Saw X

Director: Kevin Greutert
Starring: Tobin Bell, Shawnee Smith, Synnøve Macody Lund, Steven Brand, Renata Vaca, Michael Beach, Joshua Okamoto, Octavio Hinojosa, Paulette Hernández, Jorge Briseño
Running Time: 118 min.
Rating: R

★★★★ (out of ★★★★) 

After 2021's somewhat divisive Saw spin-off, Spiral, Lionsgate seemed to hint they'd be taking the franchise in a new direction that veered even further from previous installments. What that meant was anyone's guess, which is why it came as a shock to hear Saw X would be going back to the beginning, taking place between the events of 2004's original and its first sequel. But it turns out this decision enables director and longtime series editor Kevin Greutert to get around what's been the property's biggest problem. Namely that the dying Jigsaw was killed off too soon, leaving subsequent films to pick up the slack with countless flashbacks, overcomplicated plots, police procedural nonsense and shoehorned apprentices. 

Some sequels had their moments, but every film since the third has worked overtime to cover Jigsaw's premature demise, not envisioning this would extend past an intended trilogy. And since Tobin Bell's bone chilling performance as John Kramer was always the best thing in it, an encore just feels right, especially after being relegated to the sidelines for much of his own story. What results is the strongest entry since the original, treating its premise seriously and digging deeper into the twisted moral relativism that's bubbled under the surface of these movies for nearly two decades. This is the one we've been waiting for, giving Bell the showcase he's long deserved while forcing viewers to confront the grim circumstances that transformed John into Jigsaw. 

Writers Peter Goldfinger and Josh Stolberg fully examine what's only been hinted at, going all in with the idea of Jigsaw as a flawed anti-hero. In presenting a group of deplorables who find themselves tested for incredibly valid reasons, the stakes rise, creating conversations around not only Kramer's intentions, but his heinous methods. Gory traps and over-the-top brutality remain, only this time accompanied by a slow, simmering build, making it feel more like a psychological character study than the "torture porn" it's frequently been labeled as. With a singular focus, its gripping, stripped down plot actually makes sense, avoiding the missteps of its many sequels.

Suffering from advanced incurable brain cancer, John Kramer (Bell) is told by his physician he only has a few months to live. After encountering Henry (Michael Beach), a member of his cancer support group who suddenly looks much healthier, John obtains from him the contact info for Dr. Pederson, whose experimental treatment Henry claims cured him. After a phone conversation with the doctor's daughter, Cecilia (Synnøve Macody Lund), John books a flight to Mexico City for surgery.

Upon his arrival at the mysterious clinic, John's greeted by Cecilia and her medical team consisting of Mateo (Octavio Hinojosa), Valentina (Paulette Hernández) and a surgeon known as "Dr. Cortez." He also meets two patients named Gabriela (Renata Vaca) and Parker Sears (Steven Brand), both of whom were successfully treated there. But after awaking from surgery and told he's cancer free, a betrayed, heartbroken John discovers it was all a scam and enlists trusted apprentice Amanda Young (Shawnee Smith) to help him round up the conspirators. What follows is Jigsaw's deadliest, most personal game yet.   

In a series known for its frenetic editing and grimy, yellowish tint, this represents a departure, and not just in setting. Some recognizable trademarks are still present, but by Saw standards it's downright restrained, at least for the first thirty minutes. John attending a support group, wrestling with the devastating news and even cordially interacting with service workers ends up being a strange but welcome sight considering Bell was never given these notes to hit before, allowing viewers to see the character as an actual human being for a change. 

After spending years speculating whether the diagnosis or some other unknown event in his past led to Jigsaw's creation, this heavily implies the former, with Bell conveying subtle glimpses of hope and optimism immediately following the "procedure." His performance brilliantly hints at John possibly not going down this dark path had he been cured, only to see that shattered by these scammers, who emotionally break him to pieces. And that Bell plays a much younger version of Jigsaw isn't the continuity issue you'd think, easily explained away by the character's terminal condition. 

The script covers its bases, making sure John never looks like a fool for believing this treatment is on the level. These criminals know their desperate, vulnerable targets are willing to believe anything if it means buying themselves and their families one more day. John's no exception, helping draw the clearest line yet separating the former civil engineer from Jigsaw, who's now front and center, letting his subjects  know exactly what they'll be doing and why. Of course, we still get Billy the Puppet, pig masks and tape recorders, though the presence of these staples are sparser than usual, making it mean all the more when he employs them. And despite some wildly unforeseen circumstances, the self-professed "life coach" has never been this obsessed with enforcing his stringent rules

His most valuable weapon is Amanda, who's still in the formative stages of her training, but maybe having some doubts as their teacher/student dynamic compellingly plays out. Shawnee Smith again impresses opposite Bell, reminding us how Amanda was the only apprentice who mattered, their relationship serving as more than just a plot contrivance. The rest of the performances are unusually strong, particularly that of Norwegian actress Synnøve Macody Lund, whose Cecilia tests Jigsaw like no other victim has. Manipulative and detestable to the core, her reaction to this predicament will reveal her as more dismissive of human life than he is, even as the screenplay doesn't hesitate exposing the hypocrisies of both.  

This does eventually settle into a rhythm more typical of the series, but anyone who made it this far into won't mind, especially since it's so refreshingly raw, with hardly a cop or detective in sight, eliminating what's become an increasingly annoying plot crutch. The traps remain graphic as ever, but benefit from a better story, a simplicity to the gruesome challenges and tenser, tighter time frames for the subjects to escape, or not.    

In the rare horror franchise that keeps its continuity straight, Saw X is its standalone, requiring no intricate knowledge of the series to fully appreciate. If its ending visually recalls the original's iconic final moments, the closing twist will have many second guessing their perceptions of Bell's antagonist in ways that seemed impossible nine sequels in. Subverting all expectations, this feels like the defining chapter, raising the bar of what a Saw film can do when freed from the creative shackles holding it back.                       

Jigsaw

Directors: The Spierig Brothers
Starring: Matt Passmore, Callum Keith Rennie, Clé Bennett, Hannah Emily Anderson, Laura Vandervoort, Paul Braunstein, Mandela Van Peebles, Brittany Allen, Josiah Black, Tobin Bell
Running Time: 92 min.
Rating: R

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

When the Saw franchise signed off after hitting rock bottom with 2010's awful Saw 3D: The Final Chapter, even the most devoted diehards had checked out and were happy to see it go. After enduring a string of lifeless sequels that drained whatever waning interest was left in the property, the general consensus was that a nice, long break sounded like a great idea. It was also generally understood that with this hiatus came the promise it would return at some point as either a sequel, prequel, reboot or something in between. And now with Jigsaw, it's clear they've decided to go with a straight up sequel.

If anything, this creates an opportunity for the series to recharge its batteries and head in a new creative direction while fans become nostalgic for these movies once again, their disdain for the inferior sequels erased by happy memories of seeing Billy The Puppet usher in a new Saw film each Halloween. We'd remember that initial concept of two strangers locked in a room, the test subjects of a sadistic cancer patient hell bent on dispensing his own form of moral justice as he counted down the calendar days left on his own life.

"Let's play a game..." is a phrase that's become the franchise's tagline before it took such a creative free fall in subsequent installments that even its star, Tobin Bell, sounded like he lost interest in delivering it. While the 2004 original was less a horror movie than an intense psychological thriller, most of its successors failed miserably at building on it, hanging their hats on the worst elements of what was initially a brilliant concept. Plot and narrative was abandoned in favor of trying to come up with the most disgusting and elaborate Jigsaw traps possible, each one more graphic than the last. And for a while, as bad as the movies had become, the shock value still worked and audiences ate it up. But what Saw couldn't survive was the dilemma each new writer and director kept trying to put a band-aid over in each sequel: The antagonist was dead.

Given all the capabilities of modern cinematic storytelling, killing off John Kramer/AKA Jigsaw in only the third film showed incredibly poor foresight, often forcing the filmmakers to embarrassingly work their way around it in the most absurd ways. By claiming it's about his "legacy," introducing hidden apprentices, shoehorning Bell into silly, nonsensical flashback scenes, and even littering the storylines with more law enforcement officials than most CBS procedurals. And that's not to mention physicians, ex-wives and insurance agents. Each sequel became overcrowded and needlessly convoluted to cover for Jigsaw's absence, straying further and further from its original concept. And because of this, EVERY MOVIE FELT THE SAME. That's the problem most in need of fixing.

So, the question becomes whether The Spierig Brothers concede by resting on the same tired formulas or try something different and adventurous with the benefit of a fresh, clean slate. The answer ends up being a little bit of both, which may not be enough sustain this moving forward. While they don't strip the whole thing down and dismantle it as I'd hoped, the good news is that it's the best written and directed post-Jigsaw death sequel yet, despite sharing some of the same issues its predecessors did. There were many points where it felt as if the movie would truly let go, before delivering a clever final twist that undeniably works in the moment, but also serves as an unfortunately painful reminder that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

It's been 10 years since the death of the infamous Jigsaw killer, John Kramer (Bell), but when a perpetrator on the run finds himself cornered by police detectives Halloran (Callum Keith Rennie) and Hunt (Clé Bennett), he talks of being forced to play a "game" while activating a mysterious triggering device in his hand. They shoot, sending him into a coma. Meanwhile, five people are being held captive in a barn with buckets over their heads and a metal chain around their neck, dragging them toward a wall of spinning buzzsaws.

With each instructed by the voice of Jigsaw to make a blood sacrifice in order to move on, Carly (Brittany Allen), Ryan (Paul Braunstein), Mitch (Mandela Van Peebles) and Anna (Laura Vandervoort) are the four survivors. They move on to the next stage, with Jigsaw's voice informing them of more sadistic traps in store to repent for their lies and moral transgressions. As bodies turn up left and right, Halloran and Hunt start to wonder how any of this is possible, enlisting the help of ex-vet and forensic pathologist Logan (Matt Passmore) and his Jigsaw-obsessed assistant Eleanor (Hannah Emily Anderson). It isn't long before their suspicions turn to both, even with evidence piling up that the unthinkable is true and Jigsaw could still be very much alive.

It could be read as a promising sign that the film opens not in a dark, dingy, dirty basement as most previous entries have, but in broad daylight in the midst of a police chase. In simultaneously preparing us for something completely different while also invoking the terribly familiar, the scene serves a microcosm for what The Spierig Brothers plan on delivering over the next hour and a half. While the introduction of multiple law enforcement officers had me groaning, and it's a stretch to say they put an entirely fresh coat of paint on the franchise, there are noticeable changes and improvements that help wash the taste of those sequels out of our mouths. Action taking place in actual daylight would be one, as are more visually intriguing locations such as a rustic barn. It's nice to be able to clearly see everything that's going on for a change, knowing they can still deliver an occasionally dark basement when necessary.

With a slightly more polished look to the proceedings, this doesn't carry the same straight to VOD that too many of its sequels did. Smaller touches, like Jigsaw upgrading from a tape recorder to a flash drive, a new, improved look to Billy The Puppet and some tinkering with the infamous musical cue ("Zep's Theme") work really well. And while it's easy to criticize some of the decisions made, Josh Stolberg and Peter Goldfinger's script is uncharacteristically tight, especially when dealing with the four chosen subjects in Jigsaw's main trap. In that respect, it does bring the franchise back to basics, heavily focusing on what each have done to "deserve" what's happening to them. Their backstories don't disappoint, with the heinous nature of one arguably packing an even bigger punch than the intended twist that arrives in the final minutes. Unfortunately, what happens outside the barn is a bit of a mess, again overcomplicating a plot that should be relatively simple.

With two pairs of police detectives and medical examiners, it often feels like a chore keeping up with them and their motivations. And while the intention is clearly to set each of them up as a potential suspect or copycat killer, we've been around this block so many times that the mere thought of another Jigsaw apprentice is enough to turn me off of the franchise permanently. The more characters and suspects you have, the less they all mean, and if there's one serious fault in the screenplay, it's on a conceptual level, as the series continues to rub our faces in its inability to streamline anything. That said, this does the most competent job balancing this overabundance of characters, even if their presence complicates the story in ways it wouldn't with one strong law enforcement protagonist going up against Jigsaw.

While it may seem unreasonable to expect a Saw sequel to go to deep, cerebral places at this point, it still wouldn't hurt to minimize the excessive plotting in favor of a little more psychology. That all the characters have purposes that logically come to light by the end is somewhat of a miracle, but the series' many filmmakers have always forced themselves into a situation of cleaning up whatever narrative mistakes preceding entry left behind. That's why a completely fresh start was imperative, free from the tiresome formulas that ran the series into the ground.

For audiences, the police and forensic pathologists' exist in this installment to answer the only question on viewers' minds: Is Jigsaw actually alive? Obviously, revealing that constitutes too big a spoiler, but maybe the question should instead be whether that revelation would be any more or less damaging than the ridiculous ways they've had his "work" continue post-mortem, with increasingly diminished returns.

Without giving it all away, this is Tobin Bell's most purposeful outing in a while and his seemingly more motivated performance reflects it. He came to play this time and isn't relegated to the requisite "blink and you'll miss him" flashback cameo that's made each sequel appearance less essential than  his last. While no one would claim the movies are known for their acting, Bell is consistently the exception, his understanding of John Kramer's psychological motivations creepily filling in the blanks where the writing often fails him.

With more to work with here, the screenplay provides a reason for Bell's presence and he sticks around long enough to make it count. If the layoff reminded us of anything, it's that so many of the franchise's failings can be directly tied to the increased reduction of his role in the sequels. This partially corrects that, and the performances that surround him are mostly suitable for the series standard, with Vandervoort and Passmore doing the most with what they're given.  

There's legitimate suspense in the idea that Jigsaw's grave could be dug up, and in the increasingly likely scenario he won't be in it, teasing us with the possibility this franchise may be forced to do something different. But the tension is short-lived, as the focus again moves away from Jigsaw to the cops and forensic pathologists trying to implicate and expose each other, as the true purpose of that buckethead game starts fully revealing itself. Taken for what it is, it's all pretty well constructed, capped off with a final twist that's reminiscent of the first sequel in how it toys with audience perceptions of what we're exactly seeing.

While nothing that occurs in the third act is poorly written or an outright disappointment, it does feel like business as usual, revealing nearly all the major changes to be cosmetic and superficial. In the end, it's still all about how gruesome and graphic the traps are, how high the body count, and the number of poorly developed ancillary characters introduced to extend the series. In other words, we're right back where we started. And it shouldn't be lost on anyone that there's a comfort in that for both the franchise's producers and its fans, who generally want to know that what they're getting into doesn't differ to much from what they originally signed on for.

Going in, there was a certain curiosity in finding out whether there's still a place for Saw in 2017 and whether doing this again all these years later would be like hopping back on Billy The Puppet's tricycle. For both better and worse, it is. And yet again we're left scratching our heads at how they'll possibly be able squeeze even more out of this property, as there are apparently more sequels planned. But we should just know by now to stop questioning how they continue suckering us into gladly returning for more punishment.                                                 

12 Feet Deep

Director: Matt Eskandari
Starring: Alexandra Park, Nora-Jane Noone, Diane Farr, Tobin Bell
Running Time: 85 min.
Rating: Unrated

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Buried. Phone Booth. ATM. Frozen. Open Water. The Shallows. 127 Hours. All largely single location survival thrillers that test its actors and filmmakers, pushing their ingenuity and skill to limit in order sustain viewers' attention under the sparsest of circumstances. Their plots could each be summed up in only a couple of words, but with fewer tools at their disposal, they frequently stretch out that meager description to 90 minutes or longer, a number that in many cases is pushing it. Sometimes as trying for audiences as those directly involved in the project, it's one of the toughest sub-genres to successfully pull off and the aforementioned titles probably fall within the same realm of quality. Now joining them is Matt Eskandari's 12 Feet Deep (formerly titled The Deep End), which features a premise so hilariously bizarre that when I accidentally discovered its trailer, I actually thought it was a spoof of some sort. But not only is it deadly serious, it's at least partially based on true events. Its official logline reads exactly as this:

"Two sisters are unwittingly trapped under the fiberglass cover of an Olympic sized public pool and must brave the cold and each other to survive the harrowing night"

This is definitely a new one, and as ridiculous as the concept reads on paper, you'll still have to concede there's something oddly intriguing about the scenario, or rather the idea that someone's even attempting it. Can an entire movie take place within the confines of an enclosed swimming pool? With only two characters? And no sharks? Released wide into theaters this past June (directly against the Mandy Moore shark cage thriller, 47 Meters Down) that this has been inexplicably sold as a horror movie is just another reminder that anything with anyone trapped anywhere is marketed as "horror." And while it is terrifying and suspenseful, it's really more of a claustrophobic morality play or character study in which two women must survive each other and a sociopathic antagonist. While it easily draws comparisons to other self-contained thrillers of the sort, it does certain things better while working with a whole lot less. By believably writing itself out of corners it has little business escaping from, the extremely well-acted, tightly directed chamber piece is no joke at all, making surprisingly efficient and inspired use of our 85 minutes.

Rebellious, quick-tempered Jonna (Alexandra Park) is meeting up with her estranged sister, the newly engaged Bree (Nora-Jane Noone), at the Ketea Aquatic Center's indoor public swimming pool, both trying to put their childhood differences behind them for a late afternoon swim before the facility closes for the holiday weekend. But when Bree unexpectedly loses her engagement ring and the pool's cranky manager (Tobin Bell) rushes to close the fiberglass cover believing everyone's gone, the girls get trapped.

With a 1-foot gap separating the water and the lid, and only a small rectangular hole in the cover providing air, the sisters have to find a method of escape or eventually perish in a watery tomb. While it seems their only hope of rescue will come from janitor Clara (Diane Farr), the bitter ex-con instead uses their predicament as an opportunity for blackmail, physically and emotionally toying with the girls as the clock runs out. Working together, the sisters struggle to put their deep-seeded differences aside to formulate an alternate plan before it's too late.   

This bare-bones, single location scenario would appear to be the ideal set-up for some kind of horror thriller, maybe with a former swim coach with a hook for a hand locking two girls in a pool and torturing them. Just the mere presence of Tobin Bell in an early cameo as the facility manager only has us suspecting the new Saw film arrived early with a Jigsaw trap, which would at least provide enough action to fill up a good chunk of its story. But it's instead a clever misdirection proving the movie's smarter than that, relying instead on the intensity of human drama, emerging organically from the personalities immersed in this terrifying situation.

How Jonna and Bree get trapped is surprisingly believable considering how absurd the notion must seem to anyone who's ever swam in an indoor pool. On one hand, it's a silly accident they could happen to anyone and was cribbed from true events. But the circumstances also work on another level that sets up the animosity between these two very different siblings, stemming from a childhood tragedy that still consumes them. Already at each others throats, they become the perfect mark for ex-con Clara, who's built up a lifetime of resentment and has enough problems that there's good reason to fear her holding the cards.

Eskandari is adept at exploiting the limited set and claustrophobic atmosphere to its maximum potential, often changing up lighting and shot selection, but in a way that makes sense within the context of the narrative, allowing the viewer to escape the potential monotony of a single location. He comes up with just enough solutions, and while it would be impossible to keep the action in the pool without taking some creative liberties, he manages to keep the manipulations to a minimum. While there's a subplot involving diabetic Bree's insulin shot that's meant to lend further urgency to the proceedings, it's factually incorrect enough to be distracting. As far as effectively piling on complications in a race against time, you just accept it and move on. A superior roadblock is the character of Clara, whose presence is most obviously the added wrench in the equation.

Far from some sneering, one-dimensional villain, Diane Farr's antagonist has a conscience, history and twisted motivation to what she's doing, almost as if she literally can't help herself. And because of the limits imposed, the performances of the three actresses are only that much more crucial in creating that tension. As Jonna, Alexandra Park undergoes a rather believable transformation from angry, recovering addict to protective sister, forced to hunker down and overcome her considerable demons and petty jealousy to fight for their survival. Nora Jane-Noone gives the more reserved, cerebral Bree a tidy, organized facade as the "good sister," but as their situation wears down, so does she, physically spent from her medical condition and even more emotionally drained by the childhood trauma she's suppressed.

What's refreshing about the third act is how the story believably resolves itself. There's no eleventh hour deus ex machina or improbable coincidence that saves them from near-certain death. But the highest compliment that can be paid the screenplay is that you really do get the feeling Eskandari would kill everyone off if it served the story. Because the characters are clearly defined, so are their actions, creating a plausible chain of events that concludes in a way that feels both appropriate and logical. Like most single location thrillers, 12 Feet Deep creates a heightened reality where people find within themselves the will to survive. It may not be a profound statement in the genre, but by intelligently working its way around a head-scratching premise, it definitely stands out from the pack.       

Saw: The Final Chapter

Director: Kevin Greutert
Starring: Tobin Bell, Costas Mandylor, Bestsy Russell, Sean Patrick Flannery, Cary Elwes, Chad Donella
Running Time: 90 min.
Rating: R

★★ (out of ★★★★) 

Saw: The Final Chapter (released theatrically as Saw 3D), the seventh and supposedly final installment of this long-running horror franchise, is also its worst, combining all the weakest elements of the series into one gigantic mess. Police procedural confusion. Kills for the sake of kills. A needlessly complicated plot. Too many characters. Amateurish acting. Continued emphasis on a pointless feud. Jigsaw relegated to a cameo. Anyone hoping for answers or even just some semblance of coherency will be disappointed. Even the highly anticipated return of one of the franchise's most important figures is botched badly.

After coming off the surprisingly decent Saw VI, that film's director (and longtime series editor) Kevin Greutert returns after Twisted Pictures exercised a "contractual clause" in his contract preventing him from directing Paranormal Activity 2 to torture us with this instead. And that makes perfect sense since this looks and feels like someone was blackmailed into making it (possibly at gunpoint). The one thing it does have going for it is unintentional comedy, as there were many scenes where I couldn't stop laughing, providing some hope that maybe this will have a future shelf life as some kind of awful curiosity. But fans who stuck with this long-winded saga through thick and thin deserve a reward, not this cruel punishment.

As usual, we pick up exactly where the action of the last film left off as the battle over Jigsaw's legacy rages on between rogue detective Mark Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) and Jigsaw's ex-wife, Jill Tuck (Betsy Russell). After failing to kill him with the bear trap, she's now revealed his identity as Jigsaw's successor to authorities and is under protective custody, while officer Matt Gibson (Chad Donella) is hot on his former colleague's trail. But Hoffman's already set his sights on the next game subject, self-help guru Bobby Dagen (Sean Patrick Flannery), who's achieved success as an author and television personality by falsely claiming to have survived a Jigsaw trap. Now in order to save his wife, best friend, publicist and lawyer, he'll have to survive a real one. Further complicating matters is the mysterious reappearance of Jigsaw's most infamous survivor, Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes). At last, we finally find out what happened to him after he sawed off his foot and crawled out of the bathroom to apparent safety in the original film.

This installment does give us something we've never seen before in its opening with a trap that takes place in broad daylight as a crowd of onlookers witness two guys in a buzz saw battle for the life of their unfaithful girlfriend in a storefront display window. That's at least something different and bizarre, broadening the scope by moving away from the dark, dingy warehouses and garages the action usually takes place in. It's kind of surreal watching a Saw trap take place under these unusual circumstances, made unintentionally hilarious due to the laughable performances and cheesy gore effects. While the idea of the latest victim being a famous fake survivor milking other people's trauma for profit isn't as hilariously creative as Saw VI's plot of Jigsaw extracting revenge from beyond the grave on a health insurance executive for denying him coverage, it does have a lot of promise. Unfortunately it's undercut by a uninspired performance from Sean Patrick Flannery, who can't convey the charisma of a motivational speaker and isn't slimy enough for us to believe he's capable of manipulating anyone.

Flannery's "butter hands" Bobby character is portrayed as a total tool, so completely inept at Jigsaw's games that we never doubt for a second he'll die while failing to rescue everyone. This leads to the funniest scene in the film (and possibly the franchise's history) when he has to "guide" his blindfolded friend Cale (Dean Armstrong) across a series of wooden planks and get him a key before he's hanged. Poor acting and confusing direction results in the sequence playing like a Survivor challenge gone mad, causing tons of unintentional laughs. But as tempting as it is to recommend the film on just the basis of that spectacle, I'll resist.

The Saw series isn't  known for containing Oscar caliber performances but the acting all-around in this entry is by far the most embarrassing it's been, not helped any by the inexcusable absence of Tobin Bell who's featured in all of two (!) brief scenes as the deceased Jigsaw/John Kramer. Whether present in small or large doses, Bell's peerless performance was always the driving force behind these movies so here's hoping he doesn't get typecast for life and is given the opportunity to move past this in other roles. He often gave much more than the writing deserved, while hardly ever getting his due for it.

With the filmmakers apparently oblivious to the fact that in the final stretch it's imperative the plot return to its basic roots by being as simple and focused as possible, the ridiculous, never-ending feud between Hoffman and Jill takes center stage. But at least we finally get to see both characters for what they are: Albatrosses sinking this franchise since their initial major appearances in the fourth film. It's clear now that writers Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan never had plans for either aside from using them as poor stand-ins to distract us from the fact that Jigsaw wasn't around anymore. Their ongoing struggle, much what's happened in Saws IV through VII, and especially the character of Hoffman, is deemed entirely pointless by the events that conclude this film.

The movie delivers the ending we always wanted, not counting on the fact that by the time we get there, it's impossible to still care. It all feels thrown together at the last minute with the re-appearance of Dr. Gordon coming off as just a bone the producers are throwing at fans to make them happy because they ran out of options. Besides his flashback being clumsily edited and nothing that couldn't have been inserted into the previous sequels, a noticeably heftier Elwes is almost unrecognizable, which is unavoidable, but off-putting just the same. Since no effort was made to flesh out his back story or provide any kind of explanation for what he's been up to, the producers probably would have been better off just keeping his return a secret and working him into the narrative in a more surprising fashion. Or at least in a way that makes sense and doesn't negate the events that came before. Instead viewers are left feeling as if they've wasted their time.

The central idea this whole foundation of the franchise was built on is absent here, replaced with the most gruesome traps possible as the initial intriguing premise of a dying moralistic serial killer teaching victims a lesson is thrown out the window in favor of continuous, in-your-face murders and gore (the film was re-submitted six times to receive an R rating). The second the filmmakers turned their attention toward topping themselves with the most extreme and graphic traps, they lost their way and a series that started as a compelling mystery thriller devolved into torture-porn horror. If they do eventually reboot, the goal should be to go back to basics since we've already seen what a TV series like Dexter or a film like Se7en is capable of with a similar premise. Those should be the template, with skilled actors and a director experienced in extracting the most from that kind of material.

On the bright side, it's worth a round of applause that it took until the seventh film in the series for this to actually get as bad as everyone's accused it of being since the beginning. You could argue they just ran out of creative gas but in all honesty they've been running on fumes for a while now. It's indicative that as a longtime fan of the series, I couldn't even motivate myself to watch it in theaters (3D or not) and have problems mounting any kind of suitable defense for this fiasco. Going in I didn't believe for a second we'd seen the last of the franchise and now after seeing how open-ended they left it, I'm even surer. You can expect a re-boot a few years down the line, after the lingering stench of this final installment dissipates. Until then, it's game over.

Saw VI

Director: Keven Gruetert
Starring: Tobin Bell, Costas Mandylor, Shawnee Smith, Tanedra Howard, Mark Rolston, Betsy Russell, Peter Outerbridge
Running Time: 90 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

If there was ever a case of a "good news, bad news" situation, it's Saw VI. The good news is that this is easily the best installment of the series since the third film and and fixes many of nagging problems that were prevalent in the fourth and fifth entries. Nothing beats having Jigsaw alive and kicking but this is the first film since his untimely demise where his absence doesn't become a distracting, overriding issue. By tightening the plot and narrowing the focus to one man being faced with an intriguing moral decisions, we return to the basic formula and twisted ideology that initially set this horror franchise apart. The flashbacks (which were becoming excessive and overcomplicated) are used more sparingly than usual, chosen more for impact and importance than as a narrative crutch. Gone is the excessive, confusing police business, which at times made the movies feel like "ripped from the headlines" Law & Order episodes. It also features one of the best acting performances by a "test subject" possibly since the original film and two of the best traps in the history of the series.

Firing on all cylinders, longtime Saw editor Kevin Gruetert (taking over directorial duties from Saw V's David Hackl) was three quarters of the way home until arriving at an ending that has to be considered a big letdown given what preceded it and should cause concern for the inevitable future of the franchise (insert your groans at the thought of that prospect here). But most of that blame falls on writers Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan for being forced to tie up too many loose plot threads they left dangling from previous films in the final minutes of this picture. While the payoffs make perfect logical sense and provide a minimal degree of closure, they just aren't all that satisfying. But that was probably the intention. There's more to come I'm sure.

The strain of continuing a horror saga when your main villain died three films ago is bound to show and it's extremely difficult pleasing demanding fans who've followed the series from the beginning while still moving the story in a forward direction. Thus far, the filmmakers have been able to barely get away with it because the deceased villain is so closely tied to the series' central theme of immortality, which has never been more relevant than in this sixth installment. It's well worth the price of admission just to witness the first Saw film that attempts to tackle a serious social issue. Forget about Michael Moore. Haven't you always wanted to get Jigsaw's thoughts on this country's healthcare crisis?

When we last left off, Jigsaw/John Kramer's (Tobin Bell) apparent successor, Detective Mark Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) escaped through the infamous "glass box," taking the life of Agent Peter Strahm and framing him as an accomplice in Jigsaw's killings. But now, investigator Dan Erikson (Mark Rolston) and the previously presumed dead Agent Lindsey Perez (Athena Karkanis) are beginning to piece together the clues that link a now very worried and vulnerable Hoffman to the crimes. Meanwhile, Jigsaw's latest game is taking place and its subject is insurance executive William Easton (Peter Outerbridge), who determines health coverage based strictly on a formula taking into account a person's age and probability of illness. That formula is seriously tested in cruelest way possible when he's forced, through a series of Jigsaw's games, to apply it in ways he never imagined. Jigsaw's ex-wife, Jill Tuck (Betsy Russell) is back again as the mysteries of the box left for her by John and just how much she knows (or doesn't) about the killings, begins to unravel. Shawnee Smith's Amanda also returns in a series of flashbacks focusing on previously undisclosed events from the previous entries. Trying to get the bottom of it all is sensationalistic reporter Pamela Jenkins (Samantha Lemole), whose distortion of Jigsaw's motivations and legacy could make her another one of his targets.

For the first time in many films, it appeared as if some real actual thought went into creating a compelling main test that was tied directly to John Kramer's sick moral philosophy, fit well with his back story without seeming forced, and created a series of compelling moral dilemmas for his victim. Justifiably, the storylines involving the cops closing in on Hoffman and Jill's motives are shoved to the sidelines in favor of this far more interesting story, bolstered by one of the more fascinating flashbacks we've had in the series. When we find out that John's vendetta against William stems from the executive rejecting his health insurance claim for an experimental cancer treatment that could have saved his life, it adds another new dimension to the story. Although, you wonder how such a treatment would be squeezed into Jigsaw's already packed schedule of making videos, setting traps and recruiting various apprentices. I can't pretend it's deep stuff or anything, but it is a smart (if somewhat hysterical) creative decision for a horror series that's almost become a parody of itself at this point attempting to get topical and deal with serious social problems. It also makes the game more personal and disturbing.

Proof of that comes at one point when William, captured and taken to an abandoned zoo, is greeted not by a video message from "Billy The Puppet" like so many of Jigsaw's other victims, but from John Kramer himself. William becomes one of the more interesting test subjects since his occupation and the choices he makes in it lend itself perfectly to the central conceit of the franchise and Outerbridge is so believable in the role. It puts the viewer in an even more uncomfortable position than usual because this guy is difficult to root for when you introduce the overly sensitive subject of health care reform into the equation (a sentence I never thought I'd type in a Saw review).

By Jigsaw's sadistic reasoning, making choices everyday about who lives and dies should be a lot more difficult when you're actually presented with it face-to-face. William's "formula" doesn't take into account someone's "will to live," something we know by now has always been Jigsaw's creed, even from beyond the grave. William's tests become more about moral and philosophical choices than blood and guts, which isn't to say there isn't still plenty of blood and guts. The two best are the "carousel" and the "maze," which are both huge steps up from previous traps in the last few installments. In the case of the spinning "carousel," in which William must decide which of his co-workers survives, the torture is almost completely psychological and it was a surprise just how much is accomplished through dialogue as opposed to bloodshed. Rather than aiming to just come up with technically complicated or "cool" traps this time the writers made an effort have simple, basic ones that instead reflect the predicament of the protagonist. It was a welcome change.

The actual payoff to William's game is also satisfying, which is why it's such a shame that the sub-plot involving Hoffman and Jill Tuck is such a letdown. To the franchise's detriment, an inordinate of time has been spent establishing them as important players in Jigsaw's master plan. Jill, especially, has been hogging a lot of spotlight time in the previous two films with little to show for it. Here, we get our answers but they don't amount to much and offer nothing new in the way of surprises or shocking revelations, which was absolutely necessary given how long they've drawn her story out. The actual contents of the box is a disappointment, which is almost an inevitability when you choose to set up a big mystery like that.

Hoffman (brought to "life" by a droller than ever Mandylor) doesn't exactly cover his tracks too well and must be the guiltiest looking police detective who ever lived. He seems so nervous in the presence of his colleagues throughout the film it's a wonder he doesn't go into full cardiac arrest before they catch on. And the cops are very, very slow to catch on. There are about four twists at the end of this film and while all hold up well from a logical standpoint, they aren't surprising in the least. They exist only to keep this franchise chugging along. Loose ends are tied up but anyone looking for actual closure won't get it, which is fine by me since I wouldn't want to see the series to end like this anyway. The answers given at the end of the film don't seem big enough or justify closing it out, yet I don't think it's a good idea for them to continue going in the same direction either.

Recently, I had a marathon of sorts and watched the entire series in succession and was surprised just how well everything held together (even IV played a little more straightforward than I expected the second time around). Regardless of what you think of this franchise, those involved in the making of it deserve a standing ovation for keeping the films at such a relatively high quality for this long. Despite this being the lowest box office earner yet in the series, I don't know a sixth film in a horror franchise that was ever even able to make a dime, much less open to "mixed reviews" and actually show any kind of creative improvement over its predecessors. That a fifth sequel (!) of a horror movie is getting anything close to a favorable recommendation is nothing short of a miracle if you think about it.

Now that the second trilogy in the series has closed, they've been saying the seventh film will be the last. Yeah...sure. After this film I was left with a stronger impression that this series just may never end. I understand the reluctance to go in a new direction and tinker with a proven formula, but hope the low box office take of this one will make the creative forces sit down and reevaluate their approach going forward. I wouldn't object to a few years off and a re-boot. Of course, I say that every year and still keep coming back for more. But whatever they do, Tobin Bell has to stick around in some form or another despite how ridiculous it's gotten because the supporting players have proven they're just not capable of filling his shoes. As one of the few horror franchises to feature a villain who's given actual backstory and motivation, it's opened itself up to a lot criticism. It's too bad many haters of the series have confused the motives of the villain with that of the filmmakers. They're a big reason why I don't want this to ever end. It's getting to be too much fun listening to them whine and complain every October when the latest Saw film opens.

Saw V

Director: David Hackl
Starring: Tobin Bell, Costas Mandylor, Scott Patterson, Betsy Russell, Julie Benz, Meagan Good
Running Time: 89 min.
Rating: R

*** (out of ****)

No, I didn’t accidentally hit an extra asterisk on my keyboard. The rating you see above is not a typo. But what may be more interesting than my actual thoughts on Saw V is how my attitude going into it had shifted within the past week. I thought the fourth film, which really just amounted to a confusing police procedural was bad, but I wasn’t aware that everyone else thought it was THAT bad. So bad, in fact, that many seem to be personally offended they’ve made another one.

It’s time to put things in perspective. Saw IV was a near miss, which in the case of a fourth installment of a horror series is actually a small miracle. It should have been terrible. All of the Halloween, Friday The 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street sequels were. There was hardly a redeeming quality about them with the best only being enjoyable on a guilty pleasure level. But try telling anyone you’re a fan of the Saw series and it’s a capital offense. Forget that this franchise actually contains a protagonist with complex motivation and a psychologically driven back story. Or the fact that he isn’t just some guy in a mask hacking people up because he had an unhappy childhood or a messed up family.

The more I think about it the more unfair this series’ reputation seems. All of the sudden I found myself really excited to see Saw V and rooting really hard for it to succeed. But I still expected it to be awful. Jigsaw likes to play games but now I’m going to play one and challenge you to see Saw V… then try naming a fifth film in a horror series better than it. I bet you can’t. By telling a more focused, cohesive story and shifting the central focus back to Jigsaw’s legacy this film is a marked improvement over the last one. A lot of that credit should go to a new director who proves he knows this material inside out. Did we really need another Saw? Do we really need sequels for ANY films? That’s beside the point and you could argue all day about it. This works for what it is and fans of the series won’t be disappointed.
After the death of John Kramer A.K.A. Jigsaw (Tobin Bell), forensics expert Mark Hoffman (Costas Mandylor), was revealed at the end of the last film as his successor and the one chosen to continue his "work" and legacy. But before he can he has to tie up some loose ends. Now promoted to Lieutenant Commissioner after his falsely perceived heroics he has to somehow eliminate Agent Strahm (Scott Patterson), the only officer to survive the last trap and who’s now determined to gather evidence that proves Hoffman is the crooked disciple of Jigsaw.

Meanwhile, five strangers wake up in a sewer connected to guillotine blades. A trust fund brat (Greg Bryk), an arrogant reporter (Carlo Rota), a fire inspector (Laura Gordon), a city housing planner (Meagan Good) and a snooty real estate agent (Julie Benz) are the targets of Jigsaw’s latest game, eerily recalling Saw II in that a group of people linked by their immoral life choices must work cooperatively to make it to the end alive. Whereas the last film interspersed flashbacks of John Kramer’s relationship with ex-wife Jill Tuck (Betsy Russell) with the central storyline all the flashbacks here explore the history behind Kramer’s alliance with Hoffman. Jill has a much smaller role this time around but her limited presence introduces an intriguing mystery into the equation that's destined be explored in future films.

Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunston’s script tells three stories and each of them are told in a compelling, straight forward, and intelligible manner, a big step up from their scatterbrained work on the last installment. My biggest worry going into this was that they'd attempt to have Hoffman replace Jigsaw as the focal point of the series. Instead the screenplay did an excellent job of not only giving Hoffman a credible back story but coming up with a very reasonable explanation why he’d be carrying out his dying wishes. Not only that, but without giving too much away this explanation fits perfectly with the theme of the series and what Jigsaw represents as a character.

For the first time since his untimely demise in the third film I actually believed that John Kramer had bigger plans extending far beyond his death that could be carried out despite his passing. His presence was actually felt this time, unlike the last film where we only felt the presence of cops, lawyers, investigators, detectives and a bunch of other people we had no interest in. Jigsaw and his ideology was relegated to an afterthought amidst the mass confusion. Make no mistake about it: We know whose still pulling the strings in this one and it isn’t Hoffman.

The flashbacks are clever in the way they incorporate Hoffman into past events and develop the character. Is it a little silly and are they grasping at straws? Sure, but it makes sense and progresses the story. When I offered suggestions on how to improve the franchise I said that the writers better give Hoffman a hell of a back story if they want to keep him around and Mandylor should be prepared to really deliver. They did and he was. By the end of the film I actually cared what would happen to the guy.

Hoffman has fitting opposition in Scott Patterson’s Agent Strahm. Merely nondescript wallpaper in the previous film, Patterson steps up to the plate in a big way and shows the most fight of any of the cops since Detective Tapp in the original. There’s a moment in the film when Strahm pulls out all the files of the previous Jigsaw victims as we’re taken for a trip down memory lane and it was just the kind of acknowledgment the series needed at this point. The film effectively stages a battle of good vs. evil between the two lawmen on a collision course that can only lead to disaster. If I had to pick it’s probably the weakest of the three stories in the film, but I was shocked how interested I was in it.

The current game involving the five strangers bonded by their moral indiscretions recall the earlier, strongest installments and a few of the actors’ performances really carry the day, especially Dexter’s Julie Benz (nearly unrecognizable in a black wig) and the memorably high-strung Greg Byrk. The traps are back to being simple but brutal, reestablishing the idea of Jigsaw believing himself to be a tester or a therapist rather than a murderer. He creates the illusion of choice for those he knows lack the moral fiber necessary to make one at all. A few of the traps in this film I’d rank alongside the best in the series as far as cleverness and pure entertainment value. And unlike the last film, this is a game you could actually believe Jigsaw was behind.

Fans have long come to expect a huge twist of some sort at the end of every Saw film as the familiar music swells up, although that practice has gone out of style with the past few. I won’t even touch on what happens other than to say it’s more of a clever reversal completely appropriate for this story. I LOVED the last scene, which is just about the best closer since the infamous bathroom in the original. But more impressive is how Hackl films it, creating an indelible final image that isn’t easy to shake.

As surprisingly good as this is it isn’t without problems. There was still a little too much police business for my taste and while the script far more comprehensible this time around it still could have been even tighter and more focused. A lot is going on here, although Hackl does balance it well. I’m also convinced that had John Kramer not had terminal cancer or have his throat slashed by a chainsaw he would have died anyway from the stress of having to set up all those traps, anticipate their outcomes and train all his apprentices. That guy must have had a lot of time on his hands. Nothing more can possibly be said about Tobin Bell’s performance other than this series wouldn’t exist without it. His role has been slightly reduced, but strangely in this film it seemed more important than ever.

I sympathize with those who feel the Saw series has become a parody of itself and agree that in a perfect world it would have ended with the third film. But it didn’t so here we are and this is what we have. Considering we're on the fourth sequel it’s in amazing shape and given that they've chosen to go past what should have been its expiration date the ongoing narrative holds together pretty well. I have no idea why everyone has gone so hard on this but I’m curious what the reaction would have been if it didn’t have “V” in its title. Just because all horror sequels suck is no reason to punish this one. While many complain the films have grown predictable and clichéd I’d argue there’s something to be said for consistently executing a successful formula well. Still, I'm with those who feel the series would benefit from trying some different things and stepping out of its comfort zone a little more.
With this installment Saw becomes the highest grossing horror franchise of all-time and no matter how you feel about the films that’s a huge accomplishment. People like watching them, talking about the traps and plot twists and I was on the edge of my seat waiting to see what would happen next in this one. Even those who hate it find themselves oddly compelled to check it out every year like some kind of unhealthy addiction. And when Saw VI comes around next October you know they’ll be first in line. Why? Because this franchise works. It's time to just let go and admit it. At its worst it still runs circles around anything the genre has had because the underlying concept is so strong. It’s tough imagining Halloween without Saw and I’ve finally come to the realization that I don’t want to. I don’t want this series to ever end and it’s looking like I’ll get my wish. So while everyone else compares notes on which film they officially lost interest at, I prefer to look at the glass as being half full…with blood.

5 Ways To Fix The Saw Franchise

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS MAJOR PLOT POINTS AND SPOILERS FROM THE FIRST FOUR SAW FILMS

It’s no secret that I didn’t really care much for Saw IV. A series that I always enjoyed went off the deep end creatively with a confusing, overplotted mess of a film. The only good news is that considering it was the fourth installment in a horror franchise it could have been a lot worse and all the problems could easily be fixed in Saw V, which opens October 24th.

Still, it was a huge drop-off in writing quality from the previous three and appeared to be a shark jump if there ever was one. It’s a promising sign that the upcoming film features a couple of solid actresses in Julie Benz and Meagan Goode, but without a stronger script this time around it would be a relatively easy to make a film worse than Saw IV. In fact, from what I read about the direction they’ve taken this, that seems likely.

According to imbd.com, here’s the synopsis:

“Forensics expert Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) goes on the hunt in order to protect the secret that he is the newest person to carry on Jigsaw's legacy.”

In case you've forgotten (which would be easy to given the 75,000 characters who were in the previous film), Hoffman was the man revealed as Jigsaw’s apprentice in Saw IV’s head-scratchingly stupid final twist. That the film will focus on him is bad enough (more on that below) but the synopsis continues to tell us that we’ll also finally find out what happened to Lynn and Jeff’s daughter, who was left in danger at the end of Saw III. Um…a little late for that don’t you think? I’m betting most viewers won’t remember or care. It may have been only hours in the film’s timeline but it was two years ago for the rest of us.

Saw V will also be the first film since the original not directed by Darren Lynn Bousman, who b bowed out to make his Paris Hilton horror musical. It probably doesn’t bode well for this series that Bousman’s project sounds more intriguing than this. Taking over the reins is series production designer David Hackl, but considering the problems with the previous film were completely script-related it remains to be seen what if any impact this change will have. But this is the first time in years I'm not excited for an upcoming Saw film and unsure whether to even see it. But, really, who am I kidding? Of course, I will. I have to see whether the filmmakers can dig themselves out of this hole.

Maybe the problem is that it really has turned into a horror franchise and has strayed from its original roots as a mystery/thriller. I don’t envy writers Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, who are saddled with the near-impossible task of continuing the story after their main villain has been killed off, especially one as complex and interesting as Jigsaw. While that aspect may set it apart from other horror films it hurts the central premise of the series, which was that this sick, dying man believed he was teaching people the meaning of life with his twisted, sadistic games and traps. It seems with his death and the addition of pointless characters we’ve moved further away from that premise and even further away from the first film, which was truly great. Below are my suggestions for getting it back on track. While it isn’t often a horror series enjoys a creative resurgence in its fifth installment, it isn't impossible. If they take even just a couple of these suggestions:

1. KEEP IT SIMPLE
What was great about Saws II and III as sequels were that they worked as stand-alone efforts that didn’t depend on specific plot points from the previous film to enjoy them. I actually thought Saw III was the strongest of the three sequels because of its simplicity and laser-like focus on the main victim’s plight. I’m willing to bet Saw IV’s plot confused the hell out even the film’s most hardcore fans with too many characters (c’mon, Jigsaw’s attorney?) non-linear storytelling and overly complicated traps.

I don’t think it’s helping that all of these films now take place in a timeline that’s days or hours apart, relying on intricate knowledge of every detail to be able to follow it. In a perfect world, Saw V would be set further down the line while still incorporating the aspects necessary from the other films, but Unfortunately, the plot description implies that won’t be happening so I guess I’ll just have to live with it. But that doesn’t mean it still can’t be more focused and simple. Even he writers themselves have admitted in interviews that Saw IV was too confusing, which at least gives me some hope this will be an improvement.

2. BRING BACK THE BATHROOM
It was the setting for shocking final twist in the original film. It was also the setting for another clever one in Saw II and in Saw III we were treated to details of how Jigsaw set up his most famous trap. It needs to come back…somehow. It's simple: bathroom= awesomeness. Just its very presence in the film alerts us that something big is going down.

3. MORE JIGSAW FLASHBACKS
Sometimes it can hurt to know too much about your horror villain. This isn’t one of those cases. It seems the more we learn about John Kramer the more it enhances his mystique and the more appreciation we have for the choices Tobin Bell makes with the role. We wouldn’t even be be talking about a fifth movie if not for him and learning about that character’s origins and history was one of the few things I enjoyed in the last film. We learned about Billy The Puppet, the instigating incident that pushed Kramer over the edge and saw his very first trap. To the writers’ credit, this was very well done and I hope they expand on it in Saw V. They need to squeeze all the screen time out of Bell that they have left, but at the same time figure out a way to make his deceased presence mean just as much in the current storyline.


4. GET RID OF THIS MAN
Boy, they really have to come up with a hell of a backstory to fix this aren’t they? If not, I have no problem with Hoffman’s tape recorder exploding and blowing him to bits within the film’s first few minutes. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve spoken to who couldn’t even tell what was going on or couldn’t remember who this character even was in Saw IV’s clumsy final minutes. It seemed to be just an example of the writers throwing something out there that was completely random just for the sake of a twist. Whoever carries on Jigsaw’s legacy should be be inexorably tied to his work (see below) rather than just some nobody forensics guy.

I’ve never heard of Costas Mandylor as an actor before Saw IV but I hope he’s ready to give the performance of his life and has some really strong writing to back him up. He’s gonna need it. The easier solution would be for the producers to just cut their loss and move on. He could easily be written him off as just the latest pawn in Jigsaw’s game. Unfortunately, since Mandylor is already signed to Saw VI I better brace myself. This guy's role looks like it's is going to be HUGE. Possibly as large as Tobin Bell's in the second and third films. He better be ready to go the distance because it's gonna take a lot to win me over. It just seems like a bad idea.

5. BRING ONE OF THESE CHARACTERS BACK
And when I say bring one of them back I mean bring them back with meaning and purpose, not to just do nothing like Donnie Wahlberg’s Detective Matthews in the last film. The role doesn’t even have to be large, it just has to be important and make sense.

Dr. Lawrence Gordon-This is what everyone wants, so do it. The franchise needs him back now more than ever and rumors have been swirling about his re-appearance for nearly every installment. Of all the series’ major characters, his return would be the most welcome and fit the best. The writers have tried to top it but no Jigsaw victim suffered more physically or emotionally. Imagine what a moment it would be to see Gordon hobbling onto the screen in the film's final minutes. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that the lack of discussion on the topic lately is because producers have been able to keep a potential Cary Elwes appearance under wraps rather than that they’ve abandoned the idea altogether.

Detective David Tapp-Who knows Jigsaw better than the first detective assigned to the case? It would be easy to work him back into the story somehow since for all we know he could have survived that gunshot wound. If not, flashbacks are feasible and could probably add a lot to the current storyline, given the character’s unhealthily detailed obsession with the case. And it’s not like Danny Glover would have had to clear his busy schedule.

Zepp Hindle-“Those are the rules Dr. Gordon!” Alright, I know. Michael Emerson’s creepy hospital orderly ingested a lethal poison and was beaten to death with a toilet seat at the conclusion of the original film. But you can’t tell me the producers aren’t kicking themselves for that after seeing the great work Emerson has gone on to do on Lost. I’m much more willing to believe Zepp somehow survived the traumatic events of the first film than any of the crap the writers tried to sell in the last installment. I’ll even settle for a flashback, I don’t care. By the way, he and Elwes are the only two actors from the series capable of portraying Jigsaw's successor.

The Saw franchise is hurting but things could be much worse, especially considering we’re on the fifth film. At its weakest, its still in much better shape than other horror franchises have been at this point. Better still, none of the sequels have been bad enough to negate the impact of the original film...yet. That’s largely because the central, underlying concept that powers the series is so strong. Here’s hoping on October 24th the filmmakers remembered that.

Saw IV

Director: Darren Lynn Bousman
Starring: Tobin Bell, Lyriq Bent, Costas Mandylor, Scott Patterson, Betsy Russell, Athena Karkanis, Justin Louis
Running Time: 95 min.
Rating: R

**1/2 (out of ****)

Two men awake in a grungy bathroom chained to pipes on opposite sides of the room with no memory of how they got there. Between them are a dead body, a gun and a cassette recorder. That kernel of an idea ended up providing the launching pad for three sequels and one of the most commercially successful horror franchises of all-time. From the opening minutes of the first Saw film in 2004 you knew you were seeing something special and how those men got there and what was on that tape recorder ended up being a lot smarter than many gave it credit for at the time. With every Halloween since came the promise of a new Saw film and so began a tradition.

It joins films such as Friday The 13th, Halloween and A Nightmare on Elm Street as one of the few successful horror franchises, but the truth is you could put the first three Saw films up against any of those films' first three and it would handily win. There's been very little drop-off in quality from the first to the third. thought the original was an ingenious suspense thriller. Its sequel, while overcrowded with too many characters, was still a worthy successor and featured a great performance by Tobin Bell as Jigsaw, the cancer-stricken killer who sets up deadly traps and games to force others to appreciate their lives.

The original's co-writer and director, James Wan had left the series, but his replacement Darren Lynn Bousman filmed a sequel that was better than anyone had a right to expect. Bousman was back for the third film, easily the most graphic and polarizing of the series. I thought it was an improvement over its predecessor, getting back to basics with a morality play that recalled the original. How it escaped an NC-17 rating has to be one of horror cinema's greatest mysteries. Each year the Saw films aren't screened for critics, which is very wise knowing their predisposed bias against the genre. Many of them have affixed their "torture porn" label on it, a few without ever viewing the films. Each one tends to end with a shocking twist that whets fans' appetites for a follow-up.

Those many fans, myself included, were left scratching their heads at the end of Saw III wondering how there could possibly be another film with the diabolical Jigsaw seemingly left for dead. It's a stretch even by horror movie standards. So, has Saw's ship finally sailed? Can this franchise survive without him? After viewing Saw IV I'm sorry to report that it doesn't look like it can. Ridiculously overplotted and containing an ending so disappointing it's almost offensive, this is by far the least successful film in the series and a sign it's time to call it quits. They missed their stop. I can't imagine anyone looking forward to a fifth installment after the slap in the face we get here.

Jigsaw a.k.a. John Kramer (Tobin Bell) is dead. That much is made clear in the film's opening minutes as we bear witness to his gruesome autopsy. His work, however, is far from done. In his stomach is a tape he ingested just before his death and on it are instructions for another game. This one involves Detective Rigg (Lyriq Bent), who's had to stand by hopelessly and witness the demise of Detectives Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg) and Kerry (Dina Meyer) at the hands of Jigsaw. He's a man who's obsessed with doing the right thing and now that obsession will either become his best friend or worst enemy as Jigsaw leaves various tests for him around the city which will lead him to the location of two captured colleagues.

Hot on Rigg's trail are F.B.I agents Strahm (Scott Patterson) and Perez (Athena Karkenis) who have discovered the body of Detective Kerry and have good reason to believe her death in the third film was carried out by someone other than Jigsaw or his deceased apprentice Amanda (Shawnee Smith). Clues lead them to John Kramer's ex-wife Jill (Betsy Russell) who provides shocking details of their past together as the clock ticks on Rigg's deadly game.

If you thought Saw II had a lot of characters that film looks like an intimate stage play compared to what we witness here. I don't think I've ever seen a horror film (or any film for that matter) feature as many cops as this does. It's as if they're shooting a remake of NYPD Blue. There were so many that at times it actually becomes difficult to tell them all apart. Not helping any was that they decided to cast three actors who look physically identical to one another in pivotal roles. If one wasn't a lawyer and didn't serve a separate function in the story I would have been totally lost. Yes, even John Kramer's attorney appears in this film.

It seemed like they wanted to jam as much as they could into this one out of fear that Jigsaw's absence would lead to a lack of tension and excitement. There are more ingenious traps than ever before and flashbacks that flash back to more flashbacks. There are clues, letters and tape recorders all over the place. A character in this film can't seem to enter a room without being confronted with Jigsaw's puppet, a tape recorder or a note. The amount of time and preparation (not to mention psychic ability) it would take to set up the game Detective Rigg endures here would probably cause Jigsaw to want to take his own life instead. I can't say I'm surprised he needed help with this one.

The plot is so complicated and involves so many characters it would take me a year to explain it. It's just too much. We even have the reappearance of a major character from a previous film, although their presence is completely superfluous and adds nothing to the story. All the characters in this film are just pawns in Jigsaw's game which would be fine if one of them didn't take center stage in the inexcusable ending. They also decide to tie up a loose end from the end of the third film, but in the most unsatisfactory way possible

This isn't to say Saw IV is a terrible film, but compared to the rest it's a huge step down. I don't have a single complaint about how Bausman directs it as he stays true to the effective visual aesthetic of the first three films. I won't even rate the gore level anymore since fans of the series are completely desensitized to it by now. It's exciting and holds your interest with the deadly traps and these are maybe the most depraved group of subjects we've had in any Saw film.

Bent gives a commanding lead performance but the real star of the movie, as usual, is Tobin Bell. John Kramer may be dead but he gets more screen time than ever as we find out through various flashbacks about his relationship with his ex-wife and a shocking event that helps explain how the troubled toymaker turned into Jigsaw. It's never bad to have the spotlight shine on a villain with this much complexity and it was by far the most fascinating element in this film. It got me thinking that maybe it wouldn't have been such a bad idea to have a prequel instead. With Jigsaw dead it becomes nearly impossible to care as much about these new traps and games. This character is the driving force behind the series.

The film's convoluted plot does actually tie together in the end (probably even better on a second viewing) and I'd be willing to forgive what a mess it is… if not for the ending. Without spoiling too much I'll say there's a "big reveal" involving someone we couldn't care less about. The twist isn't shocking, just lazy. All I'm going to say is that if someone's going to carry on Jigsaw's legacy we all know the only person it should be (Hint: He's a doctor with one foot). Had that been the reveal audiences would be gasping for air and the series could have continued with renewed vigor. I would have even accepted a twist that revealed Jigsaw to still be alive. Of course it would make no sense, but at least it wouldn't carry the massive disappointment this ending did and we'd look forward to a fifth film.

I also never expected to say this, but I really missed Shawnee Smith as Amanda. Her absence is really felt. At the end of the second film I complained at the prospect of having her take over the reins, but after this ending I'd do anything to have her back. We've never seemed further from that grungy bathroom with Dr. Gordon and Adam than we do now and watching this was like listening to a mediocre band try to cover one of your favorite songs. It just isn't the same.

For those who'd want to label this film "torture porn" I couldn't argue because the writing just isn't there this time. There are new screenwriters on board (Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan) and it really, really shows. I hold them completely responsible. If anything this proves just how valuable to the character of Jigsaw and Tobin Bell's performance as him have been to the series. He may have been in the film in flashbacks but his physical presence was sorely missed. We need to know he's the one behind the curtain pulling the strings. With Saw IV we may have officially "jumped the shark." Just as Jigsaw has drawn his last breath, so too apparently, has this franchise.

Saw III

Director: Darren Lynn Bousman
Starring: Tobin Bell, Shawnee Smith, Angus Macfadyen, Bahar Soomekh, Dina Meyer, Donnie Wahlberg
Running Time: 113 min.
Rating: R

***1/2 (out of ****)

For some reason the Saw movies have always been categorized as horror films when they're really not. They also have the reputation of being gory, bloody and disgusting. This isn't true, at least for the first two films. It's true now. Saw III is absolutely brutal and easily one of the hardest "R" I've ever seen. It makes Hostel look like Toy Story. Still, at their core the movies are psychological thrillers, especially the original which may have been the best in that genre I've seen in the past ten years. With that film, writers James Wan and Leigh Whannell did something really special by creating a villain with an interesting motivation and a story that was intricate, complicated and multi-layered. Unthinkable for just a "horror movie." I thought a sequel was a bad idea as there was no chance anything could top to the original's cleverness and creativity. I was right, but the sequel came closer in quality than anyone thought it could. Saw III comes even closer. Anyone who loved the previous two won't be disappointed.

I'll be very careful as I explain the plot of Saw III, as the fun in these movies come from the twists and surprises, and let me tell you there are plenty in this third installement. The movie picks up exactly where Saw II left off, with the door being closed on Detective Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg) as he lies leg chained in the dark basement, having fallen victim to Jigsaw's latest game. If you're wondering how John Cramer a.ka. Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) could possibly still be alive after nearly being at death's door with an inoperable brain tumor for the past two films, your concerns are quickly addressed. He's really in bad shape in this one. However, that won't stop him from continuing his mission of teaching people to appreciate their lives by putting them through brutal games and tests with the help of his new apprentice, Amanda (Shawnee Smith). One of the most interesting things about the series is how Jigsaw isn't a killer, at least not exactly. He gives all of his victims the chance (however slim) to save themselves and if they do then good for them. They're free to go. Those are the rules. He actually has a strong moral code. You could say he's moral in his immorality.

This time, Jigsaw kidnaps a doctor (Bahar Soomekh) whom he hopes can keep him alive, or at least keep him alive long enough for his other victim to complete his series of tests. That man, Jeff (Angus Macfadyen), is being forced by Jigsaw to confront the people responsible for the death of his son in a tragic car accident that has consumed him with hatred and revenge for years. This is the most interesting subject they've had in any of the Saw movies and it elevates the entire film because we actually start to care about this guy's backstory. This is also a twist on the usual game Jigsaw plays because this time the victims fates are in the hands of someone else other than themselves. Jeff is forced to either to forgive those responsible for his son's death to save himself or hold on to that anger and punish them, risking his own life. The movie turns into a morality play: vengeance vs. forgiveness. I thought this aspect of the screenplay was incredible and shows why the Saw movies are operating at a level far above any typical Hollywood slasher. They're actually about something.

In a way, I was disappointed the movie felt the need to put in so much gore, brutality and violence if only because it will cause people to overlook the fact that the movie tells a complex story. The most frightening aspect of the film is that this is the tame version. Scenes probably had to be cut just so it could achieve the "R" rating. Let's put it this way: normally just a second of nudity is enough to insure an "R" rating for a film. This movie has a scene of full frontal nudity with torture that lasts for almost five minutes straight, yet somehow the movie made it into theaters without the dreaded "NC-17". Quite an accomplishment. This film is about fifty times more graphic and brutal than the other two and is a cinema landmark in what you can get away with showing on screen. There's a scene of brain surgery being performed in the most graphic detail I've ever seen in a movie. I actually had to turn away, something I've never done before. All of this would be a serious problem if the story couldn't support it, but it does.

You have to feel sorry for Tobin Bell. No matter how great a performance he gives it's going to be overlooked just because of the type of movie he's in. People don't realize how a big part he plays in the success of this franchise. Anyone who lists him in the top five of all-time great movie villains, would get no argument from me. He's up there with Hannibal Lecter and Darth Vader. I was worried about Shawnee Smith having an increased role as his apprentice in this film because there's only one Jigsaw. I didn't really want to see him working with anyone, but I was proven wrong. Their relationship adds an interesting dimension to the film and she did a really great job.

This film is far superior to the first sequel largely because of a renewed focus on the test subjects. There were only two which upped the tension and intimacy of the proceedings to levels not seen since the original. I felt the second film, while strong, just had to many characters. There was a tighter focus here so the result was a more involving story. It's going to be impossible to recreate the mystery of the original , but I really like how all three films have a certain storyline continuity, but are still wildly different. We get to see in this film, through flashbacks, a behind the scenes look at Jigsaw's previous traps (including the infamous one from the original) which filled in some plot holes anyone may have been questioning.

The big question now is, will there be a Saw IV? Of course they'll be. It's probably already been written. As long as truckloads of money can be made there will always be a Saw movie. The real question should be, is it necessary? Probably not, but after seeing this I can honestly say I'm looking forward to a fourth installment. There were alot of questions left unanswered at the end of Saw 3 and I can't believe I'm saying this but they haven't yet explored all of their avenues for the Jigsaw character. I not only want to see a Saw IV, I can't wait for it.