"Saw III" -- Meaty, bloody yuck (*UPDATED*)

The following review is promised to be without spoilers

Hey, remember that little movie franchise known as the "Saw" films? If you haven't heard, they came out with a flick last year -- "Saw III" -- and now it's out on DVD. Wow, what a way to keep your player happy for a few minutes . . .

Let me say this about the whole "Saw" series: I think the first movie was great for the genre, but the last two have steadily gone down-hill directly. Fans should be happy with the very real possibility that "Saw III" is the last film (if the storyline is to be believed, that is...).

Now I know there are some of you out there who have said that "Saw" is really only good for a few laughs; still some others were pretty disturbed by what occurred.

I let the first one go by for a long time. I was in the camp that thought the first movie would be teenage slasher fodder of the worst kind. Instead, I found a tight story with really good performances and plot twists provided by Michael Emerson ("Henry" from "Lost"), Cary Elwes ("Westley" from "The Princess Bride") and Danny Glover ("Murtaugh" from "Lethal Weapon"). It was a nice, original mystery without the overall reliance on seeing people graphically tortured to death.But the second movie was just not as good. The plot was somewhat thinner, and the traps were a lot more reliant on placing gore in your face. And this most recent installment is about the same -- a marginal mystery with way too much bone-popping, meat-flinging closeup views of horribly uncomfortable and graphic deaths.

I did, however, find the end of "Saw III" to have a great twist close to the "oh man!" factor of "Saw." If you find yourself increasingly nauseated by the mounds of human pieces (which I was not, but I know some who will), you've got to stick it out. You will get a slight reprieve before the final punch.

Again, I sure hope this is the last film. I believe the only possible plot devices that could continue the "Jigsaw" performance have either been employed here already or are just so far off the mark as to make the franchise even less.

ADDITION: Upon further reflection, I meant to convey that "Saw II" and "Saw III" are nowhere near as entertaining as "Saw" because the entire mystery factor of the first film was usurped by the splatter gore of the next two. In short, "Saw" was a different kind of "whodunnit;" the others are much more about the torture, which I do not think is either entertaining or original.