After it was test-screened to surprisingly good notices, I decided to attend Tuesday morning’s press screening of “Saw X.” Did I expect the positive reviews that it’s gotten so far? No. An 83% on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 30 reviews, is ridiculous.
It’s starting to seem as though the “certified fresh” tag doesn’t really mean anything anymore. Too many mediocre movies are getting it, and it’s turning out to be a meaningless thing.
Fact: the first ‘Saw’ film is still the most interesting one, a mostly-confined-to-one-set and memorable horror thriller that felt somewhat fresh back in the day. Anything after that was a way for Lionsgate to milk this franchise to death.
In “Saw X,” and much like the previous movies of this never-ending franchise, there’s a perverse fascination in finding the most original ways to showcase sliced-up limbs. This latest instalment might be one of the better outings of the series, but it’s still not a good movie.
It actually starts off in efficient fashion. The first 30 minutes are surprisingly gore-free, save for a brief flashback. Director Kevin Greutart shows John Kramer (Tobin Bell), sick of cancer and desperate for a cure, traveling to Mexico for a risky and experimental medical procedure.
Kramer is counting on a miracle, but he won’t find it there. It turns out that the entire operation is a scam to defraud the dying. Of course, Kramer decides to exact revenge on the con artists behind this sick plan and that’s where “Saw X” turns into the same old, same old graphic torture of the previous instalments.
For a moment there, the film had me. I wondered if the franchise had found some kind of humanity. Depicting Kramer as a hopeless victim of cancer, desperate for a miraculous treatment, is a nice creative touch. There’s a vulnerability to Bell’s performance here that works well on the viewer, only to be savaged away by his total and utterly veangeful demeanour in the film’s second hour.
Kramer’s “victims” are not good people, they prey on the dying, there isn’t anything much more despicable than that, but throughout the torture porn that they suffer at the hands of this twisted man, you want it all to stop — it turns empty and dull very quickly.
“Saw X” has a timeline that takes place between the first and second movie, call it “Saw 1.5” — Bell’s Kramer actually died in third movie, but they’ve found a way to bring him back here. This is the 10th movie of the franchise.
I'm actually surprised that we may get a fresh RT score out this one. It probably helped its cause that, after the first nine movies, expectations were down the drain for “Saw X”, so when it ends up bucking the trend and actually tries, for once, to tell a story, people take more notice.
Reeves is supposed to direct, David E. Kelley is writing, and just like that, Apple got cold feet — the usual “creative differences” excuse is being cited in the report, and maybe that was indeed the case.