Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990) User Reviews

A serviceable conclusion to the "original trilogy"

[lnvicta · 4/10 · 2 July 2015]

No matter how many sequels, reboots, spinoffs, or rehashes The Texas Chainsaw gets, none will compare to the original. That's a given. But there are some installments in Leatherface's interesting journey throughout the decades that are solid enjoyable movies on their own, such as the 2003 remake and this one. Here I feel like the campiness of TCM2 met the thrills of the original TCM in a healthy middle ground. There are some ridiculous one-liners, but they're placed fittingly unlike the second movie where the comedy felt forced and sloppy. The acting in the movie is above average too, with your standard "now famous but previously in a crappy horror sequel" actor to boot.

The main reason this is better than its predecessor is because it actually has suspense; not a lot of it but it's there. The creepy moments somewhat resemble scenes from the original but none of it feels rehashed. There are characters you can root for, and Leatherface is actually (kind of) scary again. There's also a satisfying climax, fit with heavy metal and cheesy lines that belong in a Marlon Wayans movie. It's just a fun popcorn horror movie with some gore, a couple thrills, and a decent amount of laughs. All in all, a movie is meant to entertain, and for the most part, Texas Chainsaw Massacre III did exactly that. Worth a watch for hardcore slasher fans.

Okay, so it's not great art....

[whineycracker2000 · 6/10 · 6 July 2014]

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.

Not bad

[BandSAboutMovies · 5/10 · 26 December 2021]

New Line was doing so well with Freddy that they thought that they could do the same with Leatherface, not realizing that while he's the most out front member of the Sawyer Family, there is an entire brood to tell the stories about.

The final film to get an X before NC-17 was created, I will say that this movie brings the gore, even after the battle between the MPAA and New Line. I mean, the movie starts off with Leatherface taking off a woman's face, so know what you're getting into. Yet this was submitted eleven times for a review and most of the gore was lost; this was after the original script by David J. Schow (who also wrote the scripts for The Crow, Critters 3 and 4 and many other movies) had a naked man being literally sliced into two pieces. I assume the MPAA had more issues with seeing a nude man than the gore.

Directror Jeff Burr got fired early in the film's production, but when no one else wanted the job, he was back on. He's already made another sequel, Stepfather II: Make Room for Daddy, and would also made Puppet Master 4 and 5 as well as Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings. He started his career with From A Whisper To a Scream and also directed The Werewolf Reborn!, Frankenstein & the Werewolf Reborn! And Mil Mascaras vs. The Aztec Mummy.

The original trailer for this might be better than the actual movie - that's Kane Hodder as Leatherface! - but you can't deny a movie that has Ken Foree and Viggo Mortensen in the cast. And hey - Caroline Williams shows up in a cameo as Stretch, now a reporter.

The problem with the Chainsaw sequels - actually, this goes for nearly any sequel to a major movie - is that the first two movies are wildly different takes on the form and really hard to outdo. At least Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation tries to do something really out there with the conspiracy theory wildness.

So what I'm saying is that after this, perhaps the movies aren't as good. Probably they're not good at all.

"Time for dinner! "

[Backlash007 · 31 January 2002]

Leatherface had the greatest trailer of all time (Leatherface meets the Lady of the Lake, remember that?). Maybe that's why nearly everyone was let down by the film itself. Most people view Leatherface as an unwelcome addition to the legacy that is the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. No, it's not as good as the original or the sequel, but what do you expect when Tobe Hooper's not on board? However, if you do not compare it to its predecessors, it stands alone as a fun flick. It's at least watchable (unlike the Matthew McConaughey "remake"). The only thing I really don't like about it is the lack of continuity. The David Schow script is great, it just leaves out some needed information. In essence, this is the first in a long line of remakes. The director, Jeff Burr, does succeed in creating tension. My heart still pounds every time when they stop to fix that flat tire. Those far-off squeaking sounds are unnerving. The cast does well also. No one has the energy of Bill Moseley (Chop Top from TCM 2), but he's a tough act to follow. What they do have is horror favorite Ken Foree. Foree is always great. I don't care whether he's in Dawn of the Dead or The Phantom of the Mall, he's great. And you must give credit to Viggo Mortensen. He's come a long way from b horror to star in the Lord of the Rings. When it comes down to it, TCM 3 is worthy of a bit more praise.

"There's road kill all over Texas."

[bensonmum2 · 3/10 · 9 December 2005]

There are so many problems with Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III that I'm not sure where to begin, so I suppose I'll try to limit my comments to the characters. I couldn't have cared less whether the supposed heroes of the movie lived or died. A more unlikable pair do you rarely run across. The guy was a sniveling idiot and the girl had even less personality. "Kill 'em and kill 'em quick" was the thought running through my head.

Second, we've got the characters that make up Leatherface's "new" family. Who are these people and where did they come from? I would have thought that the Texas Rangers would have completely investigated the Sawyer family and discovered any relative who may have taken in Leatherface after the events of the first two movies. And, are we supposed to believe that the entire extended family is also made up of inbred cannibal serial killers? With a family as large as the one presented in these movies you would think that (even if just by chance) at least one member of the family would have some reservations about hacking up innocent strangers. I almost get the feeling that the makers of Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III would have us believe that everyone in Texas is a nutty, chainsaw-welding maniac.

Finally, there's Leatherface. I'll just say that he's a sad imitation of the original. And I know this has nothing to do with the character of Leatherface, but what's that engraved chainsaw all about? It's a completely ridiculous concept.

Family values and road kill.

[lost-in-limbo · 5/10 · 7 July 2006]

A young couple are driving from L.A. to Florida, but when they stop off at a gas station they encounter a crazy attendant with a shotgun. Then they are lured off the main road and take a deserted track that leads them to Leatherface and his cannibalistic family. Now the pairs' only chance of escaping this demented nightmare rests on a well-prepared survivalist, who they had a car accident with and which has left them at Leatherface's mercy.

Well, that just seemed to breeze by with very little impact, but I found "Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" to be rather nasty piece of work that's an exceptionally well-made production. Sure, it's not very explicit because of the MPAA cuts leaving a lot of the real gruel up in the air and causing large continuity shifts in the story. But these factors didn't stop me from mildly enjoying this torturous outing that seems to skip the events that followed on in Hooper's outrageously jokey sequel "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2".

It kind of starts off like the original film by providing a voice over dude giving their own interpretation of what had happened after the first flick and there are scenarios that have that rehash feeling about them. Replacing the goofiness of the last feature is a more serious approach that has some dark macabre wit within the script and some crazy antics. There's even a new gimmick involving Leatherface's glistening new chainsaw! Which is the most frightening item you can ever think of, although it would have been great it he got to use it on someone! The problem with the flick was that it looks too clean and really lacks that iron-fisted and repellently grimy nature, because it never gets truly dirty and that ending is totally out-of-place. Again it might look polished, but there is still a ruthlessly unflinching edge about its shocks, but the thing is they are just far from disturbing and lose that subtle realism. Despite all that it efficiently creates an isolated feeling amongst the sticks, the photography is well displayed and an atmospherically Gothic score amplifies a tight knit awe to proceedings. Although it probably could have done without those instrumental, heavy metal cues.

The short story is draped with many activities (some rather vague) and characters that come from nowhere and disappear and then reappear. It might be basic, senseless and foreseeable material, but really there was only one thing that got to me and they were the unexplained details and one or two illogical moments. Like Leatherface's new clan and that of Ken Foree's character. The performances were ho-hum, but it's the fun supporting roles by Viggo Mortensen as the subtle one minute to nut-job the next and legendary horror figure Ken Foree as the likable survivalist make it even more enjoyable. Kate Hodge is okay in the lead role as one of Leatherface's prey and R.A.Mihailoff steps up to the plate as Leatherface and does fair job at it and brings back some of that fear associated with that icon. Although anyone accustomed to the original knows no one gets near Gunnar Hansen performance!

It's certainly not a great film and does lack the heart of the earlier efforts, but still I didn't mind it and it goes by quick enough if caught in the right mindset.

not better than 2 - this is slow and plodding

[umfug · 1/10 · 23 July 2010]

At least 2 kept moving from the start. I don't know what other reviewers saw, but this movie takes forever to get moving and even then it is so mild and boring that the first time I tried to watch it, I turned it off because I was falling asleep. I forced myself the second time and it really is slow. The main characters had me pulling my hair out - you just want them to die as quickly as possible because they were so annoying: We don't care about your relationship problems, we are supposed to be watching a slasher flick. Even the uncut version has very tame gore. Some of the characters seem to be immune to chainsaws - very strange. The blood looks like clear strawberry syrup. I guess if you can't sleep, you can watch this instead of taking pills.

"The trap is sprung now!"

[Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki · 7/10 · 5 August 2013]

Review based on the unrated version.

A college-aged couple, delivery driving a car from California to Florida, are sidetracked by a police investigation of a body pit found at a construction site in the Texas countryside. (Camera flashes, illuminating the corpses (in the unedited version, anyway) are a good reference to the first film) The next day, the couple have a bizarre experience with a psycho hick apparently killing a cowboy at a small gas station. While trying to get away and find help, they're detoured onto a side road ... and that's when the real fun begins.

An over-sized truck begins stalking them, then throws a dead animal at them. In the excitement, they drive off the road and puncture a tire. While changing the tire, a hulk with a chainsaw attacks them. Narrowly escaping him, they only end up nearly in a head-on collision with a weekend warrior.

The three of them eventually team up; the couple are just trying to live through the night, but the weekend warrior wants to go after our new friend with the chainsaw.

This has dialogue far superior to the original, and isn't as silly and over-the-top as the underrated Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. It's graphic, but it uses its gore and bloodshed almost as part of telling the story, as well as referencing the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre (through camera angles, props, and bits of dialogue) without going so far as to rip off that film. The music score was surprisingly effective, and did not distract from the movie itself.

David Schow did a great job with this screenplay, for the most part, but film falls into the "undying killer" mode in its repetitive final third, where seemingly every character (Tex, Alfredo, Leatherface, Benny) returns from the dead for one last encore performance.

Unfortunately, the theatrical version of the movie was seemingly edited with a chainsaw, and released in a horribly truncated version, missing several minutes of footage and rendering much of the plot incoherent. Thankfully the unedited/ unrated version has been released on DVD.

The definition of flat and boring

[Maciste_Brother · 2/10 · 21 October 2003]

I watched all of the TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE movies in a row recently. TCM 1 and TCM 2 are amazing films. Filled with energy, dark humor and unforgettable moments, imagery and characters. So when I watched LEATHERFACE TCM 3, I was underwhelmed. In fact, I have to say that TCM 3 is the definition of a flat, boring movie. This TCM movie has little to do with Tobe Hooper's movies. Except for Leatherface, none of the previous characters from the Hooper movies are present. They even decided to add a little girl and a mother to the family. The other characters from the family are confusing. Who are or were they?!?! But for a movie called LEATHERFACE, the character of Leatherface is remarkably flat and boring. He comes across as Jason from the FRIDAY THE 13TH series, or The Undertaker from WWF. And his mask is terrible. Leatherface in this movie is not the Leatherface we all know and love from the Hooper movies. And the other characters, the victims, are annoying or trite. And to make things even more flat, the movie wasn't even shot in Texas. Looks like California to me.

I'm hesitating to call LEATHERFACE TCM 3 the worst TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE movies because I watched TCM 4 after this one. But even so, this "sequel" is not worth watching. It's flat, uninspired and boring. And those are its good qualities.

FAR Better Than I Thought it Would Be.

[Evil_Magus · 6/10 · 22 July 2006]

When I saw this movie the other night, I had virtually no expectations for it. As with most horror movies I see, it was late at night and I just wanted to watch something to pass the time. I'll admit off hand that I have not seen the original (although I've heard enough of it where I could retell it shot for shot, just about). And I have seen the horrid 2003 remake (I was at a party, and we all found it hilarious). So given that my only true experience with the franchise was the remake, and that horror series degrade at an extremely high rate, I felt that this might be my first disappointment with the IFC. I was wrong.

It was the acting, first and foremost, that surprised me. It was more than average, it was actually good (whereas most horror movies, I find, have absolutely dreadful actors). I was surprised to find Viggo Mortenson in here, but I suppose you have to start somewhere. He was without question the best actor involved, giving an eerie and menacing (although not frightening) performance. While he clearly has a way to grow from this early performance, his talent is obvious.

The woman who played the female protagonist did a good job in her role. She didn't degrade into a shrilly screaming mess, nor did she seem immune to the terror around her. She showed a realistic and gradual development due to what was happening around her.

The little girl, as played by Jennifer Bonko, had the only part that was frightening. Why was it frightening? She was a little girl, and had the most sinister actions of the family. Her skeleton-littered room was juxtaposed beautifully with her painfully cute appearance, and her doll was a disturbing touch. Why the female lead would think nothing amiss about her, I have no idea. While Viggo does the best acting job, Jennifer gives the most memorable performance.

The rest of the cast did a good job as well. Ken Foree gives a well-done, although forgettable, performance, as does William Butler and Joe Unger. Really, that's what the entire movie can boil down to in the end: well made, but still forgettable.

The direction was pretty well done. It has a gritty feel to it, more like some low-budget movies made in the 70's and 80's rather than one made in 1990. That, I think, is part of it's success with me. It seemed dark and gritty in an old, and almost dated, way.

While this film never frightened me, it does have some highly memorable moments. The dead father who was "fed" blood was a somewhat disturbing image, especially with all of that blood staining the front of his shirt.

Leatherface, unlike in the 2003 remake of the original, looked terrifying. In fact, that whole Mr. Spell sequence with the picture of the clown was very well done. Also, as I mentioned above, the little girl was just all-around the best part of this movie.

The forest was highly atmospheric and well shot, and the crazed girl was extremely well done. I would have loved if she had stuck around a bit longer and been more developed. As it was, she was used only as a plot-device to give Foree's character the lighter and to build the clan up more in the audience's eyes.

The beginning had a well-made introduction. And the uncovering of the mass grave was an excellent way to foreshadow the movie. However, the sequence between and including them hitting the armadillo and going the gas station was slow and ill-shot. It served a purpose, but could have been made to serve it better. The ending is entirely wasted. They chose the wrong clansman to come back for the final scare. That little girl would have been perfect for the job, absolutely perfect, and much more frightening to boot. Other than that, my only complaint is that the new shiny chain-saw didn't have the same dark and gritty feel as the old one he had.

This passes off as an average horror movie. It's an entertaining way to pass a few hours, and includes several memorable ingredients to it. Fans of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre series, I'd imagine, should like this movie. Fans of Viggo Mortensen might find this early performance of his enjoyable. And fans of horror, even the milder ones, should find this a campy and enjoyable movie.

It falls into that category of movie that pushes no envelopes; one that's mild enough for the more squeamish and violent enough for the more fortified constitutions. It's not great, but neither is it bad. It's only decent, and will never be any more or less.

What about part II?

[Anonymous_Maxine · 5/10 · 6 December 2004]

At the end of Texas Chainsaw II, there was something of a variation on the ending of the original film. The girl who spends most of her time trying to escape the family of crazed maniacs with her life ends up holding the chainsaw herself, swinging it around like a lunatic exactly like Leatherface did at the end of the original film, which led me to believe that it would suggest a general direction that the movies would take in any further sequels. Instead, Texas Chainsaw III, one of the more controversial entries in the series, seems to be unaware of its predecessors.

I hesitate to condemn the entire film just because it is seriously lacking in the quality department, if only because I watched the 'Making Of' featurettes on the DVD and found that the cast and crew actually went through some serious trouble getting the thing made, and the cause of a lot of the drops in quality was some things that they had to cut or change in order to get an R rather than X rating. You would think that all they have to do is cut out excessive blood or guts or nudity to tame the rating a bit, but they had to completely change scenes in order for the blasted MPAA to allow them to release it. Wes Craven went through similar troubles in some of his earlier films, like Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes, and when you learn what they deal with it's not so hard to figure out why the MPAA is not popular with horror filmmakers.

(spoilers)One thing that had to be changed, for example, was the ending. This is why you see a character show up grinning at the end of the film, despite the fact that we watched him get his head chainsawed in half earlier in the movie. Before you yank the DVD out of your DVD player and try to stick it in the wall, take a few minutes to watch the making of documentary, which essentially is 30 minutes of the cast and crew trying to explain why the movie was so bad.

One verbose reviewer who calls himself Duke De Mondo writes a hilarious review in which he asserts that the Texas Chainsaw sequels all seem to pay homage to the original film as though it were some kind of urban legend, constantly reshuffling everything except Leatherface, the only character who is expected to be in any Texas Chainsaw movie. Hence, in part III, Leatherface is the only returning character, and as the director explains on the accompanying documentary, everyone else is some sort of surrogate family brought together my similar deviations from sanity. Still a pretty weak explanation for the little blonde girl, I should think.

Speaking of which, it should be mentioned that at one point in the film, two people get chainsawed to death minutes apart, and it is not until I saw that little girl standing at the top of the stairs that I was even slightly apprehensive. What is it about little kids that makes them so scary? It's the worst when they are dressed in cute little outfits that just clash so strongly with their surroundings, like the little girl in this movie or, probably most famously, the twin girls in The Shining, who I still think are some of the creepiest kids ever captured on film. This girl turns out to be an aspiring member of the family, eager for her turn to put the meat hooks and sledge hammers to good use, and who decorates her room not with flowers or Barbie's or anything even remotely pink, but with human bones and skulls, presumably left over from the original Texas Chainsaw and, subsequently, The Hills Have Eyes. And this is to say nothing of her doll. You know, Jodie Foster had to undergo counseling in preparation for her role as a 12-year-old prostitute in Taxi Driver. I really wonder if there were similar concerns for this girl, whose film-making ordeal can't have been much less damaging.

As far as the gore, Texas Chainsaw III is famous for being disappointing, but this is explained by the whole ratings fiasco. On the other hand, there was much talk about death scene of the girl who had already been running from the crazed family for five days or so when this movie started. Supposedly she was sawed in half from the stomach up, but this is simply not true, even in the unrated version that I watched. Yes, there is a vast quantity of blood in the scene, and yes, she does get brutally killed with the saw, but no, she does not get sawed in half and then her body peel off in two directions, having been split down the middle. It just doesn't happen.

Nevertheless, I should think there is sufficient gore in the movie to satisfy all but the most depraved horror and Chainsaw fans, especially considering the sledge-hammer scene (which is based on a real police photo of Ed Gein's basement, and is one thing that the movie deserves at least some credit for), the above-mentioned chainsaw scene, and the scene where one character gets his head sawed almost in half at the ear level, although, as we later find out, does not kill him. If this is not enough for you, watch Day of the Dead. And if THAT is not enough for you, watch the news. There are plenty of videos coming from al Qaeda that are truly, truly disturbing.

Viggo Mortensen, although he almost didn't get the part because his audition just didn't go very well, was outstanding as Tex, who is essentially the character that Matthew McConaughey plays in Texas Chainsaw 4, which is by leaps and bounds the worst of the series, including the 2003 remake (which I have not seen at the time of this writing, but it is physically impossible that it was worse than that ridiculous mess). There is one scene where Tex nails the heroine's hands to a wooden chair, and then casually asks her how she likes Texas. Pretty disturbing, but it doesn't make you want to slap your forehead, as McConaughey does from start to finish in part 4.

Well, I'm sure she's having a blast, although the movie was filmed in California, incidentally about a 30-minute drive from where I live in Los Angeles. That's bike-riding distance for me. I was also impressed with the heroine in the movie, the obligatory girl who is the last to survive running from Leatherface (although this movie makes a slight variation on this trend at the end of the film). She manages to walk the fine line between sufficiently expressing her terror and not screaming mercilessly to the point where you just want her to get killed so she'll shut the hell up, and that is not an easy line to walk. I hope I'm not being misogynistic, but there is nothing worse in a horror film than the hysterical woman who simply screams and moans and won't respond when someone is trying to help her. I hate that.

I have to admit that I was disappointed that the fancy new chainsaw, inscribed with the infamous quote 'The Saw is Family' and the most famous thing about this movie, was put to so little use. Not only is it not introduced until the majority of the killings are already done with another, much less shiny and interesting, chainsaw. And to make matters worse, not only is it underwater when it does its flesh-hacking (I guess the ability to run underwater was another of its special features), but the one character that it is allowed to sink its teeth into turns up not dead at the end of the film. Disappointing, true, but I have to say that Texas Chainsaw III is one of the better TCM films. Not as good as the original, but as good as the first sequel and light years better than the third sequel.

A Solid Horror Movie

[currax · 8/10 · 16 August 2000]

Reading through the comments, most people seem to think this is a poor entry in the series. I just viewed TCM III for the first time, and I cam to a different conclusion. I have always thought the first entry was very good as far as slasher movies go, but I found the second movie to be a big disappointment. The first half or so is pretty decent, but once Dennis Hopper reaches the underground lair, the movie quickly stagnates (although the final chainsaw battle is cool). So after a very uneven #2, Leatherface was a nice surprise. The movie has some genuinely tense moments, and is surprisingly solid all the way through. The characters are interesting and the actors do a good job. Maybe the movie looks like a B-Movie cheapie, but that's because it is! I do like Leatherface (the character) less in #3 than in #1 or #2, but otherwise I'd recommend this movie pretty quickly. (For some reason, two books I've seen claim #3 is more of a remake than a sequel. I do not see why someone would think this.) 8 stars out of 10.

A Giant Improvement From Part 2.

[drownsoda90 · 7/10 · 27 August 2004]

"Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3" is the third installment in the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" series, and proves to be much, much better than the huge disappointment of the ridiculous Part 2.

"Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III" is about a couple who are delivering a car to California, and are crossing Texas country. They stop at a gas station where a creepy set of brothers work, and they are back on the road again. When a tire goes out, they stop to try and fix it, but Leatherface emerges from the darkness with his trusty chainsaw. In a panic to save themselves, they speed off and end up later crashing into another man's car. After the accident, they are chased through the woods and taken to an old secluded farmhouse where more torture awaits.

The family includes Viggo Mortensen, far before his "Lord of the Rings" fame, which is interesting to see him in his early movies. This movie doesn't skimp up on the gore, it is an all-out gorefest, much like "Part II" was, except I enjoyed this one a lot better. I rented it on DVD and watched the unrated version, and it was enough to make you think twice about eating anymore meat, it was pretty darn gory. Bottom line, this is one of the better sequels of the series, and a giant improvement from part 2. It had some suspenseful scenes that were well done and the acting wasn't bad. Overall, a well paced, well made sequel. 7/10.

Poor and lame

[Pupkin-2 · 3/10 · 9 October 1998]

The film is a poor successor to the texas chainsaw massacre. While a few effective sequences do exist (notably when we first meet the whole family) the overall effect is lame. The film is lit badly and at times tends to resemble the gloss of a T.V movie . The film gives up around half way through on its intentions to disturb, seemingly sensing its ineptitude. From here the film turns into a strange horror/action hybrid which is well below par. What surprises me most is the fact that this half baked turkey got banned in some countries.

Get it uncut. A lot better now than when first released.

[rixrex · 8 October 2006]

If you watch this as a remake and not a sequel, and then you'll understand it, because that is what it really was meant to be according to all involved as well as Tobe Hooper, who was on board for a while as an adviser. Otherwise, the storyline from TCM part 2 to this one won't make sense.

I saw this when it was first released in the theater and didn't think too highly of it, but then I saw the uncut, unrated version recently and it improved more than 100%.

It's spooky, atmospheric, relentlessly frightening, with a very good job by R A Mihailoff as Leatherface, whose brutal and monstrous characterization of Leatherface seems to be the basis for the current Leatherface character by Andrew Briniarski. There's no cowering to others in the family, transvestite behavior, or silly screaming as in other versions. Also this one has a great chainsaw, plenty of great character actors doing what they do best, as great characters.

The film would have been better had the squeamish producers left in the X-rated violent scenes as they were originally. Would have been top notch if the (hideously deformed) Leatherface unmasking had remained, a bit that was eventually used to a degree in the 2003 version. Could have been a 10 had someone like Savini been involved. As it is, still superb.

Story told too many times

[rparham · 2/10 · 25 October 2006]

It is difficult to identify a horror franchise that is more creatively bankrupt than the Texas Chainsaw Massacre series. Friday the 13th at least ups the body count and devises interesting ways to kill people and Nightmare on Elm Street has cool effects-laded dream sequences, but what does Texas Chainsaw Massacre have: a guy with a skin face mask and a chainsaw chasing people around the woods. That's about it. For a ponderous example of why this franchise is going nowhere fast, just take a gander at the third entry in the series, Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III.

The plot to this entry is inconsequential, but if you want the reader's digest version: Michelle (Kate Hodge) and Ryan (William Butler) are driving cross-country through Texas and make the bad mistake of stopping at a gas station run by peeping tom psycho Alfredo (Tom Everett) who gets put out with the couple and forces them to flee or meet with the business end of his shotgun. Just before leaving the gas station in a hurry, they are given a shortcut route through the back country by drifter Tex (Viggo Mortenson, yes that Viggo Mortenson). They make the unwise decision of taking the route and end up with their car broken down and a giant guy with a chainsaw and poor manners when it comes to greeting guests on their tail. They run into (literally) survivalist Benny (Ken Foree) who quickly becomes chainsaw bait also. With both vehicles out of commission, and a power tool that is just itching to be covered in the thick red stuff right behind, they quickly begin wandering the woods and find a farm house containing (imagine this) crazy people! Mayhem ensues, unhappiness abounds and lots of screaming occurs. Oh yeah, and people die.

Leatherface is lowest common denominator horror film-making: it takes a familiar premise, changes a few of the characters, juggles the deaths a bit, and slaps a roman numeral on the end and calls it a film. It is an almost complete rehash of the first Texas Chainsaw Massacre in content, lacks any significant scares, has characters that are as thin as rice paper, and looks like it was made for about what I currently have in my wallet. Michelle and Ryan are almost non-existent characters, they are bodies for the slaughter and that is it. Benny is a little more entertaining, but not much. The villainous family are all freaks sure, but by round three, the ability for their behavior to shock is pretty much gone. I suppose it is a sad commentary on pop culture when the gruesome acts of despicable people on film has become so blasé as to be boring, but that is where it stands.

It is also interesting that even though this film barely clocks in at an hour and twenty minutes, it feels like it goes on for an eternity. The film has no visual interest, it's just random woods photographed with competence, and that is it. No style, no flair, it's just there. For those gorehounds who view these films for its extensive bloodletting, Leatherface is sure to disappoint. Even in its unrated version, most of the grisly stuff is off-screen, so those in search of the horror film equivalent of the "money shot" will be unsatisfied.

Yeah, Viggo Mortenson is in it, and he's okay, but nobody's winning any awards here. Kate Hodge varies between decent and terrible, and R.A. Mihailoff, who essays the role of Leatherface, doesn't have to work too hard to collect his paycheck. More or less, this is just an attempt by a film studio to cash in on the name Texas Chainsaw Massacre with no real meat on the bones of this sequel. You have been warned.

Better than Part II

[mrfilmmaker666 · 5/10 · 26 November 2003]

I liked this version a whole lot more than the Texas Chainsaw

Massacre II...for one it didn't give Leatherface feelings, 2 is was

kinda scary at some points, and 3 it had good acting. The main

female lead was gorgeous and I have a major crush on her (too

bad she's not in a lot of movies) and the guy who did Leatherface

did a decent job, (though his 'Leatherface' didn't look all too great)

I'm gonna have to go with my favorite character being the deranged

gas station peeping tom.....he was the next best thing to the

original Hitchhiker. The ending was kinda weak and left you

wanting more. But overall a decent sequel, not great, not bad,

worth a rent.

Not Too Great

[jeanlevy · 5/10 · 24 June 2019]

I'll never understand why so many horror fans seem to love this sequel. For years, I kept hearing "oh, it's not great, because the MPAA cut out all the gore. You need to see it with all the extra gore." Now that I've seen that version, I can safely say that my feelings are the same. There are some nice effects here, but it's never very engaging, creepy, atmospheric, scary, or suspenseful.

As a fan of director Jeff Burr, I'm surprised. His Stepfather II is equally as good as the original and From A Whisper To A Scream is one of the finest horror anthologies I've seen. I'm not sure if studio interference was heavier this time around or what, but this film feels passionless and watered down.

Leatherface is a disappointing sequel to a horror classic. At least, the previous entry tried to do something new, but this feels like something we've seen a trillion times over. It's skippable.

Strange, semi-serious reprise of the Tobe Hooper classic

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 13 November 2012]

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.

Definelty a studio horror film if there ever was one.

[Joshua_Penczek · 5/10 · 2 October 2018]

Calling a film "a polished turd" is a fairly popular insult used by audiences and moviegoers today. Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Msassacre 3 is one of the most definitive polished turds I've ever seen. It has many good ideas and has good production with decent direction and cinematography to boot, but it just has way too many flaws to ignore.

Gone is the low budget gritty feel of the first two entries; Leatherface is big budget, shot in Los Angeles instead of Texas, filmed on crystal clear studio cameras, and sprinkled with an undoubtedly expensive soundtrack from various high-profile rock bands of the time. This is obviously a studio film, an attempt at producers trying to widen Letherface's appeal to a mainstream audience. In some ways, the studio is very successful. It's quite dark and graphic (in the way studio films are) and it does a good job building up suspense and delivering scares.

With this, however, comes it's inevitable flaw of being a watered down studio project. The new characters, while interesting and freaky enough, come nowhere near the chaotic nightmarish inhabitants from the first two films. The cannibals are clearly portrayed by handsome actors (including Viggo Mortensen) which sucks a lot of the grit from the film. One cannibal is a wheelchair-bound woman with a synthetic voice who's just that: a woman in a wheelchair. If she were in the first two movies, she'd have massive tumors or her gums would be ridden with disease or she'd be 900 pounds, but instead she looks like your average everyday woman. There's even a suspenseful slow reveal shot of her face that reveals nothing. How disappointing is it that she has not even a single ounce of horror makeup on her face? The only cannibal who really has any distinguishing traits on par with the first two is Alfredo, but you still tell the actor is handsome in real life. Even Leatherface himself isn't ugly, as he poses dramatically with his stunning hunky mullet and muscles against the backlight in many scenes. That's just what we need, right? Hunky Leatherface?

The normal characters are bland and downright irritating, with the lead male role being one of the most annoying protagonists in any film ever. The writer was obviously trying to create a realistic playful relationship between the two leads, but it instead comes off as grating and obnoxious. The only lead I really liked was Ken Foree, because he's, well, Ken Foree being Ken Foree, which cannot go wrong.

The film is more mediocre and standard than it is anything else. Director Jeff Burr's ideas do shine through occasionally, but they've clearly been homoginzed by studio test audience interjection. It does have some decent writing and thrills, but they're your typical run-of-the-mill decent studio horror tropes. Growing up, I actually really enjoyed this film and significantly liked it more than the second movie, because I felt this movie better balanced comedy and horror. Watching them both again, I feel the second one certainly has more identity and creativity in its content when compared to this film, which is mostly just typical and underwhelming.

Some may find a thing or two to really enjoy, because some stuff is there, but overall, Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3 is mostly just kind of boring and too polished for its own good.

Not Bad

[jack_o_hasanov_imdb · 6/10 · 28 August 2021]

It was an average movie.

If you like this kind of movies, watch it, otherwise stay away :) This series wasn't my favourite, but I watched it anyway.

The saw is family...

[Amityville15 · 5/10 · 8 June 2014]

A couple from California passing through Texas encounter the cannibal family but also meet a survivalist along the way who tries to help them escape from the deranged killers.

This film starred: Kate Hodge, Ken Foree & Vigo Mortenssen.

Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Masscare 3 is as you probably guessed the third chapter in the famous TCM series. In my opinion it is like it's two predecessor's very bad. However despite it being very bad it is still better than the fits two movies by quite a long distance. I don't recommend these films as when I watch them I feel I am wasting my time as they do get better but are still terrible.

**/***** Poor.

Underrated and very interesting

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 9/10 · 14 September 2012]

Traveling through the desert together, a brother-and-sister attempting to deliver a classic car to a relative encounters a murderous, cannibalistic family that preys on travelers hunting along the highway and must team up with a stranded survivalist to stave off the family's advances.

This here turned out to be decent and actually quite enjoyable actually. One of the main aspects that works really well to this one is an impressive atmosphere, with the film being rather creepy for the most part. There's a lot of fun to be had with this one in the desert despite being set at night but it makes the film just that much better because the majority of the action takes place at night and that is really tough to pull off, yet it's done nicely here. The initial appearance by the couple changing their car-tire which turns into an attack on the car and then leading into the chase down the highway where they bump into their friend gives this a strong launching pad to where the movie really works in the chasing through the patch of woods by the highway. The dark trees and nearly impenetrable layout makes for a perfect spot to unleash the series of ambushes, stumbling across the traps left out and getting plenty of strong, stellar stalking throughout where the killer comes out of the shadows in rather unexpected locations to catch them in the traps or stalk them with the chainsaw leading for a great time throughout here. With the family dinner scene being rather enjoyable with plenty of gruesome, bloody moments that are far more squirm-inducing than expected and a nasty streak that runs throughout, suddenly machine gun fire bursts into the room, gunning down most of the family leading into the final brawl out in the swamp which has a lot to like. The gore is great as well, especially in the unrated form where the gore is a little nastier and it should please the gorehounds looking for a ton of blood and guts. There are still some flaws here, as there is an 'R' rated version of the film that is so heavily cut that it makes no sense why it was rated 'R.' Almost no violence at all occurs in the main cut of the film which is virtually bloodless and with a low body count to chop up, it doesn't have a lot of deaths to dole out. There are way too few people to get involved in the family which keeps the body-count to a point where it's quite obvious there's not a lot of opportunities to knock people off which is really distracting. There's also the fact that the family again changes around members needlessly, offering up another change in the members and characteristics of the group which is never explained and offers up the kind of questions that shouldn't be made in this kind of situation. Ranging from who's who in relation to each other and what they're pasts were like since they're colorful enough to be memorable, however too much is kept off-screen around them which is rather disappointing. Still, it's far better than expected.

Rated R: Graphic Language and Graphic Violence.

A serviceable conclusion

[mrashtastic89 · 6/10 · 17 February 2021]

This movie was fine, the kills were super censored though, and some of the acting is pretty bad. It was fine.

Horrible - light horror franchise

[ggcarbone · 1/10 · 9 May 2022]

Horrible franchise, the worst of all of them. There is no good gore scenes at all, all the actors are overacted, like they tried too hard to look psychopaths etc, the killings are so simple aswell. I felt that the director thought that by having a good franchise's title the movie is gonna be made by itself, wrong. I was absolutely disappointed, even more because the night before I watched TCM: The Beginning which is extremely gore and much richer in content.