Saw V.

Review #2590: Saw V.

Cast: 

Tobin Bell (Jigsaw / John Kramer), Costas Mandylor (Mark Hoffman), Scott Patterson (Agent Strahm), Betsy Russell (Jill), Julie Benz (Brit), Meagan Good (Luba), Mark Rolston (Dan Erickson), Carlo Rota (Charles), Greg Bryk (Mallick), and Laura Gordon (Ashley) Directed by David Hackl.

Review: 

"I wanted to make sure it was a good solid story. I didn't want this to feel like all the flashy parts were there from a regular Saw movie, but rather to have everything tied together nicely in the story. I wanted that to be the underlying tone. In order for someone to be frightened by those traps there has to be some emotional investment in the characters, and without that emotional investment the traps are just like any gory horror film. I really wanted to make sure that that didn't happen. I wanted you to know who the people are in the traps, why they're in the traps. I wanted you to feel something for the people in the traps."

Sure, every year required a Saw movie, so why should it be any different the longer that John Kramer is dead? (outlines were being prepped the month that IV came out to theaters). Making his feature film debut was David Hack; the Toronto native actually was a second unit director/production designer on the previous three films. Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, the co-writers of Saw IV (2007) are here for the rest of the original run of these films, which you may remember was the one that took place basically in parallel with the third film (i.e. the one that foolishly decided to kill Amanda off). If you go by what Hackl said at the time of IV's release, there was a whole week to writing an outline, a script by the end of a month before having their little adjustments and things changed right as filming is to end (of course they had full storyboards on set, so I guess they had this stuff ready). Made on a budget of over $10 million, well, you know the movie was a big hit with October audiences.

I just look back at the first two movies and sigh at the following follow-ups that came in the wake of believing that Kramer was a vigilante (yeah, I totally never killed anyone guys, I just merely put them in traps that require somebody to cut people internally or cut themselves to get free) and also had plenty of flashbacks to tell certain people about that makes him still important to look on. At least this time around, they try to give some sort of motive and time to Hoffman (while in turn diminishing Amanda, since only one dead person can stick around in flashbacks) going around as the guy with his own game looming over his head. It just so happens to come around in a movie that has a litany of folks being wrapped up in a game that are given the bare minimum to really do (while killing off the possible most interesting person early) before setting up the inevitable sixth movie with the twist that is at least not nearly as much of a cheat this time around. I should note that having Bell around in "flashback mania" isn't exactly a criticism, since he is his usual convincing self that really does go around with the belief that his crusade is a meaningful one with unnerving conviction. Sure, it might have been more fun when it felt like a path of "hey man, I'm doing this because you don't like life" rather than "so in my flashback of how I became Jigsaw, the vigilante who totally never killed people in a long-winded plan that brings multiple accomplices in the fold...", but at least he isn't phoning it in. 

Mandylor just feels like a cipher with the bare minimum that basically handcuffs him to not being nearly as compelling of a threat as you would hope; you'd think a cop that goes around making their own Jigsaw-type devices (i.e. the one in the intro, which begs the question where he got the voice from, as it is revealed to have been done when Kramer was alive but, well, not doing stuff like that) would be more unnerving, but, well, maybe VI will actually let him breathe. It comes and goes with Patterson in the lone wolf type that makes me miss the days of Danny Glover in the first film. Of the group of new folks in the game that takes up what you might call the B-part of the film (or whatever you call this 92-minute movie), it only sounded interesting that a reporter (Rota) was among the mix of the usual people with "well, I did this one thing that led to a few people's lives being ruined" qualities. Naturally, this can't do, because he goes down the tubes quickly for the would-be final folks with Benz and Byrk and the supposed lesson learned from playing the game (I suppose it's meant to be funny that a series of tests meant to have people work together ended up going in a way where a survivor ends up murdering people anyway). The gore is on the usual level of "oh that does look painful", even if it still has the quirks of editing/color that make you occasionally roll your eyes. As a whole, Saw V doesn't elevate the series, but being a mediocre sequel is better than being an insulting one, so I suppose there are worse things in life than continuing further with whatever happens next.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Since I'm too lazy, here's a link to each of the films reviewed in the series

Saw - the one where Cary Elwes and Danny Glover are in it for a bit before the killer arises from the ground

Saw II - the one with Donnie Wahlberg, more of Tobin Bell and that particular twist for the end

Saw III - the test of Amanda and other things

Saw IV - the mystery of the final game of the killer, at least in theory

Saw X - the one set between 1 and 2 with Jigsaw and Amanda

Rambo (2008).

Review #1275: Rambo.

Cast: 
Sylvester Stallone (John J. Rambo), Julie Benz (Sarah Miller), Paul Schulze (Michael Burnett), Matthew Marsden (School Boy), Graham McTavish (Lewis), Rey Gallegos (Diaz), Tim Kang (En-Joo), Jake La Botz (Reese), Maung Maung Khin (Major Pa Tee Tint), Ken Howard (Father Arthur Marsh), and Supakorn Kitsuwon (Myint) Directed by Sylvester Stallone (#047 - The Expendables, #277 - Rocky II, #340 - Rocky III, #597 - Rocky IV, and #1163 - Rocky Balboa)

Review: 
It is interesting to come back to this series, which sprung to life with the adaptation of David Morrell's novel First Blood in 1982. In changing the nature of the character and his fate to make for a film like that one, sequels followed in the later part of the decade. Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) was a pretty ridiculous experience, but it was a good adventure for what it was worth. Rambo III (1988) proved to be a hollow experience, but at least one didn't find themselves with a lingering taste of tiredness, silly but passable in the right circumstances. Two decades passed before a new film came out, due to Stallone not having a compelling story idea to return to the role, one that he felt was one of a man lost in the world and wandering it while hating the very thing he is. This isn't so much a curtain call for Stallone and his character as much as it is a revitalization of what made him such a compelling force to be reckoned with in the first place. It is a grim movie with plenty of (fake) blood that uses the real world conflict in Myanmar (Burma) for effect, if only because it just gives Rambo reason to just go all-out on faceless bad guys in his rescue mission once again (whether it happens to be POWs, his military commander friend, or this film with missionaries). There are two ways to look at this film: it can be pretty riveting with its action, dreary but watchable with Stallone at the helm that at least hasn't become a neutered shell of itself. On the other hand, it can be thought of as a brutal, ugly film that becomes more and more cynical before it decides to reward itself with cheap thrills that satisfy the basic need to see a whole bunch of blood and not much else. To me, each resulting sequel gets more and more ridiculous in their attempts at depth when compared to the original, but at least they stay watchable. Stallone stands his ground this time around, a burnt-out warrior who doesn't say much but doesn't really need to say anything that he can't do with a trusty weapon and a reason to persist on. With the passing of Richard Crenna five years earlier, who does one turn to as the main supporting character? The film pretty much leaves that empty, whether intentionally or not. Sure, you have scenes with Stallone speaking with others (which can be pretty much counted by an old stopwatch), but I never really seem to care about anybody other than the lead. It isn't so much a problem of likability as it is more a problem of them seeming more like composites than real people to go along with. In that regard, the acting is just okay all around, with Benz and McTavish making the most impression  The most memorable adversary, supporting character, and impact all still come from the same film - the first one. The most interesting sequence in the whole film is the bloodiest, involving a big machine gun, which complements the idea that these films only get rougher with age. Perhaps the sequence at the end where he goes to see his dad would've been the top one, if it didn't segue into the closing credits. On the whole, this is a film that just goes with the flow of what it think people want from a new 91 minute installment of a burnt out hero done by Stallone - brutal, with plenty of roughness to go around, for better or worse. I shrug my shoulders (and a coin) in the air, because some films really do just fall in the middle. In this case, I recognize the film for doing the basic requirements for an action film, give the film mixed credit for its surroundings, and then say that it would do just fine on the shelf with the other films. In other words, it's fine.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.