User Reviews

When I first sat down to watch "Saw IV", I was not expecting much as it seemed it would be very difficult to make a good sequel with Jigsaw dead. I am not a huge fan of the "Saw" movies, but I was very impressed with Saw IV considering it lacked the presence of Jigsaw.

The film opens up with an autopsy of Jigsaw/John, where an audio cassette is discovered in his stomach, and that sets out the whole plot for the movie. Throughout the film we learn a little more about Jigsaw's history, and why he did what he did. Of course Saw IV also includes some creative, painful and very gory traps which lead to a few slow and painful deaths, which will make even the strongest moviegoers cringe.

Saw IV is nothing like it's prequel, Saw III. It doesn't have a lot of random and somewhat pointless violence like Saw III, it makes you think and had a good twist which Saw III also lacked. If you go to watch Saw IV expecting an average, overly violent, torture porn horror film, I guarantee you will hate this movie. Much like the first "Saw" film, you will be pondering over the final twist for hours.

Overall I thought Saw IV was a decent film, it was entertaining and had a pretty solid script which keeps the audience interested, and the usual bloody "Saw" special effects. However, I thought that it did lack in suspense towards the very end and was a little too far-fetched in some scenes.

6/10 - Entertaining, hardcore "Saw" fans should be pleased.

Jigsaw is dead, but his game is far from over. A detective is on the hunt for clues around the city, in which he must act in the same manner as Jigsaw with the victims he finds. He must do this in order to find the location of two of his colleagues and save them.

It's easy to see how the SAW franchise, as it is now called, is turning into the same mess that struck Friday the 13th, Halloween and Nightmare On Elm Street. The story is over, but the cash flow still has some juice in it. In this installment Jigsaw is dead, but his cruel game continues. How you might ask? Well, if I were to explain that, it would ruin the film, but it's hard to review this film without leaking something.

The original SAW redefined the horror genre, so much so that there are now countless imitators. It packed the goods in gore and a shocking twist at the end. The sequel, which really was not needed, tried to capitalize on the same system. It failed. Yet still made boatloads of money. Hence the 3rd, and this film and of course the next one. SAW IV becomes a parody of itself, unintentionally mind you. It tries to re-capture the essence of the original from plot points to the twist, which is a staple in the series now. Why SAW IV doesn't work as well as it wants to, is because it's far too confusing and doesn't satisfy it's audience, instead it leaves more holes, that will be filled in by it's sequel, much like how this one filled in some from the 3rd.

SAW IV answers the questions, such as who the blonde woman was in Jigsaw's dreams and why he covered the tape in wax. Yet leaves out other things, specifically what the letter said to Amanda. It could have easily been explained, but they wanted to leave as much story as possible to continue this franchise, which should have been over at 1 and could have been wrapped up completely with 3. This leaves the audience confused, as well as angry. When the final credits rolled up I sat back in my chair and asked myself if they really answered anything as to why it ended the way it did…it doesn't. It throws in that twist that is expected, but doesn't bother to explain it. I guess we have to wait another year to find out why things happened the way they did.

SAW IV is gory, probably the worst out of all of them, but not quite as nerve flinching as the others. It doesn't have any scenes that make you squirm in your seat like when Dr. Gordon saws off his foot, or when Amanda falls into the pit full of needles, or even when Detective Matthews smashes hiss foot with the toilet cover. Those small things are the ones that get the audience; this film simply shows the bloody entrails of people.

I will give credit to where it's due. The film stays consistent with the others and I applause the actors and writers for continuing certain characters through out the entire series. It gives fans goose bumps when they see a familiar face. Also, the twist, which fails in comparison to the first two but it better then the third, is adequate. In fact there is more then one twist. We also get some more background history on Jigsaw, who he was before he became a psychopath. A little hint as to why as well.

We can't connect to any of these characters. Characters from the previous films that show up here, have very little screen time and are killed off. Why have them survive through all this stuff just to kill them off. It cheapens the films in which we root for them to live; we know their fate in the end. There may have been characters that you cared for in previous installments that were trapped in Jigsaw's game, this time around, unless you knew them from before, we know their fate, we know we don't care.

The ending will confuse the hell out of a lot of people; I had to take a minute to figure it out myself. Maybe because it was really well written, or horrible executed, I haven't decided yet. I found myself sitting there with a confused look across my face, wanting more, not simply because I wanted more, but because the film needed more. The film has a lot of stuff going on, it's not to know who' who, who's dead, what's going on where and so on.If you've missed one film in the series, you will most likely be lost in this film. It asks you, as do the others, to pay attention to the previous films. I really enjoy that; it asks the audience to think a little bit, which is usually missing from horror films these days.

It's a tad better then the second and third, but falls apart near the end. This time around we can't seem to care for the guy whose trapped in Jigsaw's mind game. We've come to expect the unexpected, we've comes to be grossed out. Have the makers of this series run their course? Well, after the next film, to tie everything up, I hope the answer is yes. The first is still the best and I cannot imagine the next one being any better.

It's a rare occurrence, but get ready to see this more then once. Saw 4 plays more like a detective story lifted from a page of a who-dun-it novel. This time, we delve deeper into John's past, his ex-wife, and the real secrets about what made him Jigsaw. During his autopsy, it's reveled his stomach contains an audio tape. The tape warns that his work will continue.

It seems that die-hard fans don't wish to know about what's in the story, since I had to re-edit my comment so that none of the story would be revealed (except that which you see in the ads anyway). In my previous comment, I said nothing about the ending, yet just giving away some of the plot is enough of a no-no. I don't blame them, since this 4th outing has too many elements that make it easier to predict what's going to happen. Regardless, you'd have to be some kind of rare genius to figure out what will happen in the end.

The series has flowed like a smooth, well-oiled Rube Goldberg machine. It's the most complex of the bunch, in some ways, outdoing the previous ones. I repeat: it begs to be watched again. Just when you thought that the previous Saw Traps had done everything they can to a human body, this one has some clever ones of it's own (not as gruesome as Saw 3, though). The autopsy scene is set to the extreme; the MPAA stating that most viewers have now gotten used to seeing programs like CSI and other medical procedures, so they let this slide easier.

Deceptive, dark, very edgy and well written, the Saw series can easily end here. It's almost necessary to have watched the previous Saws, but can stand on it's own as one of the best of the chapters. Of course, it leaves it open for yet another in the series, which will be in production soon. I don't know when I will tire of the series, but honestly, I can't wait to see what other delicious traps they cook up next.

So I went to see Saw IV yesterday night. What do we actually gain from this movie? Basically it shows nothing new, it's like a reprise of Saw III. And the question is, do we prefer Saw III or Saw? Saw started with only two guys, chained in a bathroom, wondering where they are and what's this all actually about, and those questions are typical for existentialism. The point of this movie reminded me a lot of "No Exit", written by Jean-Paul Sartre.

Both Saw II and Saw III distinguish from the first Saw but Saw IV doesn't bring anything new. It sticks to its prequel. We get to see the same scenes (flashbacks), the same places and again we face those Jigsaw traps that never seem to end. I think that we all know by now what Jigsaw really wants and how we are supposed to play. But the detectives and agents seem to lack intelligence and don't listen to his rules. That's how we face again the catastrophe of this spectacle. We also get to see a bit of John's past and his ex-wife, Jill. I thought she was there to reveal something new about John but she never does.

Actually, Saw IV offers quite a lot, many traps, many people who got into them, many stories and also a lot of blood and violence. The truth is, I don't want to see those things anymore. I have already seen all of that in Saw III. It's like the creators of the movie are falling with every sequel deeper and deeper into meaninglessness. They have forgotten a long time ago about the meaning of this whole thing and rather decided to focus on blood and violence. Too bad the team Leigh Whannell and James Wan, the founders of Saw, does not any longer exist. Nothing can save Saw anymore.

But the director Darren Lynn Bousman keeps on trying, which is actually a big plus. He really can create the atmosphere that fits best to the movie.

I have also nothing against the new actors that appear in Saw IV, p.e. Costas Mandylor and Scott Patterson, who played really professionally for those two roles that they got.

I guess I still hope that they will save Saw, because I'm a big fan, although I already assume that the situation is hopeless. They have sunk too deep.

Good luck with the next sequel. You will definitely need it.

7/10

Darren Lynn Bousman directing again on par with grotesqueness as III still not as good enjoyable as previous 3 films yet has the madness to purify any horror fan! Going through all the Saw's recently is kinda nice and sinister I used to get stomach aches watching gross movies now I seem to desensitized it's bizarre. The traps ares so complex I wonder how they craft together such vile things for the movies. This has a lot more to do with detectives and randoms always that have done something sinful to get them in the situation Jigsaw didn't pick the saints he chose people that have done something bad in their life or some just in place for no reason. I love these movies no matter how good or bad!

Without a doubt, Saw has become an absolute phenomenon. I find it quite impressive how a small $1 million horror film garnered strong word of mouth and made it big, spawning a franchise which has become Lionsgate Films' yearly bread and butter. I've really enjoyed the Saw films and have been there since the beginning, viewing the first film on opening day in the UK. It was refreshing to see something original and to my surprise, the sequel, Saw II was just as good. However, the third instalment (still good) showed signs of clutching at straws.

SWAT Commander Rigg (Lyriq Bent) has become obsessed with finding Jigsaw (Tobin Bell), particularly since his fellow officers have died via his sadistic games. However, Jigsaw finds Rigg and has him play his own game. With two of his colleagues, Officer Matthews and Hoffman (Donnie Wahlberg, Costas Mandylor) held captive in one of Jigsaw's traps, Rigg has 90 minutes to try and find them. Meanwhile FBI Agents Strahm and Perez (Scott Patterson, Athena Karkanis) question Jigsaw's ex-wife Jill (Betsy Russell) in an effort to uncover Jigsaw's mysterious accomplice.

Saw IV is a sequel that is struggling to stay consistent with the numerous plot strands and filling up of plot holes. It almost feels like an extreme connect the dots puzzle as one tries to piece together all the characters and incidents from the previous instalments. Even when watching it, I could already imagine Internet forums swarming with hundreds of questions.

What made the first film so unique was that the victims are often people who essentially deserved to be punished, be they drug dealers or con artists frantically trying to save themselves from the macabre situation they were in. With Jigsaw as judge, jury and executioner, do we as an audience side with his objective, or do we sympathise with the wrongdoing victim during their last few seconds before they die a fantastic death? As the sequels have progressed, saving oneself appears to have been completely abandoned, for in the third instalment as well as this one, some victims simply have to wait to depend upon someone to help them. Also some supposedly innocent (?) people are dragged in (the guy with his eyes sewn shut is involved in the film's best trap, but who the hell was he?), while some injured victims are merely swept aside and we never know if they live or die.

In an effort to try and make a bigger sequel, games are no longer in one confined space, but set in different locations across the city, pushing 'suspension of disbelief' to the limit. For example, Rigg's apartment is turned upside-down within a matter of minutes, with blood on the walls, pictures hanging from the ceiling and how someone managed to get a scalping chair up there without anyone noticing is beyond me! Some may like the distancing from the previous movies, but for me this is a slight shift towards conventional slasher movies.

Acting wise, it's rather mediocre. Apart from Tobin Bell, quite a bankable name now because of the Saw franchise, a number of small stars litter the film and help keep the costs down. For me, the only other name that stands out is Donnie Wahlberg, and even he is somewhat wasted.

As expected, it's reliant on flashbacks, some of which made me feel like I was watching a soap opera rather than a horror. However director Darren Lynn Bousman does fulfil on account of gore, pushing Saw IV with 'in-your-face' violence and close ups that probably wouldn't have passed through the BBFC with an uncut 18 certificate five years ago.

If you've been following the franchise then you can't help but be roped along for the ride. I certainly was. For something that was written, shot, edited and practically gift-wrapped all inside one year, it still works. It's just a shame that what was once so original three years ago now feels stale with hardly anything new to offer. Hell, there aren't even any jumpy moments! Given the rush-job nature at dishing out sequels, maybe they'll have more fun at turning it into some kind of weekly/monthly TV series.

I really do hope that this is the last one, because really now, enough is enough. But as Jigsaw says, "the games have just begun."

Rating – five out of ten.

Will it ever end? I don't know, but after this one, I'm eager for more still! I know what you're thinking, it's been overdone. I admit that it's your opinion and you can judge the series after three movies, but you don't close the book on the 3rd movie when the story is "just beginning".

Should you bother seeing this movie if you haven't seen the other Saw movies? No. What if you like gore and suspense... sure. But this movie is strictly for the Saw fans who have seen the first three and followed every step and hint, otherwise it's a big waste of time. The only thing that helps those people is that every Saw movie shows flashbacks. Honestly though, it's not as useful as seeing them to begin with.

Now to the movie...

This was the first Saw movie that was not written by Leigh Whannel. Is this a problem? I don't really think so. Saw IV was just as riveting and plot-detailed as the first three. I watched the movie tonight with 2 friends in a closed theatre, and we were all talking during the entire movie asking each other questions and trying to figure out the plot. I feel bad for the massive amounts of people cramming the theatre on opening night; there's going to be so much talking, it will be unbearable to follow. "Who's that guy?" "Do you think he really died?" "I bet he's playing a game as well". Not so much fun.

Let me be completely honest about this movie, and that will be all for me. There were many twists and turns, all what we hoped for. The details are superb; everything clicked and was managed well. Most of all, the gore, violence and games were top notch. I was stunned at how amazing the tests were... seriously. It was a joy to watch.

Completely entertaining. If you liked the first Saws, then you will not want to miss this one. 7 out of 10. In my opinion, it was better than Saw III, but slightly below Saw II... and of course, not near the original. But still, Saw IV was brilliant.

During the autopsy of John Kramer (Tobin Bell), the coroner finds a tape inside his stomach and calls Detective Hoffman (Costas Mandylor). Meanwhile, the police find Detective Kerry dead and the SWAT Commander Rigg (Lyriq Bent) is absolutely traumatized with the tortured corpse of Kerry and obsessed to save Detective Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg) that has been missing for six months; however Hoffman asks him to take vacations and leave the case. The FBI agents Strahm (Scott Patterson) and Perez (Athena Karkanis) join Hoffman's team to investigate the legacy of Jigsaw. But Rigg is abducted and forced to participate in another sick game to save Eric's life.

"Saw IV" has a messy and absurd story, indicating that the franchise has really finished. The director Darren Lynn Bousman uses a style of frantic images and flashbacks with annoying noises and does not give time to the viewer to think how absurd and stupid the screenplay is. The result is a sequence of gruesome and gore scenes disclosed in an extremely fast pace that make impossible even to recall the characters of the previous movies of the franchise. "Saw" is over! My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Jogos Mortais IV" ("Deadly Games IV")

Not as good as some of the other films, but not the worst. Besides the first movie, we only see these movies because of the gore. This one is alright with that. Opening autopsy was really gross. That first 2 man fight in the beginning was painful to watch. Scalp scene was also brutal. None of these scenes really pushed the limit though, unlike Saw 3 and 5, and those were the only fun scenes in the film. Much more slow as well, though not as slow as 2. Overall cheap acting and thin plot. MILD SPOLIER(didn't like how my favorite character was killed.)

I am a silly little gremlin child and waltzed upon this goofy little movie. I have never watched a Saw movie before, but gosh darn, this was shockingly good for the FOURTH movie in a franchise. It had me on my toes, and baby girl (Hoffman) was glittering on screen the entire time. Although, no baby girl is as baby girl as Fregley from Diary of a Wimpy Kid. If you haven't watched Diary of a Wimpy Kid, I will personally wiggle my toes at you until you watch the entire 1 hour and 32 minutes. Please, my toes are getting so tired of wiggling. Anyways, this was a good movie and you should feed on its greatness with your eye holes. Have a great day you silly little goober.

Saw IV continues the story on Jigsaws efforts to teach people the value of their lives and what they can do to survive from his dangerous traps. Previously however Jigsaw died yet his familiars continue his work.

This would seem like a clever film, that fills the gaps like Saw III but it basically fills nothing but our mouths with vomit.

Saw IV contains nothing more than pure blood-shed, despite the occasional police investigation everything seems a bit too morbid and dark...

A little too much this time, bring back the cleverness!

This eerie film begins when an unfortunate duo wake up in a dirty room , they're tied to machine into closed building and strongly chained, and they must encounter a way out to free. Various agents, FBI and police as Scott Patterson, Costas Mandylor are going him after. But they must also avoid the deadly traps Jigsaw(Tobin Bell) has set on the way. Meanwhile, a policeman (Lyriq Bent) is being trapped and Jigsaw's wife(Betsy Russell) is detained. Jigsaw writes on walls strange phrases and words captioning : 'Cheerish your life', 'Feel what I feel', Save as I save', 'See what I see'. Jigsaw, who is dead on Morgue where forensic finds a tape in his guts, has become obsessed for revenge and has prepared twisted traps. The group must race against the clock of Jigsaw's on ticket until an impressive final on a factory named Gideon.

This fourth sequel from original by James Wan, packs grisly terror, tension, suspense and lots of blood and gore . The film takes accent as suspense as well as well-knit plot full twists and turns and of course abounds terror with creepy use of images-shock and slick edition. Provides an imaginative and well-knit screenplay by Patrick Melton plenty of thrills and surprises . Sinister and mysterious atmosphere , well made by cameraman David Armstrong and eerie musical score adequate for mystery and tension by Charlie Clousier, booth of whom are habitual of franchise. The movie again is starred by Tobin Bell, he's a secondary actor working from the 80s in TV series(Walker Texas Rager, Stargate SG1, Alias, 24) and occasionally for cinema(Goodfellas, The firm, Ruby, Black mask 2), achieving success with Jigsaw character. The motion picture is well directed by Darren Lynn Bousman who also directed Saw III with Dina Meyer, Shawnee Smith and Costas Mandylor; and followed by Saw V directed by David Hacklin with Costas Mandylor, Betsy Russell and of course Tobin Bell.

To the person who wrote that Tobin Bell needs to broaden his acting scope. I strongly suggest that person try taking a look at his body of work before during and after his portrayal as JigSaw. Born in 1942, he was in his sixties for the first film. He typically plays a soft spoken bad guy, such as in The Firm as a hit man in 1982. Jump forward to The Quick and The Dead where he has a small role as the first bad guy Sharon Stone encounters riding toward town. He is excellent at what he is asked to do. If it's possible for those reading my words...try thinking for a moment about Hollywood and what they expect from a leading man. Tobin Bell has only the fact he's not short going for him. Otherwise, his appearance regardless of age is not what Hollywood would cast as a leading man, just as they have done to Lance Hendricksen although he has been fortunate enough to get roles in big time movies. He also was in a small role in The Quick and The Dead as did Gene Hackman and an unknown Russell Crowe and very young Leonardo DiCaprio. Heck of a cast for a small budget movie done by the same guys who did Xena and Hercules TV shows. I will rest my point here.

For those who make unresearched remarks about the skill of an actor. Do some homework first before taking a cheap shot at a person you'll never meet while hiding behind a computer screen. List your accomplishments you can prove...THEN perhaps you can berate someone if you ARE worthy.

Saw IV represents a sort of landmark for me. It was the first time I'd been genuinely nullified by a horror film that had, or seemed to have, so much going on. Within the runtime of Saw IV, characters will shoot about all over the place, encountering many-a situation that you'd feel would have some sort of effect on them: physical or otherwise. The film is full of is so much visceral content, with a lot of goo and blood getting thrown at the screen and splattering all over the place, while there are also many heinous, yet somewhat creative, traps and incidences being set up and executed. With all this going on, it's a shame that all you can do is sit there, stare and wait for it to end.

Saw IV might equally represent a landmark in the overall franchise, of the kind that nobody is even bothering anymore. If the first sequel was an intriguing and unpredictable, pseudo-Big Brother piece that built to what turned out to be an interesting denouement; while the third entry at least had Angus Macfadyen, whom looked as if he'd stumbled in off of another film, grounding the entry with his morally torn character and his shedding of a 'skin' (a jacket or a dressing-gown) as each task came and went, while the realisation of the situation settled in and he became a different person; then número quatro in the series is a gigantic mis-fire, a non-event of a picture.

Number four has nothing; and I mean absolutely nothing in the way of anything at all. It's the same stuff, and that statement isn't limited to the ideology that the people go in to see the film solely because of the traps, it's linked to the running around; the stern-looking faces; the dumb decisions people make and the sheer outlandishness of some of the executions of the antagonist's plans. Take some of the Saw series' more identifiable moments. If in the past, a character clicked on the TV and saw themselves on it by way of a CCTV monitor hidden in their house, then it might have worked somewhat and was quite eerie. Similallry, a puppet on a tricycle hiding in another person's wardrobe might've worked reasonably well as a visceral and effective jump as our own human eye struggles to identify just what the Hell it was in perfect parallel with our brain's absorbing the initial shock. In Saw IV; piggy mask clad women hiding in hospital corridors as people from prior entries, whose narratives have been done and dusted, are snatched does not make for good, interesting or even frightening viewing – but that's what we get.

But hey; who cares, right? You turn up, you get grossed out and then you leave again. You shrug and you wait for the next instalment, right? Wrong. Wrong attitude. I gave the Saw franchise the benefit of the doubt, I really did, at least for two of its sequels; but this is garbage, and everybody knows it. The film is a part of a growing tradition in recent large scale; lots-of-money-thrown-at-it; productions, of deconstructing the villain or showing them in a humbling light that tells us how they got to the point we all know them for. Following on from the third Star Wars episode; the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remakes/prequels; the recent Hannibal Lecter prequel; the third Saw entry and now this: a crass, delving into a past nobody cares about as Jigsaw (Bell) comes to be the mechanical, contraption expert we all know him for.

The film, for the most part, covers the journey of a police officer named Rigg (Bent) as he ventures from one trap involving others to another, all the time aiming to save fellow police officer Eric Matthews (Wahlberg), the guy that has been missing since the finale of number two. Like every film of this ilk, he has a time limit; ninety minutes, which doubles up as your bog-standard length for pieces of junk films such as this one. Rigg's adventure is peppered with dumb, would-be deeper meaning, pseudo-philosophical statements in which he is invited the 'see what I see' and 'feel what I feel' by a Jigsaw character pathetically put across only by way of cassette tape. His journey is uninspiring and episodic; it consists of him stumbling across an array of different people of various past bad-deeds; instances that could unfold in any order at all and we'd all still end up where we eventually end up. Some of the more sicker scenarios in the series worm their way into this segment, in which scalps; eyes and blood circulatory points in the body are the order of the day, and are targeted by these traps.

But everything is tired and dull. The hyper-kinetic editing and camera work becomes tiring, while the zooms and the cuts and the whip pans just completely draws you out of whatever small amount of interest you have invested in all this. Saw IV is a film with a labyrinth of a narrative, but then needs a character of high authority to come on screen at the end and explain everything to you. It's the sort of cynical, self-aware piece that, by this point, knows it's absolute garbage and just provides you with the gore and the blood as its story just 'unfolds' in the background: if you're following it, then great – if not, we don't care. By this point in the franchise; some suit-clad, money-counting producer of sorts, somewhere, seriously needed a slap. Whereas if you enjoyed it, and good God - there actually seem to be some out there that think it's some sort of a minor-masterpiece, then you can all stay as far away from me as possible.

Much the like the three preceding Saw films, Saw IV is filled to the brim with inconsistencies, bad acting, annoying editing and poor twists. However, despite its shortcomings, this was definitely more watchable Saw II. The film begins with an incredibly graphic (and pointless) autopsy on Jigsaw, who was killed in Saw III. A wax-covered tape is found in his stomach, and quite clearly states his legacy will continue and that the games are far from over. We are then introduced to Rigg (Lyrqi Bent) who has 90 minutes to save Detectives Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) and Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg) while passing through a series of tests which involve random people. To add some more story into the mix, Agent Strahm (Scott Patterson) and Agent Perez (Athena Karkanis) are hot on Rigg's tale, while also trying to find Matthews and Hoffman.

Obviously story was thrown out of the window when making this movie, as the story is convoluted and predictable. It is merely an excuse to show off some inventive and sadistic traps for the ADD riddled target audience. Whereas in James Wan's Saw, traps were secondary to the mystery and intrigue, here they are the focus. Not to say I do not enjoy watching how they work, as they provide some excellent gore. Director Darren Lynn Bousman has not changed his style very much, because the editing is as atrocious as it always has been with quick, flashy cuts that plague most scenes. These are incredibly irritating and make it hard to follow the action. Even parts of dialogue are reduced to this MTV music-video style of camera-work.

None of the acting is particularly worth mentioning; Tobin Bell really needs lessons to broaden his range, as all he does is talk in that same gruff voice he has done in Saw - Saw III. Betsy Russell is probably the best as Jill, Jigsaw's ex-wife. To be fair, the actors are not helped by the script, as it is pretty darn poor. The twist at the end could probably be seen a mile away and lacks any punch whatsoever, and it does not help that we are treated to a series of flashbacks which explain it, like we are not smart enough to think for ourselves! The story itself seems contradictory, as Jigsaw's motive was to kidnap people who did not appreciate their life (like druggies, arsonists, rapists) and test them. In this, Rigg is chosen, although he is a policeman whose flaw is trying to save everyone?! Seems a bit dodgy to me...

Regardless, you could do worse for 95 minutes. If you are a hardcore Saw fanatic you will probably love this, if you aren't you should probably just skip it. This is nothing but a rehash of Saw III with more gore and the same silly story.

1½/5

Now that Jigsaw and Amanda are dead, how will the games continue? Well, you'll have to wait and see. But trust me, they do -- Officer Rigg is in a race against time to save his fellow detective, Eric Matthews (no, not the kid from "Boy Versus World"). But how many must die so one man can live? I'm going to be blunt: this film is a complete mess. The plot doesn't make a lot of sense. The traps are very elaborate. And maybe I'm thinking too hard, but I just don't see how Jigsaw could expect Rigg to follow the clues exactly as he has to to move from step one to step two. There are probably fifteen occasions in the film, if not more, where a character has to act precisely as Jigsaw would predict or the whole scheme falls apart.

The blood is there, the traps are there. And the best part about this film is the attempt to explain Jigsaw's origin (if you have no other reason to see this movie, that's the one reason I can suggest). I really liked the backstory. But with each new film, the "life lessons" Jigsaw was teaching get more and more vague or seem to disappear altogether. And a serial killer who sets traps is fun, but how is that different from every other horror film out there? Jigsaw was a man of ethics, however twisted... he's lost that now. (Although, being dead, i suppose he doesn't much care now.) You watched the first three, you may as well watch parts four, five and six. Sure, they'll never regain what the first film did for the fans. But we're in too deep now. And who knows, they may reverse course and get better... "Friday the 13th" had some bad years but came back. I'll let them give me five and six... but after that, if things don't improve, they're going without me. (But, I'm rambling -- you should see "Saw IV".)

As a die hard Saw fan, Saw IV was one of my top must sees of 2007. Fortunately, I didn't get my hopes up, and therefore I wasn't disappointed. The movie has its fair share of flaws, don't get me wrong. However, the movie made this Saw fan happy because it maintained the spirit of the series. The movie's biggest flaw is that it is by far the most unrealistic of the series and relies too much on chance within the story. Too many events are contingent on others, which makes Jigsaw look almost clairvoyant. However, I was able to look past this and enjoy the fourth Saw film.

Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) is dead. Though he is gone, he vows that his work will continue. And it appears he is true to his word, for SWAT Lt. Rigg (from Saw 2 & 3) is the latest member of the police force to be thrust into one of Jigsaw's deadly games. Meanwhile, Detective Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) is joined by a pair of FBI agents to help stop the Jigsaw killer once and for all...They'll start by looking into his past, beginning with his ex wife, Jill.

The acting is pretty good. Costas Mandylor, Tobin Bell, and Scott Patterson are the standouts. Bell brings so much more to the character this time around through flashbacks as we learn more about John Kramer. Showing that he has created one of the most memorable characters of recent memory, Bell makes us almost sympathize with him, despite the acts he has committed. Mandylor is really good as Detective Hoffman, even though he has limited screen time and dialog. I liked Patterson a lot because of the toughness and reality he brought to the character. Agent Strahm is a good character and definitely one of my favorites in the series. One big surprise was Lyric Bent as Rigg. He definitely showed a lot of range in this movie. He has a future.

The plot is probably the most complex, as there can be as many as 3 different subplots going on at the same time, all while the audience has questions from the first 3 movies answered. The ending also leaves a little to be desired, as it is the least impacting twist of the series (and most obvious). However, I really enjoyed the traps, which were definitely a step up from Saw 3. The random gore was kept to a minimum, but the beginning is absolutely horrifyingly gory. It also felt rushed, which means I can't wait to see the unrated DVD. Hopefully it'll have more extra footage than the others. Saw 4 has the weakest script of the series, but it's still better than I expected. At this point, it appears as if Darren Bousman is going through the motions, and that's what keeps the series spirit alive. As long as Bousman, Wan, or Whannell continue to be involved, the spirit should live on. I also have to give props to the editor for the smooth and catchy transitions, not to mention the production design is top notch. That and the lighting provide at least some horror realism, as the plot does border on absurd at times. The sound is better than ever, with the classic 'Hello, Zepp' tune that has become one of the most recognizable tracks in movie history making its dramatic appearance in the climax of the film. The ending also leaves us wanting more, so I'm expecting Saw 5 next Halloween.

8/10 --spy

I just came home from seeing an advance screening of Saw 4. I must say i was rather disappointed.

Im a huge fan of the Saw films, but this just really didn't wow me like the others did. I wont spoil anything for you but what i can tell you is that you can expect some new traps, rather gruesome in my opinion.

The traps were the only thing that really kept me watching, that and the story which kept you interested, until you get to the end and you think to yourself, "What the hell?".

Overall, by all means check the movie out, its worth the watch, however i feel i probably need to view it again because i feel i have missed something. Also the film just felt very rushed.

Let the games slow down. Thankfully the best thing I can say about 'Saw IV' is they cut back on the gore. They didn't necessary replace the gruesome aspect of the series with more plot, story or acting, in fact, if anything, they all but eliminated those aspects that were the only thing holding the previous installments alive. Okay, sure this movie is gory, but comparatively speaking, it's "SawLite." Here we have more of a back story of Jigsaw (and the Mrs.) as he had died in the previous film. That's not a spoiler; the movie starts with his autopsy. It didn't really gross me out, as it was all medical, though it might be not for the squeamish. It does set the scene for some of his postmortem games – basically what parts IV+ are set up since they killed off the main character/ring-leader. Unfortunately, as that's a key plot point to keep the series (or games) alive and incidentally, its downfall. From there, you never know if you're in the present or past. It is flashback, upon flashback, including, hilariously the now made-famous: flashback within the flashback. (I saw that once on 'The Simpsons' and that was hysterical. Unfortunately, here, it's to be taken seriously, though I still laughed.) Just to jump ahead a bit, in 'Saw V' it's more relevant, but part 'IV' sets the stage where they simply just make up stuff that happened in the background to keep the story alive. If you watch this movie, or the following one(s), you'll see where character's just appear where the writers want them to – around corners, behind doors, etc. I pity them as it seems like they're grasping at straws to keep the series going. Not a horrible movie, but, boy, they needed to end it with 'III.'

Saw IV gives us more gore, less brains. Wait, poor choice of words. I should say we are *shown* more brains but not required to use our own.

Jigsaw, having been killed in an earlier movie, comes back but in the stupidest, most anticlimactic way possible. Almost as if the writers were sitting around 5 minutes til deadline, having elaborated on all the gory stuff, then suddenly realizing 'whoa wait, jigsaw is dead. Who's going to be behind all this crap? Aha..!' (I won't spoil it)

Aside from that, even the killings lack the poetic irony that made all the other movies so fun to watch. The whole gimmick of the Saw franchise is that the killings are each part of some twisted morality lesson, sorta like Mother Goose on psychotic drugs. But here, there didn't seem to be much effort put into the karma content; instead they focused on wacky gadgets that mutilate people in interesting ways. Cool stuff, but you're left wondering 'What did that have to do with anything?'

Example: Some drug addict is put into a contraption where the only way to free himself is to slice his face up with knives. Get it? I didn't either. But as the killer hastily explains: "Because you've acted so UGLY in life, now you'll have to live your life being UGLY!" Get it? I didn't either.

Ultimately the movie wasn't all bad because it held my attention hoping for some grand epiphany at the end. There is indeed a "surprise twist" but it seemed to be thrown in just for the sake of a surprise twist.

I'm pretty bummed because I bought the whole Saw set and was enjoying them all up until now. But SAW 4 threw a real WRENCH in the works.