Eric D. Snider
Saw III
Movie Review
"Saw III"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: B-
Rating: R
Released: Friday, October 27, 2006
Directed by:
Cast:
There are some heartwarming lessons to be learned in "Saw III," the latest blood-soaked installment in the increasingly implausible horror franchise. First, that good help is hard to find. Second, that it is important to forgive your enemies and not become trapped in a quagmire of vengeance-seeking, for that way lies bitterness, anger, and possibly seeing someone's head blow up.
The elusive killer called Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) is up to his old tricks again, putting people he deems worthy of scorn in elaborate traps from which they can only escape by torturing themselves. Except these latest schemes, the police notice with some degree of disappointment as they sift through the charred remains of Jigsaw's latest failed pupil, lack a certain je ne sais quoi. They don't bear the marks of Jigsaw's usual discipline and to-the-letter fairness. What's more, we know from "Saw II" that Jigsaw is dying of brain cancer, so he's not apt to be up and about setting up torture chambers anyway.
Yep, ol' Jig's got himself an apprentice now, a former victim named Amanda (Shawnee Smith) who survived her test and is now learning to continue Jigsaw's work. The current project: Teach a man named Jeff (Angus Macfadyen), consumed with hatred for his son's killer, to move on with his life. The methodology: Put Jeff in situations where he can either watch the responsible parties die or forgive them and save them.
Meanwhile, Jigsaw himself is determined to survive long enough to see whether Jeff passes his tests or not. Weak and decrepit in a makeshift hospital room in his secret lair, he drafts an E.R. doctor named Lynn (Bahar Soomekh) to keep him alive at least until Jeff's outcome is determined. The trick? If Jigsaw's heart stops beating, a device rigged to Lynn's body will kill her, too. Talk about the high cost of malpractice insurance!
The original "Saw" creators James Wan and Leigh Whannell are back as screenwriters (Wan was absent for part 2), and they've apparently caught "Lost" fever along with the rest of America. Every major character in the film gets flashback scenes, including a few that add a bit of texture to the events of parts 1 and 2. While not particularly relevant to the current proceedings, it is a nifty little present for the fans.
Also gift-wrapped and delivered free of charge to the fans? Lots and lots of pain, torture, blood and mayhem. Why, there's even an instance of an electric saw being applied to the exposed skull of a living person -- and it's not even important to the plot! That one's purely a freebie!
As an evil villain, Jigsaw stopped being scary as soon as they showed him to us. (I believe that's actually Lesson 1 in Horror Films 101: Don't put your "monster" in every single scene.) Now that he's unequivocally the focus of the story, bedridden yet still remarkably lucid, continuing to ramble on about his elaborate "games," he's downright laughable. I remember the chills of his pre-recorded messages in the first film. Part 3 has nothing like that.
Part 3 also lacks a real protagonist. Jigsaw will die sooner or later, either from the brain cancer or from less natural means, so there's no point worrying about him. Lynn doesn't give us much to work with, and Jeff's situation is so improbable -- I don't care how mad you are at the judge who let your son's killer off the hook, you're not going to just sit there and watch him die -- that his "tests" lack any suspense whatsoever.
That leaves Amanda, whose attachment to Jigsaw is, you'll pardon the pun, puzzling. I don't understand her motivation for doing his bidding, much less why she seems to be in love with him. And a character you don't understand is a character you don't care about.
Like part 2, "Saw III" has been hyper-directed by Darren Lynn Bousman and over-edited by "Saw" regular Kevin Greutert. Even the non-torture scenes feel moody and depressed, all over-saturated in dark colors and scored with harsh, dour music. It's a feel-bad film, for sure.
But is it an enjoyable feel-bad film? I guess. Is "enjoyable" even the right word? The whole stupid Jeff story aside, Wan and Whannell have a few clever ideas up their sleeves, and there is a bit more ingenuity in this chapter than there was in the last one. They've hacked out this audacious little niche for themselves, and I say more power to 'em. This is dark, superficially unsettling stuff (superficial in that the images won't haunt you for any longer than the movie lasts), but if that's what the kids want nowadays, "Saw III" more or less delivers it.
Grade: B-
Rated R, a lot of harsh profanity, some non-sexual nudity, abundant graphic violence, torture and gore
1 hr., 47 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 38 comments
October 27, 2006 at 8:44 am
I will start by saying that I haven't seen it or the previous 2 films, and I have no plans to. Can someone explain the attraction of a film like this? Why is gore so appealing? Or sadistic torture? I have trouble understanding it.
October 27, 2006 at 9:43 am
Beneath the gore is a hidden message detailing the ambiguity of morality. While the movies are graphically violent and aesthetically gross, the film nevertheless tries to portray the ambivalent nature of ethics - i.e. morality is neither black nor white. The acting is sometimes shoddy at best and the elaborate traps are designed to freak you out at every turn, but that's part of the point: to add a jolt to your moral consciousness. You're supposed to feel uncomfortable as a reflection of real life because when faced with tough moral decisions, we are never at ease.
October 27, 2006 at 9:51 am
It's not my cuppa tea either, but what constitutes horror changes with the times. Right now, a person being subjected to torture or abuse isn't as abstract a concept as it used to be. We see news reports about these things happening in the world almost daily. These movies seem to tap into that fear of torture that we, as the world community, are facing.
At the same time, I think depicting torture as entertainment is sick, pure and simple. But as long as sociopathic teens flock to the theaters to see it, studios will keep making these movies. (They're cheap to make.)
October 27, 2006 at 10:17 am
Heck, I don't see it for the gore or the violence. I love Saw because of the premise of the storyline, and the clever ideas contained within. There's actually some lessons to be learned in watching it, and it's interesting to see how the traps work. Not only that, but Jigsaw makes a wonderful anti-hero. He's not like most other villians, he actually has a purpose, and he feels what he is doing is justified.
October 27, 2006 at 12:10 pm
I was never a big fan of horror movies until the Saw franchise, and I definitely, as stated above, don't watch the movies for the gore and violence, but simply because they are good movies. The above statements pretty sum up my feelings, so I see no further need to expound.
October 27, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Sad as it sounds, I'm sure there *are* a fair number of people out there that would sit there and watch the judge die. Unless you can move past your anger, it can fester and become a hatred that feeds on itself until you move beyond feeling. Just as Jigsaw thinks what he is doing is justified, Jeff thinks that the judge's death means that justice is being served.
October 27, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Okay, I don't completely understand human nature of people in today's world. We live for fear. It is that time of year that horror movies are something that we feed off of. I watched SAW and got cold chills and hid my eyes. I watched SAW II and screamed at the TV, I plan on going to the theaters to see SAW III. What is wrong with us? We don't know. Fear is something that a typical person doesn't truly know. It is an emotion that a typical person has, but has never truly felt and this movie series shows a person what it would be like to really have that fear. It puts you in the shoes of a person who thinks nothing bad could happen. Jigsaw is a masterpiece character. The clown doll and voice gave me cold chills. Seeing him the second movie took a lot of that away, but he is a character that isn't out for revenge or just to wreak havoc, he is out to teach people a lesson and that is where Amanda came in. She passes one of his tests and after, he taught her to not have fear and to do these horrible things to people to help them over come fear and realize that what they are doing is wrong. I own 1 and 2 and I will own 3!
October 27, 2006 at 1:08 pm
These types of films tend to resurrect themselves during time of war - like our current world status. Once we get passed the "hero" phase of the war, we start to question morality and stories like this become popular. They'll be replaced soon enough and we'll be back to more psychological thrillers. Just you mark my words.
October 27, 2006 at 1:18 pm
Let me first by agreeing that yes, people do sometimes enjoy watching others suffer, for it makes them feel at ease that someone else is in pain...as they are. Second, it contributes to our own death instict (Hint Freud), which is the instinct to either watch or manifest destruction, death, etc. Which helps balance the instinct of Life. Which is self-explaining. Now morally, the film explains and expresses how morality shattered people, and this case sympathy-lacking characters (Jeff), are "subject to their own trappings and devices"...no pun intended.
Cheers!
October 27, 2006 at 2:23 pm
The entertainment part of it has nothing to do with gore or torture, but the reason behind it. The people playing the games have a specific reason they're doing that exact game, and why they die if they don't win. (Example: in Saw II, one of the games for the character Xavier was to fish through a pit of hypodermic needles to find the correct one. This correct one is attached to a key, that opens a door and leads to the antidote to save his life. The reason he has to do this is b/c he was a drug dealer; giving "hope, for a price" (drugs) to other people who are desperate for anything to help them. Now, Jigsaw decides to do that same thing to him. Give him harmful hope in a desperate situation. Jigsaw quotes "So now, I offer you hope. The price you pay is that you must crawl into the same pit of squallor you force your customers into"). All of Jigsaw's games have a meaning behind it. His logic is that if you're not going to learn your lesson and change your ways (which is exactly what you do when you win the game), then you don't deserve to live.
Also, the storylines of the films are brilliant. One of the dumbest things in this review is "As an evil villain, Jigsaw stopped being scary as soon as they showed him to us. (I believe that's actually Lesson 1 in Horror Films 101: Don't put your "monster" in every single scene.)". Anyone who actually knows these movies can agree on the fact that this is what makes these movies so great. They're always changing in style, traps, and plot. To the guy who wrote this review: What do you expect?! Would you like it better if all 3 of the movies were simply some masked killer, that no one knows anything about, that went around putting people in games? Can you say "Friday the 13th" or "Halloween"? Seriously, the fact that Jigsaw appeared in the beginning of Saw II is what made the movie so great. It completely seperated itself from all other horror films, focusing on the morality, reason, and overall story of the killer rather than just some random dude running around in a hog mask killing people. These movies are the best movies I've ever seen, and anyone who has too much negative to say about them (of course they have some negative, no movie is perfect) simply doesn't have an open mind. To them I say: "Fine. Shut your mouth and go watch Because Of Win Dixie or something."
October 27, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Necromasty. your comment loses all its force when you say stuff like this:
These movies are the best movies I've ever seen, and anyone who has too much negative to say about them (of course they have some negative, no movie is perfect) simply doesn't have an open mind. To them I say: "Fine. Shut your mouth and go watch Because Of Win Dixie or something."
A reviewer has an opinion, just like you and I, regular moviegoers. I'm sure "Because of Winn Dixie" is a stupid movie, that it would offend my sensabilities as a movie fan from a critical standpoint. My reaction to Saw is not a critical one, as I can't comment on the acting, cinematography, or writing, not having seen it.
My issue is that I just don't understand why the violence has to be so graphic and sadistic. Would you agree that it is extremely graphic? Do the storytellers need to use such violence to convey deep moral questions and make the moviegoer think? I don't think they do. None of the commenters has convinced me what I am missing out on by not watching this movie. I enjoy a movie with some violence. Braveheart is one of my favorite films, but Saw (in my admittedly uninformed opinion) seems to glorify it.
October 27, 2006 at 5:16 pm
[My issue is that I just don't understand why the violence has to be so graphic and sadistic. Would you agree that it is extremely graphic? Do the storytellers need to use such violence to convey deep moral questions and make the moviegoer think? I don't think they do. None of the commenters has convinced me what I am missing out on by not watching this movie. I enjoy a movie with some violence. Braveheart is one of my favorite films, but Saw (in my admittedly uninformed opinion) seems to glorify it.]
The issue here lies with the central premise of the identity of Jigsaw himself, and of the underlying moral lesson (Yes, there is one, and if you missed it then I pity you) is simply this - those not willing to exercise their survival instinct and make difficult decisions when the clock is ticking (often literally in this film) do not deserve the gift of life. Jigsaw's philosophy has a twisted neo-Darwinism inherent in it - historically in nature the organisms most willing to sacrifice in order to survive are the ones who...well, survive, and thus reproduce and pass on that favorable instinct of survival. The problem is that modern time has perverted that survival instinct - you, for example, likely do not have to suffer or bleed or TRULY know sacrifice to put food on your table. You do not have to have a strong survival instinct to pass on your traits to the next generation, and the progression of life has rendered the survival instinct dormant. It is Jigsaw's mission to revive that instinct, and to make people appreciate their lives.
The issue with the violence is simply that gruesome violence is the only way to embellish a moral concept like this and really make it work. Everyone here sees violence on television, in video games, and in other movies all the time - whether you are aware of it or not your mind HAS become partially anesthesized to it, and it no longer digs into your psyche to try to impact it as it may have once done. The violence in Saw is necessary because it illustrates the moral lesson of the films - if you are not willing to sacrifice and suffer in the interest of preserving your own life, then you are better off dead.
"Those who do not appreciate life, do not deserve life. Do you appreciate yours?"
October 27, 2006 at 5:59 pm
These movies are the best movies I've ever seen, and anyone who has too much negative to say about them (of course they have some negative, no movie is perfect) simply doesn't have an open mind. To them I say: "Fine. Shut your mouth and go watch Because Of Win Dixie or something."
Ah, one of my favorite defenses: "If you don't like what I like, you're ignorant." Gosh. I don't like torture-porn movies. Whatever in the world shall I do?
If the defenders of these movies really think that they're good not because of the gore, but because of the reasoning behind it, ask yourselves this: Would you still enjoy the movies if you never actually saw the blood, gore, or deaths (but still had them implied), and were left with ONLY the characters' reasoning behind them?
Here's a suggestion: go out and rent the movie "Psycho," the Hitchcock one. The violence and gore in that movie are mostly suggested and implied, not directly shown. Yet the movie is still one of the scariest I've ever seen. The reasoning behind the killer's drive to murder is just as disturbing and scary as the death scenes themselves. And it was made in 19-freakin'-60! Forty-odd years ago! Imagine! Could it be that the Saw movies weren't the first to tap the whole "complicated killer with seemingly-rational reasoning behind his actions" theme?
Anyway. I've never seen the Saw movie and probably never will. This is not because I am closed-minded, but because I make informed decisions about what I see. (Which is why I read reviews, see?) And I choose not to watch torture-porn.
October 27, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Are people really saying that they think the message of these movies, that "if you are not willing to sacrifice and suffer in the interest of preserving your own life, then you are better off dead." is a MORAL message? That it's somehow ok for some random stranger to not only judge you, but, if he finds you sufficiently lacking, to kill you in horrible ways? I mean, the man is quite clearly psychotic (he's willing to murder large numbers of people, after all) but you can trust his judgment about whether I "appreciate life" enough?
October 27, 2006 at 8:12 pm
>>If the defenders of these movies really think that they're good not because of the gore, but because of the reasoning behind it, ask yourselves this: Would you still enjoy the movies if you never actually saw the blood, gore, or deaths (but still had them implied), and were left with ONLY the characters' reasoning behind them?
Yes.
October 27, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Gore is entertainment for those who aren't going to go out and do what they saw (no pun intended). I love gore when it's combined with Hitchcock scares. It's like adding extreme hot sauce to your taco- most people aren't into it . . . but for those who love the tongue burning spice . . . it makes the food that much better!
October 27, 2006 at 9:11 pm
i have to agree with The Schwartz....i know i'm probably gonna get slammed for this, but how realistic is a movie where you see someone get stabbed and no blood is anywhere to be found? I like movies with blood and gore because they don't affect me. I just go to see these movies for entertainment
and to everyone that keeps saying the whole Saw series is too gory and too much of a stereotypical horror movie...STOP! why do you waste your money and time to go see all three Saw movies and then just go and post bad reviews about it or go around and tell people that its a horrible movie?? I don't like chick flicks like What A Girl Wants, but i didn't go see it in theaters and then go and tell everyone i know it sucked just because i knew i didn't like it. What i'm saying is if you don't like this genre (horror obviously) then just leave it alone. And also, to everyone who calls this torture porn, porn is sexual. and it even says at the top for NON-SEXUAL NUDITY...so get a clue and stop trying to slam a fantastic horror series because your too averse to gore and actual terror. And i do think that there is some moral message, but I don't go out and torture people to prove it.
October 27, 2006 at 9:12 pm
First of all, sorry BeeDub, but it's just a wee bit hypocritical of you to complain that Necromasty thinks that anyone who doesn't like the Saw films is close-minded while you say that anyone who does is a sociopath. (Or at least that many of them are.) Also, Psycho is an amusing choice as an interesting anti-graphic-violence alternative, as it was far more shocking in its day than Saw is now. Hitchcock sure wasn't trying to be subtle, he just wasn't allowed to go as far. (Not that the Saw films are anywhere near as good as Psycho.)
Well, the anti-film-violence contingent has asked a lot of questions, so I'll ask some of my own: Why is graphic film violence inherently more immoral than implied violence? Why is graphic violence inherently unnecessary? It's not real either way, ya know. You may find it viscerally repellant, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything, and surely doesn't constitute a rational argument. I may find pork to be inherently disgusting, yet that doesn't prove that it's evil. And if you think that's an inapt comparison, prove to me that it isn't. I'm not trying to be overly hostile here, though I might as well be considering how often I'm indirectly accused of being a murderous deviant. I'm just genuinely curious to see reasoned rather than emotional arguments as to why graphic violence in film is inherently bad. Cause honestly, I've never heard a convincing one.
By the way, I'm not especially in love with the Saw movies. The first was pretty good, the second kinda lousy. Probably will check out the third sooner or later, likely not until it’s on DVD.
October 28, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Lowdogg, you ask why films like Saw are so gratuitously and graphically violent. Just like everything else in our world, the motivation behind them is purely and simply money. You can rest assured that, if cinemas could charge entry fees to showings of real-life messy deaths and destruction, there would be queues of people desperate to satisfy their bloodlust, and curiosity, stretching as far as the eye can see. This fact is clearly demonstrated by the number of people who download executions and hit websites like Ogrish every month.
It seems that there is a deep-rooted human desire to watch the death and suffering of others - perhaps the necessary flip-side to altruism (without the darkness, there can be no light). Or perhaps humans secretly delight in the demise of those around them because it cuts down the competition and goes one step towards ensuring their own personal success. Also, bloody films (and computer games) seem to provide an outlet for our own violent impulses, built up throughtout the course of our everyday life and its annoyances, which is more acceptable than actually going out on a muder-death-kill rampage.
I do not accept that violent films (or any other media form, for that matter) can make people into killers. It may give people who kill ideas about how they do it, but the necessary mentality to be a killer is not something that can be induced by the media. Trying to blame current events on films, music, or video games is simply scapegoating, and ignoring the fact that we humans are just animals (albeit very clever ones), and therefore in possession of animal instincts and desires. As long as there have been humans, there has been death and destruction. The only thing that does change is how we bring it - rather than chopping people up with swords and axes, we can instead butcher and slaughter more people more effectively with guns and bombs, and still be home in time for tea.
My opinons are not criticims, but rather observations. I am not arrogant enough to consider myself above the human qualities (some would say flaws) I, and others, have referred to in this forum. For that reason, I enjoyed the first two Saw films and will be going to satisfy my curioisty and dark desires with the third.
October 28, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Sounds morally ambiguous to me. For some reason people here are using Darwinism as the moral foundation, yet Darwinism is inherently amoral. In today's society, true Darwinism is immoral because you kill people who compete with you and trample the weak under your feet to take what is there's. That's Darwinism. The morality of "I'll force you to appreciate your life" or "inflict pain on you that you inflicted on others" is rather screwed up, at best. That's why someone like this would be arrested and taken away from society according to our social norms and mores.
Schwartz, how can you like gore and have it not affect you at the same time? Either you like it OR it doesn't affect you. You can't have it both ways.
Nick, nowhere did BeeDub say that people who like these movies are sociopaths. Feel free to quote him if I missed it. He took offense to someone saying people who don't like the "Saw" series are lame and closed-minded. A direct insult.
I personally don't like excess gore and unnecessary nudity. I haven't seen and don't want to see "Saw", not because it's evil. I just choose not to see it. Gore and nudity don't win any points in my book, but I'm just not interested in it. I am amused at how many people try to make it sound like some noble, morally inspired series. I'm sure it makes people think, and that's great. Kudos to you. However, it's not going to change anyone's life, for good or ill.
October 28, 2006 at 1:32 pm
The underlying fact in horror movies is that it gets the wathers' adrenaline rushing. People love being frightened, people love the feeling of adrenaline surging through their body: it's a fact. Adrenaline is released into your blood for two reasons: fight or flight. There are a number of ways of getting adrenaline going.
1. Through rollercoasters. Inevitably. You feel you ar out of controll, and are forced into being subjected into frightening situations such as roller coasters. Subconciously you feel there is a chance of death or serious injury, thus the adrenaline starts pumping.
2. Start a fight. When one is fighting for one's life, or protecting another (for example one's child), your adrenaline kicks in to give you an extra kick and extra strength to get you through the fight, and to aid you.
3. Become scared. Either psychologically (Excorcist, The Shining) or physically (Saw, The Decent etc). Both types of horror make you think "what if I was in that situation"; this fact is scary. What if you were Jack's wife in The Shining, or Jeff in Saw 3? You'd be freaked out. The blood and gore adds to this visual impact on becoming scared and therefore makes it more enjoyable as it gets a lot of adrenaline pumping. It is wanted by the public - the movie makers give it to you.
Sure, there are messeges underneath the violence. But an inherent reason of the violence is given above. It's so revolting (much of the time) that it gets us thinking, which consequently is frightening. The blood and gore have knock-on effects that are important to its being there; it creates excitment, apprehension and fright.
October 28, 2006 at 3:40 pm
I have wondered into an interesting conversation and find I am compelled to respond – this will be a long response, but does I believe the central issue being argued: can scenes of graphic human suffering be used to good cinematic effect to support a moral theme, or is there a tipping point when the violence is too severe to serve any function other than to disgust and horrify. I must first confess that I have not seen any of “Saw†movies. I am a fan of what I would term “horror-light†– that is films that scare without excessive graphic detail. Among my favorite movies in this genre are “The Silence of the Lambs†and “The Ringâ€. Movies like “Sawâ€, “Hostelâ€, “The Devils Rejects†and even “Audition†are more recent examples of more graphic horror films, geared toward horror aficionados, but with an increasing crossover appeal. The central distinguishing feature between these two types is the graphic nature with which human suffering is displayed.
I do believe that there is something about depicting human suffering so graphically that severely blunts the power to entertain or make a point beyond the fact that humans indeed do suffer. This was no more clearly displayed than in another Mel Gibson film that hasn’t entered the dialogue but aptly makes the point, “The Passion of the Christâ€. The depiction of Jesus’ suffering was so graphic that the message was largely lost on many, whom I expect spent a lot of time afterward simply being horrified with minimal thought about the gravity of Jesus’ sacrifice. Mel Gibson himself illustrated his point much more effectively in “Braveheart†by choosing not to show graphic content (particularly when he cuts away from the disembowelment to Mel Gibson’s face). He also chooses to present the death scene in Braveheart as noble (accomplished through the use of hopeful symbols, friendly faces and an entire crowd that is in fact, not suffering), thereby priming the audience for a wave of inspiration in the final scene, upon which the entire emotional impact of the films rests.
The “Saw†films sound really interesting and I must confess that the unique delivery of such a message as well as the creativity of such a film sounds intriguing, but I suspect it fails to do what Mel Gibson accomplished in “Braveheart†– the suffering is so distracting that it is hard for most people to appreciate the moral complexity of what is being offered. I do not believe that those who can tolerate it are “flawed†– there are some people who simply have an easy time separating fiction from reality in film. Obviously, anyone who saw such graphic portrayals of human suffering actually occurring would be equally as horrified.
My suspicion however, is that the majority of people watching such films are not doing so for the message or the creativity, but largely for the gore – for them, there is something inherently entertaining about displays of human suffering (otherwise, as has been implied, they would be watching other films delivering the same message with less gore). Is that OK? Some have compared this kind of torture to the degradation of women in some pornography (thus the origin of the term torture-porn) – and I have a hard time not believing that portraying extreme violence toward others doesn’t in some way contribute to a certain disintegration of human empathy for suffering in the same way the degrading pornography probably reduces the overall respect afforded to women in everyday life.
I will end my thoughts here but hope I have been respectful to all sides of the discussion and that – agree or disagree – I have stimulated further intelligent discussion. My apologies if I have failed to do so.
October 28, 2006 at 4:25 pm
John Doe, This is from post #3:
"At the same time, I think depicting torture as entertainment is sick, pure and simple. But as long as sociopathic teens flock to the theaters to see it, studios will keep making these movies."
There ya have it.
October 29, 2006 at 10:33 am
If I want art, I'll go to an art gallery. If I want pure escapism, I'll go to a movie such as this. Get over it folks.
October 29, 2006 at 8:25 pm
I love to escape to a place where people get their faces torn off and stuff.
Yeah!
Escaping to hell is awesome! My life sucks so bad that to escape I go to watch torture!
If I want to imagine sliding naked down a bed of razor blades into a pool of alcohol I'll watch this movie! And I will imagine that the only reason I have to do that it to demonstrate Social Darwinism and the moral philosphy
October 29, 2006 at 11:41 pm
I stand corrected. Everyone, let's not take this all that seriously. It's a movie, it's meant for an escape. Not my cup of tea, but that doesn't really give me the right to look down on people who do. Arguments on the net over a movie is lame. Live and let live ya'll.
October 29, 2006 at 11:41 pm
Wow, Snapmaster. Just wow. I think until you have seen the movie, the most you are qualified to say is "I don't think this would be my cup of tea." Anything more than that comes across as condescending, childish, and immature. It is possible to have intelligent conversations about topics such as this; you are proving that it is also possible to have unintelligent ones.
October 30, 2006 at 12:01 am
I'm not saying that movies can't have a moral, or that horror movies can't or that it's possible that a too-graphic portrayal can make the moral hard to see, etc. I'm saying, if you do view this movie for it's "morals", they are pretty crappy morals. If you see it for pure entertainment, we have no beef. But "people should be forced, on pain of death to 'appreciate their life' (whatever the hell THAT means)" is not a moral that I think anyone would endorse in real life, or in another context, like, for instance, the treatment of your grandparents ("Show me that you're still useful Grandma, or this horribly over-complex Rube Goldberg machine will remove your spleen").
Like I said, if you watch movies like this for fun, fine. I'm only talking to those who said this movie had hidden messages or morals.
October 30, 2006 at 7:28 pm
I like the Saw movies because I like being scared. I've seen too many false jumps and creepy music in other horror movies. It just isn't scary any more.
When I watch SAW I don't WANT to see the gore. While I'm watching, I'm hoping that they are NOT going to show the rusty hack saw actually cutting through a leg. But with these movies you never know if they'll show it to you or not. That's what gives it suspense.
A lot of people out there enjoy being scared. I sure do. But not everyone is scared of the same thing. Some would prefer The Grudge (PG-13), and others prefer SAW.
Having a fear of being tortured or actually seeing someone being tortured is not sadistic.
October 31, 2006 at 10:22 am
hi,
i really liked your point of view about the saw 3 movie..
it was one of the best movies ever...spezially the death szenes were nice.
i also found this site in the web, which shows the "other" best deaths in horrormovies ever.
you should take a look, if you are a fan too.
happy halloween
the link is
http://www.maximonline.com/slideshows/videos/horror.aspx?film=1&src=mx170
Stefen
November 6, 2006 at 9:55 pm
My comment isn't even going to come close to all the verbage to the ones above, but I just wanted to say.......I'm suprised you gave this a B- when the whole review sounded like you hated it. I thought I would see a C- or D at the end.
p.s. the original Saw I thought was pretty dang good and I was on the edge of my seat and holding my breath the whole time. They should have just stopped at that one.
November 6, 2006 at 10:03 pm
p.s.s. oh my gosh, some of these comments are so ridiculous. Just because there are people who enjoy Saw or other horror or gore movies, does not mean they would pay to see people really killed. And sociopathic teens see these movies? Come on, let's not go over board.
You know, I love horror movies and gory movies, heck I just saw Slither and thought it was awesome. But not only would I not want to see someone killed in reality, I'm against the death penalty. I bet you there are tons of people who think these movies are WRONG, but are all for the death penalty. Sounds like hypocrasy to me.
For the love of God, this is entertainment, get over it.
Thank you.
November 17, 2006 at 6:51 pm
And people flocked to the Coliseum in Rome because of the moral message they took away from the events shown there.
Or something.
Some people (heck, a lot of people) are entertained by watching people get hurt and/or die. Why? I have no idea. But to go all high-minded about it seems a bit off to me. I'm not going to condemn anyone who likes this kind of stuff because I like games like Halo and Tom Clancy books.
But to make it about anything more than entertainment... I dunno about that.
December 6, 2006 at 1:43 pm
A very interesting debate going on here. I would like to preface my remarks my stating that I do not like horror movies because I do not like being scared, nor do I really understand people who do. Ergo, I have not and will not watch the "Saw" movies.
Now that my disclaimer has been properly disclaimed...The premise of these movies, as I understand from reading the review and subsequent comments here, is that this guy finds people and puts them in torture chambers to see if they properly value their lives-in other words, to see what they're willing to go through to stay alive. This is an interesting theory, I'll grant you that. The problem with claiming that this movie-or, actually, this trilogy-has a moral message is that anyone who tortures people to see how they react is a nutcase. I don't care how noble you claim your goals are: if you hurt people, on purpose, there is something wrong with you.
January 29, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Crikey moses people I'm a very critical movie watcher too, but when it comes to movies like this, you should really ask yourself what it is that the movie-makers are trying to do, and in this case, they are trying to make a HORROR movie, that is why it is gory, upsetting and shocking, those are the characteristics of a good HORROR movie. It must be HORRIFYING. It's not a social statement or anything like that. When a person watches a truly terrifying horror movie, or sees a scene that makes you want to throw up, your body gives off a certain hormone called "adrenaline", the same thing as when you go bungy jumping. This hormone is there in order to help people cope with immense stress, therefore it makes you feel GOOD. If you enjoy truly disgusting horror movies, don't think there's something wrong with you, it is a perfectly human thing to enjoy the feeling that adrenaline permits. If you know for a fact that you don't, then don't watch horror movies, but as far as this movie goes, I would say that it was a great horror movie, because it made me feel seriously on edge, it made me want to cover my eyes at times, and it sure as hell grossed me out, and I was horrified. Amen.
February 17, 2007 at 12:32 am
Revulsion is a form of horror and to scare an audience. This movie just does that scare you. It throws in some genius plot twists (well the first one, anyway) to make it more of a thriller to watch. Yes, the gore in the 3rd movie was specifically hard to watch for me compared to the other two. I didn't watch it for the gore though. I felt sick within the first 10 minutes, and that's the first time that's ever happened to me while watching a movie. Overall, I've enjoyed the storyline in the past 3 movies, particularly the 1st one.
October 25, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Not that it matters almost a year down the road, but #35 I'm interested in what you said...earlier someone mentioned that Alfred Hitchcock didn't show the gore and actual killings and that's what made "Psycho" scary...later, someone refuting this mentioned that he probably would have, he just wasn't allowed to go that far. Now #35 is saying
"...when it comes to movies like this, you should really ask yourself what it is that the movie-makers are trying to do, and in this case, they are trying to make a HORROR movie, that is why it is gory, upsetting and shocking, those are the characteristics of a good HORROR movie. It must be HORRIFYING. It's not a social statement or anything like that."
It may never be intended to be a social statement, but look at what's happened from 1960 to 2006...from "Psycho" to "Saw" there has been a jump and horribly graphic violence is being paraded across the big screen, people are justifying it by stating there are morals behind the violence, and the games and traps are certainly cool and stuff.
Just using perhaps "outdated" psychological means of deciding what makes someone sociopathic or mentally sick, killing people usually indicates that things are not ok in that person's brain. Jigsaw may have some reason for killing the people he does, it may be "moral" depending on who's arguing about what constitutes "moral," but herein lies a crux: society, in fact, several people in society or sequels would never have been made, ENJOY watching this progression of what should be allowed to enter society's mind, as a whole. I can understand the adrenaline reasoning, but claiming a moral behind senseless killing boggles me. I saw no moral. I saw nothing but, well, Saw. People plugging in morals for these types of movies are just trying to justify having experienced it, trying to justify feeling physically ill and thinking it's good they are mentally putting themselves in the places of the victims because they will "enjoy life" more and pass on their survival instincts and all that, when really all it is, is just a sick person sickly killing people in sick ways on the big screen so that the industry and rake in some money.
To me, that is the real fear.
November 5, 2007 at 4:36 am
Yikes. I can just SEE Saw parodies coming after this.