Saw X (2023)

SEPTEMBER 29, 2023

GENRE: SURVIVAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

Let's get the most important thing out of the way first: the red dungeon logo is back! Lionsgate had phased it out in the early '10s, and since they basically stopped making horror movies it wasn't really an issue, but many fans (including me) were bummed that they didn't resurrect it for Jigsaw or Spiral. But this time they listened, and it really did go a long way into making Saw X feel like we were back in familiar territory after those aforementioned films went so far out of their way to welcome newcomers instead of catering to the hardcores.

It's ironic, then, that this movie also does that, but in a way that is still satisfying to the Saw faithful in ways those two were not. Once again they have designed a film for people who may have given up on the series along the way, but instead of making it a twist (Jigsaw) or just going off in a completely unrelated story that takes place in the same world (Spiral), this one just presents itself as an entry that takes place in between Saw I and II, something that's obvious right off the bat. If memory serves, Saw II took place six months after the first film, and at the beginning of II John "Jigsaw" Kramer is on an oxygen machine and needs help getting around, so anytime we see Kramer up and about, we know it's prior to that film. The only reason we know for sure this takes place after the first movie was given away in the movie's marketing, but treated as something of a reveal about forty minutes into this one, so if you haven't seen the trailers yet, you might want to steer clear if you want to preserve the surprise.

Still here? OK, so we know it's after Saw I because Amanda is shown to be helping John throughout this one, with her face healed up from her appearance in that one. This allows the film something we never really got before: extended scenes of John and Amanda talking, working as a unit, etc. In Saw II her being his accomplice was one of the twists, and of course in Saw III he was at death's door throughout, so it's only been a handful of flashbacks (in III and VI) that we've seen them together with all their facilities intact. And, again, they were flashbacks, so they were overshadowed by whatever was happening in the present day story. That's not the case here; even though it's a prequel story, it's ENTIRELY a prequel, without any present day scenes, no bookending or anything like that. For all intents and purposes, with the exception of "ruining" Saw II's twist re: Amanda (and a post credits scene I'll mention later), you could just watch this one directly after the original and then keep going after there - it's basically Saw 1.5.

It's also director Kevin Greutert's "revenge" of sorts for the untimely box office failure of Saw VI, which despite being universally agreed as one of the best entries, ended up being clobbered in theaters by both the reception of Saw V and the surprise powerhouse of Paranormal Activity. So it's nice to see this one getting healthy reviews AND box office, as once again the target is the healthcare industry. If you recall in VI (though this isn't necessary info to have beforehand, I should stress) John mentioned a doctor in Norway that had a radical treatment he wanted to try, only for his insurance to turn him down (hence why he went after the whole lot of them). This takes place, presumably, shortly thereafter, when John learns that the doctor's daughter Cecilia is also providing those rogue treatments, albeit in Mexico, and has an opening. John heads there, undergoes the surgery, feels optimistic, and then accidentally discovers that the whole thing was a sham, and he was just knocked out with anesthesia for a bit - they didn't even really cut into his head a bit to sell the ruse!

So naturally, he calls up Amanda and has her round up the doctor (Synnøve Macody Lund) and her accomplices, brings them to a fairly standard Saw-esque basement dungeon, and puts them through death traps. But he doesn't do this one at a time, or have them make their way through a building like the groups in II and V - they're all in one room the entire time, each locked into their own unique trap. So John and Amanda will talk for a bit, and then tell one of the four that their test is about to begin, at which point we get a traditional trap scene, and then the cycle repeats. There are some complications of course, primarily another victim of their scam who comes around wanting his money back but doesn't quite agree with Jigsaw's methods of refunding, but it's a refreshing twist to the formula, as most witnesses to trap scenes either have a good reason not to help (Jeff in Saw III) or have to inflict some kind of pain on themselves to do so (William in VI), but here they're helpless, chained to their own trap and rooting for each other to succeed as one getting free would presumably be able to help free the others or at least run for help.

And it really works well! The traps are impressive, with only the mildest deja vu reminding us of others (namely VI) as they're all medically-charged in some way - a self surgery, a radiation wave set to "melt", etc. The story also remains suspenseful even with the prequel element weighing it down some (i.e. we know John and Amanda will succeed/survive), as some new sympathetic characters are worked into the mix and could theoretically survive even though we've never seen them again (this series can retcon anything, so they're never painted into a corner in that way). And Lund is a wonderful antagonist, as her accomplices are a mix of losers that were posing as healthcare practicioners, but she actually has the background and know-how for what she claims to be doing, so when John is explaining the traps to them, you can almost see her smile at times, impressed with the science behind them and also not really caring if any of them die because it's one less person to split John's payment with. This series has always had trouble coming up with worthy adversaries for Kramer, so it's nice to see one who (if she survives) could be on his level but (for once) not a potential accomplice.

I guess at this point I should note it's a slower paced entry than the others; in fact it's the longest entry in the series but has the lowest body count (four, or five if you count the post-credits scene, which I'll get to soon, promise!). They even throw in a dream scene early on to provide the movie with some kind of Saw type moment in its first act, as it otherwise acts as a full on drama for the first half hour or so. Apart from the dream scene and a cutesy joke about what he does for a living ("You're sort of a life coach?" they ask, and he says "Something like that") there is nothing in that first chunk of the film to suggest this is anything but a drama about a cancer patient trying a new treatment, and Bell is clearly relishing having a chance to explore the character in ways we've only seen in brief flashbacks in the past. Telling a complete story, in sequence (the only flashbacks are the usual "here's footage from before now that you know something new" montages), is something the series has literally never done before, as they've all had two timelines or hefty uses of flashbacks (even Spiral), and it pays off in his performance. Shawnee Smith unfortunately doesn't get as much to do (and she's saddled with a hideous wig to help with her de-aging), mostly going through the same inner turmoil she had in III, but again, seeing her and John discuss matters as mentor/mentee (and a whiff of father and daughter) for more than a few seconds in a flashback is a welcome sight.

It could have been a little tighter, though. For example, Amanda makes her grand reveal (the trailer shot) when she helps John kidnap Lund's character, but then we get flashbacks showing how she was the muscle behind the kidnapping of the three accomplices, and we see her pull the mask off for each one of those too. I mean, not for nothing, but she gets them all when they're isolated and then walks around without her mask in front of them for the entire movie, so why she even needed the pig mask in the first place is beyond me, but we certainly didn't need to spend another 90 seconds of the movie watching her do it over and over. Even the trap scenes themselves run a bit long, which has a weird (presumably unintentional) side effect, in that they kind of seem unfair at times. One victim actually does as they're asked with regards to the self mutilation, with another minute (!) to go to put the gory stuff in the device that will unlock their shackles, but the tubing that runs them together is just slow I guess? So they die anyway? It's one thing if they're slow and are "too late" because the clock runs out just before they finish mangling themselves, but to go through all the work (i.e. choosing to live) and then die because the trap was being sluggish seems cheap.

And the post-credits scene (obvious spoilers here, so skip this paragraph if you haven't seen it yet) is one of those things that opens up other questions, and also seems to suggest another cheap move on John's part, as he's shown trapping another accomplice (the person who told him about the treatment) along with... Hoffman! Who we haven't seen since Saw 3D and is, in the current timeline, presumably still sitting in that bathroom. Neither of them are masked, so I guess they plan to just shoot the guy if he survives his trap, but being reminded of his other accomplices makes me wonder why, when going up against medical jerks, John didn't enlist Gordon and/or Logan to help out, as they'd presumably be better to have on hand to help with all these medically-centric traps than Amanda the heroin addict. And Hoffman's appearance is spoiled early, when John makes a phone call asking for help, and it could have been to Amanda (or at least, we could have just assumed it was) but he starts the call with "Detective", giving it away early that Hoffman might be showing up (the trailer didn't help, using his one line of dialogue and giving it away to anyone who recognized his voice). Didn't they learn their lesson in Saw 3D when literally no one was surprised to see Elwes pulling off the mask when he already showed up earlier in the movie for a nothing scene?

So there are a couple of missteps, but for the most part it's a fine return to form, offering the best entry since VI and succeeding where the previous two movies didn't quite measure up with regards to toeing that line between making a movie for newcomers and one that can also satisfy, well, the folks who actually keep asking for these things. Fans of Bell as an actor get his biggest showcase to date (even in II and III, when he was still alive, I don't think he's had this much screentime/dialogue), the series gets a formidable opponent in Cecilia, and, via the post-credits scene (a first for the series, save for one on the director's cut of VI), a suggestion that the ongoing story dropped after 3D might actually come back into the fold someday. And we get to see a guy drill his own brains out. What else can you ask for?

What say you?

P.S. Minor spoiler here, but they had an opportunity to tie up a series-long loose end re: how John could afford all this stuff but also needed his insurance to cover his treatments when John finds the doctor's loot, and blew it by having him give it to someone else. Sad!

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Spiral: From The Book of Saw (2021)

MAY 12, 2021

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER, THRILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (IMAX SCREENING)

I'm just gonna get it out of the way first since it's the main question people have had since day one: NO, you do not need to have seen or even have any real awareness of the previous movies to follow/enjoy Spiral: From The Book of Saw. If you've seen the trailer you've also seen the entirety of the film's connections to the previous storyline, i.e. they mention it as a possibility ("A Jigsaw copycat?") for the new threat the (all new) characters are facing, and that's about it. Unlike Jigsaw, which tried to appeal to newcomers and die-hard fans and ultimately pleased few on either side, this one quickly moves on from the tenuous connection and does its own thing, often to its own benefit - though it's occasionally hampered by being "Saw 9" to some extent.

Let's start with what works, since there's more of that. As you probably know, the movie was delayed for a year due to covid, but it feels weirdly timely due to its plot about holding corrupt cops accountable for their crimes. The new killer is targeting dirty cops, and keeping in line with his would-be predecessor, the traps he puts them in have some connection to their actions; in the first one, a cop who lies on the stand to ensure convictions is forced to rip out his own tongue in order to escape with his life, and another who shot an innocent person has his trigger finger (and the other nine) ripped off. Given the protests and "defund the police" type movements that have occurred in the past year (i.e. long after the film was shot), the movie oddly feels "of the moment" and yet simultaneously restrained. With Chris Rock as the hero (a cop himself, but presented as the only non-corrupt one on the force) there will certainly be a sizable Black audience who will cheer for these asshole cops getting their just deserts, but may also wonder why the movie didn't dig deeper unless they too are aware of the film's long delay.

(So let's make it a huge hit, ensuring a Spiral 2 that CAN take the last year into consideration!)

But even in that regard, it's the rare film in the series in which just about every death is one you can feel is justified. With Jigsaw and his accomplices often going after drug addicts and the like (not to mention complete innocents, like Bobby's wife in Saw 3D), it's nice to never have that "OK, did they really deserve this?" kind of moment and just focus on the mystery and Rock's attempts to put it all together without being able to trust any of his fellow officers. His backstory (which, surprise, has a connection to the killings!) is that he "ratted" on a cop who shot an innocent person, which began a chain of events that ultimately left him hated by all the other cops and his Chief of Police father (Sam Jackson, and yes he says his most famous profanity*) losing his job. How and why this all has to do with the present day killings is of course what the movie reveals in due time, so I won't get into that, only to say that it's an interesting way to keep the series' love of flashbacks intact without having to worry about causing any plot holes or inconsistencies with previous entries.

As for Rock (who also came up with the story! He's a legit fan of the franchise!), he is certainly a more believable cop than he was in Lethal Weapon 4 all those years ago, and luckily for him the man has aged well, looking much younger than his actual age of 54 at the time of production. They use this to slightly ridiculous effect at one point, setting a flashback ten years prior (so he'd be 44) by giving him a backwards baseball cap like he was a "kid", but one can assume his character is only supposed to be around 40 (he almost has to be playing younger, since Jackson is only 17 years older than him in reality). And he brings a new idea to the series: humor! Not dark humor, which has crept in from time to time, but actual, Chris Rock-ian humor, sprinkled lightly from time to time just to offer a bit of levity in the early going (for those who may be scoffing, I'll ease your mind by letting you know it's all confined to the first half hour). There's one line to Jackson (concerning a mall) that had me full on cackling, and once I adjusted to it in the early scenes (Rock's first appearance, where he's working undercover as a thief, comes off as a standup monologue) I have to say it worked well.

And again, we're talking about what is technically "Part 1" of a series, so there's no reason to complain "jokes don't belong here" or whatever. Sure, it would be very distracting to have this stuff in Saw VI, but that's not what this is, and it helps establish early on that this is indeed a new thing. I'd liken it to Phase 1 Marvel stuff, where we understood it was all the same world but allowed a. different tones and b. an acceptance of the minimal crossover material. By now, sure, it's weird that Sam and Bucky are the only ones who are tackling a giant terrorist threat in New York (where the hell is Spider-Man, at the very least?), but back then, before they all knew each other, no one thought much of their lack of interconnectedness. Same deal here; not only is it a decade later, but it's an all new set of characters (and a new season! The others always felt "cold" in their minimal outdoor scenes but this takes place during a heat wave) and so the tonal shift is never an issue.

Also, for I think the first time in the series, the real world is specifically established, with references to Forrest Gump and New Jack City (from Rock's own character; didn't he think it was weird he looked just like Pookie?). Characters even discuss things like UberEats and sleep training, which is a foreign concept to the series as these people have never displayed much in the way of normal human activities we can all identify with. It's still unclear where "Metro City" is, though, so they haven't gone completely off the reservoir, but in a weird way it helps us forget about the possibility of Hoffman or Amanda popping up or something, allowing this "new" world to really come to life on its own terms without the weight of eight other films on its shoulders. So much that I can even forgive "Jigsaw didn't target cops", - because he certainly did! - but to suggest otherwise would require them to get too far into mythology, so I will allow this bit of inconsistency for the sake of a cleaner story now.

However, there is one thing that misses the mark revolving the reveal of the movie's villain; I won't outright spoil their identity, but you might want to skip the next TWO paragraphs if you want a cleaner experience.

For those who are still here, even though it's not a traditional sequel, it is still sticking to the basic formula of a Saw movie, and in that respect it doesn't really have any twists, which wouldn't even be a big deal if not for the fact that it's painfully easy to spot who the culprit is. Without being hampered by the established timeline, I was really hoping I could get that giddy "OH S**T!" kind of feeling when I realized what was happening, if I ever figured it out at all before it was spelled out, but I never even got close to that sort of thing here. In fact it was so obvious to me who the killer was that I started expecting/hoping that it was a misdirect, and I even chuckled to myself at one point, because that kind of "you think you see the twist but you don't" move was pulled off quite well in... er, Spiral, the 2007 thriller (where you might start thinking a character is actually all in someone's head because she never talks to anyone else in the movie, only for the twist to be that nope, she was real, and now she is dead). Y'all stole the name but not their clever idea?

(STILL SPOILER-Y!) A friend of mine noted after that maybe after Saw IV's twist, which people had a hard time really following - and may have resulted in the series' declining box office fortunes - the producers may be weary about anything too clever. Saw V didn't even really HAVE a twist, and while Saw VI did, it was a pretty insular one (the bit about William's "family"). The Final Chapter/3D's big twist was Cary Elwes/Gordon's return, but that was spoiled in publicity and the film itself by having him appear in earlier scenes of no consequence, which should have told any viewer that he was going to be revealed as a sidekick (because otherwise why would he come back at all?), and Jigsaw's "half of it was a flashback" concept was also pretty easy to suss out. And while all that is justifiable in some way or other, it seems to me that with an all new story/characters they could at least come up with something as good as "Jigsaw was on the floor the whole time" in the original. But alas, when the guy who I thought was the killer 15 minutes into the movie was revealed to be the killer, I just kind of sighed that it was indeed as simple as I suspected. To be clear, I didn't mind the character being the villain, and his motive is on point (ain't no one gonna feel he's in the wrong, honestly), but felt the way the mystery itself was structured was a bit too obvious. A little subterfuge would have been welcome, basically.

But otherwise, I found myself engaged with the concept and the gradual filling in of the backstory, which we get in pieces along the way and also allows Sam Jackson to sport a mustache in the older scenes to make him look younger. Sam's not in the movie as much as you might hope (I guessed a while back that it was probably four scenes; I was only one off), but it's rare to see him in this sort of thing and he aquits himself nicely. As for the traps, they're not as overly elaborate as you may have come to expect, but they're in line with the simpler ones of the original, and don't rely on too much self mutilation (no "pound of flesh" types); one only required a hard bite down on something to escape death, which, while painful, at least would allow the victim to quickly get it over with, unlike digging out their own eye to get a key or whatever. Charlie Clouser's score is a fine mix of old and new (though using "Hello Zepp" should be illegal without a better twist!) and while I missed his (practical!) transitions, Darren Bousman reigns in some of his flashier sensibilities to match the "back to basics" tone and story. It's even in widescreen to help distinguish it from his three previous films, along with a new color pallette and more exterior scenes than the norm - it's one of his best films as a director, not just within this franchise. It's even kind of scary in a few moments; the old films didn't really have time for scares after a while with so much plot to handle, but here there's a couple of legit jumps.

Long story short, it's hard and even a bit unfair to compare to the Saw films in general - I can certainly say it's the best since Saw VI (though I know that isn't exactly a high bar to clear), but it also feels like comparing a singer's solo album to his band's entire discography. So let's not focus on that, and instead consider how successful it is in terms of trying to restart the series in a way that newcomers can enjoy - and to my eyes, it's a winner. Let's put it this way: if it was its own thing entirely, sans its quick references to John Kramer, my review would basically be "It's a solid thriller slightly hampered by a mystery that's too easy to solve and some surface similarities to those old Saw movies." And for what it's worth, there have certainly been a number of whodunit slashers where I could guess the killer ahead of time and it didn't take away my enjoyment, so it's really only the Saw branding here that made me feel a little let down by that element. So basically, the less you know and care about this franchise, the more likely you are to enjoy Spiral, but fans of the series should, at the very least, feel satisfied with what they have come up with as a way to revive it in a way that doesn't mess with what came before. With varying degrees, we all win!

What say you?

*The movie also has one direct Pulp Fiction easter egg (can't really miss it, but keep an eye on the door to the cold case room) and one other possible one that ultimately has Jackson saying "Ezekiel". Not sure if someone is just kissing Sam's ass or they wanted to pay tribute to chronologically challenged films of yore, but it struck me as a little weird.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Jigsaw (2017)

OCTOBER 25, 2017

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PREMIERE SCREENING)

Not for nothing, but when I asked anyone who'd listen (OK, let's be honest: I just complained on Twitter) to make another Saw movie, I thought it was understood that I wanted one that resolved Hoffman's fate, showed how Gordon would carry on the legacy, etc. Indeed, the original title for Jigsaw was "Saw: Legacy", which seemed to point in that general direction, though I knew it would likely be more accessible to new fans given the seven year gap since the last one (in fact, the time between the original Saw and its "Final Chapter" was less than the time in between it and this next installment). A blend of easy to follow continuity payoffs and a standalone story would seem to be the best way to go if they wanted to revive the series while also satisfying the fans who wanted it in the first place, right? Alas, they leaned very heavily toward the "standalone" part of the formula, offering a decent enough entry with regards to "A bunch of people in traps get killed while the cops solve a mystery" sort of stuff, but a crushing disappointment when it comes to how it fits in the overall story.

Note that I will be getting into spoilers later in the review, but for now I'm only going to talk about the basic plot. I'll warn you again when the real spoiler-y stuff comes up.

As we all learned in the trailer, a new game has seemingly started, and it all points to being the work of Jigsaw. But they tell us he's been dead for ten years, and everyone has modern cell phones and such, so we're dealing with a present day story as opposed to one that picks up right where the last one left off, which has always been the series' forte. We're also dealing with an entirely new cast of characters - the first time since the original Saw that every single person on-screen was a stranger to us, as opposed to a returning favorite or ongoing sub-villain like Amanda or Hoffman. Again, I knew it wouldn't be super continuity-heavy, but I was legitimately stunned at how disconnected everything was from the ongoing saga, to the extent that when they actually do mention another character (Jill, to be exact) I felt like cheering. Not keeping up with the later entries or having an iron-clad memory of their revelations is one thing - this movie doesn't require you to have seen any of the films at all, even the original. As long as you understand the basic idea (a guy named John "Jigsaw" Kramer places flawed/bad people in death traps and tasks them with earning back the life they've wasted) you're as caught up as you need to be; even the mention of Jill won't confuse anyone - the entire reference is something like "Jill Tuck - you know, Jigsaw's wife? Her family owns this place."

"This place", by the way, is a farm that is housing the current game. It's part of what is actually one of my favorite things about the movie - it's the most visually distinct entry in the series, as it has a number of exterior scenes (always a rarity in these films; some of them never step outside at all), and rarely lets its characters wander around grimy dungeons. The barn setting also allows for different kinds of weapons/tools for the traps - such as two characters who are trapped in a silo that is rapidly filling up with grain, and then things like hoes and metal rakes are dropped on them for good measure. It's also got one of the more nerve-wracking traps in the series: a sort of razor sharp spiral that our victim is being lowered through in order to get the key to his escape, forcing him to refrain from the slightest bit of shifting or else he'd get sliced apart. All this stuff works well; it's very reminiscent of Saw V (their first trap is so similar looking that I thought it might end up being a point of some sort), but the new setting and less hateful characters make it an easier sell. And they're not as self-serving, either - when one person figures out how to bypass the first trap (with shockingly little harm required), she runs around trying to help the others succeed as well, rather than just leave them to rot as some of her trapped predecessors might have done in the past.

As for the other plot, we are introduced to a cop named Halloran (Callum Keith Rennie), a sort of "breaks the rules to get the job done" kind of guy not unlike Erik Matthews, who gets involved early on and shortly thereafter is alerted to a body that seems to be the first victim of the game that's under way inside the barn. The thing is, the body that has evidence on it suggesting that John Kramer is the killer - but he's dead (right?), so Halloran starts trying to figure out who the real killer is. For reasons that escape me, he instantly zeroes in on Logan, the coroner who inspected the body - I assume the thinking was that Logan lied/faked evidence to pin it on Kramer in order to cover his tracks, but that's never actually suggested aloud. Halloran just instantly suspects the guy and his partner Eleanor (Hannah Emily Anderson), with her being under suspicion because it turns out she's a fan of Jigsaw's work. It's one of those things that inorganically happens in movies, where they just need to get to that point and they skip over any meaningful logical path to get there. Anyway, the movie more or less unfolds like all the others, cutting back and forth between the cop-driven mystery and the game that's slowly but surely killing off the cast members, building toward the point where they converge and we get a twist.

If you grew weary of the series' increasingly complicated mythology, and/or bailed before the "final" entry, but enjoyed the general idea, then you're the ideal mark for this particular installment. It's basically a greatest hits album in movie form, taking ideas from the other entries (I, II, and V mostly) and offering them up in rapid succession to maximize the audience's potential for enjoyment. But like a greatest hits album, it lacks the soul that makes that band's actual albums so essential - the movie doesn't really offer anything we haven't seen before on a narrative level. Sure, the "There's blood under the fingernails that matches John Kramer" kind of stuff is interesting, as we've never really seen how this world moved on from Jigsaw as an ongoing threat (as Hoffman and co. kept his games running without pause), but who could possibly believe that Kramer really might be alive? Saw IV's opening was seemingly designed to beat us over the head with the idea that he was definitely not faking his death, so barring some sort of supernatural hooey (or worse, a twin brother) we know it's not that simple and that someone is pulling the strings in his name.

This is where the film's insistence on being a coherent entry point for newcomers sort of handicaps it, as the film only has so many suspects and we can't count on any of our old pals to be involved. I was hoping for something along the lines of Curse of Chucky, where it seemed like a soft reboot for a while only to reveal its ties at the top of the third act, allowing the likes of Hoffman or Gordon to enter the picture (given the film's secretive shoot and the fact that we were the first audience to see it as they didn't do public test screenings, anything was possible), but after a while it became clear that they really did not want to risk alienating anyone by requiring them to... uh, be Saw fans. And if you know how these movies work, you can probably figure out what's really going on long before it's spelled out, and even if you don't it likely won't really shock you when they do. In the earlier entries, I was almost never able to get ahead of the characters, but here I just kept waiting for them to get on with what I already suspected (and then confirmed, albeit in a slightly different manner at least). I mean, it's not the film was bad or poorly made or anything, but after seven years, I just feel they could have come up with something better than this. It's just too safe.

And now we're gonna get into spoilers, so back out now if you don't want the twist ruined for you! You've already gotten more than you need to know to decide if you want to check the film or not, so the rest of the review is specifically for those who are just curious, or have already seen the film and want my take on it!

I'm warning you!!!

OK now that it's just us, let's talk about how the twist not only makes zero sense in the context of the film, but also how the big reveal bites off more than it can chew with regards to the series. At a certain point near the end of the farm-set game, with only two players left, a Pigman enters the scene and fiddles with some shit, then takes off the mask/hood to reveal... John Kramer! Alive and well, and giving the audience reason to let out a big cheer. Again, this is not a supernaturally based series, and even they can't be so dumb as to pull some twin brother shit (they almost seem to be trying to get us to think that, with the minor reveal that John has a nephew), so anyone with a good sense of these things would probably understand right away that this game has been set in the past, seemingly even before the one we saw in Saw II (with Tobin Bell having naturally aged nearly ten years since, it's hard to tell based on his appearance where in the timeline it might be, which was usually how we could more or less place the flashback scenes in the overall chronology). But wait, how can Halloran and Logan be finding their bodies in the present day (established beyond a shadow of a doubt) if this game is at least ten years old? Wouldn't the corpses be pretty rotted out by now?

Turns out, the corpses that are being found in the present day are just more or less freshly killed "stunt doubles" for the original victims in the barn. When the bodies are found, they're all mangled up, so the viewer doesn't notice anything is different and goes along with it just fine. But here's the problem: no one is monitoring the game, and therefore no one involved with finding/inspecting these bodies has any idea of what the original victims looked like (as those original bodies are still just collecting maggots and dust in the barn). So it's basically a cheat for no other reason than to trick the audience, whereas the best twists in the other films always made sense for our characters as well. The closest exception would be Saw IV's reveal that it was taking place at the same time as III, but that wasn't something that any character would have a reason to comment on, and best as I can recall there was never an attempt to make us really believe otherwise - it was just a "hiding in plain sight" thing that didn't really have much of a bearing on anything. When the characters are setting complicated plans in motion for no other reason than to trick the folks on the other side of the fourth wall, I can't help but bristle a bit (another example would be The Village, where the characters inexplicably didn't have medicine on hand for their children, despite the fact that they would have no reason to believe medicine wasn't a thing that existed "yet"), and I expect better out of these movies.

Anyway, by now we know that Logan is yet another one of Jigsaw's apprentices, and has been engineering all this stuff in the present to ensnare Halloran the dirty cop (they really blew it by killing off the series' longtime coroner in Saw 3D - if HE turned out to be one of Jigsaw's guys, it have been a fun little ret-con, plus given the film a much-needed tie to the others). Even if you ignore the idea that Jigsaw had yet another person helping him out (he apparently helped to create the first bear trap, if I'm following one climactic scene properly), there's still the question of what exactly he's been doing all this time. We've seen Gordon, Amanda, or Hoffman setting up pretty much every other trap in the series thanks to the various flashbacks along the way, so what exactly Logan brought to the tabel is a mystery, as is why he apparently waited ten years to spring into action and take down this cop that he had a vendetta against. Yes, I know Jigsaw II: Saw IX can answer these things, but that's a bit presumptuous for an attempted revival of a series that only stopped in the first place because of dwindling grosses. If you're going to rewrite history once again, you gotta shine a light NOW on how some of it changed what we already knew, while leaving a few things left open for the next film. This might be part of the problem with having an entirely new creative team (this is the first time in the series that neither Leigh Whannell nor Dunstan/Melton had any involvement with the script), because those guys could plant things in one movie to answer later, knowing how it would work, but that's not an option here. Hell they don't even answer the questions we still had (i.e. is Hoffman alive?), let alone find a way to successfully meld their own reveals with the others.

The word I keep coming back to is "lackluster". It's not a bad movie, really - I just can't see anyone being excited by it, fan or not. Besides the spiral slicer the new traps aren't really all that memorable, the twist is equally obvious and overly complicated (Logan explaining the dummy bodies is possibly the clunkiest exposition this series has ever offered), and I just spent too much of the movie thinking "is this it?". Not the entire time, mind you; I got real excited when the (really kick-ass!) new version of the main theme kicked in (Charlie Clouser joins editor Kevin Greutert as pretty much the only holdovers from the other films, besides the producing team), and it was fun to be back in this world for a while. But once the novelty of "Yay! A new SAW!" wore off, I found myself less and less invested in the film's storyline, ultimately just kind of waiting for it the obvious twist out of the way in optimistic hope that there would be another that was more worthy of the series and more satisfying to the hardcore fans that live for the silly ret-cons. Alas, that better twist never came; the movie ends exactly like Saw V (albeit with a new tagline) and sitting through the whole end credits will only tell you what its MPAA registration number is. As a revival attempt, it's as safe as you might expect - but this is a series that lived by its surprises and ability to trick its fans, so when it fails to do that, what's the point of it even being a Saw?

What say you?

P.S. Despite the ads having a more playful vibe, the film isn't really any more "fun" than the others, and one of the victims' backstory involves rolling over on a newborn in the same bed and suffocating it, which might be the most upsetting thing in the entire series. Just fair warning in case you thought this might be less grim than the others.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Saw 3D (2010)

OCTOBER 27, 2010

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PREMIERE)

While we can't be for sure until the box office receipts are counted and some time has gone by, Saw 3D is supposedly the final chapter in the series, which is the first franchise to ever deliver a record 7 movies in 7 years (not counting pornos, I guess). But more importantly, it never really drastically altered its MO the way other series did. No supernatural nonsense, no "new directions", no "well let's ignore the last couple movies" like other franchises - while they may not agree with some of the storytelling choices, I think James Wan and/or Leigh Whannell can turn on any of the recent Saw sequels (they haven't been involved since Saw III) and recognize it as part of their series.

Of course, on the other hand, that means that this, the 7th and "final" film, is pretty much a fans-only affair. I think Saw VI works as a stand-alone film beyond some minor references and revelations that won't mean a goddamn thing to a newcomer (i.e. Amanda was responsible for Cecil's drug-fueled outburst that killed John and Jill's unborn son), but even though 3D (why did they have to drop the Roman numerals? I loved that they never dipped into subtitle territory!) follows a similar structure as its immediate predecessor, and much effort has been made to keep it newcomer-friendly, the new story isn't really all that compelling, and everything else is largely concerned with wrapping up the power struggle between Hoffman and Jill.

(NOTE - SPOILERS AHEAD!!!)

And even their battle isn't really all that jaw-dropping; it's not until the final reel that it kicks into high gear, with Hoffman going on a crazy killing spree trying to reach Jill (think The Terminator). For the bulk of the film, Jill is just sitting in a police cell (under protection) while Hoffman leaves cryptic clues for Gibson, an IA officer that he has an old grudge with. Since it's the final film, I would have liked to have spent more time with old "friends" instead of new folks, especially when after six films my mind has grown accustomed to trying to figure out how they fit into the big puzzle or relate to the film's other story (something that also sunk Saw V for me) only to discover that this time, they really don't. Gibson has no big reveal or past association with anyone in the other story - he's just a cop that inadvertently helps Hoffman get where he needs to be. Well screw him then! I want more mythology rewriting! Hell, even Tobin barely appears this time around, it's the least amount of screen-time he's has since Saw 1 (unless you count his motionless body on the floor in 1 as "screen-time", then it's the least ever).

The "traps/game" story largely concerns Bobby Dagen (Sean Patrick Flanery), a survivor of Jigsaw who is being truly tested after being kidnapped after a promotional appearance for his book, which details how he survived and how it changed his life. Like Jeff from III or William from VI, his game often requires him to hurt himself to prevent the trapped person from dying, a method that usually fails. But the similarities to those superior films renders a lot of this stuff sort of dull, because his test is more about Jigsaw getting back at him rather than something that might improve his life, and thus less compelling. Jeff and William were flawed individuals - Bobby's just a spineless jerk.

Luckily, the traps are crazy awesome in this one, and Kevin Greutert and co apparently have been watching some Fulci films for inspiration. The auto shop trap seen in the trailers (featuring Chester from Linkin Park and the super hot Gabby West from Scream Queens) offers some of the most gonzo awesome kills in the series' history, and the "be quiet" trap is impressively unique but also something that Argento would applaud (and curse himself for not doing it first). It also offers some of the more cringe-worthy self-mutilation "requirements"; even I had to look away at one point, as a character does something that finally justifies the suggestions of the Saw III poster.

It also brings some humor to the series, which has been largely absent for a while now. Gibson in particular is a delight, and Tobin's first scene has a wonderfully dry opening when he has to spell his name (he's at one of Dagen's book signings - it's a flashback, obviously). And due to the 3D aspect, the kills themselves are much less icky (save for the self mutilations) and more into over-the-top territory, which means you can laugh and cheer instead of going "ewwww..."

Ah yes, the 3D. I'm sort of on the fence. It's technically great - this movie opens things up a bit (an outside trap, several exterior shots) and even the traps themselves are larger, so if any of the movies HAD to be in 3D, it would be this one. And it was SHOT in 3D (not a convert) so it automatically looks better than most of what we're seeing. But I'm not sure it's the right fit for this particular franchise - it felt sort of weird to have characters throwing things at you, as if they were sort of having fun too. Not that I always want a grim-fest, but it feels a bit campy at times. You may disagree, but I've always felt the series is much more intelligent than its given credit for, however this stuff gives it a slightly goofy tone, like a Final Destination movie more than Saw one.

The next paragraph contains a MAJOR, MAJOR SPOILER! DO NOT READ if don't want the ending partially spoiled, OR if you haven't been following the film's production through the websites or what have you!

Of course, the big question is: How does Dr. Gordon fit into the film, and how much? Sadly, he's only in three scenes (four if you count a new ret-con montage), and oddly I wish it was only the one. He plays a big part in the ending, but by that point you KNOW he does because his presence has been so minimal, and you know they wouldn't have bothered to bring Cary Elwes back just to show that he survived (scene #1) and doesn't think much of Dagen (scene #2). Thus, for the first time ever, I called the twist at the end, which kind of bums me out. And his part prevents what could have been an amazing fight between Jill and Hoffman, who find themselves in what seems to be the Jigsaw evidence room at the police station. How awesome would it have been to see them go at it using a bunch of John's old toys? Instead, one just takes care of the other rather quickly, and then gets their own comeuppance at the hands of our returning friend. It's a pretty awesome ending, but it's not as grand as I had initially hoped - I was sort of hoping for a Freddy vs Jason style epic (gory) battle between the two.

However, one thing is certain - Marcus, Patrick, and the rest of the gang have done right by the fans here. All issues have been resolved, Dagen's AA-style survivors' meeting brings back a lot of familiar faces, and, while they don't beat you over the head with it, you do get a sense of what Jigsaw was trying to accomplish with his "method" and more importantly, whether or not it worked. And ultimately, it's a Saw movie. They didn't pull a Jason Goes To Hell and completely change their MO for the finale - apart from the 3D aspect, there's nothing here that would seem out of place in another entry.

And that's what I think will separate Saw from any other horror franchise, though it may take a while for folks to truly appreciate it for it. The team has remained remarkably constant throughout the series, and they never went the H20 route and decided to ignore a few entries so they wouldn't have to deal with the storyline anymore. While they have obviously gone up and down in terms of storytelling/acting quality, we still have six sequels that each pay respect to the original film and the sequels that preceded it - a rarity that may never be achieved again. Most horror series don't even retain any of the core crew past the 2nd or 3rd film - Don Mancini wrote all five Chucky films, but that's about it (and even then, they changed tone drastically, and had 5 different directors). Love em or hate em, no one can deny that they were putting a lot of effort into rewarding the folks who kept coming back year after year; a true serialized film series.

I'm glad the series ended on a relative high note. It's not one of the best ones, but it's better than IV or V, and could even be matched with II (I'd have to give it another look to know for sure, preferably in 2D to keep things on an even playing field), which would put it about in the middle of the pack - and keep in mind I like all of them (even V, the worst one, I'd give a C+). And it will certainly have a longer shelf life than Paranormal Activity 2, so Kevin Greutert should be ironically happy about the situation* - he ended up doing the better film. I know I had some concerns, but it's ultimately a good time at the movies, and the minor pacing/story issues are pretty much forgotten once that final reel kicks in and Charlie Clouser's amazing theme plays that one last time.

I'll miss you, Saw.

What say you?

*If you hadn't heard, Greutert was set to direct Paranormal 2 when Lionsgate and Twisted decided to force him to direct Saw 3D (forcing out already set director David Hackl) based on his contract, which they had originally planned to ignore, I guess. But he still gave the film his all, and that is to be commended. He also got in a hilarious jab in his pre-movie introduction that not everyone got but made me laugh out loud and cheer ("Lionsgate would like to thank the families of the deceased for their cooperation."). Horror nerd humor and shitty business shenanigans collide!

PLEASE, GO ON...

Saw VI (2009)

OCTOBER 21, 2009

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PRESS SCREENING)

Both Saw IV and V played better in repeat viewings; my general dissatisfaction with the films when I watched them in theaters was eroded on a 2nd view, when their flaws (weak protagonists chief among them) were easier to digest, and their strengths (tricky narratives that ‘worked’ with what came before, less of a focus on having wall-to-wall kills) were even more apparent. But Saw VI is an improvement over those two in every way; it’s the best one since III (which it often resembles) and gets the series back on track.

Director Kevin Greutert has been with the series since the original as its editor, so there is probably no one in the world who knows these movies as well as he does. And that pays off with this flashback heavy entry; I don’t think any film in the series has gotten so much use from events in the previous entries. These scenes are represented both by recycled footage as well as “When this event from part ___ was occurring, this is what you DIDN’T see on the other side of the wall” type sequences (if you’re a casual Saw fan, I would suggest revisiting at least parts III and V to help provide a little more context). He even finds ways to answer questions I forgot I had (Amanda’s note from III), primarily using that film’s footage to do so. It’s a bit distracting at times (Costas Mandylor has padded out quite a bit in the past, what, two weeks that these films have taken place?), but it’s a great way of tying up loose ends, and as an editor myself, I loved seeing how those skills can pay off when one ascends to the director’s chair.

But credit must also be given to Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton, who have found their footing on their 3rd entry as screenwriters (now that they are doing VII, more Saw films have been written by the pair than have not). With IV they were tasked with making a direct sequel (well, sidequel) to a previous entry that they had nothing to do with, and V was allegedly weakened by meddling throughout the production (which resulted in the loss of how the B story tied into the Saw mythos, among other things). But it seems their story was left intact here, and gets the series back to its original concept about people taking life for granted (something wholly missing from V and largely half-assed in IV - a cop who was trying to do his job? That’s admirable, not damnable).

See, our protagonist this time around is William (Peter Outerbridge - perfectly playing the line between douchey and sympathetic) a health insurance company exec who, as Jigsaw himself points out, decides who lives and dies. Early on we see him deny coverage for a guy with a heart condition, because he failed to report having a cyst on his lip removed when he was a child - which is not as far-fetched as it sounds (Michael Moore’s documentary Sicko had a number of similar stories), and, unsurprisingly, he was also responsible for John Kramer failing to get the treatment he needed for his cancer. So we think he’s complete scum*, but as the film progresses we learn that he’s not as black and white evil as originally expected, and like Jeff in III, his tests largely involve harming himself in order to save others (and unlike III, these people are completely innocent - one is just the mail guy from his company).

And that brings us to the traps, which are, again, the best in quite some time. Too many of the previous film’s traps revolved around people sticking their hands into things, and largely had no thematic tie to the characters. But that is not the case here - every trap is based on choosing who lives or dies, and their designs are all quite inventive as well. My personal favorite is a sort of weighted system, in which William is holding on to two bars (one with each hand) that are ever stretching away from him. These straps are connected to two innocent people, and if he lets one go, that person will die while the other will be saved. So he has to decide which one to save, but his arms are increasingly getting closer to being pulled out of their sockets while he makes up his mind. He could just let go of both and save himself some agony, but again, he’s not a complete ass, and he waits until the last possible second (at much personal expense to his well-being) to finally break down and save one. Great stuff.

Also, having just played the Saw game, I kind of dug the one right after that, where he had to guide someone through a maze that was peppered with steam blasts. He could shut the steam off for her, but that would mean getting blasted himself. Not only is it a cool scene, but as the game had several steam based puzzles, it actually gave the game an inadvertent tie to the series that was not intended in any way (Dunstan and Melton were not involved with the game’s creation). And it ends with a good ol’ fashioned “the key is inside you” thing, which we haven’t seen for a while.

Oh, and series’ fans should get a pretty big chuckle out a throwaway line from Amanda concerning what Hoffman is most useful for. Likewise, there’s a strange, possibly improvised bit from Tobin Bell that I laughed at for at least a minute. The series has never really had much in the way of humor, so it was appreciated and unexpected levity. Also, the health care stuff (along with the opening kill, in which two bank loan folks have to extract their own “pound of flesh”) gives the film a sense of timeliness that no other entry can claim. In fact, it was at this point that I realized for the first time how insular these films are; there has never been any “real world” ties whatsoever; everything from coffee cups to television stations are generic, and no one has ever mentioned a sports team or movie or anything like that. It’s not an issue; I sometimes have trouble identifying with a film that is clearly manufactured, but since this is part 6 and I’m just noticing, it clearly hasn’t been a problem with this particular series.

If the film has any flaw, it’s that it starts off a bit slow while we introduce William and the various folks that he will need to save later. The series is so intertwined, you always end up wondering why you are watching these previously unseen people for so long, and the lengthy backstory involved takes time to set up as well. Also, the Hoffman story is a touch similar to V’s, he is once again mostly wandering around looking at monitors and ruffling through files while trying to maintain his cover (I like that they pay off why he always seems to have a cup of coffee in his hand though). There’s also a bit of unnecessary ret-conning near the end involving Amanda (Shawnee Smith returns - yay! - but is not in the film as much as I expected), which seems to exist solely to re-enforce the fact that Hoffman is a douche. But Christ, for the SIXTH film in as many years to be watchable at all is a laudable achievement; that it only suffers a few minor flaws is damn near miraculous.

After III (the high point for world-wide gross), each subsequent film has made less than the one before, and V was the first since the original to fail to open at #1. Plus they’ve all largely had zero competition on their opening weekends, but that’s not the case this time - not only is Paranormal Activity expanding again, but Cirque De Freak is also opening. That film is PG-13 and the former has been playing for a few weeks, but still - with all of these factors at play, I worry that Saw VI will perform below par, which would be a shame as it is obvious that every effort has been made to get the series back on track and deliver everything fans expect (good traps, answers, and yes - a great twist at the end that I didn’t see coming). Don’t let that happen, folks! Support your local Jigsaw!

What say you?

*I don’t want to spoil the exact nature of it, but he also seems to have forgotten his wife’s birthday - which is precisely what I joked would be the type of person Jigsaw would eventually be going after in my review for Saw IV. Do Marcus and Patrick read this site? If so, stop stealing my jokes!! Or pay me for them. Or put me in VII.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Saw V (2008)

OCTOBER 24, 2008

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

Since I have watched about 400 horror movies since Saw IV, I watched it again yesterday afternoon to prepare for Saw V; refreshing my memory with the loose plot threads: who was alive, who was dying, and who was simply MIA (that one is still, and may forever be, Cary Elwes' character of Dr. Gordon). And I found that I actually liked it more a 2nd time. While I've always had trouble picking a favorite, IV would have been the one I would immediately took out of consideration, but not anymore. It was a lot of fun a 2nd time around, and credit to both Darren Bousman and writers Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, I once again found the ending a real nailbiter, even though I knew what was going to happen. I was actually hoping that Riggs would figure out the riddle and keep Matthews' head from getting squished this time.

(He didn't.)

Anyway, after viewing V, I can DEFINITELY say that this is NOT my favorite, nor will it ever be. And if you're familiar with the Saw films (and my reviews for them), you'll know that spoilers are almost impossible to avoid, so read forward with caution!

Unlike the last couple films, we are actually treated to a sort of "previously, on Saw" sequence as the film begins. Agent Strahm's seeming capture (and death of Jeff) are repeated in full, which brings us up to speed right off the bat, a nice touch. And the next half hour or so lives up to the Saw standard. We get a twist (another "you've been watching a flashback!" type one), and the traditional two plot setup is laid out. The "A" story is, of course, Hoffman trying to make sure Strahm doesn't find out that he is working with Jigsaw. In what may be the film's best scene (and the most badass resolution to a "trap scene" in the series' history), Strahm proves that he is not going to be so easy to dispatch, and a seemingly intense game of cat and mouse begins. The "B" story is similar to that of Saw II, in that a group of strangers wake up in yet another dungeon, and have to figure out why they were chosen, what they have in common, etc.

So far, so good, right? But I dunno, something just goes off the rails. I was having a lot of fun at first, but then, suddenly, I realized I didn't care anymore about what was going on. Part of the problem is that the "B" story never really gels into the "A" story, or even the story of any of the other films. For the first time in a sequel, there seems to be a new plot thread emerging that is, shock, unrelated to anything or anyone we've already encountered. The big reveal over how these new people are connected to each other is pretty anticlimactic, because it's a reveal that means nothing to us. We can ASSUME that it's merely the setup for part VI, but that's really not in line with Saw tradition, and I began wondering why the characters didn't just figure it out sooner, rather than turn it into a reveal that had no significance to us. I admire that Marcus and Patrick* (who have blink or you'll miss it cameos) are trying to move away from the sort of revisionist/rewriting history stuff that the sequels have increasingly dove into headfirst, and you can't really blame them for trying to move on and open up the story a bit, but it feels jarring to have half the film devoted to a plot that doesn't seem connected. At least, not yet.

See, they've always left plot threads open, and the climax of each film has always set up the next one, but for the first time it really feels like they are only giving us half a movie, rather than a sort of contained story that fits into the big picture. Even III, with its "Your daughter has an hour to live" or whatever ending, felt more satisfying a climax than the one presented here.

And that's not the only problem with the finale. The tagline for this one is "You won't believe how it ends", and that is true, because I can't believe the end of this film is almost an exact replica of the one in IV. Once again, we have 3 law enforcement guys (hell, 2 of them are the same ones from IV's ending) walking around hallways and dark rooms, and the audience is scrambling to try to figure out where they are in relation to one another. And then the one we are rooting for does something that you think is the right move, but turns out to spell his doom while the bad guy gets away. The second I heard the traditional "Dundun DUNNN!" theme start up, which signals the end of the film, I was dumbfounded; "It's ending HERE?"

Again, with nearly everyone dead at this point, there really is no choice but to start up major storylines and introduce several new characters, so I can't fault the writers for doing just that. But again, it still feels way too unresolved (I won't even get into the non subplot of Jigsaw's wife and her box, a dangling plot thread that left several people particularly angry as they were walking out of the theater). If this was a TV show it would be one thing, but we have to wait a full year to not only know what happens in certain plot lines, but also know why the hell we should care about them in the first place? That's not cool. The 5 strangers are never really developed beyond their first names and what they do for a living, and while they are killed off in an order I found surprising (my pick for last man standing got offed almost instantly), their detachment from the Saw mythos (so it seems) and the rather uncreative traps in their scenes resulted in me wondering why they were in the film at all.

Speaking of the traps, I would think that since director David Hackl was the production designer on the films that he would have some really good ones here, but no dice. The only really memorable one is the initial trap for the 5 strangers, and even that is sort of similar to the "tug of war" mausoleum one in IV (except split 5 ways). The others are forgettable, and shockingly un-gory as well; this is by far the least bloody in the series. Not that I'm complaining - the torture scenes are the least interesting thing about these movies. Once I understand how the Rube Goldberg-esque trap works, I tune out; I could care less about seeing a guy spend 60 seconds injuring himself trying to get free.

Plus, Hackl has no real visual style, or if he does, he neglects to really show it here. Bousman and James Wan gave the series a consistent look while adding their own unique flair to each film (such as color schemes, note how Bousman goes from brown-yellow in II to the green/blues of III and finally the reddish look of IV). But this film is pretty bland looking; there are some occasional shots that impress (such as Strahm in his trap), and he keeps the film moving for the most part, but it's the first film in the series where I never once caught myself admiring (or even disliking) a directorial choice, because it was pretty much by-the-numbers from start to finish (I also missed the crazy transitions from IV). I originally found it odd that someone else was already chosen to direct VI before this one was even finished, but now I can kind of see why. I also couldn't help but wonder if some of the story lapses were a result of the removal of dull footage, since Patrick and Marcus have been 3-3 IMO (Saw IV and the two Feast films). I am curious if this one has a lot of excised footage that will magically resurface in time to help promote the release of the next film. Someone send me the script!!!

It's not a total loss, however. Like I said, the first 30 minutes or so are great, as we learn more about Hoffman's relationship with Jigsaw, get some nice shoutouts and traditional "let's see that scene from part __ in a new light" stuff, etc. Plus, I think this is the first sequel to mention Danny Glover's character, which was much appreciated. Also, I dug how the "B" plot was essentially a Saw version of The Weakest Link; each trap required one person to die, so it was fun to see everyone planning ahead. Do you get rid of your biggest competitor early on, or lose the dead weight? I almost wish there were 8 folks like in II, instead of just 5, so that there could be even more of this strategic survival stuff. And after the nearly incomprehensible last film, I appreciated the more traditional storytelling this time around; there isn't much that will confuse you as long as you are paying attention (hell, the end of the film barely qualifies as a twist, IMO).

I suppose that we should be lucky that it took this long for such a rushed series to lose steam. But that's precisely what made the series so great; they managed to churn out a film a year that lived up to its predecessor(s) three times now. It's sort of expected that even with the compressed time, the team would deliver. And who knows, maybe the plots that this film set up will make for a great part VI (which will in turn give this one a new lease on life). Still, nothing can change the fact that this one lacks the visual style and enjoyable feeling that the filmmakers are always two steps ahead of you. Here's hoping that VI finishes the series off in style, or at least gets it back on track if they decide to make a VII.

What say you?

*An odd factoid I want to point out; the movie trailers before the film were for MARCUS Nispel's Friday the 13th, PATRICK Lussier's My Bloody Valentine remake, and PATRICK Tatopoulos' Underworld 3. I dunno, I thought that was strange. And MBV actually looks pretty good, which is even stranger.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Saw IV (2007)

OCTOBER 27, 2007

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

Christ, thank God I watched Saw III just a few hours before sitting down for Saw IV, or else I’d probably be pretty baffled as to what the hell I just watched. Despite a new set of writers, the film is probably the least accessible of the entire series, and I can’t imagine how someone who had never seen the last film would react to the finale (let alone someone who had never seen any of the others).

See, despite their intertwined nature with the previous films, II and III were fairly stand alone in terms of basic plot understanding. Sure, some of the references and revelations would be a little confusing, but you’d get the jist of it. But how anyone would be able to understand what the hell was happening at the end of IV is beyond me. A character from III (I wish these movies had subtitles!), who hasn’t even been mentioned in the new film yet, suddenly stumbles out of a room and begins interacting with the new characters, never introduced by name or given any sort of real introduction (there are some flashbacks, but they serve as reminders for the Saw faithful, not Cliff's Notes for newcomers). Granted, I am sure they don’t expect that someone would begin with part IV, but the filmmakers were actually quoted on claiming that IV would be totally accessible to newcomers, and that is far from the truth.

For the fans though, who let’s be honest, are the ones who make up 99.9% of the audience, the film is a lot of fun. Like III, I now have trouble deciding which is my favorite, as I like them all for different reasons. The original remains the best written, but II is the one that surprised me the most, and III has my favorite character (Jeff). So what does IV bring to my table?

Well the opening scene, for starters, is possibly one of the greatest meta-scenes in film history. For a year, everyone has assumed that Jigsaw would be magically resurrected. How can you do a Saw film without, well, JigSAW? So what do Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton come up with? A lengthy, hilarious autopsy scene in which we see John Kramer on the receiving end of surgical procedures that no one could survive. His brain is removed, his chest is torn apart, other organs removed, etc. It’s as if the writers and Darren Bousman were just saying “See! He’s fucking dead! DEAD!” before moving along with the new story.

We also see his balls.

The rest of the film follows a plot similar to III. Like Jeff, Detective Rigg is not a bad person, but he is still guilty of living a life that is devoted to the wrong thing. In Jeff’s case, this was revenge. Rigg’s is obsession (with his work, particularly Jigsaw), at the cost of his family. He neglects his wife, has no friends, etc. So Jigsaw puts him through the tests to see if he is capable of letting go. Now, unlike the previous films, this plan has a bit of a flaw in terms of storytelling – had Rigg just opted to be a better man right from the start, and accompany his wife to her mother’s, the rest of the film wouldn’t work. It’s not so much that Jigsaw was trying to help him, but instead just playing a very elaborate game of “I told you so”.

Another thing is, while it actually makes for somewhat more compelling characters, it’s strange how Jigsaw is going after better and better people all the time. He still dishes out his unique form of justice on criminals (strangely, the hardest scene for me to watch in this one was seeing video of a rapist about to attack a woman tied to a bed, as well as some photos of her after the fact), but his primary targets (in this case, Rigg) are pretty decent people in the later sequels. At this rate, by the time Saw VIII rolls around, he’ll be going after guys who simply forgot their wife’s birthday by tying some sort of death trap to a piece of string around their finger. “Choose to never forget anything again!”

Some folks have been complaining about this one’s wide open ending. To them I ask 3 things: 1. Have you ever seen any of the other films? They all end on an ambiguous note. Christ, they still haven’t even told us Dr. Gordon’s fate, and III’s ending was far more “set-up”-y than this. 2. One would assume big fans would read things like Bloody Disgusting or Dread Central, who have been reporting for over a year now that Saw 5 and 6 are already greenlit, and the director for 5 has already been hired (putting them way ahead of the schedule for IV – Darren Bousman only signed on to return about 8 months before release). Why wrap everything up when the next film is already begun pre-production? Gotta leave SOMETHING for the sequels. And 3. You don’t know jack shit about wide open endings until you’ve seen Halloween 5 or Curse of Michael Myers (aka 6). And at least Saw 5 doesn’t threaten to pretend the sequels never happened and pick up in some prep school where Jigsaw is the headmaster.

All in all, it’s another worthy entry in one of modern horror’s most unique franchises. Sure, they are not perfect, but the effort they put into assembling their stories and complimenting the previous films in the series is quite admirable. As enjoyable as they may be, I really don’t think the Friday the 13th or Hellraiser (a closer cousin to Saw) films really benefit from being watched in sequence, nor do they reward the audience for paying attention to the previous entries. There’s plenty of carnage to enjoy if you’re a gorehound, but you can’t turn your brain off for any of them either (at least not fully). Kudos.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

October Extras #26 - Saw III (2006)

OCTOBER 26, 2007

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: OCTOBER 2006 (THEATRICAL)

At this point in the Saw franchise, I am beginning to have trouble choosing a favorite (or least favorite) among them. Like Saw II before it, Saw III is so entwined into the storyline of the previous film, it’s hard to single it out for any one characteristic (good or bad). Like the others, it has its pros and cons, but nothing so major that sticks out.

As for the good: Bousman’s direction has improved (though the film is very dark at times, everything seems more fluid, and the blue tint to the Jigsaw scenes is about the only thing in the film that can be considered distinguished), and the acting in this film is across the board good (having a classy kind of guy like Angus MacFayden certainly helps). And, while it doesn’t specifically say how long it’s been since II, Amanda (Shawnee Smith) has grown her hair out, and she looks as good onscreen as ever. Also, she must have some amazing healing powers – in II all evidence of her jaw injuries from the original were gone, and now, after having her head repeatedly bashed into a wall by Matthews, her face is flawless. (UPDATE - Saw IV reveals that the time in between is about 6 months)

Also, the Jeff character is probably the series’ best, and his ‘test’ in turn is probably the most compelling. Unlike Detective Matthews or the guys in the original, Jeff is a tragic figure, one we can firmly sympathize with. And while the film is the most violent/graphic in the series (at times approaching the sort of pointlessness the franchise is often unfairly accused of, especially in the overlong brain surgery sequence), most of Jeff’s tests have genuine psychological aspects built into them (such as when he has to burn his son’s toys in order to save the other guy), making them vastly more interesting.

However, as said, the film has a bit too much plain ol’ torture. Before we really begin the plot, we are subjected to THREE torture scenes, including the death of one of the series regulars (and the last “good guy” to appear in all of the films to that point). The tests are overly graphic compared to the previous films, and while this sort of makes sense in the grand scheme of things (Amanda’s “cheating”), it doesn’t make it any less excessive. It’s worth noting that this is also the first Saw film to include nudity, which doesn’t really add anything to the scene if you ask me (is liquid nitrogen LESS terrifying if you have a blouse on?).

Also, the end of the film, while a nice surprise, contains far too much flashback during the big reveal, to the point where I feel I am being treated like an idiot. They literally flashback to things we saw just moments before, and more than once. Plus, I think by now the people watching Saw movies kind of know they have to pay attention, which even further eliminates the need for such lengthy “reminders” (incidentally, this is the longest film of the series as well). And it gets even longer! I do not have the new "director's cut" DVD, only the original unrated one (what if someone wanted the theatrical version?). Bousman told me to my face that this one wouldn't be double-dipped, so I refuse to buy it, even if I am intrigued by what is different, since it runs about 6-7 minutes longer (which would suggest the added stuff is more than just gore). But I am a man of principle, dammit! Also, I don't have time to watch it again.

The most impressive thing about these films is how relatively well written and plot hole free they are, considering how quickly they are made, not to mention how much they have to remain consistent with in order to sell the “Jigsaw Puzzle” aspect of the film in relation to the previous ones. Tomorrow I will be seeing part IV (the first in the series that neither Leigh Whannell or James Wan had any part in), I am curious as to how well the new writers do with all the multiple storylines, not to mention the death of Jigsaw himself.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...