This one goes back to the serious tone revolving a crazy family and a psychotic chainsaw wielding psycho. It's nowhere near raw and chaotic as the first one, nor does it come to the same level of scare factor. Sure, it doesn't have that tension and suspense. The title of this movie has Leatherface in it, but he isn't in it as much and his persona isn't really shown in this. I have no idea why it's called Leatherface, because Leatherface plays a small part in the whole thing. Actually it does show a bit of Leatherface persona, but the more it tries the less intimidating he gets. I know, it's to show the innocence of Leatherface, but the more it does it makes Leatherface less intimidating more than interesting. The build up is drawn-out and boring and I just couldn't care for any of the characters. Even if the acting in it is alright. Also I am not sure if the heavy metal tracks actually elevated the chainsaw scenes or not either. I think they should get rid of the prologue part, because after the first one the next 3 sequels are just plain out silly in my opinion. Overall this is a watchable sequel that isn't awful, but doesn't stand out among other slashers.4.3/10

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, obviously Viggo went on to A-list-ish status) obviously there is nothing new or original here about this outing, as can be said of most sequels. Hooper's 1974 film said and did everything that needed to be said and done (the documentary style,iconic villain, the creation of the"slasher-film template", the unrelenting suspense, the post-Vietnam worldview, the subtle political underpinnings about consumerism, greed,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 relies solely because of the first half of the film, which is very well-done and far superior to the second half. For starters, the acting is fine across the board: Kate Hodge and William Butler, as the film's yuppie protagonists, are natural and serviceable in their roles, nothing award-winning or show-stopping, but subtle and absorbing enough to not take viewers out of the film, like many of its lesser ilk (slasher films in this era typically had bottom-of-the-barrel talent).The cinematography is also imaginative and stylized (i.e. the entire "gas station peepshow sequence" 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 an underrated performance, in a film with uniformly underrated performances.The film's pacing in this first half is also impressive- from the deceptively mundane car conversation that opens the film to the bizarre "body pit" sequence which was so absurd, awkward, yet somehow plausibly creepy, indeed, it bordered on parody, (but then, this film as a whole can be seen almost as a parody), to the armadillo murder scene, then the gas station sequence: all these sequences 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/documentary footage of something that already occurred-again,part of the film's raw, unnerving power, to be sure). But this film is set in 1990, so a documentary approach just wouldn't work, not to mention it would be 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 while 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, yet minimalist soundtrack, slow-burn pacing, 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 the boyfriend's reaction of incredulity, anger and frustration...there is some commendable attempt at realism here, 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 matching 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 (the mocking by one of the chainsaw clan of the elitist "California" couple's underwear, Ken Foree's completely out-of-place military survivalist, and Leatherface's hilarious scene with the Speak and Spell that somehow manages to evoke sympathy from viewers), but these clever bits don't really SAY anything or add insight. The one saving grace that makes the second half worth sitting through however, is Kate Hodge's transformation from genteel yuppie to traumatized bad ass. A nice touch and 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....this ain't no art film after all". And of course it leaves room for yet another sequel. Shame, shame, Burr.And there you have it: LEATHERFACE, the wildly uneven, sometimes ambitious, but always 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 film goers, most of whom, ironically, weren't even alive when their genre forefathers were in their heyday. So in that context, we should be grateful for earnest little films like TCMIII, which, while far from perfect, mark the end of an innocent and forgotten era of irony-free slasher film making. Sigh.

This second sequel to the horror classic is something of a letdown, purely because of the storyline. While the first sequel, dominated by Dennis Hopper's crazed performance, explored the key figures in a novel way, LEATHERFACE is a film that's content to simply emulate the first movie's storyline. Once again we get unwary travellers falling foul of Leatherface and his family, and an extended climax involving a family dinner. It's all way too familiar, and of course lacks the sheer intensity of Tobe Hooper's original classic.The film's tone is wildly uneven throughout, and even in the would-be horror scenes it's hard to take it seriously. The movie feels like a spoof; it has a light-hearted tone that sits at odds with the grimness of the plot. Still, on the plus side, it's very fast paced, and it features a great deal of crowd-pleasing horror elements that are sure to win the hearts of splatter fans, although as with the original, it's never quite as gory as you think it's going to be (and I'm talking about the uncut version).One of those crowd-pleasers is Ken Foree, Mr. DAWN OF THE DEAD himself, playing one of the film's would-be victims. Foree is a delight, and they sure play up to his potential, portraying him as a real ass-kicker of a man. I couldn't care less about the two characters who are supposed to be the leads, but Foree hooks you right from the start. The rest of the actors are less than impressive, and in particular the guy who plays Leatherface is just a stock heavy; there's certainly none of the hulking, imposing brutality that Gunnar Hansen brought to the role.Of course, one of the draws watching this film today is seeing a pre-stardom Viggo Mortensen playing in a decidedly odd type of role, completely different from what you might expect; I enjoyed his performance, even if much of it is played for laughs. And that's the trouble with the film as a whole: we're back to that spoofy tone, that whole non-serious feel that everyone's laughing at the premise rather than getting to grips with the horrifying implications of it. Take the ear scene, for example, or the string of increasingly ridiculous and unbelievable things that happen at the climax (including the fate of one of the characters, which makes no sense whatsoever; blame a substituted ending for that one, after the original didn't go down too well with test audiences). In fact, come the end, I enjoyed this more as a bizarre comedy than as a genuine horror outing.

***Contains Spoilers***This is nearly half as bad as the Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2! It just doesn't cut it. I mean it was dark & scary at some points but the whole "The Saw Is Family" being engraved on the chainsaw along with spikes & pattern design just makes it a joke & not original. It's not made to be about a killer with Chainsaw with a slogan & design on it! It's suppose to be a random killing machine! It was OK but just wasn't that good of a film. Even if it wasn't continued if it wouldn't bother me it's just how everything gets made into a joke & how the leather face isn't even the original from the very first film.Not very good 2/10