The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The Saw franchise began two years ago with a film that was a surprise hit. Shot on a miniscule budget, with some of the cheapest-looking car "chases" ever committed to film, it quickly became noted for its mind-blowing twist.
The film was a huge success at the box office, and spawned a sequel the next year, in Saw 2. The film was more blood-soaked than the first, and contained more twists and turns than the first (although I personally thought the first to be a better film).
Note: the following contains SPOILERS of the first two Saw films.
It's another year later, and we have Saw 3. Following the events of Saw 2, Jigsaw is nearing death, and now he and his accomplice, Amanda, put another throng of poor saps through a set of challenges in order to prove their worth. Lynn, kidknapped from her hospital, must keep an ailing Jigsaw alive for as long as it takes Jeff to complete a number of moral challenges. If she can do that, she will be freed.
I'm always a skeptic of sequels - Saw 2 seemed unnecessary, but I still enjoyed it a lot. Saw 3 seems slightly necessary when considering the events of the second film, but I went in with a fairly pessimistic mind, that the writers couldn't possibly pull out anything more mind-blowing than what we've seen already. Whilst in one respect that's correct, Saw 3 was still a highly entertaining offering, delivering shock after shock after shock.
To say anymore about the plot than what I've already said would be criminal, but for fans of the franchise, this film really does deliver. Through a series of semi-elaborate flashbacks, we discover truths and fates of certain characters that fans were screaming out for. The writers definitely listened to their audience, and whilst some stones were still left unturned, I'd say the series is pretty much tied up now.
I must commend the Saw production staff - they released a few news articles in the year that made me think a certain train of thought, but these articles were in fact false, and to trick viewers, so they're surprised when a certain event occurs in the film. This was a welcome act of deceit, as it did amplify my enjoyment of the film a little.
To say that Saw 3 is brutal is a colossal understatement. Whilst the statement that "the first 15 minutes is gorier than the first two films combined" seems to have been wrong, the film was still incredibly brutal. We have some incredibly savage imagery near the beginning, but some of it is merely implied (e.g. a death involving explosives), and I wonder why, when the film is an 18, they couldn't have actually shown this death. Still, the film has people being ripped apart, heads being blown off, bones being twisted in their sockets, and a wealth of other wonderful forms of mutilation. During one rather graphic scene in particular, a couple in my screening walked out. I do wonder, though, did they expect fluffy bunnies when watching Saw 3?
There are few complaints I can as such level against the film, but I will delve into them here. The first is the MTV-style production values. It annoyed me in the first two films, with the "lightbulb effect", and the spinning camera, tantamount to a cameraman having an epileptic fit, and it appears to have been amped up here. Granted, the film is a good 15 minutes longer than the previous two, but I find this effect disorientating, and just plain irritating to watch. Part of me, though, was hoping for a low-budget car chase like the ones we saw in the first two. Alas, no cigar.
My second issue isn't as such a complaint, but just a little note that some viewers may wish to be warned about. Saw 3 is very flashback-heavy. Whilst these flashbacks no doubt deliver important character development and plot progression, they do to a degree retread over old territory, and hardcore fans may find it to drag a little in this respect. Still, I, as a big fan of the series, had little grievance with it.
Saw 3 is a different beast to the previous two, in that rather than simply revealing the plot in a montage at the end, the third film in the trilogy delivers an almost (at times) continuous stream of twists and turns. Be it revealing past information, or bringing something that was in front of us the whole time to the surface, the film surprises on a number of levels, and was a treat to watch. I wasn't expecting anything more shocking than the twist of the first film, and so in that aspect I wasn't disappointed. I did manage to guess one of the twists near the end, but this was hardly to the film's detriment, particularly when the final series of twists are like a painfully swift kick in the nuts. In fact, I think displaying the word "OWNED" before the end credits would've been the most appropriate way to end the film.
Saw 3 was perhaps a more thoughtful film than the previous two. Whilst it no doubt delivered in terms of gratuitous gore and violence (and even nudity in one instance), it looks more at character development than the previous two, and also looks to develop a further backstory of both Amanda and Jigsaw.
I'd heard reports that some of the acting was a bit uneven, particularly in regard to Bahar Soomekh, but I had little problem with the performances. There were odd instances where Angus Macfadyen seemed to dip into mediocrity, but by and large the acting was of a decent standard, and it never ebbed badly enough to hurt the film. Tobin Bell once again played Jigsaw with gusto, and his distinctive voice is once more put to superb use.
Credit must also go to the writers for appearing to have stopped whilst they're ahead. I recall the writers saying that this is the last film they're making, and I can't think of a way in which the series can now continue - this is without a doubt the logical closure point. I'm pretty content with the way in which the series ended, and I'm glad the writers didn't make everything neatly tied up in the most happy and contrived way possible. Most stones are turned, but the finale is incredibly messy, and not in the least bit happy for anyone involved.
So, that's the end of Saw. People can go on about various plots for Saw IV, but I really hope nobody tries to get the rights for more sequels. The only thing I'll miss with no future films is that brilliant music by Charlie Clouser that's played at the end of each film as the plot is unravelled.
To conclude, a fitting end to a saga that I thoroughly enjoyed. I'd say it's about on par with Saw 2, or perhaps ever so slightly worse, but it was fun to behold, and a film that had my heart racing for large portions of it must be doing something right.
Thanks for reading,
Reefer.
The film was a huge success at the box office, and spawned a sequel the next year, in Saw 2. The film was more blood-soaked than the first, and contained more twists and turns than the first (although I personally thought the first to be a better film).
Note: the following contains SPOILERS of the first two Saw films.
It's another year later, and we have Saw 3. Following the events of Saw 2, Jigsaw is nearing death, and now he and his accomplice, Amanda, put another throng of poor saps through a set of challenges in order to prove their worth. Lynn, kidknapped from her hospital, must keep an ailing Jigsaw alive for as long as it takes Jeff to complete a number of moral challenges. If she can do that, she will be freed.
I'm always a skeptic of sequels - Saw 2 seemed unnecessary, but I still enjoyed it a lot. Saw 3 seems slightly necessary when considering the events of the second film, but I went in with a fairly pessimistic mind, that the writers couldn't possibly pull out anything more mind-blowing than what we've seen already. Whilst in one respect that's correct, Saw 3 was still a highly entertaining offering, delivering shock after shock after shock.
To say anymore about the plot than what I've already said would be criminal, but for fans of the franchise, this film really does deliver. Through a series of semi-elaborate flashbacks, we discover truths and fates of certain characters that fans were screaming out for. The writers definitely listened to their audience, and whilst some stones were still left unturned, I'd say the series is pretty much tied up now.
I must commend the Saw production staff - they released a few news articles in the year that made me think a certain train of thought, but these articles were in fact false, and to trick viewers, so they're surprised when a certain event occurs in the film. This was a welcome act of deceit, as it did amplify my enjoyment of the film a little.
To say that Saw 3 is brutal is a colossal understatement. Whilst the statement that "the first 15 minutes is gorier than the first two films combined" seems to have been wrong, the film was still incredibly brutal. We have some incredibly savage imagery near the beginning, but some of it is merely implied (e.g. a death involving explosives), and I wonder why, when the film is an 18, they couldn't have actually shown this death. Still, the film has people being ripped apart, heads being blown off, bones being twisted in their sockets, and a wealth of other wonderful forms of mutilation. During one rather graphic scene in particular, a couple in my screening walked out. I do wonder, though, did they expect fluffy bunnies when watching Saw 3?
There are few complaints I can as such level against the film, but I will delve into them here. The first is the MTV-style production values. It annoyed me in the first two films, with the "lightbulb effect", and the spinning camera, tantamount to a cameraman having an epileptic fit, and it appears to have been amped up here. Granted, the film is a good 15 minutes longer than the previous two, but I find this effect disorientating, and just plain irritating to watch. Part of me, though, was hoping for a low-budget car chase like the ones we saw in the first two. Alas, no cigar.
My second issue isn't as such a complaint, but just a little note that some viewers may wish to be warned about. Saw 3 is very flashback-heavy. Whilst these flashbacks no doubt deliver important character development and plot progression, they do to a degree retread over old territory, and hardcore fans may find it to drag a little in this respect. Still, I, as a big fan of the series, had little grievance with it.
Saw 3 is a different beast to the previous two, in that rather than simply revealing the plot in a montage at the end, the third film in the trilogy delivers an almost (at times) continuous stream of twists and turns. Be it revealing past information, or bringing something that was in front of us the whole time to the surface, the film surprises on a number of levels, and was a treat to watch. I wasn't expecting anything more shocking than the twist of the first film, and so in that aspect I wasn't disappointed. I did manage to guess one of the twists near the end, but this was hardly to the film's detriment, particularly when the final series of twists are like a painfully swift kick in the nuts. In fact, I think displaying the word "OWNED" before the end credits would've been the most appropriate way to end the film.
Saw 3 was perhaps a more thoughtful film than the previous two. Whilst it no doubt delivered in terms of gratuitous gore and violence (and even nudity in one instance), it looks more at character development than the previous two, and also looks to develop a further backstory of both Amanda and Jigsaw.
I'd heard reports that some of the acting was a bit uneven, particularly in regard to Bahar Soomekh, but I had little problem with the performances. There were odd instances where Angus Macfadyen seemed to dip into mediocrity, but by and large the acting was of a decent standard, and it never ebbed badly enough to hurt the film. Tobin Bell once again played Jigsaw with gusto, and his distinctive voice is once more put to superb use.
Credit must also go to the writers for appearing to have stopped whilst they're ahead. I recall the writers saying that this is the last film they're making, and I can't think of a way in which the series can now continue - this is without a doubt the logical closure point. I'm pretty content with the way in which the series ended, and I'm glad the writers didn't make everything neatly tied up in the most happy and contrived way possible. Most stones are turned, but the finale is incredibly messy, and not in the least bit happy for anyone involved.
So, that's the end of Saw. People can go on about various plots for Saw IV, but I really hope nobody tries to get the rights for more sequels. The only thing I'll miss with no future films is that brilliant music by Charlie Clouser that's played at the end of each film as the plot is unravelled.
To conclude, a fitting end to a saga that I thoroughly enjoyed. I'd say it's about on par with Saw 2, or perhaps ever so slightly worse, but it was fun to behold, and a film that had my heart racing for large portions of it must be doing something right.
Thanks for reading,
Reefer.
I disagree there, Saw 3 didn't deliver anything, the film lacked a decent actor that pulled any of the parts off. The camera angles sometimes, what was he thinking!! And the God Awful scene at the end, surely he would save his wife? Didn't like this one bit could of been far better.
I loved the first film. It was such a great surprise hit. The second dissapointed me but was still watchable. The idea of several people being in a house didnt seem as terrifying as the first film with its several flashback scenes. It was still ok though and had a good twist.
Im hopefully going to see the third next week and from the trailer and what you have said it looks more like the first. Some flashbacks and twists and several games rather than one huge game. I should enjoy it.
Im hopefully going to see the third next week and from the trailer and what you have said it looks more like the first. Some flashbacks and twists and several games rather than one huge game. I should enjoy it.
The Saw franchise began two years ago with a film that was a surprise hit. Shot on a miniscule budget, with some of the cheapest-looking car "chases" ever committed to film, it quickly became noted for its mind-blowing twist.
The film was a huge success at the box office, and spawned a sequel the next year, in Saw 2. The film was more blood-soaked than the first, and contained more twists and turns than the first (although I personally thought the first to be a better film).
Note: the following contains SPOILERS of the first two Saw films.
It's another year later, and we have Saw 3. Following the events of Saw 2, Jigsaw is nearing death, and now he and his accomplice, Amanda, put another throng of poor saps through a set of challenges in order to prove their worth. Lynn, kidknapped from her hospital, must keep an ailing Jigsaw alive for as long as it takes Jeff to complete a number of moral challenges. If she can do that, she will be freed.
I'm always a skeptic of sequels - Saw 2 seemed unnecessary, but I still enjoyed it a lot. Saw 3 seems slightly necessary when considering the events of the second film, but I went in with a fairly pessimistic mind, that the writers couldn't possibly pull out anything more mind-blowing than what we've seen already. Whilst in one respect that's correct, Saw 3 was still a highly entertaining offering, delivering shock after shock after shock.
To say anymore about the plot than what I've already said would be criminal, but for fans of the franchise, this film really does deliver. Through a series of semi-elaborate flashbacks, we discover truths and fates of certain characters that fans were screaming out for. The writers definitely listened to their audience, and whilst some stones were still left unturned, I'd say the series is pretty much tied up now.
I must commend the Saw production staff - they released a few news articles in the year that made me think a certain train of thought, but these articles were in fact false, and to trick viewers, so they're surprised when a certain event occurs in the film. This was a welcome act of deceit, as it did amplify my enjoyment of the film a little.
To say that Saw 3 is brutal is a colossal understatement. Whilst the statement that "the first 15 minutes is gorier than the first two films combined" seems to have been wrong, the film was still incredibly brutal. We have some incredibly savage imagery near the beginning, but some of it is merely implied (e.g. a death involving explosives), and I wonder why, when the film is an 18, they couldn't have actually shown this death. Still, the film has people being ripped apart, heads being blown off, bones being twisted in their sockets, and a wealth of other wonderful forms of mutilation. During one rather graphic scene in particular, a couple in my screening walked out. I do wonder, though, did they expect fluffy bunnies when watching Saw 3?
There are few complaints I can as such level against the film, but I will delve into them here. The first is the MTV-style production values. It annoyed me in the first two films, with the "lightbulb effect", and the spinning camera, tantamount to a cameraman having an epileptic fit, and it appears to have been amped up here. Granted, the film is a good 15 minutes longer than the previous two, but I find this effect disorientating, and just plain irritating to watch. Part of me, though, was hoping for a low-budget car chase like the ones we saw in the first two. Alas, no cigar.
My second issue isn't as such a complaint, but just a little note that some viewers may wish to be warned about. Saw 3 is very flashback-heavy. Whilst these flashbacks no doubt deliver important character development and plot progression, they do to a degree retread over old territory, and hardcore fans may find it to drag a little in this respect. Still, I, as a big fan of the series, had little grievance with it.
Saw 3 is a different beast to the previous two, in that rather than simply revealing the plot in a montage at the end, the third film in the trilogy delivers an almost (at times) continuous stream of twists and turns. Be it revealing past information, or bringing something that was in front of us the whole time to the surface, the film surprises on a number of levels, and was a treat to watch. I wasn't expecting anything more shocking than the twist of the first film, and so in that aspect I wasn't disappointed. I did manage to guess one of the twists near the end, but this was hardly to the film's detriment, particularly when the final series of twists are like a painfully swift kick in the nuts. In fact, I think displaying the word "OWNED" before the end credits would've been the most appropriate way to end the film.
Saw 3 was perhaps a more thoughtful film than the previous two. Whilst it no doubt delivered in terms of gratuitous gore and violence (and even nudity in one instance), it looks more at character development than the previous two, and also looks to develop a further backstory of both Amanda and Jigsaw.
I'd heard reports that some of the acting was a bit uneven, particularly in regard to Bahar Soomekh, but I had little problem with the performances. There were odd instances where Angus Macfadyen seemed to dip into mediocrity, but by and large the acting was of a decent standard, and it never ebbed badly enough to hurt the film. Tobin Bell once again played Jigsaw with gusto, and his distinctive voice is once more put to superb use.
Credit must also go to the writers for appearing to have stopped whilst they're ahead. I recall the writers saying that this is the last film they're making, and I can't think of a way in which the series can now continue - this is without a doubt the logical closure point. I'm pretty content with the way in which the series ended, and I'm glad the writers didn't make everything neatly tied up in the most happy and contrived way possible. Most stones are turned, but the finale is incredibly messy, and not in the least bit happy for anyone involved.
So, that's the end of Saw. People can go on about various plots for Saw IV, but I really hope nobody tries to get the rights for more sequels. The only thing I'll miss with no future films is that brilliant music by Charlie Clouser that's played at the end of each film as the plot is unravelled.
To conclude, a fitting end to a saga that I thoroughly enjoyed. I'd say it's about on par with Saw 2, or perhaps ever so slightly worse, but it was fun to behold, and a film that had my heart racing for large portions of it must be doing something right.
Thanks for reading,
Reefer.
The film was a huge success at the box office, and spawned a sequel the next year, in Saw 2. The film was more blood-soaked than the first, and contained more twists and turns than the first (although I personally thought the first to be a better film).
Note: the following contains SPOILERS of the first two Saw films.
It's another year later, and we have Saw 3. Following the events of Saw 2, Jigsaw is nearing death, and now he and his accomplice, Amanda, put another throng of poor saps through a set of challenges in order to prove their worth. Lynn, kidknapped from her hospital, must keep an ailing Jigsaw alive for as long as it takes Jeff to complete a number of moral challenges. If she can do that, she will be freed.
I'm always a skeptic of sequels - Saw 2 seemed unnecessary, but I still enjoyed it a lot. Saw 3 seems slightly necessary when considering the events of the second film, but I went in with a fairly pessimistic mind, that the writers couldn't possibly pull out anything more mind-blowing than what we've seen already. Whilst in one respect that's correct, Saw 3 was still a highly entertaining offering, delivering shock after shock after shock.
To say anymore about the plot than what I've already said would be criminal, but for fans of the franchise, this film really does deliver. Through a series of semi-elaborate flashbacks, we discover truths and fates of certain characters that fans were screaming out for. The writers definitely listened to their audience, and whilst some stones were still left unturned, I'd say the series is pretty much tied up now.
I must commend the Saw production staff - they released a few news articles in the year that made me think a certain train of thought, but these articles were in fact false, and to trick viewers, so they're surprised when a certain event occurs in the film. This was a welcome act of deceit, as it did amplify my enjoyment of the film a little.
To say that Saw 3 is brutal is a colossal understatement. Whilst the statement that "the first 15 minutes is gorier than the first two films combined" seems to have been wrong, the film was still incredibly brutal. We have some incredibly savage imagery near the beginning, but some of it is merely implied (e.g. a death involving explosives), and I wonder why, when the film is an 18, they couldn't have actually shown this death. Still, the film has people being ripped apart, heads being blown off, bones being twisted in their sockets, and a wealth of other wonderful forms of mutilation. During one rather graphic scene in particular, a couple in my screening walked out. I do wonder, though, did they expect fluffy bunnies when watching Saw 3?
There are few complaints I can as such level against the film, but I will delve into them here. The first is the MTV-style production values. It annoyed me in the first two films, with the "lightbulb effect", and the spinning camera, tantamount to a cameraman having an epileptic fit, and it appears to have been amped up here. Granted, the film is a good 15 minutes longer than the previous two, but I find this effect disorientating, and just plain irritating to watch. Part of me, though, was hoping for a low-budget car chase like the ones we saw in the first two. Alas, no cigar.
My second issue isn't as such a complaint, but just a little note that some viewers may wish to be warned about. Saw 3 is very flashback-heavy. Whilst these flashbacks no doubt deliver important character development and plot progression, they do to a degree retread over old territory, and hardcore fans may find it to drag a little in this respect. Still, I, as a big fan of the series, had little grievance with it.
Saw 3 is a different beast to the previous two, in that rather than simply revealing the plot in a montage at the end, the third film in the trilogy delivers an almost (at times) continuous stream of twists and turns. Be it revealing past information, or bringing something that was in front of us the whole time to the surface, the film surprises on a number of levels, and was a treat to watch. I wasn't expecting anything more shocking than the twist of the first film, and so in that aspect I wasn't disappointed. I did manage to guess one of the twists near the end, but this was hardly to the film's detriment, particularly when the final series of twists are like a painfully swift kick in the nuts. In fact, I think displaying the word "OWNED" before the end credits would've been the most appropriate way to end the film.
Saw 3 was perhaps a more thoughtful film than the previous two. Whilst it no doubt delivered in terms of gratuitous gore and violence (and even nudity in one instance), it looks more at character development than the previous two, and also looks to develop a further backstory of both Amanda and Jigsaw.
I'd heard reports that some of the acting was a bit uneven, particularly in regard to Bahar Soomekh, but I had little problem with the performances. There were odd instances where Angus Macfadyen seemed to dip into mediocrity, but by and large the acting was of a decent standard, and it never ebbed badly enough to hurt the film. Tobin Bell once again played Jigsaw with gusto, and his distinctive voice is once more put to superb use.
Credit must also go to the writers for appearing to have stopped whilst they're ahead. I recall the writers saying that this is the last film they're making, and I can't think of a way in which the series can now continue - this is without a doubt the logical closure point. I'm pretty content with the way in which the series ended, and I'm glad the writers didn't make everything neatly tied up in the most happy and contrived way possible. Most stones are turned, but the finale is incredibly messy, and not in the least bit happy for anyone involved.
So, that's the end of Saw. People can go on about various plots for Saw IV, but I really hope nobody tries to get the rights for more sequels. The only thing I'll miss with no future films is that brilliant music by Charlie Clouser that's played at the end of each film as the plot is unravelled.
To conclude, a fitting end to a saga that I thoroughly enjoyed. I'd say it's about on par with Saw 2, or perhaps ever so slightly worse, but it was fun to behold, and a film that had my heart racing for large portions of it must be doing something right.
Thanks for reading,
Reefer.