Rating of
4/4
The Saw Is The Law!
cockney0_1 - wrote on 03/31/09
The remaking of classic horror movies is an issue that has been raging on ever since the early part of the decade. Some may argue that movies have always been remade and stories retold, and that quite often the re-telling of a good story can, sometimes, be better than it's original source, for example David Cronenberg's 1986 remake of 'The Fly' or John Carpenter's 1982 version of 'The Thing'. But then again, some may argue that true classics shouldn't need to be remade, with a director's original vision being tarnished by changing movie trends or unecessary special effects.
Arguably the movie responsible for the current trend of remakes was director Marcus Nispel's version of Tobe Hooper's 1974 classic 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. As with it's source material, the movie not only kickstarted a whole new movement of horror movies, it also upped the ante with regards to what was accepted in mainstream horror movies and also pioneered a new style of visual editing from which most horror movies since have borrowed. Indeed, what is now regarded as cliché was started with this movie.
In this version, it's 1973 and a group of five young people - Kemper (the alpha male of the group), his tomboyish girlfriend Erin, Morgan (the intellectual stoner), Andy (the jock) and Pepper, who the gang picked up hitching and has gotten it on with Andy - are travelling back from Mexico in Kemper's van and are on their way to Dallas to a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert. On a deserted backwoods road in Texas, the group pick up a hitchhiker, who seems to be in some sort of catatonic state. After getting panicked by where the group are heading, the hitchiker pulls out a gun and shoots herself, prompting the group to find help. They stop of at a store in what seems to be a deserted town, where the lady in charge arranges for the kids to meet the local sheriff at a nearby abandoned mill. When they get to the mill, they run into Jedidiah, a small boy who is fascinated by the dead body in the van. After he tells them that the sheriff lives nearby, Kemper and Erin go searching for his house. The pair find the Hewitt farm house, which is occupied by an elderly wheelchair-bound man called Monty, who begrudgingly lets Erin use the phone to call the sheriff. Meanwhile, Kemper sneaks into the house and takes a look around, but unfortunately for him he bumps into Leatherface, a hulking brute who wears a mask made of human flesh and happens to be carrying a sledgehammer. As Erin looks for Kemper, the rest of the group get to meet the sheriff, who quickly turns out not to be the beacon of justice that the group hoped for, and what started out as a fun day trip turns in to a nightmare race for survival.
When remaking a movie - especially one with a following as devoted as '...Chainsaw' - one has to tread a fine line between keeping true to the original whilst adding enough changes and new touches to keep the story fresh, and although it isn't perfect, Marcus Nispel has created a movie that pretty much does exactly that. Obviously, the main focal point of the movie is the character of Leatherface, who, along with Freddy, Jason, Pinhead and so on, has become an iconic figure in modern horror. In the original movie, although he was the family enforcer, there was a certain vulnerability to his character - he squeeled like a pig when he was being reprimanded, and was generally treated like a naughty child by his family - which was played upon more and more in the sequels, until we got to part four and he was a camp, cross-dressing cry-baby. In this movie, Leatherface (former wrestler Andrew Bryniarski) is pure brutality, never crying or screaming, just offing people using the tools of his trade. Bryniarski brings a certain menace to the role, having to show chracter through his movements as his face is covered, very similar to Gunnar Hansen's original portrayal, yet with added intimidation.
Special mention must also go to R.Lee Ermey, whose portrayal of Sheriff Hoyt (a character not in the original) is just plain nasty. Although not as phyically intimidating as Leatherface, he is exceptionally detestable and made all the more intense by Ermey's ferocious but controlled delivery. It's this combination of Leatherface's unrelenting aggression and Hoyt's unhinged madness that drives the movie along at a cracking pace, never letting up until both the viewer and the onscrenn characters can take no more. The rest of the 'family' are equally oddball, although one sticking point is the fact that the relationships between the characters is never explained. In a way that adds to the madness, but a bit more clarity could have been beneficial. Luda May, the shop owner, is obviously the matriarch of the clan - she calls Leatherface (or Thomas to give his real name) 'her boy', although she is also referred to as 'Momma' by Hoyt, who is probably about the same age as her - and also Monty, who is again about the same age, is never referred to by any title, although Nispel has made it clear that he is not Leatherface's father. There are also two more characters who appear later in the movie - a young waif called Henrietta and a large middle-aged lady who live in a trailer on the Hewitt's land - who are never fully explained. Jedidiah once refers to Luda May as 'Grandma', but one can assume that he is also a victim of kidnapping by the family.
The group of kids in this movie come across as likeable, although it is pretty hard to believe them as young people growing up in that time period - did anyone under the age of thirty ever go to Lynyrd Skynyrd concerts, even in 1973? The character of Kemper is immediately likeable, Eric Balfour giving a very convincing performance. His charisma is such that, even though he is the first to fall victim to Leatherface, it still feels like he's in the movie. Jessica Biel plays the heroine role very well, going from vulnerable to hard as steel with complete conviction, and Jonathan Tucker is both amusing and slightly irritating (in a good way) as Morgan, who was the one reasonable voice in the group from the very moment they picked up the doomed hitchiker.
Overall, this is an excellent movie worthy of the title (still the best movie title ever) and one that does pay homage to it's source and have enough fresh ideas to make it stand on its own. Many fans of the original were outraged as to the lack of a supper scene - a key part of the original - but to put one in just for the hell of it would have been too contrived. As it is, the cannibalism angle is never followed in this movie as it was before, but the movie doesn't suffer for it. The grainy footage and almost sepia colour filters may seem a little overused in horror movies these days, but it was this movie that used it first and used it best, and Marcus Nispel's camera angles - usually filming from the ground up - also add to the claustrophobic feeling of the movie; the wide shots showing the open Texan skies contrasting the feeling of being trapped in all this madness. And that's the best comparison to the original that this movie has - the sense of a real creeping dread throughout, knowing that something bad is going to happen but not sure how or to whom. The real difference is the added gore, which never seems gratuitous as it can in most of these types of movies. As stated, the movie isn't perfect; there are continuity errors, historical errors ('Sweet Home Alabama' didn't come out until 1974, but the kids are playing it in their van) and a lot of unanswered questions, particularly about the 'family', but this is just being picky. What is on the screen is a perfect mix of creepiness, violence, gore and innovative film making, and that, purist or not, should be reason enough to enjoy it.
