IMDb user comments for
Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 12:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

120 comments in total

---

18 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
Okay horror film!, 20 August 2002

Author: HumanoidOfFlesh from Chyby, Poland

"Leatherface:Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3" is the nastiest installment of the series.There is plenty of violence,gore and ghoulish humour to satisfy many horror fans.The production design by Mick Strawn is simply striking and the acting is fairly convincing.The opening sequence,a grisly excavation of a mass grave in the woods,is unsettling enough to set a proper mood,but the ending is silly and disappointing.As for the characters Alfredo(Tom Everett)simply steals the show-in my opinion he is a variation on the first film's Hitchhiker character.And of course there is Leatherface(R.A.Mihailoff),who has a big shiny new saw.All in all if you liked the first two TCM movies give this one a look-I think that it's worth your time,just avoid "The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre"(1994)like the plague!

---

19 out of 26 people found the following comment useful :-
A Giant Improvement From Part 2., 27 August 2004

Author: schwarhol628 from Oregon

"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.

---

11 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
"Time for dinner! ", 31 January 2002
Author: Backlash007 from Kentucky

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.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
What about part II?, 6 December 2004

Author: Michael DeZubiria (miked32@hotmail.com) from Luoyang, China

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

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.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Not too bad, everything considered., 22 October 2004

Author: Paul Andrews (poolandrews@hotmail.com) from UK

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The third entry into the Texas chainsaw massacre franchise feels more like a remake than a sequel to the original and has absolutely nothing to do with part 2, which in my humble opinion is a very bad thing as I liked part 2, you can check my review out. Anyway, the opening sequence which is mixed together with the credits features Letherface killing a woman with a sledge hammer and stitching the skin from her face together to make a mask. We are then introduced to brother and sister Michelle (Kate Hodge) and Ryan (William Butler) who are traveling across Texas to deliver a car, which their using as transportation. They stop off a gas station in the middle of the desert and get the creepy weirdo attendant to fill the car up. Also there they meet up with soon to be famous Viggo Mortensen who plays Tex. While Michelle goes to the toilet the attendant spy's on her through a hole in the wall. Tex finds out and a big argument ensues. The attendant pulls a shotgun out, Michelle and Ryan speed off in their car while it appears that Tex gets shot. Panicking they decide to take a short cut Tex had told them about earlier and end up going down some road in the middle of nowhere. Before long a battered pick up truck starts to hunt them down, eventually they are attacked by Leatherface, a massive man wearing a mask made of human skin and carrying a large chainsaw! They manage to survive this first attack and speed off in their car once again. However, they are involved in a crash with Benny (dawn of the dead and from beyond star the great always watchable Ken Foree) and are both forced off the road, damaging their cars in the process. And so it begins, can the three survive the Texas chainsaw massacre?! This film has the look and feel of a Hollywood product, very professional but also a little bit soulless and predictable. I have the British special edition DVD which contains the uncut version, there is some good gore and violence here and there but its clear that even this has been cut down, as the DVD's extra features prove, there is some extra gore in the deleted scenes and the filmmakers talk about it in the accompanying documentary, as well as a whole host of other problems. The ending is also discussed, a big let down. The filmmakers were forced to change it so it would be more upbeat, this new happy ending hurts the film. Having said that, I still enjoyed it on a basic horror film level. All the ingredients are there, violence, gore, isolated stranded victims, crazed killers, and a large house in the middle of nowhere. Well made, well paced and good enough, just don't expect the Earth! Worth a watch.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Better than part 2., 17 July 2001
Author: eiffel1988221443-2

This is an ok movie. Its about a woman and her friend who are lost in texas. They run into Leatherface, the friend is murdered. The girl is took up to the house. They prepare her for dinner, but she is waiting for a helpful guy to come and pick her up. This movie is better than part 2 so of course its worth seeing. But the plot is pretty much stuff that has already happend, and I guess stuff that will happen through the rest of the series.

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
The best Chainsaw sequel of the old series., 6 December 2004
Author: Prolox from Canada

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Third Chainsaw film seems to ignore the second film, It makes no mention of the incidents in Part 2 & states that only one member of the family stood trial & was then executed named W.E. SAWYER (a name of one of the characters in Part 4) since hitchhiker was killed in Part 1 & Grandpa no doubt died shortly after & with Leatherface in this one, I'm assuming it would have to have been the Cook character (Named in Part 2 as Dreighton Sawyer) simply because KIM HENKEL was a consultant on the film & supposedly hated Part 2 (In fact he he attempted to ignore this one as well & as he stated, attempted to make a true sequel four years later, the truly awful comedy remake of the original, Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE: THE NEXT GENERATION) & opens up with the cannibalistic chainsaw wielding maniac LEATHERFACE (now sporting leg brace due to the horrible chainsaw cut he suffered when chasing Sally at the end of the first movie), creating a new face made out of human skin & then with the help of his new family which includes VIGGO MORTENSEN, sets out to terrorize two Travelers & a Survivalist who made the mistake of stopping in the back roads of Texas. Third film in my opinion is better than the first sequel to the original 1974 horror film. Many may disagree, but I on the other hand found myself enjoying this one more, simply because it tried to take Leatherface back to his roots by making him big & scary & not some bozo who got shoved around like in the second which was really just a horror movie take on the THREE STOOGES & the film plays it straight amidst loads of black humor creating plenty of tension. I just recently seen the uncut version on DVD & was somewhat shocked at the amount of gore footage they cut simply because it didn't really seem very violent or bloody when compared to what most studio's are releasing these days, even when it was just the R rated video cassette versions of the film that was available a few years back I still thought this was better than Part 2 (Don't get me wrong though I still loved the second film) New Line Cinema tried to make this come close to the original & in my eyes they created a good a sequel as they could at least as it regards to the original series. Director Jeff Burr also does a great job creating tension through out the film & the acting is above par for this type of film. Followed by a sequel four years later Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE: THE NEXT GENERATION

***1/2 stars

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
If you can't trust Strider, who the hell can you trust?, 14 September 2007

Author: ba.harrison from Hampshire, England

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I first caught Leatherface, the third in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre series, many years ago at an all-night horror movie festival in London, and was mightily impressed by what I saw. Although it seemed to ignore everything that had happened in the second film, this instalment was damn scary and extremely bloody, which is pretty much all I ask for in most horror films.

Recently I bought the film on DVD, keen to repeat the experience; but it wasn't as I remembered: lighter on the gore and with a daft ending that sees three supposedly dead characters pop up in the final reel, Leatherface had been mutilated!!! Fortunately, the DVD had the original ending as an extra, and a short documentary showed some of the missing footage, but it's a shame that director Jeff Burr's original vision was screwed around with to such an extent by the MPAA and its studio. Had it been left as was intended by its makers, I think this film would have more fans.

Part 3 sees an unhappily married couple (played by William Butler and Beth DePatie), travelling from California to Florida, who are duped (by Aragorn, of all people!) into taking a detour whilst passing through Texas. It's not long before they are running for their lives from chainsaw wielding Leatherface and the rest of the cannibalistic Sawyer clan, accompanied by a weekend warrior (who they quite literally bump into).

With plenty of scares (the introduction of the power-tool mad titular character is particularly effective), lots of great gore (KNB provide plenty of yucky moments, but make sure you watch the unrated version PLUS the extras to get maximum enjoyment), and a solid cast (DePatie is a great screamer, Ken Foree is very good as the kick-ass survivalist, and Viggo Mortensen gives a performance worthy of a multi-million dollar blockbuster), Leatherface has plenty to offer fans of the series.

I've not watched the R-rated version, and doubt I will. The unrated version with the shockingly silly ending is worth a look, and gets 7/10 from me. But the original cut, with all of its magnificent gore and far classier finish, is worth an 8.

---

3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Get it uncut. A lot better now than when first released., 8 October 2006
Author: rixrex from United States

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 saw the uncut, unrated version recently and it improved more than 100%.

It's spooky, atmospheric, relentlessly frightening, with a very good job by RA Mihailoff as Leatherface, whose brutal characterization is the basis for the current Leatherface character by A Briniarski. Also has a great chainsaw, plenty of great character actors doing what they do best, as great characters.

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.

---

3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Family values and road kill., 7 July 2006

Author: lost-in-limbo from the Mad Hatter's tea party.

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.

---

---

Page 1 of 12:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

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