New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Tim Briody: This is a fine recovery from the disaster that was Saw VI, and I'm sure you can contribute a bulk of it to 3D. But the franchise is done, it had a good (and insanely profitable) run but the horror film around Halloween throne now belongs to Paranormal Activity, which I'm sure will now see a yearly entry until something else come along and the cycle will repeat itself.

Matthew Huntley: From a film lover point of view, I am ashamed of Saw VII's performance at the box-office. Seriously, how could the movie-going public spend nearly $25 million on what is likely the worst film so far this year (and that takes into account Sex and the City 2 and The Last Airbender)? I'm not sure if anyone else in the group had the unfortunate experience of seeing this travesty, but take it from me, it is quite awful. The only really I chose to see it was to review it (no, really), but I hope everyone who did see it feels the same way I do and we see a massive drop-off next weekend when the holiday fare rolls out.

As for Saw VIII, I give it 10 years. That's about the average for franchises that are clearly done which the studios think they can still milk when a new generation comes along.

Bruce, one thing I disagree with you about. You wrote, "They're already least tossing around concepts for a sequel." I don't think Lionsgate ever tosses around concepts; in this case, they merely copy pre-existing ones.

Tom Houseman: Oh Matt, it's adorable that you still have faith in the American public to see good movies.

Having never seen any Saw films, I am fairly confident that this will be the last Saw film for at least half a decade. Lionsgate smelled the milk they had and realized it was a day or two past its expiration date, so they decided to make one last bowl of cereal before it started to really stink up the place. 3-D was a good choice, because it gave it a more "must-see" feel for people who were getting tired of trudging out to theaters every year for the new Saw film. I think this franchise is finished until they get to work on "Saw: Origins" or some baloney like that.

Shalimar Sahota: It's a good enough result, obviously bolstered by the 3D. Sure it's profitable, but clearly the signs are there that the audience is dwindling (I stopped after viewing the fourth one), and Lionsgate ought to quit while they're ahead. As for the next Saw film, I really hope it doesn't happen. But I think Tom nailed it, and if one is in the works it'll probably be some prequel - Jigsaw's games before the bathroom incident. Or maybe they'll have better luck turning Saw into a TV series.

Edwin Davies: I suspect that if you took away the extra cash earned from the 3D ticket price hike then Saw 3D's total wouldn't be that much of an improvement on Saw VI's, so I'd attribute this success almost solely to the filmmakers really hammering home that 3D gimmickry.

Since Jigsaw died something like four films ago, I don't imagine that the series that bears he name will stay dead either. It might get rebooted in five years time, but I think the days of Saw being a yearly tradition are numbered. That is unless they finally see sense and adopt my idea for Saw 4D, in which the audience are strapped into their own traps and have the length of the film to escape. Sure, repeat viewings will be negligible, but think of the publicity!

Continued:       1       2       3       4