Saw X Review

The only surprising thing about "Saw X" is that there are now ten "Saw" films, and even that shouldn't be surprising if you remember the yearly release cadence they had for a bit. It's far less "Spiral: From the Book of Saw" and far more, er, well, "Saw," for better or for worse.

Since the entire franchise is so convoluted (and a franchise...), I'll refrain from going over much that the trailers didn't already explain: John Kramer, also known as Jigsaw (Tobin Bell), has brain cancer and through plot finds Dr. Pederson (Synnøve Macody Lund), who's dad developed experimental cancer treatments with an incredibly high success rate, something like 90%. He's in hiding so she continues his work, or rather, promises that and instead just takes the dying person's money. You know what they say, something that is too good to be true, often is.

He's given just three months to live by a legitimate doctor, and in desperation contacts Pederson, who arranges for him to meet her in a secret facility (a decrepit chemical plant right outside Mexico City) in just two weeks time. He meets various people along the way, all of course in on her nefarious plotting.

How an incredibly intelligent man like Kramer falls for her decite is never really explained, and by the end of his "procedure," he of course isn't cured. Only since he still has something like two and a half months to live, you know, let the games begin. What also is never explained is how he is able to round up all those involved and get all these series trademark traps setup in so little time, but hey, actual logic isn't the franchise's forte: "cinematic universe logic" is.

What follows is a grisly exploration of imaginary people who exploit others, so what am I to say here? I certainly wasn't ever scared, only occasionally grossed out, and the rather crowded theater I attended never jumped or hollowed in terror either. So what is the point? I suppose it's the same sick attraction that so many of us watch those Lifetime or Discovery Channel shows about actual murdering. Only I don't watch those shows, so shrug.

What I can say is that "Saw X" does take take some detours from the previous films; contestants in Jigsaw's games see exactly who Jigsaw is, and the twist, because of course there's a twist, is at least something that didn't just result in "oh this tertiary character from the film three films ago is back AND bad," but it is equally trite.

I can say that I do feel bad about Kramer's situation, a sick man on the verge of dying a slow and awful death, and there is a more psychological story here somewhere that would make for a really fascinating film. Instead, we watch a child in danger and an attempted rape, just to show how "bad" these bad people are. It is cheap, sleazy and below the moral the character Jigsaw claims to have.

Oh an before I forget, fan-favorite Amanda (Shawnee Smith) is back too, former druggie who still struggles to understand John's levelheaded approach. That is, as levelheaded as having a character cut their own dome open and slicing out a piece of brain tissue can be.

The Expend4bles Review

You know, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a pretty smart guy: I learned in a recent Netflix documentary that he was wealthy before becoming a huge star via real estate. Or, something like that. I bring this up because he wisely skipped over "The Expendables 4" after appearing and eventually staring in the first three. The "why" is unimportant ultimately, be it Hollywood politics or money or whatever, because "The Expendables 4" is not very good.

From stilted acting to stilted action, the franchise takes an amazing nosedive following a perfunctory opening action sequence where we're introduced our bad guy Rahmat, played by Iko Uwais. He follows the franchises former villains Eric Roberts, Jean Claude Van Damme and Mel Gibson, actors who outclass Uwais in terms of onscreen presence and pure acting chops. He's very convincing in the hand-to-hand fights, but so what? He just smirks at the camera and recites a few bits of somewhat pithy dialogue and that's it. That's his character arc. He's lame to watch and I really fault screenwriters Kurt Wimmer, Tad Daggerhart and Max Adams for not exploring the whys and hows to why and how he's doing anything.

Sylvester Stallone, who pretty much help create the series, seems bored, skipping on an early bar brawl for a cheap joke about hurting his back, and his paycheck-cashing attitude is felt throughout the runtime. (Let's just say this: newcomer Andy Garcia, who fills the roll of Bruce Willis and Harrison Ford of the mysterious guy who gives the team orders, has more screentime than Stallone.) Not only by Stallone but also by every cast member. Jason Statham, also returning from the last three, at least gives his all to the physical role he's been hired for, but remember, he's the one who signed on to fight a CGI shark in front of a green screen. (Twice!) Also returning is Dolph Lundgren and Randy Couture, who do nothing but look serious when firing a pretend gun, and supply a gag or two about their physical appearance. Lundgren fares worse, as he's shown to have overcome a drinking problem, but who ends up returning to the bottle (er, well flask) to help his aim. What a great message.

To fill out the cast we also get Megan Fox as Statham's girlfriend and new member of The Expendables. She's introduced barely wearing anything and has perfect hair and makeup even during gunfire. There's such thing as sex appeal and then there's just laziness. She doesn't even look comfortable and I felt uncomfortable watching her. 50 Cent is also new and, so what? He's fine as an actor, but the script gives him the generic roll of rolling his eyes at everyone. Har he har har.

To risk any spoilers, there are a few plot twists, three if I recall, and they are all so obvious that the only surprising thing is that they went through with them.

The action, the whole reason anyone would watch an "action" movie, is unexciting, with so many quick-cuts and panning cameras that it's hard to figure out what's going on or where the heroes are in to relation to the baddies. Director Scott Waugh, who handled the more entertaining "Hidden Strike" earlier this year, offers just one, ONE interesting sequence, where Statham is chased on a dirt bike inside then on top of a large cargo ship. I wasn't at the edge of my leather reclining seat, but it was something new. A bulk of the movie takes place on that boat because plot, so we get the same ol' creaky corridors of the same ol' hull of the same ol' ship that I've seen a hundred other times in other films.

I read online that the budget was something like 100 million dollars. Whatever house that bought Stallone must have been nice.

Equalizer 3 Review

Denzel Washington is a cinema heavy but his vigilante series "The Equalizer," with part 3 debuting this week, gives him nothing to do but look imposing and recite faux-philosophical and sometimes doomy dialogue betwixt bursts of extreme bloodshed. The mayhem is well shot by director Antoine Fuqua, who's helmed all three flicks, but so what? Violent films are a dime-a-dozen, and "The Equalizer 3" seemingly ends the franchise with a third act feeling left on the cutting room floor.

Of course I have no idea of the production history, but all the sudden the credits rolls and I'm left feeling cheated- the bad guy and hero exchange threats, tell each other that they'll meet again "soon," only for exactly what you think'll happen to immediately happen. Suspense is something in such short supply here that the film's trailer was more dramatic.

That isn't to dismiss the movie completely: the action is well shot, well staged and well acted, but the plot is simultaneously underdeveloped and needlessly complicated: Denzel of course returns as Robert McCall, who we see avenging a throwaway character when he stumples upon a drug-smuggling operation at a winery. He's shot by a young boy and is found by Italian policeman Gio (Eugenio Mastrandrea), who takes him to the town's local doctor Enzo (Remo Girone) and patched up. This of course means we ye olde trope of having our hero needing to recover their strength, but come on, why toy with the audience? Does anyone think for a second that his injuries are going to have any baring on the plot? It. Does. Not.

Perhaps it's Denzel's advancing age (the man's nearly seventy!), but an injury is (allegedly) a cinematic way to distract from the idea maybe he's too old to be taking down baddies like he does. In fact much of the action tales place in the dark of night, with McCall sneaking up upon foes; could it be that he's just not as sprightly as he used to be?

Almost the entirety takes place in this little Italian village, where we get rudimentary scenes of McCall interacting with the locals, and moments like this are just more and more cliches. He's reduced to the mysterious and mythical stranger who rescues a town in peril. It wouldn't feel so slightly insensitive if the townspeople had more to do except live quaint little lives where they sell fish, serve tea and coffee and help the community. It's an idyllic false reality that only exists in Hollywood and travel brochures.

There's a parallel narrative where McCall alerts the CIA's Emma (Dakota Fanning) to his earlier drug bust, and it's just narrative noise. The who's, why's, when's and how's amout to "terrorists" and the Camorra, or as the film tells us, the "Italian Mafia," and so what? The bad guys do bad things not because they have anything interesting to say or do, but because that's what stereotypes are.

Honestly the most interesting thing is how there exists a film trilogy, based on the 80's show, exists concurrently with a reboot of said show on TV, all of which share the name "The Equalizer ." I have not watched the new series, or the old one for that matter, but it can't be as disappointing as the first, second or third film.