Jigsaw (2017)

“The game- it's started!"

 SPOILERS. You have been warned.

Well, that was unexpected. Seven years after this long-running and very gory franchise of clever whodunit/vigilante tale/squirm fest comes to an ignominious end with Saw 3-D it gets another sequel- this time, against all odds, a fitting, satisfying and genuinely clever finale.

I don't use the word "unexpected" lightly. After all, John Kramer has been dead for so many films now that it really is just stretching credulity to have his pre-planned "games" still playing out ten years after his death. It also isn't remotely credible to have him somehow not have died, although the film teases us with this possibility. No; instead, the film riffs on this very dilemma and finds a solution which is, yes, cheating a bit- this new set of murders exactly mirrors an earlier bunch of murders, and we aren't told until near the end that the scenes featuring Kramer happen years earlier- but it's genuinely clever. I like the inclusion of Jigsaw superfan Eleanor, whose gory collection makes her a splendid red herring, while our two police detective anti-heroes soon focus into our two main suspects for Jigsaw's heir. We also get some gloriously fiendish "games" and as clever and intricate a plot as ever.

So the franchise is right back on form at the last moment. But please: no more.

Saw 3-D (2010)

"Game over."

Before we begin, and celebrate with huge relief having been through em the whole damn franchise, a point of order; I saw this on DVD, and thus both in glorious 2-D and under a different title. That aside, we have a puzzle, a film that, despite its box office success, has been panned by critics both professional and amateur. I have no idea why this should be so, other than a preconceived desire to bash the franchise; this may be no classic but it's a neat resolution and a good little film in its own right.

We begin with a spot of nostalgia, as we return to Cary Elwes as the surviving Dr Gordon  from way back on the first film. Perhaps, given that this is the first sign of the franchise beginning to eat it's own mythology, this is a sign that now is a good time to stop but, for now, the intrigue of Gordon's return works, as does the inevitable eventual realisation that he's been working with Jigsaw all the time. And it's fitting that he should be the one to finally dispatch Hoffman and bring the killings to an end.

Even the opening ordeal, with the two men and a woman in the shop window, is almost nostalgic in its basic structure and the use, once more, of that cute little puppet. On a bike, no less. In sure the children love that scene.

Oh, and the woman, Dina. Dies. Painfully, via her intestines. With loads of blood. How charming. 

Still, the film is mainly about the comeuppance of fake Jigsaw survivor and purveyor of typically vacuous self-help shite Bobby Dagen, a neat concept, as he has to navigate a typically ghoulish series of traps which result in his and others' deaths. Again, lovely, although not as satisfying as Hoffman's eventual comeuppance at the hands of, fittingly, Gordon. It's a very neatly plotted series of events. That's a good thing, I suppose, but it strikes me that we never ever seem to find people surviving Jigsaw's little traps by thinking outside the box that is his narrow little mind. That, I think, would be truly satisfying. My main criticism of the films is that they operate entirely within Jigsaw's rules, which could be said to be a sort of endorsement of said amoral psychopath.

That's not all; a bunch of neo-Nazis are tortured in the usual way, too; only with neo-Nazis do I have to actually remind myself that Kramer and Hoffman are both equally psychopathic bastards with no redeeming features between them.

The ending is ironic, and sort of justifies they franchise's increasingly inaccurate title: Hoffman is put in to the same trap as was Gordon at the end of the the first film. But this time there is no saw...

Saw VI (2009)

"What am I supposed to learn from this?"

It's a little odd, perhaps, to see a Saw film with a left wing message. Like the Punisher and Dirty Harry, these films have always carried a transparently reactionary attitude to crime and punishment in which brutal revenge matters and to hell with due process, rehabilitation or the unjustly convicted. Yet here the left wing, communitarian message is combined with these reactionary views on crime and punishment. This reminds us of two things: firstly, the social democratic left has never been particularly liberal; and secondly, people in real life are more complicated in their politics than to adopt the standard left wing or right wing package of views as a whole.

This film concerns how the recently late and unlamented John Kramer was unfortunate to live in a first world country with a third world health system, one in which, instead of the government buying in everything wholesale with huge discounts and passing the price on to the taxpayer, there is mostly a reliance on the private sector, the profit motive and dodgy insurers.

We know that William Easton,the health insurance bloke who turns down John, is inevitably facing a grisly fate. He may, strictly speaking, simply be a cog in a larger machine, but the plot takes care to emphasise both his personal culpability for, in effect, sentencing John to death, and shows him to be the sort of cad who cheats on his wife on her birthday for good measure. He's doomed.

Meanwhile, in the present day, our old friend Hoffman finds himself investigating his own crimes, and the scapegoating of the late Strahm seems to be going perfectly. And, of course, Jill has been left a box by her serial killer husband, no doubt intended as some sort of "lesson". Sensibly, she has some red wine before opening it. Oh, and Perez (remember her?) is awkwardly still alive. We know full well that Hoffman is going to get rumbled. He deserves it; flashbacks reveal his involvement from a very early stage.

Hoffman and Jill are working together. There are envelopes. There are frightening views expressed about drug addiction (and wrong- look at Amanda). The plot, meanwhile, is as delightful a puzzle as always, and as usual the saving grace of the film.

William's test is, I suppose, grimly appropriate; he is pitted against a Man who neglects his health, and forced to restrict his breathing. William is the one who lives and, of course, learns nothing from this pointless ordeal. I'm beginning to suspect that, for this film at least, the authorial voice agrees with me.

We are not done with William; he has to choose, arbitrarily, which of his staff lives or dies, and he gets a philosophical chat with John. His penultimate test is to suffer physical pain to help an underling, or she dies. It is he, as the boss, who has the agency here, the power of life and death. Naturally, he refuses, what with her being an expendable pawn, and there is a fight, the unfettered free market red in tooth and claw. The left wing subtext here is extraordinary; it is interesting that this film was released shortly before Obama's still rather right wing health reforms became a thing.

William's final test is a massacre of his entire staff, except that he can save a maximum of two by painfully giving up his hands. Lovely. This is a nice little microcosm of what he does for a living, of course, and naturally they all die. In the final twist, his death comes atcthechands of a woman who holds a grudge against him and is not, as we assume, his wife.

We end with the usual stream of revelations, and Hoffman's fatal comeuppance at the end of Jill. I like this film a lot; Jigsaw remains a psychopathic, sanctimonious shit, but at least this time the film was about something.

Saw V (2008)

"They're connected. So in the end all of the pieces will fit together."

Veteran readers of this blog will recall that I blogged the first four of these films four years ago, and rather enjoyed the intricate plotting and clever final reveals that these films have always had. But I always had my qualms, being of a somewhat liberal bent, as to whether John Kramer's brutal attitude to law and order was endorsed by the authorial voice. I finally stopped watching, though, after the gore went a little too far. I'm not very squeamish, but I have my limits.

Still, it's time to return to the final few films in the series, starting with this one: I hate to leave a job unfinished. And it's a good 'un; the plotting is as intricate and superb as ever, with a cruel twist at the end in which Strahm not only dies horribly but is framed for Hoffman's crimes. It was surprisingly good to get back into this series of films; the familiar Twisted Pictures logo put a huge smile on my face.

We begin with a typical torture puzzle from Jigsaw, the details of which, I think, we shall draw a veil over. The difference, of course, is that he does what's required and dies anyway, as it is Hoffman, not Kramer, who is in charge. Crucially, those who, like myself, see absolutely no moral difference between Hoffman and Kramer. They're just different types of psychopath.

Strahm, the poor bloke, is certainly warned from the start not to enquire further, but he is certainly the good guy here. Sadly, though, he's no match for the late, evil, clever Jigsaw, whose control over his intricate plans, and indeed his wife, extend well beyond death. He reminds me very much, I think, of Ian Brady. It seems absurd that the films can continue on and on after the demise of the central character, but they do, and it never feels silly.

Mark Hoffman, meanwhile, is praised and promoted, the smug bastard. At least we know, even at this point, that he will eventually get his brutal comeuppance. We see flashbacks to his first meeting with Kramer, and everything is neatly retconned for him to have been Jigsaw's accomplice all the time. There is a discussion about "ethics" between these two evil men, as Kramer is under delusions that he is somehow less evil; he rages against a "corrupt legal system that puts murderers back on the streets" but, rather revealingly, conspicuously fails to give a monkeys about the wrongfully convicted.

The film centres around an intricate, sadistic trap for a group of people involved in corruption surrounding a building that proved to be a death trap, one if whom is Julie Benz from Angel. It's a clever sequence, in which it is their failure to work together, as intended, which dooms them; the Saw franchise is back on form.

I must say that Strahm's eventual death is needlessly horrific, but this is bloody good. I hope this standard can be kept up.

Saw IV (2007)

“You think it’s over, but the games have just begun…”

John Kramer is dead. Very dead. So dead, in fact, that the film begins with his autopsy. But that doesn’t mean that we’ve heard the last of Jigsaw. Things have been set in motion from beyond the grave, and an unsuspected individual is carrying on the nastiness.

This film covers some edgier themes than its predecessor, but in spite of some extreme gore it doesn’t feel as sadistic, perhaps because of these themes. There’s a slightly stronger focus (relatively speaking) on character, with even John himself being given some greater depth in flashback, not that his past remotely justifies his actions, of course. Nevertheless, Tobin Bell is excellent as ever.

As before, a supporting character in previous films (in this case Officer Rigg) is promoted to a starring role because of the disturbingly high death count amongst his colleagues. Intricate and sadistic situations happen. There is blood. There is suffering, much of vaguely ironic. You know the drill by now. The references to previous filmed are becoming increasingly intricate, as are the concluding revelations. The “everything you think you know is wrong” factor gets bigger and bigger with each entry in the series.

And yet… well made though this is, and less gory than its predecessor (that, of course, is a relative statement!), the very serious themes leave a bad taste in the mouth. Child abuse and miscarriage are used, without much in the way of subtext, to titillate, and this makes me feel a little uncomfortable.

Time for an extended break from the Saw films, methinks. I’ll eventually be back to do the rest.

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…?