Saw II was better than Saw so I was guessing that maybe Saw III would be worth watching. I can't say that I hated it, but I was ultimately disappointed.
Part of the problem is me. Me and my buddy Mike used to go to Royal video on Avenue U and rent up to 5 horror films in a day and just go nuts in between smoking pot and dealing with the munchies at the 7-11. In those days, gore was great with or without a story.
I am an adult now and if I am going to invest 90 to 120 minutes or more into any work of fiction, I need a story and and need it to be told well. I was happy that there was a story and dare I say it wasn't a bad one either. However, this script was poorly executed and that burden lies exclusively on the director.
Before I slaughter director Darren Lynn Bousman, I first need to speak my piece on the writing. Three words, depth of characters. Three films into a storyline using the same main characters and we just don't know enough about who they are and what drives them to do these bizarre things they do. I'm not saying I need to have it all but gimme something substantial over the course of the film(s).
Now to Bousman, this is 2007, and when you have a story, which you did here, there is far less of a need for obligatory gore or gore for gore's sake. The use of the torture devices happens to be a great film idea and these devices are so elaborate that sound effects and human imagination would provide a far greater impact than the visual gore that you chose to film.
In the end, I stuck with the film and was glad to be able to come away with a pretty good story and while it wasn't told the way I would tell it or more importantly, how I would have liked it to be told, I don't regret the 100 minutes I invested in watching it.