Saw IV review

With nothing better to do on a Friday afternoon, yesterday I succumbed to boredom and popped in my sister's copy of Saw 4, to regale in its visceral pleasures. I had put off watching it for some time because I felt that, as the series in my eyes has grown successively stale, it wouldn't be worth the time. How I was wrong, child; how I was wrong.

The film starts off the way any film should, with a shot of an old man's ballsack. That's right, as any viewer of Saw 3 would know, Jigsaw is dead, and the sequel aptly begins with his autopsy. Exceptionaly gory, I get the feeling that this scene was just added for the sake of gore effects, but in the end it does serve a purpose; at the conclusion, a tape is found in Jigsaw's stomach that, when played, indicates that his 'games' are just beginning.

We're reintroduced to the character of Rigg, the SWAT team sergeant who first appeared in Saw II. He becomes the central character in this film, as he's ensnared in another Jigsaw test. But since Jigsaw, along with his 'apprentice' Amanda is dead, who's setting this all up? That becomes the mystery throughout the movie, as not since the original have we been through a sense of doubt as to who's masterminding everything. I think that's what ultimately adds a little to the entertainment factor of the movie, the 'whodunnit' guesswork involved. SPOILERS (highlight): As we try and figure out who may be behind the new 'game', Rigg is forced to 'see' what Jigsaw and his apprentice(s?) see. Rigg is lead about town and encounters a number of individuals captured in a Jigsaw trap; he's given options and instructions on how to deal with them in hopes that he'll come to a realization about how Jigsaw tests, 'helps,' 'saves' and judges his victims.

Rigg's test ultimately boils down, essentially, to his own morality. He wants desperately to help save others, and can't learn to 'let go.' That eventually plays a big part in the conclusion of the movie. Along the way, though, as per the norm, the story is weaved through a variety of flashbacks that clue us in on more information. This can actually get pretty confusing and if you haven't seen Saw 3, holy Malonik are you in for an hour and a half of asking questions. SPOILERS (highlight): The majority of this film runs during the same time period as Saw 3. This isn't apparent at first, but it's important towards the climax of the movie.

Of course, it wouldn't be Saw without 'death traps,' and we're treated to a handful of new devices. My particular favorite was the trap that was forced onto one particular former rapist, a trap which is perhaps one of the goriest premises in the series, though not much of the aftermath ends up being shown. If you were a fan of the traps in Saw 3, you'll be satisfied with the traps in Saw 4, though by this point I think they're kind of reaching for new methods of torture.

We're also treated to Jigsaw's 'origin', if you will, an origin that contradicts the comic book Saw: Rebirth. One of my favorite aspects of the Saw films is the reappearance of characters from previous movies, be it via flashbacks or by a new character stumbling upon their body. A number of characters from previous films make cameos, including the popular detective Eric Matthews, Corey's older brother, whose character finally reaches a resolution, though what happened pissed me off, though that's the intended result of the film's ending. As any fan may imagine, the end of the film ties up some loose ends, while, at the same time, opening up a whole new series of questions that are likely to be resolved when the inevitable Saw V comes out.

In fact, my main qualm with the movie was the big twist ending. I found it a very enjoyable experience up until that moment, but obviously knew a twist was coming. The revelation of Jigsaw's new 'apprentice' felt unsatisfying, at least to me, because I just didn't give a crap about the character. The wonky timeline issues that present themself during the film (IE you're confused and don't know where this or that take splace) become apparently clear and any intelligent person can work it out in their head, but I just don't really see the reasoning for being so indirect about the timeline in the first place. I suppose it's cool that, when towards the end of the film you see a character from Saw 3 right after a scene from Saw 3, you can go "Ohhhhhh, so that's what happened," but it feels like it's there just for the plot to intersperse and zigzag. That's become a trademark of the series, though, and it really should be expected.

The series is a constant source of criticism, from media watchdogs and horror enthusiasts alike. Some feel it's sole purpose is exploitation and it merely provides a new generation of teenagers with senseless gore. This may be true to a degree but, honestly, being a fan of horror movies, I have to disagree. The Saw films don't have the 'deepest' plot, per se; more so, it's full of a lot of twists, turns, revelations, and shocking moments that all come together. What classic 80's style horror movie contains a better plot? Not many, if any. Saw's part of the 'new wave' of American horror movies, a genre where characters go through horrible torture to the crowd's entertainment. Films like Hostel and the god awful Turistas exhibit such a style, but the Saw series has always been able to do it more effectively and with a more intelligent plot.

Now that Saw has become a venerable franchise, I expect there to be many sequels to come. Which is kind of sad, in a way. No Saw movie has ever had a 'happy' ending and you'll know, going into each and every one, that you'll feel remorse at the ending and will just be left with even more questions. The Saw series isn't going anywhere, whether you like it or not; the original still remains the best of the bunch, simply because it was a brand new experience, but I enjoyed Saw IV. It's my new second favorite in the series, right after the first and before Saw III and Saw II. That's right, Saw II can suckle Tobin Bell's exposed genitals.