jbathie

I've watched every movie in the Saw franchise. I can't help it, I love the blood and gore of it all.

This however, was by far the worst of the series. Sure, it's the 9th in the series and many would have difficulty making this work, but this is a special kind of 'worst of the series'.

Why it's the worst isn't what you might think though. It's not the storyline, it's not the staged 'torture for truth' gore scenes. They were fine.

Why? Because someone decided to cast Chris Rock as the lead. I love his previous work as a standup comedian, a recent season of Fargo, and several small bits in movies that were held high with established actors who've mastered dramatic roles. Chris isn't one of them.

After the 1st scene where Chris is required to act as though he's now thrust into this new case, a time wherein he should sell his anger and contempt just trough a facial expression? Then he falls flat and looks somewhat like he's trying to squeeze one out on the toilet.

In Fargo Chris played the protagonist rather well. Something I was surprised he was capable of pulling off. But this role just escaped him.

Don't watch this, but know that I took one for the team just so I could advise you on how bad it was.

I've seen this movie 4 times. I love it, it's what I would imagine what law enforcement life would be like in 70's and 80's LA. Gangs were plentiful, drugs were everywhere, and police weren't under the microscope of smartphones and surveillance cameras like they are now.

Life was different, not only for police, but for criminals, and those who lived near them too. Drive-by shootings were becoming the way gangs and even the mafia responded to their enemies. High powered semi-automatic and even fully automatic weapons were used to dispatch their level of justice to their enemies.

However, I don't just know firearms from watching movies. I served, and had the opportunity to use the hand guns, semi-automatic, and fully-automatic weapons just like are used in this movie.

Not long after the movie starts there's a drive-by, and the shooters are using fully-automatic AK-47's, one of the most deadly automatic weapons in the world. The AK was first produced in 1948 firing a 7.62mm round (.308), and incredibly reliable, and accurate.

However, 2 shooters from less than 50' away firing at 715m/s at a rate of 10 rounds per second could only hit 1 person in a cluster of bodies.[ In addition to that another shooter was firing a 45 semi-auto at them.

Sure, these are untrained shooters who likely have only fired weapons like this once or twice, but seriously? Only 1 person in a cluster of 5 people standing 2 feet from each other? Is the message the director is sending one of "we didn't want a lot of bodies", or "we assume they don't know how to shoot'?

Directors and editors need to do a better job than this when producing movies. People who watch them know things they don't, so hire a consultant from the police, and even someone who used to bang. Bring them on set and advise on the incidents and even script so the product you produce is real, or as close to real as you can make it.

My review of this? Great flick. Great action and wonderful twist on how it's filmed. I really enjoyed the story, the actors, and the flow. Good job, but there are easy fixes to annoying things. Take advantage of them.

I get it. Scripting scenes can be difficult and expensive, but literally copying and pasting scenes from the previous in the trilogy? Seriously?

Play it on a mirror so it's not so obvious maybe?

I like sci-fi and action flicks. But when you have a trilogy, one that you plan on milking for as much as you can garner, maybe don't just steal from other ones to fill in for time?

Has me wondering if 'Skylines', the third in the series, is going to be just parts of #1 and #2 pasted together to create a feature film?