Piecing together the puzzles of the serial killer Jigsaw is a terrible torture in and of itself. “Saw VI,” released Friday, Oct. 24 nationwide, is a harrowing journey through convoluted plotlines, choppy transitions and an utter abuse of flashbacks.
The series’ sixth installment draws from a plotline established over the last four films. It follows the efforts of agent Mark Hoffman (Costas Mandylor, “The Cursed”) as he continues to carry out the will of John Kramer (Tobin Bell, “Saw V”), while evading suspicion and capture from his colleagues. “Saw VI” picks up where the last film left off, with Hoffman dispatching the only person who suspects his involvement with the Jigsaw murders. After reducing his lone rival to a sack of meat and bones, the events transpiring after Jigsaw’s death unfold.
“Saw VI” entrenches itself in topical commentary by attempting to meld its message of saving the lives of those who truly want to live with an attack on the current health care system and the insurance juggernauts that reap profits by abandoning the sick and needy.
The film follows William Easton (Peter Outerbridge, “Burning Mussolini”) as he struggles to save his life and the ones he loves. Portrayed as the smug embodiment of all of the industry’s evils, Outerbridge’s character is an unlikeable antagonist who exists only to satisfy the audience’s desire to watch an asshole suffer. Easton is targeted because he does not believe in humanity’s will to live, but the theme of the film falls short in the end by not redeeming Easton or any other character. The under-developed theme ultimately makes “Saw VI” meaningless, though any expectation of profundity is entirely misplaced.
The plot elements of the film are conveyed primarily through flashbacks that reveal why Easton is placed in his plight. The actions of agent Hoffman and Kramer’s ex-wife Jill Tuck (Betsy Russell, “Chain Letter”) are also revealed via flashback. The scenes are treated with a contrived filter to indicate their temporal position, and are thoroughly overused.
One particular scene, in which Tuck inherits a cryptic wooden box from her late husband, is shown at least four times over the duration of the film. Constantly reminding the audience of the major plot details of the past films is irritating and halts the progress of the movie by steeping itself in its own mythology. Not only are flashbacks from previous films used too often, but scenes shown in the beginning of the movie are also revisited. This is not a new aspect of the franchise, and it continues to insult any viewer who can competently recall a scene from the preceding reels.
Disgusting gore and graphic scenes of self-mutilation from elaborate traps and mechanical devices have been the major visual features of the series and are decidedly absent from “Saw VI.” While the opening scene, which involves two usurers literally required to sacrifice a pound of flesh to live, sets up the rest of the film for an unmitigated bloodbath, the rest falls short of its torture porn roots.
The whole ordeal suffers from a lack of invention in regards to the devices that gave the series its gimmick. This franchise is about creating discomfort for the audience by forcing characters to do horrific things to each other and themselves to survive, and this theme is simply not present in “Saw VI.” Many characters are introduced flimsily and then unceremoniously killed by means of being hung or shot in the chest with a shotgun.
Returning fans may be disappointed, but, with a “Saw VII” in pre-production, there seems to be ample opportunity for redemption. This waning series must be tested in the same Jigsaw method it continues to perpetuate, and perhaps it will prove its will to live. If the same plot devices focusing on the overstretched backstory of Kramer continue to muddle the original intentions of the first two films, then there may be nothing left but a series of ill-conceived traps that are just as superficial and banal as the plot devices of this latest effort.
“Saw VI” is not a horror film, and it lacks the intense violence and gore that distinguished the early splat pack directors like Eli Roth and Rob Zombie. While this may be a good thing for some viewers, it does put the franchise in a peculiar state of non-definition that forces this film into the ranks of all the Hollywood movies created simply because they can make money.
1 star out of 5.
