Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Very Cool!!!

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

Finally saw all the 'Saw' films prior to seeing 'Jigsaw' (as part of my wanting to see as many 2017 films as possible this year, during a quieter and less intensive period). Heard a lot about the films, good and bad, but wanted to see them for myself to know what to expect.The films as an overall series are a very mixed bag. The original 'Saw' had a great premise and while it was problematic it was still pretty good and one of the best in the series. 'Saw II' had its own problems but it was still one of the few follow-ups to be just as good and have what made the first click as well as it did. Things did go downhill with the overblown and confusing 'Saw III', which was suggestive of not just the novelty wearing off but done to death. 'Saw IV' was an improvement, with some elements that made the first two work evident but still perplexed. 'Saw V' unfortunately is highly suggestive of the franchise having run out of ideas, there was little need for it other than to introduce the next film and it makes pretty much all the mistakes of the third instalment and fares even worse.'Saw V' has a few plus points. The opening trap is actually very chilling and inventive, setting a promising standard that was wasted by the rest of the film failing to live up to it. The Edgar Allan Poe references are fun, though you'd have to be familiar with his work and the works that are being referenced to get them.Music is suitably eerie once more and that Tobin Bell does so well with the very little he's given despite being criminally underused and woefully misused is a miracle in itself.Only Bell gives a halfway decent performance here sadly. Scott Patterson is very wooden and Costas Mandyler is bland apart from one decent scene being him and Bell. Even worse are the victims are very thinly sketched and dully acted, Julie Benz coming over as the most indifferent in terms of her character and her acting. That it is very difficult to connect with any of the characters in any shape or form (the other films do a much job even with Jigsaw, actually a very interesting villain shamefully wasted here) and that the script is perhaps the dreariest, most tired and contrived of the series works against them.With the exception of the opening trap, 'Saw V' fails on the creepiness and suspense. There aren't the truly ingenious traps (apart from that one), just as imaginative demises or the devilishly clever twists seen with primarily the twist ending of the first. The only twist that stands out, and in a bad way, is the rather obvious ending one. The rest of the traps/torture scenes are pornographic level and go too far with the gore to the point of being gratuitous. The investigative elements are dull and not particularly mysterious, and the story is the dullest and most convoluted to the point of incoherence. The flashbacks confuse the storytelling and bog it down rather than adding much and the re-used footage of the previous films feel more like a collection of deleted scenes.It will absolutely be a very good idea to have seen the previous films before seeing this, otherwise you'll be completely lost. From my experience though even those who have seen the previous films will find themselves scratching their heads at times. Visually, it's neither elaborate or claustrophobic, especially in the editing it just looks rushed and shoddy straight to video level. David Hackl's visual style is heavy-handed and even for a first-time director this was amateurishly inept directing.Concluding, a weak instalments where the pieces of the puzzle don't fit together. 3/10 Bethany Cox

For those who are Roman numeral challenged, "Saw V" is the fifth movie of the "Saw" series. Mostly this movie is about one of Jigsaw's proteges and how this person came to be just that. It's a somewhat interesting origin story; and of course, "Saw V" has the traps (half of which are a bit boring compared to the previous "Saw" movies), the cruel and bloody choices the victims have to make to "redeem" themselves, the frenetic editing, the fast pacing, and the lean sets. What we no longer get are the clever, non-linear story-telling that gives us several twists and surprises in the end.The shenanigans are also amped up in "Saw V." Many traps are huge, set pieces that would take an army of MIT grads with lots of disposable cash to set up. But we are to believe two or three people (including a near-death cancer patient) did all this. There is a limit to suspension of disbelief. Also, there's a difference between suspension of disbelief, and suspension of b.s. The former is fairly easy for moviegoers to do; the latter…not so much.My most memorable, movie moment of "Saw V" is the scene when two victims put their arms in traps that have buzzsaws so that enough blood can be drawn to release the locks and set them free. Gruesome, cringeworthy, and a bit funny because both victims were making faces that looked like they were having orgasms.This fifth installment of the "Saw" series continues the downward slide — regarding the quality of the script — that was started in "Saw IV," a strong sign that maybe it's time to put this baby to bed.Mannysmemorablemoviemoments

In 2004, the original "Saw" film breathed new life into the horror movie genre. Though enticing viewers with some of the most graphic horror scenes in cinematic history, the real "hook" of the film was its morality-play plot line. Using a tact rarely taken in the annals of horror movies, Saw actually created doubt in the viewers' minds as to whether the "victims" were exactly that. Though perverse, the demented Jigsaw killer was doling out justice in a seminal way that everyone can relate to (even if it horrifies their "good side").With each subsequent film, however, that magic has been lost, little by little. While Saw II just fed off the hype of the original and didn't mess with the formula and Saw III was interesting for the "dying Jigsaw" plot line, the two most recent installments have failed to recapture that spark of the "original trilogy". Saw IV was just outright confusing, while this film suffers from two major maladies:First, the departure from the tried-and-true formula of regular citizens being tested in their weakest area. Like I said, the strength of the first few Saw movies was the writers' abilities to make audiences think about the morality of what was reality transpiring. This film, however, doesn't really take that tact and instead just focuses on clearing up all the loose ends from the fourth release. Though perhaps a noble cause for hard-core Saw fans, this line of storytelling only served to irritate me, as Saw IV was where I saw the series begin going downhill and thus didn't want to go in that direction again.The other notable departure is a moving away from the Jigsaw character. To me, Jigsaw is at the very heart of what the Saw franchise is all about, and the series really isn't active unless he is in it. The flashbacks in IV were interesting, but Jigsaw's presence in V just seemed to be an excuse to bring back Tobin Bell, not to advance the plot in any meaningful way.Thus, I see the Saw franchise as being at a paradox right now. One direction would be to continue on with the "Jigsaw lineage" and further dilute the original material (the likely path in order to please the die-hard scrutinizers), while the other, more inventive approach would be to come up with something new. Perhaps someone subjecting one of these psychopaths to their own devices?! At any rate, Saw VI will likely be the measuring stone of the "Saw future" considering the failure of this installment.

By the fifth instalment of the franchise 'Saw' was infamous; infamous for its abundance of what could be termed sadism. It's no small wonder that the BBFC did not outright ban 'Saw V'. If the British ratings system were tasked with only letting good films be provided to cinemas, then without question 'Saw V' would never have seen the light of day. The creators of the franchise turned not to a Director to complete 'Saw V', but to a production designer for the series. This would account for why Saw V's length feels longer than a month, the acting as torturous as the traps themselves and boring beyond belief. Even the small relief of Tobin Bell's Jigsaw is gone and we are given a dull villain with a complete lack of motivation; horrifying indeed.'Saw V' takes place directly after the events of 'Saw III' and 'Saw IV'. As Jigsaw and Amanda are dead, the only living Jigsaw killer is Detective Mark Hoffman (a grim Costas Mandylor.) He is praised and awarded after saving Jeff's daughter (last seen in Saw III.) However, not everyone thinks him the hero. Agent Strahm (an effective Scott Patterson) becomes suspicious of Hoffman and pursues him. Hoffman is tasked with carrying out Jigsaw's dying request, a further game for more victims. This group of strangers must realise their connection to each other if they are to win their game and survive.How do you rejuvenate a franchise, when its premise is running thin? The answer, you don't. 'Saw V' takes great joy in putting the audience through a test of their own. How many blood splattered set pieces will you endure before you walk out. Watch or leave. Make your choice. Many audience members, even the ones addicted to Jigsaw's twisted traps, will I am sure choose the latter option. You can't blame them. After 'Saw III' I thought I was desensitised to violence. 'Saw V' proves me wrong and shows that I have plenty of puke left. What 'Saw V' does not understand, is that it is the tension and set up that is fascinating in Horrors, not the pay off.Every sickly set piece tries to outdo the other, without creativity, spirit or a brain. Blood is splattered across the walls and all you can think is how worse can it get? As it turns out a lot. Jigsaw is replaced with the unlikable growling Hoffman. He would have been serviceable if the character he was replacing was not so iconic and key to the franchise's success. The supposed story holding together all the gory details is Hoffman's recruitment and eventual loyalty to Jigsaw. But we never feel that Hoffman has the necessary motivation to carry out the horrendous acts of violence that he so frequently does. He is obligated to carry out the tests, but only when Jigsaw is present. Why he continues is anyone's guess. Maybe the screenwriters know?If you thought the acting in 'Saw II' was excruciating, then you haven't seen anything yet. The actors and actresses cannot act, even if they were put in a trap for real, they would be painful to listen to. You get the impression that they were picked up off of the street or the premiere of 'Saw IV'. Horrors are lucky if they have likable characters embedded within them. But when I do not care about the predicament of any of the characters involved you know something went terribly wrong. The only redeeming feature of 'Saw V' is that we see a trap that involves the walls closing in. Gruesome? Obviously.'Saw V' is what happens when you hire a nobody for a Director, leave the casting choices up to a monkey and force random people off of the street to act. The traps sigh inducing, the back story laughable and the film a pain from first frame to the last, Jigsaw it would be best for all of us Horror fans, if you and your apprentices stayed well and truly dead.