October 29th, 2006 by Brent
In Saw 3, terminally ill serial killer, Jigsaw returns to playing games with victims whom he feels are taking their life for granted. To teach them a lesson, he places them in elaborate death traps where they must then make difficult decisions or sacrifice their own bodies to survive. Well, just like Jigsaw's death traps, this movie tortures you and makes you wish you were somewhere else.
Now, I liked the first Saw, but it wasn't great by any means. The dialogue was horrible, the acting was even worse, and there were a couple plot holes. I did, however, really enjoy the story and the ending is one of my personal favorites (although it is also where the worst acting occurs). Saw 2 was more of the same, but I didn't care about the characters, the story, and thought the ending was pretty weak. So, here is Saw 3, which picks up immediately after the second installment's story, but besides some improved character development and better dialogue, it fails to add anything new to this series.
The film tries too hard to top the death traps of the first and second films with more blood and guts, but it loses the creativity of the devices that made Jigsaw so interesting in the first film. The moral aspect is pushed again as Jigsaw's reason for his "games", but coming from this guy, they mean nothing considering that he contradicts himself most of the time. The acting, while better then the first two, is mediocre and the dialogue is bearable. The film does tie up some loose ends from the other films which is nice and tries to add some character development, but I feel it is too little, too late. The Saw movies have run their course, but be warned, Hollywood will probably be back to torture us next Halloween with a Saw 4. I, however, have learned my lesson from Jigsaw, I'll never see a Saw movie again.
Oh, and to the two parents who brought their little girl to an R rated horror movie entitled Saw. Let's try to have a little better judgement next time, mmmkay?
| Quick Review | |
|---|---|
| Plot/Storyline There are some twists and turns, but once revealed, are weak sauce. |
4 |
| Acting/Characters Some improved dialogue and attempts at character development. The actors don't do much to make me care though. |
6 |
| Visuals/Sound The look hasn't changed much since the first Saw, the gritty look remains as well as the quick cuts. Althought I disliked the movie, I do love the theme they use. |
8 |
| Replay I've seen the twists, and they weren't good enough to warrant a second viewing. |
1 |
| Overall Rating: | 4.5 |
| All scores are out of 10. Overall score is not an average. | |
Comments
Sam
October 31st, 2006 - 12:43 PM
Brent
October 31st, 2006 - 12:57 PM
I was hardly trying to find things wrong with it, but as a fan of the first Saw I have been disappointed with both sequels. There were parts that I really liked, like the references to the other movies, but like I said, it was too little, too late for me. I understood the story just fine, but I didn't care for it. You could see that twist coming a mile away and Jigsaws final test was a major let down.
king storey
November 12th, 2006 - 8:29 PM
I have to say that I agree with Sam on this one. I definitely enjoyed the layers of twists added to the (hopefully) final chapter of the Saw trilogy. I will most likely not see another Saw movie if another one is produced, but that is just because I feel that it is resolved and my major questions are answered. The acting has certainly improved, and I agree with Sam that there was a purpose behind the death traps not having Jigsaw's flavor. But, Sam, how can you appreciate the moral of the story in Saw but not appreciate the moral of the story in Click? You get twice the moral and 1/100,000,000,000th of the blood.
Brent
November 15th, 2006 - 7:10 AM
When talking about his deathtraps being different from the other movies, I was referring to his, not Amanda's. When he puts Jeff to the test, there are 3 different people who will die depending on Jeff's actions. Theses tests are different because the people who are at risk do not have the chance to save themselves. Their fate is left in the hands of another. This is not how it was in the first film. Because of this, any "moral" aspects the film tries to create is destroyed by the hypocrital Jigsaw.
king storey
November 16th, 2006 - 3:50 PM
But if you'll remember Brent, the gentleman on the floor in Amanda's first test in the original Saw had no chance to save himself. He was a pawn in the game as well and his life rested in the balance of her choice. And if I remember correctly, Zed (I think that was the guy's name) was playing his game because someone else's life was at risk supposedly. I don't think your example above is much different. Therefore, if you call Jigsaw a hypocrite in Saw 3, he was just as much a hypocrite in the original...your favorite.
Brent
November 16th, 2006 - 5:01 PM
Oh, I think Jigsaw is a hypocrite in all of the movies, that's one of the main problems with the character's rants that he goes on in the films, his actions totally contradict his words. I was just pointing out that it is even more evident to the viewer in this one, which kind of ruined Jigsaws big tests at the end for me.
Also, although the first is my favorite, it is by no means a perfect movie. I would probably give it a 7 out of 10.
Post a Comment
Comments will be moderated and obnoxious or inappropriate comments will be removed.
You are not logged in. Login to leave a comment.
Brent's Latest Reviews
We obviously were not watching the same movie. You seemed to try and find things wrong with it. And although not revolutionary the acting has improved more than you realize. Plus the whole idea of the movie is that Jigsaw's protege was screwing up the game so that is why most of the deaths were more gruesome and did not have that Saw feel to them. That's the twist oh yeah. Mmmmmkay.