Jacob Destree’s Movie Blog

The “Saw” Series has pumped out a new release annually, every year from 2004 – 2007. Viewed as works of art, these films are not very good at all. Viewed as a corporate product line– as exercises in style over substance, specializing in shocking moments rather than a cohesive whole– the “Saw” series is an exemplary exercise in its genre.

I do not recommend seeing any of these films. And yet, I have learned more about the film making process from watching the “Saw” DVD commentaries, and observing the films’ construction, than I have learned from many of the greatest art house films. If there is a way to approach this series, I think it should be treated as the villainous Jigsaw treats his victims. Keep it at arms length, and treat it like a guinea pig. Don’t empathize with the victim, and by the end you will see how it ticks.

What follows are some brief thoughts on each film in the series.

“Saw” (2004) is by far the best of the series. The strength of the first “Saw” movie is its premise. Its main weakness is the twist ending. As the film begins, we want to know why these two men are chained in a bathroom, and will they saw off a leg to stay alive. The various death traps are original and engaging, and we wonder who is the mastermind behind it all. But by the end, the answers are mostly unsatisfying. The twist feels obligatory, and opens up some plot holes that weren’t there before.

Additionally, I like this film because of the casting. Seeing Danny Glover and Carey Elwes in a popular horror film is gratifying. Ken Leung and Michael Emerson add to the mix, prefacing their participation together in the new season of “Lost.” Tobin Bell (Jigsaw) is unfortunately underused.

Grade: B-

“Saw II” (2005) really focuses on where the entire series gets its popularity: the death traps. In the first “Saw,” the traps were novel, a good reason to see the movie. With the sequel, the traps immediately feel like part of a “formula,” the recipe used to duplicate the success of the first film over and over.

The traps in “Saw II” are admittedly more entertaining than in the first “Saw,” but the premise feels forced because its all written around the traps. Imagine the sheer amount of time, effort, and planning to make a house full of traps, and to try to predict how the victims will deal with it all. What’s more, it all has to be automated, because unlike the first film, there’s no one there to supervise the game. Jigsaw is captured by the police in the very first scene (one of the few times this movie really goes against genre expectations).

The best trap? The one where the girl has to dig out a key from the bottom of a pit filled with hypodermic needles. It’ll make you cringe. But there’s really no other reason to see this mess. It’s “average” in every sense of the word.

Grade: C

“Saw III” (2006) shows serious signs of franchise fatigue. Like many horror franchises before it, it entices the viewer with promises of resolution, only to set up still more sequels. The characters, save Tobin Bell as Jigsaw, are uninteresting. Maybe that’s why the best scenes in “Saw III” are not the elaborate (and unbelievable traps), but the scenes where Jigsaw’s life is on the line (like when he undergoes makeshift brain surgery).

Grade: C-

With Jigsaw now dead, “Saw IV” (2007) has its work cut out. The result is the worst film in the series, although the idea for the story is not entirely bad. Jigsaw appears in numerous flashbacks, which try to enhance the series “mythology” by showing us how he got started as a serial killer, and answering such questions as where the doll and pig mask came from. That’s the good part. The bad part, again, is the inevitable series of traps. This time, it is revealed that all the trap scenes run concurrently with “Saw III,” thereby sidestepping the issue of how Jigsaw sets up more traps while he’s dead. Of course, this only further enhances the implausibility of the third film, and begs the question of how the traps will originate in “Saw V.”

Speaking of traps, the traps in “Saw IV” really, really test the viewer’s suspension of disbelief. In the earlier films the best traps are always the simple, plausible ones: one person trying to escape one death machine. But “Saw IV” ignores this fact, instead offering up numerous traps spread throughout the city and involving usually two characters per set piece.

In one example, the protagonist is supposed to lure a hotel clerk into a pre-rigged room and force him into the trap mechanism. What if the clerk wasn’t there that night? How long was the room set up that way? What if someone had entered the room beforehand? And how does the television turn itself on to play the videotape that explains the clerk’s back story? Where did Jigsaw acquire the footage for the tape? Why is the tape edited for dramatic effect? Did Jigsaw do that himself? It seems like Jigsaw benefits endlessly from dumb luck as so many circumstances work out just right, at just the right time…

And so it goes. For 95 minutes.

Grade: D+

There will be a “Saw V” too. They mention that little nugget in the director’s commentary for “Saw IV.”
What does it say about a franchise, that they promote an as-yet-unmade sequel in the special features of the movie preceding it?

Has Jigsaw already become a classic villain?
Post your thoughts.