sawiii.jpg


Goregasm 2006!

Saw III / Phillip Stephens

Film Reviews | October 27, 2006 | Comments (20)


Despite its being essentially a vehicle for an unending variety of torture mechanisms, I always thought the Saw franchise had an interesting conceit — the moralizing serial killer who wants to teach his victims the error of their ways via gruesome gadgets and impossibly-executed schemes. But what really lured the audiences in was the torture part: How many different ways can gears and snares dismember people?

With Saw II, director/co-writer Darren Lynn Bousman made the mistake of piling on the cast for a higher body-count while abandoning the storytelling of the first installment. But this is a standard sophomore mistake; besides, most people lining up to see a macabre gore-fest like Saw won’t be ones to nitpick. As Bousman takes the helm again for this second sequel, he fares better by paring down the story to a more narrow focus and amping the gore up to 11.

The Jigsaw Killer (Tobin Bell), still dying from a brain tumor, lies on his deathbed and dictates instructions to his new protégé, Amanda (Shawnee Smith). His latest scheme involves the abduction of two people: A depressed, bitter doctor (Bahar Soomekh) and a man consumed with rage over the death of his young son (Angus Macfadyen). While the man is let loose in a hellish maze of traps meant to cure him of his distemper, Amanda fits the doctor with a rigged-collar that will explode should she let Jigsaw die before he completes this task, his coup de grace. But of course, all is not as it immediately appears — the stories of everyone involved are related in unforeseeable ways that come together at the climax.

One of this franchise’s biggest weaknesses is its inability to scrounge up a single sympathetic character, making it hard to become interested in the outcomes through anything other than detached curiosity. The Saw films have been mired in grimy darkness, both in terms of setting and tone, which means that outside of gorehounds and horror fans, they can be pretty unappealing. Like its predecessor, Saw III is not particularly scary, but it is more entertaining and much more disgusting as a film: Limbs are twisted to avulsion, heads are shotgunned, and at one point a character threatens to become drowned in pig chum. The camera lingers petulantly over these images like a playfully sick voyeur. Bousman, to his credit, boils the franchise down to its essentials and then plays them up.

Adding to this dynamically twisted mix is the finale, which pulls every aspect of the film together in a trademark surprise ending. Truly, not a blessed thing manages to escape Jigsaw’s almost Godlike machinations — as usual, it’s a preposterous climax that stretches even this series’ credibility to the limit, but it is a surprising one, I’ll give it that.

Saw III manages to improve on its predecessor in both critical terms and as raw entertainment. Theatergoers moved by the spirit of Halloween to sit through a grisly and unpleasant movie will not be disappointed by the buckets of blood and inventive means of human disposal. It’s definitely not for everyone, but it is entertaining.

Phillip Stephens is the lead critic for Pajiba. He lives in Fayetteville, AR.


Pajiba Love 10/27/06 | Pajiba Love 10/30/06





Comments

The brain operation fave me way toooooooo much of a squeam!

Posted by: Nairb at October 27, 2006 11:33 PM

I don't intend to see this movie, but GO CARDINALS!!!!!

Posted by: Vincent at October 27, 2006 11:46 PM

I enjoyed this film much more than the second. However, I will agree with you on it been far much more gory than the other two. There was a lot of blood, guts, and disgusting deaths, but the story, I thought was very good.
The end was probably my favorite part. Because up until then, I had completely forgotten the names of the characters in the beginning and how they were tied together. When it all came together, I genuinely felt bad for the doctor, and the man. Amanda just freaked me out to be honest with you.
Overall, I thought that the story, while it took a long time to take off and was mostly about "the game" in the beginning, I thoroughly enjoyed this, and would reccomend it to any horror fanatic.

Posted by: Michaella at October 28, 2006 12:59 PM

"Who trades his culture for dollars? The fool or the scholar? Griot? Poet? Or white collared?"

Posted by: Deniz at October 28, 2006 4:52 PM

This movie sux. Is it just me? or does Harsh Times look like it could be one of the coolest movies ever?

Posted by: ROb at October 28, 2006 4:52 PM

So, I can't watch scary movies-nightmares-but I have to know what this twist ending is. Can someone do a "spoiler alert" and tell me?

Posted by: SParker at October 28, 2006 6:00 PM

SParker, spoilers can be found here:

http://www.themoviespoiler.com/Spoilers/saw3.html

Posted by: Jen at October 28, 2006 11:27 PM

Blood, torture and human agony, what else is new?

Posted by: Gina at October 29, 2006 2:03 PM

I'm also looking forward to Harsh Times. But then, anything Christian Bale is in interests me--he's one of the best actors working right now.

Posted by: Justin at October 29, 2006 4:49 PM

"One of this franchise's biggest weaknesses is its inability to scrounge up a single sympathetic character, making it hard to become interested in the outcomes through anything other than detached curiosity."

This sums up the reason as to why I didn't give a shit about the next two "Saw" movies--and this first one didn't even scare me that much. I really could give a rat's ass about the two dudes in the first movie, but I will say Dude #2 (guy who wasn't Cary Elwes) was fucking hilarious. You wanna see some fucked-up imagery? Go rent "Session 9". Now there's a mind-fuck.

Also, I love that Christian Bale shows up on random threads--so, that being said, I can't wait for "Harsh Times" either. I'll have to find the trailer...

Posted by: em at October 29, 2006 11:05 PM

I disagree with this review for a couple of reasons. First, I didn't think the surprise ending was all that surprising. I didn't have it 100% figured out, but I was damn close and was ultimately disappointed in the end. Second, the gore didn't seem all that bad to me. I'm usually the type who squirms and turns away at torture scenes, but this movie didn't even make me blink. Maybe I'm becoming desensitized.
On the other hand, my wiener of a boyfriend actually had to get up and walk out at one point 'cause he was getting so nauseaus. OK, maybe it was gory enough... maybe I've lost my squeamishness...

Bottom line, I recommend this one as a rental.

Posted by: MDA at October 30, 2006 11:09 AM

At least tell me they don't do a montage at the end summing everything up. I thought the second one was better than the first, but the "explanation montage" at the end killed it for me.

Posted by: el at October 31, 2006 4:34 PM

The only way this movie has a surprise ending is if you fell asleep during the entire thing, and woke up for the big revelation in which they flash back to... the entire movie.

Posted by: Erin at November 2, 2006 10:32 PM

We took my stepson out for dinner and a movie Friday night and let him pick the movie. He picked "Saw III." He's 16. I think he enjoyed it more than either of us did--the bone-twisting sequence gave my husband the willies, especially--but I was left wondering what exactly was revealed in the envelope that unhinged Amanda so much?

Also, my husband pointed out this morning that skull trepanning seemed an awfully delicate operation to carry out with the size saw that the doctor used, and not even nick the dura mater.

I was kind of disgusted with the ending. It left me with a really bad taste in my head.

Posted by: Noelegy at November 6, 2006 9:56 AM

This sounds like such a stupid movie! Or else
I dont get it - is there a point to a film like this?
I really dont get the appeal!
Do people get turned on by this kind of gore?
I can only think it must be some kind of turn on,
because no one would actually want these things
done to them, or would they?
Anyone? Can you enlighten me about what
is so appealing about watching somone be
blown open or dismembered?

Posted by: looj at November 13, 2006 6:11 AM

It's alluring to people because it isn't them in that situation, it is an actor. It's borderline snuff.

Posted by: some guy at November 15, 2006 2:56 AM

ok, thanks.I guess its just not my thing.

Posted by: looj at November 22, 2006 10:43 PM

It was a good movie but none of the sequels match up to the first one. I guess most of the shock has dissipated by now even though it is very gory and twisted because we know what to expect from Saw. The twists in the plot are still good though.

After the second movie I thought that Saw would be a long and successful franchise -and until then I thought that was a great idea- but now they've gone and, surprise, surprise, seemed to have killed the franchise just after three movies. The thing is after watching the third one I'm starting to feel they've done the right thing. With the third one I feel they've stretched the Saw concept as far as it would go. I guess you can only do it so many times before it starts becoming repetetive. Nonetheless, I'm sure someone will revive it somewhere down the line, remake it, make a sequel, prequel or something of the kind to cash in on the good name it has achieved but the legendary Saw that fans of the genre will be coming back to are the first three movies.

Posted by: Chris at January 11, 2007 5:24 PM

Too many plot holes and too many stupid moves. Act faster, main character!! The cool thing though I thought, was that the main character chosen to save/kill those in the traps was the Scottish king from Braveheart. He sure got fat.

Posted by: Tony at March 5, 2007 11:57 AM

Too the person on another website who said that jigsaw could come back to life. His heart rate went down to zero. A.K.A the reason Sarah's head blew off.

Posted by: Rodney at March 12, 2007 9:08 PM





Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.