Amongst the classic chainsaw-wielding psychotics of cinema, none is more famous and dangerous than Leatherface (Jason who?). How can I call myself a horror fan (which, for the record, I don't) having seen only bits and pieces of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, one of the most demented movies of all time? I have wanted to see TCM for a very long time, and the saw that split the camel's back was the film's original trailer, which I recently saw as part of the "Boogeymen" DVD collection. I was in awe of the 2 minutes of film presented in said trailer and rushed to the video store to rent this horror masterpiece. Unfortunately, I was in a hurry and accidentally picked up this box instead. Really, I've heard of sequels killing a franchise, but this one guts the franchise, then neatly prepares it for Grandpa.<br /><br />First off, the film-print used in filming is top-notch. Normally, this would be a good thing, but part of what made the original TCM so freaky and gave it that unique charm is that the film was shot on grainy 16mm, with fairly bad colors, which left it looking like a first-hand "home video" account of the horror. This looks more like a high-budget, low-spirit remake of the original than a true sequel. Which is a fitting description since that's exactly what it is.<br /><br />Every attempt at a "shocking" scene in this movie was stolen from the original or one of the many flicks "inspired" by TCM. The acting is amazingly unextraordinary, with the exception being the sole survivor from a group that was abducted and killed a few days in before this story (fittingly enough, she gets in one set of dialogue before she is separated and killed) and Leatherface's little sister, who is genuinely unsettling from first encounter (she holds tea parties with skulls and a doll made from what looks like a mummified infant), but is also barely given any screen-time. The story of Leatherface and his family told in the original movie was pretty horrifying but perhaps not realized to its fullest ability because of budget and technological limitations, so it would seem that remaking it with a better budget and technology would work, but, besides the factor of the film not looking "right" with a better film-stock and higher budget, the higher budget meant there was more financial influence, which more simply means it was cut to ribbons by the censors (what's the point of supposedly-brutal killing scenes if there's barely any gore in the film at all?!), and had its original ending (see "Alternate Versions") changed to the awful, unfitting "happy" ending it now has. A conflict between Leatherface and his father that would've been very interesting was hinted at, but never fully attempted (although Leatherface did burn his father's hand in the oven so he could get a favored tape back). The only part of this film I truly enjoyed was a darkly humorous scene in which Leatherface is playing with an electronic children's toy, and becomes frustrated when it shows him a picture of a clown, asks him what it is, and keeps telling him his answer of "food" is wrong. The rest takes all the originality, edginess, and dementia of the original and chucks it for an incredibly boring feature.<br /><br />The reason this tragedy of a film happened to such a great franchise was obvious. Nobody from the original was involved at all in this; Tobe Hooper had no involvement in this, and New Line was even too cheap or stupid (or both) to get Gunnar Hansen, the only "true" Leatherface (R.A. Mihaillof, the new guy, doesn't have near as threatening a pose, or the cool one-armed chainsaw spinning moves). Made in 1990, over 15 years after TCM, this is just another case of poor, unnecessary sequels hoping for a quick buck and destroying the good name of the original film. Next time I'll make sure to pick up the right box...