Saw V.

Review #2589: 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.

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.

Saw X.

Review #2100: Saw X.

Cast: 

Tobin Bell (Jigsaw/John Kramer), 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).