Jogos Mortais III

We went to the cinema yesterday to see this flick. I can't really say I had any expectations, I mean, it's a third part in a series and such are rarely keeping the same quality as their predecessors. After seeing it, I have to admit that this flick is definitely keeping the same touch of quality work as the first two parts. I'd say it's better than the second piece, and if it's not better than the first piece, then they're at least even.

I found the third part to have a bit more gore in it, compared to the other pieces in the series. Some scenes are really disturbing and even I, who claim myself to be quite difficult to disturb through film as a medium, at times felt really... well, it was almost a bit too much. It's far from snuff, please, don't get me wrong here, since the utter disturbance is very beautiful in a way and very artistic, I'd say.

For the plot, I can't pull off any complaints. Anyone familiar with the first two pieces and the plot of theirs, will recognize the atmosphere and the touch of the flick here. The acting is neat, no complaints there either. All-in-all, this is a well-made flick and among the best deliveries from Hollywood I've been confronted with in quite a while. I recommend it. 7/10.

SAW III in my opinion is tied with the original as the best in the series. For many reasons- one reason being that it keeps it simple. Instead of dealing with multiple characters that sacrificed any kind of character development like in SAW's II, IV, and V, SAW III, like the original, has much fewer characters, leading to a more intimate setting where we can connect to everyone. And while it does have sub-plots, they don't feel out of place, they're not just randomly thrown in to shock audiences. They feel organic, they all connect smoothly at the end and make sense as to why.

If you've seen a SAW film, you know the story is going to have twists, turns, and violence/gore to accompany them. But at least SAW III does it very well. It expands on characterization and back stories for these characters and ties up the loose ends as believably as this franchise can do. We also get a deeper look at the relationship between Jigsaw and Amanda, knowing more about how the two really look at each other. Jigsaw is the calm, cancer-stricken anti-hero who does these evil things to prove a moral standpoint. Amanda, on the other hand, doesn't seem to grasp this - instead using the traps to torture her victims as a way to get back at innocent people for the way she was tortured herself with suicidal tendencies and drug abuse. With these two extremes, we see how much Jigsaw is trying to mentor her in his vision while she struggles with her own demons. And when Jigsaw gets ill, we see that Amanda really isn't a fitting apprentice to carry on his legacy as her vindictiveness comes out.

SAW III is also supported by the fact that the two protagonists are developed deeply. Maybe not as much as our two anti-heros, but we understand where they're coming from. From Lynn's dour nature to devastated Jeff's situation. The subplot with Jeff by the way adds some great underlying messages to the film. These messages shows us that hate, vengeance, revenge, and complacency brings more pain than anything else, and does not solve anything. It ruins families, destroys relationships, clouds judgment, and at the end: self-destruction. Leigh Whannell, who wrote the first two films with James Waan and flew solo writing the screenplay for this one, does a nice job giving the spotlight to all the characters instead of just focusing on Jigsaw and Amanda. He makes SAW III more of a character study than any of the other installments and that's one of the essential reasons why this installment scores high.

Darren Lynn Bousman directs a much more subtle film than he did with SAW II and SAW IV. The quick edits are kept to a bare minimum (thank God) and the film has a lot of dread going for it. Very moody and darkly atmospheric. He focuses on the drama and emotion at hand, which was a vast improvement on SAW II and especially SAW IV. He lets the acting and the situations do the work for him instead of being extra-fancy with the camera work. Lastly, the cinematography is a plus. Darren shoots the film with a vibrant and kinetic feel and uses good, non-queasy camera movements. I love the lighting most of all though; he uses a wide arrange in the color palette (from lime green to icy blue). He definitely proves here that he knows how to grasp the material and visualize it. His direction of III ranks alongside James Waan's mindblowing direction of the original.

The acting is hardly an issue. It's usually good or better. Tobin Bell can play John Kramer in his sleep by now for gods sake! He shows excellent range and is always effective in the role because he gives the character more depth than what the script probably provides. Shawnee Smith is superb as Amanda, who will always be one of my favorite characters in the series. This is without a single doubt her shining moment, her most dramatic portion in the series. You really want to hate her but you just can't because you pity her. Smith could have easily played the character as an annoying nutjob, but she gives the character substance and unbelievable humanality. Angus Macfadyen as Jeff is superb in his role as well; he makes Jeff the most realistic and sympathetic character within the entire series. As far as I'm concerned, McFayden nailed the mourning father act. Bahar Soomekh was decent but always outshone by Bell, Smith, and McFayden. Her acting was a bit flimsy at times, but for the most part she gave a nice performance and made her character likable.

The suspense and tension, while not as impressive as the original, is still great. Hardly any other Saw film or horror film in general for that matter (with the exception of Eden Lake from last year and Inside from 2007) has been so edge-of-your-seat gripping, so exciting. The slow pacing allows you to gradually absorb everything in, and this makes it all the more better.

There is a lot of extreme gore in this film, but unlike some other installments like Saws IV and V, it's done very well and serves a purpose. Jeff's bloody trials are in a lot of ways cathartic. You're enduring these horrific scenes along with Jeff, and the relief at the end that the horror is over really fits with the theme of redemption through forgiveness. Moreover, the revelation that the horror isn't over, and what you feel as a result, drives home the Shakespearean tragedy in a very personal way because you the audience have to keep enduring it.

SAW III is clever, solidly written, has the best characters, succeeds with the emotional aspect it was going for, and ties up loose ends perfectly. For a third installment in a horror series, it's incredibly strong.

Surprise! There is a horror series that holds up well, even on the second sequel.

It's difficult to explain the plot in any detail without ruining the storyline, so instead, I give you small chunks. A doctor must keep Jigsaw alive. If he dies, so does she. A grieving father must decided what he will do when confronted with the people that changed his life for the worse. Saying anything else about the story line is just criminal.

Like the 2 movies before it, difficult decisions and some nasty secrets become a part of a much larger plan. It manages to explain events in Saw 1 and 2 that may have been considered plot holes. It spins the whole concept of the Jigsaw character and what he represents, and the message he is trying to say. By carefully placing events from the past in a certain order, and by introducing important sequences of the character's lives, Saw 3 manages to become a pivotal point to the series. It's not perfect, though. Constant flashbacks to memories becomes a bit tiresome. Some of the dialog could be a combination of dry, repetitive, or dumb, or all of the above. And oh yes, there will be the improbable & illogical. Big critics will focus on this, and consider the movie a waste of time.

Of course, you can toss out the psychological-babble, tell the critics to go back to their coke snorting, and just have fun watching the movie as pure horror. Of the three, this is ultimately the most bloodiest. Those of low tolerance of gore, medical procedures and general dismemberment beware: the movie theater I went to here in Winter Springs had one movie-goer faint and fall to the floor. They had to temporarily stop the movie and take her outside, an ambulance came, and took her away. Even with this interruption, the movie kept everyone awake, wanting to see more. By the end of the movie, the audience clapped. We liked what we had seen. "What has the world come to?", you say? Geez. You are in the wrong place. I'm sure there will be some Disney movie to your liking.

The traps were clever, original, and far, far deadlier this time around. To me, it beats out any psycho with a knife/ax/chainsaw crap movie that has been pumped out too many times. It's a shame that Saw producer Gregg Hoffman passed away before this movie was produced.

"Saw III" is a classic case of an ambitious sequel that has a few really nice ideas and some scenes that will make fans of the franchise very happy, but in the end it doesn't, it can't hold a candle to the original. It's a rule of the series by now that a "Saw" movie must include a lot of gory deaths as well as an unexpected twist at the end. While the first thing isn't so hard to come up with - and the makers definitely do a fine job thinking of the sickest, bloodiest deaths possible - it's the twist that seems more forced with each entry in the franchise. It's a disadvantage that we know for a fact a surprise is coming. What's worse is that in "Saw III" the final twist doesn't resolve a question we've been asking ourselves during the whole movie. No, it's question and answer in one and that doesn't make it particularly interesting. It's just a lot of explaining over some annoyingly edited flashbacks.

Speaking of flashbacks, there are way too many in this movie. We see things that we really never needed to see. Loose ends are tied up that aren't actually loose ends. It's like the writers read too many threads on the IMDb message boards for the previous movies and decided to spell out everything that has been ambiguous until now to put an end to all discussions once and for all. It only goes to show that those things were a lot more intriguing when they were left in the dark.

Jigsaw himself won't ever keep his mouth shut in this movie. The guy has thought of many cruel traps but his constant blabbering is his most sadistic device. He's already been overexposed in part 2, and this entry in the series continues to make that mistake. After the revelation about his identity at the end of the original, there really weren't too many mysteries surrounding him anymore, but part 3 still tries to come up with some (mainly about his relationship to his accomplice). Again, this is unnecessary and not very interesting information.

Considering how quickly the "Saw" movies have been made, it's a little miracle that they still turned out to be quite entertaining. However, one wonders if the franchise couldn't be better if a bit more time was spent on developing the sequels. The production values in particular could use some improvement. The make up looks fine, but the stage design makes both sequels look like an episode of "Star Trek".

So, yes, "Saw III" is as fast paced as its predecessors and the gruesome torture scenes don't disappoint. See it, if you're looking for mindless fun, but don't expect it to knock you off your feet the way the original did. Apparently part 4 is already in the works. Now that's just going to be a waste of time as "Saw III" already ends the series. Guess, Hollywood never learns. "Halloween" anyone?

Saw should have stopped after I and 2. By episode 3 my interest dwindled. The torture scenes were pretty much being recycled as they tried to come up with more imaginative ways to make the victims suffer. Sadistic in a way!