Game over? You wish...

Rating: 6/10 (5 November 2008)

Saw II, while good, lacked the odd charm of the first installment by trying to be more complex, a fact that also derived from the previously unrelated script having been adjusted to fit in the franchise mythology. Saw III, which was written by "series" co-creator Leigh Whannell (and based, reportedly, on an idea by the first film's director/co-writer James Wan), was meant to finish the planned trilogy in a glorious way. That didn't happen, and sadly, the only one to blame is Whannell himself, despite his best efforts (he even manages to elicit some sympathy reprising his role as Adam in a harrowing flashback).
This time, Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) has reached the end line: his brain tumor has reduced him to near immobility, but since he still has one more game to play, he needs to stay alive for at least a few more hours. Hence his decision to have his apprentice Amanda (Shawnee Smith) kidnap Dr. Lynn Denlon (Sakar Boomekh), a surgeon who has to keep the killer alive while his plan is set in motion. The caveat: she has an explosive collar attached to her neck, meaning that if Jigsaw flat-lines, she dies as well. Meanwhile, Detective Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg) is still missing after being kidnapped in the previous film, and a guy named Jeff (Angus MacFadyen) has to face the toughest challenge of his life: he will cross paths with three people who were more or less directly involved in his son's death and, in pure Jigsaw tradition, he will have to choose whether to save them or not.
The moral question at the center of the Saw films has always been intriguing to say the least: if your life depended on it, would you sacrifice someone else? Saw III changes that format in that Jeff is in no immediate danger, but has to decide if those who are in such a situation deserve to survive. That idea is quite strong, and MacFadyen conveys the ambiguity required in those scenes with the right dose of doubt and desperation. Acting-wise, the other performances are as decent as one can expect from these movies, with Bell once again being the best of the lot, even when the role essentially demands nothing more than him lying on an operating table and explaining his view on life, death and the "necessity" of torture.
Even Bell's work, however, can't cover the weaknesses that emerge from Whannell's plotting: whereas the main storyline is, as said before, strong enough to justify the film, the flashbacks involving Wahlberg's character are nothing but a lame excuse for pointless brutality, swearing and Shawnee Smith screaming like a madman (or woman, more correctly). In fact, Smith's turn seems to have no real purpose for most of the movie (not that Amanda had any real depth previously, but that's another story). And that leads us to THE late-night conversation topic of choice when the Saw universe is involved: the final twist, which worked superbly in the first chapter, less successfully in the second and comes off as a major disappointment this time around, mainly because it contradicts Whannell's intentions - he set out to make the Saw films a complete trilogy (which is why he takes time to explain what many perceived as a plausibility error in the original movie), and yet it's obvious that his "definitive" epilogue was going to leave the door open for further installments.
As such, Saw III, while brilliantly filmed and appropriately upsetting, is the weakest link in what was meant to be a mere trilogy. There's almost a sense of cruel irony to the bit where Jigsaw, for the "last " time, says: "Game over.".
5,5/10