Darren Lynn Bousman tries soooo hard to direct as crisply as James Wan did, but he ends up reusing footage over and over, and he totally fails to reproduce the feel of Saw. That should tell you everything you need to know. At no point during this film was I even remotely afraid.
If this series continues, they need to bring Wan back, and they need to do a prequel so that we can see Jigsaw the only saving grace of the Saw movies at his finest, and not in a damn bed.
The editing tries to duplicate what made Saw so good, but it falls flat, and feels completely forced.
The traps are gory as hell but the brilliant moral lessons behind the traps are completely gone. I was completely and utterly disappointed with how this film turned out.
There is no suspense, no climax, almost no notable parts, and there are very few surprises. The ending is just as anemic as the film itself. At least the "game" that goes on throughout the movie is interesting, and the twist at the end is enough to satisfy the viewer.
Sign in to vote. First, James Wan is a fantastic visionary director. By the end, we want to know who Jigsaw is worse then the men chained in the basement.
Not particularly surprising for a sequel, but disappointing nonetheless. Spoilers Saw was a smash hit at the box office for a few reasons.
He manages to tell the story, build suspense, scare the crap out of the audience when necessary, but best of all like any GOOD horror filmthe viewer is strung out waiting for the next twist.
Bousman uses the same seizure-inducing editing, but it is not as well-done, nor is the movie really scary at any point. Danny Glover and his search for Jigsaw, clue by clue, is what really sells everything home.
Was this review helpful? That is a what a GOOD movie does.
Darren Lynn Bousman tried as hard as he could to bring back the feel of Saw, but with Jigsaw having been caught so early in the film, Saw II lacks the sense of mystery and suspense that Saw brilliantly maintains from start to finish.
The game that Jeff plays really only has 3 or 4 parts, and nothing comes out of any part of it. Darren Lynn Bousman, close, but no cig Saw II brought aboard a novice director, and it becomes obvious that plot was taking a backseat to gore. Jeff himself is never in any immediate danger, so there is no sense of urgency to the film.
When we find out the truth, it is so satisfying.So many people to torture, maim and kill. So little time in a single movie to depict it all. The power of "Saw III" lies not in the gore, torture, or tension, but in the relationship between Amanda and Jigsaw.
April 29, | Full Review Felix Vasquez Jr%. Saw III () on IMDb: Movies, TV, Celebs, and more IMDb. Movies, TV & Showtimes. Star Just came back from seeing this film and I really need to stress at how crap a film it was.
I had read the reviews of it being better than saw 2 and more like saw 1 (which was good!) but they were talking rubbish. Saw III movie reviews & Metacritic score: With his new apprentice Amanda (Smith), Jigsaw, the puppet-master behind the cruel, intricate games that have terri.
More bloody mayhem from Jigsaw; not for kids. Read Common Sense Media's Saw III review, age rating, and parents guide. SAW III is more of the same boring, bloody torture scenes in the continuing saga of a bizarre, elderly serial killer known as Jigsaw.
The movie has no real plot until the final third of the story, when a pattern begins to emerge.
In this episode, Jigsaw is on his deathbed with a brain tumor. Amanda.Download