Halloween 2017

I'm a little out of practice, but here's what I watched for Halloween this year:

The Void (2016) - a Lovecraftian horror with shades of Silent Hill, Hellraiser, and creature effects that would do justice to John Carpenter's The Thing. You never know what you're going to get when going into a horror film - a stylistic tour de force or a cheap 'b' flick. While seeming like the latter, this fortunately leans more toward the former. A group of small town nobodies is besieged in a local hospital by hooded cult-like figures. But rather than a routine run-around hack-and-slash, themes of occult medical experimentation, dark gods, and dimensions to alternate realities are the rule of the day. Recommended.

The Babysitter (2017) - A geeky adolescent finds his courage as he struggles to survive when a night with the babysitter turns unexpectedly homicidal in this campy horror-comedy that was (to my disappointment) more suburban slasher than Satanic ritual. Nevertheless, it's got the style and the humor to be a throwback cult teen movie. Samara Weaving nails the hot-to-trot babysitter with a heart of gold (and also a dark secret), even if she doesn't make as convincing a baddie. For people who prefer fun over scary movies for their Halloween viewing.

Cabin Fever (2002) - Eli Roth (of Hostel fame)'s cult classic tongue-in-cheek horror about the outbreak of a flesh-eating virus in a backwoods setting, starring Rider Strong (Boy/Girl Meets World's own Shawn Hunter). Irreverently self-aware, this movie pokes fun at many horror tropes, while competently bringing the gross-out (no surprise there, given Eli Roth's reputation). I've never been prejudiced against "gorror" movies, but I do have to admit that I'm losing my stomach for them, and I have to say I was easily distracted while watching this one, and lost a lot of interest as lunch time loomed near.

American Fable (2016) - Good, in spite of its flaws. Tries to be a surreal, "modern day fairy tale" (think Pan's Labyrinth), but is too rooted in reality to get its feet off the ground (it wasn't really the movie I thought it was going to be from reading the description). The plot, however, is as compelling as it is a damning portrait of the lows to which its farmers stoop to save their lifestyle from urbanization (or something). The acting is a little wooden, and some of the characters are unrealistic caricatures (perhaps this was intentional), but young Peyton Kennedy is a vision of radiance and worth the price of admission alone.

Mindhunter (2017) - Not a movie, but a series, and a Netflix original, at that. Was introduced to it from a blurb in Time magazine of all places. It sounded interesting, so I gave the first episode a watch, and was instantly hooked. It's fantastically written, acted, and directed, based on the experiences of the guy who literally wrote the book on criminal behavioral science and (I'm guessing) invented the term "serial killer". The series depicts upstart FBI agent Holden Ford's crusade to redirect the bureau's efforts from trying to hunt inscrutable evil (and always staying one step behind), to learning to predict deviant behavior by studying the criminal mind first hand - by interviewing convicted killers, some of whom are disturbingly captivating. Also costars Anna Torv, formerly of Fringe. I cannot recommend this series highly enough.

Tucker and Dale vs. Evil (2010)

I had written this movie off as a horror comedy - which is precisely what it is - since I'm just not usually that interested in comedies, but I read the synopsis recently and it dawned on me that the premise had potential to be an intelligent deconstruction of the slasher formula (perhaps in a similar vein as The Cabin in the Woods). It doesn't quite reach that level, as it's more committed to being fun than smart, but it's still pretty good, at least as far as horror comedies go.

Given how many slashers we've seen over the years, it's surprising how rarely anyone comes up with an inversion of the usual formula. Even the basic idea of telling a slasher from the point of view of the "killer hillbillies" instead of the college kids is pretty novel. That alone would give it more of a morally-ambiguous exploitation-like approach, but Tucker and Dale vs. Evil takes it a step further and posits the hillbillies as innocents merely caught up in an elaborate misunderstanding following a series of tragic, accidental deaths. It's a great device that gives the genre an opportunity to apologize for a lot of the stereotypes it's encouraged (not that that's necessarily a goal of this movie), by indicting the college kids who jump to the conclusion that any creepy hillbilly you meet out in the woods is bound to be some kind of sadistic, cannibal killer (the stereotype of the college kids being idiots you can't wait to see get killed in gruesome ways remains intact, however).

If you like comedies, or especially horror comedies, you might enjoy this movie more than I did, but even so, it had some good moments, even a few funny ones. I really got to like the character Dale (played by Tyler Labine, who - random trivia time - played a stoner on two separate episodes of The X-Files back in 1996 - War of the Coprophages, and Quagmire). The scene where Tucker uses the chainsaw on a bee hive was frankly quite clever. Clearly, it's a parody of Leatherface's maniacal manner of wielding a chainsaw. Now, that last scene in the Texas Chain Saw Massacre - I think it's brilliant, and haunting, and one of the greatest scenes ever in a horror movie. But you do have to admit, once you step back and look at it critically, that it's kind of ridiculous to see somebody waving a chainsaw around like that. This movie recognizes that, and creates a humorous situation in which something like that could actually occur - albeit accidentally.

This is less of a humorous note, but I also really appreciated the scene where Dale and the college kid sit down to a cup of tea to work out their problems. It's a perfect example of bigotry in action. Some maniac does something horrible to a person, and the person latches onto some incidental detail of the maniac's identity in anger, usually one that's rife with stereotypes - in this case, the fact that the maniacs were hillbillies - and then generalizes that to all people who possess that detail - e.g., concluding that all hillbillies are maniacs, as if the hillbilly part is what made those hillbillies maniacs, instead of those particular hillbillies just happening to be maniacs. It happens all the time - with race, gender, sexual orientation - any bigotry you can imagine. And there I go, finding something serious to discuss in a lighthearted movie. I should open a column titled "The Darker Side of..."

All The Boys Love Mandy Lane (2006)

(Except me).

Slashers have been done to death. Which is not to say that there isn't occasionally a good one still being made (You're Next was worth watching), but those ones are few and far between, in a subgenre that apparently attracts a lot of filmmakers for its simple formula. Slashers were fun when they were fresh and unfamiliar - decades ago - but now, I feel like if you want to make a good slasher movie, you can't just set out to make a slasher movie. The slasher has to be a vehicle for something else that's worth seeing. Even going as far back as 1979, Alien was one of the best slasher movies ever created - because, though it follows the formula pretty closely, it's not strictly a slasher movie - it's a monster movie, for one thing, but it's also an intelligent, and genuinely unsettling sci-fi film. More recently, The Cabin in the Woods hit it off because it went far and above the demands for a slasher movie (and I'll remind you that my criticism of The Cabin in the Woods had less to do with the movie itself, and more with the things people were saying about how it was supposed to be interpreted).

I don't know why I thought All The Boys Love Mandy Lane would set itself apart from the average slasher flick. Maybe it was the suggestion of eroticism dripping from its title. Or maybe that its premise seemed to promise an I Spit On Your Grave-like morality tale. Unfortunately, the movie instead develops like your typical slasher flick - and as is also a complaint with many of those, the characters are not only difficult to relate to, they're utterly unsympathetic. Just considering the drugs alone, no longer are horny 30 year old teens content simply to smoke a blunt and get high, now they're popping pills and even snorting coke - at high school age! Although, sadly, I wonder if this is not simply a reflection of reality, and the modern drug epidemic in America (when I grew up, the concern was drug dealers peddling to kids in the schoolyard - just recently, I had a 14 year old boy ask me for drugs in a public park...).

Amber Heard looks pretty scrumptious as the titular character - although she doesn't quite pull off the "inexperienced adolescent" who just recently developed and is starting to attract all the attention of her same-age 30 year old peers in high school (I'm sorry if I beat the age thing to death, but it's really become ridiculous). Given the premise, what little nudity and eroticism there is is entirely disappointing (they completely wasted that locker room scene, by the way - how can such a depraved generation of rapist drug addicts be such modest prudes?). The sexism and misogyny is just oozing throughout the whole film - neither sex comes off well: the boys are all rapey assholes, and the women are petty, cock-crazed airheads. Why don't people understand that you can make an erotic film that doesn't cater to sexist stereotypes? Or are they intentionally trying to attack sex? In which case, they do a terrible job of it, by setting up unbelievable straw men. One scene almost hints at the main character being a lesbian, which is an idea with enormous potential that could have, if developed, transformed this whole project into something meaningful and worthwhile - but it's totally thrown by the wayside.

Ultimately, we come to the ending, which throws a few twists at the viewer. Sadly, an hour of cliches doesn't make up for a final half hour of "unexpected" twists. But what's worse, the twists don't even make sense. I literally watched the last fifteen minutes with a blank face and resting heart rate. No, "oh my god, I can't believe she did that!" Or, "holy shit, this is extreme/intense/twisted!" If anything, I might have had a furrowed brow because it seemed like the film was trying to be clever, but completely lacked any justification for the characters' actions. It was just simply confusing, and a completely unsatisfying ending to an overall disappointing movie.

Dead Snow (2009)

Finally made the time to sit down and watch Dead Snow, a Norwegian film about Nazi zombies, tonight. I've seen a lot of movies in my day, so I wouldn't put it past someone to make a serious movie about Nazi zombies, but obviously the first thing you think when the plot synopsis mentions "Nazi zombies", is, "are you serious?" But actually, the movie does start out pretty seriously, setting the stage for what looks to be a fairly standard horror flick in the teen slasher vein (albeit from a Norwegian perspective).

But the movie's self-awareness quickly becomes evident in the form of a character who is a movie buff, with some early explicit references to horror classics like Friday the 13th and Evil Dead, and who wears a Braindead (a.k.a. Peter Jackson's Dead Alive) t-shirt, all of which this movie makes copious homages too, and which informs the tongue-in-cheek brand of black humor that infests the latter half of the movie - for better or worse (probably better, since I think this movie would ultimately have been less successful as a serious movie than simply as a fun one).

Before things get too silly, the Harbinger - as The Cabin in the Woods would undoubtedly label him - appears unexpectedly at the cabin in the woods (actually a snowy mountainscape), and gives one of the better performances of his ilk (among the myriad slasher films in existence), with a history lesson that plays out more like an around-the-campfire ghost story and that sets the scene for the coming appearance of the frozen reanimated Nazi corpses. After they show up, the film ramps up the scares and the gore, but also the straight-faced and situational humor. Meanwhile, the blood keeps getting poured on in good Braindead fashion, and many of the characters face humorously ironic ordeals and demises, that might elicit a chuckle but will definitely induce a grimace (or four).

It's hard to say how I actually feel about this film, given my preference for the serious over the humorous (despite my tempered appreciation for the Braindead-style over-the-top approach). And let's be honest, this film had what was probably the least erotic sex scene in a slasher film I've probably seen in...ever. The humorous appropriation of Nazi imagery doesn't offend me in the least, but it doesn't particularly get me excited, either. The locations, however, were suitably isolated and really very beautiful, offering something unique in place of the typical wooded lake kind of setting, even if it meant less scantily clad coeds. But, purely as a zombie film, Dead Snow is a bit too frantic, and lacks the shambling feel of a classic zombie movie. It's really more of a monster-in-the-woods slasher kind of flick, especially of the tongue-in-cheek, self-aware variety. Whether that's a plus or a minus is up to you.

A Bay of Blood (1971)

Going off of vague references to its reputation, and its cult status, I thought A Bay of Blood (a.k.a. Twitch of the Death Nerve, and about a dozen other alternate titles), by Italian director Mario Bava, was going to be some kind of ultraviolent bloodbath. In reality, it's pretty much just a European version of Friday the 13th (with partying "youngsters" getting killed off, and it's even got a harbinger in the form of a Tarot-reading gypsy). Not a rip-off, mind you - this movie predated the slasher craze by about a decade, and was a very strong influence on Friday the 13th, with its bay-side location, and at least one or two kills copied shot-for-shot.

It's interesting to note the differences between this film and the typical brainless slasher. The European influence counts for a lot - there is at least some emphasis on creating an artistic presentation, in the filming of the shots and also the music used. And the plot is remarkably grounded (if you've suffered through decades of brainless slashers), where the kills are motivated by actually realistic reasons - like securing a wealthy Countess' inheritance. And later, the not-yet-trope of a soon-to-be-victim getting offed shortly after being startled by discovering a dead body actually makes some sense - the body is not nailed to a door frame (for example) for shock value, but is accidentally discovered by an innocent bystander who must then be killed to preserve the killer's secret.

All of that having been said, it's still a slasher movie, and so it has a tendency to drag on, with minimal exposition (despite the convoluted plot), and not very well-developed characters (so many of which have a motivation to kill), all as an excuse to feature lots of gratuitous violence (and a little bit of gratuitous nudity). But without an intriguing hook - like a cannibal who wields a chainsaw and wears the faces of his victims, or an unstoppable bogeyman, or a man with finger knives who haunts your dreams, it feels terribly...mundane. But what can you expect from a pioneer that was breaking new ground? Unfortunately, the starkness of its allegedly gruesome brutality does not stand the test of time, considering everything we've seen since 1971 (the '80s alone puts this movie to shame). Still, it's an interesting glimpse into the evolution of the classic murder mystery into the modern slasher thanks in no small part to the introduction of (and subsequent change of focus to the) explicit gore fx. Plus, it's got a wickedly chilling ending.

Freddy vs. Jason (2003)

Freddy vs. Jason follows in the schlock tradition of classics like Dracula vs. Frankenstein and King Kong vs. Godzilla, pitting two movie monsters and pop culture icons against one another. The way it introduces the two villains is actually an effective and fascinatingly concise distillation of their basic natures (Freddy haunting kids' dreams, and Jason stalking vice-ridden campers). The intro for Freddy, in fact, is excellently creepy, and better captures his delicately perverse nature than any of the other Nightmare movies (with the possible exception of the remake).

The premise is actually pretty clever (at least confined within the rules of these series): Freddy and Jason both being sort of dead and/or "in hell", Freddy haunts Jason's dreams to trick him into returning to life (because he's just immortal that way), to travel to Elm Street, and strike fear into the hearts (and dreams) of the kids there - because it's fear that Freddy lives off of. And with the Springwood Slasher and the Crystal Lake Killer on the loose, you're not safe asleep or awake. But, of course, once the villains are both back to "life" and hunting the same kids, it's inevitable that a rivalry will develop.

The fundamental question is, who will win, and whose side are you on? Personally, I'm a Freddy guy. At least when he's taken seriously, he's the scarier figure, with the creepier back story - let's be honest, Freddy is actually an intelligent creature with twisted morals, whereas Jason is basically a brainless old testament avenger out to punish sinners. Plus, Freddy's got the whole dream thing going on, which is fantastically imaginative. And, simply put, the original A Nightmare on Elm Street is a much better movie than the original Friday the 13th. But that's not to say that I don't like Jason - I'm particularly fond of the summer camp atmosphere, and there is something about that mask of his - but if we're playing favorites, Freddy's got my vote.

Smartly (and could you really imagine it any other way?), the movie doesn't alienate either fanbase, and actually does a good job of emphasizing each character's strengths and advantages in different environments (namely, between dreams and the real world). Frankly, as cheesy as the very idea of it is, it's exciting to see two such iconic figures together in one movie. And the cross-pollination of the series' imagery and cliches (Friday the 13th's partying youngsters, and the dream-haunted youths of Elm Street) - the pinnacle of which involves a low-life feeling up a girl who's passed out at a party (brilliant!) - is, frankly, quite amusing (in the macabre sort of way). It's a tongue-in-cheek crowd-pleaser, but by those standards, it's pretty good fun. And, honestly, it's considerably better than the worst of either the Friday the 13th or the A Nightmare on Elm Street sequels. If you're a fan of either or (especially) both of these characters, this film can't be missed.

A Nightmare on Elm Street Marathon

Spoiler Warning: As each title in this series tends to build and expand upon the events and revelations contained in the previous title(s), each of the following reviews may contain spoilers from previous titles in the series.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

A Nightmare on Elm Street arrives late to the game, the last of the big slasher franchises to debut, starting up only after Halloween and Friday the 13th have both had a couple of sequels. But, rather than being derivative, Nightmare manages actually to be very clever. I think it is the most imaginative of the slashers, and I would easily rate it above Friday the 13th and probably also Halloween (and maybe even The Texas Chain Saw Massacre). (Fun fact: where Friday the 13th featured Kevin Bacon in a bit part, A Nightmare on Elm Street has Johnny Depp, in his very first film role). Nightmare's got not only the most charismatic of the slasher killers, Freddy Krueger - whose intimidation factor is surprisingly not dulled by his morbid sense of style and humor, that often finds him quipping one-liners, yet whose favorite haunt is a very creepy boiler room - but also features what I would rate as the strongest and most independent of the final girls, in Heather Langenkamp's portrayal of Nancy, a proactive girl who spends most of the movie trying to figure out how to stop Freddy, and not simply being his most elusive prey. One more thing that distinguishes A Nightmare on Elm Street above its progenitors is its fantastic usage of gore fx in some of the most imaginative kills in any slasher, ever. This is at least partly inspired by the fact that the killer attacks people in their dreams, where he isn't bound by the usual laws of physics - and the movie expertly blurs the lines between reality and the dream world. If there is one point where the film falters, it's in the conclusion, which suffers from an inability to decide whether to resolve the story or keep it open for sequels. You can guess which direction won out in the end.


A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)

Unfortunately, Freddy's Revenge isn't half as good as A Nightmare on Elm Street. It's horribly dated by far too heavy an '80s flavor, and the leads have a tendency to overact some of their emotional scenes (and, curiously, underact others). Plus, the story's just not that interesting, and Freddy's characterization suffers from the new motivation the writers have given him. In the first movie, Freddy's quest for revenge was intriguing enough that you didn't need to ask questions like how does he have these dream powers anyway? But here, in the sequel, you're left wondering, why exactly does he need to possess somebody else's body? Because if his greatest joy in life is torturing kids and killing them, then being a nightmare phantom would seem to suit him just fine. But answers aren't forthcoming. We do get a look at Freddy's real world boiler room in this movie, though, and there are some disturbing nightmare creatures towards the end. But aside from one or two, the dream sequences in this movie aren't as captivating, or as seamlessly integrated, and the story just kind of plods along, lacking the intrigue and pacing of the previous movie.


A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)

Heather Langenkamp returns as Nancy in the third installment of the Nightmare series. Having survived Freddy's nightmares once before, she's earned a degree in the field of sleep disorders, and is hired as an aide at the psychiatric hospital where this movie largely takes place (inevitably drawing parallels to Friday the 13th Part V - but fortunately, this is a much better movie than that was). Ignoring the misstep that was Freddy's Revenge, Freddy is back and tormenting the dreams of the remaining children of the parents who killed him, all of which are being driven to drastic measures to ward off sleep. Nancy's approach involving drug-induced dreamless sleep is only a temporary solution, but one of the girls has the unique power to pull other people into her dreams, so they band together to put up a united front against Freddy's nightmares. Meanwhile, we're finally given a [suitably macabre] origin story for Freddy Krueger, which suggests a possible source for his supernatural abilities, as well as a possible way to stop him for good. Dream Warriors has good characters, more imaginative and frightening dream sequences, and expands on the mythos of the series. It's everything you could want in a sequel to A Nightmare on Elm Street.


A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)

In Part 4 of the Nightmare saga, the surviving Dream Warriors find themselves once again haunted by Freddy's nightmares - despite having located his remains and buried them in consecrated ground in the last installment, which should have laid the "bastard son of a hundred maniacs" to rest (at least according to the ghost of his mother). But Kristen's ability to pull other people into her dreams can't protect them from being killed, and Freddy learns to take advantage of that ability to reach out into the dreams of other kids, whose parents weren't involved in his murder, to find new victims. The Dream Master revives the suburban/schoolyard feel of the first Nightmare, with several kids banding together to figure out Freddy and fight off his nightmares. The dream sequences are lush and complex, and the characters are likable. The kills are not as memorably grotesque as in the first Nightmare (although some of them are pretty elaborate), but they are imaginative, with Freddy using the kids' own biggest fears against them. Part 4 is a good Nightmare sequel, well worth watching, and even the strong late '80s feel doesn't diminish its eerie atmosphere.


A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989)

In Part 4, The Dream Master defeated Freddy on his own turf - in the dream world - and released the souls of all the children he'd killed. But because the lure of profit is stronger than logical consistency, Freddy has found some esoteric way to be reborn anew, while also inexplicably blurring the lines between dreams and reality - not just in perception, but apparently in actuality. It's one thing if a movie doesn't dovetail logically with the others, but it's problematic when its own internal logic doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The Dream Child has some interesting ideas - among them, further exploration of Freddy's birth, and the character of his mother - but unfortunately it just doesn't come together well. It's hard to even enjoy the special effects, which are unforgivably hokey. The film's strongest beat is the hint of eroticism in the opening scenes - an element with endless potential in this series, but one that has never been properly addressed (probably for fear of its mixture with the dark themes prevalent in these stories) - but it doesn't last long. This is one of those movies where I feel like they were going in the right direction, but they took the wrong route to get there, and I just feel creatively frustrated as a result of watching it.


Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991)

Freddy's Dead starts right out the gate with an ambitious premise - ten years into the future, all of the children (and teenagers) have been killed off in Freddy's hometown of Springwood (presumably by Freddy, with no explanation for his return after his defeat in the last movie), except one. And Freddy's using him to secure a link to the outside world (and its children). The movie opens with a dream that rips off The Wizard of Oz, to rather silly (not so much scary) effect, set to the tune of Night on Bald Mountain. A lot of people complain about how the character of Freddy Krueger devolved into a rather un-scary comedian in the Nightmare sequels. I've never had a problem with Freddy quipping one-liners as he offs teenagers - the fact that he takes such glee in killing, and can treat such a serious issue with light-hearted humor just reinforces his sadistic nature. But here, it finally crosses the line for me. Also, the special effects, which have been getting increasingly tacky, take the dreams from eerie sequences to just plain embarrassing to watch (even Freddy's face doesn't look right in this movie). Roseanne actually makes an appearance. Roseanne. It's too bad this isn't a better movie (with better effects), because it finally addresses the source of Freddy's dream powers, gives the audience a peek into certain parts of his life that had never been seen before, and, of course, kills him off once and for all (until Freddy vs. Jason, I guess...).


Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994)

Wes Craven (who wrote/directed the original A Nightmare on Elm Street)'s New Nightmare is unique among the slasher sequels, and is without a doubt the most original take on any one of these slasher franchises (while also being a clever criticism of those sequels' degrading quality). New Nightmare goes meta, taking us behind the scenes on the production of a new Nightmare movie, developed from Wes' script about an ancient demon that can only be captured by storytellers, when Freddy seems to start haunting the dreams of the cast members in real life. Heather Langenkamp is illuminating as always, and it's fascinating to see Robert Englund as an actor, a person, a regular human being - the man behind the grease paint, as Wes says.

The difference in quality and realism between this movie and the rest of the slasher sequels is like night and day. All of those other movies feel like movies (and many of them, not very good movies), but this movie feels eerily real. Which makes it all that much creepier when Freddy moves not from the dream world to the waking world, but from the dreams of fictional characters to the dreams of real people. It also works as an excellent exploration of the real world effects that horror movies like A Nightmare on Elm Street have on people, giving them nightmares and whatnot - while at the same time suggesting that scary stories like this one serve an integral purpose in keeping even realer horrors at bay. It's an extremely intelligent movie, almost like it has no business being a slasher sequel - except that I think all slashers (and even their sequels) should aspire to this level, and not content themselves with being cheap entertainment.

Conclusion: A Nightmare on Elm Street distinguishes itself from the average slasher by introducing one of the most imaginative premises: a killer that haunts you in your dreams. And while Freddy Krueger - with his ultra-creative glove with finger knives and his scarred flesh - is among the darkest of slasher villains, he possesses a macabre sense of humor and a distinct style and personality. Here are my picks for the entries in the Nightmare series that I think are most worth your time:

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)
A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)
Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994)

Friday the 13th Marathon

Spoiler Warning: As each title in this series tends to build and expand upon the events and revelations contained in the previous title(s), each of the following reviews may contain spoilers from previous titles in the series.

Friday the 13th (1980)

Friday the 13th follows on the heels of Halloween, further defining what was fast becoming the formula for slasher pics, refining it to the familiar "rowdy teens get offed in the woods one by one" format we all know by heart. Unfortunately, it's also the most over-exposed and easily-parodied of the slasher franchises, and doesn't manage to be as effective as either The Texas Chain Saw Massacre or Halloween, despite creating an eerie atmosphere around the iconic setting of Camp Crystal Lake. One thing Friday the 13th does (arguably) have going for it is an actually plausible explanation for the trope that would be brainlessly imitated (and later subverted) ad nauseam by countless slashers to come - namely, that teens who engage in illicit behaviors (drinking, drugs, and especially premarital sex) will be the first to go. That being a crucial part of the premise, it's no surprise that Friday the 13th - more than any other slasher to come before it - built a reputation for itself as an audience-pleasing title that would promise scenes of teenage mischief (including lots of nudity - or at least partial nudity) in addition to more and more imaginative (and eventually ridiculous) kills, for the purpose of dazzling viewers, as much as scaring them, for years to come.


Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981)

The fact that the killer in the first Friday the 13th wasn't Jason, but his mother - an older woman - almost seems subversive in hindsight, but there's a reason Pamela Voorhees isn't the figurehead of the franchise. And Jason's shocking appearance at the end of the first movie not only sets up his rise to prominence in the sequel, but serves as one of the most memorable "final scares" (another trope that's since been done to death) in all of horror. If anything, Friday the 13th Part 2 is even better than the first part, with more interesting characters, a better-developed summer camp atmosphere, and the writer's good judgment to frame Jason as the focus of a campfire legend. Here, Jason is less the supernatural force of nature that he would become, and more a simple-minded freak (haunted by memories of his mother) with a penchant for killing, distinguished by the almost comical sack he wears over his head, to protect his vanity. If you only wanted to watch one Friday the 13th movie, this one would not be a bad choice.


Friday the 13th Part III (1982)

What Friday the 13th lacks in quality, it makes up for in quantity, with more and faster sequels than its leading competitors. Which may have been for the best, considering that it's not until the third movie that Jason finally picks up the hockey mask that will come to define his image. And compared to other slasher franchises that seem determined to cash in on former glory with every new sequel, Friday the 13th (or maybe just Jason as a character) is a story that almost seems designed to be developed over multiple titles. That having been said, the series sees a dip in quality with Part III, which at times feels like a self-parody. The expendables are pretty much interchangeable, and their absorption into drugs, sex (take your pick), and/or biker gangs (no kidding) is over-exaggerated. And by this point, Jason's constant skulking around is beginning to get tiresome. Still, it's a thrill to see him finally donning that hockey mask.


Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (1984)

Friday the 13th is fond of lengthy recap scenes, to bring the audience up to date with each new installment, and The Final Chapter begins with one of the more effective openings, recycling the campfire story from Part 2. Having endured being hanged and an axe chop to the forehead in the previous installment, Jason's lifeless body is finally taken into custody. But apparently two lechers making out on a stretcher in the morgue is enough to bring his interminable sense of old testament justice back to life. Thankfully, The Final Chapter is a good deal better than Part III, even nearing the level of Part 2 - and with the advantage that Jason's got his iconic mask. In fact, the killer is at his behind-the-scenes best here, only stepping out of the shadows when he's ready to strike. The Final Chapter also stars a chubby-cheeked, preteen Corey Feldman, along with the usual cast of teenagers, who I might add, provide this movie with enough nudity to make it one of the best slashers in terms of the balance between sex and violence. This is easily one of the best Friday the 13th sequels, so enjoy it before the series takes a dive.


Friday the 13th: A New Beginning (1985)

In the conclusion to The Final Chapter, little Tommy Jarvis survived by diving a little too far into Jason's headspace. In A New Beginning, he's grown a few years, and that experience has unhinged him. And when he transfers to an out-of-the-way "youth development center", the killings begin again. Has Jason returned from the grave? Like Part III, this film has more of a farm than a lake atmosphere - and, also like Part III, it's not one of the better Friday the 13th sequels. You've got your usual gang of teenagers, except this time they are all "troubled" youth - and the caricatures of mental illness on display aren't all that sensitive. Too many of the actors (oddly, sometimes the non-crazies more than the crazies) oversell their characters, acting as if they're trying to be funny. Even if they succeeded, it wouldn't be the right tone for a Friday the 13th movie, but they don't, and that just hurts the film all the more.

Perhaps the only thing this movie does well is set up the slasher as a mystery. There's enough ambiguity about Jason's death (was Tommy's vision of Jason rising from his grave a memory or just a nightmare? Was Jason really cremated, or is that just a rumor? What exactly was the extent of Jason's off-screen damages at the end of the last movie, and what kind of healing powers does he have anyway?) and plenty of characters built up as red herrings to genuinely leave you guessing (that is, if you're naive enough to think that they'd make a Friday the 13th movie where the killer is NOT Jason). Unfortunately, the movie's just not good enough to make the mystery worth solving. It relies far too heavily on cliches, which comes off as extremely lazy writing. For a movie subtitled "A New Beginning", it doesn't inspire much hope for the future of the franchise.


Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives (1986)

The internal logic that "connects" the Friday the 13th movies was never very strong (in fact, even Jason being a killer in the first place was something of a retcon of the first movie). Here, it's worse than ever, probably on account of the filmmakers disagreeing about where to take the series. Rumor has it that A New Beginning was supposed to usher in the era of a copycat killer posing as Jason, and the real Jason was really supposed to be done in at the end of The Final Chapter. But, as the subtitle to Part VI suggests, Jason's popularity was too great for him to stay dead for very long. And, considering the would-be fatal treatment he endured in Part IV, he's made a remarkable recovery, though he's looking more ghoulish and zombified than ever before. Of course, his indifference to the natural process of death makes him all the more intimidating - woe be to any rebellious teenagers that cross his path. Excitingly, the series is back to the summer camp environment in Part VI - with kids (and not just counselors) for the first time! Plus, Tommy is running around in the background, serving as Jason's primary adversary. Part VI, like Parts 2 and IV before it, understands much of what makes Friday the 13th tick, and knows how to position Jason as the iconic, fan-favored figure he is, although it suffers a little from a conspicuous lack of nudity. It's not the best Friday sequel, but it isn't the worst, either.


Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (1988)

Thinking that Jason could be stopped for good by returning him to the lake he originally drowned in was a creative idea, but not a particularly smart one. After all, he was resting pretty soundly in his grave, until Tommy had to come along and dig him up, allowing for a fortuitous lightning strike to reanimate his body. Of course, that begs the question of why somebody doesn't just destroy the body altogether - like, by cremation, as was rumored in Part V, and as Tommy failed at doing in Part VI. But at this point in the series (which was never intelligent cinema to begin with), all that matters is ending each movie with Jason's climactic death, and then bringing him back anyway, in the very next installment.

The New Blood ditches the Tommy character altogether (which is just as well), and ramps up the supernatural element with a new character who possesses latent psychic abilities (comparisons with Carrie are not out of place). But her trauma from seeing her father drown as a child (and likely being the cause of his death), and the conflict with her self-serving therapist comes off very soap-opera-y at times. And the flock of teenagers in the cabin next door aren't very interesting. The New Blood isn't terrible, but it's an extremely mediocre entry in the series. The most it has going for it is a few imaginative kills (Jason really starts getting creative with his killing implements here), and the final showdown between Jason and the psychic girl, which is admittedly as exciting as it is cheesy. But it's not enough to save this movie from mediocrity.


Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (1989)

Jason Takes Manhattan is a strange animal. It's actually not a bad movie - the writing and characters are better than average for a slasher movie (although the harbinger's presence in this case is completely inexplicable). And I don't want to be the kind of person who says, "you can't be innovative and take Jason new places," especially after - what, 7 iterations of more or less the same thing? But Jason Takes Manhattan (which could just as well be called Jason Takes A Cruise) doesn't really have the feeling of a Friday the 13th movie. And I guess you could take that as a plus or a minus. Personally, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, but I don't see why the killer has to be Jason at all. It could have been any serial killer or movie monster. I almost want to say that this movie exists right on that cusp between the classic slashers (of which Friday the 13th was obviously one of the front-runners), and the newer era that the '90s would usher in, which eventually led to the Screams and the I Know What You Did Last Summers and their ilk. In any case, Jason Takes Manhattan gets pretty ridiculous towards the end, but if you don't take it too seriously, it's actually a lot of fun.


Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday (1993)

So Part VIII of Friday the 13th had what was probably the most imaginative and convincingly final death of Jason yet - with him dissolving in a torrent of toxic waste in the sewers underneath Manhattan. And yet, he still comes back for Part IX (although ostensibly The Final Friday, we all remember how The Final Chapter worked out - five movies ago). Jason Goes to Hell opens with an extremely clever ruse, that borders on self-aware parody (of the good, smart kind). And it would have made a fine denouement for the series (and final conclusion for the character of Jason Voorhees), except that it lasts less than ten minutes, and this movie has another hour and twenty minutes to tell a ridiculous story about how the "curse" of Jason spreads from one body to another.

I said it the last time I watched this movie - this late in the series, with Jason's iconic look so well-established, it just loses its impact when the killer is some random guy (especially when it's several random guys throughout the course of the movie). If Jason Takes Manhattan didn't have the atmosphere of a Friday the 13th movie, at least the killer was still Jason. Here, it's some slimy worm that transfers orally from body to body. I mean, the freaking Necronomicon makes an appearance! Don't get me wrong, I love to see the Necronomicon show up in movies, but since when does it have anything to do with Jason Voorhees?

What this is, is a fairly run-of-the-mill supernatural slasher-of-the-'90s, superficially dressed up as a Friday the 13th movie. Although it is fun to watch Steven Williams (who played the informant X on The X-Files) in the role of a mysterious bounty hunter, his presence and very existence is inexplicable, except as a convenient avatar for the writer to explain to the audience the otherwise baseless rules of Jason's "curse". I guess, all told, this movie is not quite as bad as I remembered it, but given the deterioration of the series (also apparent in A Nightmare on Elm Street's parallel entry, The Final Nightmare), maybe it's a good thing that they were wrapping it up. It would have been nice if they'd ended on a stronger note, although it's not exactly like it actually stopped them from making more movies later on. I mean, even this one, as final as it's supposed to be, ends with an explicit teaser for the Freddy vs. Jason match-up that was still ten years in coming.


Jason X (2001)

With seemingly no explanation as to the continuity between this movie and its predecessors (Jason seems to have become more of an archetype than simply a recurring character by this point), Jason X jumps ahead into the future (giving this installment of the franchise a very unusual and alien feeling), with a research facility rightfully treating Jason as a scientific anomaly, whose remarkable regenerative properties promise the hope of groundbreaking technological breakthroughs. That is, if Jason can be contained long enough for anyone to figure out his secrets.

Jason X follows Jason Takes Manhattan and Jason Goes To Hell in further diluting the original concept of a summer camp killer (remember that?) and taking Jason to another setting far removed from Crystal Lake. But when he gets cryogenically frozen and eventually discovered 455 years later by a recon team that subsequently takes him up into space, Jason X shows its colors as a ridiculous 21st century "b" quality SyFy channel movie-of-the-week cheesefest, that relies too heavily on CG fx. I suppose that if you don't take it seriously, and if you have the right sense of humor (some of the self-referential jabs were funny, in a very unscary way), you might be able to enjoy it, but frankly, it's pretty dumb - even for a Friday the 13th movie - and too silly for my tastes.

Conclusion: The fun of the Friday the 13th movies relies on its adherence to what has become the typical slasher formula that mixes sex, drugs, and other expressions of youthful rebellion with the violence that the guilt complex in our collective unconscious fears is the primitive repercussion for those acts. Though only standing in for this retributive force, Jason Voorhees, eventually with his hockey mask and machete (among other implements of doom), manages to stand out as an icon of fear that stalks the woods beside the archetypal lake where you go to summer camp. Here are my picks for the entries in the Friday the 13th series that I think are most worth your time:

Friday the 13th (1980)
Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981)
Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (1984)
Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives (1986)

Halloween Marathon

Spoiler Warning: As each title in this series tends to build and expand upon the events and revelations contained in the previous title(s), each of the following reviews may contain spoilers from previous titles in the series.

Halloween (1978)

Halloween is not quite as fast-paced as The Texas Chain Saw Massacre that came before it, but that's fine, because it takes its time conjuring a compelling atmosphere of autumn festivities in a quiet, suburban town that could be just like your own (to contrast all the better with the terror that's about to befall). To my knowledge, Halloween also pioneers the popular slasher trope of the killer who just keeps getting up and coming at you, no matter what you throw at him. Jamie Lee Curtis is fantastic as Laurie Strode, Donald Pleasence plays a captivating Dr. Loomis - the only man who truly knows how dangerous Michael Myers is - and John Carpenter's score is simple but hauntingly memorable.


Halloween II (1981)

The first Halloween ends abruptly, without resolution, but it suits the atmosphere of the film, as if to spook the audience one last time by saying "and he's still out there". It also sets up the sequel perfectly, which picks up immediately where the first film left off, in order to give the audience another hour and a half of scares, as Michael Myers continues his rampage through the night. As such, the tone of the second film is very much in line with the first one, minus the big buildup to the inevitable confrontation (although there are pockets of down time, to give the audience a breather), and with the mayhem eventually transposed from the suburban streets to the nearby hospital where final girl Laurie Strode ends up after the events of the last film. Despite the couple of years separating their releases, Halloween and Halloween II make for a really good double feature.


Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)

Halloween III is an anomaly among the slasher sequels, in that it exists entirely outside the narrative of the other Halloween movies. It doesn't feature Michael Myers or any of the other characters we've been introduced to. It's not even really a slasher. It's a movie about some evil corporation's plot to kill the world's children (because modern Halloweens don't have enough human sacrifice), and the pair of amateur detectives who must stop them before their plan goes into action on Halloween night. But don't despair, it's actually pretty good - if you can get past the fact that it's not Halloween III: Michael Myers Kills Some More. It's got a pretty ridiculous premise, but it makes for a fun and creepy story that blends elements of horror and science-fiction. Rumor has it that the original concept for Halloween was to be an anthology series of stand-alone horror stories focused around the holiday, but Michael Myers proved to be so popular, that instead, the series turned into a flagship for the crowd-pleasing villain (for better or worse). It's almost too bad, because I would have relished the opportunity to see more variations on horror movies that focus on Halloween.


Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)

Not to be outdone by Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street, both of which were rapidly churning out sequels, and after that failed attempt at turning Halloween into an anthology series, Michael Myers returns to the screen. Compared to the wide open ending of the first Halloween, Halloween II seemed determined to finish the saga, with Dr. Loomis and Michael Myers both burning up in a blazing explosion. But here they have both miraculously survived to spar again, and the movie pretty closely follows the formula set out in the first Halloween - with Michael Myers once again breaking out of confinement on the eve of Halloween, ten years after his first rampage, and Dr. Loomis tracking him back to his home town of Haddonfield. But, with Jamie Lee Curtis absent as Myers' primary target, Laurie Strode (who it was revealed, in retcon fashion in Halloween II, is his long lost sister), we have in her place her allegedly orphaned (and adopted by a foster family) 7-year-old daughter Jamie, played by the adorable Danielle Harris. Although there's no explanation as to why she has nightmares about Michael Myers, who has been locked up her entire life, or why she would imagine him in his Halloween mask, when she wasn't even alive during his previous rampage. Still, Halloween 4's adherence to formula brings a welcome familiarity, like visiting old friends, with enough new faces to keep it interesting. The movie is actually pretty good, and builds to an exciting climax, with a haunting, if somewhat incredulous, ending. I may have even enjoyed it a little more than Halloween II.


Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)

Halloween 4's shocking ending seemed poised to put Jamie in the position of following in the footsteps of Michael Myers (much like Tommy following Jason in the ending to Friday the 13th Part V - an idea that was also scrapped). But here, it's established that she has some kind of psychic link with the killer (providing a much-needed explanation for her telepathic visions in the last movie). She's also somehow lost her voice - thankfully only temporarily, because she made for an excellent scream queen (scream princess?) in the last movie. In fact, Danielle Harris is fantastic here; I think I like her even better than Jamie Lee Curtis. Dr. Loomis, on the other hand - I've always liked his bristly personality. It demonstrates the effect looking after Michael Myers has had on him, and reflects the singular urgency he possesses as the only one who truly understands just how dangerous Michael is. But in this movie he does begin to become obnoxious, mostly due to his inability to deal with children properly. Halloween 5 has a long running time, and drags a bit in the middle, but it starts out strong, and finishes with a bang, featuring what I consider to be the most gripping (if unexplained) ending in any of these slasher movies. It's not the best Halloween sequel, but I feel it's worth sitting through.


Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995)

All the way back in Halloween II, there was a scene where the ancient name for Halloween - Samhain - was invoked, alluding to ancient pagan rituals, and suggesting a possible cause for the evil behind Michael Myers' murderous rampage. But back then, it was more of a symbolic element, that even the philosophizing Dr. Loomis brushed off as superstition. But lurking in the background of Halloween 5 was an element that comes to the forefront in The Curse of Michael Myers. Namely, that there is a secret druidic cult pulling the strings. After countless rehashings of the same basic formula, it's fitting that we should get some more insight into the force that drives Michael to hunt those of his own blood on Halloween, killing anyone who gets in the way, but recasting Michael Myers as a demon on a leash and not an independent agent ultimately hampers his image.

The sixth installment of Halloween opens on a chilling note, with Jamie (disappointingly not reprised by Danielle Harris) grown up (to the ripe, old age of 15) and giving birth, in the custody of the cult that controls Michael (to the extent that he can be controlled), who are most likely breeding her for infant human sacrifices (if not some other nefarious purpose - ironically, explanations in this movie that tries to explain things are often not very clear). But she manages to escape, and so the typical hunt begins. Here we find little Tommy Doyle from the first Halloween all grown up, and Dr. Loomis can't resist returning from retirement when news of Michael Myers' return to Haddonfield reaches him. This movie also debuts the "cult of Michael Myers" in a very different sense, with his previous rampages entering the public consciousness, and certain obsessed fans fawning over his "mystique". A radio station schedules a live broadcast in Haddonfield which is having its first Halloween in 6 years. Guess who shows up for the party. The Curse of Michael Myers has some jumbled ideas, a confusing ending, and I think this is a case of "curiosity killed the cat" - Michael Myers was simply more interesting as a mystery - but it's not a terrible movie, and it has its fair share of thrills and kills. It just kind of misses the mark in trying to make sense of some of the unanswered questions in the franchise.


Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998)

Sadly, Donald Pleasence passed away during the later stages of production on The Curse of Michael Myers, and the absence of his character Dr. Loomis is felt here. I wonder how much the loss of his name being attached to the next Halloween movie inspired the idea to bring Jamie Lee Curtis back to the series. After the deviations in the fourth, fifth, and sixth parts of the Halloween saga, H20 wipes the slate clean (largely ignoring the events of those movies), and returns to familiar ground, picking up the story of Laurie Strode (whose alleged death in a car crash was faked so she could go into hiding) all grown up with a teenage son. Going by the new name of Keri Tate, she is headmistress of a "very posh, secluded private school". But she is haunted by memories of the trauma she endured twenty years ago, and by the thought that Michael Myers may still be out there, and that one day he might find her. Well, you can guess what happens come Halloween night. Although there is a side story involving Keri's son and his friends that plays out in typical slasher fashion, this movie is really about Keri's redemption, and not Michael's rampage. Indeed, she picks up the slack felt by Dr. Loomis' absence, as the tortured soul who can never rest until she's faced Michael Myers and beaten him. H20 is a good movie, and a good Halloween sequel, though it stops short of being as thrilling, captivating, or original as the original. But as a movie that explores the long term fate of the first Halloween's leading protagonist, it can't be missed.


Halloween: Resurrection (2002)

Perhaps not surprisingly, Michael Myers' ostensibly definitive demise-by-decapitation at the end of H20 was not as final as it seemed, as he is resurrected once again by a rather unsatisfying retcon of that ending. It's hard to fault Jamie Lee Curtis for demanding that her character be unambiguously finished off within the first fifteen minutes of Halloween: Resurrection, but it doesn't bode well for the rest of the film. Indeed, this is the first film since the first one (before Laurie Strode became Michael's sister) that doesn't have Michael hunting anyone in particular (i.e., surviving members of his family), but rather defending the sanctity of his home. And without Dr. Loomis' superstitious pontifications about evil, either (instead we get a university professor briefly lecturing about Jungian archetypes - in particular, the shadow), he may just as well be any old serial killer - that is, beside the resurrection of his status as a sort of macabre pop culture icon like we saw in Halloween 6. So instead of Jamie Lee Curtis or Donald Pleasence, the lead actor in this movie is Busta Rhymes (alongside Tyra Banks), and that pretty much tells you all you need to know. Busta plays the host of a webshow titled "Dangertainment", whose brilliant idea it is to lock several volunteering university students in the old Michael Myers house on Halloween night. And like all reality shows, the host has some tricks up his sleeve to guarantee an exciting program. What he doesn't count on is Michael Myers coming home.

The surveillance footage and first person perspective cameras give the film, in sporadic bursts, the vaguest semblance of a found footage film, but the footage is too grainy and lo-fi (and not even in a mood-enhancing way) to add much in the way of intrigue to the story. It comes off more as an attempt to be all "this is the 21st century", than to instill the film with an in-the-middle-of-the-action sense of urgency. However, what it does accomplish is to successfully blur the line between fiction and reality, when we see a subset of the internet audience - watching the events in the house as we are - cheer on what they imagine to be a Halloween prank but we know is actually Michael Myers going on a killing spree. And while to us it's still only fiction, to the fictional audience this is real violence that they are unwittingly enjoying. Which is a chilling thought, and could be the setup for some great commentary on the nature of violence as entertainment, especially as ubiquitous and easy to access as it is on the internet. Unfortunately, Halloween: Resurrection simply leaves it at that without making a statement, because otherwise, it's a pretty run-of-the-mill slasher with mediocre characters, and doesn't even particularly have the feeling of a Halloween movie. I actually didn't hate it as much as the first time I watched it (maybe my standards are being eroded by this point in my slasher mega-marathon, with all the Freddy's Deads and the Jason Xs...), but it's still not that good.

Conclusion: My favorite aspect of the Halloween movies is the way they conjure the suburban atmosphere of the holiday, whether it's teens going to costume parties or kids trick 'r treating. Yet, Michael Myers embodies a faceless evil - the bogeyman that can't be killed - and reminds us that the roots of Halloween go deeper than pranks and candy. Here are my picks for the entries in the Halloween series that I think are most worth your time:

Halloween (1978)
Halloween II (1981)
Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)
Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)
Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998)

(I also recommend Halloween III, but you should watch it as a stand-alone film, and not consider it part of the Halloween series).

Texas Chainsaw Massacre Marathon

Spoiler Warning: As each title in this series tends to build and expand upon the events and revelations contained in the previous title(s), each of the following reviews may contain spoilers from previous titles in the series.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)

I think the greatest success of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is how effective it remains all these decades after it was released, and after horror audiences have been bombarded and desensitized to movies of its kind. Yet it effects a raw brutality that has so rarely been achieved since; and, amazingly, it does so with a relative scarcity of explicit gore. Watching it, it's surprisingly easy to imagine what it must have been like seeing it in 1974, when audiences were probably a lot more naive than they are today. The title alone evokes a brutal kind of horror, and the movie delivers on its promise. It presents itself as if it were a true story, and the starkness of its filming lends credence to the suggestion. It ultimately builds up to an extremely intense climax that I dare say has not been rivaled by any of the other titles in slasher canon. This is not tongue-in-cheek, root for the killer, Saturday night slasher fun, this is running through the woods, screaming at the top of your lungs, with a 250 pound chainsaw on your ass.


The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986)

Texas Chainsaw Massacre is the least commodified of the big slasher franchises. Though it came out first, it was the last to receive a sequel. Where the first Texas Chain Saw Massacre was breaking new ground, the second one finds itself treading a crowded market. You'd think that since this is only the second title in the series, it would maintain a purity that the other slasher franchises (in particular, Halloween, Friday the 13th, and A Nightmare on Elm Street) had diluted by the year 1986. But within the first ten minutes you've got what appears to be Leatherface inexplicably decked out in a Halloween ghoul costume (oh wait, was that supposed to be a corpse?) truck-surfing at 90 miles an hour as he dispatches a couple of unlikable young hooligans. Meanwhile, his daddy who cooks a mean barbecue (the secret's in the meat) is winning trophies at chili cook-offs. It just gets worse when the brother shows up. Talk about jumping the shark in record time. In the first Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Leatherface's family was a terrifying portrait of simple-minded backwoods cannibals. Here, they're like a homicidal vaudeville troupe on tour in the city. Not even a chainsaw dual can save this movie from stinking. I had high hopes for the Chainsaw sequels, but this movie dashed them against the rocks.


Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990)

Much to my relief, TCM III brings back the serious tone of the first movie. It starts out with a bit of a desert-y, The Hills Have Eyes kind of atmosphere, prefacing the story with a note that, after the events of the first massacre (and presumably ignoring the second movie), the elusive figure known as "Leatherface" is still at large. A young couple is traveling through Texas on a cross country road trip, right through an area where police have lately been finding disgusting pits of putrefied human remains. Viggo Mortensen appears as a mysterious drifter the couple meet at a disturbing gas station in the middle of nowhere. TCM III borrows a lot from The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, but it doesn't have the raw, gritty feeling of the original, and comes off feeling like an inauthentic imitation. Leatherface hasn't looked right - or been quite as intimidating - since the first movie, and neither is the house as creepy-looking, in spite of the multitude of bones piled up. I think the movie puts a little too much effort into piecing together "a portrait of a happy, cannibal family", and (except for the little girl) it doesn't come off as disturbing as I think it wants to be. Plus, the chases and the final climax are just not as thrilling as the original. Ultimately, it's not nearly as off-putting as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 was, but neither does it stand out from the pack, or approach the quality of the first one.


Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation (1994)

The fourth installment occurs about twenty years after the first Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and (shockingly) stars Renee Zellweger and Matthew McConaughey (either they weren't huge yet, or this is a demonstration of the new wave of slashers that were able to somehow swing big stars). The Next Generation starts out with a lot more promise than the last two sequels, introducing characters that are actually pretty interesting, who are about to ditch their senior prom. Unfortunately for them, they end up lost in backwoods Texas. Truth be told, this movie borrows a lot of important elements from the first massacre, but they're integrated effectively, and, in my opinion, it passes well as homage rather than imitation. Leatherface does look a little silly with a mullet (I actually wasn't that bothered by his crossdressing - cross-skinning? - phase), but he's the most intimidating he's been since the original TCM. The final act does curiously devolve into near absurdity, but it's strangely effective, and the movie reaches a thrilling, frenetic pace that hasn't been accomplished since the first Texas Chainsaw Massacre. At one point, when two mysterious suits show up (I think it has something to do with a big conspiracy), one of them seems almost to be making a knowing statement about the misstep that the first Chainsaw sequel took, when he says, "I want these people to know the meaning of horror. You don't want to be a silly boy." The Next Generation is easily the best Texas Chainsaw Massacre sequel, at least until the remake.


The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

For better or worse, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre sequels have relied a lot on repetition of the basic formula utilized in the first film (and failed when trying to deviate from that formula), so perhaps it's a good thing that this version of the story is able to commit itself to retelling the events we've seen before, with a modern sensibility, without feeling compelled to avoid sticking too closely to the script. Fact is, the first Texas Chain Saw Massacre was a groundbreaking cinematic spectacle (in horror), and filmmakers have had a hard time trying to continue the story or the characters beyond it (in traditional sequel fashion). Happily, the TCM remake revives the gritty feeling of the original, staying true to its source, and adhering strictly to the faux documentary approach of the original, while allowing for the flourishes that modern cinema provides (and modern audiences demand). The cinematography is excellent (and the women very pleasing to look at). Ironically, the film does such an excellent job of setting up this backwoods Texas town and its backwards inhabitants, that when the carnage does jump out at you, it's not as starkly surprising as it was in the original TCM. But what it lacks in sheer shock value, it makes up for in intensity, with plenty of gore, and some truly sadistic characters (one imagines that Eli Roth must have been inspired by this movie). Jessica Biel is amazing as the terrified heroine, and R. Lee Ermey conjures a thoroughly disturbing sadism that makes Leatherface's animal brutality seem almost gentle by comparison. This is a true edge-of-your-seat kind of movie, that captures the rhythm and intensity of the original without copying it scene for scene, striking a fine balance between homage and originality. It's just too bad that few if any of the remakes created during the craze that this movie probably started turned out nearly this well. But, if you're cynical, you might say the same thing about the slashers that followed in the wake of the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre. This series is nothing if not a trendsetter.


The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006)

Despite the open ending of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, the followup chose to go the prequel rather than the sequel route. Which is interesting, because it's the first time a TCM movie has gone back to take a look at the history behind our favorite chainsaw-wielding cannibal family. Yet, for better or worse, except for a captivating open credits sequence that glosses over Leatherface's birth and childhood, the movie opts to construct a typical slasher format that simply takes four years before (instead of anytime after) the events of the last movie. Which may be good, considering that what audiences probably want is another massacre, but I can't help feeling it missed the opportunity to tell a bit of a different kind of story (no less disturbing). It does, however, do a good job of establishing the state of things as we see them in the TCM remake, with the same location, and the same actors portraying the various members of the family (R. Lee Ermey, in particular, returns as the sadistic patriarch). Things are not quite so shot to hell yet, but the closing of the local slaughterhouse sets off a chain reaction that sends the Hewitt family into the depths we've seen them at a few short years later. Leatherface's transition, especially, from deformed outcast to chainsaw-wielding maniac, is especially exciting to witness. It may not be as strong or as harrowing as the TCM remake was, and some of the scenes really stretch the audience's credulity, but it's basically more of the same, and it has its share of great moments. So if you liked the last one, you'll probably enjoy this one. It's what I've been looking for in a Chainsaw sequel all along - a story connected to but independent of the first, that captures the mood of the first one. I don't know why it doesn't have a better reputation.

Conclusion: What I like best about the Texas Chainsaw Massacre is that, among the slasher franchises, it is the most brutal and unforgiving. This is reflected in Leatherface's choice of weapon - the chainsaw - and the fact that his killing instinct is animalistic, and involves cannibalism and wearing the skins of his victims. Here are my picks for the entries in the Chainsaw series that I think are most worth your time:

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)
Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation (1994)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006)