IMDb > The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 5 of 27: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]
Index 263 reviews in total 

Better than its reputation has it

Author: Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki from United States
5 November 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

While nowhere near as good as the original, this much maligned sequel is better than a lot of people claim. After fourteen years, the chainsaw killers have relocated from south Texas to Dallas area, and are now ... wait for it, wait for it ... the most popular caterers in town, having even won an annual chili cook-off two years running, with their "unique" recipes of meat.

When a couple of drunken, idiot college students crank call a late night disc jockey on a local radio station immediately before being sliced and diced by the chainsaw killers, and the DJ records audio of the killing (shades of Blow Out?) Enter Dennis Hopper who, while overacting outrageously, convinces her to play the tape of the killing on-air to draw the killers out into the open, against the advice of the station manager with the phlegm problem.

Unfortunately, that's where the plot runs out, and, after a good first half, the pacing slows to a crawl in the second half, and it was also undermined by a rushed post-production schedule, which allegedly prevented further editing and effects-work.

This was intended to be a satire of Motel Hell (which was a satire of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre) complete with climactic dueling chainsaws, and the over-the-top slasher movies so popular in the 1980s, which is not entirely successful, but holds up better than a lot of the films from that time, and really captures the late night radio/ cable television feeling of the mid/ late 1980s. Our introduction to Chop-Top, both genuinely creepy and intentionally funny, was probably the best scene in the movie, very well done. It seems almost like something out of a David Lynch movie. The final scene has the heroine yelling and waving a chainsaw, after having dispatched the last(?) of the chainsaw family, just as Leatherface did at the end of the first movie. She had become exactly what she was fighting, and then, oddly, the movie ends with a bubbly little pop tune played over the closing credits, which should have been a sign to people that this was not intended to be taken seriously, as a straight sequel to Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but basically a satire based on itself.

Was the above review useful to you?

More equals less.

Author: TOMASBBloodhound from Omaha, NE USA
5 October 2008

A dozen years had passed since Tobe Hooper's classic film The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was made. And you would have thought that Tobe and company would have had time to conjure up a worthy sequel. This time they'd have the money that would allow them just about anything they wanted to create on screen. But after watching this disaster, one cannot help but be reminded of the old adage that "sometimes less is more".

The original film was shot in four weeks under brutal conditions and with a budget that must have run in the tens of thousands of dollars. This time the scale is larger, and most of it obviously shot on actual sets. Tom Savini was on board to provide some disgusting gore that the original lacked. They even had an experienced star like Dennis Hopper to give top billing to. How could this film have missed? Well first of all, the tone is more comedic than frightening. This film is not at all frightening, nor does it seem to be trying to be. The original had a few moments that may have provided a chuckle or two, even if by accident. But it is painfully obvious that nobody is really that concerned with scaring the audience here. Even back then, they had to have known that gore alone is not scary. At the most it only provides the audience with discomfort. So this sequel lacks the suspense, the claustrophobic atmosphere, and basically all of the tension packed into the original. Not a good way to go, Mr. Hooper.

The cast is not bad. You wish Hopper would have a more carefully defined role than that of just an ex(?)-lawman trying to avenge the death of the wheelchair-bound Franklin from part one. Hopper was seeing a career resurgence at this time, and maybe they just figured he'd provide even more zaniness as he battles Leatherface chain saw to chain saw. Hopper would go on to state that this was the worst film he ever made. Jim Siedow is the only returning cast member from part one, and gone is the edginess from his earlier performance. He and Bill Moseley are only going for laughs. Bill Johnson is an active and menacing Leatherface, but here he's made into too much of a sympathetic character by the third act. Caroline Williams is decent enough. She appears to have had a physically demanding role, and she sure knows how to scream.

Go ahead and watch this film if you must. Especially since the Red River football weekend is coming up very soon! But by the time these creeps are chasing Ms. Williams around the bowels of a deserted amusement park, you will be disappointed. You will miss the tension, the atmosphere, and most importantly the scares from part one. Tobe Hooper's career had begun to slip by this point, and this film did him no favors. In fact the films of this series only seemed to get geometrically worse with each additional sequel or new meditation on the original idea. 4 of 10 stars.

The Hound.

Was the above review useful to you?


Author: killbill_28 from Australia
1 October 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is set 12 years after the events of the first movie which was released in 1974. For a decade, Taxes Ranger "Lefty" Enright (Dennis Hopper) has been trying to chase down the cannibalistic Sawyer family that killed his brother Franklin 12 years ago. With no help from the local police. Lefty with the help of a local disk jockey, find the Sawyer's underground butcher shop and take matters into there own hands.

Tope Hooper returns to the helm to tell another chilling story and the evil Leatherface and his overpowering chainsaw. The main story was written by L.M. Kit Carson and it was released by the now bankrupted company Cannon films. This film was banned in some country's for 20 years for it's gore and graphic violence, but only two people get killed by the chainsaw in this movie and it's gore isn't as bad as some of the other movies I've seen. The recent "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" made in 2006 was a lot worst then this, the gore which was shown in that film made this one look like it was G rated. But I guess they had different rules back in 1986 when this film was released to the public.

The Taxes Chainsaw Massacre 2 isn't as good as the original. The bigger budget, cheap scares, length and it's comedy was the major flaws in this movie which could had been a lot better. The film does lag half way through once they enter the underground butcher shop. The ending which was also disappointing shows Leatherface having a chainsaw duel with Lefty which ends up with Leatherface coming out second best and the disk jockey doing Leatherface's famous chainsaw dance after she kills "Chop Top".

Was the above review useful to you?

"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2"- A hilarious and off-beat horror-comedy...

Author: MaximumMadness from United States
30 August 2008

"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2" is director Tobe Hooper's (and writer L.M. Kit Carson's) sequel to the original horror classic, and is the cinematic equivalent of not sleeping for three days straight and then watching your favorite horror movie with a group of friends. You are not totally aware mentally, and everything washes over you in a new light, oftentimes with hilarious results.

Yes, this time it is more comedy than horror, which I personally loved. While I hadn't seen the original at the time of seeing this entry, I was able to get right into the story.

Basically, a radio host (the sexy Caroline Williams) and a Texas Ranger (Dennis Hopper... yes I said "Dennis Hopper") who happens to be related to a couple of the victims from the original film try to contend with Leatherface and his cannibalistic (and dementedly hilarious) clan. Well, I mean, there is more to the plot than THAT, but overall, that is what's most important in this film.

The film is a slow-build, and it really isn't until the halfway point that it picks up and maintains a steady spiral into oblivion. But don't think the movie boring- writer Carson injects quite a bit of life into the story, and makes the characters fun and very interesting to watch. He also has an ear for dialogue and knows how to make even the most minor of moments shine. Never before would I think a line of dialogue such as "Hey, I built you a french-fry house!" actually make me like a character and root for him, but Carson's quirky character and Hooper's fun direction make it happen.

But no review of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2" is complete without a mention of the one character that everybody loves- Bill Moseley as "Chop-Top", a supposed Vietnam Vet and brother of Leatherface (or, as we learn his real name, "Bubba") with an exposed metal plate sticking out of his head (supposedly from a war-wound) and sickly pale skin. Yes, Chop-Top has some of the most amazing and gut-busting lines of dialogue I have ever heard, and Moseley shows his talent for acting, making him horrifying and hilarious at the same time. One of the best things to happen to Horror-Comedies ever.

There are plenty of surprises in the story to keep you reeling, and great "silly" performances by talents like Hopper. Basically, once this movie gets going, it sucks you right in and won't let go.

Oh, and it also has some great gore, and superb performances by the likes of Bill Johnson as Leatherface and Jim Siedow as the Cook Drayton Sawyer, among others.

I can't help myself with this one- an 8 out of 10!

Was the above review useful to you?

Just finished watching this for the 1st time and.......

Author: tim-williams-6 from United Kingdom
5 January 2008

I have to say that I was fairly disappointed but not surprised. At first I couldn't see where Tobe Hooper was coming from. It took him 11 years to come up with a sequel and what he has made does not compare to the original, in the way of FEAR! No, he definitely played this for laughs and it shows, but tried to make up for it by employing Tom Savini to pile on the gore and Dennis Hopper for comedy value. Having said this I did enjoy it. The little nutcase with the coat hanger was suitably f**ked up (quite a good scene with him and the DJ when they first meet). Leatherface this time round was by no means scary! What really bugged me was his impression of a limbo dancer every time he'd smash through a wall or a door, close to his victim. This is a silly little sequel, but well worth watching. I read the review of this from the Radio Times which I usually find pretty good value. They view this film with very high regard – very odd. When you first start reading it it's as if your reading a review of Apocalypse Now or something. You think they must have got this wrong, but as you read on you realise that they are talking about the same film!

Was the above review useful to you?

Sawing into Stardom

Author: John Crane from United States
7 December 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This sequel, unlike the original classic, was like an acid trip with extra acid. Not that I'm saying it was horrible or that it was the best thing to hit horror cinema, what I am saying is that it seemed a bit too cheesy and b-movie-ish. It wasn't scary as much as it was disturbing, but at the same time it seemed like a comedy and there were many points where it was a bit too over the top. The acting was descent, the cinematography (special effects and lighting) where way over the top, the plot was worn out and the scares were replaced by some good laughs. It was not the original and it had far more impossibilities than any other Tobe Hooper film I have seen. In this case, Texas Chainsaw 2 was okay and worth watching.

First off, the acting was okay, it wasn't Oscar worthy but it certainly wasn't the worst acting I have seen. Bill Moseley, who plays Chop Top, does a real good performance capturing the demented and mentally damaged war veteran who has an obsession of transforming the theme park into NamLand. Ken Evert, was okay and did a somewhat good job recapturing the personality of the grandpa from the original, but in this movie he ads a bit more comic relief (i.e. the people he cuts up is used for award winning Chile). Dennis Hooper, whom I'm surprised to see, did a fairly silent and random character that is out for revenge. Now, giving the fact he was brilliant in Easy Rider, this film was a step below his acting career. In the movie he seems a bit over the top (when he goes nuts with the chainsaws), and at points seemed as if he did this for fun. In this film, Leatherface was not a maniac that had faces resemble his personality, but seemed more like a young boy who has fallen in love and throws temper tantrums. This reworking of Leatherface, to me, proved to be a disaster and a step below the personality of the original killer.

The plot is vastly different from the original; basically a radio hostess hears a brutal murder over the phone and is later kidnapped by the very same cannibalistic family. A renegade cop searching for redemption is proved to find the culprits even if it means destroying the entire place with duel chainsaws in a spaghetti western style showdown. However, some of the stuff that could have been vastly scary or disturbing turned out to be a bit funny and gross. They try to bring back that iconic scene from the original with the old man and the hammer, but this one backfired and proved to be comic rather than horrific. Some things that made this plot line seem a bit too unnatural was the use of some extreme impossibilities that was used in this film. Examples like: standing up on a car and killing people in the other vehicle with chainsaw, a skinless man walking and talking and having two huge chainsaws hanging from a belt. They seemed so cheesy and out of the blue that it was enjoyable. It was just way different from the original and I guess that is okay.

The one thing that I really like that the other one did not have was the extreme use of camera angles, lighting and tone of the film. These aspects were so over the top that it made up for some of the poor audio and music. The lighting, especially at night, were very colorful and high contrast and seemed to have come straight out of a comic book. In the radio building there was a high contrast of shadowy reds when Moseley's character appears, even higher tones of red and splashes of green when Leatherface appears. In numerous hallways there was dim lighting with obtuse red, green, yellow and blue shapes and oranges in the main dining hall. I think that by utilizing the lights, it really made this movie atmospheric and haunting. The camera angels (mostly seen in the radio station) where amazing and uses a wide variety of zooms and pans. Some of the best pans and trucks were seen in the "cave" where this family lives and one the best zooms is when it zooms out of the dinner table and the girls is crying. With the camera angles, this movie had a bit of a zest to it that I don't see that often in movies of this magnitude.

Overall, this movie was not the worst thing I have ever seen, nor was it the best thing I have ever seen. There was an equal balance of good and bad aspects of this film ranging from bad acting to excellent cinematography and it had a vastly different plot, but was executed wrongly. I enjoyed this film mainly because it was different that your average cannibalistic family tale, this one seemed a bit more on edge and acid driven. Of coarse, it did not frightened me the way I initially hoped, but it did strike me as being very theatrically disturbing and seemed as if it came from the mind of a drugged out hippie. I would recommend this film to any horror fan, partly because its trip and an experience that I think al horror fanatics should be aware of. It's one of those movies it's famous for being famous, and the first of its kind in along sad history of Texas Chainsaw Massacre sequels. (I hated Texas Chainsaw: Next Generation). It's just a fun and wacky film that nobody should miss.

Was the above review useful to you?

Crazy, gross, funny - Tobe Hooper all the way

Author: Nick Faust ( from Evansville, Indiana
8 August 2004

OK, so it's not the first one. But how could it be? Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE is the CITIZEN KANE of horror movies; you don't top that. What this movie does, though, is it takes its crazy ideas and wacks you over the head with them; it goes all the way, and then some. That's the Hooper hallmark. Playing the movie for obvious laughs works to make it even more disturbing. The jokes play against the gruesome carrying on; this is a world gone mad because nothing, and I mean nothing makes sense. We're beyond surreal; we're through the looking glass; which, I think, is Hooper's intention. Stretch falls down the hole - it's not a rabbit hole, and she doesn't meet the mad hatter. But what she does experience is a world that questions sense and sanity. The reason most find this one less satisfying then the first is because it's not seamless; we can see Hooper's gears turning and, unlike the first time, we're actually in on the joke. That aside, Hooper's directorial vision remains consistent. It's not a story, per se, we are following, it's a chase, and we're running, running, running like mad.

Hooper seems to have an unerring ability to get inside the crazies that populate his movies. These weird, disastrous, antisocials he creates have dimensional life; and it's all their own. We follow their thinking, their thought process, and in doing so, the irrational in his movies becomes logical. This is his gift. When he works on material like CROCODILE, where the "monster" is not in some way human, the work stutters and spits. Hooper's mad men are scary because they are human, and their humanity is cleverly displayed. Remember Neville Brand's nutty soliloquies in EATEN ALIVE? Brilliant, I thought. Massacre 2 knows it's being funny, and the surprise we felt in the first one is all but lost. This time, though, instead of surprise, we find ourselves tumbling down the rabbit's hole and we end up with more than we bargained for. Chop Top is one of the weirdest, wildest, funniest, monsters ever put on the screen. Bill Mosley's performance shoots off into areas few actors even know about, much less enter. He is gross, funny, and frightening all at the same time. The crazy things he says are like DaDa ravings; he's the irrational made flesh. Jim Siedow weaves back and forth between rationality and the exact opposite with little or no warning. In truth, he looks like he's on the verge of breaking up throughout the entire movie. The scene where Stretch finds herself tied to a chair at the head of this wildly long table is one of Hooper's finest moments. The entire scene is one long take with the camera tracking into Stretch and then back out over the table, then back in to her, then, yet again, we track back out beyond the table, with Siedow raving on like a mad Baptist minister. The tracking, swooping camera, constantly changing our perspective, creates an almost lyrical sense of grandeur in this mad, mad world; Hooper has let us in on the joke, but he surprises us with such effects because we feel, with the Sawyer clan, the power and drive of their subterranean mania.

Hooper is an extraordinary director. Even when his work misses, there's a power to it. In some way or other he understands what it is to be a lunatic, and his major movies, this one included, celebrates the hysteria while putting us non-lunatics through the ringer.

Was the above review useful to you?

TCM on crack *SPOILERS*

Author: Garret Ean ( from Concord, New Hampshire
29 July 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***


To better understand this film, I'll refer to other characters we know. So you know where I stand, I enjoyed TCM 74, give it a 7/10. It has its ups and downs. I haven't seen TCM3 or 4, but I think the 'remake', if you want to call it that, is one of the greatest horror films of all time.

Basically, this film is the crackhead version of the original. I'll use and analogy I thought up while watching TCM2 to help you better understand it.

Imagine two brothers, of about college age in the 70's, one somewhat intelligent, the other I see in my head as being like Brian from 'Half Baked.' Anyways, the intelligent brother writes 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' and knows it has flaws, but still is a good amateur work. So he decides he will read the script to his brother one night, and see what he thinks. However, his brother is heavily intoxicated, and as the script is read to him, he's not absorbing very much of it. When brother 1 done reading, he asks his brother 2's opinion. Not remembering much, and being to embarrassed to say 'read it again', he just says 'that was good' and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is born. Assuming brother #2 still hasn't seen the movie, we'll jump 1986. Bored one night, while trippin' on acid, brother #2 decides he'll re-write what he remembers of his brother's story. He spends all night writing, and comes up with 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2'.

Now that you have the general idea, I'll break it down piece by piece. Tobe Hooper wrote and directed both films. He made TCM2 because he felt no one saw TCM for what he wanted it to be. It was supposed to be a comedy, but people found it scary rather than funny. So Hooper figured he'd show everyone what he was trying just so everything is properly expressed. Many of the scenes are reminiscent of the original, and the dinner scene is all but completely replicated.

The characters have changed for the weirder. Chop Top is a crazier more perverted version of the hitchhiker. He's just the tag along, but still is interested by everything his two brothers do. Drayton is about the same, maybe a little more adventurous. Leatherface is however, very emotional, gets confused easier, is much more childish, and is surprisingly portrayed as the 'nice guy' out of the group. He actually helps the heroin escape.

One thing that really stuck out is how this film is much more graphic than the original. It makes you realize how clean the original really is. Anybody who ever found it shocking, this film exploits how it was all in you head. You get out of the original what you put in, and that's probably why most people find the original boring. I was just surprised to hear the characters using profanity, seeing gore, hearing sexual innuendos, it didn't seem to fit the TCM atmosphere. The gore wasn't graphic, the language wasn't strong, and the sexuality wasn't to perverted, but it all stands out.

In conclusion, I'd say I enjoyed the film, but most people wouldn't because it's the 'so stupid its cool' thing. I can compare it to Jack Frost, although I hated Jack Frost. The humor isn't that dull though, there's a little more substance to it. Some aspects don't line up with the original's story, as the hitchhiker is still alive, the home has been relocated, the MO's are different, etc, but if you can just chuckle and say 'whatever' you'll enjoy checking out this flick. Nothing special, but interesting.

Was the above review useful to you?


Author: jahokomo
5 April 2004

TCM is such a cool movie, but what I still just don't get is why everybody laughs when somebody's head is getting sawed off. Granted, there were a few humorous parts, for example, how LeatherFace sort of danced around with the chainsaw every so often. Or, some of the remarks they'ed make. But, it's just terrible when people think it's funny when somebody's gettin killed...especially like that! That was my main turn off with that movie, but I thought that it was pretty well directed. It had nearly everything I like in a horror movie: Some gore, excitement, chase-scenes, and tragedy. That's what, I feel, makes a horror movie worth watching. That's what gives it that deeper layer. My favourite scene was at the very end, when Stretch knocked that guy down from the grave shrine and then danced around with the chainsaw over her head, screaming like satan. It had, I don't know, something awesome about that.

Was the above review useful to you?


Author: Craig87
22 February 2004

This movie sucks. It's not even a squeal to the first film but a rip off. The 2003 remake of the orignal film is a hundred times better then this piece of crap. The only thing that would have made this movie good was if Tobe Hopper directed it and Gunnar Hanson played Leatherface and a cameo by Marylin Burns, I wouldn't mind the new people Leatherface went after but that's how it should have been as I said. I give this film a 1/10 for bringing back the cool killer but not the actor played him however.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 5 of 27: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history