Connect with us

Reviews

X MARKS THE SPOT: A Review of ‘Saw X’

Published

on

Before I start my review of Saw X, I feel like I need to tell you now: My favorite Saw film is the original. My second favorite Saw film is Saw 3D. My third is Saw VI

Something For Every Fan of the Saw Franchise

Now, if that ranking got you in a bit of a tizzy, because who could possibly like Saw 3D that much? It’s terrible (I could, and it is), you should now understand what I find to be one of the fundamental issues of critiquing the Saw films in a way that feels fair or equitable to everybody. Everybody looks for different things in them, so a non-insignificant portion of the audience believes there should be a different metric for reviewing them. 

Some people are here for the traps exploding gore all over the place, some for the endearingly convoluted story and all its plot twists, and some for their favorite characters and their development. If you’re here for crazy death traps and some top-tier John Kramer dialogue, you will probably love Saw X despite its flaws and find it a worthy entry in the franchise, just as I did.

John Kramer Returns in Saw X

For those who have been sleeping on the Saw franchise, Saw X is the latest installment in the series and brings back into the fold the legendary John Kramer (Tobin Bell), the first and greatest (not arguing with you on this) Jigsaw killer. Taking place between the first and second films, we see Jigsaw’s tests of the human body and spirit head south to Mexico City for vengeance: a group of five people who wronged John in his time of need are placed in a new game, with some of his most torturous contraptions yet. All the while, newly dubbed apprentice Amanda Young (Shawnee Smith) takes her fledgling steps into the role John has planned for her when he’s gone.

Tobin Bell’s Impact

At the time of their respective releases, the ends of Jigsaw and Spiral seemed to promise an ever-increasing chain of bizarre timeline bends and new players for the franchise’s future, which excited some fans and underwhelmed many others. That promise doesn’t matter anymore because this movie mends the issue by bringing back to center stage the original heart and soul of Saw: Tobin Bell. The later films in the franchise have a big John Kramer-shaped hole in them that is hard to ignore, as Tobin Bell was undeniably instrumental in portraying an unforgettable character and steering the traps and rewriting dialogue on the fly. He was as important to the movies as any director, writer, or editor, and the cast and crew that worked with him have gone on record to say as much. 

Advertisement

And that’s really the reason Saw X works. You can feel he’s brought that same essential energy to the role and helped guide the film, with this feeling like less of a straightforward return to form and more of a loving welcome back for Jigsaw and company that plays with the traditional formatting of the franchise. He shows off vulnerability especially here, with what is possibly his best performance to date thanks to the movie’s first act letting us really take the journey with John and see him in a whole new light. 

Amanda Young’s Evolution in Saw X

Shawnee Smith also manages to capture a new side of fan favorite Amanda, as a still-green apprentice to John Kramer filling in the gap in her character development between the first two films. We get to see her slowly hardening into the person we meet in Saw II and III; it’s impressive and makes it easy to recognize the film’s place in the ever-muddied timeline almost instantly by visual and dialogue cues alone. Their onscreen chemistry is undeniable, and a solid emotional anchor to hold onto as the film chucks gore at us like an intestine lasso that pulls us along on Jigsaw’s wild ride.

The rest of the cast ranges from alright to pretty bad. Still, all of their characters are designed and written in the vein of one of those mid-to-late-2000s “you’re supposed to hate them completely” character templates. The writing hammers out bodies that are meant only to be mangled, except for one victim who clearly shouldn’t be there. This is the first and only Saw movie where I truly despised the victims in the traps, and the film will bang you over the head with that characterization. You might have found Jeff annoying in Saw III, or Charles unlikable in Saw V, and lord knows many people cheered at William’s death in Saw VI, but here our contestants are the peak of unlikable by design. 

Saw X Has Some of the Nastiest Traps On Film Yet

This is a symptom of a script that really leans into the interpretation of Jigsaw as an anti-hero (especially in that hilarious ending shot before the credits roll), so if you find John’s philosophy and that framing of the character not quite your tempo, it might take you out of the movie. 

In turn, the film relishes putting them through some of the franchise’s most comically evil traps, which I say with love. And yes, I say it’s comically evil, even in a franchise where they crushed a man’s head to death with two giant swinging ice blocks like Wile E. Coyote. The traps in Saw X stand as a worthy successor in the escalation of John Kramer’s machinations, evisceration engines you couldn’t think up in your wildest nightmares. 

Advertisement

Despite being the victim of some clunky integration into the script, its final set piece is an incredibly memorable one that will still stand out among the reverse bear traps and shotgun carousels of the earlier entries as an all-timer just due to how nauseating it is. This film brings the heat with how truly nasty its traps can get, and no expense was spared to make the practical effects here look as spine-tinglingly foul as they do. 

A Saw Film Shot in Typical Saw Fashion

If the rest of the cinematography is another step in the evolution of Kevin Greutert’s work, you might consider it devolution depending on how important the series’ iconic screeching-fast editing and sped-up shots are to you. They’re shockingly absent for a return to the mainline series, given he’s the editor who coined them. I would have preferred a more traditional Saw film in this regard. I can’t technically call the way Saw X is shot poor on a technical level; it’s just less unique. The film is not as visually dynamic as any other entries, but it works. And no matter what I have to say about the camerawork and cuts, on an audio level, the soundtrack kills, as always. 

The Iconic Zepp’s Theme and Final Thoughts

Who doesn’t get hyped up at Zepp’s Theme, barring people without a pulse? 

I have a soft spot for this film, even around its rustier, grimier bits; after all, what is Saw without some grime and rust? Ultimately, this will make a fine addition to the series because of its emotional core and instant classic traps. As a standalone entry, its script and ending can be unsatisfying at points, but if it’s the price we have to pay for more John Kramer, it’s a small fee. Saw X puts on a blood-filled, mean-spirited contest that will keep you guessing, so give it a watch, especially in theatres if you can.

Saw is rated R and has a runtime of 1 hour and 58 minutes.

Advertisement

Luis Pomales-Diaz is a freelance writer and lover of fantasy, sci-fi, and of course, horror. When he isn't working on a new article or short story, he can usually be found watching schlocky movies and forgotten television shows.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Reviews

‘Frankenstein’ Review: Guillermo Del Toro Is Off to the Races

Published

on

Those expecting Guillermo Del Toro’s Frankenstein to be similar to the book, or to any other adaptation, are in for something else. A longtime enjoyer of the creature’s story, Del Toro instead draws from many places: the novel, James Whale’s culturally defining 1931 film, the Kenneth Branagh version, there are even hints from Terence Fisher’s Curse of Frankenstein, and if the set design and costuming are to be believed, there are trace elements of the National Theatre production too.

The formulation to breathe life into this amalgam is a sort of storm cloud of cultural memory and personal desire for Del Toro. This is about crafting his Frankenstein: the one he wanted to see since he was young, the vision he wanted to stitch together. What results is an experience that is more colorful and kinetic and well-loved by its creator than any Frankenstein we’ve had yet, but what it leaves behind is much of its gothic heart. Quiet darkness, looming dread, poetry, and romance are set aside as what has been sold as “the definitive retelling” goes off to the races. It’s a fast-paced ride through a world of mad science, and you’re on it.

Victor Frankenstein’s Ambition and Tragedy

A tale as old as time, with some changes: the morbid talents and untamed hubris of Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac) guide him to challenge death itself. Spurred by a wealthy investor named Henrich Harlander, and a desire for Harlander’s niece Elizabeth (Mia Goth), Victor uses dead flesh and voltaic vigor to bring a creature to life. His attempts to rear it, however, go horribly wrong, setting the two on a bloody collision course as the definitions of man and monster become blurred.

Guillermo Del Toro’s Frankenstein is more Hellboy in its presentation than it is Crimson Peak; it’s honestly more similar to Coppola’s Dracula than either of them. The film is barely done with its opening when it starts with a loud sequence of the monster attacking Walton’s ship on the ice. Flinging crew members about and walking against volleys of gunfire, he is a monstrosity by no other name. The Creature (Jacob Elordi) cries out in guttural screams, part animal and part man, as it calls for its creator to be returned to him. While visually impressive (and it remains visually impressive throughout, believe me), this appropriately bombastic hook foreshadows a problem with tone and tempo.

A Monster That Moves Too Fast

The pace overall is far too fast for its first half, even with its heavy two-and-a-half-hour runtime. It’s also a far cry from the brooding nature the story usually takes. A scene where Victor demonstrates rudimentary reanimation to his peers and a council of judges is rapid, where it should be agonizingly slow. There’s horror and an instability in Victor to be emphasized in that moment, but the grotesque sight is an oddly triumphant one instead. Most do not revile his experiments; in fact he’s taken quite seriously.

Advertisement

Many scenes like this create a tonal problem that makes Victor’s tale lean more toward melodrama than toward philosophical or emotional aspects; he is blatantly wild and free, in a way that is respected rather than pitied. There are opportunities to stop, breathe in the Victorian roses and the smell of death, to get really dour, but it’s neglected until the film’s second half.

Isaac’s and Goth’s performances are overwrought at points, feeling more like pantomimes of Byronic characters. I’m not entirely convinced it has more to do with them than with the script they’re given. Like Victor working with the parts of inmates and dead soldiers, even the best of actors with the best of on-screen chemistry are forced to make do. The dialogue has incredibly high highs (especially in its final moments), but when it has lows, how low they are; a character outright stating that “Victor is the real monster” adage to his face was an ocean floor piece of writing if there ever was one.

Isaac, Goth, and Elordi Bring Life to the Dead

Jacob Elordi’s work here, however, is blameless. Though Elordi’s physical performance as the creature will surely win praise, his time speaking is the true highlight. It’s almost certainly a definitive portrayal of the character; his voice for Victor’s creation is haunted with scorn and solitude, the same way his flesh is haunted by the marks of his creator’s handiwork. It agonizes me to see so little of the books’ most iconic lines used wholesale here, because they would be absolutely perfect coming from Elordi. Still, he has incredible chemistry with both Isaac and Goth, and for as brief as their time together is, he radiates pure force.

Frankenstein Is a Masterclass in Mise-En-Scène

Despite its pacing and tone issues, one can’t help but appreciate the truly masterful craftsmanship Del Toro has managed to pack into the screen. Every millimeter of the sets is carved to specification, filled with personality through to the shadows. Every piece of brick, hint of frost, stain of blood, and curve of the vine is painstakingly and surgically placed to create one of the most wonderful and spellbinding sets you’ve seen—and then it keeps presenting you with new environments like that, over, and over.

At the very least, Del Toro’s Frankenstein is a masterpiece of mise-en-scène down to the minutest of details, and that makes it endlessly rewatchable for aesthetic purposes. This isn’t even getting into the effervescent lighting, or how returning collaborator Kate Hawley has outdone herself again with the costuming. Guillermo Del Toro tackling the king of gothic horror stories, a story written by the mother of all science fiction, inevitably set a high bar for him to clear. And while it’s not a pitch perfect rendering of Mary Shelley’s slow moving and Shakespearean epistolary, it is still one of the best-looking movies you will see all year.

Advertisement

Perhaps for us, it’s at the cost of adapting the straightforward, dark story we know into something more operatic. It sings the tale like a soprano rather than reciting it like humble prose, and it doesn’t always sing well. But for Del Toro, the epic scale and voice of this adaptation is the wage expected for making the movie he’s always dreamed of. Even with its problems, it’s well worth it to see a visionary director at work on a story they love.

Continue Reading

Reviews

‘The Siege of Ape Canyon’ Review: Bigfoot Comes Home

Published

on

In my home, films like Night of the Demon and Abominable are played on repeat; Stan Gordon is king. One of my favorite stories surrounding Bigfoot and Ufology is the Bigfoot/UFO double flap of 1973, which Stan Gordon has an incredible in-depth book on. The Patterson–Gimlin film couldn’t hold a flame to Stan Gordon’s dive into one of my home state’s most chronicled supernatural time periods. But as much as I love the Bigfoot topic, I’m not ashamed to say I don’t know half of the stories surrounding that big hairy beast. And one topic that I’m not ashamed to say I haven’t heard of is The Siege of Ape Canyon.

The Harrowing Events of Ape Canyon

Washington State, 1924. A group of miners (originally consisting of Marion Smith, Leroy P. Smith, Fred Beck, John Peterson, August Johannson, and Mac Rhodes) was on a quest to claim a potential gold mine. Literally. The miners would eventually set up camp on the east slope of Mount Saint Helens. Little did they know their temporary shelter would be the start of a multi-day barrage of attacks from what they and researchers believed to be Bigfoot. What transpired in those days would turn out to be one of the most highly criticized pieces of American lore, nearly lost to time and history…nearly.

I need to set the record straight on a few things before we get started. One, I don’t typically like watching documentaries. Two, I believe in Bigfoot. Three, this documentary made me cry.

Image courtesy of Justin Cook Public Relations.

Reviving a Forgotten Bigfoot Legend in The Siege of Ape Canyon

Documentarian Eli Watson sets out to tell one of the most prolific Bigfoot stories of all time (for those who are deep in Bigfoot mythology). It’s noted fairly early in the film that this story is told often and is well known in the Washington area. So then, how do people outside of the incident location know so little about it? I’ve read at least 15 books on and about Bigfoot, and I’ve never once heard this story. This isn’t a Stan-Gordon-reported story about someone sitting on the john and seeing a pair of red eyes outside of their bathroom window. The story around Ape Canyon has a deeper spiritual meaning that goes beyond a few sightings here and there.

Watson’s documentary, though, isn’t just about Bigfoot or unearthing the story of Ape Canyon. Ape Canyon nearly became nothing more than a tall tale that elders would share around a campfire to keep the younglings out of the woods at 2 AM. If it weren’t for Mark Myrsell, that’s exactly what would have happened. The Siege of Ape Canyon spends half its time unpacking the story of Fred Beck and his prospecting crew, and the other half tells a truly inspiring tale of unbridled passion, friendship, and love.

Mark Myrsell’s Relentless Pursuit: Friendship, Truth, and Tears

Mark Myrsell’s undying passion for everything outdoors inevitably led to bringing one of Bigfoot’s craziest stories to light. His devotion to the truth vindicated many people who were (probably) labeled kooks and crazies. Throughout Myrsell’s endless search for the truth, he made lifelong friends along the way. What brought me to tears throughout The Siege of Ape Canyon is Watson’s insistence on showing the human side of Myrsell and his friends. They’re not in this to make millions or bag a Bigfoot corpse; they just want to know the truth. And that’s what they find.

Advertisement

The Siege of Ape Canyon is a documentary that will open your eyes to a wildly mystical story you may not have heard of. And it does it pretty damn well. Whereas many documentaries feel the need to talk down to the viewer just to educate them, Watson’s documentary takes you along for the ride. It doesn’t ask you to believe or not believe in Bigfoot. It allows you to make your own decisions and provides the evidence it needs to. If you’ve ever had a passing interest in the topic of Bigfoot, or if you think you’re the next Stan Gordon, I highly recommend watching The Siege of Ape Canyon.

The Siege of Ape Canyon stomps its way onto digital platforms on November 11. Give yourself a little post-Halloween treat and check it out!

Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria
Advertisement
Advertisement