How best to judge this? As a horror movie, or a Saw movie? With eight entries to date, this franchise is essentially a genre unto itself. Not to mention the whole "torture porn" genre which it birthed and acts as the flagship of. It's probably in the top tier of torture porn movies for me, and the top three Saw films. It's not bad, but it's not great. To be clear, I liked the movie. The somewhat subdued gore and attempted return to subtlety and plot over meaningless shock value was something I appreciated. The biggest problem here is that the storyline and plotting seem to think they're Oscar-worthy when, in reality, if you told me that the screenplay was written by high-school kids I'd absolutely believe you. It's by no means the greatest horror film ever made then, and you really do have to disengage your brain to really enjoy it. This film is, however, an enjoyable popcorn flick, despite it's occasional delusions of grandeur. I would say it's probably pretty average but it goes slightly above that for me because it is, in my opinion, the best Saw film since 2, and the most memorable since 3. And when you're the eighth entry in a franchise that's fairly impressive.
On the negative side there are some huge plot conveniences. Without giving spoilers there are several occasions where one or more victims are put in a position where they face apparent death, only to reveal later that there is a tape intended for them and their own personal test, which is vital to passing through this whole labyrinth of traps. There are so many times I found myself wondering what would happen if anyone were to die and mess up the "elaborate" plan which predicts exactly what will happen when. The whole thing seems to rely heavily on luck for the antagonist. It's mostly poor writing in this regard, as a terribly plotted central story focus. There is also a sense of repetition to the overall plot, right down to the overused cliche of a copycat killer. The ending even rips off a twist from the very first Saw movie, which I appreciated, but I can see why others might think it unoriginal and uninspired. Indeed, the film offers nothing new and even the ubiquitous "shock, twist" moments and final reveal feel rather flat.
There are positives as well though. There are some deeply predictable twists, but a couple of good ones. An overall use of tension and returning poetic justice over just trying to be as extreme as possible was something I really liked, along with some good directing by the Spierig brothers. There are a couple of great female performances on the acting side of things too. The most notable of these is Laura Vandervoort, as Anna (although I am actually a big fan of the actress, ever since she played Supergirl). This being an attempted reboot I hoped she'd become the "Final Girl", despite the franchise dumping this particular trope (not counting situations like Amanda who survives to become the killer and continue the legacy), which speaks volumes to her relatable, sympathetic performance. Until the end of the film at least. I was also captivated by Hannah Emily Anderson, as Eleanor Bonneville. Although the character is a rather supporting role there are interesting depths portrayed, although in service of a plot function (possible suspect), she rises above this to seem complex, interesting and compelling.
I was also grateful for the simplicity of a lot of the movie, with entirely new characters (bar an obvious returnee) and a plot which dumps convoluted back story in favour of a new beginning. This particular bit of plotting reminded me of something from the film Scream 3, which is actually in reference to the third entries in franchises but very much applies here;
"There are a few things that you gotta remember. Is this simply another sequel? Well, if it is, same rules apply. But, here's the critical thing. If you find yourself dealing with an unexpected back-story, and a preponderance of exposition, then the sequel rules do not apply. Because you are not dealing with a sequel. You are dealing with the concluding chapter of a trilogy. That's right. It's a rarity in the horror field, but it does exist, and it is a force to be reckoned with. Because true trilogies are all about going back to the beginning and discovering something that wasn't true from the get-go. Godfather, Jedi, all revealed something that we thought was true that wasn't true....the past will come back to bite you in the ass. Whatever you think you know about the past, forget it. The past is not at rest! Any sins you think were committed in the past are about to break out and destroy you."
Despite my criticism of the plot, there is actually some pretty great writing in the various sub-plots and character backgrounds, relating to the end of this quote. The use of an unreliable narrator to show us flashbacks of false memories and lies about the past is great. I love how we see things play out the way that the victim has lied about (to themselves or others), before showing the same scene truthfully and revealing what really happened. Mostly I couldn't predict the exact lies either which kept things interesting.
"It's a simple game. The best ones always are"
Entertaining fluff which is still a notch above the four films that preceded it. Oh, and there are some neat little Easter Eggs if you have seen the previous films.
***1/2 (3.5/5)
MM
No comments:
Post a Comment