It probably won't shock many people who read the site regularly, but I actually really like the SAW films. I was too young to get into slasher films – by the time I was old enough to start watching them, the metatextual revamps post-SCREAM were already passe – so the SAW films were kind a new breed of slasher film, to a certain extent. They were at least as gory and sadistic. And as a kid, the moral ambiguity of Jigsaw as a character was intriguing, and I still think that aspect was one of the reasons the film was as fondly remembered, and why the sequels faltered. Sure, the traps and gore were cool, and the soundtracks were awesome, but it's the question underlying the whole thing: does Jigsaw have a point?
To be fair, I only really like parts 1-3, which makes sense because those are the only ones that feature Tobin Bell alive as Jigsaw (he appears in flashbacks throughout the series). He was by far the most compelling parts of these films, and like I said, the main thing that made this series stand out from the other so-called "torture porn" films that sprang up in SAW's wake during the early '00s. Anyway, here's the official synopsis:
Bodies are turning up around the city, each having met a uniquely gruesome demise. As the investigation proceeds, evidence points to one man: John Kramer. But how can this be? The man known as Jigsaw has been dead for over a decade.
Now, the idea of bringing Tobin Bell back as Jigsaw – alive – is an interesting idea. It makes sense because all his replacements in the sequels sucked, but also doesn't – because like it says in the synopsis – he's been dead for a decade. It's one of those ideas that sounds good in theory until you start putting it down on paper. Also the CG looks bad, and so does the film. But, hey, another SAW movie! And the last one before this was the worst one, so maybe the trailers are misleading and this could be a return to form?
Meanwhile, JIGSAW will terrorize theaters October 27th. A Halloween tradition lives on!
The comment section exists to allow readers to discuss the article constructively and respectfully, focused on the topic at hand.
What’s Not Allowed