I defended the Saw franchise long past the point where most self-respecting cinephiles and even genre geeks abandoned it. It was only after the moronic, baffling Saw IV that I got off the bandwagon. But as someone who thinks the franchise has (had?) something to offer beyond the admittedly questionable thrills of what smug know-nothings call "torture porn," I'm anticipating this month's annual installment with an ever-so-slight glimmer of hope. The first three films took a gimmicky serial killer concept and expanded it to something big and increasingly baroque, piling on twist after twist that, to me, consistently seemed bold rather than (merely) ludicrous. They were gruesome, yes, but they were also moody and visually exciting; Darren Lynn Bousman, in particular, seemed to take painstaking care in the second and third films to construct a cruel, self-contained universe around the crazy-ass story.

So here, briefly, are three things Saw V -- which sees the franchise's production designer David Hackl take over directing duties from Bousman -- could do to avoid the pitfalls of its immediate predecessor and restore my faith in the series.

If it's Halloween, it must be Saw. And it is. So it must be. Cinematical attended a press junket this week for Saw IV. It consisted of three interviews, with reporters from various outlets throwing out questions. The first was with Jigsaw himself, Tobin Bell (phoning in because he lives in Malibu, so wish him and his family well). The second was with Lyriq Bent (Rigg), Scott Patterson (Agent Strahm), and franchise producer Mark Burg. The third was with Costas Mandylor (Hoffman), Betsy Russell (Jill -- Mrs. Jigsaw), and franchise producer Oren Koules. Lionsgate hadn't screened the movie for critics (or even the actors!) as of this junket, as the representatives are extremely secretive about its plot, particularly a final twist. All we know is, despite having seemingly died at the end of Saw III, Jigsaw is back. Oh yes, and we know that there will be blood. Lotsa blood. We discussed what makes the franchise so popular, the phrase "torture porn," and the future of the Saw series.

Can you tell us what attracted you to the role yet again?

Tobin Bell: He's a big character. There could be nothing better for an actor than to have an opportunity to play a role where the character is sort of a multi-faceted guy. I mean, he is a scientist and a very well read guy and a man of conviction and passionate about what he does. There is something Shakespearean about him in a way. And there is a lot more story to be told. I feel like the Saw story doesn't play out in a linear way. It doesn't happen in sequence, necessarily. Whenever you have the opportunity to develop a guy like this, it's a blessing. It's what actors become actors for.

It's interesting to hear you talk about the thought process that goes into creating his back-story. Because if you ask an audience after they see a Saw film, they were there for the gore. They want to see someone's guts spill out on the floor. Are you rationalizing the character for yourself? Or do you really care about the characters in these films?

TB: I think that anybody who goes to one of these films wants to care about the characters. I think you can accomplish the same thing in the horror genre that you can accomplish in any other genre, whether it's a period piece, or a romantic comedy. I think there is an opportunity in a drama of any kind for the viewer to get involved with the characters. If you sell out completely on that, and I think that is what the horror genre has done for many years, people will not think of it very highly as a genre. Many genre films of the fifties and sixties were interested in the special effects, or interested in the scare factor, or the sci-fi factor. Jacob's Ladder is a very smart, well-crafted script. It is very scary. The Dead Zone with Christopher Walken. On its face, you have a man that looks at things and lights them on fire with his eyes. Look at the film. Christopher Walken draws you in. He makes you care about him. That's what makes the film work.

Editor's Note: When it came time to assign the year-end "Worst Of" list, Cinematical writers Erik Davis and Robert Newton both jumped at the chance. Rather than put them in the steel cage and let them fight to the death (something which parent company AOL frowns upon), we are letting them tag-team with this "Wurst Movies Of 2005" feature:

Erik Davis: I'm probably not going to be very popular for this choice (especially among Scientologists), but I have to start off with…

10. War of the Worlds – Okay, so Tom Cruise didn’t defeat the Aliens by giving them a computer virus (with a Macintosh) à la Independence Day, but that still doesn’t excuse this film from sucking up the hype and spewing it all over our faces as we left the theater.

Robert Newton: I'm a big sci-fi fan, and am always pained to see a fetid floater like Snore Of The Worlds or Aeon Flux or The Island, but for me, the most leaden of all genre turds was…