Bonus Doc: Terror in the Aisles- The TV Cut

 What happens when a Film that once existed solely as a Special Feature gets its own?

Well, for some backstory, the 1984 Documentary I covered recently was first rediscovered and put on the Blu-Ray release of Halloween II.

It's also the version that cut Mustapha Akkad's credit, so nothing is perfect.

In 2020, Terror got its own release and that came with Special Features of its own.

Besides the usual- Interviews with people involved- they also included the TV Cut of the Film.

How different is it?
Let's find out...

For starters, they didn't go through this version of the Film and restore it.

So, I put this shot from the previous Review in for comparison.
Do you miss the crisp HD look at Pleasence talking directly at you through the screen?

The main difference here is that they use a whole bunch of DIFFERENT Films for Clips and references.

It is not a full replace, but you get to see stuff that features less (or no) blood and no Nudity.

As such, let's put a Film in that was super recent at the time- Firestarter.

Remember in that last bit I talked about how they used different Films due to content.

Well, I should also point out that they include THE ENTIRE Dream Sequence from An American Werewolf in London.

The shooting, the stabbing and all of the nightmare fuel of it!

Credit to the Editors in some regards though.

The part where they talk about Nudity is obviously different for the TV Cut.

That involves selective cutting, like going right to the lady diving into the Ocean in Jaws, rather than letting you see the back of her for a few seconds.

This Version also features A TON of Universal content here too.

We get the Metalluna Mutant, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, the giant Mantis and the Film that inspired the fear of all cat owners.

The Incredible Shrinking Man.

The TV Cut also features footage from a Film I somehow haven't seen (or completely forgot that I have)- The Funhouse.

Remember, this was put in there to make it safe to run on TV in the '80s.

What even were the standards.

Lastly, I should mention that stuff you wouldn't even think of for a Film called Terror in the Aisles is in this Cut.

For example, the Book Collecting/Burning Scene from Fahrenheit 451.

At least they accidentally included something that has inspired real fright in the last couple of years.

All in all, the TV Cut is fine...but maybe bother restoring that one too, folks?
Just a suggestion.

Doc(umentary) Hollywood: Terror in the Aisles (1984)

 What is Horror?
Well, forget that question- this is about TERROR Films.

This is Terror in the Aisles, a 1984 Documentary about Thrillers and the Horror Genre.  It was actually released in some areas as That's Shock!, as a play on That's Entertainment, a pair of '70s Documentaries about Hollywood Films.

This one is a pretty loose attempt to show you a bunch of Horror Movie clips.
There's sort of a message.
There's sort of a point.

Nowadays it would be done on AMC and spread out over like 7 Episodes, so doing it in 80 minutes is a treat.

To see how this nearly forgotten Documentary was restored in recent Years, read on...

Donald Pleasence is here to talk to the Camera during a full Screening of...I guess lots of Films.

He talks about fright and human emotions for a bit in his great voice.

The Film occasionally tries to make a point.

Something about how we seek out terror.
Something about how we enjoy it.

Oh and let's make this topical (and then dated in a week) with him talking about how Texas Chainsaw Massacre was based on the life of Ed Gein.

For some reason, he says it as 'Ed GUY-ne' and not 'Gee-n.'

He also says that, well, he was also a...

'It was acceptable in the '80s...'

Since it is not just about Horror Films, they have more free reign with the clips/segments.

This one heavily features bits from Nighthawks, Vice Squad, Dressed to Kill and Marathon Man, for instance.

Clearly it is not!

For pacing, the Film splits up the Movies selected somewhat by Theme.

After talking about Villains (above), it turns to terror from other places.

Cue Alien, The Thing and, oh, hi Jeff.

I should mention that Donald is not our only Sometimes Narrator.

Nancy Allen also pops in at times, like to talk about how Horror Movie Victims tend to be Women.

Liked Donald, she also doesn't mention when she herself is included in the Clips chosen...

'Dressed to Narrate'

The best and worst thing about the Film is the sheer eclectic nature of the Films highlighted here.

So many are ones you'd imagine- like Rosemary's Baby, Jaws, Psycho and Night of the Living Dead- while others are just a bit odd.

For instance, brief clips can be seen of 1975's Bug (below), Suspiria and even Frogs.
That's a trio that definitely.... goes together?

In summary, some light reflection on humor nature from Donald Pleasence, a shotgun blast of random Film Clips (how else do you have Scanners and Konga in one Film?) and...that's it.

It's weird and kind of fun, even if there's not much of a point.

The End.

I wish I had more to say.

Of course, I wish the Film had more to say.

If you're not big into Films or, you know, obsessed with them like I am, you will probably get more out of this. 
You'll have seen less of the Films. 
You'll have not heard the points 40x by now.

That said, I was entertained.  
It is a bunch of great Films, many silly ones and some less mentioned ones all in one package.

I must again point out some recency bias as the first 1/3 heavily uses Scenes from Nighthawks and Vice Squad- two Films from 1982.
If that's why we get the 'You've got to be f***ing kidding me' Scene from The Thing, I guess I can live with that.

Kudos for mixing in stuff like The Brood, Wait Until Dark, Ms. 45 and others in with the more obvious fare.

Seriously, look at this selection of Films mentioned (for the VERY complicated Film Credits at the end) here and tell me you can find a throughline....

Next up, a proper Halloween Review that is STILL not Trick 'r Treat.  Sorry, but this one is hopefully good and cheesy!  Stay tuned...

Remake This?: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

Could you tell that I was putting this off?  Well, I was.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is the 2003 Remake of the 1974 Classic from Tobe Hooper.  They gave him a token Co-Producer Credit, so that's something.

The new Writer- Scott Kosar- got a weird trend going in his Career.  After this did well, he ended up writing more Remakes in a short amount of time- The Amityville Horror and The Crazies.  He also wrote for Bates Motel, which is not a Remake of that infamous Pilot though.

The new Director- Marcus Nispel- would also go on to Direct a couple of Remakes- Conan and Friday the 13th.

It had been 30 years and the original didn't exactly cost millions of dollars then.
So, can you pour enough money into this to make it better?

If Twitter is any indication, I'm going with 'no.'

To find out, read on...

The Film begins with fake-old footage from the '70s and the return of John Larroquette as the Narrator.

It also introduces a new Element- Found Footage.

We get a tease of 2 Cops investigating the House long after the events of the Film before the Title appears.

Does reminding me of The Poughkeepsie Tapes get this Film off to a good start?  No.

Anyhow, we meet a bunch of young, good-looking people driving through Texas from Mexico.

What they picked up there is a Plot Point.

They almost hit a Hitchhiker and pick her up.

She acts all strange and they tell her that they'll take her home.

She freaks out, draws a gun and shoots herself in the head.

Enjoy the middle part of this one neat, if gratuitous tracking shot out of the Van.
It's the best part of the Film.

They try to call the Police, but the locals aren't much help.

The group is split about what to do.  Some want to just leave the body and go, while the others want to stay.

The fact that they had some pot with them is an issue as well.

This wouldn't be an issue in The Colorado Chainsaw Massacre, of course.

This part of the Film, by the way, feels very drawn out.

Our Final Girl- Jessica Biel- and her boyfriend go to this weird guy's House to call the Sheriff.

Meanwhile, he just kind of shows up at the Van and acts like a dick to the others.
To be fair, was R. Lee Ermey ever cast to play, I don't know, a Friendly Guidance Counselor?

Since, I guess, he's bored, the Boyfriend wanders around the House.

He's somehow snuck up on by a 400-lb man in a creaky house with a hammer and dies.

We later get extra pathos when Leatherface finds a ring he was carrying.

That's nice and cruel- thanks, Movie.

Did you want an Origin for Leatherface?

Well, you get one!

He had some sort of disease and his nose eventually rotted off.  That's why it's okay that he murders people and skins them?

Skipping ahead, the Cast is whittled down to just Biel and the nerdy guy Morgan.

The Sheriff beats him up- because cruelty- and she ends up with the family.

There's oddly NO Dinner Scene in this one- this is the closest you get.

In a prolonged bit, she rescues Morgan, they hide and then Leatherface kills him.

She cuts off the baddy's arm and runs over the Sheriff, escaping Town with the baby that the Family stole from the Hitchhiker.

The End.

Oh wait- not really.

We need to wrap up the Intro too.

The Cops go down to the Basement and get killed by Leatherface, even giving us the Cannibal Holocaust shot (below).

Somehow, the Family escaped...to never return, since there's no Sequel to this one somehow.

The *real* end.

A Film that does many things right, but so many things wrong.

I'm going to feel like I'm repeating myself after covering The Hills Have Eyes Remake.  Both Films are interesting because they are Horror set in the daytime and in real places.  That is in contrast to, for instance, the dark Cabin in the Woods or the creaky old Castle.

This one has ONE Scene like that- the Chase out of the House.

The rest of the Film's big scares happen in the dark Basement, at night OR at night in the rain.

Face meet palm.

Putting that aside, it has good looking people in danger and Ermey is great here, even if his role is barely even two-dimensional.  Hate the game, not the player.

The Film is also very front-loaded, with it taking a good 45 minutes to get to 'the good stuff.'  I'm curious how Audiences reacted to this, as I was not part of them in 2003.

On top of all that, the Film is a weird mix of looking too sleek (as it was shot with 2003 tricks) and too grimey.  Jessica Biel is hot- I'll grant you- but you could always just read FHM at this time to get your fix.

Take us away, accidental bit of Comedy in the Cold Open.

Next up, the 2006 Prequel.  I really went back and forth about whether or not to do it first.  Oh joy.

New Streaming Crap: Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022)

 A worldwide Pandemic couldn't stop a mega-streaming platform from releasing this one on the World.

Is it a cut above the rest or are the dead the lucky ones?

We get an exposition package of the original Film via a TV in a Gas Station.  Thanks, Blair Witch 2.

This means that we're in the 'forget all of the Sequels- THIS is the Sequel' territory a la 2018's Halloween.

Unsurprisingly, there are ALOT of comparisons to that Film here.

A silly contrivance leads to the death of Leatherface's Mother (or at least Mother figure because it has been 48 years) and he suits up to kill the people that dared to be there.

Now it is everyone vs a (let's be generous) 68-year old Leatherface.

So yeah, they're f###ed.

Can a returning Laurie...I mean, Sally be the one to put the killer down?

And yes, let's address the obvious- the original Actress died in 2014, so this Not Laurie is also a Not Sally.  It's also not her fault, but still.

Yikes.  This one is...yeah, it's bad.

It was test-screened and then sold to Netflix thanks to COVID Shutdowns.  It's too bad that this didn't shutdown by TV!

The whole idea is...not great either.  Hipsters come to make a new community in a Ghost Town...only one person lives there.  It just HAPPENS to be Leatherface, who somehow eluded Sally and the Cops for nearly 50 years.  Yes, THIS GUY did that.

This one really is an Idiot Story.  It also makes a Mary Sue (or Larry Stu) out of Leatherface.
He's got to be nearly 70 here, but he has super-strength (breaking a man's arm with ease), super-speed (he somehow disappears in an alley in 3 seconds) and is nigh invulnerable (he walks off being shot, stabbed and hit by a car).  He's just ridiculous.

The victims are also pretty damn dumb.  If you were facing down a giant with a chainsaw, would you threaten to 'cancel him?'  No.

Let's face it- this sucks.

Sorry, Tobe Hooper.

Lost in Translation?: Leatherface (2017)

Japan is good for a lot of things.
One of the biggest things- making great Movie Posters!

Take, for instance, their Poster for the 2017's Leatherface…

That's...interesting.

This is apparently something from the Film, but...still...um, this is Leatherface?

Is this *really* the most logical way to sell a Film like this?

Here's the original...

I mostly just gave it some color and sharpening.

As a bonus, here's the U.S. Poster for comparison...

A bit less silly, no?

New Crap: Texas Chainsaw

When Michael Bay says 'I can't do anything more with you,' what does that say about your Franchise?  Today's film is Texas Chainsaw, yet another film that seeks to be a sequel to the original film.  Seriously, this is like the Godzilla Millennium films- in which all but one was a stand-alone sequel to the original Godzilla- all over again!  It also does one my pet peeves- taking words out of the title for a sequel- to an all-new low/high.  It's one thing to go from The Howling to Howling II, but it's another thing to go from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre to Texas Chainsaw!  What is the logic here?  Did you think that you'd lose the Horror Market with the word Massacre in the title?  Is this a weird example of how we're changing as a society?  You can make horror films about people being cut to pieces by a Chainsaw, but you can't call it a Massacre (in the title)?  If so, that's odd.  Regardless, there is enough to talk/complain about in the actual film without diagramming our society as a whole and its quirks.  Set immediately after the end of the original film, this one explains what happened to the family- ignoring all of the other sequels in the process- and moves to the present day.  That means that there is a pretty major time-gap here to address.  How do they do it?  Well, I won't SPOIL that just yet, but it's worth covering later.  A couple of the original Actors are back, but it's mostly just to appease the 5% of the audience that really expects continuity between the films to be solid.  They clearly didn't see the other films- and will be annoyed later- but that's okay, I guess.  Leatherface is back along with...well, just Leatherface.  Maybe this explains the missing words in the title- they didn't will it to him.  To find out why this film fails on a number of levels, however, you'll have to just read on...

The film plays footage from the original film over the opening Credits.  It mostly serves to remind you how much the original film works, which proves to be a detriment to the film.  It ends with the woman escaping...

 ...and jumps right to the Sheriff- and most of the town- arriving for revenge.  They get the look down pretty well here, to the film's credit.

To the film's discredit, they shoehorn a Gunnar Hansen cameo in and Retcon Bill Moseley- who appeared in the first real sequel as someone else- into the original film.  He's here to say maybe four lines and die.  What was the point of that?!?

After the house is burned down- which sets up a continuity fiasco later-, a child is found with a young female family member.  She's killed (via Orton-style punt kick), but the baby is raised by one of the townsfolk.

Now in the present day, our heroine finds out that a Grandmother she never knew has died.  This leads to a road trip to Texas en route to Louisiana.  Ironically, they filmed the whole movie in that State instead of, you know, Texas!

Sorry, Rick Perry, but Bobby Jindal must have offered a bigger Tax Credit.  Conservative fight!

Just like in the original, the pair pick up a Hitchhiker.  Will this guy go on to be evil and later voice a Power Rangers villain too?  Only time- and SPOILERS- will tell.

This brings us to the film's biggest issue: time itself.  If this film is in set in the Present (which it is), then how is this baby that was born in 1973 only in her TWENTIES then?  I know Texas can be a backwards place sometimes, but time still moves at the same speed there!

They try to hide this all of the time.  Take this piece of Police evidence from later.  Who the hell blacks out the year on stuff like that?  Oh right- lazy Producers!

Since I don't want to SPOIL the whole thing, I'll just give you a basic rundown of the rest of the film.  Leatherface- who should be around 70 here- kills a bunch of people.  Nobody hears or smells him coming, it seems.

Random 3-D shots that add nothing.  That's something you have in common with Silent Hill: Revelation as well.  Interesting.

Oh and lots of silliness ensues.  The highlight: this guys walking around the house later and showing the Police Chief and Mayor (who could just go there) what he sees via Face Time on his phone.  That's...clever?

It all turns extra silly as motivations are revealed, characters turn Vince Russo-style and it all degrades into a mess.  To find out all of the details, watch the movie (if you insist).

Seriously, Platinum Dunes thought that this franchise was done, but you brought it back! This film is highly-confusing, highly-improbable and highly-unnecessary. Where do I begin? You made a direct sequel...forty-years later and still screwed it up. So many things happen in the movie with no major explanation and they really need one. If the Sawyer were reviled and all but one killed, how come Leatherface's little metal den was intact? Wasn't that part of the house? How did it not get burned?  After that, who is the Carson family, how did they get rich and how did they cover up the existence of Leatherface for all of these years?  Never mind the fact that nobody was apparently looking for him when the heroine from the first film had to have mentioned the GIANT WIELDING A CHAINSAW.  Getting past that, Mrs. Carson always knew where the girl was, even after she left the State?  How?  The film's basic plot is just chock full of stuff like that, plus unresolved sub-plots like the boyfriend having an affair with the friend, what exactly the Hitchhiker's real back-story is and so on.  It's a film that is both over-Edited and in need of some serious Editing.  I would start back at the Script phase, but it's too late for that.  In place of R. Lee Ermey, here's someone dressed like Jigsaw (for no reason at all)...

Next up, a look at a user request for a film with a very direct title.  When in doubt, kill Surf Nazis.  Stay tuned...

Forgotten Three-quels: Leatherface- Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3

Dare to see the film that the studio system slashed up more than, well, everyone in this movie!  When this film was released back in 1990, there were some rough times with studio censorship.  Just a few years earlier, the debate was out about the introduction of the PG-13 rating, due to films like Gremlins and Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom.  Never mind the fact that you're releasing a TCM sequel into theaters in an age where mothers are trying to ban CDs that use bad words!  Of course, this lesson was not learned by Adam Green just last year with Hatchet 2, so there's that.  This film is kind of an odd mess is it alleges to be a sequel to the previous two films.  The connection between the first two was tenuous enough (basically, the narration just said so), so this is really stretching it.  The key here, however, is that the focus of the film is Leatherface, as opposed to Bill Moseley constantly scratching his head with a coat hanger.  Does it work?  Unfortunately, the poor guy (whose actor was actually in Hatchet 2) is overshadowed by a man who would become a star later- Viggo Mortensen.  That's right, before he was fighting Orcs, riding horses and fighting Vincent Cassel in the shower, he started out here.  The film is more famous for his presence here, but is it good?  To find out, read on.  Get out your skin varnish for our trip to visit...

The opening narration (why not, I guess?) explains that many of the people involved in the crimes in Texas (see TCM 2) were killed or caught, but some of them escaped.  How?  There is no answer, but it fulfills the Opening Narration requirement for the film, so let's move on.  After that, some random people are killed by the family.  I should probably care more, but I don't.  The only thing that really matters our the main characters, a couple driving through the area.  Good advice- if you see Christopher Lambert out there, do not get involved!  They meet up with a hitchhiker, since that's apparently also a requirement for the series.  If a scene of a woman being dry-humped by a chainsaw is a requirement too, I'm leaving!

Our heroes go to a Gas Station with the drifter (Mortensen) and a fight breaks out.  Why?  Because the owner spies on our heroine in the bathroom (not shown in much detail).  The guy busts out a gun and appears to kill Mortensen as the pair drive away.  We also meet our other hero- the black guy from Dawn of the Dead.  Yes, I know that he has a name, but this seems simpler to me.  The group make it out into the woods where their cars are both attacked by the killer family.  The guy and girl get captured, while Dawn guy escapes.  We meet the whole family, which includes an ancient Grandfather, a mother with a hole in her throat, three brothers (Mortensen, the Gas Station Owner and Leatherface) and a little girl.  Wait- if Mortensen is part of the family, what was the point of that fake fight and death?  Nothing- oh, okay!  Time to nail her hands to the table for dinner!

Like most films of this type, the Third Act does not go well for most of them.  Let's break it down, shall we?  The boyfriend dies in a pretty anti-climactic way, while Mr. Dawn shoots up the house, killing mom and grandpa.  No, he was so old and full of death!  The other brother who's not Leatherface or Mortensent meets a grisly fate as well.  Unfortunately, Mortensen is next to go as he's lit on fire by Dawn guy.  No throne for you!  Dawn and our heroine escape into the woods, but Leatherface is close behind.  After a rough fight, Leatherface seems to win the day, while our heroine escapes.  She makes it to her truck to leave when Dawn appears- alive.  Wow, that was surprising...and illogical.  Maybe we'll get a happy...the other brother isn't dead after all, but becomes dead a moment later.  Leatherface, meanwhile, lives to saw another day.  The End.

Family- what a downer!  The plot of this movie is about as simple as it could get, save for a few moments designed to fool the audience.  Ultimately, the whole thing is too simple and direct.  I guess I can't blame them for focusing on the family, but it costs them a bit for actual plotting.  So much of the film is people running around in the dark woods to pad the run-time out.  The rest of the film is so focused on showing the Bean family acting weird and violent that everything else suffers.  That said, my problems with it are probably reasons why it's so popular with other people.  Here's the thing- I don't want to empathize/be amused with/by a killer.  That's my key problem with the later Nightmare on Elm Street films as well.  No matter how popular they may become, they are still killers!  The heroes should be the heroes, as opposed to just fodder for the film's body count between character moments with the villains.  This mindset seems to come around every once in a while, the most recent example being the Saw films.  My random tirade aside, this is a sub-par movie that benefits from a controversial reputation.  Is there a lot of blood and guts?  Yes.  Is there a lot of interesting moments and a plot?  No.

Next up, alligators attack a small town (in Romania) one more time.  Betty White is not here...because she has an agent.  Stay tuned...