Simon writes a 2,000 word essay as his SAW VI Blu-ray review!
How do you approach a project like this with an open mind when you have already stressed your belief that the franchise is the worst, bloated and unnecessary example of the Hollywood machine grinding out an excessive amount of sequels since The Land Before Time almost caught up with time (though thankfully even they kept those beastly sequels to the VHS and DVD scene)?
My review for Saw V pointed out the numerous short-comings of that offering; from the ludicrous plot holes, through the lack of likeable or even sufficiently developed characters to the unforgiveable abandonment of the very rules that Jigsaw first established and which were supposedly crucial to his murderous ethos, and thus to the integrity of the Saw universe.
In a follow-up article following the release of the Saw VI trailer and poster I pointed out my initial fears for the film as follows, and I thought it relevant to repost the following section to hold up my expectations against my feelings post-viewing (especially since others at OWF frequently get abuse for either not admitting culpability or reviewing without viewing):
I cant help but be a little suspicious of the tagline, and indeed of the official blurb I received claiming that Jigsaws grand scheme will finally be explained- surely there have been ample opportunities (and actual attempts) to explain Jigsaws Game, and the fifth instalment all but made a mockery of the idea that the Game was continuing in the same vein that John had originally intended. The authenticity was abandoned when it became obvious that there was no opportunity for all of the victims to save themselves- a problem repeated with the whole Six ride the carousel, but only two can get off.Aside from continuity errors and the infuriating perpetual Dr Gordon rumours, the sixth episode in the series is going to be a predictable failure- its all been done before, and the fetishised pleasure that any resolute stragglers were getting from the trap deaths has surely waned after the inadequacies of its predecessor. But the major problem, which a franchise can never ever hope to really survive is the death of its only recognisable draw- trying to replace Tobin Bells excellent Jigsaw with Costas Mandylors granite jawed shitehawk is just not cricket, and it isnt helped by the latters inability to act his way out of a brown paper bag. I can only hope theyve learned from Saw V and relied heavily on flashback footage. At least then therell be some charisma in amongst all the Z-list wannabe actorss and the mother of all no-hitters in Mandylor.
Before I get into how Saw VI compares to the rest of the series, I'd like to consider it instead as a film in its own right- a process which highlighted the numerous failings of the last two episodes, as I fear the team behind Saw had began to tread water furiously somewhere around the III mark and considered each subsequent offering as only a Saw film, thus closing an opportunity to attract new fans.
From what I was lead to believe in the run up to the cinematic release of Saw VI, this newest film had changed tact slightly, and actually might offer some appeal to those new fans. Let's see shall we...
Well, guess what chums? It's no CitizenKane. It's not even a Hocus Pocus.
First of all, and most unforgivably of a franchise that prided itself on narrative complexity, it's riddled with obvious plot holes. I wont go into them all, because I fear you have already made your mind up over this film- you either expect it to be utterly appalling and devoid of artistic integrity, and have as such decided against ever watching it, or you are a Saw die-hard and will see it no matter what. Personally (and somewhat sadly) I'm behind door number two.
The acting for the large part is okay- you get what you pay for with career plodders like Peter Outerbridge- and that is about all I can say about it, nothing sparkles at all. I say for the most part because Costas Mandylor is attrocious throughout, and has been in every single thing he has ever been in that I have seen (a shocking and frankly embarrassing amount, I'll have you know). Why anybody given the responsibility of actually making casting decisions looked at him and decided he was the man to fill in for Tobin Bell will forever be beyond me. He has the range of a toothpick and a face like a gym bag full of hammers.
Come to think of it, perhaps they regretted the casting, seeing as though they relied very heavily on flashbacks- thus limiting the Mandylor's effect and also (and probably more likely) in order to make it possible for viewers unfamiliar with the franchise would be able to come into the film cold and not feel completely lost.
Overall, as a film in its own right, Saw VI is watchable - director Kevin Greutert manages to establish a
But now to the franchise...
Mark Wahlberg of all people once said something concise and profound about sequels when he was a guest on British TV's Top Gear motoring magazine show; to paraphrase he said the only way he would make a sequel (specifically referencing The Brazilian Job) if it was going to be better than the original. Profundity indeed from the former rapper there- but he's not wrong. The very idea of the sequel should represent an opportunity to progress ideas set out in the original (the prequel offers establishing events for those ideas), no matter what the traditional propensity for churning out buck-making poorer sequels might suggest about the process.
So to consider the Saw franchise against this ideal is to make a mockery of the artistic integrity of the franchise- none of the subequent releases following the excellent original has come close to bettering it: the second was pretty good, and the third was good enough, but comparatively they both failed. And then the franchise became more about the various methods of killing victims and the incumbent fetishism, rather than with any normally registering level of entertainment, so IV and V cant even be considered comparatively without undermining the whole sorry idea.
So where does Saw VI, soon to hit DVD shelves, sit on the scale?
I can say categorically that it does not compare to the original, and it is a fruitless endeavour to even try (and one I'm sure some readers would call unnecessary anyway), but it is a refreshingly progressive offering in comparison to the last two sequels at the very least.
The reason why is as obvious as the need to find some ingenius way to bring Jigsaw back to life for the next twenty or so sequels- Saw VI actually has what is conventionally known as a plot, rather than using the "narrative" as a flimsy premise to explain the killings and gore, or as a complex hook to tie all of the characters together for that
Not only that, Saw VI is actually tinged with a note of satire- thanks to the focus of Jigsaw's killing energies: the American healthcare system, adding one more dimension than any of the last offerings put together, and far more in keeping with the original essence of Jigsaw's grand plan. That's not to say Jigsaw has gone all Michael Moore on us- though that would be an interesting development- there is just enough refrain in the politicised notes that keep us just the right side of storming out of/switching off a fucking horror film that is trying to preach the value of a government-run health care system.
It still irks me that the earlier set-ups were about making a choice between excrutiating pain or death and the later traps were just generally about cleverly (or with as much gore as possible) despatching the unwitting prey within. Saw V committed this cardinal sin way too much, making it impossible for those killed to survive at all- the way I read Jigsaw's plan did not include a parenthesis that mentioned survival of the fittest ordeals, they were rather designed as lessons where the "victim" would have to give something of themselves to survive where they had usually been tragically selfish.
Treating a character with so much obvious disdain as this corruption shows is made all the more bitter in a thriller/horror film because, as Roger Ebert mentioned in his original Saw review:
A movie that conceals the identity of a killer is of a lower order, in general, than one that actually deals with him as a character. To get to know someone is infinitely more pleasing than to meet some guy behind a hockey mask, or in a puppet suit, or whatever.
Advertisement
While Ebert was using the idea to critique the "grand reveal" mechanism used at the end of Saw, the critique paints a wider implication some five filmic additions later- before he was killed, we sort of got to know Jigsaw (hell, we got to love him in a filthy, sexy sort of way) and his grand plan was more than just a means to stretch out a tagline (imagine a future Saw addition that doesnt mention us "finally" being shown his real plan).
And in a strange way from Saw II onwards, we routed for him, because he was the only recognisable anchor character in the series, and his morality was always rosier than his victims, who also quite ingeniuously were only given enough screen time for us to build up a hatred for them. So his grand-plan was gospel- as long as there was a morality behind his games, he was forgiveable in the most perverse twist: but getting rid of this plan, and just making humans expendable, as in Saw V and VI most obviously, the games became empty.
We need consistency, or else all we have is MTV-stylised gore-porn. And not even Rob Zombie would want that.
In short, while not exactly brilliant, Saw VI has in fact done what others before it have failed at, and many thought impossible- it has injected a little life into the dying franchise. I probably wouldnt have advocated seeing it in the cinema, but as a DVD buy/rent, you could actually do much worse.
Extras
Additional Freebies
Otherwise known as the stuff that no-one really needs.