Film Review Collection: Mario Puzo's The Godfather

THE GODFATHER (1972) Five out of Five
In cinema, there are few films that can, at all, be considered either great, and fewer that can be considered perfect. Mario Puzo's The Godfather is one of those films that is perfect. Being based of off the best seller by Mario Puzo, director Francis Ford Coppola creates one of the most accurate portrayals of an Italian crime family. When most people think about films that deal with the Mafia, Italian gangsters, what they think about is people that ship drugs, deal with prostitution, and above all else, just fight others for the hell of it. But, what makes The Godfather so different is that, contrary to the rather dark, violent nature of the film, this movie destroys all stereo types as it becomes a film that is not, at all, about running a crime family. This film is REALLY about a father trying to pass his legacy and empire to one of his sons and that one son having to come to terms with his own legacy and the choices he makes. When Mario Puzo decided to originally write the novel that this film is based on, he did it only for the money and nothing else. But what he did not expect was to have his entire creation take a complete life of it's own in a way that only few people can imagine. Even more so was the shock of how well this film did. Want a little taste of how well this film did? Before the film was even released, The Godfather Part II was already in development. But, more on that later. Now, my complete reaction to watching this film. To say that this is one of my personal favorite films of all time would be something of a drastic understatement. With me, there are some films that you like and some that change your life. This is one of those films that changes your life with each and every viewing. When I first sat down and watched this film, I remember feeling complete once the credits started to role. I know that sounds cheap, but it is true. Everything from the story to they way Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) is in this film, it just spoke to me in a way that very few films can ever do. And I am not the only one that felt this way. There is a magic in this movie that can never be paralleled and the closes that we get (and one that is pretty damn close at that) is the sequel that is said to be equal to better then this film. But more on that later. Let's get down to the details. With direction, Coppola does wonders. He keeps the story moving, never dragging behind, and keeps making you interested with the look of the film. While some have complained about the lighting used as being too dark of a film or too gold, I say that the use of that is, quite fantastic. The reason why is because it always sets the mood for the scene and the tone that you will end up feeling. Plus, little added in items like the use of oranges in some scenes give this film a little kick by letting the audience know that something is about to go down. For the direction, Coppola, you do wonders. And the Academy Award for Best Direction was well won and deserved. Now the acting. Oh, my God. What can I say? Well, letâ(TM)s think. Marlon Brando won the Academy Award for Best Actor and Al Pacino won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. Need I say more? Okay, I will talk about the supporting cast. With huge names like Richard Dreyfus, James Caan, Abe Vigoda, and Diane Keaton, this film is filled with some of the greatest talent that money can buy. But what shocks me the most is that they treat this film with such a tone of seriousness that they literally stop becoming themselves and become these incredible people. Next the score. Like so many classic films, this film's score is something of a staple in film history. Mostly due to the famous 'The Godfather Waltz', Nina Rota became a household name in the music world due to the simplicity of that piece. It was simple, yet set the tone perfectly. The only crime that has ever been done on this film was the score not being nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Score. Oh well. Later on, this film saga will get it's award. Finally the script. Being adapted from the novel by Mario Puzo, and being written by him and Coppola, this film mirrors the novel so closely that you would only have to read the novel to know more about the extra characters that are not THAT huge. The dialogue is authentic, honest, and bold as this well written script is presented. The Academy Award for Best adapted Screen play was also well deserved. Overall, this entire film is worthy of the magnitude that it has gotten, the awards it has won (including Best Film), and the hearts and souls it has touched. Easily one of the greatest films ever made.

THE GODFATHER, PART II (1974) Four and a half out of Five
As I have said in all of the 100 reviews I have written up to this point, if there is one thing I despise it would have to be sequels. Now, for those that are new, the reason why is simple: sequels next to never live up to their potential and end up destroying the story that the original had created. Well, this film does not destroy nor surpasses The Godfather. Instead, it is more like a continuation of an already great tale, giving us the back story on Vito (played by a then unknown Robert De Niro) and the destruction of Michael (played by already Academy Award winner Al Pacino) in a rather original way to tell both stories: show through out the film both sides as they happen at once. Now, as most people know, I love the beloved original film and I was a little worried about my taste with this film. I already knew that it won a slew of Academy Awards (including the award for best film; a first for a sequel) and people have had the audacity to say that this is the better film in Francis Ford Coppola's epic Crime saga. My opinion after watching this film is that, if I had to guess where it would rank among the three films, I would have to say that it would be almost tied to the original. The main reason is this: The original had a feel of being welcomed into this world. Through the opening shots of Vito Corleone talking to his friend on the day of his daughter's wedding, we are welcomed with cold arms into their world. With this film however, you are just thrown in without any mercy. You are shown the blunt world where everyone is guilty of something and no one is innocent (except the children Marianna Hill as Deanna Corleone) and you are left cold and isolated as you look into the past and present of the Corleone crime family. But what really makes this film stand out would have to be how much all of the characters have changed from the previous film. For Michael, he goes from being a bright young man to a ruthless, heartless, cold bastard that destroys everything in his way to his sister Connie who has become something of a complete tramp and a neglectful mother. Due to how these characters change, you get the feeling that this film would be better due to their development. But, as I have said, it is mostly due to the feel of this film that makes the original a tad bit better. But, ignoring that aspect, this film is a perfect follow up to the original classic. Now for the details. With directing, Coppola shows us that he is no where near tired yet as he directs this entire masterpiece. Now, the thing that caught me off guard with this film would have to be the slew of emotions I felt while watching this film. If there is one thing that Coppola can do is make his audience feel for the characters. He allows them to build up, grow,  and when two particular scenes near the end begin, you can not help but feel like you are about to burst into tears due to how desperate one character is, and the actions and heartache another one shows us. Coppola is a master behind a camera, and this film might be his directorial masterpiece (next to The Godfather and Apocalypse Now). With acting, oh wow. Where do I begin with this one. Might as well start with the men of this film. Okay, first person to mention is Al Pacino in his award winning role as Michael Corelone. After already winning an Academy Award for that role when he was in the original, I am still impressed at how he was able to move the character through out this story. He made the character barbaric, evil, and just plain unlikable, but his acting made him likable as well. Just, Pacino breathed life into this character and allowed him to take control in so many ways it was unreal. After this film was made, he won another Academy Award for this film and I must say: it was well earned. Next is Robert De Niro portraying Vito Corleone. As most people know about this film, it goes back and forth between Michael's life and Vito's life and for Vito, we have a then unknown actor filling in the shoes of Marlon Brando. Now, that alone is difficult as hell to do, considering how great Brando was and how iconic he made the character. Now, my reaction to this performance was that I am impressed with the bravery alone that De Niro had for this performance. He portrayed the younger Vito with such power and authority that he would of made Brando proud. He was just that good. Now, De Niro would go on the receive the Academy Award for Best Supporting actor, and for this film he deserves it. If you are a fan of De Niro's work, then this is a good place to start for learning about his career. Now you have Robert Duvall as the ever loyal Tom Hagen. Personally, I like how he was able to keep cool during some rather intense scenes that deal with Michael's decent into pure hell. Duvall gives it his all in this film and he was wonderful. Now we must get down to the three women who took over this film. The first would have to be Diane Keaton as Amy Corleone. When we last saw her, we saw the look of shame and disgust that was on her face when she realized how much Michael has lied to her. In this film, she wants out. How badly does she want to get out? So bad that she does the unthinkable in one scene and makes it out to be something different that is all part of her plan. Now, Keaton had to play a complete different character in this film and seeing her new way of handling this character, I will admit that it was shocking and reveling in terms of her pure talent to act. She is an incredible actress and she is wonderful. Next would have to be Marianna Hill as Deanna Corleone. In the first film, Marianna had very little screen time as she was not that important to the story. Here, she plays a much larger role and has one of the most somber scenes in this film. She makes the character out to be more then a sweet old lady, she makes the character out to be an intelligent, thoughtful, and wise person who helps Michael when he is left with a terrible thought that nearly destroys him. Lastly Talia Shire as Connie. Like most females in the first film, here she shines as a totally different character. What makes her worthy is how she makes herself out to be this tramp that just does not care about her family, hates her brother, and abandons her children. Connie transformed in one of the worst ways possible, but we love Shire for making the character so damn wonderful to watch. Next up is the script. One thing that needs to be stressed is that this film's script was only half written from the original novel by Mario Puzo. The other half was written by him and Coppola, but it was mostly original. Personally, I did not think that the story needed to be continued, but having the original creator there to do the work, the script became a clever, emotionally charged epic that is bound to catch a few people off guard. Fantastic work here. Lastly the score. Getting Nina Rota back again, the score is longer, has more music cues, and is just fun to listen to. The best tracks appear during the flashback scenes in the film while the most dramatic happen in the present day parts. But, what I like about it is just how creative it gets with the music and how it moves from the beginning to the end. The entire time, we are eclipsed with the wonders of it's notes that the music becomes a comfort in so many scenes. Then again, the score did win the award for best original score, so that should say something. Overall, this is an emotional film that is worthy of it's original and works well as a stand alone in some respects.

THE GODFATHER, PART III (1990) Four out of Five
This is it: The end of the greatest film trilogy of all time and one that has yet to be beaten. Every moment of the previous films led up to this film and, for the most part, it does not disappoint. Now, this film has something of a reputation of being underrated and being a terrible ending to the saga of the Corleone crime family. After me watching it, I do not find this as a terrible ending. Yes, it does not grab you like how the first two did, but if you allow yourself to re-fall into the world of Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), you are in for a bittersweet ride as he tries to redeem himself in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of his children and, mostly, the eyes of the woman he loves: Kay Adams (Diane Keaton). When I first saw this film, the one thing that got to me was the first twenty minutes. I am not ruining anything by saying this, but the complete twenty minutes is complied by stock footage of the first two films and they all have to deal with Michael and Kay as we see where they are when part III starts. It does set the tone for what is to come and when we see it, it will surprise you by one person who passes. My reaction to the film was completion. The first film left me exhilarated. The second film left me with sadness with how Michael destroyed the empire his father built. This film left me with completion as we watch what is the true end to Don Vito Coleone's family. Is it sad? Yes. Will you shed some tears? Yes. And will you be left wanting more? No. This film fills you up and you realize that there can never nor should their be any other film in this saga. It is about Michael and it ends with Michael. One of the greatest crimes, as I said, about this film would be that it is underrated. That is true. This is a good to great film that, while it is not up their with the likes of its prequels, is worthy of the title of The Godfather and is just exhilarating. Now, let's get down to the details. Okay, for direction, we have Francis Ford Coppola returning for the final time to compose this film. When he takes this film, he does not completely take the film seriously, and my guess is this: He knows he had raised the bar beyond too high with Part II and as such, tries to make this film like any other sequel, but does so with honor. Some of the scenes in this film are beautifully shot and filmed. Mostly those that deal with The Vatican and Sicily that this film takes place in. For those areas, you can tell that Coppola as respect for those lands and he makes damn sure that they are filmed with respect and not sloppily. Visually, this film is gorgeous. Now, with him conducting the actors, he does mostly a good job with them, but a certain few just are not that good and could have been beyond better job, but looking back at how the story is, it might have been for the best. But, it would have been better if  certain things were better. The only other thing that I can say about this film's direction is the ending. Just, how tragic it is with two shocking deaths and how it is filmed transcends through the screen and effects us, the audience. Coppola has made us part of this crime family and we have started to love and care about each and every member. When these deaths happen, Coppola makes sure that we shed tears during so. Now for acting. Pacino and the rest of the cast from the previous film (including some people we have not seen sense the first film) all have a part in this film even if it is just something like an arm or the presence of someone. This film was meant to go off with a bang, and the actors all do a beyond perfect job in the help of ending this film. But one particular character and actress has been talked about nonstop in talks of this film and is the one that most people blame for the downfall of this film. The actress in question is the real life daughter of the director: Sophia Coppola. Now, she plays the very bubbly and happy daughter of Michael and she is basically oblivious as to the extent of her family. She is aware of what happens, but she plays the character has someone who just does not care. This saddens me because I would of liked it if she were more serious about the evils that her family has done, but at the same time I can understand why it is that she played the character this way. Mary Corleone was raised by her mother to not be in this world. While Mary was in some early attacks during the previous film, she is mostly unaware of the rest of everything except for some bits she was told. She was raised away from the evil and wicked of this world and as such, she is not at all fully aware of how serious this world is. This is one of her flaws and this flaw was made by Sophia Coppola. While I am acceptable towards this one particular incident, I do wish that the character was more understanding of the situation and more intelligent in some areas and subplots she is associated with. Another person I want to mention is the actress of Connie Coppola: Talia Shire. Sense the first film, Connie has been my third favorite character in the entire trilogy. Why, you might ask? Simple: she is one of the most developed characters in the entire trilogy. In the first film, she was not interested with the family business and when Michael took over, she hated him due to how corrupt he became. In the second film, she was a total tramp through out, constantly with different men, forgetting about her own children, and not caring about her family. Until the end of the second film when she realizes the true horror of her own crimes and begs for forgiveness for her doubt and hatred of her brother. In this film, she is a totally different person. She now is taking control over parts of the family, ordering some executions, and above all else, being the one person that never left Michael as he continued down this spiral. Talia Shire gave this performance her entire power and strength and what resulted was one of the greatest characters I have ever seen in film. It is a pity that she was not nominated for this performance at all. She deserved recognition. Now, I told myself that I was not going to bring him up, but when talking about The Godfather, it is hard not to bring him up. Time for me to talk about Al Pacino. As a character and as an actor, he has grown tremendously from the first film. His character was tragic, evil, and at times a great antihero and it was all because of Al Pacino that we have loved and hated Michael so much. With this film, he makes the performance hopefully yet tiresome which is exactly how the script calls for him. I will admit that, like in the previous film, one particular scene in this film had me in tears that he was in, and if you have fallen in love with the story of The Godfather, then you will have that same reaction when you see this film. Pacino also makes this character tragic as Michael starts to regret all of the evil in his life and tries to make everything good. Pacino gives a strong performance and I find it a crime that he was not nominated for best actor. Pity. With the acting in general, it does disappoint me that the only two awards that were won were for Sophia Coppola and those were Razzies she won. I do not know what people were expecting with this film, but they had too high of expectations. Next the script. Being written again by the author of the original novel that spawned this film (The Godfather), this film's script just works with the tale and I am glad that Mario Puzo written it. He understood that his creation has created it's own life and he ended it before things got too stupid or out of control. Now, while the dialogue was no where near as good as the previous films, it was well written enough with plenty of those meetings talks that were in the previous film and the scenes that were spoken in Italian. Puzo had a gift for writing and, while this film did not show his true potential, this film does show very strong signs of that. Finally the score. Returning again is the composer for the previous two The Godfather films Nina Rota. The score is still breathtaking as it usually is, but this film it ends on a sad, but wonderful note as the saga comes to a close. My only true complaint (which is minor) is that I would wish that more was done to the score. Mostly to return it to how it was in the first film: One piano piece, numerous variations. But, overall, the score was beautiful and in numerous scenes, it worked. I like it. Overall, this is the true ending to the Holy Trilogy of cinema, and one that you should never miss. This is required viewing in cinema, regardless of what anyone else says.

Film Review Collection: SAW

SAW (2 1/2 out of 4)
With horror, as of now, there is next to nothing original to do other then make the films more grotesque, more diabolical, and just plain sickening. Horror as transformed into the genre known as Torture Porn which are nothing but films that have next to no plot and consist of a simple formula that involves brutally killing and slaughtering people. Now, one of the things about this film that makes it stand out is that, while it is grade 'A' Torture Porn, it is different in that it is original in terms of the plot and killer. The plot, you may ask? A man wants to teach people to value the life that they have and to stop trashing and making waste of that life. Now, we all know that to do this, this man named Jigsaw puts his victims through these terrible tasks that involves hacking off limbs, spewing gallons of blood, and a lot of screaming and fast cut camera tricks in rooms that are tinted either blue or green. Now, I arrived into this film rather early when it first came out. Originally I saw the film after seeing the trailer for the second film and being curious. When I first saw SAW, I will admit that while the gore did not effect me, the pacing did. This film takes next to forever to tell it's story, and I will admit that it did get a little tedious at first. But, going back and re-watching the film, I now know that it is not really the pacing that is the problem. It is how the film was written and directed that is the problem. But, looking back on it, I do see that this film was on to something that was beyond special and original and could have been a landmark film. But, like most films, it only got worse with the sequels that had followed. Now, for the details. First off, the directing by James Wan. While this film was based off of a short film that he made (which is a MUCH better film), Wan does not really do that much of a great job. I mean, yeah he does try to make this into something of an art house film with the styles he uses and how it is all styled, but adding in the traps and the gore, it just does not mix all that well. He had potential, but it did not do much of anything. Acting, a tad bit better then one expects, but that is not saying much. Being made up of mostly unknowns (with the exception of The Princess Bride actor Cary Elwes), they are decent with them trying to make sense of the situation that they have been given. But, I would of liked to see more sides to the characters and more development. But, for some of the characters, the sequels give aid to that. So, I will cut some slack on that. But not much. For the script, this seemed like to me that it was written with only one draft and that was that. This script should have been rewritten, but add some development to the characters, fleshed them out, and give them better dialogue. Now, the best part of this entire film the score to the film. Written and composed by Charles Clouser, he does a fantastic job with the score, but the best piece is the one called 'Hello Zepp'. Only thing I have to say is that that piece is beyond fantastic and worth a listening to. Overall, this film could have been better, but it is not all that much. Watch only if you want to see what a Torture Porn film is like.

SAW II (3 1/2 out of 4)

One thing I probably have said about sequels is that if you are going to have a sequel, it does actually pay, believe it or not, to go and build on the previous film. Now, unlike most horror films, this one film actually does that with the story given to us in the first SAW. Not only that, but we also get the first long running director of the series Darren Lynn Bousman (who would later go on to direct the great Repo! The Genetic Opera). Now, before I get to the direction, acting, score, and script, there are two things I want to talk about: The traps in the film (how gruesome they are) and my first opinion based on my viewing experience. Okay, for the traps, I will admit that it was creative to have a bunch of mini traps inside one giant trap. It does show that the creators are thinking outside of their box for the film. Now, my entire opinion based on the film by watching it. removing some problems that are with the film, I will say that out of the entire film series, this is the best of all. Mostly due to how the film feels (raw but tamed), how the characters start to be understood, and we start understanding more of the psychotic mind and purpose of Jigsaw. Okay, enough of me analyzing this film, lets move down to the direction. This being the first main film by Darren Lynn Bousman, he does show some talent in directing a film that is Torture Porn and he does this with some loveliness. Now, while the film is mainly disgusting and not for the faint of heart, he does keep some things tamed while unleashing even more chaos and back-story. For acting, there is only one name that needs to be said about the acting and that is Tobin Bell. This is the film in the entire series (next to part V) that he just shines in his role. He was born for this role, he plays it with perfection, and is just the best actor in this entire film. If you must see this film and can not handle the gore, then this is the film I suggest you watch due to his performance. Now, it is not at all Oscar worthy, but it is not Razzie worthy either. But, it is good. Now, the score to this film feels like the exact same as the previous film, but at least they are keeping the now famous theme track that I do enjoy. Finally the script. I am going to give Leigh Whannell credit for advancing this dark, bleak world that he has created and for the fleshing out of some characters that are going to be main characters in the story. My only problem is that, while there is some back story and the way the traps were written are nicely done, this film should of had it's own plot and this film should have been around it. The entire trap business, while good, could have been greatly expanded upon. But, sadly, it was not. Overall, this is the best of the series, but if you did not like the first film, then do not bother watching this one. Why? Because I doubt that this film would win any new fans.

SAW III (3 out of 4)
One problem I have always had with the SAW series is that this franchise should of just been a trilogy. Nothing more. This film, for numerous reasons, felt like the ending that the series should of had. Nothing more. Now, is this film as good as part II? No. Not at all. But, in some respects it is better then part I. Mostly due to the final details that were needed for understanding Jigsaw. With Darren Lynn Bousman returning as director, he does treat this film a little bit more recklessly then he did the previous film, but still is able to get the main story across. Now, my reaction to this film was that this is the true ending. Nothing more. The traps, while grisly and a little bit disturbing (not like hacking off feet, poking out your eyes, and being burnt alive is not disturbing), do get a little ridiculous as they go about and at times can be painful. But, still watchable if you can handle the previous two films. Now, for the directing. As I have said, Bousman does become a little bit sloppy with this film and did do some rather idiotic choice that just did not work with this film. Personally, somethings like a certain mysterious box that is never explained should have been removed. For me, it seemed like he was trying to copy Tarantino a little bit too much and that is just not cool. Well, I can say this at least (and a little heads up on the next film): he did do a better job with the budget then he did the next film. Acting, while Tobin Bell still proves that he is the best actor in the film series, I am going to have to give props to Shawnee Smith who plays Amanda Young. Now, this character is my second favorite out of the entire series due to one thing: this character understands her crimes before Jigsaw meet her and understands that she must pay for her sins by protecting and helping Jigsaw. But, why I am recognizing Ms. Smith is due to the fact that she makes Amanda as being this rather psychotic follower that is more terrifying then the traps and the film it self. For the script, as I have said before, seemed like that this was meant to be the end of it all. But, sadly, they had to continue on with more films. The script has some great closer to the characters of Amanda and Jigsaw, but fail on this film having a personal plot that is not a complete rehash on the previous films. This one had some potential, but does not live up to it. The score, nothing new here. Still the same old thing as the previous films. Overall, if you ever want to watch the SAW series, just watch I - III. That is the main trilogy and as a trilogy it works wells. Now, this being it's own film, it is not all that wonderful.

SAW IV (1 out of 4)

Okay, let me just ask this: What the hell happened?!?!?! Seriously, this film should of never been made. Okay, let me breath for a few seconds before I continue. Alrighty. The first three films told a complete story. Simple as that. But, may I ask who decided to make a film that is not only a continuation of the third film but is actually worse? It is times like this that I wish that film companies would of just held back on making films just for money. But, at the same time, two things are taken into account with why this film turned out as bad as it did. For starters, none of the original writers of this film worked on the writing. Why? Because they were off making the mediocre and better horror film Dead Silence. Now, this film is cheap looking at the budget was not used well with this film. Now, the reason for the budget not being that good is simple: While this film was being made, another movie was borrowing the budget so it could be made. The film that was being made was Repo! The Genetic Opera (a BEYOND better film that is extremely original). So, due to a lack of budget and the original creators not even working on this film, I think it can be safe to say that this is the bastard child of the franchise. Now, lets' start with the details of this film. With direction, Bousman gives one of his worst jobs with this film and that is sad seeing as how this is the last film in the series he would be working on. My main problem is that he worried too much about the gore factor and tried to create more of a plot with the film then what there already was. Well, the end result was not, at all, pretty. Just, there was so much non-needed parts with this film that this would of been better if edited. Now for the acting. One thing that would start happening with the series that caused the main downfall would be the idea of having one person that be the victim and him or her being the ones that will have to do the killing to save themselves. Now, while this might have worked, this film was the draft for how that would of been and it is just awful. Now acting. For the most part, the acting was not at all good. I mean, yeah I know that now the series was just going for the gore factor, but this is now ridiculous and even improbable. What made me like the previous films was that those traps could actually happen in real life. In real life, you could do something like hack off your foot, be in a torture house, and could have an entire necklace with guns attached to your head. Those can happen and they added a touch of reality to the entire series. now, with this film, it is all implausible to even happen. Very disappointing. The script, same as I said: nothing at all new. Just pointless dialogue and subplots that amount to nothing but just filler. Same with the score. Overall, this film I pity due to how bad it is and how it was made. The producers and Bouseman should of looked at the film, realize that they would be spewing their names in dirt with it, and just discarded it.

SAW V (1 1/2 out of 4)

After the abomination that was SAW IV, this film does redeem the previous film a bit. Getting a new director, this film does what, in my opinion, part IV should have done: build on the entire legacy of Jigsaw by showing us how his Disciples carry out the work that Jigsaw created while, at the same time, giving us some more background as to who the first victim is, what caused him to finally snap, and above all else, help us understand the logic behind him and his mad world. Now, the crew for this film is filled with what the other films had: a bunch of unknown actors (aside from Tobin Bell), a rather bad script (that is better then the previous film's), and a bit more of a budget. Now, my reaction to this film was something like a breath of fresh air after the previous abomination. Just, seeing the film and knowing that its would be moving on and not detailing another side of part III, this film gave me some relief. Even more with rather fast pacing and the entire subplot of Jigsaw. Now, lets get down to the details. For directing, we have David Hackl at the helm. He does okay in this film with direction and for keeping with the new way the film series has taken. And, what you may ask is the new way? Why, that is simple: forget the plot and just show us blood, guts, and gore while giving us back story on Jigsaw. Now, while I love hearing more of a story then a plot, I have to take into consideration that now the films do not have that at all. Beyond pitiful in my opinion. There should of been more. But, this is just the way it has taken. Now, for the traps, they are a tad bit more gruesome, but more original. This film has something of the same feel of part II in terms of the traps with having a group of people that must work together to get out. Now, I would rate this film higher is some of the parts to this trap were more realistic, but now there is nothing realistic in the series. With acting, while most of it sucks, the only half decent actor that would be in the next three films would be Costas Madylor. Now, he is not a good actor at all. Defiantly not. But, seeing as how the next few films surround him, I might as well talk about him and his character. For the most part, his character is just a brutal version of Amanda from the first three. With him taking over the legacy of Jigsaw, he does the one thing that he should of never done: bastardize it completely. But, I will get more to him some other time. Now, the script I kind of like due to the fact that, while as I said we get more information on Jigsaw, he start to see what happens when his followers decide to take the legacy into their own hands. So, for trying to reestablish a story into this saga of gruesome and torture, I will give them some credit. But, that credit is next to worthlessness. For the score, it is the same as the previous films. So, nothing really to talk about there. Overall, this film is better then part four, but no where near as good as the original trilogy.

SAW VI (2 out of 4)

Now, this is what I am talking about! Okay, let me back up a bit. After SAW V, I started to have some hope that the film series might actually turn around. A little hopeful I was when thinking about that and after the previous films, you start to feel like the writers have finally understand what works and what doesn't. With SAW VI, they return to a method that works that includes some more expansion with the universe that there is. Plus, some of the acting is a little bit better, the directing is better, and the traps are not entirely as gruesome and pathetic, but there is at least one that even I found myself applauding at. Now, my main reaction to this film was hope. That feeling I had was due to how good this film is in terms of the series. Now, let's get down to the details. As I have said, Kevin Greutert gives the series some light in that he makes the film feel like it belongs by expanding the idea of Hoffman, gives us our new Antihero, and actually moves the film along. Now, the entire main trap plot I could of done without due to me not even caring about who is involved and what they do. Trust me: you would only want to see those parts if you like seeing the gore aspects. But, for the story, you will be cheering on the struggle between the characters of Hoffman and Jill as they both try to take over the legacy. They each have their own reasons and, while the aftermath might be the same, the way and reasons are what separates and it all comes down to who will do what is right: follow how it was suppose to go or do the complete opposite. Now for acting, I want to talk about Betsy Russell who portrays as Jigsaw's only true heir to the legacy and exwife.  Her role in the film proves to me that she has true love for her husband's work and she wants to remain loyal to him. While Ms. Russell is not a good actress, she is not a terrible one at all. She does add a little bit of, I think the right word would be honor, yeah, she adds a bit of honor to the series by trying to keep those who are killed the same reason as her husband plus try to get rid of some people that might ruin the entire legacy even more. On the scale of Oscar acting or Razzie acting, she is in the middle, but more on with the Razzie end of the spectrum. The script, as I said, is better written then the previous one by adding more thrills then horror to the story. Plus, the entire idea of Hoffman against Jill, while it will be decided in the final film, does have something of an excitement if you allow yourself to be plunge into this world. And I like how paranoid Hoffman gets in the film. The score, why do I bother anymore with the score? It is basically the same one used over and over for all of the films with no one going around to try to make it different. Well, you can guess what I think of it just based on what I had written. Overall, this is a better entry in the series in terms to SAW IV - V, but this film is not as good as the original trilogy, but it is close.

SAW VII/ 3D (1/2 out of 4)

Well, here we are my friends. The final film of the entire SAW series. The one that ends it all. Every question you had ever had about the series is answered with then trillion created. The traps are gruesome, but the plot is worse. Overall: This film (censored) BLOWS!!!! I mean, what had happened? Was it the 3D? Was it due to how the story was heading? Or was it the truth? The truth is that Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton just did not care anymore. Yeah, that is it. The people decided that it would best if they just throw in a bunch of traps that looked cool, would pop out in 3D, and then that would make a movie. I am disappointed. When I saw this film, I knew that I was not to expect a great script, great characters, but what I was expecting was some effort. I mean, we SAW fans have given up years of our lives to loving and watching these films on Halloween due to us wanting to experience the eighties when we had Slasher films released early around the same time that it became a complete tradition to go to a movie theater and to see the latest chapter. Now, with those, the final film, for the most part, paid off and we were all satisfied. This film, we do not get that. Instead, we get about ten trillion more questions, the most insulting plot twist that fans have guessed at from the start of the series, and one of the worst written films I have ever seen. So you know how bad this is, I am willing to put this with Troll II and Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen on my list of bad films. So, as you can imagine, I was hurt when I saw this movie. Now, let's get to the details. With direction, the only parts that were well filmed were the torture scenes. While some of them were creative, that is not, at all, where the direction should have been focused at. What it should have been focused on was clearing up all of the unanswered questions that fans now and still have. Disappointed. Acting, I think is even worst then I imagined. And this having a decent budget and ending this generation's horror series, I would of thought that they would of taken it seriously. But what we got was them only acting like they were trying to act and they only done that just because they did not care and they just wanted to get their paychecks. For the script, I am actually curious as to how they mapped out everything. For starters, why create more questions? Why give Tobin Bell next to no screen time? And why give it a cliffhanger of an ending? I just do not get it. If they decide to make an eighth one, then I am sorry, but I will refuse to watch it. The score, forget it. I am not even going to try with that. Overall, this is one of the worst endings to a franchise and is not even worth the watch. If you must ever see the SAW films, just stick to the original.

Stieg Larsson's Dragon Tattoo Trilogy Review.

MEN WHO HATE WOMEN (THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO)
With the way most Americans are in terms of films, it is beyond hard to find a forgien film that mainstream audiences will just go and gobble up. Even harder is adapting a literary work that has a mega fan base of loyal followers and, at the same time, trying to keep the story film worthy. Men Who Hate Women (The Original Swedish Title) does this and so much more. Based off of the late, great Swedish writer Stieg Larsson's allegory for violence against women, this is a film that does something that has not really been done sense Quentin Tarantino made Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction: Revamp the crime genre. The script of this film does a rather good job at adapting the novel, but like all adaptations, some things have to be altered to fit the screen. While I would have liked some of the subplots that were in the novel to be included, what has been changed is satisfying enough. The direction of this film, in terms of pace, is rather slow and tedious, but that is the point: it is meant to be. Like Al Pacino's Dog Day Afternoon, this film's pace is meant to make the viewer feel like they are the characters and know what they are going threw. In that sense, the pacing is spot on. Now, we come to one of the best parts of this film: The Score. Claimed to have be written under three days for all three films, the score is wonderful and does a good job at keeping the tone of the film in check. For the acting, I doubt I can describe just how phenomenal it is. For acting, only one name needs to be said: Noomi Rapace. Ms. Rapace portrays the character Lisbeth Salander and, well, she makes the performance believable. What can I say about her acting? Her acting in this film is spot on perfect as she becomes this fascinating heart and soul of the story (in both the film and novel) while making Lisbeth seem more human. Her performance alone is worth seeing this film and making it unforgettable. Overall: This is a film that some mainstream viewers may not like due to it's length. But if you sit back and become one with the story, then you are in for one hell of a ride.

THE GIRL WHO PLAYED WITH FIRE
One thing one must understand and learn about sequels is that they are always going to be worse then the original, sometimes equal to the original, or better than the first. On the second film in Stieg Larsson's Dragon Tattoo Trilogy, it is not better then the fist, defiantly not worse then the original, but at the same time not equal. The main thing that makes it not equal is the already lower shock value that the original had. The original was unexpected and that made Men Who Hate Women (The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo) beyond wonderful. Regardless, this film is still great. One of the things that has changed is the director. Being Daniel Alfredson (brother of Let The Right One In director Thomas Alfredson) in the chair of conducting this film, he does have the story stray away from the novel, but does it in an wonderful fashion. For me personally, this is both a good and a bad thing. While I admit that the film works, there are a few subplots from the novel that I would have liked to see in the film. But, for what it is in terms of direction and story, it is satisfying. The score for this film is basically the same as the first: Wonderful. If you loved the score for MWHW, then you will love this one (mostly because it is basically the same). Now for the acting. Noomi Rapace (Lisbeth Salander) is still a bad ass babe in this film as she tries to free her name that has been slandered upon and uncover the dark secrets from her past that has made her the person she is. Michael Nyqvist (Mikael Blomkvist) is still wonderful as his character, but plays the role pretty much the same. I would have liked some more emotion, but that is just me. Overall, this is a good sequel that stands on it's own, but it is BEYOND strongly recommended that you have the third film.

THE AIR CRAFT THAT WAS BLOWN UP (THE GIRL WHO KICKED THE HORNET'S NEST)
One of the most popular forms of film series is the Trilogy. Some of the most famous include The Matrix, Gamera, Mad Max, Rebirth Of Mothera, Saw (before part 4 - 7 were made), etc. Now, one thing most sequels have in common is that the third and last film ends up being the best. While The Air Castle That Blew (The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest) is not the best of the Trilogy, it is still a beyond satisfying conclusion to the best crime trilogy ever made. Now, the director is the same as last time (Daniel Alfredson), and this is good seeing as how this film operates at the beginning in connection with the ending to the conclusion of The Girl Who Played With Fire. The only real problem that people have with the direction of this film is the pacing which, I do not see the problem. For me, if one was to pay attention to the story, the pacing is exactly how it needs to be: Not fast, not slow. Just right. Now, with the script, it is about the same as the previous film, just a lot of the violence is toned down and so has been the language used. For the fact that this is a court drama, this has to be called upon. Like the other two previous films, the score here is done by Jacob Groth again, and this time it is darker and more tense then the others. Perfectly capturing the high stakes tension as Lisbeth (Noomi Rapace) is fighting for her life and freedom. Which brings me to the acting. While Noomi Rapace has done a damn good job thus far with playing Salander, here she perfects it down. Wile watching this, she completely becomes this obscene, abnormal character that has a presence that can stop you dead just by looking at her. The best example of this is when she is walking to her first court trail. In the entire trilogy, this is the best scene that was directed. While I was watching that scene, a huge smile grew on my face as I realized that in the seven hours that the films take up, that that scene completely capture Stieg Larsson's world or corruption, darkness, and abuse. The other actors do a decent job playing themselves. Nothing too special there. But, the only character that I would say that, other then Salander, that I think deserves mentioning is the character of Erika Berger (Lena Endre). One thing about this character that stands out to me is how strong she becomes when she makes her own choices and has to turn away from Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) when he makes a choice that will determine their relationship. As a whole, this is a much better film then The Girl Who Played With Fire (which is a great film), but must be scene with the aforementioned title to have the complete story for when you look at it, it is all one giant tale and allegory for Men Who Hate Women.