Reading film critic Mike McGranaghan’s book I came across a chapter where Mike wrote, “we seem to have lost the ability to respectfully ponder other people’s opinions.” Instead of making thoughtful, insightful comments about reviews we tend result to name-calling or insults. So here is a joint effort were Mike and I pick a movie we disagree upon and discuss our ideas thoughtfully and respectfully. The project begins here on 2dreviews, with my praise for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) and continues on Mike’s site The Aisle Seat with his counter.
Growing up I never sought out horror movies. Like the victims in scary movies I wanted to escape those scenes and monsters. As a young teen I watched Jason Goes to Hell at a friend’s house right up until the part where a young woman gets chopped in half while having sex in a tent. I still don’t know how that movie ends.
Whenever friends wanted to see horror movies in theatres I would tag along begrudgingly. I viewed them as “low brow” entertainment. Simplistic premises, bad acting, poor characters, and unpleasant experiences.
One night, many years later, I knew I would have a big house to myself for a weekend so I rented Matchstick Men (which I’d always wanted to see), Stealth (because I hate myself), and as a challenge, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Maybe watching it alone at night in a big empty house was a part of it, but The Texas Chainsaw Massacre became the first horror movie I enjoyed. I’m thankful I had Matchstick Men to watch immediately after, but seeing Texas Chainsaw Massacre made me realize I no longer dismissed the genre; and encouraged me to seek out other (better) films to figure out what I liked about Texas Chainsaw and why.
The film isn’t free of poor characters. Nor does the film quite escape simple premises (though that’s to better match the 1974 original) and has five young adults who get detoured to a house where a leather-faced killer chases them with a chainsaw. When the movie begins we see Kemper (Eric Balfour) driving. He checks the rear view mirror and sees Pepper and Andy making out in the back seat. He nods approvingly as if to say, “lusty young people, check.” His girlfriend Erin (Jessica Biel) establishes her relationship with Eric through dialogue rather than example. Not a great start, but the “horror” that follows was unpleasant in a way that made me reconsider my prejudices.

The scariest part of horror movies or psychological thrillers (for me) is the moment before they establish the level of violence or intensity of the film’s assault; like a boxer anticipating that first jab. Once that initial violent scene hits, my expectations plateau and I stop worrying. Texas Chainsaw‘s first intense scene (tiny spoiler ahead) has a woman pulling a gun from her nether-regions. She is wearing a dress. It’s surprising, illogical, and disgusting. It makes me uncomfortable in a way that gore or violence doesn’t, and the film maintains this level of discomfort.
And not just with Leatherface chasing people with his chainsaw. The film spends much more time trying to convey that feeling of a a band-aid in your soup. There are pigs walking around in a house, a policemen that wrap dead bodies in saran wrap, and jars filled with yellow water and Polaroid photos. All of which is enhanced by cinematographer Daniel Pearl.
More than the main villain, the Sheriff (R. Lee Ermey) tempers our uneasiness. He initially seems like an unusual authority figure that’s a bit crude but practical. He tells one of the youths to help him with a stiff and barks, “I’ll bet she’s real sorry you’re getting her blood all over yer arm.” Later he becomes manic and menacing. There’s a lot of breadth Ermey must portray between those two extremes. That ain’t easy.

I also believe Jessica Biel’s balance between “terrified” and “capable.” I invest in her and asked questions as if I were in her place. She’s the leader who tries to shepherd the others to safety because it’s the right thing to do, but morality is a tricky thing when a man with a chainsaw is five seconds behind you. At what point does it become practical to risk two lives when one person can escape? Is someone’s life always worth saving? There aren’t profound answers here, just a point about how the film engaged me.
Sure, there are a number of scenes that feel awkward. And I can’t really stand behind Jessica Biel’s white t-shirt tied to look like a crop top, or the excuses the film finds to get her top wet (no matter what director Marcus Nispel says about exposed skin conveying vulnerability). Problems like this reinforce what I disliked about these kinds of movies. But it was wrong to think I should avoid the genre all together. It’s more important to look at what I don’t like about a move and why. Otherwise I’d miss films I truly enjoyed, like The Fly (1958), The Thing (1982), Let Me In (2010), The Birds (1963), and The Descent (2006).
I still get a little queasy going into or watching horror movies, but Texas Chainsaw Massacre made me think that might be OK. Penny (one of the characters in the film) looks at some of the films violence and says, “It’s too much I’m going to be sick.” When she said that I felt oddly reassured. It wasn’t too much. I wasn’t going to be sick. I was definitely bothered, but (for the first time) in a good way.


I would argue that just because it lead you to some of the better horror movies, it does not mean the movie was good… however, it lead you to one of my favorite horror movies: The Thing, so that’s something.
The main problem that I have with movies like Texas Chainsaw Massacre is the same problem I have with Saw and Hostel… I’m not a fan of watching people be tortured. I’m cool with people being killed, or chased, or tormented, but something about torture is just too much for me. Which, I guess is the point, but it’s a point that I don’t want to watch.
You’re correct. It’s a bit of a shaky argument to say a movie is good because it opens doors. A good movie is a much bigger picture than just one aspect or element. But leading me to other movies or forcing me to ask questions does (to an extent) reveal a sliver of value. After all, why else go to a movie, but to consider different ideas and challenge conceptions, to imagine a world beyond our own prejudices and assumptions and come out trying to resolve emotions with ideas? The best of times anyway.
There’s really only one guy who is tortured in the movie. He is put on top of a hook. Everyone else gets it pretty quick. You could cover your eyes for about four – five minutes of screen time and be A-OK. But it’s true … that is in there … he doesn’t enjoy being on that hook.
Reply to Mike’s post.
Defending against the 1974 original is tricky because it’s a better film. That scene you mention where Leatherhead drags a victim into a bloodstained room and slams a metallic door exists in both. The 2003 remake even makes an homage to the kicking feet of the original victim (it just isn’t as effective).
While it makes sense to look at the 2003 film through the 1974 original, that does immediately put the remake in an unattractive light (especially when the original was so strong). Seeing through the lens of the ’73 original inherently frames the way we watch and discuss the 2003 movie. Kind of like how when we watch Justin Timberlake in a movie we are looking for his failures and missteps. Or how you have trouble believing R. Lee Ermey as a psychopath when he’s a real-life-veteran (which – now that you say it – yea, I can see how it would look goofy).
That said, you’re absolutely right, the 2003 film is unmistakable product. Watching the 1974 Leatherface twirl and dance in the original film’s conclusion has a weight to it; we can almost feel the chainsaw swinging him around. By comparison watching the 2003 Leatherface burst through the front door with unnatural speed feels otherworldly.
And as for your Wes Craven quote that you weave into a conclusion about film-making and feeling safe … I can’t touch that. I will merely remove my top hat, and bow. Kudos.