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

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.