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 (2004).

Review #1750: Saw.

Cast: 

Cary Elwes (Lawrence Gordon), Leigh Whannell (Adam Stanheight), Danny Glover (David Tapp), Ken Leung (Detective Steven Sing), Dina Meyer (Detective Allison Kerry), Mike Butters (Paul), Paul Gutrecht (Mark), Michael Emerson (Zep Hindle), Benito Martinez (Brett), Shawnee Smith (Amanda Young), Makenzie Vega (Diana Gordon), Monica Potter (Alison Gordon), Alexandra Bokyun Chun (Carla), and Tobin Bell (Jigsaw/John Kramer) Directed by James Wan (#1175 - Aquaman and #1556 - Insidious)

Review: 

"It changed our lives. Sure, it really wasn’t the film I set up to do, yet it ended up being this cultural phenomenon that we never expected. I never expected that my first little, as I refer to it, my student film would ultimately go on to have such a cultural impact."

If any horror film could help to help define the first few years of the 21st century, you could likely make a great case for Saw to be in the argument. Oh sure, the quality of each feature has varied from film to film (for which there were six sequels in the next six years before the supposed finale was followed by two standalone movies), but one can't deny the lingering legacy that arose from an interesting presence from two soon-to-be known directors from Australia. James Wan and Leigh Whannell met each other when each were attending the Royal Melbourne Institute Of Technology, for which they bonded over their shared interest in horror. Years later, they wanted to make a film for as cheap ($5,000) and simple as one can make when having to work dead-end jobs; Wan and Whannell each suggested ideas to each other, but one idea by the former really stuck through: two guys in a room that had a dead body lying on the floor with a gun and a tape player. Whannell ran with the idea and expanded on it to what became Saw (for which he came up with the title); since they wanted to prove that they could actually do it, they took one scene from the film and shot it as a short (picking the scene involving the reverse bear trap for Whannell to act). Shot in Los Angeles in 2003, the short attracted attention from a variety of interested funders, with Evolution Entertainment being the one that Wan and Whannell went with because of the freedom granted to do the film their way (with a shooting budget of roughly $700,000 for eighteen days of shooting). 

Sure, it is gruesome, but it has a few fair merits to consider beyond just classifying it as the starting point for so called "torture porn." Pffft, I say, as this term seems to exist just for "higher-minded critics" to degrade horror films that just happen to make folks uncomfortable while being different from the usual fare (in other words, some folks are squeamish for stuff that seems tame to others). Besides, it would be the sequels that would up the ante in gore (which even got the 3D treatment with the seventh film), while this film is actually more reminiscent of Seven (1995), what with the exploration of a hunt for a killer that dabbles in sins. Undeniably, that film is superior in pretty much every way when it comes to its psychological aspects and main detective pair, but at least Saw manages to accomplish a portion of the terror that can come from the simple act of having two folks in a room with tension over trying to stay alive in a macabre mystery-thriller. Honestly, I thought it was a fine movie, all things considered. For 103 minutes, it balances itself out with a few elaborate traps and a few semblances of plot (in flashbacks, complete with red herrings) that hold up the interesting premise long enough to stick the ultimate landing, which likely will provide curiosity to those who prefer to sit through their films time and time again; its quality may vary from person to person like a puzzle game, where if one likes the process they'll go back to it and look to scramble it all over. Undeniably, the acting isn't the strong suit of the film, but I was fond enough of the presences captured anyway (although this is more because of the familiar faces more than anything, which can boomerang the other way around if in a lesser film); sure, Elwes may overact a bit with the material, but he makes the most of it with reasoned interest, since he has the overall story to work with (as opposed to Whannell, although expecting him to have great acting isn't exactly feasible). Glover and Leung do okay in the procedural aspect, albeit in the sense that it goes about as well with the film as it would on a buried script of a TV procedural. Bell is mostly utilized for his voice more so than physical presence for most of the film, but he gives it his effort for a role that could have veered into one-note (puppets don't count). The final turn of the screw for the closing is on the money, at least when it comes to not insulting its audience completely while being quite definitive in its lasting note on a killer that tests the will of survival of his would-be victims with traps that makes for a stone cold time. As a gritty feature with sparse features (such as in its shots and design), I would say it is a worthy accomplishment for what Wan and Whannell wanted to do in filmmaking, one that accomplished its ride of curiosity without stumbling over the clichés. It might not be a great piece in horror filmmaking, but it sure made its mark count with its interesting premise and execution that opened the door for further grips into terror in puzzle traps, for better or worse.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Halloween II (2009).

Insidious.

Review #1556: Insidious.

Cast: 
Patrick Wilson (Josh Lambert), Rose Byrne (Renai Lambert), Lin Shaye (Elise Rainier), Ty Simpkins (Dalton Lambert), Barbara Hershey (Lorraine Lambert), Leigh Whannell (Steven "Specs"), and Angus Sampson (Tucker) Directed by James Wan (#1175 - Aquaman)

Review: 
"I wanted to prove to people that I could make a very classic, old-fashioned haunted house film and show that I could make scary films without relying on blood and guts."

Sure, one can go the mainstream path with horror films, or they can go into independent features that try to reach audiences without trying to compromise themselves too much in vision, whether with gore or not. James Wan found himself as a key figure in making independent horror that reached mainstream success. Born in Malaysia but raised in Western Australia, he graduated from RMIT University with a bachelor's degree in Media in 1998 that helped him teach him about the process of filmmaking he had wanted to do. Wan made his first film in collaboration with Shannon Young as Stygian (2000), a 16mm low-budget action-horror feature that found its way to local film festivals (such as Melbourne's Underground Film Festival, which noted it as having a great use of the "Guerilla Aesthetic"). It was his directorial debut in true features however that proved prominence however: Writing with Leigh Whannell on a script that was inspired by their dreams and fears. Aspiring to pitch to studios with something presentable, they made a short film together in 2003. The nine minute short (with Whannell appearing as the star) Saw ended up attracting enough attention for a subsequent feature film to be directed by Wan the following year. While Wan would co-write for the third film, Wan moved on to other features, although Dead Silence and Death Sentence (both 2007) proved less successful, leading him to take a rest until he aspired to make a horror film with Whannell without needing to resort to gore. He has kept himself busy with horror in directing and producing (aside from a few profitable blockbusters), which included directing the second of the subsequent Insidious franchise.

Sure, it is easy to go around the bend and call the film an attempt at a modern-day Poltergeist (1984), with its haunted house aspect (...to a point) and having to have a parent rescue their child from the other world and such. But that would miss the point of the fact that this is actually more equal to the sequels of Poltergeist in that they are laughably missing adequate scares along with its attempt at explaining itself in the second half for less adequate effect. I do wonder how the film might have been with acting that seems more prepared than having three weeks to film - of course it could also be possible that Wilson and Byrne just okay and that's that. One gets to partake in the "things are happening and I'm the only one who sees it", while the other tags in for the latter half and handle the horror themselves because plot reasons or something. One almost wishes for more Shaye at that point (without more of the obvious bumbling from Sampson and Whannell), mostly because one would probably want the soothing temperament in reaction to building horror as opposed to the family aspect (oops).  If you desire a film that tries to ride on atmosphere with a bit of visuals that don't rely on gore, this could be for you, but honestly this just came off as a parlor trick that has seen better days. This was written by Leigh Whannell (who wrote for all four Insidious films while directing the third one and also doing his own somewhat overrated horror film with The Invisible Man ten years later), who as with Saw also has an important small role in the film. 

Wan and Whannell can be applauded for their attempts at making a cheap little family drama falling into horror that maintains their independence without spending more than $1.5 million, at least. I just wish it wasn't such a silly spectacle in doing the mundane in jump scares that might as well be a film where someone goes "BOO!" every so often. At that point, I'd rather have the little gore cheapie that could, because it will test patience in a less tiresome way. The second half may be weaker than the first, but that's mostly because if it is going to try and explain itself or delve into concluding itself with scares, it better accomplish something meaningful more than just a book report of how they spent their haunting. If one invests themselves into its carefully concocted family scare-show for 102 minutes, they may find something with some satisfaction in those moments to jump out in imagery. For me, it proves too mild and too late to build its mood to a rightful enjoyment worth more than one viewing for those who prefer to see a bit more fight in their horror times.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Invisible Man (2020).

Review #1359: The Invisible Man.

Cast: 
Elisabeth Moss (Cecilia "Cee" Kass), Oliver Jackson-Cohen (Adrian Griffin), Aldis Hodge (James Lanier), Storm Reid (Sydney Lanier), Harriet Dyer (Emily Kass), Michael Dorman (Tom Griffin), Benedict Hardie (Marc), and Amali Golden (Annie) Directed and Written by Leigh Whannell (#1093 - Upgrade)

Review: 
I don't know how to go with this one. On the one hand, it is admirable to see Universal Pictures try something different from their original intent in reviving The Invisible Man for a new audience, where the film (with thoughts of Johnny Depp in the main role) was set to be part of their star-crossed attempt at a cinematic monster universe, fittingly dubbed "Dark Universe", which essentially nosedived into oblivion with the release of The Mummy (2017), a film that coincidentally I forget to even think of ignoring. Instead, the focus is now to do individual story-telling (i.e. literally just doing a horror film a fresh take like the first time), with Blumhouse Productions being the prominent production company behind this film (with Universal as distributor). Like the 1933 film, it is a loose (insert adaptation joke here) adaptation of the H. G. Wells novel of the same name, set in contemporary times just as before. This of course isn't the first film inspired by the novel in this century, with Hollow Man (2000) existing as a sci-fi horror thriller with Kevin Bacon in the main role. This is a movie that re-directs the focus from its main horror figure, which I suppose does help in trying to deliver a fresh perspective on something that has inspired at least ten theatrical films (some involving horror and other mainly involving sci-fi). There certainly is a decent selection of casting, where no one really seems to stick out in error, mainly since Moss dominates the attention for its benefit. The film also does work itself out well for its effects with the titular character when it feels like doing so, since the idea of a monster you can't see is still a scary concept if done right.

On the other hand, the film is a mild disappointment in the long run. It is occasionally scary, but it is a ride that seems a bit too long at a 124 minute pace, particularly with an ending that seems too neatly-packaged up to really have that last punch. I suppose my horror tastes might differ a bit from the buzz that encompassed this film upon release, since it is probably the first horror film of the year that didn't seem doomed to fail. Maybe people really do find this incredibly relevant to the modern age with its mix of invisibility and gaslighting. While I do having sticking points with the occasional horror films (whether liked or disliked), it can be waved away if the overall experience seems right to do so (i.e. not simply saying "it's just a movie" over and over). Without seeming like a complete spoil-sport, the key sticking point is in a scene that actually is fairly tense. It's a scene in a house, where the main character is (conveniently) alone and is fearful of what the invisible stalker could do next to her. She goes to the attic after calling and hearing her ex's phone up there. After finding it...she just leaves it there. Even just having him just take the phone back would have sufficed as an easy out. Look, I don't go to movies to pick at things like supposed "plot-holes", but thinking things all the way through does help in the long run for films, especially horror. In comparison, the original moved at a rapid pace with Claude Rains doing a well-done job at conveying a creepy (and sometimes amusing) presence into interesting horror entertainment, and that film was nearly an hour shorter than this one. In that regard, Jackson-Cohen does fine taking the reins in a role that requires occasional dialogue to make for some decent tension. Moss, as I mentioned before, is our main focus for the movie. She does a capable job, a presence that is easy to follow along with from her perspective, resilience in panic. Hodge, Reid, and Dyer round out the main core quite completely in filling the straight-edge counterpart to the horror trappings without being lost in the background. Dorman makes for a slimy minor presence, desperately needing more time to be on-screen to really stand out. In any case, the film does tend to look nice, pointing its camera to make you look to see if you can detect another presence besides what you see initially. Sometimes the film has a sense of humor, which delivers a chuckle that at least isn't meant to distract. As a whole, this is an okay movie. It isn't as put together as Whannell's previous effort with Upgrade, but it does ultimately provide adequate enough scares to likely win over a shaky yet mostly there foundation. Would I be interested in whatever Blumhouse could do next with a classic monster? Perhaps, if the story seems right enough to give horror thrills.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Upgrade.

Review #1093: Upgrade.

Cast: 
Logan Marshall-Green (Grey Trace), Betty Gabriel (Cortez), Harrison Gilbertson (Eron Keen), Benedict Hardie (Fisk), Melanie Vallejo (Asha Trace), Christopher Kirby (Tolan), Clayton Jacobson (Manny), Sachin Joab (Dr. Bhatia), Michael M. Foster (Jeffries), Richard Cawthorne (Serk), and Simon Maiden (STEM) Directed by Leigh Whannell.

Review: 
Admittedly, this is a film that came up on my radar of interest out of nowhere (as it had been out in America for over a week), but how could I not resist a science fiction film that also doubles as a body horror film? The end result of combining these two genres is a movie that turned out to be quite satisfying for my tastes. Within its low budget and b-movie sort of aim, Upgrade is unabashedly entertaining in its exploitation roots (with Whannell having served as the writer for the first three Saw films along with the Insidious series) without resorting to insulting the intelligence of its viewers. It feels like a cross between The Six Million Dollar Man, Death Wish, and RoboCop (1987), complete with a touch of dark humor that goes along with trying to tell a story of revenge that occasionally sprinkles itself with sci-fi. It manages to get the ball rolling around its middle parts with Marshall-Green and Maiden interacting with each other rather adeptly as man and AI, respectively. It isn't too particularly deep with its positions (aside from the occasional bit involving AI), but there is a certain enjoyment from how it moves itself without becoming too typical. The action and horror sequences are executed pretty well, looking pretty convincing with its movements for the most part without being too blurry or too gratuitous (if one is into that, anyway).

Marshall-Green is fairly effective, playing his every-man sort of role fairly handily, having a fine amount of timing when it comes to the action sequences or interacting with the other cast-mates that helps make the film (made in Australia) a pleasure to watch and elevates what could've been a generic hero role into something that works. Gabriel doesn't have as much time on screen to really make her role too particularly developed besides something you'd see in other films involving detectives pursuing the main lead, but she does a relatively fine job in making the character click enough without being too generic. Gilbertson certainly lends this inventor role a bit of closed off nature that clicks weirdly enough for his brief time on screen. The villains for the movie aren't too particularly involving, but Hardie does work well enough for what the film wants in its pursuit of bloody action. At 95 minutes, the movie has a solid pace to it that never stretches itself too artificially, knowing when and where to stop, with an ending that certainly clicks cleverly enough. It is a familiar sort of ride at times, but it is an enjoyable kind of ride most of the time to make a solid gem in my view.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.