Davis P Ok look I know it's bad, I do. I'm not saying that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation is a great film. All I'm saying is that it's a guilty pleasure of mine... like I had a lot of fun here! To me, this is just one of those films where you know it's bad while you're watching it, but you're just never bored and you're having fun. You got two leads who were very young at the time, who would later become Oscar winning A list actors.... that's pretty shocking to see in a film like this lol. I loved Renee Zellweger here, I actually think she and Matthew are the only good actors here, the rest are pretty laughable. But ya know this film really doesn't take itself very seriously at all, so it's fun to laugh at the atrocious acting, mainly given by the actress that plays Heather. Matthew McConaughey is absolutely bonkers here, like sometimes he's just crazy to be crazy. That's one of the many reasons this film is never boring... it's entertaining as hell to watch Matthew play this crazy over the top character. I had fun with the chainsaw chase scenes and actually did get kinda tense while Leatherface was chasing Jenny. I have absolutely no clue why Leatherface is a transvestite in this film, that's just one of the weird things they put in here, like the mechanical leg and the weird government thing. But overall, I think this film knows what it is and it just goes completely off the rails crazy. It's a guilty pleasure for me, I'm not saying this film is good, but I can't deny that I did have fun watching it.

chanfan304 This movie is bad. Not good bad, just bad. I think the people saying they like this movie are simply saying so because they want to appear special or unique.Renee Zellweger's acting comes across as both decent and bad. She seems to be doing well and then suddenly it's like she had a change of heart, or doesn't want to be there anymore, and will just deadpan a few lines before deciding to pick the pace back up a bit.McConnehey isn't bad as the resident nutcase leader, but the character itself is just ridiculous. It's full of nonsense parts (more so than your usual horror movie "cluelessness" from the characters) of which the ending is the biggest condensation of said nonsense. The whole "conspiracy theory" explanation is poorly implemented and is just the icing on the cake of absurdity.Don't get me wrong here. I like a movie that is absurd for the sake of being absurd, or movies that are accidentally good, funny, etc. This is none of those. I am avoiding spoilers by not being specific and just want to give an overall description of the film. It is not clever, it is not witty, it is not good (not even by accident). Everything falls flat in this. Like I said, the number of people giving the "10 out of 10" ratings are either a select few with multiple accounts, people desperate to find a meaning or something that simply is not there, people trying to concoct these "deep meanings" in order to seem "complex" and/or make themselves feel better, or any combination thereof.

breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com In the mid-1970s, Tobe Hooper had unleashed horror in a new way to moviegoers with The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974). It was a film that had so much going for it. It may have been outrageously controversial for its depiction of sadistic violence but it served its purpose in being a scary film. It relied on simplicity and minimalism in order to drive its viewers crazy. Then Hooper created the long awaited sequel that confused his original fans by attempting to keep continuity while simultaneously changing everything else. It turned out being more of spoof of itself than being a sequel. When the franchise finally released its second sequel, it was even more mixed in reception due to its further lack of connection to the last two movies even though its title said otherwise. At that point, it would've been thought that maybe the franchise was suffering from lack of attention. Apparently the next sequel (this one) shockingly was neglected even further. It by far is the most confusing and disappointing to say the least.The overall idea behind the story is no different from that of the other movies before it. A group of teens end up crossing paths with Leatherface and his notorious family of cannibals. This sequel was written and directed Kim Henkel, the original co-writer to the original film that blew everyone away. According to Hinkel it was supposed to be the official sequel to the original film. As to what he thought consisted of making it the official sequel is barely visible. The writing is all over the place and the continuity is very unfaithful. Like the films before it, it begins with a monologue recounting the past events, yet it was supposed to ignore them too. So how does that work? There's also a subplot about Leatherface's family having some kind of government connection or something along those lines. Allegedly they report to a higher authority and their motives go higher than their personal needs? The most painful part of the writing belongs to the dialog and the actors don't make it any better.Almost the entire cast essentially is an over the top exaggeration of some horror trope but worse. Starring as the heroine is Renée Zellweger best known for her breakout role in Jerry Maguire (1996). She's also accompanied by Lisa Marie Newmyer as Heather, who constantly spouts out useless sentences that don't add anything to develop her role. There's also Tyler Shea Cone playing Heather's boyfriend Barry who is none the more likable. They also come across a local who tries to help them played by Tonie Perensky. All of which can't deliver a line that sounds the least bit believable. The only thing that really keeps a viewers' attention is because of how bad the actors are. The only actor who has some saving grace (for himself) is now esteemed actor Matthew McConaughey playing Vilmer, a member of Leatherface's family. McConaughey just hams it up playing his role as psychotic as possible. Playing Leatherface is Robert Jacks who is annoyingly bad because all he does is scream nonstop.The only other positives worth mentioning are the practical and makeup effects. There's not an abundance of practical effects but the fact that it was used shows effort. The same could be said for the makeup. McConaughey's character is part robotic with a hydraulic leg and that does make it interesting to see. How he got that way and as to where he came from, if this is the "official sequel" to the original, is never explained either. What a surprise. This is it though for pluses. Even though there are practical effects, there is almost no gore to this movie. It makes the previous film to this franchise look bloodthirsty. It's actually very surprising. With all the inhumane and off putting scenes that involve grotesque acts, there's hardly a drop of blood shown throughout the running time to this movie. Sure, minimalism works to an extent but if nothing else is really working in the overall product, at least give the audience something visual.That also goes for background elements. The director of photography to this project was Levie Isaacks. Isaacks is best known for being the DP to movies of Guyver (1991) and the infamous horror movie Leprechaun (1993). The work that Isaacks presents here isn't much to talk about. Much of the shots throughout the film consist of turning away from anything gory and refusing to place any establishing shots. Viewers will see the disarray of the cannibal house but there's no real setup. The films before it at least had some kind of arrangement. Here it's just everything everywhere with no real order and it's boring. For music, Wayne Bell from the original film returns and his composition is uneventful too. There are moments where he creates a tune or two that establish a nice sense of dread but other than that there's nothing memorable about it. Much of the instruments involved are synthesizers and since it is not used properly, the audio is rarely effective. So sad it got this bad.It's a shocking film all right. It's shocking that people who were involved with the original returned and had completely forgotten what made it so unique. Matthew McConaughey is possibly the only actor who tries (somewhat) and there are some okay looking effects. The rest isn't good. It makes the other sequels before it look like it they had better writers. Not even a gorehound would enjoy this.

swedzin What a hell? What happened? Is there no way to create something new to a TCM story? Instead, we got young Renne Zellweger and young Matthew McConaughey (yep, even before his funny psycho role of Tip Tucker in Larger than Life 1996). The story hold no originality at all, damn it… it's the same as the third film, only mixed with the irritating insanity of the second one. Matthew's character Vilmer (which Matthew did pretty solid, but, you just can't tell if he is a handsome psycho, or just a psycho…), Renne didn't do much with her character, I bet she was bored during filming. Leatherface was played by Robert Jacks… another tall, large guy who fits good into a leatherface make up and costumes, this time in more… feminine costumes. Nothing is developed again with Leatherface. The film is just insanity, dumb insanity, there are random characters that comes out of nowhere and there is no explanation for them! This family of cannibals, lead by McConaughey, is… noting special, and there's no explanation for them too. Are they just a copycats of original Sawyer family? Are they connected? What, movie? What?! It's just dumb and no explanation! The entire film simply bores you with irritating insanity and the end disappoints you even more. Avoid this!