The Saw movies are almost as famous for their labyrinthine, borderline rococo plot twists as they are for their flesh-rending traps. The frenzied final 10 minutes of a Saw sequel will typically reveal that at least part of the narrative has actually been taking place before or during a previous sequel, rather than after, or that some new or established character has been in league with decrepit serial mangler Jigsaw the whole time. But even the disturbingly omniscient Jigsaw could not have foreseen this twist: as of this writing, the tenth Saw film Saw X has a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 83 percent. This is a series of films that has bravely defied the so-called “elevated horror” trend for nearly 20 years, remaining firmly in the aesthetic and critical gutter. By the broad critical consensus Rotten Tomatoes measures, the series’ previous critical peak was the very first Saw, which was buoyed by a positive reception at Sundance when it opened in 2004. Its sterling numbers, likely further boosted by years-after-the-fact re-evaluations? 50 percent. Most of the subsequent sequels hover closer to 25 percent. The previous installment, Spiral: From the Book of Saw (2021), went to the trouble of hiring actual household names Samuel L. Jackson and Chris Rock– and was rewarded with a 37% on Rotten Tomatoes and series-low box office returns. So what the hell went right with Saw X? Why is this bargain-basement series, once tagged with the gruesome moniker “torture porn,” suddenly an unexpected critical fave?
In the spirit of Jigsaw’s maddeningly hard-to-win traps, there are several interlocking explanations for this renaiSawnce. Part of it is that film criticism has changed, and horror movies are no longer working at a critical disadvantage. This was starting to change in 2004, when the grimy, amped-up grindhouse vibes of the original Saw garnered more positive reactions than, say, the limp (but extremely profitable) American remake of The Grudge. But there was still plenty of residual disdain for the genre—and particularly the genre’s slasher wing, where the Saw sequels ensured the series would be classified. Recall that legendary TV duo and middlebrow tastemakers Siskel & Ebert were so well-known for their disgust toward “dead teenager movies” (despite Ebert’s admiration for John Carpenter’s Halloween) that they claimed some horror fans relied on their reviews—to flag with their thumbs down what horror movies were therefore must-sees.
Those reverse-psychology work-arounds are hardly necessary anymore; since the advent of the Internet, younger and more diverse voices have gradually made their way into the critical firmament, and appreciation of horror movies, even a good slasher, is no longer confined to the pages of Fangoria. Now there are respected critics who bring real context to something like Saw X—and even the old guard seems more willing to play along. (Witness the positive Saw X review filed by Variety’s Owen Gleiberman, who muses about the series’ odd power even while getting several details about its plot and characters completely wrong.)
As it happens, there’s a whole crop of would-be critics almost too focused on series context. The shift toward understanding, analyzing, and appreciating formerly disreputable subgenres like slasher movies, superhero pictures, and sci-fi thrillers has been accompanied by a sometimes-obsequious attention to the commercial fortunes of movie franchises. In the world of glorified fan sites and YouTubers, it’s not unusual to hear movies discussed more or less like sports, with wannabe industry insiders explaining what it means for the franchise to see John Kramer back on the field, before doing a Moneyball rundown of Rotten Tomatoes numbers, box office returns, and Letterboxd rankings. Saw X has a higher Rotten Tomatoes number than Saw not because it’s a vastly better movie (would even the positive reviews argue this point?) but because almost every franchise movie enters the arena with a surprising amount of Rotten Tomatoes slack. Earlier this year, Fast X technically posted slightly better numbers than The Fast and the Furious. The number of MCU projects that have “better” reviews than Captain America: The First Avenger would probably surprise you.
Jesse Hassenger
Source link
