A California couple and a survivalist encounter Leatherface and his family.A California couple and a survivalist encounter Leatherface and his family.A California couple and a survivalist encounter Leatherface and his family.
- Awards
- 1 nomination
Duane Whitaker
- Kim
- (as Dwayne Whitaker)
Caroline Williams
- Reporter
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaCaroline Williams reprises her role as Stretch from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986) in a cameo as a news reporter. Director Jeff Burr said he imagined Stretch becoming a reporter following the trauma she experienced in the second movie in an attempt to hunt down Leatherface.
- GoofsThe painkillers Benny gives Michelle and Ryan take effect almost instantly and then wear off in about five minutes.
- Quotes
Tex: Come on sweetheart. Let's see what you got.
Benny: What the fuck is wrong with you people? Why don't you leave us alone?
Tex: We're hungry.
Benny: You never heard of pizza?
[swings at Tex and misses]
Tex: I like liver...
[punches Benny]
Tex: and onions...
[strangles Benny]
Tex: and pain! And pain! And pain!
- Alternate versionsThere's a second alternate ending in which the heroine escapes the swamp and keeps running throughout the night and eventually stumbles upon a police station. Once she makes it inside, the sheriff pretends to want to help her.After a few moments, it's revealed that he's hiding a chainsaw under the desk and attacks her with it. It was implying that the whole town is involved with the Sawyer family.
- ConnectionsFeatured in The Many Lives of Jason Voorhees (2002)
- SoundtracksWhen Worlds Collide
Performed by Wrath
Featured review
Okay, so it's not great art....
I'm actually really surprised at all the positive reviews for this film here, considering its horrible reputation.
Made on a shoestring budget with no-name actors (at least at the time, of course, Viggo went on to A-list-ish status) obviously there is nothing groundbreaking in this 3rd chainsaw outing, as can be said of most sequels. Hooper's 1974 film said and did everything that needed to be said and done (its documentary style, iconic villain, the creation of the slasher-film template, the unrelenting suspense, the fire-orange burning sunsets, the post-Vietnam worldview, the subtle political underpinnings about consumerism, animal cruelty, and the decay of the nuclear family, etc....). That film is an unparalleled masterpiece, and even Hooper's own follow-up really didn't hold a candle or need to exist(although it was crazy, offbeat, quality cult film making on its own terms)so a third entry would seem a complete waste of time.
So why even pay part III any attention? My adoration for it is based largely on the first half of the film, which is very well-done and far superior to the second half. For starters, Kate Hodge and William Butler, as the film's yuppie protagonists, are natural and absorbing and never take viewers out of the film (something that can't be said of most slasher films of this era, which typically had bottom-of-the-barrel talent).
The cinematography is also imaginative and stylized. The entire "gas station peepshow sequence", for example, is fantastically shot and executed; the angle of our heroine through the cracked mirror, the claustrophobic lighting, the POV's from the peephole. And note Kate Hodge's reactions during this scene: she genuinely seems creeped out and uncomfortable, and her reactions of fear and confusion in the scenes that follow are equally convincing. It's a solid performance, in a film with uniformly solid performances.
The film's pacing in this first half is also impressive; from the mundane car conversation that opens the film to the bizarre "body pit" sequence- which was so absurd, it bordered on parody-to the armadillo murder scene, to the gas station sequence: all these events are knowing winks to the first film, but because the film modernizes them, it benefits as it places the viewers in the "now" instead of the "then" (the original's documentary feel is one of the film's greatest strengths, but years later, it does give one the feeling of watching historical news/home video reels of footage of something that already occurred-again, part of the film's raw, unnerving power, to be sure). While Chainsaw III would eventually show its age, attempting to match the style of Hooper's original would have felt derivative, redundant, and just simply out-of-place. So it's a credit to Burr and cinematographer James L. Carter, who later proved himself a real talent with more mainstream gigs, that they remained faithful to the mood of the original without plagiarizing, and while still taking some new chances.
And how about that "truck-chase/changing the tire" sequence? I LIVE for scenes like this and sadly, modern horror films just don't take us here anymore: the ominous, minimalist score, slow-burn pacing, the effective use of that lantern light, and again, Kate Hodge seems genuinely freaked out in this scene, you can really put yourself in her shoes, and boyfriend Ryan's (William Butler) reaction of incredulity, anger, and frustration-is equally effective. There is some commendable attempt at realism here, resulting in a truly tense and nerve-jangling scene. Also, dare I say that the atmosphere in this scene comes the closest out of any film in the series to match the "flashlight fight between Sally and Franklin" in the original film? It's that uncomfortable mix of anxiety, frustration, and dread that Hooper created so well that I think is unfairly overlooked in this sequel.
Okay, so that's the first half. The second half is simply not as effective. It becomes, like I mentioned earlier, almost a parody of the first film, with an uneven mix of horror and (attempted) black comedy. There are hints of wit and social commentary to be sure: the mocking by one of the chainsaw clan of the elitist boyfriend's underwear ("California!"), Ken Foree's completely out-of-place military survivalist, to name a couple. But these clever bits don't really say anything or offer insight (although the scene where Leatherface grapples with the Speak and Spell is curiously touching).
With that said, there is still enough style and enough action to make the second half more than watchable. And witnessing Kate Hodge's transformation from genteel yuppie to traumatized badass is worth the price of admission. A nice homage to Sally in the original.
But then comes the final shot, which is almost as if director Burr threw up his arms and said: "alright, time for the trendy 80's slasher movie ending....we all got bills to pay". And of course, it leaves room for yet another sequel. Shame, shame, Burr.
And there you have it: LEATHERFACE, the wildly uneven, sometimes ambitious, consistently amusing, what should have been the final word on an already dying franchise, and more notably, sub-genre that would never quite be the same. As we all know, SCREAM followed 6 years later, and the slasher film became a cultural artifact only to be mocked, parodied, and "post-modernized" to a new generation of filmgoers, most of whom weren't alive when their genre forefathers were in their heyday. So in that context, we should be grateful for earnest little films like TCM III, which, while far from perfect, mark the end of an innocent and seemingly forgotten era of irony-free slasher filmmaking. Sigh.
Made on a shoestring budget with no-name actors (at least at the time, of course, Viggo went on to A-list-ish status) obviously there is nothing groundbreaking in this 3rd chainsaw outing, as can be said of most sequels. Hooper's 1974 film said and did everything that needed to be said and done (its documentary style, iconic villain, the creation of the slasher-film template, the unrelenting suspense, the fire-orange burning sunsets, the post-Vietnam worldview, the subtle political underpinnings about consumerism, animal cruelty, and the decay of the nuclear family, etc....). That film is an unparalleled masterpiece, and even Hooper's own follow-up really didn't hold a candle or need to exist(although it was crazy, offbeat, quality cult film making on its own terms)so a third entry would seem a complete waste of time.
So why even pay part III any attention? My adoration for it is based largely on the first half of the film, which is very well-done and far superior to the second half. For starters, Kate Hodge and William Butler, as the film's yuppie protagonists, are natural and absorbing and never take viewers out of the film (something that can't be said of most slasher films of this era, which typically had bottom-of-the-barrel talent).
The cinematography is also imaginative and stylized. The entire "gas station peepshow sequence", for example, is fantastically shot and executed; the angle of our heroine through the cracked mirror, the claustrophobic lighting, the POV's from the peephole. And note Kate Hodge's reactions during this scene: she genuinely seems creeped out and uncomfortable, and her reactions of fear and confusion in the scenes that follow are equally convincing. It's a solid performance, in a film with uniformly solid performances.
The film's pacing in this first half is also impressive; from the mundane car conversation that opens the film to the bizarre "body pit" sequence- which was so absurd, it bordered on parody-to the armadillo murder scene, to the gas station sequence: all these events are knowing winks to the first film, but because the film modernizes them, it benefits as it places the viewers in the "now" instead of the "then" (the original's documentary feel is one of the film's greatest strengths, but years later, it does give one the feeling of watching historical news/home video reels of footage of something that already occurred-again, part of the film's raw, unnerving power, to be sure). While Chainsaw III would eventually show its age, attempting to match the style of Hooper's original would have felt derivative, redundant, and just simply out-of-place. So it's a credit to Burr and cinematographer James L. Carter, who later proved himself a real talent with more mainstream gigs, that they remained faithful to the mood of the original without plagiarizing, and while still taking some new chances.
And how about that "truck-chase/changing the tire" sequence? I LIVE for scenes like this and sadly, modern horror films just don't take us here anymore: the ominous, minimalist score, slow-burn pacing, the effective use of that lantern light, and again, Kate Hodge seems genuinely freaked out in this scene, you can really put yourself in her shoes, and boyfriend Ryan's (William Butler) reaction of incredulity, anger, and frustration-is equally effective. There is some commendable attempt at realism here, resulting in a truly tense and nerve-jangling scene. Also, dare I say that the atmosphere in this scene comes the closest out of any film in the series to match the "flashlight fight between Sally and Franklin" in the original film? It's that uncomfortable mix of anxiety, frustration, and dread that Hooper created so well that I think is unfairly overlooked in this sequel.
Okay, so that's the first half. The second half is simply not as effective. It becomes, like I mentioned earlier, almost a parody of the first film, with an uneven mix of horror and (attempted) black comedy. There are hints of wit and social commentary to be sure: the mocking by one of the chainsaw clan of the elitist boyfriend's underwear ("California!"), Ken Foree's completely out-of-place military survivalist, to name a couple. But these clever bits don't really say anything or offer insight (although the scene where Leatherface grapples with the Speak and Spell is curiously touching).
With that said, there is still enough style and enough action to make the second half more than watchable. And witnessing Kate Hodge's transformation from genteel yuppie to traumatized badass is worth the price of admission. A nice homage to Sally in the original.
But then comes the final shot, which is almost as if director Burr threw up his arms and said: "alright, time for the trendy 80's slasher movie ending....we all got bills to pay". And of course, it leaves room for yet another sequel. Shame, shame, Burr.
And there you have it: LEATHERFACE, the wildly uneven, sometimes ambitious, consistently amusing, what should have been the final word on an already dying franchise, and more notably, sub-genre that would never quite be the same. As we all know, SCREAM followed 6 years later, and the slasher film became a cultural artifact only to be mocked, parodied, and "post-modernized" to a new generation of filmgoers, most of whom weren't alive when their genre forefathers were in their heyday. So in that context, we should be grateful for earnest little films like TCM III, which, while far from perfect, mark the end of an innocent and seemingly forgotten era of irony-free slasher filmmaking. Sigh.
helpful•172
- whineycracker2000
- Jul 6, 2014
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $2,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $5,765,562
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $2,692,087
- Jan 14, 1990
- Gross worldwide
- $5,765,562
- Runtime1 hour 25 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990) officially released in India in English?
Answer