The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

There is only one question for the producers of this movie - will it make mega bucks at the box office from a young audience who are at best only vaguely familiar with the title? On the other hand, there are many more questions for reviewers like myself to ask about this remake of one of the most important / scary / influential / violent (delete where applicable) horror movies ever made. How much have they taken from the original - story wise, atmosphere wise, character wise? How much and what have they added that's new and is that a good / bad thing? How does this reflect back on the original? And ultimately is it a good movie in its own right and should I spend my money on it?

Its the basic plot from the original. A group of kids in the middle of Texas wind up at the mercy of backwoods family, are picked off one by one and after a kidnap and a desperate escape, one girl gets away. With such a simple premise I didn't expect the makers would fool with the original concept and they don't.

What I was expecting - and what I got - was a big budget look that replaced the the low key, almost cinema verite look of the original. The house is very Michael Bay, with dim, dark rooms shot-full of shafts of light pouring through closed blinds. Pop / rock music blares from the soundtrack. The kids are all prettier / more handsome. Jessica Biel as the survivor has the lengthy escape scene like Marilyn Burns in the original, but instead of the hand held frenzy of the original, its a bouncy boob sprint (shots of Biel in the breast department come second only to Jennifer Love Hewitt in I Still Know What You Did Last Summer (1998)). Taking its cue from the original's sequels and subsequent merchandising, Leatherface is the major villain and is far more prominent than when he was just part of the family in the original. The more you see of him, like Freddy and Hannibal the less terrifying he is. We also don't need any explanations for something as monstrous as Leatherface - the best and most terrifying monsters are those we don't understand. We never really found out why the original Leatherface wore his human skin mask or why he behaved the way that he did - this version tries to explain him and his motives and he just looks foolish as a result.

Despite its reputation, both on release and accrued through the years, the original was almost bloodless. It's terrors were more implied and it set out more to disturb than to repulse. The real surprise of this movie is the last half hour - it's way more bloody / gory than any of the current teen slasher flicks. It's also, inevitably, a lot less disturbing than the original. But then it was never meant to be - perceived wisdom in the Hollywood offices has it that disturbing doesn't put bums on seats. Easy, relatively safe shocks do, and that's what you'll get here - there'll be no lengthy bans for this version, no legends or myths will accumulate around it in years to come. It'll be lucky to even be remembered this time next year.

So the producers can rest easy - this is "safe" enough to rack up the grosses in the cinema. Anyone with any feeling for the original should just ignore it. It could have been far, far worse but it's in the end just another movie. Less redundant and more fun than the rerun of Psycho (1998), but unlike Hitchcock and Hooper's versions, the times / conditions / shock novelty of the original cannot be replicated. Its just another title and if you knew anything about before buying your ticket I'm afraid the answer to my second question is rather obvious. Why bother!

And despite what the publicity - and the film itself - would have us believe, it isn't based on a real story, it never happened, it's all fiction - every frame of it!
PAUL LEONE