Saw III (2006) Poster

(2006)

User Reviews

Add a Review
631 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
2/10
Nothing more than a gorenography
therealjoeh6 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Just came back from seeing this film and I really need to stress at how crap a film it was. I had read the reviews of it being better than saw 2 and more like saw 1 (which was good!) but they were talking rubbish. This film relies purely on gore and the ability to make you cringe. The plot was stupid and too far fetched which only idiots who enjoy this brain numbing turdness would accept. I didn't even know who the lead character was...there was none I'm sure. The narrative was poor and the acting was naff.

I felt really uncomfortable watching this film and when i came out i was terribly uneasy. There is no resolution, it has possibly got one of the worst endings to a film ever which really p***ed me off most, i felt totally unsatisfied. Don't see this film, its pathetic.
47 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
The Incomparable Trilogy
JamesCanz27 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I would like to start by saying that I am a huge Saw fan, and came into this movie with more hype and enthusiasm than any other movie in my life. Possibly I set the bar too high, leaving it hard for this third installment to complete a legendary trilogy in the horror genre. First of all, I loved the scenario. Very similar to Saw II, Saw III had multiple "games" being carried on at once. Amanda kidnapping Dr. Lynn in order to keep Jigsaw alive, so that he could put Jeff through a series of vicious and gut wrenching events. Events that Jeff alone chooses the outcomes of.

Sequel to sequel, these movies have progressed dramatically. Two ways would be the creativity, and the gore. "We don't pull any punches this year. We start it with a kick in the balls, and end it with a kick in the balls." -Darren Bousman. Traps, weapons, and devices now include chains, bombs, acid, skin rippers, ice, pig guts, guns, and a very creative and sickly disturbing trap called the rack. It is similar to the previous sequel Saw II, but Saw III has even more scenes that will make you cringe or moan in disgust.

Unlike the subpar acting of Saw, this time around it was phenomenal. When more characters were explained, you got a good feel for the decisions they made, and why the story ended up the way it did. Tobin Bell did yet another extraordinary job with his role as Jigsaw, possibly making Jigsaw one of the most deranged and creative villains ever to step foot in a horror movie. Not only were there many fresh faces in Saw III, but some characters made a return. I wouldn't want to spoil it for you, but like Darren said, it kicks you in the balls, I would say pretty hard.

Overall, this movie was great, but for some reason it didn't completely blow me away like Saw and Saw II did. Many stones were left unturned, which always means that there could be yet another sequel, and the ending happened too suddenly. Will there be a Saw IV? Maybe, maybe not. But for now, go see Saw III, possibly the final chapter to one of the greatest horror trilogies ever made.
145 out of 227 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Why Saw III failed to satisfy...
TheXeroXone29 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
In the first two Saw films there was something there that made the movie not just about the gore or the brutality that put it head and shoulders above all the other slasher films, there was intelligence and hope. The victims of Jigsaw were almost always given a modicum of hope that they could survive what they were given and come out breathing if they acted intelligently enough. Furthermore, the ending of each film was always brutal and yet hopeful at the same time. In the first Saw unanswered questions concerning Dr Gordon and Adam gave us hope. In the second Saw, the outcomes of the lives of Daniel, Detective Matthews, Amanda and Kerry may have been brutalized (emotionally or physically), but there was still hope.

Saw III was not a depiction of a lack of hope, but rather a thorough extraction of it. None of the victims in Saw III had hope or the ability to get themselves out of the traps they were in except through the actions of others. It became more about the traps than it became about the lessons these individuals had to learn. And in the end all that's left is gore, misery and an innocent life taken needlessly.

The plot of Saw III was Machiavellian in its design to be sure, but ultimately it proceeded through the movie like a sledgehammer instead of a jigsaw.
60 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Anemic screen writing
mcantor122 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Saw was a smash hit at the box office for a few reasons. First, James Wan is a fantastic visionary director. He manages to tell the story, build suspense, scare the crap out of the audience when necessary, but best of all (like any GOOD horror film), the viewer is strung out waiting for the next twist. The ending is so awesome, we finally get to see who Jigsaw really is, and it's the last person anyone expects (we even see John earlier in the film in a hospital bed, but NO ONE could ever have suspected...) The film wasn't even well-acted, but the STORY and the way the story unfurled was genius. Danny Glover and his search for Jigsaw, clue by clue, is what really sells everything home. By the end, we want to know who Jigsaw is worse then the men chained in the basement. When we find out the truth, it is so satisfying. That is a what a GOOD movie does.

Saw II brought aboard a novice director, and it becomes obvious that plot was taking a backseat to gore. Not particularly surprising for a sequel, but disappointing nonetheless. Darren Lynn Bousman tried as hard as he could to bring back the feel of Saw, but with Jigsaw having been caught so early in the film, Saw II lacks the sense of mystery and suspense that Saw brilliantly maintains from start to finish. Bousman uses the same seizure-inducing editing, but it is not as well-done, nor is the movie really scary at any point. At least the "game" that goes on throughout the movie is interesting, and the twist at the end is enough to satisfy the viewer.

Saw III is a rush job. The script was written in a week! (That should tell you everything you need to know). The traps are gory as hell but the brilliant moral lessons behind the traps are completely gone. The game that Jeff plays really only has 3 or 4 parts, and nothing comes out of any part of it. Jeff himself is never in any immediate danger, so there is no sense of urgency to the film. The brain surgery scene is totally pointless, it serves no purpose other than to gross people out, and it isn't even done well. At no point during this film was I even remotely afraid. Darren Lynn Bousman tries soooo hard to direct as crisply as James Wan did, but he ends up reusing footage over and over, and he totally fails to reproduce the feel of Saw. The editing tries to duplicate what made Saw so good, but it falls flat, and feels completely forced. There is no suspense, no climax, almost no notable parts, and there are very few surprises. The best part of the whole franchise Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) is stuck in a bed, and his awesome performance definitely does not make up for this film's lack of...everything. The ending is just as anemic as the film itself. I was completely and utterly disappointed with how this film turned out. You simply cannot make a good movie if you completely disregard the need for PLOT and CHARACTERS. Darren Lynn Bousman, close, but no cig...uh wait, it wasn't even close! If this series continues, they need to bring Wan back, and they need to do a prequel so that we can see Jigsaw (the only saving grace of the Saw movies) at his finest, and not in a damn bed.
23 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Twisted, Unrealistic and Repulsive - Pathetic
imelman15 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
A few things about this whole "Saw" series that I hate: 1. The repulsive attempt to support the belief that Jigsaw is not a murderer - in all these movies. Unfortunately some people believe in this nonsense, which is enough to convince me that in these days many people's minds are simply warped and rotten beyond understanding.

2. The claim of these movies that Jigsaw is just trying to help people and all the folks simply cannot make use of the great chance they were given. Yeah, it is a piece of cake to cut through your eye and look for whatever is hidden in your flesh if you have as much time as one minute. I must also admit that it is a good way to teach somebody not to sham illness and skip work by covering him in flammable substance, poisoning him, giving him a candle to look for something not really possible to find (Mark Rodriguez in "Saw").

3. I also hate the whole attempt to present the plot of this disastrous trilogy as something really realistic and possible. From what I have read, I can conclude that there are dozens of things in all the three movies that clearly show that it is all based on the audience's lack of specialist knowledge (e.g. technical or medical knowledge) and uncritical reception of what is shown. Do not understand me wrong, I do not want to slate e.g. a fantasy novel just because I do not believe in magic but because e.g. no character should be "too" exempt from the rules that apply to others. I can tolerate that in some movies characters do pretty impossible things but that is the convention of some genres. However, "Saw" tries to present Jigsaw as some genius whose work is perfect. However, if there is to be no flaw, every detail of the story should be preceded by research by the „Saw" crew.

4. Especially low, primitive and disgusting is this showing every possible detail - severed limbs and the trapped people agony. Particularly shocking was the last scene of "Saw 3" - the disfigured corpse of Lynn. Why is it shown? Certainly for gruesome entertainment of numerous freaks because a moment before we can see Jeff turning his head from the shotgun collar blast, which clearly tells us that the trap worked. Choosing somebody's corpse without head for the last thing we see in a film is utterly devoid of any sense or aesthetic value. Moreover, it is obvious that something unshown, unknown and unexplained (unexplained but not illogical ) is much more scary and fascinating than something fully visible and plain e.g. the thing killing people in Stephen King's short story „Raft". It proves what the purpose of "Saw 3" and the two other movies of the cycle is: to get as many people to the cinema as possible. I would not be so critical of these movies if they were just slashers but they pretend to be something more.

To conclude, this trilogy is a cheap way for some people to get a lot of cash and media attention
31 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
this movie doesn't deliver....
thricefinch31 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The plot is weak, the gore is weak, the characters are weak and nothing really has a purpose in the movie other than to make people with queasy stomachs want to throw up. As a horror fan, knowing what i know about the genre, this movie is just meant to shock people. The situations the people are put in are not clever, and they are elaborate and ridiculous. They "explain" why the murders seem to be pointless in the movie later, but it still doesn't make it any more entertaining. The most gruesome part is when one character performs surgery on Jigsaw. Horror fans, don't go see this movie unless you're in a bad mood and want to have something to complain about. For everyone else, it may provide some gross stuff to make you a little squirmy but thats about it. It hasn't got a clever twist at the end like the first two. The second movie was bad but at least it had a fun twist at the end.
22 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Same old story.
grizzlesticks1 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie stunk. I loved the first two, but this one was terrible. It gave away some of the secrets from Saw 1 and 2. This one actually diminished the first two pictures. This movie is too predictable. There's a little twist at the end, but nothing like the surprises at the end of the first two. The whole plot deals with Amanda, but Jigsaw is the real star of the series. The fact that he is an ancillary character just ruins it for me. The final sequence is terrible and predictable. You should probably see it just for the sake of completeness, but it's easily the worst of the 3 movies, and is a shameful end to the trilogy.
26 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Still going good...
silentcheesedude27 October 2006
Surprise! There is a horror series that holds up well, even on the second sequel.

It's difficult to explain the plot in any detail without ruining the storyline, so instead, I give you small chunks. A doctor must keep Jigsaw alive. If he dies, so does she. A grieving father must decided what he will do when confronted with the people that changed his life for the worse. Saying anything else about the story line is just criminal.

Like the 2 movies before it, difficult decisions and some nasty secrets become a part of a much larger plan. It manages to explain events in Saw 1 and 2 that may have been considered plot holes. It spins the whole concept of the Jigsaw character and what he represents, and the message he is trying to say. By carefully placing events from the past in a certain order, and by introducing important sequences of the character's lives, Saw 3 manages to become a pivotal point to the series. It's not perfect, though. Constant flashbacks to memories becomes a bit tiresome. Some of the dialog could be a combination of dry, repetitive, or dumb, or all of the above. And oh yes, there will be the improbable & illogical. Big critics will focus on this, and consider the movie a waste of time.

Of course, you can toss out the psychological-babble, tell the critics to go back to their coke snorting, and just have fun watching the movie as pure horror. Of the three, this is ultimately the most bloodiest. Those of low tolerance of gore, medical procedures and general dismemberment beware: the movie theater I went to here in Winter Springs had one movie-goer faint and fall to the floor. They had to temporarily stop the movie and take her outside, an ambulance came, and took her away. Even with this interruption, the movie kept everyone awake, wanting to see more. By the end of the movie, the audience clapped. We liked what we had seen. "What has the world come to?", you say? Geez. You are in the wrong place. I'm sure there will be some Disney movie to your liking.

The traps were clever, original, and far, far deadlier this time around. To me, it beats out any psycho with a knife/ax/chainsaw crap movie that has been pumped out too many times. It's a shame that Saw producer Gregg Hoffman passed away before this movie was produced.
231 out of 394 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
this movie makes no sense
KBateman-125 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
OK so here is my problem with Saw III. First off, we are supposed to see this Jigsaw guy as some kind of "spiritual healer" for people whose lives are in disarray. He takes people who have some sort of problem (note: the word problem is very loosely adapted in these films - according to jigsaw, a woman who is having marital problems needs to go through a deathtrap) and tries to help them "heal" themselves.

Makes sense?? Not really, but I will go with it anyways. In Saw III, the FINAL trap involves 4 people (including Jigsaw) but is really that crazy girl's game (even though she is Jigsaw's sidekick). OK, so Jigsaw says that he "despises murderers." Really Jigsaw?? Well you just included two innocent people in one of your games to teach some crazy drug-addict a lesson about anger management.

The one guy's "problem": he was upset that his son was killed in an accident.

His wife's "problem": her marriage went sour after the accident occurred and she was having an affair. Both seem pretty innocent to me. But wait, they need to learn a "lesson." I know it is just a movie, but the series has really lost its way from the original script. Saw 1 was not a good movie. It had horrible acting. BUT it had a decent script and a pretty good story line.

Now the Saw series is about the producers or screenwriters (whoever thinks up this crap) thinking up 4 or 5 deathtraps and then later filling in some lame story line. What we are left with is still horrible acting, except now an equally bad storyline.

Think its time to put this puppy to bed, Saw creators
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews