Saw VII 3D

quickcard review

Saw VII 3D

Directed by: Kevin Greutert
Cast: Tobin Bell, Costas Mandylor, Sean Patrick Flanery, Cary Elwes, Betsy Russell
Running Time: 1 hr 50 mins
Rating: R
Release Date: October 29, 2010

PLOT: The legacy of the original Jigsaw (Bell) is still going on. One man (Flanery) is a Jigsaw survivor and has his own secrets that come to life. Plus, there’s a battle for the new killer to be caught.

WHO’S IT FOR? Those who have weathered the storm to get to part seven of this franchise … and no one else.


It’s a soap opera. That’s what Saw is. Sure, there will be many blue-haired old ladies who disagree with me, but I’m right on this one. After all, I grew up being stuck watching “All My Children” with my mom, I’m an expert. You might be thinking I’m talking about the saga of Jigsaw, how he became a killer and how everything is connected in this crazy mixed up movie world I’m talking about. That would be only half the battle.

Before Thursday, October 28, 2010, I had never seen a Saw. I’ll admit, I wore it like a badge of honor. Being a film critic means getting stuck watching some movies you’d rather not. Especially when you’re working for a newspaper (which I have done in the past) and working for a TV station (which I do now). I don’t care for torture porn and that’s what everyone told me this franchise was all about. Before I saw the final Saw, I figured I’d finally go back to the beginning. I watched the original Saw right before Saw VII 3D. Here’s what I thought: Surprisingly few scares, not great acting and one good idea. The one good idea was two guys stuck in a room, with a few clues and death on the line. After all Carey Elwes is fantastic when death is on the line (see The Princess Bride). My fellow film critic and co-host of Movie B.S. with Bayer and Snider quickly filled me in on Saw 2-6 and then it was off to the movies.

Now, back to my soap opera comment. The acting is terrible. It’s jilted, obvious, amateurish and most of all … it does nothing to put us in these god awful situations. You can’t relate. Not once person gives a quality performance. Only Elwes comes in for one quick scene and hams it up a little bit. Then, it’s just slasher porn. Watch how someone can lose their eyes! You’ll be amazed when someone gets stabbed in the throat! It’s gross. That’s the point. Plain and simple. I understand the humor of a film like Piranha 3D and how it uses gross for gags. I don’t get the entertainment of having someone’s lower intestines spill on the floor if we’re never asked to understand, relate, care or worry about the person involved.

There seems to be multiple stories in Saw VII 3D and they supposedly connect … just like soap operas! On one hand, the man who is now playing Jigsaw creates the most elaborate scheme possible just so he can get back to Jigsaw’s wife Jill (Russell). Quick note on Russell, she’s the worst movie runner I’ve seen this year. The Hollywood Running Team led by captains Tom Cruise and Matt Damon would kick her off in a second. There’s also Bobby. He’s put through the ringer because if there’s one thing we’ve learned is, you don’t cross Jigsaw. Look, I like games. Bobby is forced to try and save the people he cares about. But the only situation I found interesting was when Bobby had to try and guide his blind friend to safety. After seven films maybe they’ve just run out of ways to knock people off. The worst thing of all with this film and supposedly the entire franchise, is that somehow these Jigsaw survivors are better off. Now they see the world through a different perspective. They’re thankful. This concept is borrowed from many things, one example being Fight Club. But here, with Saw … it’s crap. By this same logic I am even more grateful for films like Paranormal Activity and The Orphanage because I’ve now endured the horror of Saw VII 3D … oh know, this franchise might have a point after all.



  1. Richard Beaman says:

    For a film critic you seem to be a little naive. To not actually sit down and bother to watch the whole series is pretty amateurish to me.
    You may as well watch the first 5 minutes of a film then skip straight to the end, same result. I only read the first paragraph of your article before I came to the above conclusion. There is no need to read on as whatever you say is irrelevant. To understand and criticise a film, (Which I believe is your job?) you obviously need to understand the whole story from the start. Especially if the film is a sequel!
    In future, before you decide to comment on any film,(not just this one) please do a little homework as I’m sure this is what you are supposed to be paid for.

    Richard Beaman.

  2. Tom Anderson says:

    Richard Beaman, just be a straight up guy and come clean with us. You LIKE seeing people get tortured, not as part of a story but really, THE story. These films appeal to you as you likely have no control over the events in your life, so you enjoy seeing someone have control over someone via torture. Heck, I would bet hard cash that you are nursing an erection during the whole show. I mean, in your mind, you can’t get the chicks, slaughter them!

    So save your mock indignation that the critic didn’t watch every torture moment. You want to talk about things that are irrelevant? You, and this movie, for starters.

  3. Richard Beaman says:

    Hi again. That was a little rude and very close to slander and defamation of character. You could get into quite a lot of trouble throwing accusations around like that. If you bothered to read my comment properly, you would see the true meaning of what I was saying. All I was intimating was that as clearly stated, the whole collection of films was not taken into consideration before writing the article. This would apply to any film where a series of sequels has been produced. Would you comment and expect to be taken seriously on, let’s say The Godfather pt 3 without researching into the previous films and getting a full idea of what the storyline is at least? I am not just commenting on this film alone (truth be know, I’m not actually a fan!) I am just stating that it is impossible to comment on a storyline based on one film alone. Surely the common sense speaks for itself? I was not in anyway running down the critic, just the article and particular view. Please be more carefull with your comments in future, as you don’t really know the person writing them, or their standing within the film industry.

  4. Calhoun says:

    Slander and defamation can only take place if the victim (in this case, Richard Beaman) is in the public eye.
    That being said, you may not be the authority on online etiquette as your first post was somewhat rude.
    All that aside, as someone that has seen all the films, Saw VII really was a trainwreck. I can’t vouch for Bayer, but even as someone who’s seen them all, he and I saw eye to eye on this one.

  5. Richard Beaman says:

    Not rude, critical. This is the purpose no?
    Once again, I haven’t said this film is the best thing since sliced bread. I actually hate it and the series! Why does no-one get the point I was trying to make? I am only doing the job I am paid for. It seems some people don’t understand the two words……..critic.
    As for public eye, yes, the victim is very much in the public eye.
    Legally I am not permitted to release any more information than that.


  6. Megan Lehar says:

    You’re paid to criticize film critics? Most people are willing to do it for free, but I’m flattered that a professional was willing to have his say.

    Also, as a critic you are responsible for watching the film that you’re reviewing, not every film in a series, every film by a director, or every film with a certain actor. The more you know, the more context you can offer and the more useful your review will be to an educated audience. But you could come in an see Saw knowing nothing about it and still give an interesting and valid review. Course, if you knew nothing about it you might end up vomiting at the theater, so it’s a give and take.

  7. Anonymous says:

    From what I’ve heard this movie’s pretty boring, specifically for a conclusion where they’re meant to throw in everything they possibly can, but they didn’t.

    Also, if anyone’s reading this right now, I would recommend the first three. (SAW, SAW II, and SAW III) After those three, the story really goes downhill, and the only thing that really kept the series going was the success of the first three. The first three were thrillers with a MAJOR “mind-fuck” at the last minute which left you panting for more. The movies 4-7 show lack of new ideas, just tonnes of blood, so it’s more of a horror movie, but nothing amazing. Sought of boring, half-baked plot to be honest.

  8. Leo says:

    The onky Saw movie i really enjoyed was Saw one, others are quite boring and non sense. How come one guy kills an entire SWAT squad and a whole police district?

Leave a Comment