User Score
6.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 195 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 38 out of 195
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 21, 2010
    6
    A definite improvement over the last, Saw VI equalizes gore and heart, and although I feel horribly disgusted with myself after the credits roll, my 90 minutes were thoroughly and persistently entertained.
  2. Sep 21, 2011
    5
    I expected "Saw 6" as my final Saw movie. Turns out the movie is better than its prequel; it has the theme of blood, gore, horror, a appropriate (but still Cliched) plot twist, and redemption. Bravo Mr. Greutert!
  3. RyanS.
    Jan 29, 2010
    4
    More Saw splatter with the requisite amount of gore. This time it's the evil insurance agents that get tortured by the late Jigsaw from beyond the grave.
  4. KurtO.
    Nov 30, 2009
    5
    I didn't see this movie but I have to say.... t c you have no idea what you're talking about. The first Saw was BY FAR the best, and the series has gotten progressively worse with each film. 4 was so lousy, I didn't care to watch 5, which got god-awful reviews.
  5. LenaR
    Oct 24, 2009
    5
    By far, it's the least favorite in the franchise. Slowly each film has decayed in quality. This one had no suspense, it was very predictable. Saw is known for its twists and this one lacked that. Also, the acting was not of great quality and the "games" were not of the usual standing.
  6. Substense
    Feb 1, 2010
    4
    More Bad Than good, Saw 1-3 Great. Saw 4-6 MEDIOCRE.
  7. JoshH
    Nov 2, 2009
    6
    Some of the scenes in the new Saw were just basic copies of what they've done previously. Jeff in Saw 3 got a similar treatment to the character in this movie. The first two in the series were good, since then, well, it's just been dull.
  8. ChadS.
    Oct 27, 2009
    6
    This "Saw" is topical; it makes a point about the true meaning of "exploitation", relative to the filmic sort. The gore remains the same, but here, the blood and guts are placed in a social context, which makes the latest entry in this puerile franchise, a little less pointless than the four preceeding sequels. Real horror is not two people hacking away at their own limbs and entrails in This "Saw" is topical; it makes a point about the true meaning of "exploitation", relative to the filmic sort. The gore remains the same, but here, the blood and guts are placed in a social context, which makes the latest entry in this puerile franchise, a little less pointless than the four preceeding sequels. Real horror is not two people hacking away at their own limbs and entrails in a survivor type contest; real horror is a HMO claims adjuster who says, in so many words, that your insurance policy is worthless. Erikson(Mark Rolston), who denies coverage to a dying man, supplants Jigsaw(Tobin Bell) as the real "Sicko", since the dishonest strategems of an insurance company kills far more people with its profit-based model than a serial killer ever could. Although Michael Moore, more or less, fights the good fight against the HMOs in his 2007 documentary, as is often the case, grandstanding undermines the filmmaker's advocacy, like when he takes a speedboat to the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp, in a disingenuous attempt to secure health care for his documentary subjects. Jigsaw(or John), on the other hand, couldn't be more antipodal, more low-key and self-effacing; he takes on the health maintenance organization from beyond the grave. The sadism in "Saw VI" is a little, a LITTLE more cerebral this time around, as Erickson, an arbiter of life and death, sees for himself, representationally, the after-effects of his rulings. It's hamfisted, but effective, and for some, dangerously cathartic. Expand
  9. AlecB
    Oct 27, 2009
    5
    T.C. your a dumbass, saw 4 and 5 had to be the worst movies ever created, horror masterpieces? lmfao, Saw 6 is the 4th best in the series, which isnt saying much but its at least worth watching, no where as good as the first 3 saws, but 39753497384738 times better then the last 2 saw movies especially saw 5.
  10. ChrisS.
    Nov 25, 2009
    4
    Saw 1: meh it was ok, Saw 2: awful, Saw 3: wasn't that bad, Saw 4: sucked, Saw 5: awful mess, and now Saw 6: SUCKED!
  11. Sep 19, 2010
    6
    Other Saw series concentrates only how to make more violent and more blood-fleshing; however, Saw 6 shows more psychological traps and dillema between life and death.
  12. Oct 19, 2010
    6
    the traps in the previous movies were even more gorier than the first three and people were like paying attention watching those trap scenes. anyway, Saw VI wasn't excellent, but its so good it is also grisly.
  13. Nov 26, 2011
    6
    It was ok. The acting was decent and the traps no longer relied on just violence but they actually meant something to the person who was being tested. Sadly though the entire plot is just a poor take on a real issue and it doesnt fit well in the Saw world. Its a decent addition to the franchise but nothing really special about it.
  14. Feb 5, 2011
    6
    The whole franchise is an endless merry-go-round- a detective is found alive, kidnapped by Jigsaw, and put into another one is sick, twisted but fun as hell to watch games.There's nothing wrong about that, it's just when you continue to make installment's to a fran, your supposed to make them more exciting,fresh and still fun-not increasingly dull.
  15. Feb 12, 2012
    5
    Solid acting through out. The plot was a terrible take on a real life issue and while it was interesting to see how it would be handled in Jigsaw's world, It was simply poorly executed. The traps werent made for shock value (something I liked), They were made to truely test the man who was being tested (He was a higher up in a medical insurance company and he constantly refusedSolid acting through out. The plot was a terrible take on a real life issue and while it was interesting to see how it would be handled in Jigsaw's world, It was simply poorly executed. The traps werent made for shock value (something I liked), They were made to truely test the man who was being tested (He was a higher up in a medical insurance company and he constantly refused coverage/help to people who needed it, His actions resulted in the death of a man who had coverage but he used a loophole in the coverage to get out of paying for his treatment and the man ended up dying). It was a decent horror film at best though. Expand
  16. Nov 3, 2013
    6
    Now, this was unexpected. I didn't expect "Saw VI" to be a big step up from the previous two. It's true though. The plot made some sense and had some decent twists. The acting can easily be seen as wooden in some places and the story does have some holes, but what more can you expect after watching two previous movies that are twice as worse?
  17. Mar 5, 2014
    6
    Much improvement from the previous two. The story is better with less flashback and more concentration on a game. And the game actually makes sense this time and is also more creative. At the end I actually cared if the person lived or died which was different from Saw IV, V. However, due to it being just an average story line and similar to what we have already seen I cannot give this anyMuch improvement from the previous two. The story is better with less flashback and more concentration on a game. And the game actually makes sense this time and is also more creative. At the end I actually cared if the person lived or died which was different from Saw IV, V. However, due to it being just an average story line and similar to what we have already seen I cannot give this any better then 61.8 out of 100. Expand
  18. Mar 4, 2014
    6
    Saw VI focuses on a story of helpfulness and revenge, so it has a meaning. Nevertheless is the movie booring after awhile and the traps can't really improve this situation.
  19. Nov 27, 2013
    6
    Okay, okay... this movie's alright. It's not the best saw movie ever made, but it's also not the worst one ever made. The acting is okay, and the traps aren't that bad. It can get a bit boring (as the fourth and fifth were), but towards the end, it'll get you at the edge of your seats. I actually didn't think it was THAT bad, but it's not that good, either. I really liked the first three.
  20. Feb 24, 2015
    4
    May I see you starting to climb a little. The film is not the same as the previous two films. Anyway, I think I have a very high expectation from a series of seven movies.
  21. Apr 25, 2015
    4
    As the health-care debate rages on, let it be known that Jigsaw, the sinister puppetmaster played in life and beyond by Tobin Bell, favors a robust public option. (This, in the world of political punditry, is what they call a “game-changer.”) It isn’t in character for the Saw movies to embrace topicality, but at this point, anything that can help distinguish one entry from the next countsAs the health-care debate rages on, let it be known that Jigsaw, the sinister puppetmaster played in life and beyond by Tobin Bell, favors a robust public option. (This, in the world of political punditry, is what they call a “game-changer.”) It isn’t in character for the Saw movies to embrace topicality, but at this point, anything that can help distinguish one entry from the next counts as progress. Since the first Saw came out in 2004, Lionsgate and a limited group of artisans (the writing team of Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton have turned out the last three, and VI director Kevin Greutert edited all the others) have been giving audiences exactly what they expect, while keeping an eye on the company ledger. Adding a layer of social significance isn’t the worst strategy for a franchise that keeps piling on the convoluted mythos, yet hasn’t changed its risible mix of mechanized death and tongue-clucking morality. Each one plays like a very special episode of Fear Factor, or Extreme Makeover: Self-Mutilation Edition.

    Dead since the third entry, yet living on via flashbacks and one endlessly elaborate master plan, Bell’s Jigsaw entrusts the legwork to detective Costas Mandylor, who sets up the “games” his late master devises. After an entertaining prologue that pits one exploitative mortgage broker against another—more topicality!—Saw VI settles on Peter Outerbridge, a health-insurance executive who makes it his business to deny coverage to those who desperately need it. As ironic punishment, Outerbridge is forced through a timed series of trials where he must make those same life-or-death decisions for a selection of carefully chosen victims. Meanwhile, there’s some muddled intrigue involving Jigsaw, his wife, his past and current disciples, and a box he left behind.

    Because Saw does nothing to alter the look, tone, and engineered gimmickry from one movie to the next, it keeps going deeper into backstory and character arcs than horror series past, as if this ugly, cheap-looking schlock were somehow The Lord Of The Rings. Even the implements of death are recycled: An acid bath, a power saw, and the signature “reverse bear trap” all make appearances, along with your favorite gears, bolts, and fluttering florescent lights. And clearly, the filmmakers have taken no graft from health-insurance lobbyists, so there’s a soupçon of integrity to the mindless bludgeoning, too.
    Expand
Metascore
30

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 12 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 12
  2. Negative: 5 out of 12
  1. Reviewed by: Mike Hale
    60
    Warm feelings are inspired by the reappearance of old friends, even those who had their faces ripped off or their intestines ejected several films ago.
  2. The thinnest, draggiest, and most tediously preachy of the Saw films.
  3. 42
    Because Saw does nothing to alter the look, tone, and engineered gimmickry from one movie to the next, it keeps going deeper into backstory and character arcs than horror series past, as if this ugly, cheap-looking schlock were somehow "The Lord Of The Rings."