Eight years later, the “Saw” franchise is reportedly coming to a close, and although the history of the horror genre – specifically, the fourth “Friday the 13th” film – has taught us that no chapter is ever truly final, they’re at least trying to make us think they’re going out with a bang, eschewing a straightforward “Saw VII” and instead offering fans an additional dimension of gory fun with “Saw 3D.”

First up, Costas Mandylor and Kevin Greutert…

Journalist: So there’s, like, a volcano eruption of 3D films out there now, with the whole “take that and run with it” Hollywood attitude. What sets this one apart from other 3D horror films?

Kevin Greutert: Well, for one thing, this film was actually shot in 3D. We didn’t do a post-conversion like a lot of the other movies that have come out lately. I think that shooting it in 3D makes all the difference in the world, so it just looks that much better. This was shot with state-of-the-art cameras that are a lot more lightweight than any previous 3D films, so we were able to preserve the “Saw” style of doing a lot of stuff handheld and keeping the camera moving around a lot and very dynamic. Because technology is advancing so quickly, we were able to just take advantage on all aspects.

Journalist: Has 3D changed the blocking of the set and what you’re actually doing in the film?

KG: Yeah, it affects the way we block the scene, because we want to maximize the feeling of depth in the image, even if it’s not an in-your-face moment where stuff’s flying into the camera. We still wanted it to look as rich and full of space as possible.

Journalist: At what point in the production process was the decision made that the film was going to be in 3D? Was that from the outset, or did that happen…

KG: It was decided…that was probably the very first decision made on the film, and I had actually hoped even before we made “Saw V” to direct “Saw VI” in 3D but wasn’t able to make that work. So by the time “Saw VII” came along, now there’s enough infrastructure in terms of theaters that are equipped with 3D equipment to go forward, and…yeah, no one ever thought twice about doing it in 3D.

Journalist: How does 3D enhance the storyline?

KG: Well, I don’t know how much it actually plays into the story. There’s a bit of self-reference in the opening scene of the movie, which is the first “Saw” scene that takes place in broad daylight, with a big crowd watching one of Jigsaw’s big contraptions at play. There’s, I think, a little bit of an implicit message about horror audiences watching voyeuristically. 3D, I think, just kind of takes that to another level.

Journalist: Costas, what keeps bringing you back to this franchise?

Costas Mandylor: You know what? In a way, luck. And the character seems to have worked. And, you know, when you collaborate with people like Kevin and a couple of the other guys before him, and you know what you’re doing together, it’s a comfortable situation where you don’t have to get really… (Hesitates) I mean, some guys in life are a pain in the ass, and they die. “Saw” does that really easy. I committed to it as best as I could, and spending time with Tobin (Bell) and seeing how committed he was to keeping a certain standard, not letting the fans down was really important to him, so it wasn’t just going to a gig, doing my thing, and leaving. I actually paid attention. There’s a great example of…when I first started, I think it was in “IV,” he had a great idea for a scene and he called me at, like, 11:30 at night. He goes… (Does a Tobin Bell growl) “Hey, Costas, are you awake?” Jigsaw’s calling me at midnight on the phone. I’m in trouble here. (Laughs) I went to see him…reluctantly…but we spent some time together, and the scene…that was a really long scene that we did, with the gun to the…? It just worked beautifully, because he put the effort in and forced me to be okay with putting in my ideas as well. So I’m still here ‘til the end of this one, and…we don’t even know the endings. But for now, I’m in.

KG: We have more control over Costas by not letting his character die. (Laughs) We hold that over his head every year.

Journalist: But that doesn’t keep Tobin from coming back!

KG: (Laughs) He has more screen time dead than he did alive!

Journalist: Does there come a time when you’re doing a series like this…I know that when you do sequels that maybe there’s a temptation where you have to outdo, improve, and do better with each and every film, but does there become a point, though, when you get to a certain stage where you can’t sort of outdo what you’ve done before, and so maybe you have to go in sort of a sideways direction with the franchise?

KG: Well, I think that’s why the decision was made to have this be the final chapter, because, like, I do think that we do and should always try to outdo ourselves, and I’m just not sure how much longer that process can be true to itself. So, you know, I don’t think we went sideways in this film at all. Actually, the scope of the production is a lot bigger than any of the other “Saw” films, so the idea was to go out with a bang rather than, as you say, go sideways or let it sort of deteriorate.

Journalist: Was the process different consciously, knowing that this was the final chapter?

KG: Well, sure, because we wanted to wrap up a lot of the lingering questions and storylines that had been around. Rather than do the trick of ending on a cliffhanger to sort of force people to buy tickets next year, we went all in with this. So that was very much part of the process from the beginning.

Journalist: So there’s no possibility of a “Freddy vs. Jigsaw” or…

KG: In Hell. (Laughs)

Journalist: Jason already went there.

KG: But he didn’t fight Jigsaw there!

Journalist: You mentioned the fans. How much attention do you pay to fan feedback, and did that have any input into the story?

KG: Well, I think the fans have a lot of impact on the series, whether they know it or not, because we pay a lot of attention to what we discuss with friends and what we read on all the various websites where people are talking about “Saw.” So we get a good sense of what’s working and what isn’t working just from watching those.

CM: And then I’m afraid to ask. I mean, we went to a big convention once… (Starts to laugh) …and this little skinny kid gets up, and he asks us something that nobody’s ever asked. And I looked up, and I said, “You little smart-ass.” And then I went, “That’s a Kevin question.” (Laughs)

KG: Yeah, right!

CM: The guys pay attention to detail. I think that’s part of the magic of the “Saw” movies. It’s clever, and people want to put the clues together and follow everything, and they really pay attention. And I think that everybody’s tried to be responsible to them, to not let them down.

KG: Yeah, nothing gets past the fans. If there’s a flaw…

CM: …they’ll let you know.

KG: (Laughs) We hear about it. Big time.

Journalist: How do you feel about those who refer to this in the term of “torture porn”?

KG: (Sighs) Well, torture is involved in this film, but porn? I don’t know. It’s a little bit fetishistic, I suppose, but…I don’t know. I don’t really like the phrase “torture porn,” at least as it applies to “Saw.”

CM: (Puts up his dukes) Who said that?

KG: (Laughs) To me, it sort of cheapens what it is, which is a psychological thriller. If it was just one scene after another of people getting tortured with no storyline through it, then sure, but it’s not that, and everyone knows that. The only people who call it that are people who haven’t ever watched a “Saw” film. In my opinion.

Journalist: Is it important to you that the films have kind of a social consciousness level to them, as opposed to some of the other competitors within the subgenre?

KG: I think it enriches it a lot if it feels like it’s something that’s very today. We might have gone too far with “Saw VI” by having the healthcare angle… (Laughs) …but it’s the God’s honest truth that, when Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton came up with that idea, it was long before it was a political issue in a big way. And, frankly, Obama wasn’t talking about it…wisely…in the lead-up to the election, which was just a few days after the movie came out. And then as soon as the movie came out, bang, health care was all over the news, and it made it seem like we were kind of whoring with it. But, really, it just suited the character to be a crooked insurance dude, so…that was more a coincidence that us trying to make some kind of policy statement, which we absolutely were not.

Bullz-Eye: Costas, was the 3D process any different for you as an actor?

CM: Uh, yeah, I made the mistake of using one term loosely and saying it was a tedious process… (Laughs) …and somebody made it sound really bad. The bottom line is that it took a little longer, and the one that suffered more than anybody was (Kevin) and the camera guy, because they have to get it right. You know, calibration and being specific with lights and all that stuff. For me, it was a good excuse to go play with the crew that wasn’t on set and crack a couple of jokes. So I got to socialize a little bit more. But the only frustrating thing was sometimes you’re ready to do a scene and then, like, it’s another 40 minutes, so you’d go off and…we got used to that. But, you know, the payoff’s big, so in the end…

KG: I think you flexed your muscles more.

CM: Yeah, I was bulging more. I’d go to the bathroom and warm up a little bit, just check myself out. (Laughs) But it was very…the thing that was interesting, it took a little longer, but…the world’s changing, and it’s nice to be a part of that change, you know?

KG: I don’t think that it necessarily affects actor performance, per se, the fact that it’s in 3D, but I think the actors’ experience is a little bit different. 3D looks best, in my opinion, with wide-angle lenses, but in “Saw,” we love our close-ups, and the camera has this huge apparatus on the front of it that means that, in order to get a close-up, you’re banging against the actor. That can’t be fun, you know?

CM: But, you know, if the actor’s thinking about the camera…and some actors are really conscious of the camera, because it has to be your buddy and you have to stand in front of it…but, you know, you’ve got to do your job, and the camera can help you if you’re doing the right thing.

Journalist: Kevin, you directed…it’s only a small role, but the winner of the “Scream Queens II” contest in this one.

KG: (Laughs) That’s right!

Journalist: Was there security involved in keeping…how does she film this before it’s revealed that she’s won the thing?

KG: Somehow they were able to keep it secret, both with Gabby (West) and then with Tanedra (Howard) last year. They shot the “Scream Queens” episodes long, long before we made the movie, but somehow they kept it under wraps, so it wasn’t revealed until they wanted it to.

CM: It’s kind of surprising that one of the girls who lost early didn’t say, you know?

KG: What, you think there’s cattiness involved? (Laughs) Is that what you’re trying to say?

CM: (Laughs) I wouldn’t know.

Journalist: Are you a big horror movie fan?

KG: Of course. Yeah, absolutely.

Journalist: What are your favorites?

KG: Well, most recently, I was just talking to Cary Elwes about “Martyrs.” I really loved “Martyrs.” It’s just a fantastic movie. Brutal, hard to watch at times, but…it felt very elevated, with this odd reveal of what was really going on in that film. I think in terms of the “Saw” series, the Argento and Bava films were very influential, and I’m a big “Suspiria” fan. I don’t know if it’s horror, but I love the Herzog “Nosferatu.” I’ve seen that film countless times.

CM: Which one?

KG: “Nosferatu,” with Klaus Kinski.

CM: Ah, yeah. It’s weird, but wonderful.

Journalist: You went from editor of the series to director. How was that transition?

KG: Well, I always did want to direct. I didn’t think “Saw” would be my ticket to that when I cut the first one, but soon after that, I started positioning myself to get promoted. And it took awhile, but by the time it did happen, I was in pretty good shape in terms of it not being that difficult of an experience, because I knew and had rapport with the actors already, just from having edited the films, and knew the crew well and had worked with them as a second-unit director on “Saw V.” So it really wasn’t as kind of a giant change as you would think…even though physically it was, to come out of the cave and be in the bigger cave with lots of people demanding things.

Journalist: Would you not say, to play devil’s advocate, that these sort of films lend themselves to that sort of filmmaking, that being an editor makes you more successful in putting together a film that’s almost like a jigsaw, no pun intended?

KG: Yeah, for sure. The films have always been very editing-intensive, you know. James had kind of a graphic design sense of cutting the film, and I think by knowing the films inside and out it helped a lot when I was on the stage, you would be surprised how many countless little micro-decisions have to be made on the spot. Is someone wearing a wedding ring? Would there be blood on this side of their face? And I would literally have to think back, “Well, in ‘Saw II,’ that’s what happened, and it must have been about three weeks…” I mean, that sort of stuff, those sort of issues are very common on the set, and, yeah, it helped a lot having cut the films.

Journalist: Can you talk about bringing Cary back and what it’s like to have his character bookend the series?

KG: Well, it was a very pleasant surprise to find out that we finally got Cary Elwes back into the franchise. It was something that we wanted to do and needed to do for a really long time. I’m just very glad that it happened. It was…well, I don’t want to… (Hesitates, then laughs) Everything I want to say is laden with spoilers, so let’s just say that it was very fun to hear his voice booming across the set.

In a moment of perfect timing, this proved to be the last question, at which point Greunert and Mandylor were escorted to their next stop. Within a few moments, we were introduced to Cary Elwes and Betsy Russell, who took a seat and began their turn at answering our questions.

Journalist: Cary, when we were doing our last roundtable, we ended it by talking about what enticed you to come back to the franchise. Can you talk about that a little bit?

Cary Elwes: Well, the reason that I’m here, really, is because of the fans. They’re the ones that campaigned heavily to bring Dr. Gordon back. They got involved in writing to the studio and E-mailing and in the blogosphere and chat rooms, so I really have them to thank. So the producers came to me, and when they showed me the script, I thought it was very clever the way they brought me back, and I thought…seeing as this was the last one, I thought it would be a nice way to bookend the series and answer a lot of unanswered questions about what happened to him.

Journalist: When you first started this role, “Saw” was just an independent horror movie that was coming out of nowhere, and now, when you come back to this being a huge franchise that’s coming out every year, how does that feel?

CE: It’s incredibly, really. I mean, I never expected it. I think I can speak for the original filmmakers, James (Wan) and Lee (Whannell), that none of us had any idea that it would turn into this huge thing. So we’re thrilled, obviously, and…it’s the fans. It’s the fans that keep coming back, and they’re really involved and really passionate about it. So we have them to think.

Journalist: I’ve seen a number of people say it baffles them how your surgeon character didn’t think to saw off just his heel instead of his whole foot.

CE: (Laughs) That’s a good question. That’s funny. Yeah, I don’t think he was thinking too hard at the time, being a professional surgeon. Good question. I know Shaq sawed off the wrong foot, right? (Laughs) Yeah, uh…

Betsy Russell: You’re not the writer.

CE: I’m not the writer. Exactly.

BR: We’re only actors.

CE: I only take direction.

Journalist: Well, how much do you bring your own sense of developing your internal back story to the characters, or do you just leave it whatever the writers give you?

CE: For me, I…I went and met some neurosurgeons over at UCLA, just to get a sense for what it was like to play one, and I was privileged enough to do the rounds with them. But, you know, James and Lee had written such a full character for me, and a lot of it was really on the page, so a lot of the hard work was really done for me.

Journalist: When you walked off the set at the end of the first “Saw,” did you think that there was any hope for Dr. Gordon to come back, or was he dying in that hallway somewhere?

CE: I thought he was dead. (Laughs) I thought anyone who sawed his leg off with a rusty hacksaw was not going to get very far. But, you know, this is filmmaking, and these guys are very inventive in the way that they’ve brought characters to life that seemingly were not going to see the light of day.

Journalist: And I guess a similar question regarding Jill, at what point in the filming process, going all the way back to “Saw IV, did you know what was in the box and where that was going to take the character?

BR: I didn’t know there was a box. (Laughs) And I don’t think any of us did ‘til “V.” So you never know ‘til you read the script, and there it is, and I’m, like, “Oh, my gosh, I can’t believe this is happening! I’m so excited!” So it’s sort of, like, every time it’s a new experience. Every time we open those scripts. A lot of cast members don’t get the last 20 pages, so most of the cast members don’t even know. I mean, I’ve been privileged, thank God, I’ve read the end every time, but a lot of them haven’t, so…it’s been quite mysterious.

Journalist: So, Cary, I have to add personally that I grew up loving “Princess Bride” and “The Crush,” and I definitely had a crush on you.

CE: (Laughs) Thank you.

Journalist: Do you think that the “Saw” franchise has brought a new audience to explore your older work?

CE: I hope so. I’m not sure. I don’t know how many fans of “Princess Bride” will come see “Saw” or vice versa. (Laughs) I hope so!

BR: If they’re real fans, they will!

Journalist: It was a logical progression!

CE: (Laughs) Thank you. That’s the right answer, yeah. But, you know, I’m very blessed. You’re lucky as an actor that you’re remembered for anything or be a part of anything that ends up being successful, like those films have been, and this one. So I’m very blessed, and I feel very grateful for that.

Journalist: Can I just ask if you’re looking to do anything in comedy again?

CE: Well, I’m doing “Yellow Submarine,” which is kind of fun. We start shooting that next year, and that’s going to be a lot of fun. I like to mix it up a bit, you know? I try not to do too much of the same thing, although this is a return for me in this film. But it was such an interesting script, and I love the director, Kevin Greutert, so I couldn’t pass up the opportunity. And, like I said, the fans really demanded that I come back.

Journalist: Are you guys big horror fans?

CE: Yeah, I am.

BR: I’m not.

Journalist: What are some of your favorites?

CE: I grew up on Hammer horror films as a kid, you know, ‘cause I grew up in England, so those were very heavily part of my childhood, and they were obviously very popular and successful when I was growing up in England. So I grew up on those, and then I naturally progressed to films like “The Shining” and “The Exorcist.” Now, I’m a big fan of Guillermo Del Toro. He’s brilliant. But Kevin…this guy outdid himself with this film. I saw it a couple of weeks ago, and…it’s without a doubt the most graphically violent movie I have ever seen in my life. I mean, hands down. It’s relentless. It really is. I mean, at one point, I was just laughing hysterically, it was just so unbelievably intense…and it’s not a film I want to sit through a second time. (Laughs)

Journalist: (Betsy) looks like the laugh was a bit of a surprise.

BR: I haven’t seen any yet.

CE: Well, you’re laughing out of fear. You can’t believe this kind of thing is taking place in front of your eyes.

Journalist: Yeah, sometimes you either laugh or throw up, so…

CE: You have to, right? It’s relentless. It’s…it’s unbelievable.

Journalist: How do you project that fear as an actor? Because you’re in such an intense, emotional state for the entire run? How do you do that? How do you deal with that? Do you bring that home?

BR: I’ve had a lot of drama in my life… (Laughs) …and I’ve used it well, I think. I’ve had a lot of pain and a lot of break-ups and miscarriages, and, you know, when I was 20, I didn’t have all of that to pull from, so I’m grateful that my life has been topsy-turvy. (Laughs) And, yeah, I really use that a lot in my character study, sure.

CE: I have been fortunate. I don’t have a lot of drama in my life…

BR: You’re not a girl!

CE: (Laughs) …so I just act. That’s what I do.

Journalist: So pretty much, like, on the page, you read it and there it is, and that’s it.

CE: Yeah.

Journalist: Is there any sense of a responsibility on set, knowing this is the final chapter, since, you know, next Halloween there’s not going to be another “Saw”?

BR: (Breaks into mock sobbing)

CE: Well, I think there’s a responsibility to the fans that we do a good job, and I really feel that we have. They’re not going to be disappointed. There’s no way.

BR: Yeah, I was definitely feeling the pressure with this one. I mean, just to do a good job and end on a high note, in a way. Just to be the best Jill I could possibly be. (Laughs)

Journalist: Who are the fans of “Saw,” if you had to describe them?

BR: These fans get it. They get that “Saw” has a heart and a soul and a life of its own. I mean, seriously, I read these things, and my tears are falling down my face, and, truthfully, I do spiritual psychology, and these people are very spiritual, and they are getting the message behind “Saw,” which is, “Appreciate your life, be grateful in every moment, make the best choices that you can.” And forgiveness. If you really read between the lines and listen, that’s, to me, what I take away from Jigsaw and his plan and putting these people in traps that are doing things the way that he doesn’t believe is the way it should be done. He has an opportunity, having cancer and everything, to say, “Okay, I know the end of my life is coming. These people don’t necessarily know when it’s going to happen, but if they did, and the time is now, what choices would they make differently?”

Journalist: So you’re saying Jigsaw is a force of good?

BR: I think behind everything that he’s doing, in the end, his message is gratitude and making the right choices. Yeah, for sure.

Bullz-Eye: What was the experience of filming in 3D like for you guys?

CE: I found it very enjoyable. It’s the first 3D movie I’ve made, and I think it was a very wise choice on the filmmakers’ part because, as I say, I saw the film, and it lends itself particularly well to 3D. There’s a lot of… (Clears throat) …limbs flying at you.

BR: (Bursts out laughing) He still can’t get over it. He saw the movie a couple of weeks ago, and he’s still in shock.

CE: It’s really intense. But the filmmaking process really wasn’t that much different. Kevin gave us some notes here and there to change your movement or a line or…just very slight variations in terms of movement to help with exploiting the 3D process. But the most part, we didn’t want to do anything gimmicky.

BR: Yeah, we weren’t, like, “Okay, this is 3D now, we’re going to have look this way or that way.”

Journalist: So there’s no yo-yo scene.

CE: That’s right. We cut the yo-yo scene.

BR: And it was just…I mean, every scene took hours to set up. Everything took forever, and the cameras were huge, and…

CE: It was the first time the crew were using them. It was the first 3D equipment ever in Toronto.

BR: Ever.

CE: So these cameras were arriving, and this crew, who are incredible, really had to hit the grown running.

BR: They went to seminars and everything.

CE: It was a real learning curve for them. They had very little prep time. The first week or so was a little slow, but after that, we hit our stride.

BR: It was still slow, though. The whole process was very slow. And it was cool. Like, they’d say, “Oh, do you want to see some cut footage? We just have a little bit of stuff cut together. You want to come check it out?” And I’m, like, “Am I in it?” And they’re, like, “Yeah, you’re in it.” “Okay, fine, I’ll look.” (Laughs) So then I would go to a corner, there’s a big screen TV, we’d put the cool little glasses on…some glasses had people’s names on them, usually producers only…and we’d watch the scenes cut together. And it was, like, “Whoa, this is so cool! It’s like you’re actually in the room!” I mean, I haven’t seen that many movies 3D…you guys probably have…but it’s actually like being in the scene. It’s really awesome. So I’m excited for it.

Journalist: Have you ever thought about the legacy of “Saw,” in terms of how people view “Nightmare on Elm Street” and “Friday the 13th” series so many years later?

BR: All the time. I think about it all the time. I think that my grandkids are going to be, hopefully, in love with Jill Tuck. You know, going, “Oh, my God, that’s my grandmother up there!” Or, “That’s my great-grandmother!” I’m hoping that my kids are going to be studying “Saw” at college. I’m hoping they go to college, but…yeah, I mean, it’s incredible to be an actress, anyway, to leave something with the world, hopefully, and just to leave a legacy like this for fans that are our fans…? It’s a great feeling. I’m happy about it. I’m grateful.

CE: Yeah, uh…what was the question again?

BR: (Laughs) Sorry!

Journalist: Just, uh, have you considered the legacy of the films?

CE: Oh, uh, yeah, I’m proud of the fact that the films are a little bit more of morality tales, and I’m glad that they’re not just films that are violent for violence’s sake. I wouldn’t want to be part of that. And, so, at least they have something redeeming about them.

BR: Totally. Yeah, you can take away from “Saw” whatever you want to take away from it, but subconsciously I think people are getting the message. That there is a message. Like, think about it before you make that choice to go steal that, or rip these people off, or run over this person and then be a hit-and-run driver. I mean, think about it. Jigsaw could be after you!

Journalist: Do you have any good Tobin (Bell) stories?

CE: Yeah, Tobin’s great. It was nice to see him again after so long and to work with him again. He’s wonderful. He’s very…it’s funny, for a guy that’s playing serial killers, he’s actually a really big softie. And I’m sad he’s not here today, because I know he would’ve been a part of all this, but he’s shooting right now, so…

BR: He has a son a year younger than my kid’s age, and we live in the same neighborhood, and my son recently said, “Mom, isn’t it weird that you guys both live in this little community? I mean, if there are ‘Saw’ fans out there, don’t you think they should come to this neighborhood?” I was, like, “Uh, yeah…” (Laughs) But, anyway, his son plays baseball, and so he’s the coach to his little 8th grade or 9th grade son’s baseball team, and he says he gets in the huddle and he starts doing the Jigsaw voice, and they start screaming. (Laughs) So he’s really into it. You see him out throwing balls to his kid, and…you know, as an actor, to be working with someone like him, it’s a dream. It really is. I’ll be, like, “Tobin, what are you doing here, sitting next me having lunch?” He’s, like, “Well, I didn’t really come down to have lunch. I just think we should really talk about our scene and how we’re going to approach the producers about getting a little more time with this or rewriting that…” I mean, he’s engrossed and obsessed and wants to make it the best movie it can possibly be. And that’s why they’ve kept him around for so long: because he’s so great at what he does, and he gives 1000%.

Journalist: Can these films be difficult for the both of you as actors because they’re so technical? Because I can’t help thinking that you could do, like, the performance of a lifetime, and then they go, “You know ,that one was off because the 3D registration wasn’t quite right.” So in some ways, the acting almost can become secondary to the technical demands.

CE: You know…

BR: That’s life.

CE: Look, it’s no different than…I mean, cameras go bad whether they’re 3D or just regular digital cameras, you know. Digital cameras, I’ve worked with the red cameras a couple of times, and if you’re in a hot room, that thing can overheat and just shut down, like any computer. Your Apple shuts down sometimes. So, yeah, I mean, like I said, it was a new process for a lot of the crew with these cameras. We did have one breakdown that actually could not be fixed, so we had to go and send out for another one, but…like, back in the old days, before digital, you had the hair in the gate.

BR: I was just thinking that!

CE: So, you know, it’s really no different.

BR: And you’ve always just got to believe that if that one didn’t work, you’ve got a better one inside. If you go, “Oh, my God, that was, I think, the best I can do.” They’re going to say, “No! You can do one better! It wasn’t our fault. You can do better!” (Laughs)

CE: Actors are hams. They like more takes.

BR: We beg for it. We always think we can do better. Even if it was pretty good, it’s, like, “You can do better…”

“This Is It” has already earned about $20 million worldwide and been declared a disappointment by Nikki Finke. She reports that most expect roughly a $50 million domestic five day total.

Overall, expectations are not too huge for this weekend and the usual trade-paper prognosticators are taking the day off. For one thing, with Halloween falling on a Saturday this year, a lot of folks we’ll be scaring themselves in places other than the multiplex, including watching scary movies at home where its cheaper and excess imbibing, etc. is less problematic.

On the other hand, it’ll be fun to see how “Paranormal Activity,” “Zombieland” and even “Saw VI” fair over the holiday. In addition, the fun/scary sounding eighties-style horror flick, available since October 1 via video on demand, called “House of the Devil” is only going to be in three theaters according to Box Office Mojo, but still may enjoy a bit of a Halloween bump.

Other than that, the closest thing to a major new release this weekend is “The Boondock Saints II: All Saint’s Day,” which will be released into 68 theaters by Sony’s Apparition arm. A couple of weeks back, the outstanding “Black Dynamite” was released by the same outfit and it is currently teetering on the edge of complete box office oblivion (if you’re anyway near a theater showing it — go now!), so let’s say I have less than complete confidence in their releasing strategy.

With a rather crappy 23% Rotten Tomatoes rating, Troy Duffy’s “sub-Tarantino” testostafest may do better based on the cult notoriety of the original film, but it sure doesn’t sound like it will break out much beyond the hardcore fans of the original. Certainly, when the best pull quotes RT can muster is a defensive “Personally, I loved it” and a disarming “I find enough to keep me in a satiated stupor here,” enthusiasm seeems muted. On the other hand, “The Boondocks Saints” itself only has a 16% RT “fresh” rating as compared to 79% for “Overnight,” the unmaking-of documentary about it writer-director. As I’ve learned in countless video store conversations with guys under thirty, there is a market for this thing.

It was a weekend of surprises at the box office. The most pleasant for those of us who prefer a chill up the spine to a gag reflex was the outstanding performance of “Paranormal Activity,” which handily defeated the dismemberment sweepstakes of “Saw VI” despite being in over a thousand fewer theaters than its horrific competitor.

As documented by Carl DiOrio of The Hollywood Reporter and the bean counters of Box Office Mojo, Paramount’s extremely wise ultra-ultra-ultra-low-budget paranormal pick-up earned an estimated $22 million as it expanded to 1,945 screens this week with a outstanding per screen average of $11,321. That’s compared to an estimated $14.8 million for the latest “Saw” entry (two more are still scheduled, including the inevitable 3-D installment) with a per screen average of $4,875, less than half of its spooky competitor.

The irony in all this is that, now that critics have had to paid their shekels to see the unscreened “Saw VI,” not only has it gotten better reviews than the last few entries — which is, of course, not the same thing as getting good reviews — it turns out to have at least an attempt at political content with a plot that involves both the sub-prime mortgage and health care debacles.

Seems to me that Lions Gate really had nothing to lose by screening this for critics and the political angle might have generated a bit more interest. “‘Sicko‘ for real sickos! ‘Capitalism: A Hate Story’! says Geekboy Moonraker of ‘Ain’t it Bloody Disgusting'” might have at least captured a bit more attention. Though, reading Owen Gleiberman‘s highly negative review, it’s interesting to note that both “Zombieland” and “Saw VI” do call attention to our nation’s obesity epidemic.

While we’re talking horror, just a quick side note that the week’s highest per-screen average was Lars von Trier’s infamously graphic, though artistic, wave of mutilation, “Antichrist.” The Cannes controversy-starter earned an estimated average of $12,250 on six screens in its first week. Presumably, this one is going for the kind of earnings of a good old-fashioned succès de scandale.

Warner’s “Where the Wild Things Are” came in at #3, dropping a somewhat more than expected 55.9% with an estimated $14.42 million. That’s actually holding a bit better than I expected, given the film’s somewhat arty approach and slightly muted reviews. Meanwhile, the critically dissed “Law Abiding Citizen” from Overture and “Couples Retreat,” a much needed fiscal bright spot for Universal, seem to have their fans. Both are holding rather well and collecting roughly $12.7 and $11.1 million respectively.

Way under-performing, however, was Summit’s CGI animation version of Osamu Tezuka’s “Astro Boy.” A lot of people are calling the film underrated and our Jason Zingale seemed pretty fond of it as well, but the usual family audience simply failed to show. The result was a horrible sixth place showing for the $65 million budgeted family film on its opening weekend, with an estimated take of only just over $7 million.

This might be just my own pro-retro tendencies overriding whatever common sense there is the Hollywood conventional wisdom, but I really wonder if the film might have done better with traditional 2-D animation. I certainly prefer the look of the original television series in all it’s black and white glory to the less appealing character designs — to me, anyway — in the new version. I’d argue there’s still a place in the world for old-style animation, and this may be Exhibit A. You’d certainly never see the gang at Pixar visually mutilating an anime classic in this way. (John Lasseter is, of course, one of the strongest advocates around of keeping 2-D.)

Less of a surprise was the poor performance of “Cirque du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant,” which pretty much had box office doom written all over it. With an estimate of under $6.35 in over 2,700 theaters on its opening weekend, it’s a another blow to the struggling Universal.

Doing a bit better in terms of per-screen averages is the week’s other new semi-major release, “Amelia.” The biopic starring Hillary Swank about the legendarily disappeared flyer, Amelia Earhart, brought in just over $4 million with a just under $5,000 per screen average.

It might not be onward and upward, however. The small problem is that no one seems to like this movie very much, certainly not our own David Medsker. If, as were we were told on Friday, Fox Searchlight really is expecting awards buzz and good word of mouth to significantly bolster the $40 million flying flick, they’re far higher than poor Ms. Earhart ever got.

On the other hand, there is also a consensus that the low-violence yet entirely potent chills of “Paranormal Activity” will be cutting into the Saw-bucks some also. Obviously, there is some audience crossover but, just as obviously, the most jaded gore hounds may find it beyond tame. I’ve already noted online the start of an inevitable backlash. I doubt this reaction will have the same angry potency that afflicted “The Blair Witch Project” so many moons ago. In that case, Lionsgate’s attempt to persuade less-savvy audiences that it might actually be real probably backfired later on, as did the over-hype of some of the early write-ups.

This time, Paramount has been more cleverly circumspect than the “Blair Witch” marketers, simply making the case that the modest video-movie can really scare the bejesus out of an audience. I’m here to tell you it can, even though I feel sure that not a single person I saw it with was under any delusion that what we were watching was not staged. Still, you see the violence-loving fanboys complaining at certain sites. I mean, how can a movie be scary if it lets you imagine the worst of it? How is that ever going to work?

It’s probably pretty obvious by now, especially from my post just before this one, that I prefer the “Paranormal” approach and will be rooting for it but, despite the still growing excitement around the movie, it’s the definite underdog as “Saw VI” will be opening in 3,036 theaters, while it’s competitor will be expanding to a mere 1,900. However, the outstanding per-screen averages that the film has been nailing could compensate if some horror audiences find the prospect of yet another ultra-brutality fest less than ultra-appealing.

Though it’s yet another family-friendly CGI animated film, this one based on a property at least some of us remember from our childhoods, hopes are not all that astronomically high for the next film. Summit’s “Astro Boy” is based on the best known creation of Japan’s “God of Manga” Osamu Tezuka, who basically invented both manga and anime as we now know them and who created some of the best comic books for adults that I’ve ever read. Of course, you’d never know from the horrendously lame gag at the end of the trailer or the often ugly CGI animation that ruins the beautiful 2-D (black and white, too!) of the early Tezuka cartoons as scene in the trailer. This appears to be another case of a studio adapting a property and missing what made the original work.

Still, U.S. audiences will barely be aware of this, and with the constant appetite for new family films, a decent performance is probably in the cards, though I would expect this to be more the kind of film parents endure for the sake of their kids than actually want to see for themselves. I was interested to see that, in the “meh” reviews, some critics were actually complaining about the darker and more interesting quasi-political (“robot rights”!) agenda of the original work. It’s the kind of thing critics are supposed to like. I  personally like to give a film credit for even trying stuff like that, though if you screw it up, you screw it up.

Next up, we have another film which could be termed horror though probably not if you’re over 10 or 11. Universal’s “Cirque du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant” is based on a series of tweenish young-adult novels and has not generated a lot of excitement from much anyone, certainly not critics, and apparently it’s not “tracking” all that great either. An apparently not very funny PG-13 horror comedy that skews tween is just not what the core filmgoing audience is looking for. Still, John C. Reilly is a favorite of mine and director Paul Weitz has done some seriously underrated work since “American Pie,” including the disarming and funny “About a Boy,” and the actually kind of good but commercially destroyed and critically dissed “American Dreamz,” so it may not be a total loss. Nevertheless, if I ever see this movie it’ll probably be by accident and I suspect it’ll be that way for most others outside it’s core audience.

Finally, playing on a modest 800 screens is Mira Nair’s “Amelia,” a biopic of famously lost aviation pioneer Amelia Earhart starring Hilary Swank. According to jolly Carl DiOrio at THR, Fox-Searchlight is apparently betting on good word of mouth and critical support. In theory, this might make some sense, given the subject matter and the fact that the director has been a bit of a critical darling for decades with films like “The Namesake” and “Monsoon Wedding,” So far, however, Fox is rolling snake eyes as the director leaves her usual milieu for an attempt at an old school movie biography. The word on the  street on this one has been very weak — perhaps due to some hack work by co-screenwriter Ron Bass whose been known to do the hacky on films a lot of the time — and it’s Rotten Tomatoes score is the lowest of any new film this week, rating a somewhat sad 23%. Unless this film hits a chord with adult women it doesn’t with critics or industry journalists, I would expect this one to, yes, disappear into the ether, never to be seen again except on cable and never, ever on airplanes.

As per Box Office Mojo, in limited release this week we have the 3-D redo of Tim Burton and Henry Selick’s “The Nightmare Before Christmas” in 105 theaters for goths of all ages; “Motherhood,” a comedy-drama which appears to divide critics (sometimes an interesting sign in the long run) and stars Uma Thurman is opening on 48 screens; “Ong Bak 2” from Thai martial artist Tony Jaa, which is not generating the interest of the first film (at least from critics) will be on 10 screens; and, for those who like their horror gore arty and emotionally and physically painful as you can imagine, six theaters will be showing the film that proved Quentin Tarantino can be easily out-controversyed whenever Lars von Trier (“Dancer in the Dark,” “Dogville”) makes the scene at Cannes. The movie in question is “Antichrist,” featuring a sometimes naked and sometimes graphically genitally mutilating and/or genitally mutilated Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg and has critics differing sharply, often with themselves. I’m not sure what happens to who, but whatever your gender, get ready to keep your legs tightly crossed.

Below Barry Sullivan as a hardworking director and Kirk Douglas as a hotshot writer-producer partially modeled on horror-legend Val Lewton (“Cat People,” “The Body Snatcher,” etc.), deal with the rather basic filmmaking problem their low-budget scare flick is presented with.

That’s Ned Glass as the costume guy, by the way, feeding those great reactions by Douglas and Sullivan. Gotta love Ned.