Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022) Review
Review of the 2022 Texas Chainsaw Massacre film streaming on Netflix. A brief overview of my opinions regarding the remake/sequel’s pros and cons.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre is now available to stream on Netflix
When media outlets began reporting ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre‘ would yet again be receiving the “requel” treatment for 2022, I felt less than enthused. Admittedly, my expectations were low; given the previous poor attempts at rebooting the franchise with 2013’s ‘Texas Chainsaw 3D‘ and 2017’s prequel ‘Leatherface‘. However, with the announcement of Fede Alvarez (director of Don’t Breathe and Crawl) as the producer, David Blue Garcia (Blood Fest) as the film’s director, and the long-awaited return of fan favorite final girl Sally Hardesty (played this time by Olwen Fouéré), my interest peaked. I’ll admit upon my first viewing, I enjoyed 2022’s ‘Texas Chainsaw Massacre‘, enough to recently warrant a second watch. Sadly, to my dismay, the chainsaw isn’t nearly as revving this second outing.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre’s plot centers around Melody (Sarah Yarkin) a young businesswoman from San Francisco, as she and her friends Dante (Jacob Latimore) and Ruth (Nell Hudson) meet potential investors in attempt to reinvigorate the seemingly abandoned town of Harlow, TX and draw in modern influencers. Along the way, Melody brings her younger sister Lila (Elsie Fisher) hoping she will stay in Texas after Lila’s recent traumatic experience involving a school shooting. Unbeknownst to these characters, this isn’t quite the ghost town they think it is, as a certain face-wearing maniac has made this his home these last 48 years. Shortly following the death of his motherly patron, Leatherface (Mark Burnham) resurfaces in merciless fashion to dust off the family saw and butcher more bodies.
Where it still cuts
2022’s Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one of the more visually pleasing entries to the franchise. Garcia’s confidence as a director shines through as he allows for his own vision, while honoring familiarity of past installments. The cinematography masterfully utilizes shadows and lighting, accompanied by meticulous camera angles adding tones of seclusion tangled in chaos. There’s one shot in particular I’m surprised I missed during my first viewing in which we see the physical manifestation of Leatherface through actor Burnhams’ eyes. It’s subtle yet framed so effectively it left me feeling harrowingly chilled.
Now, this wouldn’t be a Texas Chainsaw film without the multiple bodily mutilations splattered on screen and this entry to the franchise is no exception. The kills in this film are savage, if not more creative than its’ predecessors. Writer Chris Thomas Devlin is unabashed by the violence he brings with his script as he is able to write these kills in a way, though may not all be new, feel wholly unique in their execution. For example, in a scene, Leatherface shreds through a bus of influencers in one of the films’ more memorable moments. The deaths are further showcased by this newly found rage brought to Leatherface, adding a ravening brutality to the character we’ve not seen since the ’03 remake. Though the carnage candy Leatherface delivers is enjoyable, my headaches with Texas Chainsaw Massacre start with his character.
Where the saw dulls…
Let me start by saying Burnham’s portrayal of Leatherface in Texas Chainsaw Massacre is far from bad. In fact, his performance is rather good. He’s domineering whenever on screen and visually, he looks fantastic. My issue with this Leatherface lies within the writing. Burnhams’ Leatherface is not the same character the legendary late Gunnar Hanson famously brought to life in 1974. 48 years prior we are introduced to a man with a child-like mind and instinctual violence bred into him due to years of abuse and torment by his twisted family. 2022’s portrayal removes the family, putting Leatherface front and center while also altering him into a more cunning character; he’s setting traps and utilizing enclosed surroundings to his advantage. The most noticeable difference between his 74’ counterpart is the upgrade in his strength. Whereas before, injuries slowed him down bringing whimpers and cries of pain, he now absorbs this damage, baring inhuman strength. There’s no cohesion between Hanson’s Leatherface and Burnhams.
The next frustration I had with the film’s script involved the actual characters we follow throughout the story. In order for a horror film to draw in its’ audience, especially when it comes to slashers, it’s imperative the story provides characters to emotionally invest in. Characters we want to see survive. Unfortunately, the script lacks here as I found none of the characters to be enjoyable. Adding to this annoyance, the plot continuously bounces between who the final girl will be, Melody or Lila? The problem is, I was not provided with enough of their backstories to warrant any care for their survival. Any emotional attachment I could have developed for these characters is never explored, only vague mentions. When the story briefly touches on themes of gun violence (Lila’s school shooting) and society’s most recent trend with cancel culture, it’s done so with no sustenance then sloppily contradicts itself in the 3rd act. Dante, Ruth, and the remaining others feel like cannon fodder, just as you would expect with any Texas Chainsaw Massacre film, as their screen time is brief.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre’s biggest failure is in the way it reintroduces legacy character Sally Hardesty. Besides 1995’s Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation‘s brief cameo (reprised by original late actress Marilyn Burns), her character has been mainly absent from past sequels and reboots. Aiming to please fans with her return in the form of a seasoned warrior seeking vengeance à la Jamie Lee Curtis’ most recent portrayal of Laurie Strode in 2018’s Halloween trilogy; a promising premise that’s poorly executed. Aside from owning a farm and unsuccessfully hunting Leatherface these past 48 years, Devlin adds nothing to further progress Sally’s story, nor does the character receive ample screentime. She makes certain decisions that, I’ll be frank, utterly baffles me. Most infuriating is the final battle between Sally and Leatherface. Lasting a mere few minutes, the sequence falls flat leaving fans unsatisfied. Fouéré attempts her best portraying a hardened Sally, though in the end the performance suffers due to the scripts deplorable handling of the character.
Final Thoughts
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn’t the worst attempt at a sequel or reboot of the franchise. The abandoned town of Harlow brings a sense of claustrophobia and the extreme use of gore brought to the kills is satisfying. Nevertheless, the writing fails to redefine the Texas Chainsaw Massacre’s legacy and move the franchise forward in any bold new directions. The main and supporting characters suffer from lack of any development and Sally’s return is abysmal. When you centralize Leatherface as the main antagonist and take away his family, we are left with just another carbon copy slasher. Any mystique or personality you had previously established with that character fades; it doesn’t work as a sequel to the original. Those seeking a bloody hack and slash ride will enjoy this film for what it is. Die-hard fans on the other hand, may ultimately walk away feeling disappointed with the wasted potential to start anew.
For more Texas Chainsaw Massacre content, check out our episode of HauntedMTL’s: Streamin’ Demons, where we discuss Tobe Hoopers’ 1974 original The Texas Chainsaw Massacre along with IT, and Ghostbusters: Afterlife. You can also stream or download the episode and many others on your favorite podcast streaming service such as Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, and more.
(2.5 / 5)
Released in 2011, Grave Encounters is one of the better-liked-found horror movies by both critics and horror fans alike. At least, that’s the opinion of the few who’ve seen it. For some reason, it’s not as well known as many others in the genre. So today, let’s spread awareness for this overlooked spooky gem.
The story
We begin our story with a TV executive, talking about an ill-fated reality show named Grave Encounters. He explains that everything went south during the taping of episode six. While the footage was retrieved, the ghost hunters were not. Our TV executive assures us that what we are about to see is not a movie, and has only been cut for time.
We then dive into the footage collected from episode six. The ghost-hunting team will spend the night in an old mental hospital called Collingwood Psychiatric Hospital.
During the night, the team does see a few eerie things. A door slams shut. A wheelchair moves on its own. Fairly standard ghost-hunting fair.
The real horror starts when the team isn’t released from the hospital in the morning. Because morning doesn’t come. The sun doesn’t rise and the doors don’t open to the outside world. Lance, TC, Sasha, Matt and Houston are all trapped inside an ever-changing hospital, with the patients who remain even in death.
What worked
The first thing I want to talk about, and the part that attracted me to the film in the first place, is the parody element. Fans of ghost-hunting shows like Ghost Hunters will recognize many of the same elements. The title even has a very similar font. As someone who loves a good ghost hunt, but often finds that these shows take themselves a little too seriously, this was quite enjoyable.
Another thing I loved about Grave Encounters was the effects. The ghosts were shocking, not just the first time we saw them but every time. This is even more impressive when we remember that this movie had a budget of $120,000. The creators taught themselves how to do these effects, and most of them are practical, not CGI. This would have been impressive if the effects were just passible. And they were far more than that.
Finally, I want to talk about the character development. We start the film without much sympathy for our characters. Especially Lance. Lance was so punchable at first. He was flippant about others’ pain. He was clear that he’d make up evidence if he couldn’t find any. And he didn’t seem too interested in listening to his team.
By the end of the movie, though, we care about him and the rest of the team. And it takes so little time for us to change our minds. We see TC talk to his daughter, and realize he’s never going to get home to her. We see Sasha care about the people lost in the hospital. We see Lance protect Sasha and the rest of his team. We see that these people, as willing as they are to financially benefit from other people’s pain, actually do care about each other. No one is a coward. No one is leaving people behind. That’s admirable. And that makes me give a damn about them.
What didn’t work
All that being said, it wasn’t a perfect movie. To start with, there are some questions we don’t get answers to. And not in an acceptable way. It’s okay that we don’t know what really happens in the end. It’s okay that we don’t know how the spirits manipulate time. It’s not okay that one character is simply eaten by fog. That scene, close to the end, just felt lazy.
I will also say that some of the acting wasn’t great. Especially from Sasha, played by Ashleigh Gryzko. I won’t say she was terrible. But her acting was overdone. She was also a bit of a scream queen. We didn’t learn much about Sasha, except that she’s the token girl. Her character could have been fleshed out a bit more.
Overall, Grave Encounters is a great film. Whether you’re a fan of found footage, ghost hunting, or just spooky stories well told, this is one to put on your TBW list sooner rather than later.
For Haunted MTL, this is Nicole signing off.
(4.5 / 5)
Episode four of Agatha All Along started on a sad note and ended on a shocking reveal. Can we really ask for anything more?
The story
We begin this episode, as mentioned, at the graveside of poor Sharon. She’s the first to pass away on The Road, but I’ll be quite surprised if she’s the last.
It’s one thing to have died. But it’s quite another to have died surrounded by people who don’t really care and won’t really mourn you.
After that, we continue down The Road to find another house. This one appears to be familiar to Alice. She tries to turn around and go the other way, but The Road won’t let her escape that easy.
What they find inside is the home Alice shared with her mother. They also find a record of Alice’s mother’s version of the Ballad. After the coven starts experiencing Alice’s family curse, they realize the only way out is to sing The Ballad that can protect them. One that’s been protecting Alice for most of her life.
They do escape the house, but not unscathed. Teen is badly injured. And we see another side of Agatha. Maybe even one she didn’t know she had.
What worked
This aspect shocked me, but Agatha is a good team leader. This is undercut because we all know she doesn’t care about her team. But twice now she has stepped in and helped when a member of the coven was struggling. She didn’t do it with love but with honesty. And sometimes that’s what we need.
Another thing I want to draw attention to is the sexual tension between Agatha and Rio. However, they’re doing a fine job drawing attention to it themselves.
It is killing me.
There is so much history between these two characters that we just don’t know yet. But we want to know. This is one of the biggest drives to watch the next episode, at least for me. While at first, it seemed like Agatha was to blame for their riff, it appears after this episode that it might have been Rio. Or, frankly, it might have been both of them. All I know is that I am constantly reminded of Rio’s question to Agatha from the first episode.
“Do you remember why you hate me?”
Finally, I thought the 70’s vibe of this episode was very fun. I especially liked the camera shots that were quite reminiscent of old 70’s show. The split screens, the quick gasp shots. It reminded me of Scooby Doo and Jabber Jaw in the best way.
What didn’t work
I don’t have much negative to say about this episode. The only real complaint I have is that I didn’t like this new version of The Ballad. It’s fine, but it isn’t nearly as cool as the first.
All in all, this was a great episode. I have so many questions about Teen, about Rio, and about what The Road has in store for the rest of them. And I can’t wait to see what’s next.
(4.5 / 5)
Movies n TV
Evil: “A is for Angel” (S2E2)
“A is for Angel” is an episode of the supernatural drama, Evil. The assessors investigate a potential angelic possession.
“A is for Angel” is an episode of the supernatural drama, Evil, created by Michelle King and Robert King. The central cast includes Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi, Michael Emerson, Christine Lahti, and Andrea Martin. It originally aired under CBS before moving to Paramount+. As of this review, it’s available through Netflix and Paramount+ and its add-ons.
The assessors investigate a potential angelic possession. David (Mike Colter) meets a helpful nun (Andrea Martin as Sister Andrea). Kristen (Katja Herbers) talks to the police. Sheryl (Christine Lahti) takes out her frustration on someone who deserves it. Leland (Michael Emerson) makes a haunting confession.
What I Like about Evil: “A is for Angel”
While “A is for Angel” fears depicting a biblically accurate angel, it still evokes a haunting terror such angels evoke. Brandon J. Dirden’s Raymond/Archangel Michael provides an unsettling performance that directly comments or alludes to actions that angels take in the bible.
This episode introduces Sister Andrea, who will become a key character of the series, acting as a spiritual advisor and mentor to David specifically. She’s interesting enough to evoke lasting memorability, given more attention than debut characters in their introductory episodes.
Leland’s confession to David gets dark, revealing much of the personal relationship the two had before the series began. While nothing remains confirmed, and Leland clearly aims to antagonize David, David’s reaction suggests that some truthful admissions linger within the deception. However, it’s ultimately a viewer’s decision to weigh these claims.
“A is for Angel” creates a rather terrifying dynamic that evokes a haunting narrative. Where the previous episode focused more on what comes next, “A is for Angel” dives into the horrific implications of the procedural plot.
Tired Tropes and Triggers
As mentioned earlier, the procedural plot involves an angelic possession and some Old Testament godliness, which might upset some viewers. Some points suggest sexism and abuse, but little of this receives attention beyond the claim.
A character potentially murdered their wife, suggesting spousal abuse, but the reality of the situation seems blurred. Regardless, the victim tries to leave their abuser, which is a common source of abuse in domestic violence.
While nothing remains confirmed, a child molester apparently receives angelic punishment. The viewer takes the word of the angel’s supposed host on this claim, which hardly means an absolute confirmation.
Suicide, potentially assisted suicide, is another plot point alluded to in the episode. Little remains a proven fact, but the suggestion seems plausible considering what the viewer knows of the situation. As this remains the only confirmation, the claims seem interpretable.
What I Dislike about Evil: “A is for Angel”
Again, “A is for Angel” puts a lot of focus on the horrifying concept of an angel but doesn’t try to depict a biblically accurate angel. Frankly, it’s a wasted opportunity, considering the haunting nature of their descriptions. Such descriptions rival that of Lovecraftian abomination in horrifying potential. It seems like a perfect opportunity for a show or film like Evil. Even as “A is for Angel” challenges the depictions, it hesitates to open its’ trillions of eyes to the opportunities available.
Leland allows the assessors into his home and leaves valuable evidence for the team to find. For such an intelligent character, these oversights seem uncharacteristic. Viewers might assume this frantic response is a ploy, but his reactions suggest otherwise.
Final Thoughts
“A is for Angel” returns Evil to the horror roots that the previous episode hadn’t lingered on. The episode unravels some mysteries of the past that better contextualize relationships. If you’re eager for Old Testament godly intervention, this episode brings out a proper dose of it.
(3 / 5)
