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 guide
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 9 of 27: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]
Index 262 reviews in total 

The Buzz is back...kind of.

Author: DNDRKOWILLSAVEUS from ohio
29 August 2002

I'm not a huge fan of the first but i do recognize the fact that it is a landmark movie. The second is gorier, longer, and a hell of a lot harder to watch. This one unlike the first is crystal clear and the blood, guts, a terror-ridden faces shine bright on the screen. The first one had a very small budget and was very grainy, whereas this one is way more polished. One of the perks of the first one was that a lot of the violence and gore were hard to see, in this one it's very clear and in your face. Still it's a decent sequel for what it's worth.

Was the above review useful to you?

What the heck ??

Author: Moonknight31 from St. Charles
29 August 2002

The first was a classic, but this is just trash to say the least. Im not sure what Tobe Hooper was trying get across when he made this and whatever it was it didn't work. Stick with the first movie it maybe less gory but overall it's 100 times better.

Was the above review useful to you?

An embarrassment to original

Author: LEE MIDDLETON from Glasgow, Scotland
22 August 2002

Having watched the original chainsaw several times I began to appreciate how good and unique this film truly was. I was dreadfully disappointed in the sequel which was a rushed, uninventive joke. It is total c**p from start to end and is insulting to the originals unique atmosphere and what it represented. While watching this complete tosh, I really wanted to see the original as it is totally superb compared to this. Chainsaw two is one of the worst films ever made. Do not waste yout time watching this film as you will be appalled with its complete garbage storyline and duff acting. It is not horror not in the slightest it is pathetic in every way. I can not believe Dennis Hopper had a role in this film, he must shake his head every time he thinks of it!!!!!!!!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

decent sequel..but could have been alot better

Author: Jake from Springfield, MO
20 July 2002

This sequel could have been alot better seeing it had alot of neat stuff to work with. The intentional humor looking as if it's in the same vein as Evil Dead 2 (even though it preceeded ED2) is more annoying than funny. Some of it works. Alot of it doesnt. Cannon originally released this Unrated on video..but it seems to have just R rated violence. It also tended to drag in places. Now what I did like about this movie was Dennis Hopper..who just rocks out in this movie as an obsessed ex lawman wanting to murder those that killed Franklin from the first film. Also the scene where Leatherface points his chainsaw at Caroline William's naughty zone whispering "how good are're the best" is classic at the most.The thing that makes this probably a little harder to like is because the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a gritty dark brutal horror movie...the black humor could have played on that..but went for just irratation instead. 6.5/10

Was the above review useful to you?

Better than expected

Author: shaun98 from Milwaukee WI
11 June 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***


The second "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" film is one of the better horror sequels of the 1980's. Given the generally low quality of genre films from the period, especially sequels, that's not usually saying a whole lot. Nonetheless, despite its flaws, it's certainly worth the effort for horror fans. It's not as good as the original: that is asking too much; it was an unique, one-of-a-kind film, one that is perhaps best left alone. Still, the sequel does not tarnish its memory. On the contrary, it revitalizes the concept with a fresh approach. Director Tobe Hooper realized that even he would be hard-pressed to outdo his own groundbreaking film, so he wisely takes the material in a whole new direction altogether. The first "Massacre" was a grim, bleak horror film; the second is an over-the-top dark comedy. There's much more gore than the original, but it's so bizarre and frenetic that it's impossible to take seriously. It's done with so much panache that we can't help but hop on and go along for the ride.

The funny thing about it is that it actually does a decent job of making Leatherface sympathetic. This odd plot thread starts with a symbolic chainsaw/phallic symbol sequence that is absolutely priceless; it's intense and bizarre, the way a TCM film should be. So the guy's not evil, just misunderstood? That's right, and it works. He is actually capable of thinking of another human being as more than just fodder for the meat-grinder. No wonder this guy is killing people; it's his only outlet for sexual frustration. Makes sense, in light of some of his father's comments.

What can I say about the acting? It's all over-the-top, like the movie itself. You get to see an insane Dennis Hopper in a chainsaw duel with Leatherface; how can you go wrong with that? Absurd, but compelling in a bizarre way. Hopper can always be counted on to spice up a movie, and he certainly doesn't let us down, although he's equally effective in his quieter moments. Likewise, Jim Siedow and Bill Johnson are clearly enjoying themselves as members of the nuttiest family on the planet, and Bill Moseley is so uninhibited it's surreal. In contrast, Caroline Williams provides a center of normalcy as the heroine--until she also loses it all in the end.

This is not an unqualified recommendation, though. the first half-hour is fairly tedious, with little action to break the monotony. I know that some scenes were removed for time and content reasons, but the film does suffer for that. From what I hear, they originally depicted some more Leatherface action, which will hopefully find its way into a future special edition. As it is, the film is rough going at first, then it thankfully picks up with a terrifying sequence. From that point on, the pace rarely flags, although it gets a bit exhausting after a while. Hooper hadn't lost his touch.

**1/2 (out of ****)

Released by Cannon Films

Was the above review useful to you?

What a waste of time!

Author: Billy Rhynard from Kentville, NS
29 May 2002

The best way to sum up this film is PATHETIC! I am absolutely amazed that the guy that directed the first film was able to direct this waste of time. This film isn't even good on horror standards! I wouldn't even recommend this film to the most die hard horror fan! Don't waste your time. You'd be more satisfied spending your time watching some Melrose Place reruns!

Was the above review useful to you?

An OK installment...

Author: rattman_3 from MOREHEAD
10 May 2002

Well after viewing TCM, I had high expectations for the sequels. Unfortuanlly, I was wrong. The movie, starts as a radio host who is being agervated by two punks calling her, call her at the wrong time. She wittnesses there murder on the air, then plays the tape on the air. This mistake leads to her near death. Not to spoil the movie though.

The movie tries too much to copy the first one. The characters make no sense, except the grandpa, leatherface, and the soup-seller (i forget his name). The other guy, who im guessing is supposed to be the hitchhiker, seems too comic to be a serial killer. Instead of being demented, the family seems to be funny. If this were simply a comedy, it would be much different. However the movie does still offer a punch, Grandpa is in it! He is still hammering away.

Another dissapointment in this film, is the abstance of Gunner (the original leatherface). They wouldnt pay him enough, and he wouldnt be in this movie. Too bad. But he really wasnt missing anything, I mean leatherface FALLS FOR THE GIRL! Come on. Anyways, not a bad try, ******(6) out of **********(10) stars.

Was the above review useful to you?

Not bad; pretty much what I expected it to be.

Author: videofreak2002 ( from Walbridge, Ohio
27 March 2002

"Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2," the sequel to the smash "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," was actually pretty good. The best thing about this movie was the strong violence that it had. Dennis Hopper did a good job playing the sherrif. Tobe Hopper, who directed the first "Massacre," directed the second. I reccomend this movie if you're only a TCM fan.

10/13 ****1/2 (out of ****** stars) B+

Was the above review useful to you?

Fantastic Schlock Fun

Author: scatmanjon from Liverpool, England
2 March 2002

If the first film was too intense, then this one lightens the pace a little. Oozing with black humour and a few jumps about it's worth seeing. Dennis Hopper looks like he's bored or confused through it, but that's no problem. The real star of the movie is Jim Siedow who plays Drayton Sawyer the cook, who's obsessed with chasing that big buck.

It's a shame they decided to make more Chainsaw movies after this one, as (without giving the end away) the movie doesn't leave an open ending for one. In fact Leatherface : Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3 is a very dull and pedestrian affair, there's no humour or amusing bickering from the family, and it was done without Tobe Hoopers involvement.

Well worth watching, or having on at the back of a Halloween party or just for a night of Horror Movies and drink. I've seen a lot of people slam TCM2, but it still contains my favourite scene from a movie yet where Leatherface is attacking the two yuppies in the car with the corpse of the Hitchhiker from the first film tied to his body.

Yeah, very highly rated. And remember, Don't skimp on the meat.

Was the above review useful to you?

A moderate black comedy...

Author: Lucas Noseworth
15 January 2002

It is generally regarded by most that this is but a mere shadow of its former self.

'TCSM 2' is a disappointing horror film yet it does work surprisingly well as a black comedy. The film appears far too 'polished' compared to its predecessor, which was renowned for its grainy and dark visuals.

Many people actually perceived the original 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' as a kind of macabre sort-of-comedy. In fact, I remember when it was finally released in the UK a few years ago; I was one of the only people squeezed into a small local cinema who wasn't laughing at it. To be honest I found the killings in 'TCSM' rather harrowing. Perhaps many thought it was funny to see 'Leatherface' blunder about the place making a bizarre series of (what can best be described as) 'squeals'!

Tobe Hooper appears to have picked up on that particular trend and 'TCSM 2' is a decidedly postmodern film; comprising of many elements from the original and several other horror films. It is indeed a type of pastiche yet it contains too much comedy to be labelled so. The fact that it seems to be mocking itself and its predecessor means that it is parodic.

Also, unlike the original, the killings in 'TCSM 2' are shown in their full splendour. While Hooper opted to use a series of close-up shots of people being killed in 'TCSM', here, we are not denied that privilege. The opening killing where a man has the top of his head sliced off with a chainsaw just goes to prove this: and the fact that this wound results in blood spraying almost relentlessly is quite disturbing, if not somewhat hilarious.

I didn't give this film a particularly high grade ('5') but it isn't as bad as some people have made out; at the same time though, it isn't a patch on the original. The film is alive with cheesy one-liners and harsh language. Jim Siedow's performance as 'Cook' is goofily amusing. I agree with some other people who have commented on this film; Dennis Hopper is adequate enough but he appears to be out-of-place. It's a real shame that Gunnar Hansen (who I had the pleasure of meeting 2 years ago) wasn't playing 'Leatherface'.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 9 of 27: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [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