You cannot make a direct, straight-faced sequel to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. You just can’t. Too much time has passed. Can you make a film set in the same world as the original? That briefly references or maybe even parodies the original while doing its own thing? I believe so, as that has been done before i.e., in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. This latest sequel from Netflix however, produced by Evil Dead and Don’t Breathe director Fede Álvarez, tries to be a follow up to the original but at the same time its own creation. When combined, the two efforts result in a dull, occasionally fun but overall pathetic film.

A group of young entrepreneurs settle into a small Texan ghost town to kickstart a business. Not long after they arrive, they encounter the notorious Leatherface and, through their own arrogance and greed, drive him into a murderous mania.

You can’t really break Texas Chainsaw Massacre down and point out where it’s wrong and where it’s right because it’s quite clear that the film’s issues emerged long before it was even shot. Texas Chainsaw Massacre can’t decide whether it wants to be a serious sequel to the original or an indulgent ironic romp, so it tries to be both.

It’s at its best when it’s being an indulgent ironic romp, where it’s totally detached from the original, where it takes Leatherface and just drops him in a modern environment of zoomers and iPhones. It doesn’t get quite as mad as Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 but it’s still fun. It’s so fun in fact you think that maybe the film’s trying to be a parody or a satire of recent horror reboots.

Unfortunately, the film proves you wrong as it tries to get you to care for its bland characters and to actually believe that somehow, almost 50 years later, the original Leatherface is still well enough to wield a chainsaw.

If the film was a tongue-in-cheek romp, there wouldn’t be really anything wrong with the characters being the stereotypical zoomers they are. Since the film wants us to care for them however, something is very wrong. I cannot believe that these characters exist in the same world as the original’s cast, I’m not saying that the latter were perfect, three-dimensional characters but their chemistry felt a lot more authentic.

Only one of Texas Chainsaw Massacre’s cast plays somewhat like an ordinary person. Elsie Fisher plays Lila, the sister of one of the entrepreneurs. She resembles a young woman of the zoomer generation; she’s creative, an amateur photographer and a little socially awkward. She is also a survivor of a school shooting.

That’s right. Texas Chainsaw Massacre tackles gun violence.

Lila is of course still traumatized by the incident but through her battle with Leatherface, she escapes his reign of terror and recovers from her trauma, doing so in a way I don’t think is particularly tasteful, especially for actual survivors of gun violence.

As if Texas Chainsaw Massacre couldn’t become any more generic or misinformed, the plot brings in Sally, the survivor of the original, and fashions her into an avenger like Laurie in the recent Halloween series.

Is it worth watching for the fun bits? I’m not sure. That depends on your relationship with the original. I respect it as a classic but was never personally fond of it. When I finished Texas Chainsaw Massacre, my initial response was that it was boring and not well written. The following night however, I watched the original for the first time in years, and when I finished that, my dislike for its recent sequel intensified. If there’s one thing Hollywood should learn from this film it’s to leave The Texas Chainsaw Massacre alone. It’s a precious time capsule of a disturbing period in American history. It can be parodied, satirized and played with in a few ways but it can never be topped. Leave it be.

I give Texas Chainsaw Massacre a miserable 4 out of 10.