'Saw' horror films aren't cutting-edge thrillers

The fairly low-budget horror film "Saw" hit theaters in October 2004 and became a massive success, partly because its novice makers hadn't yet forgotten that suspense and character development are what make thrillers satisfying, or at least watchable.

The basic premise of "Saw" was nastily simple: An unseen killer taunts two morally compromised victims, both of whom are trapped in a confined space. Each must work up the courage to saw off one of his own feet and kill his fellow captive in order to survive. Grisly stuff, sure, but fascinating in its own grimy way.

You may have seen "Saw" and decided that the inevitable sequel, released the following autumn, was worth checking out. If you sat through "Saw II," you probably realized that the horror franchise was quickly evolving into a nasty, exploitive test of audience endurance.

In the fall of 2006 you may have found yourself sitting in a theater watching "Saw III," wondering why you didn't learn your lesson last year and stay away this time. Maybe you succumbed to peer pressure from folks who, thanks to their love of "Saw" films, are no longer your friends. But really, you could have lied and told them you were sick.

If fall 2007 saw you sitting in a theater with showing "Saw IV," you either had oral surgery that morning and wandered into the building while still in an opiate-induced haze or you're just incredibly susceptible to peer pressure and can't say "No," although a skilled therapist would urge you to remember your own needs and stop being such a martyr.

With the economic collapse going at full speed in October 2008, the loss of your job or retirement savings may have put you in such a gloomy frame of mind that you needed to remember there are worse things to be endured than unemployment or empty wallets. Luckily "Saw V" hit theaters just in time to remind you that being locked in a box filled with broken glass or being sliced in half by a giant pendulum blade is still worse than seeing your 401K disappear like a desert mirage.

A year passes and the economy is still floating face down. The desperation is palpable. Any diversion that can take your mind off the recession is welcome. But if you feel the urge to see "Saw VI," seek help.

"Saw VI" begins with a weasely insurance executive personally denying coverage to a desperate man who's dying from heart disease. Somehow you get the strange feeling that there's something horrific in store for this callous executive and his team of smarmy, white-collar bean counters. There is, in spades.

So, "Saw VI" aims to give viewers the vicarious pleasure of seeing the American health insurance industry, personified here as a bunch of back-stabbing jerks, get what's coming to it. Most Americans, however, would probably prefer to pay lower premiums than witness their HMO manager being dissolved from the inside out by hydrofluoric acid.

The most disturbing aspect of the "Saw" films isn't the graphic nature of the violence; it's the frequency and duration of it. "Saw VI" lasts 90 minutes, with more than half its running time seemingly devoted to depictions of people in varying states of agony after being crushed, sliced and scalded.

The question isn't whether these people will escape the clever killer's intricate traps but how badly will they be injured and how loudly will they scream. Probably the only experience comparable to seeing "Saw VI" is spending an entire afternoon sitting on a folding chair in a slaughterhouse.

"Saw VI" cost only $11 million to make - a pittance by Hollywood standards - but earned more than $40 million during its first three days in release. That's the lowest weekend gross of any "Saw" film to date. But it's gross enough, so to speak. "Saw VII" is slated for an October 2010 release.

It has also been announced that the future sequel will be in 3-D. If the economy continues its current course, the most masochistic of us may be too broke to subject ourselves to this movie franchise any longer. In other words, take comfort where you can find it.