Saw 3D (in 3D!!!!!)

Well, technically I didn't see this in time for my October marathon, but I do see the Saw movies as my "beat," and figured I should cover this here any way.

Evil Detective Hoffman, having escaped the reverse bear trap, sets about to track down and deal with nemesis Jill Tuck once and for all. Meanwhile, a self-help guru who runs a support group for Jigsaw victims finds himself a part of the most elaborate Jigsaw game yet. Meanwhile to that meanwhile, a good guy detective tries to track down Hoffman and stop him before it's too late. And meanwhile to all of that... but you get the gist.

Ostensibly the last film in the series, Saw 3D turns out to be the most genuinely entertaining sequel since Saw IV. Part of this is a subtle shift in tone and style that I think is due to the 3D. The 3D itself looks fine but isn't anything spectacular. The positive side-effect is that in working with the 3D process, director Kevin Greutert has gone for a much brighter, lively color palette, and also tones down much of the confusing, ADHD editing. (Attempting the series's usual dimly lit, designer gloom and rapid cutting in 3D would have likely rendered the movie incoherent). Back when the Feast guys took over writing duties in Saw IV, they slyly interpreted the films as absurd, violent dark comedies with impossibly convoluted stories. The unexpected (but welcome) change in visuals highlights this sense of ridiculousness and makes 3D the most fun of all the sequels.

Which is a good thing, considering the traps in this film. They are elaborate, crazy, vicious and they are also many; if the filmmakers didn't present them with a sense of grotesque fun, the movie would be tedious and depressing. And when I say many, I mean it. This has, by far, the most traps in the entire series, so many that sometimes the movie has to cut away to new, unimportant characters just to introduce a new trap and spectacular death. And one trap even shows up in a dream sequence that has no bearing on the actual story. And as if that wasn't enough violence for you, late in the film Hoffman goes on a rampage where I swear he must stab five hundred cops to death. (Conservative estimate).

The one thing that was disappointing me for a while was, considering that this is supposedly the final film, it didn't seem like it was doing much to wrap up the massive, complex, almost mythological story the series has going on. It introduces a shit ton of characters we've never met and essentially relegates Hoffman and Jill to supporting roles. Plus, Jigsaw's appearance is more or less a cameo. It seemed like the promises of closure were bullshit... until the appropriately nuts twist ending, which in one fell swoop ties up all the important plot threads still dangling in a more than satisfactory manner. The twist itself I suspect many Saw fans will see coming, but I don't think it will disappoint anyone. And there's still enough wiggle room to make another movie, should the makers be so inclined. Pretty neat.

Grade: B

Saw VI

Well, I already covered this one last year when it came out, and I don't have much to add to my original thoughts. I've watched it at least one other time before this time, and I have a little more appreciation for the ending (the payoff for Hoffman's story is still underwhelming, but the climax for the insurance adjuster's plot is more entertainingly nuts than I originally gave credit for). I now think it's probably the 2nd best sequel, after part IV, mainly due to some slick cinematography that makes the movie more colorful than any of the others in the series (the editing is still a mess, though), and the film's silly, yet spunky, stab at social relevance.

I had, at some point, some half-baked plan to watch the entire series in preparation for Saw 3D this weekend, but that's just not going to happen. 3D is supposedly the final installment (which normally would sound like a bullshit claim, except the films have made increasingly less and less money), so I'm seriously hoping they pull out all of the stops and make a ridiculous gorefest of never-ending plot twists and absurdity. Fingers crossed.

Grade: B

Saw VI

Picking right off where the last one stopped, the sinister Detective Hoffman is still trying to frame the newly deceased Agent Strahm for the Jigsaw murders, while his superiors close in on the truth. Meanwhile, Jigsaw's supposedly final game is put in motion, where a heartless insurance executive is forced to choose which of his colleagues lives and dies, based around the very policies he determined for accepting/deny insurance claims.

By far the most standout element of Saw VI is its attempt at some form of social relevance, which has been entirely missing from the series until now. Not just the health care stuff I mentioned above, there's also a part where predatory lenders are forced to pay the Shylock toll (pound of flesh) to save their lives. I'm not sure if the filmmakers genuinely wanted to express their political beliefs, or if it was cynical stab at being topical in an effort at grabbing a few more dollars. If it's the former, I'm not sure that it's either effective or appropriate commentary, but it is novel and highly amusing that they went for it. If it's the latter, then it didn't work, because Saw VI just had the worst opening weekend of the entire series, by a long shot. (I'm still hoping we get a part VII, but the prospects are looking less hot).

I think overall this was an improvement over part V, more consistently fun, better traps, tighter screenplay that answers more questions, a good twist near the end, and an overall sense that more was being accomplished (part V felt at times more like a detour or backstory than it did a full fledged Saw sequel). Yet it has almost the opposite problem as part V. V felt slight but built up to a highly satisfying conclusion; VI was better all around, but when the credits rolled I felt like it was missing the last 5 minutes. Hoffman is finally tested, as promised in part IV, but a) the test involves a trap we've already seen, b) there's no irony or cleverness to the test, and there's not even a tape-recorded message from Jigsaw, and c) it's over too quickly without much payoff. I almost wished they had left it as a cliffhanger.

I think it's official now that the series peaked in III and IV, the filmmakers are never going to top the delicious absurdity of those films. Still, I'm on board if they do go ahead with Saw VII. I'm hooked into Saw's ongoing, soap opera-esque convoluted storyline and not ready to give it up yet. Plus, how many other sequels do you know that open by showing you the pulverized corpse of the previous film's protagonist? That alone was funny enough to cover the cost of admission.

Saw V

Sunday, October 26, 2008

It's an exciting time to be alive. Growing up as a horror movie devote, I always rued the fact that I wasn't of movie-going age in the 80's. What was great about that time period is that they had a ton of horror movie franchises, where they'd shit a new one out like every year. Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, they were cranking those out on a regular basis, like clockwork. You knew that every year, you'd get to see Jason Vorhees's newest adventure.

So I've been pretty excited about the Saw series, I feel like I'm getting the experience I sorely lacked for years. It's great to know, for the time being, that there will be a new one next October. I love it. And, I mean, don't get me wrong, I also enjoy these movies. The first one was a skillful (if ridiculous) horror/thriller, and the rest have been gleefully absurd trash. And after the sublime insanity of parts III and IV, I was pretty stoked for V to take it to the next level.

Sadly, it didn't. Don't get me wrong, I still liked this one. In fact, it's a better movie than Saw II was. It just didn't up the ante with the crazy-insane plot. No ridiculous cliffhanger ending. Nothing like at the end of IV where it turns out that everything was happening simultaneously with part III. This is a far more low key event.

In fact, this feels less like a full-fledged sequel and more like an interlude. There isn't as much story development. It's the shortest film in the series. Mostly what it does is fill in Hoffman's backstory, explaining how he got hooked up with Jigsaw. This provides some Saw III style fun where we get flashbacks to the other movies' timelines, showing how Hoffman was actually involved, setting up the house trap in part II for example.

Part V has a new director, different from the last 3 movies, and his debut here is nothing great, but I did appreciate the slight change in style. The guy who did the last 3, Bousman, his style was polished, but over the top, especially with the lighting. His movies looked good, but then he would go all retarded in the editing room and throw in a bunch of fast forwards and slo-mos and whooshes and flashes and all that shit. Basically, neat cinematography ruined by ADHD editing. This new fellow, Hackl, dispenses with a lot of that editing nonsense (well, not all of it, this is a Saw movie, after all), and is actually willing to build a moment or hold a shot for a few seconds. He also has a much less ornate, handheld style that feels... not exactly grittier than the other movies, but you know what I mean. I dug that.

(On the downside, though, his style never gets hilariously over-blown like Bousman's. So there aren't any of those ridiculous scene transitions where someone breaks a window and the camera whips through it and is magically transported to a different scene.)

So we have somewhat different visual approach, and the plot deals more with a good detective facing off with a bad detective, and as a result this one feels a little less like a horror movie and a little more like a crime movie (albeit, a weird and graphically violent crime movie). The series has, in a weird way, gone from horror/thriller to film noir.

Anyways, there was enough here that I enjoyed that I'm still on board for part VI (only 12 short months away!), but it's a step down from the last two. It has a nifty ending, although it doesn't reach the amazing levels of convolution that the last three films did, and there wasn't much of a twist. From what I'm reading online, it's possible that they are setting up some major craziness for the next entry, and I've heard some weird theories. So maybe if this is all building to some nutcase twist in part VI, then this one will seem better in retrospect. As it stands, it delivers the goods but feels slight compared to the last two.

Saw III

Sunday, August 31, 2008

I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm excited for Saw V in October. I've seen each one theatrically so far, and I hope to never break that trend. If this new one follows in the footsteps of the sequels, they should hopefully up the crazy-levels yet again. There's nothing scary or what have you about the sequels, but there's a ludicrousness to them that is unrivaled in the world of horror movie series.

Part 5 is set to have a new director, after Darren Bousman did 2 through 4. I'm not sure that's a good thing. I'm hoping at least he'll try to closely copy Bousman's absurdly over-stylized manner, although I'm worried that he won't be as good at over-directing. But who knows, maybe he'll match him, or even bring a new, unique brand of crazy to the series.

I noticed this time watching part 3 that there a lot of well-staged, intricate camera shots that are ruined by the hyperactive editing. They'll cut from a shot too fast, or they will suddenly for no reason speed the shot up and accompany it with a "whoooosh!" sound, as if the camera is actually making noise. (Or at least, I think there's a "whooooosh!" but it could just be that the shot leaves the impression of a "wooooooosh!") I'm not complaining. When I say that the editing ruins it, I mean that it ruins it so bad that it becomes great. I can't ever remember seeing a horror series so often try to bring attention to its own style. All the silly transitions and flash cuts and speed changes are part of the story, instead of being the means to some sort of effect. With, say, the Nightmare On Elm Street movies, you were there to see the gore and the special effects. With Saw, you're there to see the gore and all the stupid editing tricks.

Saw IV

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Andy's back in town, and he hadn't seen this yet.

I wonder if Darren Lynn Bousman realizes how fun and silly the Saw sequels are. I mean, the movies seem rather humorless and grim, like they are trying to be serious thrillers. But it's their absurdity (in plot, in violence and in visual style) that make them so much fun. I'm curious if Bousman thinks these work as serious thrillers, or if he's trying to make them over-the-top fun.

Saw IV

Saturday, March 8, 2008

I put this on at about 1 Saturday night after Shenan fell asleep. It's shorter than I remember, considering that it has enough plot for about 5 movies. But that's what I dig about these movies. Although I thought the first Saw was an effective thriller, there is nothing remotely scary about the sequels. Instead, I enjoy the over-the-top violence and the insanely complex, ridiculous stories. I know I've brought this up a few times here, but the ending of this one, where it turns out that all the events were happening concurrently with part 3, is something special. It's that kind of extra effort in craziness that brings me out to these movies every year. And lord knows I'll be first in line for Saw V.

Side thought: I'm still tickled that "It's a Trap" is the tagline for this movie.