Losing count

I received a telling email earlier this week from the Mission Tiki Drive-In, which sends me weekly notifications of what's opening on their four screens that weekend.

The subject of the email was:

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 5 W/ SINISTER OPENS FRIDAY

But Paranormal Activity 5 -- the inevitable Paranormal Activity 5 -- does not open until October of 2013. We're only on Paranormal Activity 4 right now.

They got the title right in the body of the email, but I think this speaks volumes about where the Paranormal Activity series seems to be heading:

Saw-land.

The parallels between the Paranormal Activity movies and the Saw movies seem to be inescapable. Both series saw (so to speak) a massive hit in the first movie released. Then both series immediately got to work producing a sequel, so it would be ready in time for the next Halloween. Then both series had hits with the sequels, and undertook a basically round-the-clock production schedule so that the next installment in the series would keep being ready for the following Halloween.

It took seven Saw movies before they finally stopped making enough money to be worth continuing. It remains to be seen if Paranormal Activity will get that far, but it's certainly on its way.

The other thing these series have in common is how earnestly they appear to be committed to logically continuing the original storyline. It would stand to reason that when a series gets as far as seven movies in, all it really needs to do is share thematic elements with the original movie to reasonably fall under the same banner. It would hardly seem possible to still be working on the same narrative, trying admirably to work your way out of apparent dead-ends and to continue a serpentine storyline that has long since stopped making sense. Whatever you thought of the Saw movies -- the ones you watched, anyway -- you had to admire how the custodians of the series continued doggedly tying everything together, even four full movies after the series' original antagonist had died.

Just as doggedly, I did watch all seven Saw movies, which is why I know this. I have not, on the other hand, been a Paranormal Activity completist, even though I liked the two movies I did see -- the second one maybe more than the first. I haven't gotten around to watching Paranormal Activity 3, and of course haven't seen 4 as it is only just opening today.

But what I can tell from the trailers is that, indeed, the same character from the first Paranormal Activity, Katie (Katie Featherson), is still around, still doing her possessed night-walking thing. And it would seem that PA would be even less beholden than Saw to continuing with the same characters from the same original events, because Paranormal Activity is more about its increasingly hackneyed medium -- found footage -- than about the particular behavior of possessed people doing spooky things. At least in Saw there was the idea that these perverse tests/punishments were all the brainchild of one demented individual and his proteges, whereas you'd think you could set a Paranormal Activity movie in any home that was equipped with high-tech security cameras. (And isn't it convenient that Katie keeps coming into contact with houses that are so equipped.)

If the critical reaction to Paranormal Activity 4 is any indication, this series may reach the end of its road before Saw did. The current Metascore for PA4 is a tepid 42, down from the 59 scored by its predecessor, the 53 from PA2 and the 68 from the original. (Interesting to see that critics liked the third better than the second. Maybe I ought to prioritize PA3.)

But since when has what the critics said played a role in how long a horror series can keep on procreating? Just check out the ugly Metascores for the entire Saw series: Saw (2004) = 46, Saw II (2005) = 40, Saw III (2006) = 48, Saw IV (2007) = 36, Saw V (2008) = 19 (!), Saw VI (2009) = 30 and Saw 3D/Saw: The Final Chapter (2010) = 24. Not a single one above 50, not even the original. Whereas Paranormal Activity is only just now dipping below 50.

So if you take the tendency of critics to sniff at movies intended for the masses and therefore add about 20 points to their Metascores as an estimation of how the public feels about them, PA4 will be another huge hit at the box office. And maybe Katie Featherston will still be walking around in a trance and snapping people's necks on into 2017 or 2018.

So not the last one

Over the years since 2004, when the first Saw was released, I have come to acknowledge that I am a Saw completist.

I knew after the execrable second Saw and the ridiculous fourth Saw couldn't turn me away, I'd be sure to see them all, eventually -- usually before the next one hit theaters. In fact, always before the next one hit theaters, if memory serves.

But because the movies have been so ludicrous, it was with some amount of relief that I greeted the arrival of Saw 3D -- later redubbed Saw: The Final Chapter for its DVD release -- last October. Okay, I can finally be done, I thought.

On Sunday I went to the local Redbox machine in "celebration" of having won my college basketball pool -- with so many upsets this year, we didn't even need to go to the final weekend to determine a winner. I'd been searching for something cheesy-bad, with Skyline as my target. But it looks like Skyline is still within its 28-day window where Redbox doesn't yet carry it, so Saw: The Final Chapter jumped out as my next logical contender. Celebrate the end of the basketball pool (and winnings of $170) with the end of the Saw series.

Not so fast.

Never have I seen a "last" movie have so many loose ends. In fact, except for the death of a character who's been around for the last couple installments, and the return of another who'd been gone a lot longer than that, there's nothing about the "final" Saw that's really different than the other six Saws that came before it.

Stop reading now if you really don't want me to reveal any spoilers about Saw VII. (Maybe I'll just call it that from here on out, since neither Saw 3D nor Saw: The Final Chapter seems exactly accurate anymore.)

Okay, so for the last four installments or so we've know that the life's work of Jigsaw has been picked up by a detective named Rick Hoffman (Costas Mandylor). See, Jigsaw has now been dead for more Saw sequels than he was alive -- he died at the end of the third. I think it was at the end of the fourth that we learned about Hoffman's involvement, though they all tend to bleed together (pun intended) at this point.

At the end of the sixth, Hoffman looks like he'd had the tables turned on him by another insider -- Jill Kramer (Betsy Russell), Jigsaw's ex-wife (or is it widow? I can't remember). I can't remember how she did it, but she got him into the trap that has appeared most regularly in the Saw movies: the device that goes around your head and will rip your face open if you don't stop it within 60 seconds. Early in Saw VII, though, we learn that Hoffman escaped that trap with only a torn cheek, and now is out for Jill's blood. She goes to the police in hopes of being protected in exchange for her testimony.

Suffice it to say it doesn't go that way. Hoffman spends the movie systematically breaking into the station where Jill is being held and killing off all the people who would be guarding her, all the while luring a large contingent of other officers away from the station on a goose chase to catch him -- which also dooms them. Yeah, it's a bloodbath -- police are dying left and right in this movie. This is to say nothing of all the people getting killed in the movie's featured "long trap," which involves a fraudulent survivor (Sean Patrick Flanery), who wrote a book about surviving a Jigsaw trap that never happened, going through a series of tests to try to reach his wife before she's killed at the end of the hour. At each step of the way one of his co-conspirators buys it. Then there are also a couple isolated traps that have nothing to do with either of these narratives, except that they were set by Hoffman (or so we believe). They've upped the death quotient in this one, if nothing else.

Hoffman succeeds at killing everyone, and then, fairly anticlimactically, straps the same device to Jill's head. Sixty seconds usually take about three minutes of screen time to transpire in a Saw movie, but here, Jill just sits there for a minute that lasts about ten seconds, and then her head explodes. If we're real romantics we could say that now she's reunited with her dead ex-husband.

As Hoffman leaves the station following this massive slaughter, he's approached by three figures in cloaks and animal masks -- or, I should say, "animal heads," because their entire heads are covered. We've seen these figures kidnapping future victims in past Saw movies. They inject him with something to put him to sleep. One removes his mask, and it's Dr. Gordon (Cary Elwes) -- the man who cuts off his own foot to survive the original Saw, eons ago now. This is not as shocking as we might think, since the movie opened with a flashback to Gordon's torment, and he's later seen at a survivor's meeting, where he has some cryptic words for Flanery's faux survivor. It turns out Gordon has been Jigsaw's other assistant all these years. It's a bit facile -- like anything we see in a Saw movie isn't facile -- because they already used that same gimmick in Saw II and III, where Shawnee Smith survived a trap and then became a Jigsaw disciple. But whatever.

Okay, so Gordon leaves Hoffman chained to the same pipe he was chained to, way back in the first Saw. There are still at least two dead bodies lying in this location, nothing more than skeletons by this point. I guess that's chilling, because it means that in all this time, the police still haven't found this location -- it must be pretty remote. And then the movie ends with Hoffman panicking and Gordon saying "Game over!" to him as he closes the sliding door, leaving Hoffman there in the dark. That's at least the third Saw movie that's ended with this door being closed on somebody.

Okay, so what have we really "resolved"? Not much. Jill Kramer is dead, but she was always a pretty passive character -- things were always happening to her, and that's no different in this movie, where she spends most of the time cowering in a jail cell. Hoffman is not dead, and the situation he finds himself in is not by any means a death sentence. You'd think he was worse off at the end of Saw VI, when he had the head-exploder strapped around his melon. A bunch of police are dead, but that doesn't matter because they were only just introduced to us. Gordon is not dead, and in fact, even with only one good foot, he makes a pretty good candidate to continue Jigsaw's legacy. And who are those other two people who never took off their animal masks? Then there's the faux survivor, Bobby, who didn't save his wife (she got heated up to the boiling point inside some kind of cauldron), but didn't die either. In fact, there was a peculiar lack of resolution to his storyline, even though it just began in this installment.

No Saw VIII? Really?

Okay, so if there is going to be a Saw VIII, at least it's not coming out this October. I looked up Tobin Bell, the only actor who figures to definitely return for another Saw (who has appeared in flashback in the last four movies now), on IMDB, and Saw VIII is not his next project. If it were coming out in October, we'd know about it.

But I had a bit of a scare when I googled "Saw 8" and came up with a bunch of entries, one of which included the following poster art:


Granted, it doesn't look ready for primetime and was likely made on somebody's home computer, but just for a second, I thought "REALLY??" History is full of examples of series that continued on past what was supposed to be the "last" installment, but I thought it would be particularly disingenuous to say that it's the last one, and then not even miss one Halloween before putting out the next.

So we will indeed have Halloween 2011 off from Saw movies, but I wouldn't be so sure about 2012. If there's one thing the legion of scribes who've written Saw movies have shown, it's a commitment to the series' warped sense of cohesiveness. You may think they've just kept making movies that involved some variation on the iconic killing devices we've seen in these movies, but they've done more than that -- they've tried to keep the storyline internally consistent and plausible. Usually they've failed stupendously in this regard, but even the attempt to maintain a comprehensible narrative throughline is commendable in its sheer sense of crazy ambitiousness.

So expect those dangling threads at the end of Saw VII to be resolved at some point. Maybe not this year, maybe not next, but by 2013 at the latest.

If legends never die, as the fake Saw VIII poster suggests, neither do successful movie franchises.

Series I'm glad I've seen none of

1. Big Momma - Big Momma's House (2000), Big Momma's House 2 (2006), Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son (2011)

2. Ernest - Ernest Goes to Camp (1987), Ernest Saves Christmas (1988), Ernest Goes to Jail (1990), Ernest Scared Stupid (1991), Ernest Rides Again (1993), Ernest Goes to School (1994), Ernest Goes to Africa (1997), Ernest in the Army (1988)

3. Ghoulies - Ghoulies (1985), Ghoulies 2 (1987), Ghoulies III: Ghoulies Go to College (1991), Ghoulies IV (1994)

Series I'm surprised I've seen none of:

1. Dirty Harry - Dirty Harry (1971), Magnum Force (1973), The Enforcer (1976), Sudden Impact (1983), The Dead Pool (1988)

2. Nightmare on Elm Street - A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985), A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987), A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988), A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989), Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991), Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994), Freddy vs. Jason (2003), A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

3. Transporter - The Transporter (2002), Transporter 2 (2005), Transporter 3 (2008)

Series I'm embarrassed to have seen all of:

1. Left Behind - Left Behind: The Movie (2000), Left Behind II: Tribulation Force (2002), Left Behind: World at War (2005)

2. Harold and Kumar - Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle (2004), Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay (2008)

3. Saw* - Saw (2004), Saw II (2005), Saw III (2006), Saw IV (2007), Saw V (2008), Saw VI (2009), Saw 3D (2010)*

* - I have yet to see Saw 3D, now called Saw: The Final Chapter. But I thought having seen six of the seven Saws was embarrassing enough to be worth including.

My Achilles' heel (please don't sever)

I have a confession to make:

I'm the reason they keep making Saw movies.

Didn't know that? Sorry. My bad.

I saw only two of them in the theater, but as of Sunday night, I've now seen all five. All five that have come out like clockwork each of the past five years, during the week leading up to Halloween. In fact, I can't remember any other series of movies coming out with such machine-like regularity. Even the ever-prolific Friday the 13th movies came out at random, albeit short, intervals, as opposed to one predictable time each year. The closest any series has come to Saw would be the release of Lord of the Rings movies in three consecutive Decembers -- but that was always planned that way, not some rushed reaction to the continued viability of each sequel as a box office force.

And why do the Saw movies continue to have such viability? Because of people like me.

I don't know why I keep giving the Saw movies chances, I just do. I think it's a little bit of the Saturday Night Live syndrome. Just like the Saw movies, Saturday Night Live has its devoted fans who will watch every week (every Halloween), and yuk at even the lame skits (shriek at the stupid deaths). But then it also has its more discriminating fans, who watch not because they are consistently entertained, but because they want to be there when SNL does, on occasion, get it just perfect. It's the remembrance of past glories and the hope for future ones that keep these viewers tuning in.

And so that's why I continue to tune into the Saw movies. Damn that awesome opening kill in Saw II.

But let's go back to the beginning.

1) Saw (2004, James Wan). Viewed: October 31, 2005. Although I'd been curious about Saw based on the trailers, I did not see it in the theater, due primarily to the laughably negative review given by two of my friends. I believe this review was why I ended up liking the first Saw movie as much as I did; I carried in exceptionally low expectations. So I wasn't bothered by -- and in fact, was prepared for -- the indubitably hammy acting of Cary Elwes. Instead, I was swept up in the catch-22 philosophies of Jigsaw's games -- in order to save your own life, you have to hurt yourself (or someone else) really, really badly. It had an elegant simplicity and forced people into instant action, either to summon the courage or pay the consequences. Plus there were some chilling, splattery deaths that were especially effective on me, it being Halloween and all.

2) Saw II (2005, Darren Lynn Bousman). Viewed: November 12, 2005. The original Saw left me hungry enough that I sought out the second one in the theater, just 13 days later. A friend was visiting, and it didn't take that much convincing to get him and my then-girlfriend (now-wife) to come with me. They hadn't liked the first as much as I (nor were they as fresh from seeing it), but both had various levels of interest. At first, we thought we might have hit the fear jackpot. The opening scene of Saw II blew our minds: A guy with a trap around his neck, which will crush his head like a melon, must use an exacto knife to cut out his own eye, in order to retrieve the key that will unlock his trap -- which has been sewn behind the eye. He has 60 seconds, and you can guess how it ends. Unfortunately, as good as that opening scene was, the rest of the movie is that bad. In fact, I found this movie so ridiculously, laughably incompetent, that I actually ranked it last of all the movies I saw in 2005.

3) Saw III (2006, Darren Lynn Bousman). Viewed: October 30, 2006. Considering what I've just told you about my hatred for Saw II, you are certainly justified in asking how I ever got to Saw III. Well, I'll tell you -- it was conveniently timed as the second half of a double feature I saw on my last day of freedom before the first day of my current job. (The first movie was Catch a Fire, and no, it was not a particularly memorable double feature). Plus, that opening scene in Saw II left enough of an impression that I was willing to give Saw III a shot. If Saw III had been as bad as Saw II, that probably would have ended my affair with the Saw movies right then and there. But the third movie managed to improve on the second enough that I actually gave it a thumbs up. A tentative thumbs up, to be sure, but I couldn't deny that I squirmed a bit, and ultimately found it sort of clever. (Emphasis on "sort of.")

4) Saw IV (2007, Darren Lynn Bousman). Viewed: October 27, 2008. However much I sort of liked Saw III, apparently it was not enough to send me back to the multiplexes when the fourth came out. I took a two-year break this time, and saw Saw IV while Saw V was in theaters, again as an accompaniment to my personal Halloween season. Saw IV did not manage to be totally incompetent, like Saw II -- but it does contain one of the most bogus, convoluted, chronologically inconsistent/ambiguous wrap-up scenes I've ever seen in a movie. I believe I literally shouted "What??" at the screen. The other hilarious thing about this movie was the tagline on the poster: "It's a trap." Um, yeah, you think?

5) Saw V (2008, David Hackl). Viewed: July 5, 2009. Okay, so now I'm clearly just ticking them off my list, going for the complete collection. I watched this Saw movie in the middle of summer, planning it only in the sense that my wife was out of town -- so she wouldn't laugh at me for continuing to watch this drivel. It's the third best in the series, which isn't saying much -- but at least it makes sense for the most part. It's still not possible to believe that everything could be set up so perfectly, with Jigsaw having spent each of the past two movies dead. (I'm sorry if you consider that a spoiler; I will be sure to pray for you.) But if you are looking for plausibility, you shouldn't be watching Saw movies.

What I've discovered about myself is that I don't keep watching these movies because I'm some kind of horror junkie. In fact, though I love being scared, I find horror to be the most consistently disappointing genre out there. The movies I'm most excited about seeing -- of all the movies out there, in all genres -- are the ones that I think will genuinely unnerve me. But I can smell it a mile away when I know they won't, so I don't even usually get close to most of them.

What's different about the Saw movies, and other movies in the subgenre known alternately as "torture porn" and "terror porn," is that you aren't waiting for something to jump out of the shadows at you. Slasher movies have become so hackneyed precisely because of that startle scare, when the violins shriek, and a cat jumps down onto a character's shoulders. (Followed about 10 seconds later by the actual killer, who splits the character in two). No, torture porn posits the inevitability of slaughter, allows you to wince as it approaches -- as the character fails to crush his own hands in exchange for avoiding a knife on a pendulum that will split him in two. It's the same reason I was drawn to Hostel, and even to the wretched Captivity.

And I guess what fascinates me is the eternal question: What would I do in that situation?

Could I muster the courage to cut out my own eye, if I knew it would save my life? And if I had only 60 seconds to muster that courage?

As long as Saw keeps making me ask these questions, I'll keep coming, even if the returns are increasingly less satisfying. Even if they are totally unsatisfying.

And I'll get my next chance when Saw VI comes out on October 23rd.

It's being billed as the last in the series -- but I'll believe that when I see it.

As long as there are those of us still seeking that one perfect kill that blows our minds, and genuinely gets into our gut, and as long as we translate that desire into box office dollars, I wouldn't be surprised if Saw VII, Saw VIII and Saw XXXIV weren't far behind.