Saw 3D (2010)

Everything must come to an end, be they good or bad. And eventually, even the longest-running horror movie franchises will end as well. Some even proclaim the latest sequel is "the final chapter" yet still have enough steam to keep on chugging along. You'll even see the rare instance of a horror franchise with multiple final chapters (I'm looking at you, Friday the 13th). While this mostly applied to the horror juggernauts of the '80s, it also goes for those of the new millennium, as evidenced by the recent conclusion of the Saw franchise.

It had a good run, with a new installment being released the weekend before Halloween every year since Lions Gate released James Wan and Leigh Whannell's original Saw in 2004. But if Jigsaw's bloody tale had to come to a close, the crew at Twisted Pictures chose to end it with a little style. So that's why instead of plain ol' Saw VII, the franchise was brought into the third dimension with Saw 3D. And oddly enough, the franchise comes to an end with neither a bang nor a whimper, but a "huh?"

Saw 3D picks up mere seconds after the end of Saw VI, as rogue cop Mark Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) swears revenge after managing to survive the trap left for him by Jill Tuck (Betsy Russell). But having that revenge will not be easy, because she has already pointed him out to the police. With internal affairs detective Matt Gibson (Chad Donella) leading the manhunt and Jill in protective custody, Hoffman has a hell of a lot of hurdles to jump if he wishes to remain the heir to the Jigsaw mantle.

But like each of the Saw sequels, there's a secondary storyline. This one follows Bobby Dagen (Sean Patrick Flanery), who has shot to fame with a best-selling memoir about how he survived one of Jigsaw's traps. But the truth is that his book is a work of fiction; Bobby was never targeted by Jigsaw, and he fabricated the whole thing as a get-rich-quick scheme. His deception will not go unpunished, as he finds himself placed in a labyrinth of traps. Stuck in these traps are members of his entourage who helped to propagate the lies in his book. And to give Bobby sufficient motivation to participate, his wife has been kidnapped and will be burned alive if he fails.

Saw 3D is an awkward movie, because it isn't quite the conclusion I was expecting. Instead of laying everything out on the table and wrapping it all up, the movie only answers the franchise's biggest unanswered question — whatever happened to Dr. Gordon after the first Saw? — while at the same time raising a few more. It's like they were fully expecting to leave something for Saw VIII in the event that they change their minds about this being the final chapter. (And you just know that they will eventually.) For a movie that's supposed to be the last installment in a franchise, it felt a little too open-ended. But outside of that, I honestly didn't think it was a tremendously bad note for the Saw series to end on.

At the helm is Kevin Greutert, directing his second consecutive entry in the franchise. The movie was originally supposed to be directed by Saw V director David Hackl, but Lions Gate exorcised some kind of contractual clause at the very last minute to bring Greutert back to the franchise. It makes me wonder how things would have turned out if he hadn't returned, because Greutert had been lined up to direct Paranormal Activity 2 before Lions Gate yanked him back into the fold.

Greutert's had a long history with the Saw franchise, having served as the editor of the first five movies before directing Saw VI. And while Saw 3D is only his second feature-length directorial effort, it really feels like he knows what he's doing. Maybe it helps that he was an editor for so long before moving into the director's chair, because I got the impression that he knew exactly how he wanted things to play out. The way shots are composed and scenes are paced gave me the impression that not only was he aiming to improve upon what he'd done in the previous movie, but try to make the best horror movie he could. Greutert's direction is tight, focused. It helps that he has some assistance in the form of Brian Gedge's well-done cinematography and the fabulous score from Charlie Clouser, but Greutert shows that he's a perfectly capable director and Saw 3D is a fine movie in part because of his work.

And then there's the whole 3D aspect of the production. The bad thing about reviewing a 3D movie after it's already been released on home video is that, since studios don't include those red/blue glasses with the DVDs anymore, 2D is your only option. You can't see Saw 3D in actual 3D anymore unless you've spent a thousand dollars on a 3DTV, another hundred on a 3D Blu-ray player, and thirty or forty bucks on the 3D Blu-ray disc. (Which makes it weird, since although the DVD covers have renamed the movie "Saw: The Final Chapter," the movie's opening and closing credits still bear the title "Saw 3D.")

I haven't seen the 3D Blu-ray, so I can't judge how well the effect is pulled off on home video. But in the theatrical release, it looked really good. It was immersive, and all the blood and guts and sharp objects that came flying at the screen really popped. The fact that the movie was shot naturally with 3D cameras as opposed to doing one of those cheap post-production transfers helps a lot. But to its credit, the movie still looks good in 2D. All the shots intended to play with the 3D effects are a little awkward without the added depth, but it's nothing that can't be overlooked.

But let's move along to the script, once again written by Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to call their script flawed. The fact that Jigsaw is limited to only two or three very short scenes is bad enough. But I really didn't like that Melton and Dunstan felt that that they had to do the whole "victim runs a gauntlet of traps" story again. I'll confess that I thought it was better executed here than in some of the other Saw movies, since Bobby Dagen is a pretty likable character. But I think that the movie would have worked a lot better had it focused solely on Hoffman's story alone.

The first trap we see in the movie had me scratching my head too. The trap is a fairly ordinary setup for the Saw franchise, but it's in broad daylight, out in the open with a huge crowd of people watching. The kicker is the whole thing is never once mentioned again. If it was, I never caught it. If you aren't going to follow up on it in some fashion, why even do it at all? You'd think one of Jigsaw's traps happening out in public with an audience would be something you'd want to build upon. But Melton and Dunstan do nothing with it beyond the one scene. The surviving characters don't even reappear anywhere else in the movie, despite at least one scene where they could have. It all just screams "wasted opportunity."

And the ending had me a bit flummoxed too. It explains just where Dr. Gordon has been since the first Saw's ending, but there's one element (which I won't spoil) that is done in such a way that it makes you wonder where Melton and Dunstan were going with it. The biggest problem is that if Saw 3D truly is the franchise's final chapter, we'll never find out. It's as if they knew that somebody would rope them into writing an eighth Saw movie sooner or later, so they had to leave at least one question unanswered so there would be something to follow up on.

Let's wrap this up with the only thing left for me to talk about, the cast. Returning to the role of Jigsaw's would-be successor is Costas Mandylor, who I thought did a great job. I've really dug his work over the last few sequels, and Saw 3D is no exception. Mandylor is intense in the role, really making the character's desperation and psychosis believable. The guy's a great villain, and he provides a nice contrast to the calm, cool, collected nature of Tobin Bell's Jigsaw.

And speaking of Tobin Bell, his absence here is sorely felt. Bell has always been the strongest part of every entry in the franchise, but the fact that he only has two or three scenes in all of Saw 3D really hurts the movie. The guy is stuck in what is essentially a glorified cameo, a real downgrade for someone who was once the defining figure of the franchise. I'm not expecting him to be the star (though that would have been a hell of a twist), but I'd have been happier if Bell had been given more screen time.

The same can be said for Cary Elwes, who finally makes his return to the franchise after being absent from all the other sequels. I won't give away the details of his return, but Elwes is great in his sadly limited appearance. Pretty much everyone I know who considers themselves a Saw fan has been waiting for the return of Elwes as Dr. Gordon, and while I'm happy to see him back, I wish he could have stayed longer.

And I also thought Sean Patrick Flanery, who plays our gauntlet-running victim du jour, was really good. When his character is doing the whole shtick to sell his book and preening for the news cameras, Flanery is really convincing as a guy who just wanted to get rich quick but is pushed farther by his deceitful, douchebag friends and PR people who just want to ride a gravy train to greater heights. You get the impression through Flanery's performance that Bobby knows he's in over his head on this press tour, and as he progresses through the series of traps, you can see that he's one of those few Jigsaw victims who seems to have genuinely learned his lesson. Bobby's actually a pretty likable character by the end, thanks mostly to Flanery's sympathetic performance.

Unfortunately, I didn't quite care for Chad Donella. I didn't buy him for a second. The character is rather blandly written, with no substance to it whatsoever. Donella's performance didn't help things at all, making the character come off as shallow as the script has written him. And I was actually kinda bummed that the writers didn't really seem to know what to do with poor Betsy Russell until the climax. All that's required of her is to sit around waiting for Mandylor to come and get her, which doesn't give her much of a chance to do anything. And this lack of anything to do doesn't really give Russell a lot of reason to try all that hard. It's a shame, really.

I've been a fan of the Saw franchise since the beginning. But with the recent sequels and this so-called conclusion, the franchise could give one the impression of being a marathon runner who starts off strong but ends the race limping across the finish line. Don't get me wrong, I didn't think Saw 3D in particular was a bad movie nor a wholly awful way to end the Saw story. It's just that I hate seeing a series of movies I like not ending on a high note, but instead after it has long run out of steam. If Saw 3D does indeed close the book on the saga of Jigsaw for good, at least it ended with a respectable effort from those who made it. It's a very flawed movie, but it's not a very bad one either. And as the franchise's villains are wont to say, "Game over."

Final Rating: ***

Saw VI (2009)

You just can't keep a good horror movie villain down. As long as the audience wants to see them, they'll keep popping back up. That's one of the big reasons why Frankenstein's Monster has appeared in dozens of movies that date as far back as 1910. Modern villains like Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger popped up in numerous movies over the course of the '80s, but by the time the new millennium rolled around, classic horror villains started making less and less appearances.

But then Lions Gate Films and Twisted Pictures made their own villain for modern horror fans. When Saw made an unexpectedly huge splash at the box office in 2004, the sequels kept coming like clockwork. And they're still coming, as we've already reached the movie we're here to discuss now, Saw VI. The latest chapter in the story of Jigsaw and his apprentices, Saw VI continues the path laid forth by its five predecessors and sets things up for the road ahead in this perfectly acceptable sequel.

Detective Mark Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) is now free to fully take over where Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) left off, having eliminated Agent Strahm while framing him for the murders. While he tries to make absolute certain that all his tracks have been covered and cover up any evidence connecting him to the crimes, it's time for him to begin the next game.

With a little help from Jigsaw's ex-wife Jill (Betsy Russell), Hoffman captures William Easton (Peter Outerbridge), a health insurance executive that routinely denies claims to people who actually need them. The game William will have to play will also involve numerous employees from his firm, all of them put into life-or-death situations in order to teach William that life is of greater value than money.

The Saw franchise hasn't ever really felt the need to deviate from its basic formula. All the movies need are plenty of grotesque death traps and plot twists that would make M. Night Shyamalan say, "Whoa, cut back on the twists." Five movies have used that formula, but Saw VI decided it was going to be different. It uses the formula, but chooses to add a little heavy-handed social commentary into the mix. And it actually makes the movie stand out from the others because of that attempt at making a statement.

But we'll get to that in a moment. My reviews have their own formula, so let's stick to it and begin with the direction. Handling those duties is Kevin Greutert, the editor of the first five Saw movies. This is his first feature-length movie as a director, and while there isn't anything groundbreaking about his work, there doesn't need to be.

Greutert does a better job than I expected, though, especially in the cases when he goes against the franchise's usual color palette of dark grays, blues, and greens. Some of the traps the primary victim encounters are lighted with reds, oranges, and yellows, which I thought really helped to set the movie apart from its predecessors. However, there are times when felt his direction was a touch uninspired. It is these instances when it seems as if he's just duplicating what James Wan, Darren Lynn Bousman, and David Hackl had done with the previous entries in the series.

Next up is the cast. I have to admit that I'm not quite sure if there's a point in doing so, because I doubt very many people are watching the Saw movies for the acting. And really, it's all more of the same anyway. But because I'm a slave to the routine, let's break it down regardless.

Tobin Bell pops up for the sixth straight movie, and he once again contributes a solid performance. He gets a little hammy at times, but he's still good in the role. But I do wonder how often he's thought about just phoning it in. He got killed off in Saw III, so there's no real forward movement for the character. The only reasons Jigsaw has been in the movies since then are to fill in plot holes and add to his background. Any other movie would have left Jigsaw's origin story to the viral marketing, but not the Saw franchise. But I'm just happy that Bell has remained relatively consistent throughout the series.

Moving on to the rest of the cast, I did like Costas Mandylor as our primary villain. He comes off a bit stiff at times, but I thought it worked well for the character. The character of Hoffman is a cop trying to hide the fact that he's the murderer he's supposed to be hunting, so Mandylor being stiff could always be excused as what happens when a snake pretends he isn't one.

Moving along to the supporting cast, I thought that Betsy Russell contributed a fine performance as Jill. Her work here is understated, calm almost to the point of being creepy, but it only serves to make the character more intriguing. Russell makes the viewer wonder what's going on inside Jill's head, wonder what her thought process is and what she's planning or scheming. I was a bit apprehensive about the character going down the path she has taken, but that won't be a problem as long as Russell's performances stay constant in the sequels.

Playing the movie's primary victim is Peter Outerbridge, whose work I wasn't exactly thrilled with. It's not that he's bad, but he didn't strike me as being too good either. I guess part of it is because his subplot not only seems preachy, but superfluous as well. If it were me, I'd have dropped the whole thing and made the whole movie about just Hoffman and Jill. But that's just me, I guess. Anyway, Outerbridge doesn't do a bad job, so he's got that going for him. Unfortunately, he struck me as just being kinda there most of the time.

The rest of the supporting cast doesn't really make much of a splash, though. I will say, however, that I thought Devon Bostick — who plays Outerbridge's character's son — is really bad, and I though Tanedra Howard's performance as a trap victim early in the movie was almost laughable thanks to her overacting. Then again, Howard's only in the movie at all because she won the part on a VH1 game show, so maybe lame acting was to be expected? At least Shawnee Smith was watchable in her brief appearances through flashbacks.

However, what makes this entry into the Saw franchise stand apart from the ones that preceded it is the writing. Penned by the returning duo of Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, the script sticks to the franchise's usual formula while bringing in that social commentary I mentioned previously. The whole thing is an indictment of greedy health insurance companies, and it gets so preachy that you can practically feel the movie trying to hit you over the head with their smarmy attempt at some sort of message.

I'd have no problem with it if it weren't done so overt. But Melton and Dunstan don't even bother with subtlety. They whip it out and practically beat you to death with it. Okay, insurance companies are ripping people off, I get it! If I wanted to watch someone's condemnation of the nation's health programs, I'd go rent that Michael Moore documentary Sicko. This lack of subtlety is astounding enough, but part of it feels like a cheap excuse to justify half of Tobin Bell's scenes. Granted, it's nice to see the Saw movies try expanding beyond the formula, but I just wish it hadn't been done in such a heavy-handed way.

The other half of the plot, however, is better written. I thought the story of Hoffman trying to cover all his bases and contend with Jill was a more intriguing story, and as I said previously, I'd have much rather seen an entire movie based on that than having to balance it with the insurance executive's gauntlet of horrors. It not only helped further along the franchise's overall arc, but also tied up a lot of the loose ends that had accumulated over throughout the last few entries in the franchise. It was very well done, which I felt was in stark contrast to just how lame the other storyline is.

While I'm on the topic of the script, I wanted to bring up an interesting subtext that Melton and Dunstan bring up yet never fully explore. It's really only brought up at the beginning of the movie, when two people forced to play a "game" must mutilate themselves in order to live. One doesn't survive, while the other (played by the aforementioned Tanedra Howard) only does so after hacking an arm off at the elbow. She's questioned by Detective Hoffman at the hospital, who asks her just what she learned from her experience. Her response: holding up the stub where her arm once was and shrieking, "What am I supposed to learn from this?"

Jigsaw's whole gimmick has always been to teach people the value of human life by making them face their own deaths. But his grand scheme hasn't really worked out that well. Not very many people survive his games, but the survivors that turn up in later entries into the series never seem to learn anything. The one I mentioned in the previous paragraph, for example. The most prominent evidence of this — Jigsaw's first apprentice, Amanda — became a murderer whose traps never gave victims the same chance to live that Jigsaw gave her. And even Hoffman is depicted as being particularly coldhearted, quite unlike Jigsaw, who seemingly does feel at least a little compassion for his victims even while putting them through the ringer. That subtext is one that I wish the movie had examined further, because it could make for some compelling storytelling if done right.

As a whole, Saw VI is a mishmash of good and bad that, while most assuredly not flawless, is at least a step up from the two sequels that it followed. It's not a great movie, or even really a good movie. But when taking it for what it is, as the sixth movie in a movie studio's cash cow horror franchise, it's not bad. And judging it as such, I'll give it three and a half stars. It isn't the best of the sequels, but it does throw a much-needed speed bump in the downturn the Saw franchise had been taking. It's at least the best entry into the second trilogy. And if it is successful at anything, it definitely made me want to see Saw VII in October.

Final Rating: ***½

Saw V (2008)

If there is one constant in the horror genre, it's that you can't keep a good villain down. Whether it be the classic creatures like Dracula and Frankenstein, or modern monsters like Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger, any horror villain worth his salt will be able to find his way back through as many sequels and remakes as Hollywood sees fit.

Perhaps the most recent example of this has been Jigsaw, the primary antagonist of the Saw franchise. Despite the first movie originally being intended for a direct-to-video release, its theatrical release was so successful that Lions Gate Films and Twisted Pictures started churning out sequels on an annual basis.

And even after Jigsaw's apparent demise in the climax of Saw III, the continuing popularity of the franchise shows that not even death can stop a truly committed horror villain. This is what leads us to Saw IV. The continuing saga of Jigsaw's bloody quest to challenge people and make them appreciate life's blessings, Saw V ultimately gives us more of what you'd expect out of the franchise. But whether or not that's a good thing is what we're here to discuss.

Detective Mark Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) believed that he was the last man standing after the events of Saw IV, free to continue the series of deadly games started by the now deceased Jigsaw (Tobin Bell). But he soon learns that Peter Strahm (Scott Patterson), the FBI agent most dedicated to catching Jigsaw, survived the trap that Hoffman had set for him.

With Agent Strahm growing more suspicious of Hoffman's activities and becoming obsessed with stopping Jigsaw's legacy after the death of his partner, Hoffman must cover his tracks and tie up all the necessary loose ends to make sure nobody discovers that he is the successor to the Jigsaw mantle.

And while he tries evading Agent Strahm, Hoffman must still go about business as usual. A group of five people — spoiled rich kid Mallick (Greg Bryk), newspaper reporter Charles (Carlo Rota), fire marshal Ashley (Laura Gordon), city planner Luba (Meagan Good), and real estate agent Brit (Julie Benz) — awaken to find that they've been chosen to participate in Hoffman's first game as the new Jigsaw. All of them connected in some way to a fatal house fire, the five have been put in this situation to force them to go against their own self-serving nature and work together if they hope to survive the grueling series of tests they'll have to endure.

Over the years, the Saw franchise has become less about telling coherent, flowing narratives, and more about having a twist ending, using flashbacks to build upon the previous movies, and emphasizing the bigger, bolder, bloodier deathtraps. And there is some evidence of that in this, the fifth entry into the saga. The movie feels cramped, adding little details here and there to build upon the franchise's past while still attempting to move forward with its own stories.

And it feels weaker, too. There's not enough actual story here to really sustain a full movie, so by the end, everything is stretched out to the point that it concludes with a whimper instead of a bang. Saw V seems to exist only to bridge the gap between the previous movies and Saw VI. I respect it for trying to fill in plot holes, answer old questions while setting up new ones for the future, and actually trying to tell a focused story along the way. But it ultimately gives the impression of being an explanation for the past instead of a full-fledged movie in its own right.

At the helm is David Hackl, taking over the reigns from Darren Lynn Bousman. Hackl worked as the production designer on the second, third, and fourth Saw movies, and served as second unit director for Saw III and Saw IV. So Hackl is no stranger to the world of Jigsaw. This is first actual time working as the primary director of a movie, and I thought he did a solid job. While Hackl does little to distinguish himself from previous Saw directors Bousman and James Wan, he at least manages to do an adequate job of things. He keeps things rolling at a brisk pace, and tries his best to make sure the audience is never bored.

Up next is the screenplay, written by Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan. Having previously written Saw IV, this gives them the chance to follow up on some dangling plot threads while creating some new ones for future sequels. They also manage to once again balance three storylines: the cat-and-mouse game between Hoffman and Agent Strahm, the five victims in need of an exit, and a series of flashbacks that show Jigsaw training Hoffman to be his successor.

Melton and Dunstan have definitely stepped up their game here, as they seem to have improved upon the mistakes they made during Saw IV's writing process. The two primary stories are much more linear, making the movie easier to follow. It's kinda hard to get into a movie if you have a hard time keeping track of what's happening, so this helped a lot. And in regards to the flashbacks, taking these looks back really feels like it's building upon what the previous movies have all established. It might feel like it's pulling a retcon in some instances, but it never feels cheap.

But in spite of those positives, Melton and Dunstan haven't really written the most memorable movie they could have. There's not much that stands out beyond the traps. The storyline with the five victims running the gauntlet of traps is almost a repeat of Saw II, and ultimately ends up feels like it's just filling in the gaps in the running time that the other storylines couldn't take care of. The movie seems to put more emphasis on Agent Strahm's investigation, which itself seems seems contrived at times (though it does get progressively better).

The worst part, though, is the ending. Look at the poster at the top of this review, and you'll see that it carries the tagline, "You won't believe how it ends." And the tagline is right. I couldn't believe how it ended. As I said earlier in the review, Saw V concludes not with a bang, but with a whimper. It reaches the climax and just limps along to the credits. The Saw movies usually conclude with some kind of twist, but the ending of Saw V isn't that much of a twist. That is, if you can even call it one. I don't want to spoil it, but the ending is kind of a disappointment.

Last on my list is the acting, which is give or take. Jigsaw is the backbone of the franchise, and Tobin Bell once again puts forth a top-notch performance. He's consistently contributed some of the best acting in the Saw franchise, and this entry is no exception. Unfortunately, due to plot-related circumstances, the cast has to be led by Costas Mandylor and Scott Patterson. Mandylor is very good as a character that had spent the better part of the franchise being a shady part of the background. He may be unfairly compared to Bell or Shawnee Smith by some fans of the series, but Mandylor does a really good job, and I can't complain.

Patterson, though, seems like he's forcing it. He doesn't stray into "over the top" territory, but it feels as if he's trying too hard. That's kind of a shame, too. It doesn't help anything that he has to speak in a raspy voice due to his character suffering a throat injury early in the movie, and Patterson's use of the voice is inconsistent. It fades in and out, and it hurts his performance.

And of the five victims stuck in Jigsaw's series of traps, only two of them stand out. One of them is Julie Benz. She's good in pretty much everything she's in, and Saw V is no exception. The other is Carlo Rota, who I thought was fun in a sardonic kind of way. The other three are utterly forgettable, though, which is kinda sad, really.

The thing about Saw V is that it runs out of steam after a while. It's a solid enough movie, but by the end, it's nearly worn itself out. It quite frankly doesn't make the same kind of impression as the others did. While it does have some cool traps and builds towards Saw VI, it is an ultimately mediocre movie that is only slightly above average at its best.

And although I said the same thing about the previous movie, Saw V is the weakest entry in the series. It's still worth a watch if you go in with lowered expectations, but it's just... adequate, I guess is the word I'm looking for. Yeah, "adequate" works. So I'll give Saw V a "thumbs in the middle" with three stars, since it's a decent enough movie to earn that in spite of my complaints. And in the movie's defense, it did leave me anxious to see how Saw VI will follow up on it. That's a plus, right?

Final Rating: ***

Saw IV (2007)

One of the horror genre's most famous elements is the unstoppable villain that cannot seem to be defeated. And similarly, once a horror movie franchise gets rolling, there's very little anyone can do to slow it down. It was all the rage with horror flicks in the '80s, as famous franchises such as Halloween, Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street, and Hellraiser all have somewhere between seven and ten sequels. Though while that trend seems to have cooled somewhat since the turn of the twenty-first century, one modern horror franchise seems to have its black heart set on matching the long running sagas that came before it.

Released on the weekend before Halloween in 2004, Saw became a sleeper hit and inspired distributor Lions Gate Films and production studio Twisted Pictures to keep the blood flowing by releasing a new sequel every Halloween. But while the story of Jigsaw seemed to have ended with the gory conclusion of Saw III in 2006, the high box office grosses ensured that we'd somehow see a fourth movie. And that's exactly what we got the following Halloween with Saw IV. Perhaps the most ambitious of the four films released at the time of this writing, Saw IV might not be as good as the trilogy proceeding it, but it's not too bad at all.

John "Jigsaw" Kramer (Tobin Bell) is dead. But in spite of this setback, he has gone to great lengths to ensure that his legacy will stay alive. To do so, he has focused his attention on Daniel Rigg (Lyriq Bent), a SWAT team commander whose impetuous, somewhat obsessive nature with his job often puts himself and others in harm's way. Jigsaw has somehow managed to manipulate Rigg into a series of tests organized into a series of tests resembling a violent scavenger hunt, giving him ninety minutes to see it to its completion. Following the bloody trail left behind by these tests are FBI agents Peter Strahm (Scott Patterson) and Lindsey Perez (Athena Karkanis), whose search for a solution pulls them deeper into the pile of skeletons hidden in Jigsaw's closet.

I said in the beginning of this review that Saw IV is the most ambitious of the franchise thus far. It is, but it's also the most convoluted. There's at least three stories and subplots going on at once, which makes it really hard to keep track of things if you're not paying absolutely full attention. I'm surprised I got that plot synopsis up there as streamlined and as spoiler-free as I did, because I felt like I needed Cliff's Notes or a flow chart or something to properly put it together. But though it may be somewhat hard to follow, I still felt that Saw IV brought a lot to the table when it comes to creating a bigger, deeper universe and adding layers to the movies that came before it.

First up is the direction by Darren Lynn Bousman. Bousman is no stranger to the franchise, having directed all but the first movie, so he knows exactly what he's doing with this one. You might think that directing three sequels three years in a row would cause him to become complacent, but Bousman keeps things exciting with tight editing and well-done cinematography from fellow franchise mainstay David Armstrong.

The movie has all the visual hallmarks you'd expect, and though Bousman doesn't really try anything different or new, that's not completely bad. It also helps that his work was bolstered by the fantastic score once again composed by Charlie Clouser. His industrial-infused music has added a lot to the Saw franchise, and this movie is no different. His use of certain recurring elements — as well as the piece of music that has become the Saw theme song — gives the movie a sense of familiarity, and keeps the tension high throughout the proceedings depicted onscreen.

Next is the screenplay, written by Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan. Notable for being the first Saw movie not written by series co-creator Leigh Whannell, the script may not be as strong as it could be. But when you make sense of the three concurrent storylines, I felt that it held up. Melton and Dunstan have also obviously seen all of the Saw movies, because if anything can be said about their script, it's that it has a keen eye for continuity within the franchise. Little references to characters and events from the first three movies are peppered throughout Saw IV, to the point that you'd probably be best off watching all three of the other movies before you watch this one.

Aside from the continuity, another thing Melton and Dunstan have done is go deeper into how Jigsaw came to be. I've often complained that giving away too much of a villain's history demystifies them and makes them less scary. Though Jigsaw's origin story had been hinted at in what came before, Melton and Dunstan fill in the gaps and complete Jigsaw's turn from a monster into a tragic figure. In the series of flashbacks that accomplish this, we see him not as Jigsaw, but as John Kramer, a man with a wife, a job, and a baby on the way. It isn't until he is stricken with a rash of extremely bad luck that we the roots of his Jigsaw persona being laid. Melton and Dunstan handle this extremely well, making us truly care about Jigsaw and those in his life.

Lastly is the cast, all of whom I felt did their best. Lyriq Bent's role may not have benefited from the strongest writing, but he still does a decent job. He isn't perfect, but he's good enough. The same can be said for Scott Patterson and Athena Karkanis, whose undeveloped characters don't stop them from handing in fine performances.

There is some gold amidst the silver, though. Billy Otis is sleazy yet entertaining as the man who would become Jigsaw's first victim, and Betsy Russell is very good as Jigsaw's ex-wife. Her character may only be a supporting one, but Russell's performance helps to make the character even more important. And as always, the best performance comes from Tobin Bell as Jigsaw. Jigsaw evolves from being likeable to sympathetic to frightening, and Bell perfectly hits all the right notes. If there's at least one constant in the Saw franchise, it's that Tobin Bell is going to be great.

The really bad thing about Saw IV is that it feels less like a true sequel and more like a jumping-off point for a new trilogy. The fifth and sixth Saw movies have yet to be released, so I'm sure I'll appreciate Saw IV more once I see them. But right now, it feels like watching only half a story. Something is missing from this movie, which really hurts it. And because of that, I'm going to have to give it a "thumbs in the middle" with three stars. But don't let that fool you. It might be the weakest of the series thus far, but it's still an intriguing watch. Just make sure that you've taken that Saw refresher course first.

Final Rating: ***

Saw III (2006)

One of the most famous horror movie clichés is that the sinners always die first. Drink a beer, you're going to die. Smoke marijuana, you're going to die. Have sex, you're going to die. Be an all-around pain in the neck, you're gonna die. The "sinners die first" cliché has not usually been addressed outright in the past, but this changed when Lions Gate Films released the low-budget flick Saw two days before Halloween in 2004. The brainchild of Australian filmmakers James Wan and Leigh Whannell, Saw introduced the world to Jigsaw, an evil genius who places victims in intricate deathtraps to teach them about the value of human life.

The movie was a huge success, and twelve months later, a sequel hit theaters and achieved even more box office success than its predecessor. Someone at Lions Gate must have had the idea to keep the franchise going a Halloween tradition, as the third chapter of the Saw franchise saw its release on October 26, 2006. And I'm willing to bet that it is perhaps the most ambitious entry in the series.

Master manipulator John "Jigsaw" Kramer (Tobin Bell) is on his deathbed. Closer than ever to succumbing to the brain tumor that changed his life, he has time enough for one last game. Playing the game is Jeff Reinhart (Angus Macfayden), a man tormented by the memories of his eight-year-old son's tragic death and burning with an immeasurable hatred for the drunk driver that caused it and for those who let him get away with a mere slap on the wrist. It is this animosity that has caught Jigsaw's eye, and he has chosen Jeff as his newest guinea pig. Awaiting him in a veritable house of horrors are three tests that will challenge not his will to live, but his will to forgive.

To ensure her gravely ill mentor can see Jeff's adventure to its completion, Jigsaw's budding protégé Amanda (Shawnee Smith) kidnaps troubled yet talented surgeon Lynn Denlon (Bahar Soomekh) and orders her to help him. To ensure her cooperation, Amanda straps a collar rigged with shotgun shells around Lynn's neck. The collar is remotely connected to Jigsaw's heart rate monitor; if he flatlines or if Lynn moves outside of a certain range, the collar will activate and blow her face off. With no options, she is forced to do everything she can to make sure Jigsaw stays alive until his final game can be completed.

It should be stated that Saw III is without a doubt the best chapter in the Saw saga thus far. It is remarkably strong, thanks in large part to placing as much concentration on the development of its characters as it does the creative and deliciously nasty deathtraps that have become the franchise's hallmark. It helps that the movie also boasts tight direction, an extremely well-written script, and an amazing cast. Put it all together, and at the risk of sounding hyperbolic, it makes for one of the best genre entries in some time.

Let's hit the script first. Penned by Leigh Whannell, the screenplay is awesome. It has all of the twists and turns that fans of the series have come to expect, but it balances that with something resembling — gasp! — a soul. While the first two movies are dripping with misanthropy, Saw III actually has something to talk about. It is a tale of forgiveness and compassion, and although it is told with tremendous amounts of graphic violence, the message is there and the movie is better for it. Whannell's screenplay also focuses heavily on its four main characters, each intriguing in their own way.

The most developed and layered characters are Jigsaw and Amanda, who have evolved beyond their relatively minor appearances in the first film to become the franchise's most important characters. What makes Jigsaw — and by proxy the entire Saw franchise — special is that instead of being the traditionally sadistic villain with an insatiable bloodlust and a jet black heart, Jigsaw honestly does not wish death upon his victims. By his own admission in Saw III, he abhors murderers. He wants his victims to survive and become better people due to the hardships he puts them through. That gives Jigsaw a certain bizarre nobility that makes him stand out from his genre brethren. Take, for instance, the scene in which Lynn performs brain surgery on a half-conscious Jigsaw. For Jigsaw to agree to go through this surely painful procedure puts him on the same level as those he chooses to test. It makes him unlike nearly every other horror villain; it makes him human.

Amanda's story, from Jigsaw's victim to Jigsaw's apprentice, pushes forward as well. One could call her a victim of Stockholm Syndrome taken to an unconscionable degree. Jigsaw's trap for her saved her from her heroin addiction, and instead of intently following in his footsteps, she took a wrong turn somewhere. Amanda is a character full of anger and pain and contempt for others, and sees becoming the new Jigsaw not as a way to keep Jigsaw's philosophy going, but to inflict the pain inside her soul upon others. She's taken to cutting herself as a release from her problems, and a potential return to her addiction hangs above her head like a dark cloud. Amanda could have taken any path after surviving Jigsaw's game, but the one she has chosen is both frightening and heartbreaking.

Neither Jigsaw or Amanda reveal all the cards in their hands until the grand finale, and my, what a finale it is. One of the franchise's trademarks is the twist ending in each chapter, and Saw III's twist is the biggest yet. Whannell's screenplay wraps up nearly every loose end from the entire trilogy thus far in the movie's last five minutes, and brings the entire Saw universe full circle. We're given the broadest scope of Jigsaw's world yet, making the franchise is deeper because of it.

Up next is the direction by Darren Lynn Bousman. Working with cinematographer David Armstrong, Bousman's direction is excellently done. He utilizes some amazing scene transitions and maintains the franchise's traditional rapid-fire editing, while changing things up a little, as he incorporates a darker, gloomier atmosphere in the scenes with Jeff while using the franchise's usual bright lighting for Jigsaw's lair. Much of the movie also looks to have a very light, almost subliminal green tint, which I found to help quite a bit with establishing the proper atmosphere for the movie.

This ambiance is greatly assisted by the remarkable score composed by Charlie Clouser. I absolutely loved Clouser's music for the first two Saw movies, and he didn't let me down with Saw III. The score is very heavy, very industrial, and very befitting of the movie's tone. And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the recurring reprisals of the "Zepp Overture," a piece of music from the first Saw that has essentially become the de facto theme song for the series. Clouser uses a few different versions of the song throughout the movie, each one used in a way that enhances the scenes they're featured in.

Last but not least, there's the cast. I found Bahar Soomekh to be off and on in her role, but Tobin Bell, Shawnee Smith, and Angus Macfayden are all amazing. Macfadyen's performance as Jeff, a father whose mourning of the past is ruining his present, is utterly sympathetic. The role is an emotional and heart-wrenching one, and Macfayden knocks it out of the park. And once again, both Bell and Smith, the glue that have held the entire series together, are nothing short of wonderful. I honestly cannot imagine anyone else in their roles. The character of Amanda is simultaneously strong and weak, forceful and vulnerable, and Smith's powerful performance reflects that. Smith balances Amanda's rage and fragility excellently, something that I feel strengthens the character.

Meanwhile, Bell still manages to be excellent while doing the bulk of his performance lying on his back. I stated above that Jigsaw is a very human villain, and I believe that what Bell brings a lot of that to the surface. He plays Jigsaw as someone who, despite being borderline helpless, is still very much trying to assert his control over his life's work even as chinks in his armor begin to appear.

This, along giving Jigsaw a reserved, almost accepting outlook on being faced with his own mortality, really made a difference on how I look at the character even in the prior two movies. If one looks at Jigsaw's evolution over the course of the series, from evil genius to puppet master to a man in the twilight of his life, you see how even though he may be going about it a way most people wouldn't dream of, Jigsaw is a man who wants to make a difference in the world. But while Jigsaw has evolved, the constant has been Bell's respectable performances. As I said, Bell and Smith are the glue that holds the Saw movies together, and I believe that to be the truth.

Critics have dismissed Saw III as just another mindless gorefest organized to simply gross people out. But did those people watch the same movie I did? While I will readily admit that Saw III is not for the squeamish, there's more to it than gallons of fake gore. It's a story that forgiveness is divine, and that nursing the grudges you have against your fellow man will ultimately come back to burn you.

I'm sure that as long as the series makes money, Lions Gate won't hesitate to annually make a Saw movie until they reach Saw 37: Jigsaw in Space. But if it were to stop with Saw III, I think the story would be wrapped up nicely. Saw III would be a more-than-satisfying ending to a trilogy that's become a horror classic for the twenty-first century. And I think it earns four stars and a strong recommendation to check out the entire Saw series. Go check 'em out.

Final Rating: ****

Saw II (2005)

If you've read any of my reviews, you've probably learned that there's one rule in filmmaking: the sequel's the thing. If your film gets any kind of success whatsoever, your movie will get a sequel even if it seems like there's no way it could happen. Disney somehow made a sequel to The Wizard of Oz in 1985 (Return to Oz, starring Fairuza Balk as Dorothy), so anything could happen. I wouldn't be surprised if someone made Titanic 2: DiCaprio's Revenge sometime in the future.

No genre is safe from the power of sequels, especially horror movies. Most horror movies can be done in a relatively quick amount of time for next to nothing, so if they're moderately successful, why not make another chapter and make a little more money?

Such is the case with 2005's Saw II, the sequel to the sleeper hit from a year prior. Filmed in just under three weeks on an amazingly modest budget (somewhere in the neighborhood of one million dollars), Saw's creativity pulled in 102 million dollars worldwide. With that kind of turnaround, distributor Lions Gate Films decided to strike while the iron was hot and immediately sent a sequel into production. But is Saw II as imaginative as its predecessor, or is it another case of a sequel not living up to its full potential?

Things aren't going well for troubled detective Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg). He had extreme anger management issues, he's going through an extremely messy divorce, and his strained relationship with his delinquent shoplifter of a son Daniel (Eric Knudsen) is pushed to its breaking point. However, Detective Matthews's life begins to get even more complicated when he finds a message for him at the scene of the latest game played by self-righteous serial killer Jigsaw (Tobin Bell), a message instructing Detective Matthews to "look closer."

And look closer, he does. He notices a factory logo stamped on the side of the murder weapon, prompting him to lead the SWAT team into what proves to be Jigsaw's lair. Extremely ill due to the cancer that is killing him, Jigsaw informs the police that they should be less worried about arresting him, and more concerned with what's being broadcast on the monitors in the back of the room.

What the monitors convey cuts Detective Matthews to the bone, as they reveal that his son has become part of Jigsaw's most ambitious game yet. As Daniel awakens in a seemingly vacant house, he learns that he is trapped there with seven complete strangers: drug dealer Xavier Chavez (Franky G); Addison Corday (Emmanuelle Vaugier), a prostitute; corporate embezzler Gus Colyard (Tony Nappo); Obi Tate (Timothy Burd), an pyromaniac; Laura Hunter (Beverly Mitchell), a kleptomaniac; former jailbird Jonas Singer (Glenn Plummer); and Amanda Young (Shawnee Smith), who survived Jigsaw's wrath in the first Saw yet apparently didn't learn her lesson.

The eight prisoners are quick to discover a cassette tape that tells them the rules of the game. Deadly sarin gas is being pumped in through the air vents, and each of them has two hours to find an antidote before it kills them. And of course, each vial of the antidote is hidden on the other end of one of Jigsaw's sadistic traps. As the clock slowly ticks away, the police frantically search for the house while those inside it try to survive, and revelations are made regarding the residents and their connection to not only one another, but to Detective Matthews as well.

I'll say right now that casual fans are probably going to see Saw II with certain expectations, and I'm willing to bet those expectations center around Jigsaw's traps. And boy, are there traps like crazy. From a helmet similar to a medieval iron maiden and a sadistic version of a Chinese finger trap, to a pit of hypodermic needles and an oven-like furnace, each of the traps are deliciously violent and certainly didn't let me down.

It seems as if those behind Saw II tried to top its predecessor by just doing more of everything. There are more traps, more cast members (and thus more victims), and much more violence. In a genre in which methods of execution are starting to lose their creativity, Saw II's ingenuity can pull those that enjoy inventive deaths in horror movies out of any listlessness recent fare may have brought upon them.

However, the majority of Jigsaw's complicated traps come across as Rube Goldberg machines used for murderous intentions. Some are seemingly so complicated that the only way for them to succeed are either jumps in logic or their victims being dimwitted or panicky enough to not figure out the quickest means of survival. However, by no means does that make them any less frightening or entertaining.

While the script penned by Leigh Whannell and Darren Lynn Bousman does contain a few corny bits of dialogue, it eschews any pretentiousness found in the original Saw. It instead focuses more on the gruesome, violently over-the-top action inside the house, which Whannell and Bousman effortlessly juggle with the scenes involving Jigsaw and Detective Matthews, whose bizarre relationship comes across as an odd combination of Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling from The Silence of the Lambs, and Brad Pitt and Kevin Spacey in Seven.

Whannell and Bousman's script also succeeds in taking us the viewer deeper into Jigsaw's psyche. We are given more insight into his motivation, his driving force. Reviewers (myself included) drew parallels between Jigsaw and Kevin Spacey's "John Doe" from Seven upon the release of the first movie, and these similarities are just as evident in Saw II. Like John Doe, Jigsaw singles out those he deems undeserving of the gifts life has given them, and sets into motion events that will cause their deaths.

But Jigsaw may also be compared to classic Batman villain The Riddler. Each of Jigsaw's victims are placed in elaborate deathtraps, yet they are all given the opportunity of survival, provided that they use their brains, pay attention, and simply follow the rules that they have been given. Sure, Jigsaw's instructions and clues may sound vague at times, but they can be easily figured out if one thinks about them. But because they think his riddles are much more complex than they really are, they end up over-thinking the situation and causing themselves more pain and sorrow than if they had just stuck to the obvious. If Jigsaw tells you a certain key shouldn't be used for a certain lock, he isn't using reverse psychology. He may be crazy, but a liar he is not.

Jigsaw's games are exactly that: games. They're sick and twisted games that will more than likely result in the victim's very painful demise, but if those forced into participation can stay calm enough to play along, they can be beaten. And the thing is, if any of us were stuck in the same situation, we'd probably make the same mistakes as Jigsaw's victims. Why? We've seen too many movies featuring murderers that make unspecific pronouncements of impending doom.

I really can't argue with the direction of co-writer Bousman. Teamed with director of cinematography David Armstrong, he presents us with some very neat camera moves and setups that, while not as kinetic as the first movie, make for a very engaging style. However, I do think Bousman's use of the quick flash frames bordered on overkill, but hey, I'll forgive that.

Meanwhile, I don't really know how to feel about the changes in set design when comparing the two movies. The first Saw's primary bathroom set made me feel like I needed to take a shower after watching the movie. It was nasty, gross, and everything the movie needed. With Saw II, on the other hand, the house the victims are trapped in doesn't have that same aura of dread.

Jigsaw's lair, on the other hand, I have no problems with. He's surrounded by computer monitors, blueprints for various traps, and all kinds of tools for bringing these traps to fruition. It feels like you've crash landed into the workshop of an evil genius, and I think it's effective.

Also effective is the score, composed by former Nine Inch Nails member Charlie Clauser. His industrial-tinged music is as down and dirty as his score from the original Saw, even including a neat recurring melody for the characters of Daniel and Detective Matthews. Clauser's reprisal of the ending music from the first movie is an awesome touch as well.

The acting, as with the first movie, can be give or take at times. Let's start with the victims. Most of them are forgettable, disposable cannon fodder for the various implements of destruction that Jigsaw has left for them. However, there are a few notables in there. Franky G is as engaging as his character is despicable. I can't really give a lot away without spoiling some of the better parts of the movie, but the character is a total slimeball and Franky G makes it work.

I also thought Shawnee Smith, who reprises her role of the woebegone drug addict Amanda from the original film, was great. She was one of my favorite performances from the first Saw (despite having what amounted to a bit part), and I found her to once again be both sympathetic and wonderful. And she gets around pretty good for someone who, according to the DVD commentary, was a few months pregnant during production. I'm sure she had a stunt double, but her role is still somewhat physical, and I applaud her for going through it like a trooper.

Back in Jigsaw's lair, former boy band sensation Donnie Wahlberg acts circles around his little brother Mark, portraying a character that seems to be absolutely rotten yet wants to be a halfway decent father. But let's not forget Tobin Bell's amazing performance as Jigsaw. Bell obviously takes the role seriously, and he exudes a brash superiority that the character needs. And frankly, if Freddy Krueger ever needs to be played by someone other than Robert Englund, I think Bell should be their guy.

There's no doubt that Saw II is absolutely dripping with misanthropy. I think 2005 was the right time for Saw II to be released, as it gets to share a calendar year with other unfriendly movies in The Devil's Rejects and Wolf Creek. All three movies serve as stark reminders that, in these times of inoffensive films where good and evil are drawn right down the middle, there is a darkness in the human heart that is rarely explored.

This sort of thing is why I think horror movies are important to society as a whole. We need movies these to remind us that there are certain shadows that should probably never have light shine upon them. And while it can be argued that Saw II is simply a slasher movie with delusions of grandeur, it is evidence that in times of severe duress, we just might go a little crazy. And for that, I give it four stars.

Final Rating: ****

Saw (2004)

Many people take their lives for granted. They just go through the motions, never thinking twice about their mundane existences. They develop unhealthy addictions to drugs and alcohol, abuse their loved ones and ignore others, and go as far as committing suicide. Why? Simply because deep down, they're unhappy with life and are hollow and empty inside. Someone like that could be anyone from a strung-out junkie that is only happy when she's injecting different poisons into her veins, or a twenty-something slacker apathetically coasting through life on auto-pilot, or even an affluent doctor that is highly respected by his peers and colleagues. The darker parts of humanity became inspiration for writer/director James Wan and co-writer Leigh Whannell, who took this idea and used it to ask the question, "How much blood would you shed to stay alive?" The answer resulted in their very unique movie Saw.

The film opens as two men awaken in a dank, filthy restroom. The place looks more like a dungeon than a latrine, which becomes even worse as the two strangers find themselves chained to pipes on opposite ends of the room. Not helping things is the bloody corpse between them, the apparent victim of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the face.

Introducing themselves as Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) and Adam Stanheight (Leigh Whannell), neither have a clear idea of why or how they arrived in their depressing predicament. Through clues left for them by their captor, Dr. Gordon deduces that he and his roommate are pawns in a game set up by Jigsaw (Tobin Bell), a serial murderer who goes to extreme and disturbing lengths to teach his victims the value of their own life and the lives of those around them.

The clues also give them the rules for their game: Dr. Gordon must find a way to kill Adam within a set time limit, or his wife (Monica Potter) and daughter (Makenzie Vega) will die. Jigsaw has given Dr. Gordon a single bullet for the dead man's gun, along with a pair of hacksaws that aren't sharp enough to cut through their chains, but can cut through their ankles.

Since they obviously don't want to cause themselves or each other any bodily harm, Adam and Dr. Gordon must search for a way to outwit their captor before they die a slow death in their makeshift tomb. While Jigsaw stalks his trapped prey, he is in turn being tracked by David Tapp (Danny Glover), a suspended detective obsessed with catching Jigsaw and avenging the death of his partner.

Saw is one of those movies that you'll probably either really like or really hate. It has an intriguing premise, great atmosphere, and lots of potential, but there's just something about it that brings it down to less than what it could be. Let's go with the bad news first. The acting is very hit or miss at times. I usually enjoy the work of Cary Elwes, but he seemed inconsistent here. He was on his A-game throughout the majority of the movie, but in quite a few scenes, he overacts to the point of being laughably lame. Though to his credit, I did like what he was doing through most of the movie.

Leigh Whannell was no great shakes, either. He has a few good moments, but his lack of any major acting experience is sadly obvious. One could make the argument that he used his stroke as co-writer to stick himself in one of the lead roles, merely so he could say, "I starred in a movie! I rule!"

I did, however, enjoy Shawnee Smith as a Jigsaw survivor and Danny Glover as the disturbed Detective Tapp, but my favorite member of the cast is Tobin Bell. Because of Jigsaw's shadiness, he does ninety percent of his acting with his voice, and I felt that he did a tremendous job. He comes off as a holier-than-thou psychopath with just his vocal tone, which not only makes for a great character and effective antagonist, but immensely boosts the quality of the movie.

Visually, the movie looks wonderfully disgusting. Director James Wan and cinematographer David Armstrong give us a movie that by looks alone is both horrific and intriguing. Through their use of green and blue color filters, slow motion and fast motion, and wicked camera angles and scene transitions, I have nothing but compliments over how the movie looks, especially Nanet Harty's astounding set design. After watching the bathroom set for an hour and a half, I felt like I needed a shower and a tetanus shot. Great work, that is. The film's creativity can also be seen in the grisly traps Jigsaw subjects his victims to, whether it be the backwards bear trap, the candle in a room full of napalm, or the maze of barbed wire.

I also absolutely loved the heavy industrial score, composed by Charlie Clouser (formerly of the band Nine Inch Nails). It sounds like it's a Trent Reznor appearance away from being a Nine Inch Nails album, and I definitely can't complain. The script, co-written by Wan and Whannell, has its ups and downs thanks to the occasional bit of clichéd dialogue, but I loved how layered the movie is.

The non-linear timeline and "flashback within a flashback" moments can be disorienting if you aren't expecting it, and the ending might not make sense to the casual viewer, but that's part of the movie's charm. The odd storytelling allows to truly grasp how vicious the film's villain is. Similar to Kevin Spacey's "John Doe" in Seven, Jigsaw is intelligent and meticulous, not someone who is easily defeated because he just couldn't stop detailing his plan to the hero when he could just kill him instead.

Jigsaw is also a very unique type of horror villain, in that he does not directly kill his victims. He instead opts to place them in his elaborate traps, giving them the choice to act and live, or do nothing and die. Through this, Jigsaw sees himself not as a killer, but as a teacher. It is his master plan to instill a respect for life into the ones he chooses to play his games, to show them that life is a treasure to be highly valued. And while the rare survivor will quite possibly bear some extreme emotional and physical scarring afterwards, they will most likely appreciate being alive and do what they can to avoid another of Jigsaw's lessons.

This sort of thing is what sets Jigsaw apart from other villains. He doesn't hack and slash his way through a dozen victims, but instead uses his intellect to create far more elaborate methods of execution. What also sets him apart is that, despite his apparent sadism, he seems to draw some satisfaction from the survival of his victims. Survivors will most likely take Jigsaw's lesson to heart. Those that don't survive end up reinforcing Herbert Spencer's theory of "survival of the fittest."

If you ask me, I thought Saw was a well-crafted piece of nihilism. When I first saw it, I thought it was trying too hard to be a Seven for the twenty-first century, but it grew on me after repeated viewings. The movie never fails to take a chance and try something the viewer wouldn't expect. The premise drew me in (who would think to combine Cube and Seven?), and the execution, though flawed in places, paid off. The movie's suspense builds and builds, and though you may or may not like the ending, the buildup to it is as intense as it gets. Like I said, you'll either like it or hate it, but its originality makes it worth a watch. I'll give Saw three and a half stars and a hearty thumbs-up.

Final Rating: ***½