MOVIE CONSENSUS Saw III does little beyond repeating its predecessor's tropes on a gorier level.
MOVIE SYNOPSIS In 2004, a low-budget horror film about a man who put people with moral failings into grisly, murderous situations became a huge hit. more...
MPAA RATING Not Rated, for strong grisly violence and gore, sequences of terror and torture, nudity and language.
RELEASE DATES Theatrical: Oct 27, 2006 Video: Jan 23, 2007
Create A Journal Want to see your friends' ratings and Tomatometer appear here? Create a journal and start rating films in your entries. Afterwards, invite your friends to do the same. It's FREE and only takes a couple minutes!
Ghost Rider
To save his father's life, stunt cyclist Johnny Blaze becomes "Ghost Rider," charged with returning stray demons to hell -- and, in all likelihood, sending this movie quickly to DVD. Read more here.
There's a reason that this series has exploded at the box office while other sequels wither on the vine -- and it's not just because of the perpetually rusty torture devices.
Makes the first two look about as intimidating as a child's six piece jigsaw puzzle. This is for the hardcore horror fan and for the hardcore horror fan only.
May the Saw mini-franchise, dulled into a bloody gore-fest bore after only three installments, rest in piece. A piece of hack-sawed-off foot here, a piece of a bludgeoned limb there.
The faces on the mannequins at Penney's are more familiar than these actors. The entire cast might as well be dressed in gray and bicycling around Beijing.
If you found Hannibal's brain cooking scene a tad too much, you will want to avoid Saw III; but if you are a fan of the gory versions of horror, this will be an iconic essential
Because of its efforts to make sense of the previous entries and even attempt an earnest parable about forgiveness, Saw III may be the best of the trilogy; hopefully, it'll encourage its makers to wrap the franchise on a relatively high note.
I get that the easy retort to analysis for a movie like this is that "critics don't get it," or, more to the point, "aren't supposed to like it," but Saw III is so sloppily overblown in its technique as to make the original movie, directed by James
The fact that it contrives to give its torture master the moral high ground (apparently he only tortures his victims for their own good) is possibly more perverse than any of its violence.
The makers... demonstrate a genuine integrity for their series by reigning the story back in to its original core elements... Fans of Saw will not be disappointed.
Ee'll just entertain you by mentioning such extraneous details as a human skull being opened and probed, a naked woman being frozen to death, a man drowning in the ground-up carcasses of dead pigs ...
Do you want to play a game? How about a really long, convoluted game that leads nowhere? The scariest thing about Saw III is how it seems like it's never going to end.
God or Jack Valenti only knows how this work of pure entertainment got an R rating 'for strong grisly violence and gore, sequences of terror and torture, nudity and language.'
What's remarkable about these movies is how much the craftsmanship degrades with each episode. This is a long, scrambled, indifferently made affair. There's no rhythm to the sequencing.
Saw III was not prescreened for critics. It doesn’t need to be. The midnight preview I attended last night was packed with folks who don’t mind seeing Hollywood beat a dead horse.
A bigger problem lies with Leigh Whannell's script, which utilizes so many flashbacks and explanatory inserts that the tension, a defining feature of the first Saw, is lost.