As I sat to watch Saw 3D, I was worried that having not seen the last installment, the series’ reliance on retcons and alternate looks at previous events would prove challenging to keep up with. While finishing part six after the fact helped fill in some of the backstory, it had little bearing on my opinion of the allegedly final Saw film which was very disconnected from the previous entries. Even a brand new viewer to the series would have little difficulty understanding the plot yet be baffled by the shoddy quality in this hugely subpar installment in the Jigsaw saga.

Even with the return of director Kevin Greutert and writers Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, 3D feels more like a straight to DVD, half assed sequel than a legitmate follow up to a major theatrical series. Mostly gone is the intricate weaving of past events into a new narrative featuring Jigsaw’s traps to emphasize the preciousness of life. Of course, there is a B-side story of Bobby, a so-called survivor of one of Jigsaw’s previous games where he must choose between his family and friends who have made truckloads of money off of a fabicrated story. But unlike some of the better films, namely II and III, Bobby’s story has absolutely no bearing on the main events featuring Detective Hoffman and his cat and mouse game with Jigsaw’s ex Jill.

This actually feels more like a standard, cheap slasher film as the main motivation is Hoffman’s rage because Jill tried to kill him and has turned to a horrible caricature of a cop to expose his apprenticeship with Jigsaw. After the last, there really is not much more backstory, or even sidestory, to wring out as Jigsaw (clocking in with barely a few minutes of screentime), Amanda, and Hoffman’s experiences are mostly tapped out in the narrative sense. Thus, we have a movie that features traps like a Saw movie should but with characters that exist only to pad the running time until Hoffman can catch up to Jill to exact his revenge.

What should not be a shock if you follow movie news, Cary Elwes returns from oblivion as Dr. Gordon from the first but if you thought that his role would be more substantial than a quick cameo, you would be correct. While I do not wish to reveal his role, suffice to say you could probably figure it out even without seeing the movie. Even though the reveal technically makes sense, there was no indication or any clues sprinkled in previous films to back it up giving the impression that the writers just wanted to play to the fan favorites here. This also serves as one of the worst endings to a Saw film because it’s predictability seems to fly in the face of everything that has come before it in the series.

This fiasco with Gordon sums up my thoughts on the movie as everything here was not logical or necessary, but done likely because it was cool and something that fans were clamouring for. The opening trap was neat being that it was set outside in the midst of a big crowd of people but the fact that it had nothing to do with the rest of the movie is one thing, Jigsaw has gone from targeting murderers and drug dealers to a love triangle constructed by a deceitful woman who strings men along for affection. As you can see, one of these things is not like the other and I fully suspect this was designated as the last film because the next plot of torturing jaywalkers and customer service phone reps was not as compelling.

Of the cast, Costas Mandylor and Betsy Russell have had a few movies to get comfortable with their characters and turned in fairly decent performances and the faux-vivor Bobby was a sympathetic, if kind of otherwise flat, character played well by Sean Patrick Flannery. The rest of the cast, especially Chad Donella were pretty horrendous. Granted the first was saturated with Cary Elwes-brand overacting (he has barely improved, even with letting some of his natural accent slip through) so the bar was not set very high but it was painfully distracting to see Donella as a “seasoned” IAB detective with the mannerisms of a ten-year-old.

The biggest crime of Saw 3D is that everything was just a poor photocopy of the more decent moments of the series. In one of the villain’s final scenes of rage, he kills four people in a row in the least interesting way possible by a quick jab of a knife into their throats. The 3D was pretty good considering it seems randomly shoehorned into the series as a going-away present and to inflate ticket prices but it really did not serve much purpose. At the very least, it did not make the movie worse like bad 3D can but then again, the dumb random trap fodder characters did not really elevate things on their end either.

I hope that a possible explanation for the vastly inferior Saw V was due to effort being withheld on that film to more finely hone this installment. The chasm of quality in the middle film between IV and VI is so abrupt from the previous efforts that on some level it almost has to be intentional. Writers Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan are able to effectively right the Saw ship here with a topical story that is not only brutal in its violence (moreso than some of the later sequels) but one that furthers the deepening mythology surrounding Jigsaw (John Kramer), his apprentices, his wife, and the sordid tale between them all.

Taking over directing duties now is former Saw editor Kevin Greutert who helps the writing duo create a tale that is solid not only in its Jigsaw-ery but also on the games side of the story as well. As we meet a new (to us) character William Easton, his fate seems undoubtedly sealed as he is not only a slimy health insurance executive but also a slimy executive with previous ties to Jigsaw as he effectively sealed the brain cancer victim’s fate with the denial of an experimental treatment.

From the opening kill scene featuring corrupt mortgage lenders to the rescission-happy team at the insurance company, I worried that the vague generalities of Jigsaw’s previous participants’ misdeeds would be replaced by heavy-handed Romero-style social commentary on the state of the world as it pertains to the life and death of others. This actually fits nicely with the mythos of the story as John Kramer has had an inoperable brain tumor from the onset of the series and a good number of his victims have been targeted due to their apathy, either of their own lives or of others. As such, the preaching here is not to the audience as much as it is to the characters and the motivation for the games at hand.

Peter Outerbridge playing Easton starts the story as an evil businessman whose primary concern is the bottom-line, regardless of the wake of death and despair that might be left behind. However, through his journey at Jigsaw’s (or Hoffman’s, I get confused by who planned what game) hands, he comes to realize quite painfully that the choice between life and death is not as easy as crunching numbers or evaluating forms. The best trap in the film (and possibly in the whole series) takes six of Easton’s associates and ties them to a spinning merry-go-round of death by shotgun where Easton can choose to save only two. While the guilt of the six is debatable, the emotion in this scene alone as each one pleads for their lives while Easton can only look on as the unworthy are shot is very powerful, not only in its imagery but also in the performances.

While it has been slowing building over the past two films, Kramer’s wife Jill and Hoffman come together to finally realize Jigsaw’s final plan with no loose ends. Meanwhile, after Agent Strahm has gone missing, Hoffman is paired up with Strahm’s partner from IV to find the truth about who is in cahoots with Jigsaw. The primary reason that this is a far superior film than the last (and truthfully one of the best of the series) is not only because of the recalling of previous events and characters in different aspects but that things actually progress instead of staying stagnant. Even the stillborn aspects from the last movie are more fleshed out here, albeit in a largely throwaway line of dialogue, as the five insipid characters from the last movie were responsible for a case that Strahm investigated.

Even with his part monumentally better this time, Hoffman is still a character that resides in the shadow of the real Jigsaw. Costas Mandylor again does an admirable job of portraying a psychopath with a purpose but the character is nowhere as charismatic or impactful as Jigsaw (who plays better than Hoffman in flashbacks … while still deceased). Betsy Russell plays Jill nicely as she recalls the flashbacks of yore as Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) preaches his plan and his way of salvation with confirmation through Amanda (Shawnee Smith) who we learn was a previous drug addict under the care of Jill’s clinic. The main draw though is Outerbridge who may possibly be the most convincing actor in all of the Saw series (no offence to Tobin). Easton’s games are centered around his deplorable business practices and by all accounts should be someone that we root to die as painfully as possible. However, when the end comes and we learn the true meaning behind the game, he has shed his snake-oil salesman act to show a man who has been devastated to experience the horrors he has placed on others. In the entirety of the Saw franchise, I dare anyone to find a character played better with a much more satisfying character arc than his.

Given that this is a Saw movie, most people would shy away due to their preconceived notions of disposable movies featuring nothing but senseless violence. And while that may be true for some of the other sequels with no redeeming qualities, Saw VI is a movie that succeeds in spite of it being included with such a franchise.

Back in the late 1990s when the original Star Wars trilogy was being rereleased, the jackhole movie reviewer from my local newspaper (Dan Neman in case you were wondering) wrote that Empire Strikes Back is an incomplete, and thus horrible, movie because it lacks a defined beginning or ending and just sort of exists without a purpose. Some of us thinking- and movie-enjoying folks would say “You’re a douche and it’s the middle part of a trilogy.” While I cannot defend that review (really, who the hell hates ESB?), I will pilfer its essence as I thought of that review after watching Saw V. Here is a movie that adds nothing to films in general or the Saw series specifically, it is just the very definition of a movie without a point.

Starting just where we left the surviving characters from the last go around, Agent Strahm finds himself in a precarious situation by the hand of Jigsaw’s emergent successor, Detective Hoffman. Hoffman’s intentions were for everyone to die (which they mostly did) so he can be declared the hero and deflect any suspicion from himself as he carries out more of the deceased Jigsaw’s plans. After Strahm survives with some impressive cognitive skills on his part, Hoffman scowls and probably wishes he had just shot the FBI agent rather than abducting him and sticking his head in a box (no, not the SNL digital short type).

The common perception among even hardcore fans of the Saw series is that this installment is the worst. Two years ago I could agree with that statement but my viewing of Saw 3D renders that scandalous accusation hilariously inept. The problem with Saw V is not that it is a bad movie, only that there is no point to it. Perhaps returning writers Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton were attempting to create a Star Trek-like pattern of the odd-numbered movies being god-awful while their even-numbered counterparts fare much better (fortunately the series is over, otherwise Saw XIII would have been fucking ridiculous). My main issue with the movie is the severe downgrade in villains we suffer as while Hoffman is a twisted guy, and played well by Costas Mandylor, he is no Jigsaw. For a guy who has supposedly investigated every one of the previous murders, the fact that he was promoted from random bit cop character at the start of III to Jigsaw’s apprentice is one of the biggest arguments for avoiding retcons that were not at least hinted upon from the start. Hell, it would have been much better in the grand scheme of things if Hoffman and the mystery guest at the end of 3D had traded places.

Scott Patterson returns as Strahm who leaves behind his impressively questionable deductive skills from the last movie and his innovation from the first few frames of this one to lurk around in dark offices hunting for evidence of Hoffman’s involvement, only stopping to look distractingly into the camera as he verbalizes his discoveries. In and of itself, this could have been a compelling part of the story but since we know that Hoffman is in fact involved, it all seems anticlimactic when Strahm finally catches on to Hoffman only to suffer a crushing defeat before telling anyone. Historically, the Saw series has been noteworthy for its keeping the characters in the dark along with the audience so this is a disappointing break from form as we grow tired of watching Strahm catch up to us. Even more baffling is that the trend of having deceptively arranged scenes is removed here as everything is straight-forward chronologically except for the opening kill.

As bland as the investigative side of the movie is, the torture-porn part is worse as they take the problems from II and further degrade them. Our participants here are morally-grey characters who barely receive first names that are guilty of something that is not only irrelevant to the movie but something we do not really care about to begin with. Just like Hoffman’s character, his traps have no ingenuity other than including explosives and wiring doors to open on timers. The actual concept of the trap sequence is cool (five douchebags who must work together to survive) but it is wasted on boring kills and irritatingly-mundane characters. Despite being involved in all the previous movies, director David Hackl either did not pay attention to the care involved in the first four installments or did not have the talent or the control to craft a tale that can exist as more than a filler movie, sandwiched between two largely superior installments.

So while others may say it is the devil, V was not bad per se but it was just largely forgettable in the grand scheme of the Saw series. At least 3D had some of the worst acting this side of Twilight to distinguish itself.

Saw IV marks a turning point in the series, not only in the narrative sense but also behind the scenes; it is a changing of the guard if you will. Director Darren Lynn Bousman from Part II and III remains but gone is co-writer of the first three, Leigh Whannell, replaced by those Feast boys Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton. I would imagine they were simultaneously happy and scared shitless to be taking over the writing duties but fortunately, they rise to the occasion as the fourth installment comes off much better than it should have considering the mess of a story that they inherited.

With Jigsaw “out of the picture” at the end of the last movie, Dunston and Melton come up with a very interesting way of keeping him in the thick of the events but yet moving along to branch out in new, more twisted directions. The target here is Sgt. Rigg, played by Lyriq Bent, who after learning of the good guy death from the last film (writing these reviews without spoilers is a pain in the ass!), becomes obsessed with locating the presumed dead, but still technically missing, Eric Matthews from Part II. It seems that Jigsaw is becoming more lenient with his assignment of games as Rigg is not a murderer, drug dealer, or dead-beat dad, but just a guy who is heavily involved in his work to the detriment of his real life.

Making a follow-up to the clusterfuck of carnage at the end of the previous film and yet still continuing a compelling story is a tough task but Dunston and Melton pull it off with a good mix of the previous Saw film ingredients: the manipulation of a linear narrative, recalling of past events in a new light, and of course flawed heroes with a story that is not as straight-forward as it would seem. Two FBI agents played by Scott Patterson and Athena Karkanis are brought in to investigate the Jigsaw shenanigans with lone homicide detective Costas Mandylor‘s Hoffman, whom you might remember from a very brief scene at the beginning of Part III. Their investigation runs just behind the wake of Rigg who has been tasked by Jigsaw to save a life after receiving confirmation that Donnie Wahlberg‘s Matthews is actually alive. Rigg is not really involved in the game as the previous participants were but is mostly an active observer as Jigsaw wants Rigg to read between the lines and see how he sees.

It might seem that this movie is really more complicated than it is as there are layers upon layers of story, some present, but most in the past. The blurring of what is now and what has happened gives this movie an edge as Jigsaw is more present here than any of the previous films. A large chunk is devoted to telling the origin of Jigsaw as we learn the identity of the mystery woman from Part III, his ex-wife Jill. After Jill suffers a miscarriage at the hands of society’s bottom-feeders, Jigsaw begins his elaborate plans of self-discovery which spiral out of control as he loses everything worthwhile in his life. It is commendable that the writers are able to take a character who has been in three previous movies and develop a backstory that is not only sad and emotional yet satisfying in its explanation of how he became the way we know him.

Just like the previous films, Jigsaw’s parameters are laid out, albeit rather cryptically, but Rigg ignores the rules and perseveres to find Matthews, almost in a futile attempt of salvation. I will say that this movie takes multiple viewings to appreciate as once I had watched it several times (even once with Bousman’s commentary), the essence of the story really took shape as in Jigsaw’s twisted logic, salvation is empty if it is not truly earned. Almost in an attempt to best Bousman’s previous best entry, there are multiple twists to the plot, some which are expected but some which are not as the franchise proves again that you cannot attempt to predict the lengths that a deranged man will go to enact his form of social justice. With appearances by other previous token victims, this film takes the mythology of the series into the same realm of Lost or Alias that will make your head hurt if you attempt to fully understand. Regardless, even with the emergence of random characters to the fore-front and a significant ramping up of gore from the last, the warping of time, the overlap with the previous films, and the new direction of the story make this a worthwhile watch.

**THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR SAW I & II**

Surprisingly, I have not yet become ‘Saw’-ed out as quickly as I tired when watching the Nightmare on Elm Street series. With another quick turnaround of a year from the release of the previous film, Saw III manages to further expand both the backstories of Jigsaw and his accomplice Amanda but also to delve further into human actions and emotions to be put on trial in a maniacal kind of way.

After beginning with a quick check-in of Donnie Wahlberg from the end of the second, part three moves onto Jeff’s test to exact revenge (or not) on those involved with his son’s tragic death. If you recall, one of my chief complaints with part two was the lack of characterization of the house inmates, likely due to their number but also the other story line with Wahlberg. As the sad, bitter Jeff is the central part of his portion of the movie, we are treated to not only a wonderful performance by Angus Macfadyen but also to a character that we grow to understand even if his blind thirst for revenge shapes him into a dick.

In the other half of the movie we have Jigsaw (knocking on death’s door), Amanda (still hot in a batshit crazy kind of way), and Lynn, a seemingly random doctor the previous two abducted to keep Jigsaw alive during Jeff’s game. As we did not know until the end of the last film of Amanda’s involvement, this side of the story allows us to see (both in flashbacks and realtime) the twisted but still genuine relationship that she has with her mentor. In a twist, we learn that these three are ultimately just as important as Jeff as the two sides come crashing together in an overlong and drawn out showdown between all four complete with flashbacks that should have been excised to keep things moving. In fact, while it was interesting to be able to see how the games from the first film were physically executed, the over-reliance on previous events that have little bearing on the current story drag things down considerably.

Very few people could describe the first two installments of this series fun but in comparison to Darren Lynn Bousman’s bleak and mean-spirited tone of this film, they were like visits to the fair. The plot explains why the victims are stuck in unbeatable situations but some of these killings (especially of one of the returning cast) only seem to appeal to those interested in the graphic violence aspect of the films. Fortunately though, Jeff’s story of tragedy, redemption, and tragedy again are far more in depth than what has been alluded to in the previous films. But for as much as returning writer Leigh Whannell gets right, the entire basis of the story is incredibly coincidental and by now we are wondering how Jigsaw can stimulate his local economy through bulk chain orders and purchasing abandoned warehouses aplenty without arising further questions.

The returning duo of Tobin Bell and Shawnee Smith have good chemistry in their shaky partnership but Bahar Soomekh‘s character did not feel right even before her own stake in the narrative is revealed as her role is largely transactional and more of a catalyst for the other characters. Also returning composer Charlie Clouser‘s haunting score, complete with perfect placement of the series’ theme, matches the sometimes exhilarating, often somber pace of the movie.

This is largely a good follow up to Saw II, even as it incorporates events from both the first and second. I cannot help but still consider part two the best though because while this is largely original, some of the concepts are starting to feel a bit tired at this point. On second though, maybe I am getting exhausted of the games.

In Scream 2, film geek Randy and his friends discuss the baffling properties of sucktacular sequels and how they all but destroyed the horror genre. It’s funny that such a statement is made in one of those very films (in my opinion at least), but even though sequels in general are easy to dismiss, especially ones that are written, produced, and released in less than a year, Saw II is one of those follow-ups that can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with its big brother and in some cases tower over it.

It goes without saying that if you did not like the original film, you will not find much of interest here but Saw II is made in the framework of good sequels that build upon the first’s successes without being an outright carbon copy. Instead of just two random guys shackled in a filthy bathroom, one of the stories here is of eight random people trapped in a house full of dangerous cons, deadly traps, and even more deadly nerve gas. One of these eight is the son of the crooked Detective Matthews who is the central element to the story and summoned into it by Jigsaw himself. The main theme of appreciating the sanctity of life is carried over here but expanded as the cancer-stricken Jigsaw is reaching out to spread his message to unlikely participants such as Matthews and even Amanda, the escapee from the first.

Much like another superior sequel Die Hard with a Vengeance, co-writer/director Darren Lynn Bousman originally conceived Saw II as an independent story which was later retooled to fit with the narrative of the first. Not only does this lead to a faithful recalling of the original, new ground is broken here as Jigsaw is given more to do as a broken man who is both a sympathetic character and a total madman at the same time. This movie is an excursion in the faults of human behavior with the elements of rage, corruption, and distrust that were apparent in the first but are more amplified now.

Based on these two movies, I would trade Cary Elwes for Donnie Wahlberg in a heartbeat as the later is able to carry the emotional baggage of the film without the drama student overproduction of natural human emotions. Unlike Elwes in the first, Wahlberg’s character is the driving force behind the story and is responsible for a lot of the more dramatic scenes which he is able to pull off decently even though the character of Detective Matthews is rather scummy. While the bulk of the cast-mates who are trapped in the house are not even important enough to be provided with introductions or even Jigsaw-brand tape recordings, they do well enough to make you dread their eventual (and likely painful) demise. Matthew’s son Daniel (Erik Knudsen) and holdover Amanda (Shawnee Smith) are the standouts but mostly because they are the most developed of the eight with actual names and backstories.

Overall, the story is more in depth with elements of more than just a psychotic man trying to inflict harm upon others as Jigsaw at times is either legitimately reaching out to Matthews or playing him like a cheap violin. Featuring some of the best twists in a traditional narrative since M. Night Shyamalan sold his soul to the devil so many years ago, this was truly a mind-fuck when I first saw it in theaters. Even expecting some of the turns in the story, the various directions that the movie takes are shockingly bold as the perceived truths of the audience and the characters are shattered one after another. Production wise, this is a much more polished film with believable sets (did I mention the parking garage with the wooden roof from the last one?), decent acting, and more emphasis on substance over flashy (yet still goddamn annoying when it happens) seizure-inducing editing.

If there was ever a valid argument that can be made that a good sequel does not take twenty years or a radically different approach, Saw II previously and so far has been my favorite of the series even with some the lack of characterization that would otherwise be helpful.

Six years later, it is quite remarkable that a movie like Saw could lead to one of the most prolific horror franchises of modern times. What started out in humble beginnings with a script hammered out by beginners, sold through a short excerpt of the feature, and a budget the size of most summer film’s catering department, Saw was able to make horror films distinct again even if that would lead to the danger of what some call “torture porn.”

In anticipation of the latest and allegedly final installment opening this week, I decided to go back and revisit the Saw series as some of these films I have seen only once and in some cases many years ago. If anything can be said about the series (again, going from my hazy recollection), the basic premise of each of the films is similar but the plots have been totally different. At the opening here, we meet Adam and Dr. Gordon who are chained by the leg in a dingy, industrial bathroom with only a fleeting idea of how they got there and an odd assortment of items to help them put the pieces together. The main adversary (in the series at large that is) Jigsaw seeks only to impress upon his “victims” the preciousness of life by way of an impossible task that would either put themselves or others in harm’s way in order to escape.

Honestly, the story is the best thing about the movie as the non-linear narrative assists the viewers in being at the exact same place knowledge-wise with the characters. The movie starts with Adam and Gordon in the dark both literally and figuratively but the use of flashbacks and side stories keep the information flowing at the pace that does not divulge everything at once but still effectively strings everyone along to try to figure it all out. While it has been decried, the violence here is rather minimal and is more implied than overtly shown, a notion that the sequels jettison if memory serves. Jigsaw’s previous work serve to show us a reason and a pattern to his games but never really seem unnecessarily sadistic other than to serve Jigsaw’s (and thus his victims’) purposes.

For as much pampering as the story and the Romero-style commentary get, director James Wan should have focused more on extracting compelling performances from his leads, and damn near everyone else in the movie, rather than cringe-inducing dialogue that would not have made an outtake in another film. Cary Elwes is a tough actor to pin down as he can go from other-worldly good (Princess Bride) to laughably bad (Twister) but it seems that the actor was channeling almost all of his previous performances as he ranges from very effective to embarrassingly bad in the short span of 100 minutes. Likewise for his partner-in-grime (and writer) Leigh Whannell and bloodhound detective Danny Glover who cannot go more than a few minutes without over- or underacting their roles away. Tobin Bell and Michael Emerson fair much better on the opposing team but that could be contributed to their significantly less screen time than the others.

If there is one thing I am not looking forward to over six more movies in this series, it is the damn hyper-editing that may attempt to heighten tension but only serves to annoy the hell out of me. While I dislike it, I have grown accustomed to the Michael Bay or Ridley Scott method of thirteen cuts in three seconds of an action sequence but when the camera filming a car chase has more movement than the actual (obviously immobile) vehicles, an editor who wants to show the movie without inducing motion sickness should be at the top of the wish-list. The frenetic nature of the narrative however is harnessed by composer Charlie Clouser who creates a score that is as haunting as the themes of the film itself.

At the end, Saw almost feels like an incomplete movie, one begging for a sequel or six, as we know little about the man behind the plot which is arguably the best part of the story. Jigsaw we know is twisted and sadistic but strangely has values that many of his prey do not. His appreciation for life (not necessarily the abduction or brutal violence aspect) serves as the basis for this film which is but the tip of the iceberg for many more treks into the quandary of morality to come.