Review: Saw V
Filed under: Horror, New Releases, Lionsgate Films, Theatrical Reviews

The advertising promises "You won't believe how it ends," but the problem with Saw V isn't so much its ending, it's everything that comes before. Oddly toothless, the entire flick feels like it exists solely as preamble for Saw VI. The greatest tension I felt was waiting for the movie to begin. I kept waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and then the end credits began to roll and I realized the movie had, in fact, ended. As one of the characters says, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
The last installment, Saw IV, was both an origin story and a mild-tempered reboot of the series. Writers Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton (Feast) endeavored to provide deeper motivation for the Jigsaw Killer, AKA John Kramer (Tobin Bell), by introducing his ex-wife, Jill Tuck (Betsy Russell), and explaining that it was her tragic miscarriage years in the past that eventually set him on his deadly path. Jigsaw died at the end of Saw III, so Saw IV also had to resurrect him somehow, which was achieved by making the events of Saw IV concurrent with those of Saw III and introducing a new successor, Mark Hoffman (Costas Mandylor), to carry on Jigsaw's "work."
Got that? I know, it's already way too complicated, which is one of the reasons Saw IV was such a drag; it felt like a dry police procedural interrupted by brief scenes of screaming torture. But hold on, because Saw V insists on revisiting the events of the first four films, this time inserting Jigsaw's successor as he is trained for the work ahead. I felt like I was watching Forrest Gump or Zelig, with some fictional phony inserted into historical events.
The original Saw set a new low for grotty, grueling, gory horror, delivered with grinding tension by director James Wan and benefiting from the unpredictability of its twists. Darren Lyn Bousman took the helm for Saw II, ramping up the pace to sometimes incomprehensible speed. The emphasis shifted somewhat away from the tension of personal confrontation toward more fiendishly inventive traps that served as Jigsaw's "tests" for those he deemed insufficiently appreciative of the gift of life. The film cleverly opened up the basic premise of its predecessor by following a small group trapped in a house, though it retained the narrative structure of alternating between the police investigation and the dilemma of the victims.
Saw III took an unpleasant turn toward truly nasty and sadistic violence. No body parts or bodily fluids were spared in the flick's effort to gross out its audience, but the generally hysterical nature of the performances and the apparent willingness to ignore the rules set forth by Jigsaw -- though explained away by the end -- moored Saw III on its own bloody island of self-indulgent mediocrity, in my mind. Big box office may have dictated at least one more film, but Jigsaw's death signaled that it was time for a change. Saw IV was a disappointment, yet I still thought there was a decent set-up for what could come next.
Instead of moving forward, though, Saw V stands resolutely still and motionless, gazing longingly back at its own past and trusting that horror fans have exceedingly short memories and very low expectations. It opens with a typically extravagant device of death (a giant swinging pendulum blade) and Jigsaw's voice on a tape recorder telling the victim (strapped to a big stone table) that he must stick his hands into devices that will pulverize them or else be sliced in half by the giant blade. The scene's climax reveals that the trap could not be Jigsaw's handiwork, which links easily enough to the previous film.
After that, though, the plot thickens into sludge. FBI Agent Strahm (Scott Patterson, from Saw IV and The Gilmore Girls) narrowly escapes from a watery trap meant to kill him, but since the Jigsaw killings have apparently been solved, he's off the case. He still harbors suspicions that Jigsaw had another accomplice, so he follows his hunch that Hoffman is involved. As he investigates Hoffman on the sly, he revists past killings, allowing for a multitude of flashbacks that carefully show the dour Hoffman as he is recruited and trained by Jigsaw. On the basis of their performances here, neither Mandylor nor Patterson are capable of generating dramatic conflict, and neither the script nor the pedestrian direction by first-timer David Hackl, the production designer on the last three films, does them any favors, though the script tries to explain Hoffman's inexpressiveness as necessary in order to properly carry out his "work."
Meanwhile, Hoffman watches a new set of victims undergo "testing." As in Saw II, a group of strangers (including the vastly underused Julie Benz and Meagan Good) suddenly awaken together in a dark and dank room. This time they're all professional-looking folks who are told that they have wasted advantages they were given at birth. Even though it's somewhat of a recycled idea, the prospect of intelligent professionals using their cool and collected wits to extricate themselves from intricate traps to avoid death is intriguing. Unfortunately, it's simply thrown away on the trash heap. None of the traps present difficult-to-solve problems, and no tension is built in solving them. None of the group has an interesting backstory, and we care even less about them than they do about each other.
And so it goes throughout the movie. More than anything, Saw V feels like a watered-down, alternate version of the earlier films in the series. I'm not talking about more explicit bloodshed -- there's a fair amount of gore, and at least three scenes made my faint heart pitter-patter and caused my fingers to hover near my face -- but suspense and tension are otherwise entirely absent. It wouldn't hurt to provide a story and characters that aren't tired retreads.
One more thing: it's not very nice to tease without any release whatsoever.









Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-24-2008 @ 9:37AM
Jason said...
I don't agree with the author!
This is the BEST SAW, there is the best trapps and the most interesting plot. The twists are awesome! And the ending is great but not so shoking as Saw-1 and Saw-4.
Reply
10-24-2008 @ 9:44AM
Peter Hall said...
My biggest holdup on SAW is that with its very first sequel it became a franchise that was founded on retcon'ing every plot point. Retcon should be used as a last ditch support, not the foundation of the entire thing.
I love that SAW is a franchise. As much as people bemoan sequel after sequel, the horror market needs its icons, it needs boogeymen spokesmen and SAW is the only post millennium horror film to fill that void (though if FINAL DESTINATION had a boogeyman, it would take that cake. Though even still, its hook may as well be one).
That said, Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton should not be trusted near any manner of commercial word processor. And especially not near HELLRAISER.
Reply
10-24-2008 @ 9:45AM
dtpollitt said...
Well, I was on the fence. I won't be going tonight to see this film, thanks for saving me the cash.
Dan
Reply
10-24-2008 @ 12:10PM
Herff said...
This has nothing to do with my opinion of the film, but I was looking at that profile image ( http://www.firstshowing.net/img/saw-v-teaser-poster-big.jpg ) of the guy wearing Jigsaw's face as a mask and it was reminding me of someone else, but I couldn't place it. Then I took out my spare change and realized it looks a lot like George Washington on the quarter. Does anyone else see that or is it just me?
Reply
10-24-2008 @ 3:23PM
saw freak said...
This is the worst out of all of them. If you remember the first saw the main focus was on the two guys in the room like the second and third. The fourth a little bit but a somewhat different. In my opinion the only reason the guy cut his foot off is because the key went down the drain when the guy in the tub woke up. This is display if i recall in saw 3 when amanda threw the key on the guy's chest in the water. Anyway to me the five people in the room had no important part at all except to die. The bad thing is one person had to die or they all had to die to survive. This is off from all the rest of saw. Like I said earlier the first saw was about the key to release each other. The second one if they did work as a team with the numbers on their necks to open the safe to save them from the poison. But this was different because in five someone had to die, Saw 2 they killed each other cause of fear or they killed themselves because of being stupid and not listening to the tape. Saw three showed why everybody died from the previous series because of amanda had an addiction to murder but all of the victims in saw 3 had to do what the tape said and what jigsaw said in order to survive but they didnt and they died. Saw 4 kinda takes a turn because the victims now are cops who dont listen. Riggs could have save his friend from the second saw if he did the oppposite of what he usually do. even in the beginning of saw 4 the keys were hooked on the back of their necks so both of the them could have lived. Riggs is playing the game as well as the victims he encounters. You might say what bout the girl that is getting the hair pulled off the scalp. If he would have walked away the pin would have never been pulled out to start the machine. And so on through out the saw4. But five doesnt show this. It is the opposite of all the 4. In 5 if all five would have stayed still they would have gotten hit wit nails. All im saying they didnt stay with the original plots and scheme of the series. The only thing that i liked and wonder about is what is in the box jigsaw left his wife.
Reply
10-24-2008 @ 9:48PM
Entrapt said...
I just felt like i had to reply to this, since i just recently came from watching the movie, but your opinion that the group of 5 would have still been hit with nails if they were alive is in fact false. It was explained in the final challenge/chamber by one of the people, how they would have all been able to escape. I wish i could say more but i rather not spoil anything for anyone.
About the movie itself, i agree it feels like the ending of the jigsaw character and the beginning of the other. Its such a shame though that there is even a possibility of another sequel for the series because in reality this series should have just ended a long time ago. It started getting too ridiculous and it definately used flashback way too much.
Thankfully the sequel cleaned up and finished the jigsaw storyline (except for whats in that box), so I'm at peace to just let go of it and move on.
10-28-2008 @ 1:14AM
that1girl said...
I get what your saying about teamwork. But you're missing in 5 when it's down to the two of them in the last room when Julie Benz's character goes back and says all the keys were the same, there was room for more than 1 person in the safe cages, all of them could have held on to an electrical current, and all of them could have lost 2 pints of blood as opposed to the last two losing 5.
10-24-2008 @ 6:17PM
Tenetrice said...
I saw the midnight showing last night and I can say this one was the worst ever! I LOVE saw that's why I went to the first showing last night hoping to go to bed with pleasant thoughts of my favorite traditional halloween ritual in my head, but to my dismay it didn't happen that way. The next 2 saws better be good, or else. =-) btw - the traps were great and Jigsaw is still the clever s.o.b. we all know and love.
Reply
10-26-2008 @ 4:16AM
pete thomson said...
its just about the cash an as many reviews have said the trap this time is the cinema the deserving victims: The fools who continue to create a demand for this rubbish in favor of a studio coming up with something nay anything else! I loved Saw because it wasnt a franchise and didnt have an agenda and was original. I have no memory of Saw 2 and Saw 3 was a test of how much sugar you could enduce to avoid waking it up till the rubbish on screen was over. That this tme next year we will be wasting time an words on Saw6 is thankfully not my fault!!!
Reply
10-26-2008 @ 10:00PM
Michael Benjamin said...
you call SAW a crap movie?
then you just don't get it, do you?
saw is all about how smart jigsaw is and how people react to sudden changes that can cost him his life ( and some survived successfully)
and even though i really like the torture parts i dont think thats the main point here
so, grow up man, and start to see things from another point of view, cause its annoying to see someone skeptical
Reply
10-27-2008 @ 12:24PM
Mischelle said...
As I told the gentlemen that took my ticket, and he asked how Saw V was doing for me. I love Saw because it is more of a psychological thriller and not nessisarily the gory aspects. True, they help, but I like Saw and I Liked this Saw because it allowed me to truly understand the thought process that lead to "the game". There we a lot of flashbacks, but with them they showed how long Hoffman has been involved (not just the last movie like you thought) and how he is truly carrying on John's work (unlike Amanda, whom John still had hoped would). Is it because the movie demands you think that you don't like it? And do you prefer those like Jason and Halloween were it's just violence and death with no real plot besides gotta run, gotta fall, gotta die? As far as Jason's plot is concerned it's just he died when he was a kid and now he kills people (as a adult...so how did he age if he's dead?) Then Michael Meyers becomes a crazed murder when he was a young boy grows up in a mental hospital with no real excersise because he just stares "beyond" the wall. How is he so strong? and seriously how many times do they have to die? You know they have a new Jason movie coming out Friday Febuary 13 right? At least in Saw John's dead and he's not coming back. I think what makes Saw so intriquing is the fact that unlike all the other "scary movies" Saw could actually happen.
Reply
10-27-2008 @ 6:23PM
Lindsey said...
Sorry Unlike some of you I am not ready to let these movies end just yet, I think the writers were possibly in some form of pressure or loss of creativity towards the writing of Saw V, but I think they should answer the question atleast that all fans can't get past right now, "What's in that frick'n box?"
The flash backs were useful to some of us true fans but others who are not so familiar with the exact story line or exactly characters in the past saw's it seems to only confuse you. For example I went with two of my friends and they had both seen all the saws at least once and were not totally able to keep up with what the flash backs were explaining and doing.
I am not ready to let this series go but as of the story line and contraptions for this movie, none of them really were that intense like the that one in the 3rd saw where they twisted that black mans body, or the chains. Sadly saw 5 didn't even compare to them. Which to most fans is disappointing.
Basically what I am saying is I think they need help from fans possibly for things like contraption ideas and a more exciting story line. It can't end like this! John's game can't be over just yet, Just look in the box...lol.
Reply
10-27-2008 @ 7:02PM
Brian said...
I got bad news for anyone who thinks this is the next thrilling chapter in a series that is coming to a brilliant, definitive, mind-blowing ending that will answer all your questions...
...They will make Saw 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, Saw 0, Saw H20, Jigsaw's Dead: The Final Saw, Final Saw 2: Really Final This Time, Final Saw 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and so on until you have simply run out of money.
In no way does anyone involved with this lucrative, cheapo horror series want to stop their cash flow for something as laughably illusory as artistic integrity.
Reply
10-27-2008 @ 7:49PM
Twizzle the film critic said...
I mean in my opinion it was good but just wasn't as good as the rest of them. It was sort of predictable throughout the movie, especially the end.
Reply
10-28-2008 @ 9:22AM
Michael Scarpitti said...
You people are all sick. This sort of film is repellent, abhorrent, and cannot be called "entertainment'. They are stuoid, sick, gross, and anyone who sees such crap is a sicko.
You're all demented perverted psychopaths, the director and anyone who see sthis crap.
Reply
10-27-2008 @ 6:23PM
Lindsey said...
you are so wrong on so many levels.
You probably haven't even seen all these movies so you don't understand why he does it. In fact your probably one of those people who judge before they know anything or anyone or they fact why we watch it. I personally watch it because makes me think about the human brain and psychology and honestly i am in school for that. An I am going to leave you with the statement ... You judge before you know any of us and were all different in this world it might be just entertainment for some, it actually might be a "sick", (maybe yes) lesson on how we all need to live out lives a little bit better.
Thank you.
Have a nice day.
Saw Fans Rule.
10-28-2008 @ 10:01AM
Michael Scarpitti said...
Precisely the sort of response I expected.
10-31-2008 @ 1:58PM
david said...
i didnt like it
Reply
11-21-2008 @ 7:34AM
craig ElioT said...
i thort it was nice.
Reply