Saw IV.

Review #2432: Saw IV.

Cast: 

Tobin Bell (Jigsaw / John Kramer), Costas Mandylor (Detective Hoffman), Scott Patterson (Agent Strahm), Betsy Russell (Jill), Lyriq Bent (Rigg), Athena Karkanis (Agent Perez), Justin Louis (Art), Donnie Wahlberg (Eric Matthews), Angus Macfadyen (Jeff), Bahar Soomekh (Lynn), Dina Meyer (Kerry), Mike Realba (Fisk), and Marty Adams (Ivan) Directed by Darren Lynn Bousman (#2102 - Saw II, #2269 - Saw III)

Review: 

Maybe there was an initial idea that seemed interesting in theory when trying to branch the franchise further from the inevitable trap that started this franchise. From the beginning, you had a series with a main focus on killer traps and a guy doomed to die from terminal cancer at some point that had a curiosity for what people would do for their lives. Sure, the first two sequels probably teetered on the verge of mediocrity, but at least they had a bit of Shawnee Smith to pair with Tobin Bell...until III decided to kill both of them off. But here we are with a fourth film that has a few returning characters (as played by Wahlberg, Bent, Mandylor, and very brief time spent with Macfadyen and Meyer) and the gimmick of having recordings and flashbacks for Bell to try and hold up an attempt at doing more of the same. This was the first script of the series to not have involvement from Leigh Whannell, with Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan taking over; the duo would write Saw IV all the way to Saw 3D (2010), and apparently a handful of ideas they didn't do in IV were recycled for Saw V (2008). This was the third of four Saw movies directed by Bousman (David Hackl had to bow out due to an immediate family issue), who returned to the series with Spiral in 2021.

If you really think about it, this is basically the Star Trek Generations of the series. It tries to bridge the adversary and main focus of the past with the intended successor...and it doesn't do either particularly well. Don't even try to get me on the autopsy scene, I just kept thinking how everything looked so white. You get some killer traps with a bit of terror and the inevitable twist that arises in the ending to set up the inevitable next movie because hey, we can't take more than a year off (2004-2010 saw seven Saw movies), time is money. 92 minutes is at least a compliment in that any more time spent in such a meandering universe that is a sequel really would be like torture, particularly since Saw IV in fact runs parallel to Saw III. Even the violence seems to be on autopilot, although it may very well be a case that a movie like this just can't be as shocking the fourth time around. It isn't unsettling in the parts that matter, and the fact that the twist of the movie borders on a character that we barely hear that much from (i.e. the one set to be the villain for the next couple of movies) really makes this a bummer to actually try and watch. Its attempts at reminding you about John Kramer (i.e. he had a wife and a would-be son) makes this seem more of an epilogue than a real movie. The missing kid from the last movie is, well, not exactly mentioned, so I guess the journey (mentally, anyway) of the guy from the last movie ending suddenly means nothing either. It doesn't feel mean to reveal that IV plays parallel to III, mainly it has to play with the fact that yes, a cop would be missing for six months because...uh, games to play. The game that ties the whole movie together (one in which obviously the way to approach each room with a clue is to just brute-force it) might as well be constructed of straw, because it basically tries to fudge the riddle so that way the audience will be confused (if they weren't already befuddled by the grungy look of the movie, complete with editing choices) for as long as possible. Nobody really shines in the movie, unless you count Bell's half-voiceover half-standing performance in a sea of listless stuff. I suppose it is a positive the series isn't trying for comedy or self-parody, but it really just feels like the work by committee rather than a consistently interesting movie. The ride only works for those with time to kill but it just disappoints me more than anything. As a whole, Saw IV is a low point of a series that clearly shows signs of needing rest but instead lands on a precarious position of dubious ideas to spook people with tired execution and middling promises that cannot possibly go lower from here (oh who are we kidding). 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Saw III.

Review #2269: Saw III.

Cast: 

Tobin Bell (Jigsaw/John Kramer), Shawnee Smith (Amanda), Angus Macfadyen (Jeff), Bahar Soomekh (Lynn), Donnie Wahlberg (Eric Matthews), Dina Meyer (Kerry), Leigh Whannell (Adam), Mpho Koaho (Tim), Barry Flatman (Judge Halden), Lyriq Bent (Rigg), J. Larose (Troy), Debra Lynne McCabe (Danica), and Costas Mandylor (Forensic Hoffman) Directed by Darren Lynn Bousman (#2102 - Saw II)

Review: 

"The Saw films are not just gore films. They actually have a story underneath it, and a lot of times, a very complex story. "Saw III" is a much more complex film than the other two, dealing with back stories and relationships and flashbacks, and all this other kind of stuff, and I think you cross over and you get those people as well. I think that a lot of people can find something to grab onto and relate to in the "Saw" films. It's crazy though."

If you remember correctly, Saw II (2005) was a film that had molded from a spec script named "The Desperate" by Darren Lynn Bousman into something worth following up James Wan's Saw (2004), albeit with a few suggestions by Leigh Whannell. The success of the film had rumblings of a sequel, but the three were not particularly keen on doing it. Gregg Hoffman, who had produced both films, died a few months after the release of Saw II, and it was his death that had led to the group deciding make the film for him. Whannell wrote the screenplay while co-writing the story with Wan; this was the last of the series that they would write for, while Bousman returned to direct the fourth film and Spiral (2021). Evidently, the filmmakers aimed to do a sort of "father-daughter love story" between our two main focuses in Kramer and Young (as played by Bell and Smith). This intercuts with the last two films to go along with about three different plot threads, taking moments in-and-out with Wahlberg (as seen first in II), the story involving MacFayden, and the story involving Soomekh having her life connected to the life of Bell.

Ultimately, it tries to bite off more than it can chew in being both sequel and prequel to events that really, really, really needed focus. The time spent with Soomekh in order to set up how she is mixed in with Bell and Smith, actually has an interesting idea: keep him alive and you stay alive, because if you fail or try to run away, boom you go. This is cut in with a "test" involving MacFayden, who actually has his own kind of interesting idea: when confronted with people who you associate with the death of your son, will you let death come to them in these contraptions? (one involves dumping guts onto a chained guy unless you burn stuff, which is grossly cool). You may or may not guess where the ending might have everything come together...but man this is a mess. You have three (or counting the Wahlberg stuff as "interesting", four) interesting ideas for a film all being jumbled into a film that tries to retroactively play with what happened in the first two films (and let's not forget, this was done before Saw X decided to play itself between I and II). It doesn't help with the quick cuts (for a "dynamic feel"), which has somehow managed to irritate me the most here, particularly with its 108-minute runtime (there are other versions of the film by the way, such as a two-hour director's cut and an "unrated cut"). 

It might seem weird to dwell so much on its story, but the film doesn't have enough tension to get away with its attempts at tricks (complete with baiting for a sequel). The attempt at framing these films as one involving a man coping with his impending death by deciding to become a man of tests and lend that legacy onto a chosen one could be a fun one, but it seems more framed that way to make up for a lack of cohesiveness in every other department. The most interesting lead presence not named Bell was Carey Elwes, and that was two films ago. Sure, Bell is still a highlight (to go along with a spry Smith), and Soomekh is fine, but it is a very played out movie. It baits itself for a follow-up feature despite, well, *killing* off important people in it! You'd think with that little montage of images in the climax that one would be finito, but nope (judging by the sheer fact that there were four further Saw films in the next four years, one could guess that the wheels of trying to connect the films even further in "flashbacks" were on steroids). In conclusion, there are moments of interest within getting to see a few grisly traps, but it is clear that the series has continued to have diminishing returns in a middling swansong from its original creators.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Saw II.

Review #2102: Saw II.

Cast: 

Tobin Bell (Jigsaw / John Kramer), Shawnee Smith (Amanda Young), Donnie Wahlberg (Eric Matthews), Erik Knudsen (Daniel Matthews), Franky G (Xavier), Glenn Plummer (Jonas), Emmanuelle Vaugier (Addison), Beverley Mitchell (Laura), Timothy Burd (Obi), and Dina Meyer (Kerry) Directed by Darren Lynn Bousman.

Review: 

"When I watched the first Saw, it grabbed me because it showed real people put in real situations where they're forced to become monsters. This time, we really focus on Jigsaw, and the fans of the first film are going to get to see the man behind the madness."

As I'm sure you already know, the demand for a sequel to a successful film can lead to some interesting places. Saw (2004) was such a surprise hit that Lionsgate announced plans for a sequel for late October...2005. James Wan and Leigh Whannell were busy developing a film for Universal (the result was Dead Silence, which came out in 2007), but there was a way around that. Concurrently, Darren Lynn Bousman was pitching his script "The Desperate" to studios, but they did not bite on it due to the nature of violence present in the script to go with perceived similarities to Saw. David A. Armstrong, the cinematographer of the first film (who was being asked by Bousman to collaborate with him on said script), suggested that Bousman show the script to Gregg Hoffman, who had produced it with Mark Burg and Oren Koules. They felt that with a few modifications, this would serve as a good one to use for, well, you know. Of course, there was time to recruit Whannell into polishing the script (with input provided by Wan). The resulting success of Saw II was obvious, since Bousman would direct the next two sequels (2006, 2007) alongside Spiral (2021). 

I would say that the sequel is more of a newer model of the same slick machine that came with the first film, which was already a grab-bag of B-movie stuff that happened to have an interesting premise to go with a make-or-break climatic gut punch. It isn't exactly as good as the original, but as a pastiche of a different kind that isn't so reliant of say, Seven (1995), it is a gruesomely effective film in lending perspective with more time spent with Bell that makes for a useful curiosity upon the nature of those who really believe what they say when it comes to making others learn what it means to value life. Granted, the film jumps between him, Wahlberg, and the pursuit of a group of folks trying to make their way out of the house of traps and their own unsavory selves, but the 93-minute runtime seems just about right for the material needed. Actually, I kind of like seeing Wahlberg here, if only because he makes for an obvious mark to play contrast to Bell when it comes to pursuer and the pursued, for which he handles it with that raw sense of pathetic tough-guy quality that actually seems quite amusing. Bell may be confined to sitting around for his scenes (well Jigsaw does have a reason for that), but he still makes the most of it in proving the chilling quality required of someone who believes the only thing he has to lose is not trying at all to live, because having that killer survival instinct is all that matters in the end. The actual dwellers in the house, well, they are basically cut-and-dry, but that seems about on point in a B-movie sense, because the only familiar one obviously ends up being Smith (the key presence returning from the previous film-okay, there is Meyer too, but who do you remember more, a cop figure, or someone who survived a reverse bear trap?), although Franky G does make a quality brute adversary to the proceedings. The traps do prove interesting in the squeamish sense, probably best represented by a pit of syringes. At any rate, it is a leisurely good time for those who were totally fine with where the first film went with traps and the people that inhabited it because of their perceived failings in instinct or above, complete with a climax that straddles the line of clever and "okay, maybe a bit too clever" that would set the stage for what I'm sure would be another sequel of more elaborate ways of offbeat ways to show people at the weirdest when it comes to traps or twists. Well, as long as you don't pull the rug away, you have my interest.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1931.