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.

The Blob (1988).

Review #2136: The Blob.

Cast: 

Kevin Dillon (Brian Flagg), Shawnee Smith (Megan "Meg" Penny), Donovan Leitch (Paul Taylor), Jeffrey DeMunn (Sheriff Herb Geller), Candy Clark (Fran Hewitt), Joe Seneca (Dr. Christopher Meddows), Del Close (Reverend Meeker), Sharon Spelman (Mrs. Margaret Penny), Beau Billingslea (Moss Woodley), Art LaFleur (Pharmacist/Tom Penny), Ricky Paull Goldin (Scott Jeskey), Paul McCrane (Deputy Bill Briggs), Michael Kenworthy (Kevin Penny), Douglas Emerson (Eddie Beckner), Robert Axelrod (Jennings), and Bill Moseley (The Soldier in the Sewer) Directed by Chuck Russell (#157 - The Mask and #649 - A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors)

Review: 

"Maybe it was a mistake to do a remake of The Blob with a sense of humor. I thought that would be an entertaining interpretation. … Unfortunately, it was released late in a very hectic summer filled with big films and it didn't have a particularly good ad campaign."

As you may remember, the 1958 film The Blob was a neat little film directed by Irvin Yeaworth that saw a script arise from Kay Linaker and Theodore Simonson based on a story that was suggested by Irving H. Millgate to producer Jack H. Harris, a film distributor in his first production that probably was inspired by the discovery of "star jelly" in Pennsylvania in 1950. You probably know that, well, it was a success that was a classic example of drive-in enjoyment that seems practically critic-proof when it comes to the very fact that one really can't pick apart a film with such a silly title and such red blobby fun. Inevitably, a remake had to come (well, there was a "sequel" with Beware! The Blob in 1972 that had Harris as producer, but who cares about sequels that turn into a comedy with Larry Hagman as director?), but three decades is a pretty decent amount of time for one to await a remake, particularly since it has been 35 years since this film and no one has managed to get a second remake of the Blob despite rumblings for years and years. The remake script was done by Chuck Russell and Frank Darabont, each of whom had been involved with the previous year production of A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors, as directed by first-timer Russell. The Park Ridge native from Illinois had been a writer and director of one-act plays when studying at the University of Illinois before graduation led to him becoming an assistant director and production manager while working his way up to film, with his first film credit having been a co-credit in writing and producing for Dreamscape (1984). Russell has attempted to branch out in various genres in a lengthy career (to varying degrees of audience attention), but his horror stuff has certainly lent the most interest of curiosity. This is true for a film that used a good deal of puppetry with its title threat, as realized by various people such as makeup man Tony Gardner and creature coordinators Lyle Conway and Stuart Ziff. One way that they accomplished the effect was with a "Blob Quilt" that came from silk bags filled with Methacil that made for quite the effect when it came to dissolving people; a good deal of puppetry was also used. Somehow, the film was a flop on original release, not quite making back its $10 million budget.

Honestly, the remake might be just as good as the original film. 95 minutes seem to bounce away under the dissolving eyes of terror in the creature shown to us alongside the paranoia that comes in a time where one wouldn't simply see government figures as the easy force of benevolence. Oh sure, it is a film mostly for those who like to see a faster moving terror of slime that packs tentacles, but it is a much more interesting film because of its perfect timing when it comes to effects-laden filmmaking. This is the kind of movie for folks who dig Body Snatchers (1993), if you know what I mean. Smith and Dillon make a suitable pair of leads to carry the experience when it comes to reacting against ever-shifting terror, which work well for the cliches required (screams, or the totally-a-rebel delinquent, you get the idea) because they have a good stab at it rather than letting the material roll them over. Besides, the fact that the acid dissolves someone that looks to be one of the leads early (well, sometimes you can crib from better horror films when it means something cool). Seneca is the adversary in terms of "people are expendable" that is at least presented with relative ease rather than distractions. Bottom line, I enjoy the way the blob asorbs folks, whether that involves a person trying to get pulled out only to see their arm rip off or to cap off a standoff. The ending to the film in terms of how to resolve a blob that goes around absorbing people like jello is mostly the same in being repelled by the cold, although it is as open-ended as before, since the last one had one of those "The End?" cards and this one involves a remnant of the stuff still around. Too bad there isn't more Close, because one can't have enough weirdo priests thinking about the "end of Days" (mention that phrase to a random guy at church and see where that goes). Anyway, it's a fun film that I enjoyed when it comes to its pacing that shows a worthy threat in its creature to make itself worth watching as a second go of "The Blob" that deserved better attention back then.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Final Destination 2.

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.

Saw X.

Review #2100: Saw X.

Cast: 

Tobin Bell (John Kramer / Jigsaw), Shawnee Smith (Amanda Young), Synnøve Macody Lund (Cecilia Pederson), Steven Brand (Parker Sears), Renata Vaca (Gabriela), Joshua Okamoto (Diego), Octavio Hinojosa (Mateo), Paulette Hernández (Valentina), and Jorge Briseño (Carlos) Directed by Kevin Gretuert.

Review: 

Admittedly, I was wondering if it sounded weird to do the tenth installment of a franchise before watching even half of the series. But Saw (2004) was a decent film, so I assumed it would go just fine to roll right into Saw X without thinking about the fact that the premise for the film was the one rejected in favor of Lionsgate going forward with Spiral (2021), the one with Chris Rock as star and no Tobin Bell. Incidentally, Kevin Greutert, who had edited a number of the previous films and directed Saw VI (2009) and Saw 3D (2010), serves as director for this film, which is set between the original film and Saw II (2005). The script was written by Peter Goldfinger and Josh Stolberg, who had written for both Jigsaw (2017) and Spiral. It was apparently done with as many practical effects as possible, which is something to highlight when one is actually taking the time to film in a location that they are actually setting the film in (this case being Mexico). The two returning actors from previous installments may be a bit older, but it does not take long to get used to them being back here with a film set between films released nearly 20 years ago. The original film, as you probably know, involved the investigation of a series of people that had to deal with certain traps that had the shape of a puzzle piece cut into the ones that failed said test. 

This time around, one is following Bell for the entirety of the film that basically sees him as a protagonist of the most basic sort: ones who don't care for others taking advantage of the most desperate. Don't get me wrong, the film is quite gnarly in horror for those who like to keep their fingers close by to wrap in fear, but it is a capable film because it has the most interest in setting a purpose beyond gory traps. It maintains a steady pace of 118 minutes that makes an engaging buildup of the con game that makes the inevitable discovery all the more involving for a decent effort. The pain inflicted by the character upon these flawed individuals makes for frightening horror if only because one doesn't really want to think about they would do in that scenario or in the other scary scenario of being bilked by a false hero of hope. For some, hope is all a person has, so imagine seeing that taken away. It lends Bell his best chance to give the character a sense of purpose and integrity that basically swings on down to what might be the most intriguing sequel of the series in years. He obviously is relishing the chance provided here to extoll what it means to be a man with nothing to lose and all the time to set rules for others to play (granted the puppet is a bit much). It may be a personal revenge story, but it is an involving revenge story. Smith is the only other returning actor from the series (okay, maybe not only...) to appear here, and she does well in well-intentioned interest to follow in the footsteps of Bell in dictating in the art of rules and order. Lund makes a quality adversarial presence against Bell, the kind of person with conniving spirit that would use intestines as a rope when the opportunity presents itself. The stakes may be a bit different because of where it sets itself, but the viewer still cares about the process of people trying to figure out what it means to be wrapped in a situation of sacrifice. The buildup to the ending (complete with flashing back to scenes we just saw a couple of minutes ago to hammer a point home) is about as ridiculously elaborate as one probably expects from the series. It is squeamish, but it is the kind of thing that followers of the series will be right at home with while proving just fine for those less familiar, and I think that makes for a suitable choice in the horror season.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next: Exorcist III.

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).