film from a prior year's "Unseen Terror." Once I heard that 1991's criminally underrated Popcorn was getting the "Last Drive-In" treatment via horror streaming service Shudder, I figured that there was no better excuse to revisit it for the first time since I reviewed it back in 2015. Thankfully most of its charm and cleverness still remains intact, and I think it's just such a goddamn shame that Jill Schoelen never became a bigger star. Not really sure that I can add a whole lot more that wasn't covered before seven years ago. If you enjoy movies which feature a love FOR horror movies as a core part of its plot, check it out.

DAY 23:

Oy vey. I know that it isn't some sort of shocking revelation, but man did studios just churn out way too many slasher pictures during the decade of decadence. What caught my eye about 1981's Graduation Day (which is about, brace yourselves here, a mysterious figure killing off horny and gullible teens days before their graduation) however, was its very peculiar cast of somewhat familiar faces. I can't say that seeing fan favorite scream queen Linnea Quigley (Night of the Demons, Return of the Living Dead) pop up here was terribly surprising, but seeing Wheel of Fortune's Vanna White? Michael Pataki of Halloween 4 and Ren & Stimpy fame (where he voiced the quite gruff George Liquor)? Christopher George of City of the Living Dead and Pieces infamy? I most certainly was on board for this train ride.

Unfortunately, Graduation Day is kind of a mixed bag. Its first half is at times brutally slow (bordering on nap-inducing) but once the body count begins, it is a hoot of the highest regard. None of these kills are going to change the game (though pole vaulting onto a bed of steel spikes is undeniably gnarly) but they are serviceable given the visibly lower budget and (what I can assume to be) rushed shooting time. The killer reveal is a bit of a disappointment, but the journey along the way is a fairly fun one. Although I believe that Happy Birthday to Me is likely to take home the silver medal for "Best Slasher" during this year's marathon, this could end up with a shiny medal for third place by the end of the month.

I'm certain that you'd be reading that last sentence and asking what will likely be taking top honors in that category though. Well, here's your blood-soaked, nasty grand prize winner.

DAY 24: 

I have been having the hardest time trying to write about Terrifier 2, and that is for a multitude of reasons. For starters, I have watched this Covid-delayed sequel TWICE now (the first time during its initial theatrical run towards the beginning of October), and I had to refresh my memory a bit before finalizing a published review. The follow-up to 2016's surprise hit Terrifier (both written and directed by Damien Leone) had been sitting in my queue for what felt like an eternity and was an early addition to this year's selection. However, I could have never anticipated that it would receive any sort of release in a cineplex (save for maybe something like the Drafthouse cinemas), as the first film is absolutely the kind of monstrosity that even modern horror audiences might find to be a bit too gross for their liking (need I mention the "hacksaw" scene?). Much to my delight though, this movie has been sticking around past its initial release schedule and has been EXPANDING into even more theaters over the weeks. Whether you count yourself as a fan of Art the Clown or not, the runaway success that it's been having (almost all due to word of mouth) is a pretty outstanding triumph for independent horror cinema.

As for the finished product itself? Well, I don't know if maybe I'm becoming a bit too sensitive in my older age, but Terrifier 2 will likely go down as perhaps the ghastliest, most disgusting, cruelest, and just all-around most brutal picture I'll see all month (if not all year). Leone has managed to take his own creation and turn this sequel up to eleven and then some by adding in some interesting lore surrounding its bad guy and a stronger script than its predecessor. The violence splits its time between being gloriously over-the-top to downright uncomfortable, and it features some of the best practical effects/makeup work you're likely to see in a modern-day horror film. Hell, its centerpiece kill will go down as an all-time classic (actress Casey Hartnett deserves a bonus and full course meal for going through it) and once/if you see the horrific crime committed, the revelation that this flick has been causing some audiences to either walk out, pass out, or feel quite ill will be far more understandable. Art the Clown (played perfectly yet again by David Howard Thornton) continues to earn his place alongside other legendary, silent, stone cold killers from yesteryear. Even as someone who doesn't have coulrophobia, there is just something so unnerving about the character that gets under your skin like few horror antagonists can do these days. Opposite the maniacal Art is a surprisingly solid cast of characters, and ones who I found to be even more memorable than those found in its predecessor. Teenager Jonathan, played by Elliott Fullam (who you can find on the very charming "Little Punk People" channel on YouTube) is a young man fascinated by true crime stories and all things morbid, and his fascination with this "evil clown" that has made a name for himself over the past few years could have some serious consequences if he keeps sticking his nose where it doesn't belong. His strict (if not extremely cautious) mother is played rather well by Sarah Voigt, who despite having a fairly small body of work, portrays her character as if she's been doing this longer than most in her field. I do have to save the most noteworthy performance (well, at least among the new cast) for last though: Lauren. F'n. Lavera. Y'all, we gotta talk about this actress, because she absolutely ROCKS in Terrifier 2. I'm certain that even those who have derided the movie agree that this woman is a goddamn star (and I'd be willing to bet that the character of Sienna could hold her own against anything thrown her way, be it from this world or not). It has been far too long since I've rooted this hard for a "Final Girl" in any horror picture to kick the villain's keester, and she'll stand alongside folks like Sharni Vinson in You're Next, Jessica Rothe in Happy Death Day, and Samara Weaving in Ready or Not as some of the best we've seen over the last decade or so. My apologies if it sounds like I'm gushing: when I enjoy great protagonists in the scarier side of cinema, it is a fabulous feeling.

It isn't all terrific, however. Perhaps the biggest derision that Terrifier 2 seems to be getting from critics (well, besides the violence) has been its incredibly lengthy running time. While I will admit that it didn't necessarily bother me personally because it just adds to the tension, any "slasher" picture that runs for close to 2.5 hours could probably use a bit of editing here and there. Then again, my screenings were presented as the "Uncut" version of the movie (Lemmy help whoever has to edit this into a "Rated" cut), so perhaps that's a bit of a silly complaint. I do also think that despite my enjoyment and sympathy for most of its cast, some of the supporting players feel a bit underwritten. But hey, that's horror for ya sometimes. Finally, without going into spoilers, it does leave the audience with a lot of unanswered questions and certain plot elements are a tad confusing (particularly its mid-credits scene). I assume that those will be answered in the inevitable Terrifier 3 though.

Discussing and giving my final thoughts on Terrifier 2 is a rather difficult task, only because I know that half of the people who read this crummy blog of mine are looking more for genuine scares rather than gore-filled extravaganzas. Hell, I've even said before that though I love a good ol' bloodbath, I'm more frightened of the living than the dead, and chills/dread will often trump body parts flying all over the screen. That being said, I do believe that Damien Leone's follow-up feature can serve as that rare example which can satisfy both crowds. If you have a strong stomach, are searching for a new horror figure to genuinely creep you out or are just in the mood for something that can best be described as "utterly, unabashedly insane," give this one a watch however you can. I'm planning on preordering the Blu-Ray as soon as it becomes available.

Unseen Terror 2020: Day 8

Alright, now that the detour known as The Car has come and gone, let's finish what we started shall we?

2006's The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning is (to nobody's surprise) a prequel to the remake from three years prior and also marks the final time that the world of Leatherface and co. would be handled by the likes of New Line Cinema. The plot centers on two brothers and their girlfriends who are driving across the country to have some fun before they enlist in the Vietnam war. One small mishap involving a biker gang leads to them having an accidental encounter with the Hewitt family and, well, you can just guess how everything goes from here. 

Unfortunately this is where Beginning's biggest problems lie: a lot of just feels so predictable and familiar. Even some of this movie's biggest twists and reveals lack the impact that they should have, and the fact that this film serves as a precursor to the 2003 film means that we know that nothing major is going to happen to any of the returning cast. And my goodness are the origins behind some of these "mysteries" just utterly lame: was there really a demand to know how the old guy in the wheelchair lost his legs, or that Leatherface used to work in a slaughterhouse? It just feels so unnecessary, as if the filmmakers wanted to attempt to spice things up a bit rather than just deliver another substandard slasher picture. Nice try, but it missed the mark for me. Beginning is also so intent on showing the audience how "mean" and "brutal" it can be that it comes across as forced and obnoxious. It can't be coincidental that this Chainsaw entry was released right after the success of flicks like Saw and Hostel, which ushered in the "torture porn" genre (side note: I REALLY hate that term), because more than ever before it loves to linger and focus on how much physical damage can be done to a human being while they are compromised or constrained. There is a sequence where R. Lee Ermey has the two male protagonists tied up while he physically and psychologically torments them, and despite the best efforts from the actor I found myself honestly getting bored by the whole affair.

There are plenty of positives to be found in this new (old?) Texas Chainsaw entry though: the cast is surprisingly solid, with Jordana Brewster making for a fine heroine and the aforementioned Ermey turning in a (mostly) wonderful slimy performance yet again as Sheriff Hoyt. Truth be told this was one of the few situations where even when I disliked a movie overall, I liked every protagonist and was genuinely sad when any of them died. Chalk that up to either deceptively good actors or me being extremely empathetic. The kills are also fairly well done, though I have to wonder if the filmmakers or writers know how a chainsaw actually works. Eh, that's horror logic for you though.

There isn't much of a reason for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning to exist. It doesn't excel in any particular area, it wants to mislead you into thinking that being "brutal" is the same as being "scary," and outside of some grisly deaths it just doesn't make for a very memorable experience. For all of the flak that films like Next Generation and TCM2 got, at least they had personality and had something to tell your friends about. For all the problems I had with the remake, it's still infinitely better than this and seems like it was made with more respect for the source material. For me, this was just another mediocre slasher "origin" story that was best left on the cutting room floor.

Of course, there are still two more flicks to go. Perhaps I'll ease up a little once those are knocked off...

Unseen Terror 2020: Day 6

For better or for worse, we have this bad boy here to thank for the onslaught of unnecessary remakes and retreads that seemed to plague cinemas for nearly two decades. I briefly recall seeing the trailer for 2003's remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and not being fully aware that this was a reboot rather than a sequel. Of course, now that I've sat through five of these films (of which a couple can arguably be called remakes/reimaginings of the original itself), I feel like perhaps an update would be a right proper move to make. No disrespect to the prior three entries in this franchise, but this series desperately needed to get back to its more terrifying roots. Thankfully it succeeds....kind of.

The plot revolves around a group of friends who pick up a hitchhiker while on their way to a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert. The stranger is seemingly traumatized and quietly murmuring to herself about "everyone being dead," but before they can get any further information about what this means, she pulls a gun from between her legs (like you do) and commits suicide. After pulling over to call the authorities, things start to get worse and worse for the youngsters as they find themselves being harassed and stalked by a plethora of psychotic individuals. Surprisingly, this reboot manages to wrangle up a few familiar faces from the original flick: cinematographer Daniel Pearl, narrator John Larroquette, and even Tobe Hooper & Kim Henkel (though the latter two co-produce this time around). Pearl in particular was a very nice addition: 2003's Chainsaw looks grimy and ugly considering that it still has Hollywood (specifically Michael Bay) deeply involved with it. The film's color palette is dreary and even from the get-go we never really feel as though there is ANY hope in this hellish landscape that we've entered. It's probably the best "aura" that we've seen emitted from a TCM movie since the first film. I do wish that they had stuck to minimal usage of music though: this new entry is a little too "loud" if you get my drift. Sound-wise it's oftentimes too reliant on jump scares, which while entertaining from time to time, don't really instill genuine fear in a lot of people.

In terms of the cast, 2003's Texas Chainsaw Massacre is perfectly adequate. Jessica Biel makes for a good final girl and gets some truly badass moments to shine during the film's final twenty minutes. Full Metal Jacket's R. Lee Ermey makes for a truly great psychopathic sheriff who feels arguably more threatening than the most famous figure in this franchise. Speaking of that, even if I may think that the guy is a complete fucking knob, Andrew Bryniarski makes Leatherface feel threatening for the first time in quite a while. He's imposing and intimidating without seeming too superhuman, even if he's missing some of the more quirky traits that made the villain so interesting to fans. I wish I could say the same for the rest of the cast, because I feel as though this is one of the film's biggest flaws: there isn't a distinctive feature amongst them other than maybe some very small physical traits (that and Biel being a legitimately recognizable face). Yes the original film's cast was nothing super flashy, but there was at least something unique about them. In this picture, they all come across as extremely unlikable, and moments of padding out the film were likely done to help the audience care for them, but I don't think it works very well. Heck even Leatherface's "family" feel like they've been ripped from the big book of redneck stereotypes.

I was expecting to come out of 2003's The Texas Chainsaw Massacre with very mixed emotions, and it turns out that such a thing came to be a reality. It's not a terrible movie by any stretch of the imagination (and from I'm told, I'll come to appreciate it more with what other films come afterwards), but like most modern remakes/retellings, it just doesn't seem to serve any purpose or warrant a reason for existing other than the belief that a lot of younger audiences won't watch "old" horror movies anymore. Funnily enough, this picture could now be considered "nostalgic" for the generation just underneath my own, and I've met an abundance of genre fans who used films like this as a stepping stone for them to dive further into this oh-so wonderful world that we call horror cinema. So despite my mixed feelings, I do acknowledge and respect its importance to horror, whether some other folks may want to or not.

Oh if only this flick was sentient though: it'd owe us an apology for the wave for crappy remakes like The Fog, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, and the like.