Review of Texas Chainsaw (2013)

Customer Ratings:
List Price: $29.99
Sale Price: $16.98
Today's Bonus: 43% Off

If you liked the remake or the prequel, this "direct" sequel to the original 1974 film will probably entertain you enough. You have your iconic villain, heavy gore, two gorgeous babes and a typical paper thin script. I mean the main girl in this is in her early 20's and was born right after the 73' massacre, so the movie would take place in the mid to late 90's right? Not unless someone traveled back in time and brought an iPhone with them. Also there is a grave that marks a person's death in 2012. There is nothing scarier than a 60-year-old Leatherface chasing you down. If you can get past these huge flaws by the writers, there is some slasher enjoyment to be had.

Click Here For Most Helpful Customer Reviews >>

I wasn't at all thrilled with this movie as a Texas Chainsaw movie, but I generally LOVED it as a bad horror flick! It had a great story idea, but a combination of poor delivery/execution and a departure from The Texas Chainsaw "family values" guillotined its potential.

A very inexperienced director (John Luessenhop; Takers) has failed to continue delivering the well-pedigreed success of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise reboot. While many people complain about the reboot remake in 2003 and the follow-up prequel The Beginning (2006), they followed in the tradition of brutally torturing and psychologically flaying young groups of off-the-trail road trippers surrounded by "oh my God" moments. Whether you loved them or hated them, and for whatever reason, you winced and gritted your teeth while trying not to look away. This latest installment neither made me wince nor flinch. The scares were hardly present, I never had a sense of suspense or dread or terror, and the brutality was outstandingly minimal compared to all other Texas Chainsaw movies. Clearly, the branding was lost.

Heather (Alexandra Daddario) learns that her grandmother willed her a Texas mansion in a small town. This also comes with the discovery that she was stolen, not adopted, by her "parents." She travels to visit her newly inherited manor with her friends Ryan (Trey Songz), Nikki (Tania Raymonde) and Kenny (Keram Malicki-Sánchez), and they pick up shockingly friendly hitchhiker Carl (Scott Eastwood) on the way.

These kids aren't great actors. But they do fine. And Heather and Nikki are off the charts hot! So hot, in fact, that all camera angles meant to frame "the cast" actually use Nikki's ass as the foreground and Heather's abby, cropped-shirt stomach as the background, with the male characters somewhere in between. LOL. This is NOT a joke at all and it happens multiple times. [This may sound like negative criticism, but it's not. I love it!]

This young group reaches the manor and decides to stay, party and explore. While doing this, they basically follow The Cabin in the Woods playbook. Two characters wander off alone. People discover things like secret doors and investigate by themselves. They play loud music so Ryan (played by Trey Songz) can't hear his friend dying over the Trey Songz hit "Ladies and the Drinks." Nikki drinks, does drugs and tries to seduce her best friend's boyfriend out in the barn--THE BARN!!! Oh, and Heather tests the audience's patience by seeing how many times she can fall while being chased. [This may sound like negative criticism, but it's not. I love it!]

Why is all this happening? Because evidently Leatherface still lives there. Should Heather have known that? Well, maybe. Her grandmother left her an important letter which she never got around to reading until the end of the movie.

The action finale is more of an understated "fight" than a blaringly loud, desperate, blood and sweat-drenched chase scene--which branded the franchise in horror fans' psyches. This struck me as a MAJOR mistake. It was not only done poorly, but even done "well" it was terribly ill-suited for the Leatherface character they built up in this film. Thankfully, the not-so-twisty twist at the end made up for it with good intentions on the writers' part. A sequel or additional installment of some sort is obviously on its way, but I hope they return to the family dynamic of past installments that just seemed to make the "sickness" of The Texas Chainsaw series work.

LEATHERFACE: In this film his character goes largely unexplained. Past movies use family bullying, psychological manipulation and sexual undertones to explain what drives this lug and aims his rage. All we learn in this movie is that he's obsessed with masking himself in human flesh and, in about 15 seconds of the movie, it's suggested that he may feminize himself with make-up and women's clothing.

THE STORY: The writers managed to construct an interesting, plausible story linking the end of the first movie of the "original franchise" with this reboot installment. The story elements are actually much cooler than previous installments had to offer. However, the poor presentation of the horror, terror, brutality, surreal macabre, and psychological torture that branded the original franchise just wasn't here--rendering these impressive story ideas less effective. This was unfortunate.

TIMELINE: This movie serves as a present day setting sequel to the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) as if the original franchise sequels 2 & 3 and then The Next Generation (1994) never happened. But can we just point out that the lead actress is 26, she looks younger, she's probably playing a character younger than 26, and the original Texas Chainsaw movie (1974) came out 39 years ago when her lead character was between 6 and 12 months old. Now, hey, I get that today's movie releases may "take place" 10 or 20 years in the past. But the local police cars in this movie are all low-jacked with locations presented on an HDTV at HQ and a cop provides a live video feed with his SmartPhone. So, yes, it takes place NOW. So either our lead chick looks AMAZING at 40 years old or the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) took place about 14 years in the future--for no apparent reason whatsoever. Nope, that's out, too. Heather saw a newspaper article about the original "massacre" in a police evidence box.

THE GORE: It was abundant. But there really wasn't so much for a Texas Chainsaw movie, and it was often delivered with less of a cringing intensity. There were oodles of blood trails (from dragging bodies), but not so much in the way of actively drawing blood and opening wounds spewing about. A lot was presented after the fact or more in the background of the shot rather than the focus of the camera angle (e.g., when Leatherface is amputating limbs on his work table). There was also basically no torture, just flat out killing for the most part, with no lead in of terror, toying or torture. The major exception to all this was a very satisfying face-peeling scene--that was my major wincing "ooooh weee" scene.

CAMEOS: A small victory for fans of the franchise is that familiar faces like Gunnar Hanson (stock footage Leatherface; The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers) cameos as one of the two actors playing Jed "Leatherface" Sawyer and Bill Mosely (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2; The Devil's Rejects) cameos as Drayton Miller during the intro flashback scenes. Even the young local Deputy Darryl (Shaun Sipos; Final Destination 2, The Grudge 2, Lost Boys: The Tribe) will likely be recognized by horror regulars.

3-D: I saw this in 3D and, sadly, the 3D added nothing too it. Some people generally find 3D more exciting and they may appreciate it. However, spectacles were more often obscured than enhanced by the 3D filming, especially blood. The fact that this was presented in 3D, of course, warranted that Leatherface attack "the camera" with his chainsaw so that we'd be all "oooooh my God, it's coming right for us!"

Best Deals for Texas Chainsaw (2013)

I'll preface this diatribe by stating I am a long time horror fan & obviously a fan of the original. I always go into these remakes/sequels with the infintesimally tiniest glimmer of hope that the director, at the very least, makes it in such a way that, how should I put this...doesn't totally suck. That's all I ask. Not much right? I'd even take "mediocre". As per the usual 99% of remakes/sequels...it does indeed bite the big one. How hard can it be to make something even mediocre?!?! Hard to fathom right?

I'll make my points & let you decide for yourself...(please note any "spoilers" (if there could even be in such a wreck) will not in any way ruin your "enjoyment" of this masterpiece)

1 Poor Gunnar Hansen (the original Leatherface) can't act...even in his handful of lines as a Sawyer family member in the opening...he's pitiful. Sorry Gunnar...luv ya brutha. Maybe grab the mask again for the next one.

2 Bill Mosely (from Texas 2) does a poor job trying to recreate Jim Siedow's original character from the original. Met Bill at a couple conventions...super cool dude...but can't you even try to recreate Siedow's memorable southern drawl? Here he's all tense & upset...nothing like the true nutjob that this character was originally.

3 As per usual in these hackjobs...many shoddy CGI bloodshot squibs. Hey guys, WE CAN TELL! Doesn't look real. But of course doing it old school with real squibs is expensive instead of just getting some pimply faced kid to post it with a lame looking CGI squib on his laptop. See: Gunnar's death blow from a bullet...the blood stain moves around with the action of the camera & doesn't stay put...cheap. Witness: A real bad pitchfork kill near the end where again, the bloodstain haphazardly moves around. Cry at: The final knucklehead's meat grind...poor sheite as well.

4 A true waste of the original actor John Dugan's grandpa character...they go to the trouble of getting the freakin' original actor to recreate his unforgettable character from almost 40 years ago!...then you barely see him in the background for like 3 seconds as he gets wasted. An unfortunate faux pas. Massively dropped the ball on that front.

5 The "getting to know you" scene in the meat market with the 2 lead actresses....Is it just me or is that the worst set of acting chops you've seen in a great while? It's either real bad acting OR a poor lipsync job in redubbing? Either way...laughable.

6 Why, oh why, do these modern horror remakes/sequels ALWAYS have to put some cheap ass rapper/hip hopper/R&B dude or cliche'd african american in EVERY horror flick? Is that their way of "hipping" up the proceedings? Hey, the kids like these types now a days...lets throw some cat in there to "up the coolness factor". Sorry, steals from the vibe man. Maybe try this...throw in a REAL african american ACTOR who...well, CAN ACT! Trey Songz...for real? Then even more of a party foul...he doesn't even get killed in a decent manner thus robbing the viewer of that simple & well deserved pleasure. See: Busta Rhymes or LL Cool J in the Halloween sequels or ICE-T in "Leprechaun: In The Hood". Who can forget Rhymes trying to act tough in the equally horrible "Halloween: Resurrection"..."YO! MICHAEL!!!"...then he gets his ass clapped. Real weak.

7 Let's get to the music...I'm sorry...rap music in a Texas Chainsaw film?...sorry doesn't cut it. The sick southern redneck vibe doesn't ring true when you have a couple fool-assed punks trying to be hip in the back of a van driving to hell whilst listening to rap. No place for it in a Texas Chain.

8 How bout some REAL bad fright wigs...the adoptive mother or the black sherrif's hat hidden afro in the flashback.

9 Some shady post dub work...See: Trey Songz deliver "Baby I'm Sorry" in an over the shoulder shot to his gal. Doesn't sound like it was recorded in the same room for dumps sake let alone the fact that his mouth doesn't even open upon delivery. See: Trey Songz again...deliver the line "What the hell Nicky?" when the cheap broad seduces him. These lines are nowhere even in the ball park as far as matching audio.

10 The actresses...along with the aforementioned poor acting skills...why does Hollywood always need to throw in these actresses for looks? Can't the lead be quirky looking or chunky or goofy for a change? I can see if they plan on adding gratuitous boob shots but you don't even get that in this movie so why bother? The Nicky character is all about her rear-end & the Heather character is all about her belly shirt. The director rides these 2 "assets" for all they are worth in shot after shot. They look nice of course but it's distracting when they always look like they were primped for about 2 hours before every scene. Heather's hair, eye make-up & clothing seem WAY too overthought to look cool & perfect. It's a horror flick for cryin' out loud. Hell even when Heather is supposed to be busted up & bloody...she STILL looks like a they glam'd her up for an hour & then put a couple blood streaks on her face. Ridiculous.

11 Heather's shirts...these should get special mention in the credits & residuals since the open belly look continues it's appearance no matter the circumstance. I had to scratch my head in disbelief when, upon being given a "new" shirt (after she's been through hell & back & all mucked up)...with full button down capability...she STILL only buttons the couple across her breasts so that upon every movement, the full creamy white belly is still on full display, shining through at it's grandest! It's utterly ridiculous. You've just been through hell, get a new shirt..."oh, I'll just button 2 buttons so I still look bellylicious". And, hey John Luessenhop (hack director)

...don't even try to pawn off the idea that you needed the shirt partway exposed so it would become a plot point with that cheap burn mark...ain't buying it. Any reasonable human being would BUTTON THEM ALL after being put through the ringer. Stupidity.

12 The carnival scene...do I even need to get into the moronacy of having Heather jump up & grab onto a ferris wheel seat to "escape" Leatherface? Hmmm, this thing goes round & round...let me hang precariously from a seat railing so...A) I either fall off...or...B) I just hang on till I make the full circle & come down 5 feet from where I started to "make my escape". What in the hell?

13 The "letter" plot point...who was the brain truss that wrote in this bit of business? Let's see...the lawyer gives Heather an important letter EXPLAINING THE WHOLE DEAL TO HER IN BLACK & WHITE...then proceeds to tell her "Read the letter!!!!" stressing it's importance. Then she doesn't bother to read it till after all hell's broken loose at the end of the film. Come on...tell me straight...was this a 7th grader who wrote this thing? No offense to 7th graders of course.

14 The "face time" schtick...man, oh man is this a bumbler. An entire scene is pathetic'd up when a redneck deputy proceeds to transmit his whole walkthrough of the death house to the redneck mayor & the sherrif so they can STAND THERE AT THE STATION HOUSE & WATCH THE CARNAGE ON A PHONE...INSTEAD OF GETTING THEIR ASSES OUT THERE whilst this chump looks for Leatherface BY HIMSELF amidst the carnage. Yeah that's the first thing I'd do while looking for an insane chainsaw killer...try to face time the thing instead of concentrate on not getting my dome kicked in & sawed to hell. Still scratching my head.

15 Leatherface's new skin mask...is it just me? or did he have time to finely condition his "fresh from the carcass" skin mask into a thick leathery perfect version of a catcher's mitt?

16 The bonding moment...when Leatherface & his cousin have their sweet bonding moment...she utters one of the finest bits of dialog since Citizen Kane..."Do your thing cuz". Then he chows some dude to shreds.

17 The "humanizing" of Leatherface...somehow you are supposed to feel sorry for the wrongs done to Leatherface & his family. Didn't anybody see the first film? Granted the rednecks in town are are painted as some sort of monsters as well...but then to try to humanize Leatherface? What the hell? The utter fear in the original is that you don't know who or why these nutjobs are churning people into BBQ. Trying to put a backstory on pure evil is assinine & takes away from the horror of it all. They are scary because you don't know why they are hacking people into chow. Now I know Leatherface's whole family intimately & how they were "wronged". Maybe it was a 6th grader put the wheels in motion on this epic?

On the plus side, I did like the turned over dead armadillo shot. That was a nice tribute to the past.

Of course every horror fan will give this schlock a shot. How can you not? It's got the Texas Chain pedigree right? Well, it has "Texas Chainsaw" in the title, I'll give it that. I thought Platinum Dunes did a massive dis-service to the "franchise". These new mookes are even worse. Can't wait for the next one! Got my 4 year old working on the screenplay.

Honest reviews on Texas Chainsaw (2013)

The direction they went with this alternative sequel was an interesting concept, but fell short very quickly. If you like the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, don't expect this sequel to hold up to any standards of horror that the first one did. The background and explanation behind the Chainsaw family was as bad as the Star Wars explanation of the force with "Midichlorians". I still gave it two stars, because it did entertain my party which we made fun of extraordinary deaths and pointless titillation.

Find helpful customer reviews and review ratings for Texas Chainsaw (2013)

As a big fan of horror films, the remaking and re-imaging of classic and iconic horror franchises is something I've had to get used to, whether I like it or not. Overall, I hate the idea of an attempt to remake or re-image horror films (or films in general) for the simple reason is that these films don't need to be reworked! These films are classics for a reason, and even with certain flaws, there are masterpieces of horror film making in their own right. But I do have to admit, there was a higher level of excitement with the anticipation of this film than I had before with the previous two films in the series. I had kept up with the film's development since the very early stages. I had heard about how this film was going to have a lot of cameos by original TCM cast members, how it was actually going to be a direct sequel to the original; even picking up exactly where the original film left off. After seeing production shots of the "Sawyer" house and landscape, and reading about how it was so closely reproduced to look exactly like the original film, I really began to have optimism that Hollywood just might not screw this one up. However, as more details regarding the plot were released and promotion of the film increased, I realized that I had definitely jumped the gun on this one. This review may get lengthy and it may seem like I'm really picking this film apart and over analyzing just another run-of-the-mill horror film, but I feel a remake or sequel to any great film, especially my all-time favorite horror film, should be subject to that kind of scrutiny on my behalf. For me, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre is the Citizen Kane of the horror genre. And there's nowhere to go but down when compared to the original.

To begin with, the very beginning/credit sequence of the film is great. Mainly because it's the summary of the original film, using the actual footage. And its edited quite nicely I might add. And yes, technically this film does begin where the original left off. Presumably minutes after, at the Sawyer farm. (It should be mentioned that was no family name was used in the original and that the "Sawyer" name did not materialize until the 1986 sequel.) The exterior and interiors of the house are almost identical to the original, right down to the truck parked outside. Unfortunately for me and a lot of true fans of the original TCM, you get to see VERY little of it. For all the time and effort the production put in to recreated the exact location, the scene is over with in maybe 5 minutes. It's great seeing Bill Moseley as the cook, Drayton Sawyer, but he's dead within a few minutes. The same goes for Grandpa, a role that John Dugan reprised from the original. But if you blink, you'll miss him. He barely gets on screen. And then we have all the "extra" Sawyers, I presume. And this is where I begin shaking my head. Why? Why have all these other characters? It is completely unnecessary. Sure, it's cool to see Gunnar Hansen, the original Leatherface, on screen as one of these guys. But to me, those characters are pointless. Why would you try so hard to tie it to the original film and then add all these characters that never existed before? I understand that to be able to develop the story, a female infant has to be there and has to survive. That's the plot and I get that. But there are other ways to do that without having to introduce all these other people that just die a minute into the film anyway.

I think my biggest gripe with the film is the timeline itself. It's one thing to be disappointed when you realize that most of the characters you were excited to see on screen, die in the opening scene, but then the film jumps forward to modern day. And that's where this movie blows it. It completely screws the timeline up. The film in many ways, is quite vague on what years these events are supposed to occur, sometimes it seems to go out of the way to do so. For example, it doesn't show the dates on tombstones and doesn't show the complete date in newspaper headlines. And none of the friends are shown using a cell phone. Yet certain vehicles are clearly modern. And just when you think that perhaps that the film is trying to be passed off as being set at least a few years earlier than today, a cop whips a smartphone and starts using an app (Facetime) that has only been in existence for a couple of years! And the aggravating thing about it is that it wasn't necessary!!! The scene would have worked just as good, if not better, without the inclusion of the device, and at least it would have given the movie a benefit of a doubt as far as the timeline goes. But with this being shown, the movie's story cannot occur not earlier than 2010. So if events of the opening scene happened in August 1973, the main protagonist would have to be around 35 or 36 years old!! And Leatherface would have to be at least in his 50s! And here's where a lot of you are saying "It's just a movie!!" well yeah, it is. But again, when you make the effort to make a DIRECT sequel and go to the lengths of including original footage, how can you not make the effort for a storyline to add up? Did the writers not think that true fans weren't going to notice this? Gimme a break! And there's definitely other little things, though less important, that I didn't particularly care for. Plot points that go unresolved (the boyfriend cheating on the main protagonist), Leatherface throwing a chainsaw at a cop and running off into the woods and the cop doesn't even bother pursuing him, and characters screaming lame one liners like "Welcome to Texas Mother****er!" and "Do your thing, Cuz!". Now as far as the idea of making Leatherface an "anti-hero" by the end of the film, I kind of have mixed feelings about it. I'm not really crazy about the idea, but it doesn't particularly bother me either. Actually I feel that the Leatherface has always been a bit of a sympathetic character anyway. Only this film clearly pushes this idea to the foreground.

Ok, so I've bashed the film enough, on to a few things I liked. First off, the performance of Dan Yeager as Leatherface. I'm willing to go as far as saying he might be the best Leatherface since Gunnar Hansen. For once, some overly huge, muscle-bound guy wasn't cast. Sure, Yeager is a big guy, but not a some physically fit football player type. He's just a big guy. And his portrayal of Leatherface; his look, his stature, his movements, are all done really well. He easily has the best performance of the entire film. With that said, I was very pleased with the blood, gore, and the kill scenes in the film. The special effects were very good. Another thing that I did enjoy was the many homages and references to the original film. Of course, the cameos were great, but there were some more subtle things here and there that you couldn't help to like. I do appreciate the fact that the filmmakers did embrace and respect the original film so much and didn't attempt to completely go off track and make up some ridiculous story. Though the main plot isn't the best, its plausible (minus the timeline flaw ) and it at least keeps you interested for the most part.

As far as the DVD itself goes, there's a decent amount of special features which are pretty good, including audio commentaries by Tobe Hooper and some original TCM cast members, several"making-of" featurettes, and on set interviews with cast members.

Now this isn't a bad horror film in general. It's not even the worst in the TCM series. But with the ideas, actors, and storylines that they had at their disposal, the filmmakers basically still chose to make this just another horror movie without anything too special about it. They could have made this movie into something different and at least attempted to give it a certain realism that the original film had. The characters from the original film should have had much more screen time and the film should have followed a much more direct timeline and not have been set in modern day. Overall, it's a fairly enjoyable film to watch, especially if you're only the casual horror fan. But any true horror fan knows that of course, it doesn't even come close to matching up with the original film and its simply just a slightly before average sequel in the series. And quite honestly, that's disappointing. I feel that this could have had potential to be the best since the original film. And unfortunately, I fear that any further sequels based of this storyline, aren't even going to be as good as this one.