Very well executed

Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Jigsaw abducts a doctor in order to keep himself alive while he watches his new apprentice put an unlucky citizen named Jeff through a brutal test. If you like seeing innocent people once again dying you're going to love Saw III the sequel to the horrible Saw II, the acting is once again horrible and just stupid, the torture scenes continue to not satisfy and just keep throwing you dumb things for the benefit of the doubt and the worst of them all? Once again a character dies because why not? Jigsaw also dies in the end but does he really? Saw IV? (F)

The first "Saw" film was an excellent grizzly thriller and the first two sequels were surprisingly good even though they were taken over by another director, Darren Lynn Bousman. I think what I liked most about these sequels is that the director was willing to kill off many main characters from the earlier films. This sequel also benefits from James Wan and Leigh Whannell, the writers of the original film, returning to write the film. This time Jigsaw, Tobin Bell, dying in a hospital bed, but with the help of Shawnee Smith is still able to carry out his games, kidnapping a doctor who's son was killed in a hit-and-run accident and putting him through a series of games/choices/situations where he can exact his revenge on those responsible. The first "Saw" film was unfairly written off as torture porn, when it's really a terrific suspense thriller that happens to be excruciatingly gory. However, the subsequent sequels, this one included, are the typification of the torture porn genre, which is either a good or bad thing depending upon your feelings of the horror sub genre. As films of this disreputable genre go, "Saw III" is nowhere close to being as good as "Martyrs" or "Hostel," but is far better than the worst of the genre (i.e. "Turistas" or the "I Spit on Your Grave" remake). Donnie Wahlberg, Dina Meyer, and Betsy Russell also appear in the film, and composer Charlie Clouser returns to provide another effectively unsettling score.

The fact that we live in a world where Amy Winehouse is dead but Darren Lynn Bousman lives angers me in ways I can't describe. She only released two albums, and both of them are perfect. Bousman has had multiple opportunities to direct a good saw movie, and can't even put out a 4/10. If he were put into a weird, completely subjective saw trap where he has to direct a SAW movie that's good or else he drowns in money he doesn't deserve, he'd be dead by now. SAW III tells the story of Jeff, who's son died a while back and now he has to go through a trap because he wasn't dealing with his grief in a way that pleased Jigsaw. Jeff has to choose to wither save or kill people who had to do with his son's death. He chooses to save all of them, but two of them die anyway because the audience needs to see blood. While this is happening, there's also a bunch of stuff happening with Jigsaw and his cancer or whatever. This movie is not good, and it never will be. Watch it if you're a fan of the franchise.

Filmed on a bigger budget yet lacking the creativity that made the original click so well, the third instalment in the Saw series takes the usual elements of its predecessors and magnifies it by an extent but the end result is still the same old story as before and remains on par with the second entry.Saw III covers two story lines that merge in the end. The first concerns an anguished man who's put through a series of "tests", each meant to bring him closer to the person responsible for the death of his son. The second follows Jigsaw who has his apprentice kidnap a doctor and instructs her to keep him alive for one final test.Directed by Darren Lynn Bousman, Saw III is virtually the same stuff all over again and even though there is an attempt to bring an emotional dimension into the story, it doesn't really stick for long. It does crank up the voltage though when it comes to violence n gore and is more stomach-churning than its predecessors but that's expected.The flashbacks cover the backstories of Jigsaw & his apprentice as well as their time together but there are so many of them that it disrupts with the narrative flow and kills the tension more times than one. Performances stay on same level as before with Tobin Bell again doing a pretty neat job while the rest just chip in with fine supporting work.On an overall scale, Saw III features a plot that's more far-fetched than the last time but still packs enough brutality to satisfy those who especially came looking for it. The discrepancies caused by its constantly shifting focus & irregular pacing do result in a fractured narrative that's only effective in bits n pieces but in the end, it suffices as a serviceable sequel, if not a rewarding one.