Saw III (2006)
2006
R
108 Minutes
Jigsaw has disappeared. Along with his new apprentice Amanda, the puppet-master behind the cruel, intricate games that have terrified a community and baffled police has once again eluded capture an...
User Review
-
Saw III repetitively cuts through its malevolent story with an almighty rusty tool. "This is a test". "For your first test". "He has reached the third test". "This is your final test". Test, test, test, test, test. Maybe "Jigsaw" is an exam board instead of a serial killer? He sure loves to "test" his subjects whilst undergoing DIY bloody brain surgery! What started off as an exercise in reminiscence to the original, with its psychological ultimatums, turned into a glorified piece of exposition involving those cursed flashbacks. Was expecting the inevitable final twist to reveal that this sequel was a flashback and we're actually in the year 2178 as civilisation clings onto life in an ever growing war against humanoid sea creatures for resources. That's how stupid this film is. John Kramer is dying, his apprentice kidnaps a doctor to prolong his life whilst they all watch a test subject undergo various traps.
Redemption, I suppose? No wait, forgiveness? Ahhh who cares. Look at all those gory traps! Freezing a naked woman to death. Drowning in pig guts. Ripping chains off every limb. That's what you all came to see right? Eh. Wrong. What we got instead was an attempt at balancing two narratives: the typical Saw "I wanna play a game" blood-soaked snooze-fest and a plot strand that attempts to humanise series antagonist John Kramer. And of course, everything is tied together through the wonderful storytelling technique of flashbacks. And with great power, comes great destruction.
Whannell singlehandedly crushed the mystery, credibility and elusiveness of the first film by, and I'm not joking, using flashbacks to explain every single detail of what happened and how it happened. Why? What was that going to achieve? Oh stupid me, it's exciting because he is referencing the original film, you know the one that was actually good? These expositional flashbacks are also used to depict character backstories, but in doing so Whannell screws up the pacing. So all the tension and suspense that Bousman actually created, and there were some appropriate moments, essentially dissipated instantly. Frustrating!
Then there's the clash of modus operandi (always wanted to use that phrase!) between Kramer and his apprentice, which soon unravels into the final plot twist, shrinking the believability factor even further than its predecessor did. Oh, and the acting wasn't particularly great either. Aside from Bell's menacing monotone dialogue delivery, the remaining cast members were cheesy and pretty much just screaming throughout the whole ordeal.
If Whannell actually focussed on the test subject, plotting him through various traps that would test his morality and psychological depravity, because let's be honest that was the half that worked effectively. Then Saw III could've been, dare I say, good. Alas, as with many sequels, fooling themselves that "more is better" will only result in their demise. And this sequel sawed off most of its limbs.0 member like this review.
