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.                       

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 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.