| Price: | $3.99 |
vailability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Ships from and sold by Amazon Unbox Video
Average customer review:
Product Details
- Amazon Sales Rank: #34 in Movie
- Released on: 2008-02-21
- Running time: 93 minutes
I'm bleedin', man!
It's not easy being a Saw fan. For one thing, nobody respects you for it. People think that the series is nothing but stomach-churning violence and bloodsoaked mind rot. They think it's like Hostel. And they judge you for it. Suddenly, your mother is worried about your mental health and the other kids at school don't wanna play with you. The guy at the video store gives you a funny look. If somebody asks you if you've seen any good movies lately, you feel obligated to lie. It's a hassle, to say the least. But I can handle that; the other kids at school never wanted to play with me anyway, and that was way before Saw came out. No, what really makes being a loyal Saw-ite so frustrating is the series itself: Even though I slavishly pursue the exploits of John Kramer and his endless supply of sharp objects and timekeeping devices, I'm painfully aware of the fact that every movie in the series thus far has been very, very flawed. Of the four that have been released, there isn't a single one that merits five stars! Saw II deserves four, maybe four and a half, but that's about as close as it gets. There's just too much wrong with the damn things: The acting is often wooden and hollow, plot turns are often convoluted and ham-fisted, clichés are strewn about like dirty laundry on a dorm room floor (I have a paper to write, okay?), and the characters, interesting as they can sometimes be, are often badly developed and pretty damn unsympathetic. Even the star of the show, John "Jigsaw" Kramer himself, is only a kinda-sorta-almost great addition to the pantheon of antagonistic masterminds; his cruel genius, relentless drive, and spine-tingling charisma are tempered by annoying clichés and the occasional self-contradiction. His crusade to make people appreciate their lives through gruesome torture is somewhat muddled- Kramer claims to want to help people, and yet he often victimizes those who inconvenience him, using his games as weapons rather than tools of salvation. It saps the movie of a lot of its dark irony and reduces John's hypnotic power. Indeed, these movies feature some truly boneheaded, uninspiring, groan-inducing moments, with poorly developed ideas and headscratching sequences interrupting the flow of things. No, this is not a collection of great movies. It's a hole that's greater than the sum of its parts, an epic story whose overall plot is a marvel of complexity, surprise, and prolonged tension. The twists are genuinely unexpected and grimly satisfying, and the plot is relentlessly addictive. But you probably already know most of that. Sorry to waste your time.
Now, before I continue with this review, I'd like to say one thing: If you haven't seen the first three movies, leave. Now. I'm not kidding. This is not the kind of series that you're supposed to watch out of order- everything in the Saw universe is connected. Events build on each other from movie to movie, linking together scenes and sequences in ways that only make sense if you've been on the ride since the beginning (some of them don't make sense even then). Indeed, the whole series is like one long movie, with credits breaking the flow every hour-and-a-half or so. Go back to the first Saw and start from there if you're interested. Another warning: If you've seen and hated the past three movies, go read a book or something. Saw IV is more of the same. This movie (and this review) is for those sick, sick individuals (such as myself), who saw the first three Saws and think that there's more to see. There is; Saw IV picks up from where we last left off, allowing the blood-soaked tale of John Kramer and his victims (not the word he'd use, I know) to continue unfolding. As in the previous films, revelations are fragmentary and non-linear. We see more of John's past (including the very first "game" he ever made somebody play), and get to glimpse even more deeply at his, er, uncommon view of life. Of course, there are plenty of gruesomely creative traps- the "mausoleum trap" that features at the beginning of the story is one of the best in the series. There are scenes of dark, dark justice as well. I don't want to give away too much, but let's just say that the worst fates in this movie are reserved for the people who really deserve it. The plot is hard to explain, simply because the movie doesn't really have its own story. It's another episode in the Saw narrative, with a whole host of characters and struggles being depicted simultaneously. All of these elements connect and interlock in consistently surprising and engrossing ways, and it is to the movie's credit that, for the most part, it rarely becomes confusing or chaotic. The parts interact beautifully, and the story's inherent complexity is handled quite artfully. Of course, there's a twist ending, and a very clever one at that. I sorta saw it coming, but that didn't ruin the fun. There was, however, a certain mean-spiritedness to the ending, a sense that the movie was trying to trick us (rather than the characters trying to trick one another), but the overall effect was satisfying.
So, what's my gripe? Well, there was the acting. Don't get me wrong, Tobin Bell is fantastic as Jigsaw, full of cool intelligence and raw insanity. It's these other guys that I don't like: As detective Peter Strahm, Scott Patterson is something of a melodramatic ham, notable for his flailing arm gestures and unconvincing anger. Lyriq Bent plays the role of Detective Rigg like he's trying to ad-lib his way through the movie in exchange for a free doughnut. The other actors are, for the most part, equally forgettable and uninteresting. Aside from that, there are some awkward jumps through time and space, annoying and unnecessary plot turns, unintentional cheesiness, convoluted narration, information overloads, and bad hair. The usual flaws of the series, really. It's what we Saw fans are forced to live with. If you're addicted to the exploits of Jigsaw, it's just another thing to deal with. Enjoy.
Tried to be a smarter film, but ultimately failed
Before watching Saw IV, I might suggest watching Saw III again, or at least finding a review that summarizes the main plot points. Anyone other than an entrenched Saw-vehicle fan or someone with a very good memory is going to find themselves a tad lost or confused. Not that I think it matters, though, because rewatching Saw III for insight into Saw IV is a waste of time in my opinion. But you'll be less lost.
I've enjoyed the Saw films for their vague and simplistic morality tales spun with healthy (or unhealthy) amounts of stomach wrenching carnage; somewhat of a dumbed-down and gored-up Seven. This film tried to buck the trend: it tried to be smarter, and while the gore is present, it's dealt out in significantly smaller portions.
The movie has a surprise ending. It could open doors, or it could have shut them down forever. Whichever, I've stopped caring, and if there is another film, I certainly won't watch it.
At least five minutes of this ninety-five minute film are repeated scenes. For example: a furious FBI agent flies into a rage and throws all of the papers off of his desk. Then they show the scene from a different angle, at a different starting point, and then they do it again, and then they do it again, and then they do it again, and then they do it again. Did that last sentence annoy you? Well, that's how the scene felt. Sadly, there were several scenes just like it, and they were incredibly annoying. It's not a hallmark of good filmmaking; rather, it's exactly the opposite.
As it was trying to be a smarter Saw, I was surprised at the outright stupidity of some of the characters. While I won't reveal secrets, I will pose this question: if you were a highly trained FBI agent (aren't they all highly trained?), and you come across the marionette/puppet that Jigsaw used in his videos, and you saw that the eyes of the puppet were red, and that they were moving, would you immediately get closer for a better look, or back away quickly, concerned of a potential trap? If you chose to get closer for a better look, then you're an idiot, and deserve what happens.
A film that presents its audience with a surprise ending has to stand up to the test of the `Second Viewing'. The Sixth Sense is the perfect example of such a film. Most people were surprised at the ending, and a good number of people watched the film again, to see if the director cheated at all. We all know that he didn't. It was a perfect film (the last perfect film he made, but how many people make even one downright awful film in their life?), and it stood up to the second, third, and fourth viewing. Everything is done absolutely right so that when the veil is lifted, you don't feel cheated.
Saw IV did not stand up to that test. It didn't stand up to its own `recap', where when the secret is revealed the director flashes back to important scenes as if to say, "See, I wasn't cheating...I set it up just so." But it wasn't just so, because there was absolutely ZERO motivation for the person involved in the surprise ending. None. And watching Saw III won't help you find any, because it's not there either.
My last beef with this is similar to a problem I had with Saw III. No offense to Tobin Bell personally, but on what planet does someone as pretty as Betsy Russell tie her star to him? I mean, is this pornography, where men could only feel comfortable watching it if a vile and unattractive man was involved in the picture, to ensure no homoerotic `uprisings'? No, it's not. And yes, every so often a Julia Roberts marries a Lyle Lovett--but not to the extent that it happens, or is displayed to have happen, on the silver screen. This is a problem endemic in Hollywood, even (or especially) in sitcoms. How many of George Costanza's girlfriends looked right with him?
At least one element of this film could have been realistic.
View product details at Amazon