Saw V

I watched Saw V with a good opening night crowd here in Sydney. I've enjoyed all of the Saw films, predictably liking some episodes a lot more than others, and Saw V is, again, very watchable, with some intense moments and no shortage of grisliness. But I'd still say it's the weakest entry in the series to date. The trouble is that the main narrative addition for this episode, which has to sustain half the running time, turns out to be a dramatically weak one. I don't think a Saw film ever previously failed to create excitement or new meaning via one of its big twisty revelations, but Saw V's add next to nothing. The knowledge gained doesn't force any re-evaluation of the past events it concerns; you just see and know a bit more about them, and to no great effect, except for the fact that Tobin Bell's performance is always compelling, maybe even more so when he's talking to people who aren't stuck in Jigsaw's deathtraps.

The Saw films have demonstrated an unfeasibly high success rate over time in terms of pulling off twist after twist and having them nearly all hit home. With this track record, it seems inevitable that there'd be a significant stumble at some point. They've never been bulletproof films (and thrillers are the genre that are hardest to bulletproof), but I'd say Saw V is definitely the stumble. In spite of this, it still keeps in enough with the series in general for me to be ready for Saw VI in 2009 - which I hope will be better work.

Given that the Saw films are notable for their unexpected plot twists, the fact that this was the most predictable one makes it difficult to see why it scored the "You won't believe how it ends" tagline. Otherwise, it's decent. It blows Saw III out of the water, but I don't feel it really compares to the other three. I can appreciate that they're trying to bring it back to what the original was all about; a brilliant plot with a couple of gory scenes (the previous two have been somewhat gore-laden with little story for my liking), the problem being, unfortunately, that the plot is fairly weak. The intensity of the torture scenes is greatly increased, though, by the rest period between them.

As a horror film, this works, but don't expect Saw - and don't expect to be blown away by the ending, because it is nothing special. That said, if you're addicted to the Saw saga as so many of us are, there's no harm in going out to see it.

While this is still a watchable, well acted movie that continues on the Saw tradition well I have to give it a lower rating because it just was not as good as the previous installments. The plot and the traps that we have come to be surprised by seemed to be a more predictable and rushed along by the makers of the movie. It seemed like this movie could have just been tossed in with part 4 to make one big movie as the prequel to the next part. So to me it seemed like the studio just split up 1 movie into 2 parts to capitalize on the profits....which they have done well I might add because myself and many other movie goers packed the theater for the 5th Saw installment. So in closing I think this movie may be adequate for the die hard saw fans, not nearly good enough for new comers, and winds up lacking far more than it gives. That is why I can only give this movie a 5 out of 10

The Saw series has always been a standard of sorts. After what I felt was an iconic debut, the series has always remained consistently interesting, with one of the most compelling and ever expanding plots in film history. People may complain that the series is in decline, but what people need to realize is that each part is astronomically better than the corresponding parts of other horror series (for example, Saw IV is better than Halloween IV, or the 4th Nightmare on Elm Street film). The same holds true for Saw V, though the film definitely shows that the series is in decline and needs to end soon before it descends into pure absurdity.

A universal truth of the Saw series is that every entry, no matter who does it, will always be well written and contain a plot twist or two at the end. Again, Saw V continues the tradition of revealing the 'huge' (if you could call it that) twist whilst "Hello Zepp" by Charlie Clouser plays in the background. The film answers as many questions as it raises, and serves as more of an origin movie, like Saw IV did. Only this time, the origin doesn't focus on John Kramer/Jigsaw, and therein lies the problem.

Why does Saw V fail to impress me? Simple. Not enough Jigsaw. Tobin Bell, who has managed to create an iconic villain over the last 5 years, delivers another sublime performance that is not to missed in the world of horror as perhaps the greatest villain of the decade. It really amazed me how Saw IV had the best acting of the series, but just one movie later, pretty much every performer falls flat on their face. This is especially sad considering most of the cast are returning characters, except your typical "why is this happening to me! AHHH!" type characters (which got unbearably annoying, considering they killed off the two least annoying ones first). Meagan Good and Costas Mandylor are acceptable in their roles, however.

Back to the lack of Jigsaw. Tobin Bell really doesn't physically appear that much in the movie, and that is far and away its biggest flaw. The film is similar to Saw II more than the others. To get my drift a little better, imagine the second film, except reduce Jigsaw's screen time by about half. Yeah. This is the only weakness of the screenplay for me, which appears to have matured from the over the top torture porn in Saw III and the ridiculous attempt to run Saw IV concurrently with its predecessor. The film's biggest flaw is in the acting and lack of Jigsaw. Besides this, I really felt that it fit the mold as a worthy entry to the series.

After watching this, however, I no longer feel that Saw is the standard of excellence in horror as it once was. That said, the film has the advantage of being short and never dragging. It's well paced and will more than deliver the thrills. Another thing I feel obligated to mention is that this is the least scariest film in the series, which is okay, because unlike every other cheap horror film, Saw V doesn't try to be scary. It's more of a thriller with some gruesome images (like the first film) than a full blown horror movie (like parts II & III).

In the end, what it comes down to as far as your ability to enjoy the movie, you have to ask yourself this question: "why do I watch the Saw series?". If you watch it for the story and plot twists, you should be at least satisfied, if not entertained. If you watch the series for pure shock and awe and disgust, you'll be disappointed, because Saw V does not try to be a horror film outside of a few scenes. It's a decent entry to the series that is tolerable, despite a lack of the iconic Jigsaw, horrid acting, and a somewhat predictable plot twist (easily the most predictable of the series).

After so many sequels, one should expect a series to be driven to the ground. Although it's getting a bit tiring, Saw fans, & for that matter, fans of gore, shouldn't be disappointed with the fifth movie. Saw 5 still follows the same routine of the cat and mouse game... but of course, as always, telling you too much of the plot is a ruining the game for you. Let's keep it at the thin plot description already given: a detective goes out of his way to make sure that his secret is kept, before an agent uncovers his identity. The subplot involves 5 individuals who are somehow connected, and must work their way out of traps.

The traps still prove to be especially cruel, perhaps a little too cruel, but even that is worked into the story. It involves quite a bit of the past, much like Saw 4, it will give you more of the origin of the characters, whether it's needed or not. Minimizing flashbacks, it instead will fill in a number of plot and character holes.

This is David Hackl's directional debut. Considering he's been around since Saw 2 as production designer, this is a solid step forward. There's no doubt that these somehow ingenious, if not over the top story lines that interconnect were made up well after the fact, but that doesn't change the fact that the scriptwriters were keen on at least making an effort to do exactly that. Tie things in, making the package look neater, & hoping you don't think about it too much that you start to see the implausibility of it all.

If you have not seen the previous Saw's, you will be lost here, as you will be left with confusing tie in's and past incidents that mesh too well with the present. It's just not kind to new viewers.

All in all, I can't complain about Saw 5, because I got exactly what I expected. Clever, deadly traps, uncomfortable situations, & of course, the "twist" at the end. There's no denying that one particular actor that's been in all the Saw's is especially good at what he does.

For the most part, I would suggest waiting for a rental. I think that some viewers may grow tired of the series because it comes out every year. The nature of an audience viewing sequels is that it dwindles in number over time, as "sequelitis" sets in. But if you enjoyed the previous Saws & all their abusive, bloody, cruel, & heartless drama, you don't need me to suggest anything to you.