Saw 3 (2006) review – Brutal traps but messy writing
Saw 3: Quick Verdict
The Verdict: It marks the turning point where the franchise chose brutality over brains. Saw 3 ramps up the gore significantly, offering some of the most wince-inducing traps in the series. While it impressively ties up the threads of the first two films, the reliance on endless flashbacks and clumsy exposition drains the tension. A treat for gorehounds, but a step down in storytelling.
Details: Director: Darren Lynn Bousman | Cast: Tobin Bell, Shawnee Smith, Angus Macfadyen | Runtime: 1h 48m | Release Date: October 27, 2006
Best for: Hardcore fans of the franchise, gore lovers who felt the first two films were too tame, and anyone who wants to see how the “Jigsaw trilogy” technically ends.
Worth noting: This is where the traps become almost unwinnable and purely sadistic. If you enjoyed the “fair play” aspect of the first movie, this might frustrate you.
Where to Watch: Rent or Buy on Amazon / Peacock.
⭐ Knockout Rating: 3.0 / 5
(Brutal traps, messy plot)
Welcome to Knockout Horror. Today we are taking a look at the third entry into the gorno series that started them all – Saw 3 (2006).
Highlights
A sequel to a gorno classic
All the way back in the early 2000s, two relatively unknown filmmakers came up with an idea to produce a horror movie. The only problem was that they had no budget to speak of and no studio backing them up. They set about writing a film that was so simplistic and limited in scope that it could feasibly be made for very little money.
“Whannell decides to explain the entire story as if the viewer is an alien who just arrived on earth and knows nothing of the franchise.”
The bulk of the action would take place in one room. The horror would come from self-contained traps rather than elaborate and expensive set pieces. And the majority of the world building would play out via dialogue between just two characters. It was fiendishly simple and, above all else, genuinely scary.
Those filmmakers were James Wan and Leigh Whannell and that script was Saw (2004). The success of the movie was immediate and, two decades later, the series is ten entries deep. The crazy thing is, Saw was supposed to be a one and done.
An accidental trilogy
Saw 3 picks up on the Amanda (Shawnee Smith) and Jigsaw relationship that we saw in the second Saw movie. Amanda is working as an apprentice for Jigsaw. She has been instrumental in helping him set up his traps and capture his victims.
The next in line to play a game is Jeff (Angus Macfadyen). A man consumed by bitterness after the death of his son in a car accident. Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) is dying so Amanda kidnaps a doctor, Lynn (Bahar Soomekh), to help keep him alive while the game plays out. Little does she realise what the true meaning of the game actually is.

As I mentioned earlier, Saw was never intended to be this huge franchise. It was the overwhelming success of the first movie that led to a sequel being green-lit almost immediately. Despite a number of events taking place in the first story that hint at deliberate efforts to provide a continuing narrative arc, that wasn’t the intention. This was a forced studio move in case the movie found an audience.
The second film got the go-ahead but it was going to be without its captain. James Wan had already moved on to greener pastures and had no intention of returning. Hence, the sequel saw Darren Lynn Bousman taking the helm in both directing and story roles.
Whannell returned to provide some later rewrites but his involvement was minimal. It seemed the story would be carried forward by people who had no connection to the original film. That was until a tragic incident change the series’ trajectory.
The grieving father and the dying philosopher
It was actually the sudden death of the first movie’s producer, Gregg Hoffman, that brought James Wan and Leigh Whannell back to the fold. They decided to return for the third iteration as a tribute to Hoffman. With this in mind, it’s quite easy to see why they wanted to tie Saw 3’s story back to its roots. This was their baby, after all.
With the above having been said, Saw 3 features a mainline story that is slightly disconnected from the actual overriding arc of the series itself. Jeff is a man consumed by thoughts of vengeance after his son was hit by a car. His life is falling apart and so Jigsaw decides to put him through a test to see whether he can learn to forgive people and move on.
Jigsaw himself is a far more prominent feature of this film. Naturally, Saw 2 leaned into the character much more that the first, having realised the potential for marketing an iconic horror villain. Saw 3 continues this trend and he spends a lot of time onscreen.

We flit between Jeff’s journey through the labyrinthian maze that hosts his game and the room where Jigsaw is clinging onto life. The eponymous bad guy remains an utterly compelling character with his skewed sense of morality and riddle-like manner of speaking. His presence here is very welcome but he’s not doing so well. The cancer is slowly killing him and his days are numbered.
Amanda has kidnapped a doctor to help keep Jigsaw alive – Lynn. Lynn has her own share of problems, though. The shotgun collar around her neck that threatens to detach her head from her body should Jigsaw’s heart-rate fall to zero, probably isn’t helping matters. Needless to say, it’s all going to tie up into one neat little bow towards the end.
When the Plot Gets in the Way of the Games
It’s fairly interesting stuff, albeit a little bit messy. As I said, the story will all tie together right at the end but this means we are going to be hit with a lot of exposition. So much so, in fact, that we are bombarded with flashback after flashback throughout the film.
“Bones twist, bodies are frozen, chests are splayed. It’s absolutely gruesome stuff and some of the moments genuinely make you want to turn away from the screen.”
Whannell decides to explain the entire story as if the viewer is an alien who just arrived on earth and knows nothing of the franchise. He even cuts back to scenes that took place only moments before on a couple of occasions.

There’s a lot of events from the first film that were merely coincidence then but are now crucial plot points. There’s also some stuff from the latter stages of the second film that need elaborating on, too. Whannell’s script almost suggests he isn’t quite comfortable with how these things fit together. Meaning he goes to extra lengths to convince the viewer that this was always how it was intended to be.
It’s, frankly, a bit distracting and does serve to drain the movie of tension on a few occasions. I really don’t feel like a story like this needs all that much in the way of pretence or plot. We are here for the games, after all. Maybe we should simply be impressed that they managed to tie this story together, at all?
Gorno Fans Rejoice (But the Acting’s a Mixed Bag)
Let’s get back to the shining star of the Saw movies – the traps. The way in which Saw 3 differs from the previous iterations is in how much nastier that traps are. The previous movies featured games that were, at least on the surface, winnable. Saw 3’s traps share none of that optimism. These are ruthless and some of the most wince inducing in the series.
Naturally, I won’t spoil them, but Wan and Whannell were in their bag here. Bones twist, bodies are frozen, chests are splayed. It’s absolutely gruesome stuff and some of the moments genuinely make you want to turn away from the screen. One trap involving a freezer is among the most horrifying in the series without ever being all that gory or violent.

Generally speaking, the traps are less interesting and far less drawn out. This can leave fans who are here for creativity a little disappointed. This time, the goal is to create as much blood and bone breaking as fast as possible, rather than giving the victims a genuine chance to mull things over. With that being said, gorno fans will be in heaven.
Acting is generally fine. I didn’t think Bahar Soomekh did a particularly good job. She lacks the emotional range capable of reflecting Lynn’s predicament. Shawnee Smith is pretty awful as Amanda. She’s so wooden that she frequently undermines the role. Amanda never worked for me as a main character, anyway. Tobin Bell is fantastic, as always. It was nice to see brief appearances from Dina Meyer as Detective Kerry and Donnie Wahlberg as Eric Matthews.
The Good, The Bad & The Ugly
The Good
- The Traps: This is peak “gorno.” The rack and the freezer room are some of the most inventive and brutal traps in horror history.
- Tobin Bell: He gets significant screen time here and is utterly compelling. His voice and presence elevate the entire film.
- The Connections: For franchise fans, seeing how all three films tie together is satisfying, even if it is a bit messy.
The Bad
- The Pacing: The movie grinds to a halt frequently for flashbacks and heavy-handed exposition dumps.
- Shawnee Smith: Her performance as Amanda feels wooden and one-note, making it hard to buy her as a true successor.
- The Tone: The cleverness of the first film is gone, replaced by pure sadism. The “game” aspect feels rigged and unfair.
The Ugly: The Flashbacks. The movie treats the audience like they have amnesia, constantly cutting back to scenes we saw five minutes ago to explain simple plot points.
Should You Watch Saw 3?
If you are invested in the soap-opera storyline of Jigsaw and Amanda, Saw 3 is essential viewing. It wraps up the initial trilogy with enough blood and broken bones to satisfy any gorehound. However, if you preferred the tense, psychological thriller aspect of the original Saw, you might find this one a bit of a slog. It’s brutal, often disgusting, and narratively messy, but it undeniably delivers on the franchise’s promise of carnage.
This review was part of our 31 Days of Halloween 2025 Marathon. Check out the full category for more recommendations.
Our Scoring Philosophy: A Fair Fight
Horror is a genre that thrives thanks to indie film makers and low budget creators. At Knockout Horror, we firmly believe that every movie that we review deserves a fair fight. That's why we grade on a curve. Our star ratings are all about context, judging a film on what it achieves with the resources it has.
A 4-star rating for a scrappy indie horror made for $10,000 is a testament to its ingenuity and raw power. A 4-star rating for a $100 million blockbuster means it delivered on its epic promises. We don't compare them side-by-side; we celebrate success in every weight class, from the back-alley brawler to the heavyweight champion. Please keep this in mind when considering star ratings.
Support the Site Knockout Horror is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. Basically, if you click a link to rent or buy a movie, we may earn a tiny commission at no extra cost to you. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. This helps keep the lights on and the nightmares coming. Don't worry, we will never recommend a movie purely to generate clicks. If it's bad, we will tell you.
Disclaimer: Images, posters, and video stills used in this review are the property of their respective copyright holders. They are included here for the purposes of commentary, criticism, and review under fair use. Knockout Horror makes no claim of ownership and encourages readers to support the official release of all films discussed.






