Jigsaw (2017)

DIRECTED BY

The Spierig Brothers

STARRING

Matt Passmore - Logan Nelson

Callum Keith Rennie - Det. Halloran

Cle Bennett - Det. Keith Hunt

Hannah Emily Anderson - Eleanor Bonneville

Laura Vandervoort - Anna

Mandela Van Peebles - Mitch

Paul Braunstein - Ryan

Brittany Allen - Carly

Tobin Bell - John Kramer/ Jigsaw

Genre - Horror/ Survival

Running Time - 92 Minutes

PLOT (from IMDB):

Bodies are turning up around the city, each having met a uniquely gruesome demise. As the investigation proceeds, evidence points to one suspect: John Kramer (Tobin Bell), the man known as Jigsaw, who has been dead for ten years.

REVIEW

I’m sure modern audiences barely remember, but the SAW franchise was a big deal for the horror scene throughout the mid-to-late 2000s. It introduced us to James Wan and Leigh Whannell. It made Tobin Bell’s Jigsaw character a pop culture icon. And it helped create that annoying term, “torture porn”, for horror films where sadistic killers used elaborate traps to murder their victims. The first SAW from 2004 is a modern horror classic in my opinion due to its stylish direction, inventive storytelling, and a twist that everyone should have some coming but somehow we never did. The sequels have had their ups and downs. In fact, the original intended trilogy is still some great stuff. The last few sequels were pretty much just cash grabs - except you SAW VI, we still love you. 2010’s SAW 3D: THE FINAL CHAPTER [not] was a weak ending to a franchise that started with a really strong foundation. It proved that the series had been milked dry creatively and even financially, looking like a shell of its former self.

So it’s been seven years, and news about an 8th SAW film had been around for years. Considering how much time has passed and how the last SAW turned out, I was actually looking forward to a new SAW. Sure, a part of me wondered what the point of bringing the series back would be. Would Jigsaw even fit within the modern horror scene? Would audiences even care? But hey - if it could improve upon how the previous film had ended things, then why not? I mean, seven years is a long time to come up with new ideas to reinvent the franchise. JIGSAW has to be better than THE [not so] FINAL CHAPTER, right?

And after watching JIGSAW, yes - the 8th SAW film is better than both THE FINAL CHAPTER and SAW V. But it’s disappointing to see that no one thought about reinventing the wheel and making the series feel fresh. Instead, JIGSAW pretty much follows every other SAW sequel that exists - traps, red herring characters, and a convoluted twist that you’ll either admire, or roll your eyes at, for being ridiculous. I’m all for Lionsgate for wanting to bring the series back to make a profit. It’s just too bad I’m not all that eager to watch a new one if it ever comes to pass.

There are some good things about JIGSAW. I thought the Spierig Brothers did a great job behind the camera. Along with cinematographer Ben Nott, the Spierig Brothers give the film a more subtle visual presentation compared to the manic editing and yellow-green filters of the previous films in the series. It was nice to visually understand a SAW film for once, as the later sequels got too caught up in their style to be one-hundred percent coherent at times. It’s directed well, flows well, and the Spierig Brothers attempt to make a smaller scale SAW film look bigger and more expensive than it actually is. It’s not the greatest directed horror film ever, but JIGSAW is one of the better directed films in the series.

I also thought the acting was good. Everyone plays their roles well. Matt Passmore does a decent job as the leading man, Logan. Callum Keith Rennie is great as the lead investigator of the new murders, making you question where his loyalty lies at times. I also thought that of all the victims in the film, Laura Vandervoort did a solid job in creating a strong performance that has many subtle layers that start to unravel by the film’s end. Hannah Emily Anderson was also a fun performance as forensic pathologist Eleanor, who seems to be a fangirl for Jigsaw’s murders. And I love seeing Tobin Bell in anything, and his presence here is great as always. I thought this was one of the better acted SAW films.

And while the traps aren’t as memorable or as gory as the previous films, I did think the gore effects weren’t terrible. I thought the spinning cylinder trap was probably the highlight of the death traps really, as it brought some actual tension to the film. And the last trap with the head device surrounded by lasers was pretty neat as well, including watching a head split into multiple segments once the lasers strike.

But just like my gripes with 2017’s LEATHERFACE, it’s the narrative that brings JIGSAW down. You have seven years to come up with something fresh. So what do you do? You just do the same thing that the other films did! Talk about playing it safe just to make money. I was expecting something innovative somewhat, and it’s just the same film we’ve watched eight times already. Gory traps? Suspicious characters? Victims with a horrible backstory that make them less sympathetic as the film rolls through? A convoluted twist at the end that feels as if that’s the only reason the film exists? They’re all here. But I thought some of the previous sequels did these things much better in terms of execution. Some of the other sequels felt clever in their screenwriting. JIGSAW just feels forced when it comes to these things.

I’m kind of bummed that I’m even giving JIGSAW a less-than-positive review, since I actually like this franchise for the most part. Hell, I even liked JIGSAW more when I watched it. But after weeks of thinking about it, I felt more negative about it because I expected more out of it. Even if it was the worst SAW film because it was super different in terms of its approach, at least I could have appreciated it for trying something new. JIGSAW just feels underwhelming because it’s nothing we haven’t seen before in the franchise. And since it attempts to be a reboot, ignoring plot points from the previous films, the twist at the end was easy to figure out because they went to the tired-and-true storytelling that we saw in the first SAW. Sure, some of the victims’ backstories were interesting. And the new characters had interesting arcs at times. But it doesn’t change the franchise, or add anything new. And as much as I admire how they tried to sell us on the twist at the end, it honestly didn’t make any sense if you really think about it. It feels really forced. And if this twist is going to lead to more sequels, I may just wait until home video because how many times can I pay for the same thing but with a different cast? I know fans will love it, but horror has changed since THE FINAL CHAPTER. JIGSAW should have implemented some of that change and continued on that wave for potential future installments. Maybe they will if they ever do another one. But I think it may be too late by that point. But who knows - maybe Lionsgate will surprise us like they did with SAW VI back in 2009.

THE FINAL HOWL

Not the worst SAW film in the series, but still a pretty disappointing entry in the franchise. I commend the Spierig Brothers for bringing a nice, refreshing visual style compared to previous SAW films. I also thought some of the traps were cool and the acting was mostly solid. But it just feels like the same old SAW film we’ve seen seven times already - but more tame and with a twist that feels more forced than usual. After seven years, you’d think the producers would try something different - or at least twist the usual storytelling around to create something new. Fun at times, but JIGSAW doesn’t bring anything new to the table. Hopefully the next installment [if it happens] changes the formula a bit. But I’m not holding my breath on that. For fans only.

SCORE

2 Howls Outta 4

Midnight Confessions Ep. 14 - "Around the World in 12 Reviews: Week 2 - Australia-South Africa-Italy"

Join Rev. Phantom and I as we review movies from around the world. Week two of 'Around the World in 12 Reviews' features reviews of THE LOVED ONES (2009/Australia), NIGHT DRIVE (2010/South Africa) and MAYA (1989/Italy). Plus a discussion on Ozploitation and Italian Giallo.






 

Like "Midnight Confessions" Facebook Page: Midnight Confessions Podcast

Follow us on Twitter @MC_Podcast!

Subscribe on iTunes! - Midnight Confessions

The WTF? Worst Films Extravaganza Presents: The Tortured (2010)

DIRECTED BY
Robert Lieberman

STARRING
Erika Christensen - Elise Landry
Jesse Metcalfe - Craig Landry
Bill Lippincott - Galligan
Bill Moseley - John Kozlowski
Fulvio Cecere - Detective Berger
Thomas Greenwood - Ben Landry

Genre - Horror/Thriller/Revenge/Torture

Running Time - 80 Minutes


PLOT
Craig (Jesse Metcalfe) and Elise (Erika Christensen) Landry are distraught when their young son, Ben (Thomas Greenwood), is abducted right under Craig's nose while he was distracted. While the young couple pray for good news, their hopes are dashed when local police stumble upon Ben's deceased body at the hands of a pedophile named John Kozlowski (Bill Moseley). Things get worse when Kozlowski gets a light sentence of 25 to life with the eligibility of parole when he makes a deal to give information on the remains of his other victims. This doesn't please the Landrys at all.

Not understanding why their son didn't receive the justice they felt he deserved, Craig and Elise believe the best way to make sure justice is served is by kidnapping Kozlowski and then torturing him until he dies from it. As a doctor, Craig gathers drugs that will mess up the drivers of the vehicle transporting Kozlowski to prison. When it works, the Landrys take Kozlowski to a secluded cabin - strapping the killer down and torturing him with drugs, cigarette burns, and other tools at their disposal, not realizing that the police are close to figuring out the truth.

REVIEW

I have three words for THE TORTURED:

WHAT THE FUCK!?


HITS
- Erika Christensen. While the acting wasn't totally terrible in THE TORTURED [just uninspired], only Ms. Christensen seemed to understand what her role was and portrayed it convincingly enough. I'm not saying she's fantastic or anything, but at least I felt something as she grieved for her son and wanted revenge on the man who murdered him. The material she had to work with didn't help, to be honest, but Christensen made the most of what she was given and didn't go over the top to sell the character's confusion, frustration, and misery of the situation. So I'm spotlighting her for that.

- A promising first act. While not great, at least the first act tries to be unsettling and emotional as the parents realize their kidnapped child was murdered by a perverted psychopath. I do have issues with how it was presented, as the kidnapping happens BEFORE the film even starts and what led to it is shown in some sort of time-shift pattern that's unnecessary. But at least I understood what was going on, why the parents were frustrated [not only with the police, but with each other for not preventing the situation was occurring], and the scene where the body is found is pretty creepy and effective. Unfortunately once the issue of revenge comes into play after the sentencing, THE TORTURED falls apart and begins living up to its title. But it starts off well enough to engage you, even if it's not flawless.

- The torture scenes. THE TORTURED was produced by people involved with the SAW franchise, so you'd expect some graphic violence somewhere in the film. It's not as gory or inventive as what is seen in SAW, or even HOSTEL. But some moments do make you cringe, like the twisting of Kozlowski's foot, breaking his toes, and a scene where Craig cuts his stomach open with a scalpel and pulls out his intestines in front of him. There's nothing over the top about the graphic violence here. It's done in a pretty realistic looking way and there are some moments of tension during these scenes. I think these portions were the most effective part of THE TORTURED, even if it did make the film seem like a lesser version of THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT.


MISSES
- Jesse Metcalfe and Bill Moseley. I hate putting these two actors in the negative category, but their performances were either bland, or too hammy for me to take seriously. Unlike a lot of people, I don't mind Jesse Metcalfe so much. He's mainly a soap opera actor due to his good looks and narrow range in acting, but I respect that. And he does try hard here in THE TORTURED to make Craig seem like a sympathetic character. The problem is that his grieving is never convincing, as he makes just a sad face throughout and never seems to cry or break down like Christensen does with her role. And then to compensate for that, he likes to yell and act angry. I'm not sure if this was done in the script, or the director told him to behave like that, but Metcalfe as Craig seemed underwhelming and bland. I felt the role was majorly miscast.

As for Moseley, here's a great actor who is given a limited role that requires him to behave like Otis from HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES and THE DEVIL REJECTS, but x10. All he's required to do is scream at people and put on make up to dress like a princess. Nothing more, nothing less. Anyone could have portrayed this weak character, but obviously producers knew that Bill Moseley would sell the film to a hungry horror crowd. At least this performance is better than the one in SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT III - but anything is better than that.

- The direction. The presentation by Robert Lieberman isn't totally terrible. The film is shot well and has some touches of style - including a blue tint during the grieving scenes and having the happier moments be more colorful and saturated. But it's pretty bland besides a couple of scenes. When the police find Ben's body, it shot effectively. The torture scenes get somewhat tense as well. But other than that, Lieberman's direction is very basic, bland, and doesn't enhance the screenplay much at all. The time shifts in the first act aren't necessary, but at least they weren't confusing. The last two acts have really odd pacing at times. Lieberman also tries hard to make us feel for the situation by juxtaposing Elise's memory of giving birth to her son with finding out her son was found dead, with both scenes of her crying for obviously different reasons. This would be powerful if the script had allowed us to really get to know Elise's character. In some ways, it seems Lieberman is more focused on getting to the part of the film where the Landrys torture their son's murderer, since those scenes are shot the best and with the most confidence. Otherwise, it's a visually unremarkable film that doesn't distract or enhance the narrative much in any way.

- The last two acts. While the first act does a decent job setting up what's to come, the next two acts do a really lazy job taking the narrative to its conclusion. The middle act is pretty much the couple gearing up to kidnap Kozlowski so they can torture him. While this is the natural middle portion for this type of film, the way its done and presented is pretty laughable. The middle act is the act of convenience, as everything that occurs happens way too easily and without any sense of logic whatsoever. Since Craig is a doctor [a plot point that never comes to light in the first act], he steals drugs from the hospital he wants at. Since Elise is a real estate agent [a plot point that's briefly mentioned in the first act], she knows an abandoned place where they could hide the body. Now Craig and Elise decide to kidnap Kozlowski during his prison transfer by drugging the officer taking him there. How do they plan on doing this? By drugging the officer's coffee of course! It's ike they knew that this officer would stop for a cup of coffee at a store and allow Elise to add some toxins into the drink. They must be freakin' psychic! And how did this young couple know that once they stole the truck that had Kozlowski inside, their fingerprints would never be checked when they accidentally crash the vehicle? Someone must have called Miss Cleo! Seriously, everything happens way too easily because it's the only way the film could continue to the next plot point. It's not believable and comes across as cartoonish and amateurish.

As for the final act, it's just a young couple torturing this man to let go of some of their anger and grief for what he did to them. The couple seems to get off on it since they barely feel bad for doing this, even if the man is a scumbag. Hell, they have sex while the guy is screaming for help downstairs. They even see their son watching them with a smile as they physically decimate this creep.

This portion is supposed to bring up a theme of morality - making the couple question whether they're doing the right thing or not to this person. Sure they're angry about the sentencing, but does torturing and killing this man make things better for everyone involved? It might feel good temporarily, but it won't bring the son back and it could cost them their lives and careers for trying to be above the law. Craig questions their actions once in a blue moon to his wife, who seems more eager in the torturing. But it's never really explored and feels that it's in there because it's the question that has to be in a film like this. So the torture seems gratuitous rather than an extension of this morality theme because it's never developed at all. Do these characters understand what they're doing is wrong? I was never sure because they went right back into torturing the guy again.

And that's the main issue with THE TORTURED - the characters don't feel like people you can sympathize with. The fact that we learn about their occupations in the second act, when it's most convenient to know about what they do, proves that the story is not about knowing who these people are and why we should care about the extreme lengths they take in order to get vengeance for their dead son. I know nothing about their relationship with their son, although they seemed to be happy family. Elise and Craig blame each other briefly for Ben's death, but don't dwell on it and blame the authorities for not getting justice for them instead. Craig is on a 6-month break from his medical job, I'm guessing due to his son's death, but it's never said why. It's like watching the punchline without seeing the joke first. I don't care about these protagonists because the film never gives me the chance to.

Same goes with Kozlowski, who is a caricature of a serial killer. We know he's a child predator. We know he likes to dress up like a contestant from Toddlers & Tiaras. And he likes music. That's all I know and it's not enough. Even the cops in the film are one-dimensional. This script really needed another edit for some severe character development for the main characters. It made the viewing experience kind of dull and ineffective. It also made the twist sort of ridiculous as well because it was predictable and made Craig and Elise look like idiots for not seeing it sooner. Then again, it's not like I should care because the film doesn't want me to. What wasted potential for something decent.


THE FINAL HOWL
I really wanted to like THE TORTURED. It has decent actors. It has a premise and themes that could be really interesting if done right. And it was produced by those behind the SAW films - a franchise I don't hate as much as others. But THE TORTURED doesn't really have much to offer to any audience. Bland characters. A theme that never takes off. Generic direction. Plot points that feel forced rather than natural. If it weren't for a certain performance, decently shot tortured scenes, and a promising opening act, THE TORTURED would be more of a failure than it actually is. It's a shame because this could have been something really good. Instead, I think the only ones who will be tortured by this film are the people watching it. Pretty disappointed by this one big time.

SCORE
 
1 Howl Outta 4

Frontier(s) (2007)

DIRECTED BY
Xavier Gens

STARRING
Karina Testa - Yasmine
Aurelien Wilk - Alex
Jean-Pierre Jorris - Herr von Geisler
Patrick Ligardes - Carl von Geisler
David Saracino - Tom
Maud Forget - Eva
Samuel Le Bihan - Goetz
Chems Dahmani - Farid

Genre - Horror/Survival/Foreign

Running Time - 109 Minutes


With a lot of people being frustrated by the current state of U.S. mainstream horror due to the remake trend, they've been looking elsewhere for their horror fix. Some stay with the classics and are completely satisfied watching these films over and over. Others look into the independent horror scene, appreciating what unknown filmmakers are presenting with lesser budgets. And then there are those who watch horror from other countries. Either way, the horror fix is being satisfied in some way, shape, or form.

One of the major countries where horror has been appreciated currently is France. The buzz really began in 2003 with Alexandra Aja's HAUTE TENSION, which in turn led to 2006's ILS, 2007's INSIDE, and 2008's MARTYRS. Instead of presenting PG-13 horror for mainstream audiences, horror in France doesn't hold back, presenting very adult themes and massive ways of gore and violence that have been memorable to those who have seen these films [even to Hollywood studios who want to remake these films - 2008's THE STRANGERS was a quasi-remake of ILS while MARTYRS is being planned for an Americanized reimagining].

One of these French horror films that has gained a lot of attention is FRONTIER(S), a brutal survival horror film directed and written by HITMAN director, Xavier Gens. FRONTIER(S) had quite a journey to get released in the United States. After Dark Films had planned for the film to be part of its Horrorfest: 8 Films To Die For series in 2007, where it would have been shown in theaters with the other seven films. However, the MPAA rated the film NC-17, which caused the film to be pulled out of its theatrical release. The film was released on DVD a year later, where it gained an audience.

FRONTIER(S) is an interesting film compared to the other French horror that has been recently released. The film, while French in nature, pretty much takes the American horror template used in what's called "Backwoods Horror" such as DELIVERANCE (1972), THE HILLS HAVE EYES (1977), and especially THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974) as its main narrative to drive the film forward while being much more brutal and gorier than most TCM films. It's almost as if Xavier Gens wanted to prove a point that what works [quite constantly since a lot of horror films use the TCM formula] in the United States can also work in other countries, such as France. And while FRONTIER(S) isn't as good as the original Tobe Hooper classic, or as memorable as its other French horror counterparts, the film is still worth a look.

PLOT
Horrible riots have taken over Paris. A group of friends, who are now wanted after a robbery, run away from the riots and the local authorities to make sure their plan stays intact. Farid (Chems Dahmani) and Tom (David Saracino) are ordered to find a place to hide, while pregnant Yasmine (Karina Testa) and her on-and-off boyfriend Alex (Aurelien Wilk) take Yasmine's brother Sami (Adel Bencherif) to the hospital after he's been shot. Unfortunately, Sami dies the moment he makes it to the hospital, which catches the interest of the local police. Yasmine and Alex run away and take off to meet up with Farid and Tom, who are staying at a countryside hostel. What they fail to realize that the people who own this hostel are really Neo-Nazis, who eat human flesh and impregnate the women they capture in order to create a "pure-blood" race to continue the family legacy.

REVIEW
FRONTIER(S), like I mentioned, is pretty much by-the-numbers THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE but in Paris, France instead of Paris, Texas. While the template for me is a bit tired [you have no idea how many horror films I have watched that have used the TCM model], at least it's interesting to see a French version of it. Still, compared to HAUTE TENSION [which had a memorable plot twist that people still debate about] and MARTYRS [a film that really did things outside the proverbial box], FRONTIER(S) comes off a bit generic and "been there, done that". Still, at least FRONTIER(S) uses the template well enough to be more than watchable.

FRONTIER(S) is a pretty predictable film with a pretty predictable narrative. If you've seen THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE and you've seen HOSTEL, then you've probably seen this film. It's easy to figure out what's going to happen in the film: A group of strangers go into the country, find a place to stay at that's run by eccentric characters who happen to be Nazi cannibals who want to kill them. And who stays alive the longest in the film? Well since there's only one girl protagonist in the film, I'll give you a guess. While the journey getting there is always fun, and especially bloody and gory, you still get a sense that you've seen this film before. But horror is hardly original these days, so I should commend Xavier Gens to choosing a great film to base FRONTIER(S) on. But I wish there could have been more surprising elements in play to really make the film stand out beyond its country of origin. Having a character hang by hooks and another character sitting with the family at dinner as they eat human flesh isn't exactly thrilling like it used to be. I'll watch the original THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE for that.

The most interesting thing about the narrative is the backdrop that deals with the riots. Apparently, there's a bunch of civil unrest going on due to race and class, which makes our protagonists quickly interesting since they're all Middle-Eastern in some capacity. It also makes their struggle with the Neo-Nazis believable, since it's obvious these two group of people would never get along for an reason. However, the backdrop just happens to be an afterthought for much of the film. The Nazis are not responsible for the riots, so this political and social angle doesn't apply to the main plotline. The only time we hear about the riots is when the characters watch television or play the radio, which is not very often at all. I think it does make the issue between the opposite sides a bit more effective since the riots are about race, but the backdrop could have really brought about a nice commentary about race and class differences that could have easily made this film stand out more than it actually does. As a matter of fact, if you take away the backdrop, FRONTIER(S) wouldn't change all that much as a film except shortening the running time. Talk about a lost opportunity.

The race issue is also flawed due to the Nazis themselves. The father of the family wants to impregnate Yasmine [before he finds out she's already pregnant] to keep his family going. The problem with this is that the "pure blood" spiel the man and the rest of the family seem to hold in such high regard makes that plan unbelievably flawed. I really doubt that any Nazi would want to procreate with a person who is not "pure", since breeding someone who isn't considered "perfect" would go against their code of honor. Maybe they were desperate to keep the family growing, so they decided to take in anyone, I don't know. But it really doesn't make sense and it's never really explained why this family is so focused on making Yasmine part of the family. Impregnate her? Maybe. But make her one of them, knowing she doesn't fit in their portrait of perfection? I don't really buy it. And it's not really explained either, which doesn't help.

Also it's kind of hard to make your characters likeable when they start acting like assholes at the beginning of the film. For one, they stole money from somewhere, apparently for Yasmine's abortion [an angle that's strangely dropped for 75 percent of the film]. Then they argue for minutes to the point that it gets somewhat annoying. Then they end up doing stupid things that makes me want to walk inside the television and kick them in the balls for being idiots. At least Yasmine and Farid are developed enough to root for. Yasmine is established as the Final Girl of the film - a character who is pregnant by someone who seems to want nothing to do with her [even though he does but won't admit it], her brother is shot and killed, and ends up being tortured by Nazis to assimilate her into their family. Farid, on the other hand, seems to be the moral center of the group. He won't sleep with any of those Nazi sluts because he has a girlfriend [which I'm not sure is true or not] and is actually active in terms of trying to save his friends and trying to escape. The other members of their group are too selfish for their own good, even though Alex changes due to circumstance, so it's easy to see why they would become victims. Hell, I thought the villains had a ton more personality than our "heroes". The father had a real presence of power. The sibling rivalry between the children for who would claim their father's throne was interesting. And they all had different characters where you could tell them apart. Is it bad that I wanted the villains to succeed here? No, I'm not a Nazi. I just like colorful characters, and the protagonists were anything but.

What really makes the film work is the brutality. There is a lot of blood and gore in FRONTIER(S), which helps differentiate from other films following the same type of storyline. The buzzsaw scene is pretty gruesome. We have someone getting hung by hooks through their ankles in a vicious visual. People get cut open. People get stabbed and shot. Fingers get chopped off. There's also a very memorable scene where one character gets burnt to death in a steam room as his face melts. There's a lot of violence similar to stuff we have seen in torture porn films. But it works and actually enhances the story. I thought the SFX and make up teams did a really good job here.

Xavier Gens definitely directs a better film in FRONTIER(S) than he would later with HITMAN. His visual style is very energetic and enthusiastic. There's a lot of shaky cam during the more action-filled scenes, which actually enhance the viewing experience rather than it causing a distraction. The colors are vibrant and the editing is very solid. He also brings a ton of tension and suspense to the film, especially during the final act and during a scene that could have been taking out of THE DESCENT where Farid encounters people inside a mine in night vision from his camera. The soundtrack is also very solid and really captures the oppressive feel of the movie. FRONTIER(S) is nothing we haven't seen before, but Gens still manages to direct a fine film here.

The acting stands out in FRONTIER(S). All the actors are great in their roles, but Karina Tests was the highlight as Yasmine. I really bought every emotion she put into her character, from being distraught, to being scared, to being confused, and finally to being angry and determined to make these Nazis pay. It's a really great performance that deserves a look. Chems Dahmani as Farid was also pretty solid, as well as the actors playing the family of Nazis. I truly believed these actors believed in the situation they were going through. That's some fine work right there.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE CHOOSING TRUE BLOOD OVER PURE BLOOD

- The female lead character is named Yas and she's pregnant. For someone named after a contraceptive for birth control, she sure didn't live up to it!

- Don't trust women who force you into sex. They're either diseased whores, serial killers who use their sexuality, or actually men posing as women. Either way, there's gonna be blood in your urine.

- One of the Nazis called Farid a "half-breed" due to his ethnicity. That's all he's ever heard. That's how he learned to hate the word. Both sides were against him since the day he was born.

- Yas and Alex tried to pull the chains off the wall to free themselves. Unless they're Dokken, they're probably wasting their time.

- There was a ton of arguing and violence during the family dinner. Who said that a Nazi cannibalistic family wasn't normal?

THE FINAL HOWL
While I find other modern French horror films to be better than FRONTIER(S), the movie is still worth a watch to see how a French director takes an American horror premise and gives it a foreign flavor. The acting, direction, and the brutality are highlights, while the narrative leaves a bit more to be desired. Not the most original horror film out there, but at least it's made well and it's entertaining for the most part, even if a bit a depth could have truly had FRONTIER(S) live up to its potential.


SCORE
3 Howls Outta 4

Saw: The Final Chapter [Saw 3D/Saw VII] (2010)

DIRECTED BY
Kevin Greutert

STARRING
Costas Mandylor - Detective Mark Hoffman
Betsy Russell - Jill Tuck
Tobin Bell - John Kramer/Jigsaw
Sean Patrick Flanery - Bobby Dagen
Chad Donella - Detective Matt Gibson
Gina Holden - Joyce Dagen
Cary Elwes - Dr. Lawrence Gordon

Genre - Horror/Torture Porn/Sequel

Running Time - 94 Minutes


Ever since 2004 until 2010, a SAW film has graced our movie screens each October. What started as an indie horror film by two Australian filmmakers about a dying man putting sinful people in brutal traps as a twisted version of morality play turned into one of the biggest horror franchises of all time. It changed the face of horror forever and brought about the unofficial horror sub-genre known as "torture porn". The Jigsaw villain has become a horror icon that fits well with Michael, Jason, Leatherface, and Freddy before him.

Unfortunately, Lionsgate milked a creative little horror film by extending its story much longer than it had any right to be. While SAW could have been a fantastic standalone film, SAW II and SAW III were still surprisingly effective horror sequels that bought us into the insight of Jigsaw and his reasoning towards his horrible actions. The original SAW trilogy is one of my favorite set of horror films from a single franchise because it told a great story and ended it on a high note. But then SAW III made a ton of cash, which had Lionsgate rushing to continue to story [even though Jigsaw had already passed away]. SAW IV and SAW V were pretty sub-par films, with Detective Hoffman [one of Jigsaw's many apprentices] continuing Jigsaw's legacy while confusing the hell out of SAW fans with illogical plot twists and uninteresting characters. And even though SAW VI was surprisingly strong for a sixth entry in a franchise [and a good sequel, I gotta admit], the box office numbers couldn't lie - fans were losing interest and were looking elsewhere - most specifically PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2.

So in 2010, after seven films, SAW was finally "finished" with SAW: THE FINAL CHAPTER [a.k.a. SAW VII or SAW 3D]. Lionsgate, finding decent success with the 3D trend with its remake of MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3-D, decided it would use the invention to send off the franchise to horror hell. While SAW 3-D was number one for its opening weekend, it still couldn't compete with PARANORMAL ACTIVITY's building audience. Fans had definitely moved on and got tired of Jigsaw's traps and twist endings.

But seriously guys, there's no such thing as "Final" in horror films. Freddy had a "Final" film and he ended up starring in three more films after that. Hell, Jason had TWO "Final" films and is still kicking. As long as money talks and bullshit walks, horror franchises won't die. They just get rebooted in five or ten years. So how "Final" is this SAW chapter? More importantly, is the film even worth watching? You've got sixty seconds to close this page before my review blows up in yo' face!

PLOT
Picking up right from the ending of SAW VI, pissed off Detective Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) realizes he's been nothing but a pawn in John "Jigsaw" Kramer's (Tobin Bell) game after he escapes a head trap placed on him by Jigsaw's wife, Jill Tuck (Betsy Russell), who's supposed to clean all of her husband's loose ends. Hoffman, now consumed with power and having nothing to lose, decides to hunt down Jill and kill her.

Meanwhile, Bobby Dagen (Sean Patrick Flanery) is promoting his self-help book that details the trials and turbulations that comes with being one of Jigsaw's surviving victims. After a meeting with other Jigsaw survivors, including Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes), Dagen and his wife (Gina Holden) are put in vicious traps that end up revealing that Dagen may not have exactly been all that honest about his ordeal in what may be Jigsaw's final game.

REVIEW
SAW: THE FINAL CHAPTER [or SAW VII, as I'll call it for the rest of the review] is another pointless sequel in the franchise that doesn't really try to extend the Jigsaw story as much as it attempts to tie up loose ends that started in the original SAW. I feel for the most part that the film does accomplish that, ending major arcs while keeping smaller ones open in case another sequel arises. And while the film is a decent and entertaining sequel at times, SAW VII also shows how dry this franchise has truly become and why it should have ended four films ago.

SAW VII's screenplay, written by returning contributors Marcus Dunston and Patrick Melton, is actually fairly simple to understand compared to the previous entries in the franchise, even though it has two plots running through it. The sub-plot of SAW VII actually involves the characters we've been forced to watch since SAW IV, Jill Tuck and Detective Hoffman. It's funny that the main characters in previous chapters are now made to be supporting characters [rather cameos] in the finale. Why were we made to care about these characters again? Anyway, the conclusion to their rivalry is pretty satisfying, although very predictable [much like the rest of this film]. It doesn't take much of the film's time, and although it doesn't connect to the other plot until the very end, it's not a time waster or filler either. So I'm glad these two characters get their last hurrah and all, not that most audiences really cared to begin with. After all, Jill and Hoffman are no Jigsaw, Dr. Gordon, Amanda, or anyone else that were in the first three films. But they should have been the main characters and not treated as afterthoughts. Hell, Jigsaw was barely in the film for five minutes in a cameo! What the hell?

The main narrative of SAW VII involves Bobby Dagen's "game". Now I have to admit - I thought the writers did a good job with the Bobby character. He had a small, but effective little backstory that led to a good understanding as to why he lied about being one of Jigsaw's victims. Understandably, karma would bite him in the ass for that, which led to the game he had to endure to save his friends [who knew the truth] and his wife [who didn't]. The character was simple and actually realistic, which helped keep my interest and see how he would come out of all this, or if he would at all. Unfortunately, Bobby's wife and friends weren't really all that developed [more so the friends than the wife], making me not really care what happened to these characters [they were fodder anyway]. Also, I don't know if it was smart to make this new character our lead since our characters in the film had larger build up and should have been featured more. If it was just a regular sequel, it wouldn't have bugged me as much. But this is supposed to be the final entry to a huge horror franchise! You're supposed to bring everything together that was established in the first film and tie up loose ends, not introduce new people that really shouldn't be the main characters. If it was a supporting story, that's fine. But it should not have been the focus.

Speaking of new characters, the character of Detective Matt Gibson was one of the worst horror characters I have seen in quite a while. Not only was he really annoying, I thought his backstory was lame and how he carried himself was really unbelievable. And this guy was supposedly our main protagonist? It was bad enough he was part of one sub-plot, but he ended up being in BOTH! This dude should have been the first victim of the film, just so I wouldn't have dreaded his constant presence. I thought the bland characters in SAW V were bad, but this dude was, by far, the worst SAW character ever created. Wow.

As for the return of old favorites, I felt that Dr. Gordon and John Kramer himself were given the shaft. Kramer was barely in the film to begin with, which really made this film feel less SAW-like because of it. Even in death, I always felt his character brought new insight as to why things were presently happening. You don't really get that sense in this installment. And while it was nice to see Dr. Gordon make his return after learning what happened to him since the events of the original SAW, there was hardly anything done with him. Yes he was brought back for a very predictable reason, even if it didn't make a whole lick of sense, but there should have been more of him to make his arc more effective. I see the lack of usage for each character as wasted opportunities for more logical story progression.

The real reason as to why these SAW films even exist is for the death traps. And while they weren't the greatest traps presented in the franchise, they did enough to satisfy gorehounds. I thought the four-victim [hey, isn't that the guy from Linkin Park?] car accident was pretty cool [there was some nice gore effects here], as well as the spikes through the eyes and mouth, and the always fun victim getting cut in half. The hanging death was a bit bland though, even though the game that led up to it was pretty tense and quite humorous in a sick way. And what about that oven that looked like it came from a TRANSFORMERS flick? I couldn't stop laughing at how that was even set up. At least I was entertained by it.

My favorite trap had to be one that took place in public, involving a love triangle between two friends who were being used by the same girl. It brought the saw back in SAW, and I thought it was not only well filmed, but tense and suspenseful at the same time. And the result of the trap was very cool as well. Too bad the trap felt so out of place. Not only did the characters or this game never get mentioned for the rest of the film, it went against what Jigsaw was known for. He would have never let this game take place in front of an audience. He wanted people to fight for survival as a way to repent their sins and appreciate what they have in their lives. This trap was just meant to be sadistic and cruel. I felt most of the traps were done for this reason instead of making victims see the error of their ways. But maybe that's just me.

Kevin Greutert returns from SAW VI to direct THE FINAL CHAPTER. It has its moments. The film is excellently paced and has a lot of energy, especially during the trap sequences. The editing was good, but the film looked really cheap to me for some reason. I'm sure most of the budget went to the 3D process used to film this movie [which was actually shot in 3D and not converted in post-production], but that's no excuse for your final film to look more low budget than the original film, which was actually low budget. It looked like a TV-movie that could have aired on SyFy. It doesn't effect the enjoyment of the film in any way, but I would think you would want to go all out if it's the last film of the franchise. Maybe Greutert was pissed about being contractually obligated to direct this than the film he really wanted to direct, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2. From what I hear about PA 2, Greutert directed the better film, even if it did make less money.

The acting was mixed for me. Let's just get the good stuff out of the way first. Sean Patrick Flanery was really good as Bobby Dagen. I always liked Flanery as an actor, and he took a character I shouldn't have cared all that much about and turned him into a three-dimensional person who knew he was wrong in what he did but had to suffer for it. I thought he was solid in the role and I bought every emotion he put into the character's story. I also thought Gina Holden, as Joyce Dagen, was also pretty good as well. She didn't really have much of a character but I enjoyed Holden's performance as the confused and terrified wife. So props to both of them.

In the middle of the road - Costas Mandylor was okay as Hoffman. I hated him in the earlier SAW sequels, but he started to grow on me in SAW VI. He doesn't do much in this film, but he does it well. Tobin Bell gets five minutes [what shame] as Jigsaw, but he's always solid. And Cary Elwes as Dr. Gordon was a welcome return, with his overacting and fluctuating accent.

The worst actors were Betsy Russell and especially FINAL DESTINATION's Chad Donella. I usually like Russell, especially in her SAW films, but I don't know what happened here. It was like she didn't care and just wanted out. Also during her chase scenes, she ran away from Hoffman in almost a cartoonish way. I thought I was watching Anna Faris in a SCARY MOVIE film, but it was actually Russell looking like a fool wailing her arms and screaming. Maybe it was Greutert's direction, but I just laughed at her reactions to things rather than sympathizing. That's a huge problem. As for Donella as Detective Gibson - sigh, what a horrible performance. He came across as whiny and very unconvincing. He was truly irritating and a chore to watch. Whoever cast him needs to be fired and fast!

THE FINAL HOWL
SAW: THE FINAL CHAPTER is an average "finale" to a horror franchise that many people stopped caring about years ago. Still, I stayed loyal and watched it from its strong beginning, to its weak middle, and to its okay conclusion. It has decent traps, a simple double narrative, and some good visual style. Too bad the story was flawed and the acting was uneven. And even though it's final, I'm sure we'll see another SAW film down the line soon. After all, evil never dies - especially when it makes you bank. This game is over...for now. And I, for one, couldn't be happier.


SCORE
2 Howls Outta 4

Neighbor (2009) [Video Review]

DIRECTED BY
Robert A. Masciantonio

STARRING
America Olivo - The Girl
Christian Campbell - Don Carpenter
Lauren Rooney - Elizabeth Hitchcock
Pete Postiglione - Mike Hodder
Joe Aniska - Sam Landis

Genre - Horror/Torture Porn/Indie

Running Time - 90 Minutes


A torture porn film with a hot chick doing the torturing and mutilating a penis. I don't think she should be in charge of the Neighborhood Watch meetings anymore...

Watch the video for my thoughts on NEIGHBOR.

The WTF? Worst Films Extravaganza Presents: Train (2008)

Another video review so soon? It's more fun than just writing about a film. Here's another WTF? review for TRAIN, the former proposed remake of 1980's TERROR TRAIN. While not as bad as STAN HELSING, I won't be stepping onto this TRAIN again anytime soon. Enjoy!

Saw VI (2009)

DIRECTED BY
Kevin Greutert

STARRING
Tobin Bell - John Kramer/Jigsaw
Costas Mandylor - Detective Mark Hoffman
Betsy Russell - Jill Tuck
Peter Outerbridge - William Easton
Mark Rolston - Agent Dan Erickson
Athena Karkanis - Agent Lindsay Perez
Shawnee Smith - Amanda
Tanedra Howard - Simone

Genre - Horror/Torture Porn

Running Time - 93 Minutes

Score - 3 Howls Outta 4


Continuing a modern Halloween tradition, SAW VI was met with not much fanfare when it was released in theaters back in October 2009. The box office soured on it, mainly because it's another SAW sequel [many of us have been tired of this franchise like two movies ago], and because of the overhyped phenomenon known as PARANORMAL ACTIVITY taking away all the attention SAW VI was after. Even though two more SAW films were announced before the release, many wondered whether Lionsgate should even bother.

Unlike the other SAW films, I didn't see SAW VI in a theater. I wasn't a big fan of the last two films and felt my money would be better spent on something else. If I had wanted to watch a SAW film around Halloween time, I'd just pop in my DVDs of SAW 1 through III. So I waited six months after its theatrical release to sit down and actually watch it on DVD, having very low expectations. After all, it's a fifth sequel and SAW V was a really bland and pointless film. Surprisingly, SAW VI was an entertaining and smart film that actually breathed new life into this dying franchise. But is it too late?

PLOT
Detective Mark Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) is still carrying on John Kramer's (Tobin Bell) work as Jigsaw, putting people in deadly traps so they can value life after taking advantage of it. In a twist of events, it seems Hoffman has been working together with Kramer's wife, Jill Tuck (Betsy Russell) - both wanting to carry out Kramer's final wishes, although in different ways. Jill was left an assignment in Kramer's will, but Hoffman [finding out about it] wants to take total control of the mission, leaving Jill bitter.

The assignment? To kidnap William Easton (Peter Outerbridge), who is the Chief Executive Officer of a medical insurance company called Umbrella [ella, ella, ay ay ay] Health. Easton is placed in a series of traps that attempt to teach him that he shouldn't play God with people's lives, especially when his family is involved.

At the same time, a returning Agent Lindsay Perez (Athena Karkanis) and Agent Dan Erickson (Mark Rolston) are close to figuring out who's behind the current Jigsaw murders, making Hoffman concerned about the truth coming out.

Wow, that kind of made sense. Is this really a SAW film?

REVIEW
SAW VI ended up being a better viewing experience than I was expecting - WAY better. After the uber-confusing SAW IV and the bland SAW V, I had pretty much given up on this franchise. But SAW VI kind of brought back some of the elements that I enjoyed in the original SAW trilogy, making SAW VI a standout in a long winded franchise. In fact, I can honestly say that SAW VI is the best SAW flick since SAW III, which isn't saying a whole lot.

I think what makes SAW VI more watchable than the last two installments is that the narrative carries the film instead of the traps carrying the film and the narrative. Writers Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan [who wrote SAW IV and SAW V, as well as FEAST] bring in a humanistic aspect to the story that makes the viewer connect to what's going on right away. It's ironic that I watched this film after the historical health care deal in America, but the idea of making health insurance big wigs the victims of Jigsaw's current traps is pretty genius. It's an issue most of us can relate to and seeing how much of a business it is that seems to hurt more people than help them, you can't help but root for Jigsaw to prevails over these bastards. This storyline definitely gives SAW VI a thematic resonance that some of the others failed to accomplish. There's an actual legitimate and logical reason why Jigsaw does what he does here, making the narrative much stronger. Before, we had to watch victims make choices in order to survive. Now, we have to watch someone who thought he was God actually make choices on who lives and who dies. Why this wasn't done in SAW IV or even SAW V is beyond me?

The character development was also a lot stronger here than in the past two SAW films. The William Easton character, in particular, had several layers that I was able to relate and distance myself from him. While he did bad things as the head of a health insurance company, declining sick, dying people due to their status financially or for whatever reason, I could also see where he was coming from. He's a businessman. He has to make money and do whatever it takes to make sure of that, even if the things he does are morally questionable. So in a way, he's a douche but he's also a human being. So I enjoyed the struggle during his "game" because it was then that he realized that being in charge of people's lives was more than about making money. It was about saving your own soul.

I also enjoyed the development of the recurring characters. John Kramer may be dead, but the flashbacks that continue to show his descent into the Jigsaw persona are always interesting. I still believe that Jigsaw is one of the most interesting horror movie villains of all time. He does bad things but we're behind him when he does them. He makes me question morality and whether or not I would do the exact same thing if I were in his shoes. His arc made sense to what was happening and I dug it. Same goes to Jill Tuck, who hasn't had much of anything to do besides star in flashbacks with Jigsaw, revealing that she was the catalyst for his descent. I had always wondered if she knew about what her husband was up to and we get the answer in this installment. While she could have been in the film more, her scenes were very effective and added to the narrative rather than deter from it. And then we have Hoffman, who I've made very clear in my SAW IV and SAW V reviews that I'm not a fan of. But somehow, I enjoyed watching him in this installment. Maybe it's because he actually had something meaningful to do for a change and I could understand his goals. Also, the flashbacks with him, Jigsaw, and Amanda told a lot and answered a lot of questions I had about this trio. Instead of being used as an afterthought in the other films, he finally felt like a true villain here. I'm actually curious now what will happen with him in SAW VII. Damn you, screenwriters!

I still think the dialogue is bland though. The way people speak is really silly to me, as if talking like human beings until they utter expositional dialogue to remind us who they are, how they're connected to other characters in the franchise, and why they do what they do. We get it, guys. You don't need to hammer us in the head about certain things. The horror audience isn't stupid. We can figure things out. But yeah, it's like watching a soap opera that's 70 percent summarizing and 30 percent moving things forward.

Speaking of soap operas, the direction by Kevin Greutert kind of makes it feel and look like one. I have to say... SAW VI looked really cheap to me. I don't know if it was the dreary cinematography [which I actually liked alot], the lack of gore [pretty tame for a SAW movie], the traps, or what. But I felt like the other installments were more big budget. That's not a bad thing, but it sort of threw me off a bit. Greutert does an okay job behind the camera. While the quick editing is still there [although not as much], it's pretty much a point-and-shoot affair. I do think the pacing was extremely well done, as it felt a lot shorter than it was [and this film was short to begin with], so that was a plus. There were some nice moments of suspense and tension as well, especially the opening and the ending. So yeah, not the best direction in the world but well enough for a SAW film, especially this late in the game.

The traps in SAW VI aren't as memorable as the traps in previous SAW films, but they serve their purpose. I thought the opening trap was definitely a throwback to the original SAW trilogy, where people had to cut off body parts just to survive. I actually cringed during the opening, especially during the limb amputation moments. I also thought the trap with the acid towards the end was really fucked up, but in a good way. I did think the hanging trap was interesting as a concept, but wasn't as memorable or as gory as it should have been. The shotgun merry-go-round was fun only because of the characters trying to convince Easton why he should give them mercy while bashing the other characters. It does seem that the SAW producers are running out of ideas, but these traps were definitely an improvement over the boring ones in SAW V. So that has to count for something.

The acting was your typical SAW fare. Tobin Bell still rocks as Kramer/Jigsaw. I could watch the guy in anything. He's a great actor who's interesting to watch and hear. Betsy Russell was good again as Jill Tuck. I wish they'd give her a bigger role but she does fine with what she's given. Peter Outerbridge did a nice job was Easton, making him unlikeable and sympathetic at the same time. His performance, especially while playing his "game", was very strong. And while I wasn't a fan in the previous films, Costas Mandylor sold me this time as Hoffman. I think the guy just needed better material to chew on, and he did a nice job when it finally happened. His smug demeanor and cold voice really added a lot to his character, especially when he actually did things that mattered. And it's always nice to see Shawnee Smith's cameo as Amanda. I still miss that crazy bitch.

One last thing - I loved the twist ending here. I was not expecting the reveal of the relationships between certain characters. I thought it was very clever and even the set up for SAW VII was pretty good. I'm just hoping it's the last one. Damn, that last sentence may be the funniest thing I've written in a while.

THE FINAL HOWL
I'm surprised to be writing this but I actually liked SAW VI more than I was expecting. The narrative was ambitious and made sense, the acting was decent, and the direction did enough to make this sequel better than it should have been. It's not as good as SAW or SAW III, but it's on par with SAW II. It's nice to see that the SAW series is finally moving somewhere interesting. I'm just wondering if anyone really cares at this point. I guess we will see this October with the release of SAW VII in 3-D.