Saw IV

Saw 4 has pretty clever traps, another surprising twist, and I liked the flashbacks into the life of Jigsaw. I even felt sorry by the death of one of the characters, which also counts. This is perhaps the weakest entry in the series, mainly due to the holes in logic in the plot, but it’s still watchable. Those who liked the previous episodes, might be satisfied, the rest shouldn’t even bother. (17/11/2007)

While the script isn't as big of a twister as last time (except for the tragic ending), the creative ideas aren't as sick in comparison when it comes to the challenges. It's also not as boring, but it’s a rather stupidly drawn-out narrative about Jigsaw's legacy to the next generation, revealed by a big, muscular black man with no charisma, followed by a tragic bunch of characters, most of whom you want to die because you just don't enjoy them. This will only excite young couples around the age of fifteen in the movie theater, with the boy expecting her to hide from the action on the screen in his lap. Although Saw III and Saw IV are similar, the film doesn’t belong on the lowest rung. Given that it went by fast and the fact that if Bousman had made something else, he might have shown us some of his interesting horror talent. It's a shame to waste him on this stuff. (02/01/2008)

We continue in the bloodbath or The Eternal Shine of a Very Dirty Mind. It adds again to the blood, to the screams, to the brutality and to the number of scenes where I look away. And for the first time, I feel that the imaginary limit of tolerability has been exceeded. This part is indeed too similar to the third one, Jigsaw has been practically out of the game since the second one and appears only in flashbacks (it must be admitted that they are very well done) and the main roles are taken over by interchangeable supporting characters, to whom I couldn't really find a connection in an hour and a half. The honorable exception belongs to the persistent agent Strahm, played sympathetically by Patterson. But seeing the only strengths of the thriller in a few minutes and one character smells like a future disaster. In other words, for the first time, I don't want to see the next part. (26/01/2008)

The stuff that worked in the first one, i.e. several lines unfolding successively with information that support the outcome of the rest, which converge in the end, here looks like beating a dead horse in a film that lacks any logic and coherence in the continuity of the scenes and the way it shifts the attention. Everything is messed up, the motivations of the characters are soap-opera quality and it’s impossible to relate to them because there’s no dominant story or goal. Though the aggressive editing style saves it at times, I still wanted to turn off the TV after twenty minutes, and I wouldn’t have missed anything. 20% (23/04/2019)

The autopsy was nice and I was pleased from the start, but then it went to shit. Even the gore effects lost their interest (except maybe the first Jigsaw trap). And if someone sets up a "shocking" reveal that can't be gleaned in any way from the previous story, that's a sign of complete screenwriting impotence. (19/09/2009)