La matanza de Texas 2

Aceptable solo como guilty-pleasure trash con un atractivo sentimiento pervertido. Como secuela del clásico de terror serio y fuerte La matanza de Texas, se burla literalmente de sus fans. (11.08.2002)

Envidio a la gente que pudo disfrutar de La matanza de Texas 2. Hice lo que pude, y ciertamente no tenía grandes expectativas para la película: sabía de antemano que la secuela iba por su propio camino como comedia de terror y no tenía casi nada en común con la primera La matanza de Texas. Sin embargo, incluso como un paso separado en una dirección diferente, me extrañó por completo, no fue entretenido y al final fue molesto. Un desquiciado Dennis Hopper agitando una motosierra es un fuerte atractivo (era lo que más esperaba de él), pero desgraciadamente ahí se acaba la justificación de su presencia en la película y no muestra mucha sorpresa hacia el final. El resto de la película tal vez no merezca la pena ni mencionarlo: los últimos minutos, en el mejor de los casos, copian la primera y, en el peor, intentan hacer una extraña parodia, que me hizo sacudir la cabeza, todo ello en los decorados más kitsch permitidos por el mayor presupuesto del quisquilloso estudio Cannon Films. (15.01.2019)

How to construct on an unbeatable cult classic? Just go in a completely different direction. Despite the hard-headed fans (and apparently also the equally clueless producer, Menahem Golan), Tobe Hooper approached the challenge of making the second Texas Chainsaw Massacre by forging a connection to his breakthrough film in terms of plot, but thoroughly distancing himself from it in terms of style. Instead of a terrifyingly evocative horror movie with a clear distinction between the victims and the monsters, he came up with a hysterical splatstick satire of the 1980s and that decade’s consumerism and cannibalising capitalism, as well as of American values, with the family representing the foundation of the state, hardworking small business owners, honest work that bears fruit, and even western sheriffs personifying all that is right in the world. The opening sequence indicates not only the shift in style, but primarily the period that Hooper is depicting and commenting on. Instead of idealistic hippies, we have here aggressive 1980s hicks who, through their behaviour, have more in common with the brutal monsters from the first film. Accordingly, Leatherface and his family have to put more effort into their ghastly work, and not just literally. The film’s central motif is madness, which in this case isn’t a fall into the depths as opposed to the sense and rationality of reality, but rather the all-encompassing principle of American society in the 1980s. Among the insipid small-town bumpkins, affected teenagers, obsessive cops looking for revenge and cannibalistic degenerates, the only at least seemingly sane character is the female protagonist. Over the course of time however, as she comes face to face (literally, in the brilliant pantry scene) with the horrors depicted in the film, she begins to accept the embrace of the blissful madness of the whirling dervishes brandishing chainsaws. Hooper again brilliantly stages a cacophony of hysteria, suffering, terror and deviant delights, though by different means this time out. Whereas in the first film Hooper got by with a small, confined space, deflected camera angles, impressive montages and an almost industrial soundtrack, this time he shapes the plot not just in terms of space, but also the dramaturgical concept of a bombastic carnival house of horrors spread out into a huge labyrinth packed with morbidly unhinged freaks, where human remains are turned into oddments and whose walls resonate with the guttural roar of depravity and terror, alternating with hard rock thundering from the radio in the first half of the film. (21.12.2014)

Caroline Williams is great and the film manages to pull you in. Unfortunately, the film doesn't have the same atmosphere as the first installment. Hooper took a different path, a path of madness and insanity that emanates from the Sawyer family characters in every moment they are on the screen. They are insane and that's what makes them terrifying. The horror is then enhanced by excellent effects that are simply enjoyable to watch. Otherwise, it can be said that this is not something that would be a suitable successor to the first film. It's different, it has its positives, but it doesn't get under your skin as deeply. (23.10.2014)

If the first one was (and forever will be) horror gold, this is a garbage mix of sick polecat excrement. It takes a truly indescribable amount of creative imbecility to bring the most frightening villain imaginable to the point of inducing fits of laughter, something Tobe Hooper unfortunately contracted after his initial success. I understand that it deliberately plays on a lighter note, but you really don't see trash this bad and totally incoherent through and through – Dennis Hopper needed the money for drugs so badly in the mid-eighties that he signed up for this gem. The only small good things I see are the passable music, the make-up effects (especially the grandfather is great) and the whiny woman who doesn't look bad in a mini skirt and is responsible for the best scene of the film – a chainsaw running over her exposed thigh. 20% (01.05.2017)