Saw 3 -- 2006 -- R

I actually watched the Unrated DVD version of the film.

What I'd heard on this film going into it was that the more grotesque scenes were kind of pointless when compared to the first Saw film, which used the individual's weaknesses against them. They said this one tortured for the sake of being sadistic. The funny thing about this comment is that not only is that point touched upon, but it is one of the points to the story. I often agree with Creative Screenwriting on most points, but they were way off this time.

This film continues the Saw storyline in that John (aka Jigsaw) has Amanda bring him a doctor to keep him alive so he can see the outcome of his final game: a man who believes his son's murder was not dealt with justly and wants revenge on the man who killed his boy. The "game" section of the film did not repeat the Saw 2 mistake of making a slasher flick out of the segments, but instead used a single character and each piece not only served to develop him, but gave him a choice to forgive each of three people involved in the trial of his son's killer (including the guy who did it) or watch them die.

The outer story of the doctor trying to keep Jigsaw alive (or she dies horribly, of course) was rather well done, just as it was in the second film (the first one didn't really have an outer/inner story). However, without knowledge of the first two films, the entire movie becomes little more than a sick grindhouse flick, since the dramatic elements of this outer story comes almost entirely from the events and relationships established in Saw & Saw 2.

The end of the film probably couldn't have played out any other way. It had that shocking twist at the very, very end that we've come to expect from these films, and I really didn't see it coming. Maybe if I had wanted to work it out and consider "hm, what kind of twist could they put on this," then I might have come up with it, but just kicking back and watching the film, it was unexpected, but well within the film's boundaries. I will note a certain personal objection to the film's ending, but it's just cause of how I feel about certain topics. Dramatically, it worked fine.

We were not without some flaws, however. One notable one had to do with the shotgun trap. Without giving away a lot of detail, basically the room had three people and the gun had a key that was tied via complicated mechanism to the gun's trigger to where you had to stand in the line of fire to get the key. If you're not the one getting the key, why, oh why, would you be standing in the line of fire? I mean, just in case? Seemed kind of silly to me.

The video bit where one of the victims was captured seemed a bit contrived, though with considerable thought, I can kind of work out how it would be done. The doctor and her husband near the beginning (without giving too much here) was a rather cheap dramatic trick, and once the whole film is before you, the conversation they had doesn't make any sense at all. Hard to say much more without spoiling.

Overall, it was a pretty decent film as long as you've got the other two behind you. It fills out the trilogy of movies rather nicely and serves to explain a lot of gaps that the other films had making the three movies a cohesive whole. It doesn't work well on its own, though. While Saw 2 could stand on its own with a detail from the first film that you may or may not remember adding a bonus tie-in, this film doesn't work at all apart from its predecessors. Historically, however, that's not usually much of a problem.

Jigsaw is still a fascinating character, and while his methods leave something to be desired morally, he makes a valid point that continues to resonate beyond the movie. You have a life that is worth living if you choose to do so; don't waste it.