Well, at this point, there's only two ways they can go with the 7th movie:

1. Finally end the series with closure.

2. The ever popular "reboot".

Or, the third option, as we all wished they would do ... stop making these movies, period!

Here are some interesting stats that may prove Saw VI to be one of the less awful movies of the year:

Eric D. Snider gave Saw V a "D" and gave Saw VI a "C".
Wesley Morris hasn't given a single Saw film more than two stars, yet he gave VI two and a half stars.
James Rocchi gave V one star, and gave VI two stars.
Rossiter Drake gave V one star and gave VI two.
Dustin Putman gave both IV and V one and a half star gave
VI two.

This is just a sample, and yeah, there are still a fair number of critics who are bashing this movie just as badly as its predecessors. But the overall consensus suggests that VI is better than what most critics were expecting it to be. 

I don't blame them for not wanting to see Saw VI. I mean, for crying out loud, the main villain of the series died in the third movie, and yet here we are three movies later. WTF?! But of course there will be a 7th one, because this series is the only thing keeping Lionsgate alive. Well, that and anything Tyler Perry makes.

Oh, and a quick way to fix the fact this series has never gotten a single nod or award? A special Worst Movie Series Of The Past Decade Razzie!

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I have recently begun to suspect there may be deliberate "skewing" going on with RT Ratings numbers. While both RT and MetaCritic concur that AMELIA has some of the year's least favorable reviews (RT LINK / METACRITIC LINK) the reviews for SAW VI at RT appear to be unexpectedly high (LINK) while those for SAW VI at Meta Critic ((currently 27 out of a possible 100 points) are among 2009's lowest -ranked (LINK).

Since MetaCritic prides itself on contacting the critics themselves to rank & rate their own reviews, I can only assume that RT is losing its edge as a reliable source of critical consensus. If this keeps up, MetaCritic may have to replace RT as our "go to source" for how crix are ranking mainstream movies...

Saw 6 has 35 total reviews from RT while it only has 9 from MC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be easier to skew the rating number if there were less reviews? (albeit, it would be more obvious). But you can't say that RT has some hidden agenda when you could easily make the same case against MC, it just doesn't make any sense. This is just a knee jerk reaction because we all wanted to see this movie get hammered, and it didn't.

That being said with only 35 reviews it's hard to gauge a movie,(although curiously enough, The Stepfather has the same number of reviews and is at 11% which I think, and I'm sure a lot of people on this site think, is a fair number for that POS of a movie). But I think the point made by Saturnwatcher is probably the best one:

I find it rather curious that as of late Sunday morning as I write, only 34 reviews have been presented for Saw VI. Either RT has been amazingly slow in collecting them or they just haven't been published. The latter is a rather telling suggestion that the bulk of critics out there just don't want to review this movie...that would be a pretty serious indictment of the series.

The latter is probably more accurate, I think the reviews are coming in slowly because critics by and large are just tired of watching and reviewing this series, and want to see it bomb, or at least underwhelm. (Sidenote: PA beat out Saw by about 8 million this weekend... Justice!). So even though the rating might be a little high for Razzie standards, this movie should not be ignored come award season. We can think of it as a cumulative type thing.

Well, since the two sites are sometimes polar opposites of each other, perhaps we should take BOTH of them into account.

PS: I so love the fact that "Paranormal Activity" is kicking the ever loving crap out of "Saw 6" at the box office (according to Friday and Saturday grossings)!

Well, there is no question in my mind that Saw VI will do wonders for advancing intelligent debate about health care...at least as much as the commericals the Republicans are airing. I especially liked the one where the lady who claimed she had breast cancer came on and told us that if she lived in England, where they have public supported health care, she would have been more likely to die.

That is true. If a woman contracts breast cancer in England she is 8% more likely to die per capita. What the G.O.P neglected to mention is that in the British system which is oriented toward prevention rather than curing illnesses once you have them, women are 16% less likely per capita to get breast cancer in the first place. Gotta love the Republicans. They'd never lie to us...someday, I plan to visit the Iraq WMD museum.

I wasn't ever going to go see this movie. In fact, the only reason I saw Saws 4 and 5 in theaters was because of my brother. Now this year, he doesn't want to see Saw 6 because of how bad Saw 5 was. But you know what, I might actually go see this. I'm reading in reviews that they're bringing political themes like health care into this, which I really like, since I loved Sicko.

I don't know, though. I'm going to wait it out to hear the reactions.