this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
64 points (100.0% liked)

Movies and TV Shows

388 readers
1 users here now

General discussion about movies and TV shows.


Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title's subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown as follows:

::: your spoiler warning
the crazy movie ending that no one saw coming!
:::

Your mods are here to help if you need any clarification!


Subcommunities: The Bear (FX) - [!thebear@lemmy.film](/c/thebear @lemmy.film)


Related communities: !entertainment@beehaw.org !moviesuggestions@lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“Saw X” begins with the kind of reverse time jump that only a horror franchise on its tenth film would dare to attempt. After the previous eight sequels advanced the story of John “Jigsaw” Kramer and his many imitators in a relatively linear fashion — while relying heavily on flashbacks to keep including Tobin Bell after his character’s early death — “Saw X” takes place in 2004, just three weeks after the events of the original film.

John Kramer is still alive in the new movie, battling a deteriorating cancer diagnosis that simultaneously serves as his motivation and an explanation for why he appears to have aged 20 years in three weeks. When his prognosis looks bleak, he travels to Mexico City to participate in an experimental treatment program that offers him a new lease on life. But when he finds out that the costly procedure was a scam and his cancer wasn’t actually cured, he sets out to exact revenge in the only way he knows how: playing a game with an arsenal of lethal homemade traps.

The narrative gambit turned “Saw X” into the most emotional film in the franchise, but it also placed its team in the predicament of having to deliver a tenth “Saw” movie that feels like it’s the third one. The early “Saw” films were sparse affairs that took great pride in constructing traps out of easily available materials that actually worked from a mechanical standpoint. But as the series grew, so did its narrative ambitions. It wasn’t long before Jigsaw and co. were using lasers and trains to make outlandish traps that were almost cartoonish in their violence. They served a narrative purpose in the wackier sequels — but for “Saw X,” everyone knew it was time to return to the barebones simplicity of early traps like “The Magnum Eyehole” and “The Needle Pit.”

“We knew we wanted to make the traps less complicated,” executive producer Mark Burg said in a recent interview with IndieWire. “We wanted to make traps that you could basically put together from Home Depot. At some point our traps got bigger and more complex, and we wanted to bring it back down.”

The task of constructing the stripped-down traps fell to production designer Anthony Stabley, a newcomer to the franchise who took the assignment seriously. Stabley told IndieWire that he limited his research to the first two “Saw” movies in order to ensure that his designs aligned with their place in the franchise’s larger timeline. Once it was time to start building, he prioritized simplicity to drive home the point that Kramer built these traps himself with limited resources.

“As far as the traps were concerned, our main objective was to make sure that everybody believes that John Kramer made these traps,” Stabley said. “We wanted to make sure that it reflects the early ‘Saw’ films.”

The simplified ethos extended all the way up to director Kevin Greutert, who previously directed “Saw VI” and “Saw 3D” and has edited all ten films in the series. He told IndieWire that, after 20 years of working on the franchise, he has a keen eye for discerning which shots are actually necessary to advance the larger story. On “Saw X,” he resisted the temptation to indulge in flashy cinematography in favor of a more utilitarian shot list that parallels the earlier films.

“I think I have more experience knowing exactly what kind of coverage I want,” Greutert said. “DPs and directors always want ‘cool shots,’ but to me the cool shot still has to tell some of the story. It still has to ground you emotionally and in the characters and not just be auteurish-looking.”

By simplifying everything, the team was able to pull off the kind of smooth timeline reset that has evaded countless other horror franchises. Bringing the action back to 2004 had the dual benefit of placating longtime “Saw” junkies who missed the feel of the original films and offering an easier entry point for new fans who haven’t ingested all the mythology.

“We tried to accomplish two things,” executive producer Oren Koules said. “We wanted to bring it back to O.G. We wanted an original ‘Saw’ movie. We wanted John Kramer very featured in this movie. But we also wanted a movie that was accessible to people that had never seen a ‘Saw’ movie.”

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] anon6789 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe I'll check this out. I've only seen 3 of them, but the back to basics formula makes it sound like it might be ok.

[–] anon6789 2 points 1 year ago

Reporting back, just finished watching the movie.

I'll start by saying I like horror movies in general, but not really the torture stuff like Saw or The Collection and things like that, hence why I've seen Saw 1, 2, and maybe 5 and that's it.

I do enjoy the basic premise where he only goes after people that have it coming as far as movie victims go, and that he gives them a bit of a chance to survive, especially if they would just stop being assholes for a minute.

This movie felt like what I remember if the early saw movies. I think watching the TS version may have helped a little, reducing the video quality to make it feel even more vintage, but it was fine for my viewing given my overall interest level.

I could recognize the main cast of characters, but even if I didn't, it fills you in on all you need to know, so it can definitely stand on its own.

The traps did all seem pretty original ish. Since there's nothing new plot wise here, it's still you have X minutes to free yourself painfully or you die. As far as are these things you could make yourself from Home Depot parts, maybe one or 2 of them, but they're still a bit out there, but better than I remember some stuff being in other movies.

Overall, I think if you enjoy this type of movie you should give it a shot. If you don't like them at all, it's not going to win you over. It still made be feel queasy and uncomfortable in a not pleasant way. I feel the traps are still pretty unfair and sadistic and are more revengey than teachy, but that's just me. But if you like the originals and fell off the series somewhere, you can watch this no problem.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A prequel that needs this many words to explain why it what they are doing isn't really filling me with optimism.

Like John wick, the originals were scary because you didn't know how deep the rabbit hole would go.

With this setup is going to be more like home alone 33 than a proper prequel. But it will sell, and disappoint.

[–] anon6789 2 points 1 year ago

Just watched it and did a review in my other comment on this post. It's not my type of movie, none of the Saws really are, but I thought it was alright and felt like a good addition to the Saw-iverse .