Saw III (2006)

“Live or die, Jeff. Make our choice.”

Suddenly, after defending the first two Saw films, I begin to see a justification for the term “torture porn”. This is a much, much nastier film than its two predecessors, and the scene with Timothy Young and the “rack”, in particular, is extremely difficult to watch. This film is as good, as intricate, and as entertaining as its predecessors but the nastiness is starting to become excessive.

There’s a very strong connection to the first two films, as we see what happens to Matthews and the gruesome death of Kerry; the police procedural element has certainly not lessened. But the film centres around Amanda who, lacking Jigsaw’s “ethics”, does not give her victims a chance of escape. I certainly wouldn’t say there’s any moral distinction between them (they’re both sadistic serial killers who get off on power far more than being inspired by their claimed motives), but Jigsaw would. And he, of course, has set the whole thing up to see whether Amanda is worthy to be his successor. She isn’t, of course, but the means by which we discover this are the point.

So, yes, it’s good, as far as plot and intrigue go, and those are the selling points here, not subtext, character or moral profundity. But even in comparison to its predecessors it’s very dark. And the gore has definitely stepped up. We have a trepanning, with a power drill and no anaesthetic. We have, early on, the most sadistic scenarios yet, and that horrible “rack” scene, seen in bloody slow motion. To me this crosses some sort of undefined line. I’m a little nervous about proceeding with the series.

Still- John Kramer dies at the end. How can more films possibly happen?

Saw II (2005)

“Live or die. Make your choice.”

I suppose it’s never been more predictable which film I’m going to blog next. Fear not, though: I’m not just going to rattle through all six Saw films one after another, so if you don’t like these films you can stay tuned. Before I start, though, I have to praise this film for respecting the intelligence of its audience and using Roman numerals in the title, something not many films do in these lowest-common-denominator times.

This film feels no more like a horror or slasher movie than the last one, and feels even more strongly like a police procedural, because that’s what it is. Like Columbo, this isn’t a whodunit so much as a whydunit: we already know who Jigsaw is, but that’s about all we do know. The plot twists and revelations are every bit as awesome as in the earlier film, but this time we have the added bonus of more screen time from the splendid Tobin Bell.

Jigsaw’s motives begin to become a little clearer; his motives appear to be sincere, although the sadism is genuine too. All of his victims are found wanting in some way, harsh though his moral judgements may often be, The deaths are horrible an d gloriously gory but, once again, not sufficiently so as to justify the “torture porn” reputation.

The central character, Detective Matthews, is corrupt, self-centred and, naturally, jigsaw’s true target. He can never quite be an audience identification figure, so instead we get Kerry, the flawed but honest detective. Matthews is slowly and

psychologically tortured although, interestingly, his son is not harmed, in spite of some petty criminal acts. This is done, and revealed, very cleverly (the footage is not live). If anything, the plotting is even more satisfying this time round, and we get some highly accurate skewering of reality TV to boot.

John Kramer’s motive for being Jigsaw is more than a little existential, to put it mildly. His characterisation may be somewhat superficial but there are real ideas at play here. Amanda, with her apparent Stockholm syndrome being revealed as having led to becoming Jigsaw’s accomplice, is a particularly disturbing and fascinating character.

Once again this is an excellent film. Nice soundtrack, too: it’s good to hear Mudvayne over the closing titles. Next time, though, it’s time for a bit of a break from the Saw films…

Saw (2004)

“I want to play a game…”

I’ll be honest; most of what I’d heard about Saw had been very negative, with the phrase “torture porn” being bandied about a lot. But I wanted to give it a chance, especially as my very lovely girlfriend is a huge fan. And, well, it’s gory, but it isn‘t what I expected at all.

To begin with, there’s absolutely no way that this is a horror film in any way whatsoever; it’s a violent thriller. Chills and suspense do not feature in any way. And the central conceit, of a criminal who torments his victims with “games” where they have to use their wits and their suffering) to survive, is a brilliant concept, though rather evil. Yes, it looks less than lavish, and the American accents from Cary Elwes and creator Leigh Whannell are often arse-clenchingly embarrassing, but I rather enjoyed the film. Which is a good thing, as my girlfriend has brought a lot of DVD’s of Twisted Pictures films to our new home, and no fewer than four of them are still in my backlog of films to review…

The mystery unfolds perfectly, starting out like a rather less glamorous version of The Crystal Maze but expanding to become more and more horrible. There’s also a strong aspect of the police procedural; I’m reminded more of Seven than any slasher movie I’ve seen. It’s gory, yes; very gory. But this film, at least, doesn’t seem to justify the label “torture porn”, although I accept there’s nastiness on show. The more dominant impression I have is of very, very clever plotting. The final montage revealing, we;;, not everything but enough for now, is all the more powerful for consisting mainly of snippets of scenes we’ve already seen, showing us that we had the clues all along.

Best of all is that Jigsaw, with that iconic, nightmare-inducingly ugly puppet, is a bloody brilliant baddie. THAT voice is just perfect, as is the revelation of his identity. Ironically, though, the puppet is a puppet master, having all sorts of effects on all of the other characters, and not just the ones whom he directly manipulates. Danny Glover’s obsessed police detective is every bit as manipulated by him as are the two main protagonists, Most interesting is Amanda, who genuinely seems to think she’s been helped.

Adam and the good doctor are ciphers, perhaps, but effective ones- the impulsive young man driven by id and emotion versus the repressed cold fish driven by duty. There’s a nice role reversal as Adam becomes increasingly logical and the doctor slowly loses it to the point of sawing his own leg off. This may not be the most three-dimensional kind of character development, but it’s enough to add depth to the film and ensure that there’s more to it than gore and clever plotting.

So… I liked the first film. What of the second…?