'Saw III' isn't a focused entry into the series

Rating: Null/10 (26 January 2007)

Saw 3;; Jigsaw is back. The third installment picks up where the second left off, where we learned Amanda is part of Jigsaw's game. This time, she is appointed as his apprentice. This time, Jigsaw kidnaps a doctor to perform surgery on him in order to keep him alive, while Amanda kidnaps an unlucky man and puts him through an extremely twisted test.
I really liked the original Saw. I thought it was clever and atmospheric. Saw 2 retained a decent amount of the same elements while pumping up the gore factor. The problem with Saw 3 is how far it veers off course from the original two. Installments one & two had their share of gore, but didn't rely on the gore to make the movie. Saw 3 is all about gore shock-value. And I don't mean that in a complimentary fashion.
The plot literally feels like an excuse to string together a handful of shocking, gruesome death traps. The director has no intention whatsoever to keep the series ideas going, veering so off course, and paying so much attention to how much blood can spill and how many bones they can crack, you feel like you're strapped into a chair in an execution room, seeing person after person get brutally slaughtered.
Saw 3 does have it's strengths. The twist in the final sequence is surprising and satisfying, although it's an alarmingly weak set-up for the next installment. Acting is solid, and the film does have some creepy, well-done flashback sequences.
The beauty of the original Saw film was the gimmicky set-up was pulled off with ease. The second film had it's weaknesses, but improved on the plot of the original. The third film lacks focus on what originally made the Saw series a box-office smash. It focuses on what body part will get ripped off, burned, or torn apart more than it focuses on plot, direction or acting.
2 from 4.