The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003 film)

On December 5, 2001, Creature Corner.com reported that Michael Bay's newly created company Platinum Dunes (which was created in order to produce low-budget films), had set its focus on remaking The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Early announcements on the site indicated that the story would be told in flashback with actress Marilyn Burns, who starred in the original film, reprising her role as an aged Sally Hardesty recounting the events in the film. It was later announced that the filmmakers had already purchased the rights to the original film.

Early in the film's production the original filmmakers Tobe Hooper and Kim Henkel would be writing a script for the film, but it was unknown at the time whether or not their script would be used. In June 2002, it was announced that Marcus Nispel would direct the film in his directorial debut.[7] Nispel said that he was initially against the idea of remaking the film, calling it "blasphemy" to his longtime director of photography, Daniel Pearl, who had shot the original film. Pearl, however, encouraged Nispel to join the project, as he wanted to bookend his career with Chainsaw films.[8]

It was later announced that Scott Kosar signed on as the film's screenwriter.[9] As in the original 1974 version, it is loosely inspired by the real-life crimes of Wisconsin serial killer Ed Gein. Gein's crimes had also inspired novels such as Psycho and The Silence of the Lambs, both of which were later adapted into subsequent films.[10]

The screenplay was written by Scott Kosar, who went on to write the screenplays for The Machinist[11] and Platinum Dunes' remake of The Amityville Horror.[12] The film was Kosar's first professional job as a screenwriter and later recalled feeling both thrilled and honored at the prospect of writing the screenplay for the remake. Kosar also realized early on that he was dealing with "one of the seminal works of the genre" and one that could not be bettered. When discussing with the film's producers, Kosar felt that the new film shouldn't try to compete with the original film, as he felt that it was made under different circumstances. In earlier drafts Erin, the film's main character, was revealed to be nine months pregnant throughout the film but was removed from later drafts at producer Michael Bay's insistence.[13]

Jessica Biel, who previously starred in the television series 7th Heaven, was cast as the main character Erin.[7]

Actor Andrew Bryniarski, who starred in Bay's Pearl Harbor and stayed friends with him afterwards, personally met with producer Bay and asked him for the role of Leatherface. Another actor, named Brett Wagner, was cast for the role before Bryniarski, but, on the first day, the actor was hospitalized and fired for lying about his physical abilities. Without an actor for the film's main antagonist, the filmmakers called and asked if Bryniarski still wanted the role, which he accepted. To prepare for the role, Bryniarski ate a diet of brisket and white bread in order to get his weight to nearly 300 pounds. Bryniarski would later reprise his role as Leatherface in the film's prequel.[14]

Nispel favored shooting the film in California, but Bay suggested Texas, where he had previously shot three times.[15] Principal photography began in Austin in July 2002[16] and lasted 40 days.[15] Nispel intentionally shot the film in a different style, using more traditionally narrative elements, as he did not want to make a shot-for-shot remake replicating the original film's documentary-like style.[17] Cinematographer Pearl explained from an on-set interview: "People ask me, 'Is it going to be as gritty and grainy as the last one I did?' No. I did that. There's no point in making the exact same film with the exact same look."[18]

The remake includes references to the previous film, including John Larroquette, who returns in his role as the film's narrator.[19]

The weather during filming was very hot and humid. Bryniarski, who portrays Leatherface in the film, did all his own stunts and was forced to wear a "fat suit", which increased his near-300 lbs to 420 lbs. The suit also heated up quickly, so the actor had to ensure that he drank a lot of fluids before a shoot. Leatherface's mask was also a problem; the mask was made out of silicone and was difficult for the actor to breathe through. The crew had many prop chainsaws for actor Bryniarski to use, such as chainsaws that put out smoke, and live chainsaws.[14]

Actress Erica Leerhsen at the film's premiere, October 15, 2003

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was released in North America on October 17, 2003, in 3,016 theaters.[20] It grossed $10,620,000 on its opening day and concluded its opening weekend with $29.1 million, debuting at number 1 at the U.S. box office.[20] Within 17 days of its release, the film had grossed over $66 million in the US.[21]

The film opened in various other countries in the following months (including a Halloween release in the United Kingdom)[22] and grossed $26.5 million, while the North American gross stands at $80.6 million, bringing the worldwide gross to $107 million.[5] The film's budget was $9.5 million, making it the highest-grossing film of the franchise even when adjusted for inflation. Adjusted for inflation as of 2018 the film would have grossed over $162 million.[5]

Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes shows an approval rating of 37% based on 159 reviews; the average rating is 4.9/10. The site's critic's consensus states: "An unnecessary remake that's more gory and less scary than the original."[23] Metacritic, another review aggregator, calculates an average of 38%, indicating "generally unfavorable reviews".[24] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B+" on an A+ to F scale.[25]

Manohla Dargis of the Los Angeles Times praised the polish of Pearl's cinematography (in contrast to his grittier work in the original), though noted: "The remake moves faster and sounds louder, but comes off as callous rather than creepy."[26] Robert K. Elder of the Chicago Tribune gave it three out of four stars and called it "an effectively scary slasher film" despite its absurd premise.[27] William Thomas of Empire rated it three stars out of five and wrote: "You'll have to overcome resentment towards this unnecessary remake before you can be properly terrorised but, on its own terms, it plays well."[28] Roger Ebert gave the film a rare zero stars out of four, calling it "A contemptible film: Vile, ugly and brutal. There is not a shred of reason to see it. Those who defend it will have to dance through mental hoops of their own devising, defining its meanness and despair as 'style' or 'vision' or 'a commentary on our world'."[29] Variety gave the film an unfavorable review, writing that the film was an "initially promising, but quickly disappointing retread of a hugely influential horror classic".[30]

Peter Travers of Rolling Stone awarded the film two stars out of four, writing: "Director Marcus Nispel, acclaimed for his ads and music videos, has a sharp eye and the good sense to hire Daniel Pearl, who shot the first Chainsaw. But all the bad-rehash mojo from Friday the 13th to The Blair Witch Project has infected Scott Kosar's script. Hooper went for primitive, Nispel goes for slick. Hooper went easy on the gore, Nispel pours it on" and called the film "soulless".[31] Dave Kehr from The New York Times gave the film an unfavorable review, noting: "Rather than exhilaration, this bilious film offers only entrapment and despair," further commenting that the film was about as much fun as sitting in on an autopsy.[32] Leonard Maltin awarded the film 1.5 stars out of four, complimenting the film's intensity but criticized the lack of likable characters and the lack of humor which was present in the original, stating, "Once it kicks into gear, it's brutally unrelenting toward its unappealing characters and the audience."[33]

On SBS' The Movie Show, Australian critic Margaret Pomeranz said this was the first film she has walked out of (giving it half an hour) and declined it a rating while fellow host David Statton rated it one star.[34] "I was in a cinema and there was about 10 single men sitting around, and I just thought, I don't have to see this", she says. "So yes, I did walk out. I choose to embrace movies, but there is a lot of average movies out there. You just have to try and look at the good things in them. Certain genres are not to my taste — prison dramas, man's cruelty to other men or women … I used to embrace violence in cinema in a lot of ways, but I'm reacting against that."[35]

The BBC's Jamie Russell gave the film some praise, referring to it as "a gory, stylish, and occasionally scary push-button factory of shocks and shrieks remarkably better than anyone had the right to expect." but goes on to lament, "if the filmmakers could churn out something this decent, why didn't they shoot an original script, or even a sequel to Hooper's 1974 classic instead of a remake?"[22] The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw awarded the film two stars out of five, referring to it as a "bullish revival" of the original, adding: "The movie finds tastily grotesque Diane Arbus locals to freak out our poor heroes and heroines. Everything is as unsubtle as you like, and let's face it, unsubtlety is the order of the day."[36]

Stephen Hand wrote a novelization that was published March 1, 2004, by Black Flame.[41] Hand previously wrote the novelization for Freddy vs. Jason, also for New Line and Black Flame.[42]