Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Linkshoch Wonderful Movie

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

adonis98-743-186503 Following Jigsaw's grisly demise, Mark Hoffman is commended as a hero, but Agent Strahm is suspicious, and delves into Hoffman's past. Meanwhile, another group of people are put through a series of gruesome tests. Saw V once again feels like the same bad film than most of the Saw installments were plus i haven't seen a worse ending in my entire life than this. This franchise loves to kill the hero and it knows it and unfortunately it also kills any excitement for me to actually enjoy this movies as well. Skip Saw 5 by any way as possible as you can. (0/10)

TheLittleSongbird Finally saw all the 'Saw' films prior to seeing 'Jigsaw' (as part of my wanting to see as many 2017 films as possible this year, during a quieter and less intensive period). Heard a lot about the films, good and bad, but wanted to see them for myself to know what to expect.The films as an overall series are a very mixed bag. The original 'Saw' had a great premise and while it was problematic it was still pretty good and one of the best in the series. 'Saw II' had its own problems but it was still one of the few follow-ups to be just as good and have what made the first click as well as it did. Things did go downhill with the overblown and confusing 'Saw III', which was suggestive of not just the novelty wearing off but done to death. 'Saw IV' was an improvement, with some elements that made the first two work evident but still perplexed. 'Saw V' unfortunately is highly suggestive of the franchise having run out of ideas, there was little need for it other than to introduce the next film and it makes pretty much all the mistakes of the third instalment and fares even worse.'Saw V' has a few plus points. The opening trap is actually very chilling and inventive, setting a promising standard that was wasted by the rest of the film failing to live up to it. The Edgar Allan Poe references are fun, though you'd have to be familiar with his work and the works that are being referenced to get them.Music is suitably eerie once more and that Tobin Bell does so well with the very little he's given despite being criminally underused and woefully misused is a miracle in itself.Only Bell gives a halfway decent performance here sadly. Scott Patterson is very wooden and Costas Mandyler is bland apart from one decent scene being him and Bell. Even worse are the victims are very thinly sketched and dully acted, Julie Benz coming over as the most indifferent in terms of her character and her acting. That it is very difficult to connect with any of the characters in any shape or form (the other films do a much job even with Jigsaw, actually a very interesting villain shamefully wasted here) and that the script is perhaps the dreariest, most tired and contrived of the series works against them.With the exception of the opening trap, 'Saw V' fails on the creepiness and suspense. There aren't the truly ingenious traps (apart from that one), just as imaginative demises or the devilishly clever twists seen with primarily the twist ending of the first. The only twist that stands out, and in a bad way, is the rather obvious ending one. The rest of the traps/torture scenes are pornographic level and go too far with the gore to the point of being gratuitous. The investigative elements are dull and not particularly mysterious, and the story is the dullest and most convoluted to the point of incoherence. The flashbacks confuse the storytelling and bog it down rather than adding much and the re-used footage of the previous films feel more like a collection of deleted scenes.It will absolutely be a very good idea to have seen the previous films before seeing this, otherwise you'll be completely lost. From my experience though even those who have seen the previous films will find themselves scratching their heads at times. Visually, it's neither elaborate or claustrophobic, especially in the editing it just looks rushed and shoddy straight to video level. David Hackl's visual style is heavy-handed and even for a first-time director this was amateurishly inept directing.Concluding, a weak instalments where the pieces of the puzzle don't fit together. 3/10 Bethany Cox

joelmendoza-02083 The bloody, graphic, tormented franchise that is Saw, is by far, my favorite. The idea for the character's choice to learn their lesson or lose a part of themselves, peaks my interest. As well as the continuous theme of the characters being connected in some way/form. The constant twists at the end of the movies, keeps the franchise fresh and exciting. But the main reason for the movies high success and ability to have 7 movies' in the franchise, is the creative torturous traps. The misdirection by the movies' directors to stay firm on John Kramer not being a killer, and instead being a person of great service, by putting people's life in danger, in order to save it, is intriguing. It is very noticeable that directors and writers created all their movies on the foundation of a repeated formula. There is a main victim, he is taken and put to the test, people die along his way to freedom, he then either dies or doesn't, there's a twist at the end, then that's the movie. Honestly, I love that formula. It is short and simple to follow. It doesn't allow for any confusion. It follows what works, and doesn't try and replace that fact. However, in Saw V, it does just the opposite. The director's and writer's decision making in this film left me with an overall awful vibe to the Saw franchise. The main plot of in Saw V was constantly shifted from one event to another. At times it didn't make sense to change. The movie switched back and forth from events so frequently, with long pauses in between scenes, it didn't balance the events at all. The traps were boring, the character connection was confusing. Not cleared until the end. The decision of more characters in a single game diminished the passion from the actors to give their characters the true emotional and mental torment the victims' go through. The film was cluttered, far too much happening at once, to give a serious view on the franchise. The movie was misdirecting, unorganized, and shows a valid example of lazy writing and delivery. Angles can be used to further a story, and control the reaction a crowd has to a certain scene. In the first Saw movie, close-ups were used frequently, especially in times of mass emotion. When Dr. Gordon cuts off his own leg you can see the pain, sorrow, and determination all from one reused, close up. In Saw V, the angles used didn't once drive me as a viewer. I wasn't captivated or Intune with any of the scenes, because the angles used were not effective at all. The lighting in Saw V was not very effective. In Saw, the lightning in the movie highlighted the actor's emotions, and distress fair to well. In Saw II, the yellow lightning presented an idea of sickness, symbolizing the poisonous gas flowing through the house and bright enough to show the agony in the protagonist's faces. In Saw III, as the dad throw light up rooms, unlike the one that hosts his son's killer. Showed hatred and darkness in his heart for him. In Saw V, the lightening was generic. Light enough to see their faces, but no real meaning, no thought behind it. Lightening was another key aspect of the film the directors completely missed. Overall, Saw V is my most disliked movie in the franchise. Apart from the film's aspects, the story was corrupted. The traps were lame, and were not very creative. The characters gave poor performances, weren't genuine. Emotion would be high, and then low. Nobody switches emotion that fast. Saw V is not horrible in a horror movie view, but in comparison to the earlier installments, it is the worst.

swilliky The fifth installment of the prolific and grotesque horror series picks up where the previous film left off but this time whoever is carrying out the terrible Jigsaw murders is not giving any mercy to the victims even after they comply with the sick rules. Agent Strahm (Scott Patterson) stumbled onto the scene of the third film and was set to die but made a last minute decision to puncture his throat so he can breathe while his head is trapped in a box full of water. Mark Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) is surprised to see that someone has survived the horrors of Jigsaw. Jill (Betsy Russell), the wife of John Kramer (Tobin Bell), is given a box of John's belongings after his death. Hoffman must cover up his role in Jigsaw latest puzzle even as he receives a note that someone knows his identity. With a hole in his throat healing, Strahm suspects Hoffman of some wrongdoing.The main trap of this film starts with five people tied together. They each have on a collar that will pull their head back into a sharp blade. There are boxes with keys on them that they can only reach if they hurt someone else. Charles (Carlo Rota) seems to know something about the other victims. Mallick (Greg Bryk) goes for the key first but Charles pulls him back and gets his own key first. Four of them make it out while one woman has her head cut off. Dan Erikson (Mark Rolston) tells Strahm to take time off but the FBI agent pursues his investigation of Hoffman learning that the detective's sister was murdered by a man who was sliced in half in the first scene by a scythe. The four survivors learn more about each other. Luba (Meagan Good) is the daughter of a wealthy sports team owner, Charles is a reporter, Mallick a trust fund kid, and Brit (Julie Benz) just has a boring job in real estate.Check out more of this review and others at swilliky.com