The best bit was the trailer for the Tenacious D flick

Rating: 3/10 (6 November 2006)

Nothing, as in a blackness, a depravity, a hole into which maladjusted deviants, masturbate their crippled humanity into twisted shapes of death.
Violence has it's place in cinema, in places it makes a film. Kill Bill, Dawn of the Dead, Irreversible, all those films and their genres benefit from a bit of blood. But it's blood with artistry. Those zombies didn't die in vain, the Crazy 88 Gang were slaughtered and we cared. But in Saw III, I just didn't care. Not one bit. I just sat wondering where can filmic violence can go? Now mainstream cinema can show 'wound shots' and other graphic, horrendous violence, where does it go next? I wondered whether the main protagonist women would have sex with the people she was killing. It might have raised an eyebrow. Or made me think I should raise an eyebrow. Because in actuality, I didn't care. And you shouldn't. Saw III crosses the line. But you shouldn't care to watch it. It's a dreadful film. People have been throwing up and passing out all in cinemas across the UK in vain. You come out feeling violated, but it's all for nothing, because it's no badge of honour that you've seen Saw III. It is a poor excuse for cinema. It's strange, I've never felt bored and violated at the same time, but that sums up my experience.
It doesn't even tie up the series, there's another one to endure. The first two had compelling enough plot lines, this was sadly lacking.Will there be a plot in the next film? Or just go for the shock effect, perhaps killing some children, or sexually abusing them? Saw III = Dull, incoherent toss.