THE THIRD TIME IS THE HARM Review by Scott Weitz Rating: October 27, 2006 As the ads say, if it's Halloween it must be Saw.  In this case, Halloween 2006 ushers in SAW III, which must pull off the annual trick to challenge even its hardcore fanbase to make it a seasonal treat for Lionsgate Films.  Completing the entries of the SAW trilogy, either its creators show their weariness or the concept shows its wear in this film, turning Jigsaw's games of morality and murder inward upon itself.  The resulting film is intended to deliver a complex, stunning game-within-a-game (within a game) revelation to blow the audience's minds.  Instead, the result is a surprisingly non-suspenseful exercise in stretching a franchise half a film beyond its once-ingenious vigor.  SAW III certainly delivers it mandatory buckets of gory violence and bone-cracking traps — if not taking them to their series extreme — and if that's all you want from the film then you might be satisfied to your bloody heart's content.   But if you hoped this third film would truly elevate the bar over its previous two installments, you may find no escape from your disappointed expectations.  By turning the blade upon itself, SAW III can't help but undercut its own horror message.

What you will take away from watching SAW III depends entirely on what you want out of it, and so two contrasting reviews from me are not only possible but inescapable.

Let's start with the upside: if you want more ingenious Jigsaw traps and tests or moral (not to mention mortal) character, served up in a red plasma soup of spilled gore, then the film will probably meet or exceed your dark wishes.  As a horror lover, I have no problem with any fan who enters the theater with that goal in mind, and I certainly don't begrudge cinematic gore feasters their bloody tastes. 

Screenwriter Leigh Whannel along with SAW veterans James Wan and director Darren Lynn Bousman have cooked up a challenging menu of deadly devices for Jigsaw's captives, and the resulting carnage should satisfy most fans' fervor for murderous mayhem.  I read some fans are already saying this is the most gruesome display yet, but movie gore is an acquired and highly personal taste, so your satisfaction may vary.  While the original SAW established a certain, mandatory realism to Jigsaw's trap mechanisms, and the filmmakers vowed to maintain the real-world functionality of them through all three films, I found the devices in SAW III pushed the practical realism of their use which was better preserved in the first two films.  Previously the horror of seeing these games and traps sprung on their victims had everything to do with the person locked into them; but in the new film, this third level of torturous Hell tends to utterly disregard its victims in order to teach other participants a lesson about fear, morality and obedience.

I won't give away the plot development which makes this change in the game necessary, but I'll say this change makes the moral lessons behind them weaker in strength and far less dramatic to watch.  The horrific punch of the first SAW film was that the story forced characters to make seemingly impossible choices, literally asking them to sacrifice limb in order to save life.   SAW III attempts to show how Jigsaw's game has evolved to a higher and deeper level of significance.  Yet by giving this moral and mortal choices to those NOT trapped in this body-shattering machines, the victims of these devices are reduced to cheapened slasher fodder, existing only to provide momentary exhibitions of gore and suffering while those who are making the choices learn nothing from the bloody dilemma of others held in Jigsaw's clutches.  This first failure of the moral structure which fortified SAW from the beginning even spoils the terror that gore fans might relish watching this new brand of killing machines.

Another flaw which weakens this third film is the bed-ridden condition of Jigsaw himself, played in a low-key but effective performance by Tobin Bell.  Jigsaw's tumor has grown and now threatens his life, leaving him totally dependent on his twisted devotee Amanda, who runs an emotional gamut thanks to series veteran Shawnee Smith.  She now builds and operates his torture course as both apprentice and personal caregiver, though new scenes and earlier flashbacks show Amanda may well be cracking under the strain of losing the only person in her pitiful existence.  Tobin Bell continues the series with a measured, disciplined performance that actually can get the audience to fear for Jigsaw as his illness attacks him.  This is a somewhat unexpected turn in the character, credited to good material for a talented character actor to bring to life in the midst of his character's death.

As Amanda, the script really puts Shawnee Smith through her paces, and by the film's conclusion eventually backs her character into a tight, if not impossible spot for the actress to successfully rise above.  Granted Amanda clearly has issues, but this story has her bouncing off contradictory emotional walls with unrealistic, jarring speed that even her troubled psyche could not manufacture.  As we are unaware of Jigsaw's larger game being played which involves Amanda, to see her pinballing from an obedient protector to rebellious, amoral maverick within his scheme makes little dramatic sense to the audience.  In short, it's both Jigsaw's and the film's mistake to put his life and lessons in Amanda's shaky hands since she's bound to fumble the ball on both accounts — but this is the filmmakers' error, not Smith's.

With Jigsaw incapable of rising from his makeshift hospital bed, his new game inevitably involves a female doctor who is captured in order to treat him and prolong his life.  Doctor Lynn Denlon, played by Bahar Soomekh, falls into Jigsaw's latest trap because she's checked out of her unsatisfying marriage and neglects her daughter, thus not appreciating her life.  Of course Jigsaw knows this first-hand since Denlon was one of the doctors treating (or perhaps too casually accepting) his tumor, and having written off his remaining life now must fight for her own — the game: as long as Jigsaw has a pulse, Lynn has a head.

This moral challenge is intercut — and often interrupted by — the simultaneous terrible testing of Jeff (Angus Mcfadyen), a father mourning the untimely death of his young son at under the wheels of a drunk driver.  Obsessed with seeking vengeance for his son's killing, Jeff preserves his son's room as a macabre monument to the boy's memory at the expense of his own and his daughter's well being.  Thus Jeff is thrust into Jigsaw's game to determine if the father has the will to forgive those involved in his son's death and choose not to ruin his family's life in the pursuit of revenge.

Well that all looks good on paper, but the scheme falls apart as Jeff confronts these ancillary characters surrounding his son's death and is given the choice to free them from Jigsaw's traps or let them die to satisfy his own rage.  I won't spoil the results, but on principle I felt this violated the basic moral premise originated through Jigsaw in the first film: individuals must surpass their own fears, demonstrate a willingness to sacrifice flesh in order to preserve a higher moral standard which they had abandoned in their normal lives. But by flipping this equation around in Jeff's game, he's now forced to evaluate the morality of other people's lives and act to either save or condemn them.  And as it turns out in the end (for reasons I won't disclose), Jeff can't possibly learn the lesson intended for him.  In this impossible dilemma, Angus Mcfadyen fights an uphill battle with the script to give his character either a moral purpose or a gut-wrenching fear we can identify with to root for him.

Another error in judgment which diffused SAW III's terror and entertainment quotient was taking its audience too far 'backstage' to reveal Jigsaw's factory of nightmares.  His diabolical workshop, fitfully managed by Amanda now, more resembles the makeup effects studio that might have supplied it rather than a truly menacing factory of death.  This is another way the filmmakers have mistakenly turned the world of SAW in on itself, where now the gamemakers are the subject of moral tests rather than the games' unwilling players.  Perhaps its too symbolic that Amanda must kidnap a doctor to keep Jigsaw alive, just as SAW III's creators struggle to keep the franchise alive.  By this trilogy conclusion, the purpose of the films has devolved from the chilling phrase "I want to play a game" to the sequel-spawning mission of How can we stop the game from ever ending?  And if you've ever been stuck trying to finish a marathon session of Monopoly, you know that all good games reach an end for a good reason.

Beyond a fresh serving of gourmet gore to temporarily tantalize fans' hunger for blood, the original game which enthralled minds and quickened pulses of moviegoers just might be over with the release of SAW III.