1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Saw III (10/27)

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Chef, Oct 10, 2006.

  1. Kaylee

    Kaylee Member

    Loved "Saw." Loved it. Easily in my all-time Top 10.

    Now, before anyone accuses me of being waist-deep in my own ass, I will be the first to admit that the acting in "Saw" was retchingly bad. It was apropos that Danny Glover was involved, because several of the lines had me saying "I'm too old for this shit."

    BUT...one must keep in mind that the budget for "Saw" was approx. $17.56. Every single scene was shot in the same large warehouse room, if that gives you any indication. Thus and therefore, it's unlikely the rookie film-makers could have afforded Francis Ford Coppola to doctor the script, nor could they have coralled George Clooney and Al Pachino for the main roles (but wouldn't that have been cool?)

    But for my $0.02, the premise of the film penetrated my defenses with extreme prejudice. While some may dismiss "Saw" as just another cheap, bloody Lion's Gate throwaway slasher, I felt the idea behind the whole thing to be disturbing, thought provoking and satisfying. Horror movies, it seems, keep the audience passive...you're simply watching people in danger.

    "Saw" was a rare horror film that opted to challenge the viewer re: how valuable their own life is. The fact that I left the theater mulling over how eager I would be to severely mutilate myself in order to survive pretty much told me that I had gotten my $7.00 worth.

    "Saw II"? A back-for-more-cash handjob if I ever saw one. Within the first 15 minutes, I was hoping everybody would die.

    I read an interview with the "Saw III" director, and he more or less admitted "Saw II" had no depth whatsoever and he was consciously trying to shift back to the spirit of "Saw". We'll see. I'll probably just rent it when it comes out. With bigger budgets comes more gore and gristle, and I'm not that much of a blood fan. Half the reason I liked "Saw" was that it managed to be uncomfortable without being overly graphic.
     
  2. joe

    joe Active Member

    The best part about seeing horror flicks in the theater is listening to all the teenage girls scream when anything remotely scary happens on-screen. Horror and humor in one package.
     
  3. Buck

    Buck Well-Known Member

    I saw 'Saw.' I didn't like. Therefore, I have not seen 'Saw II,' and I don't plan to see 'Saw III.'
    I saw 'The Grudge.' I liked it. I thought it was creepy and fun.
    I might see 'The Grudge II,' but not this weekend. I still have to see the Scorsese movie.
     
  4. Saw was good, I thought, though it did remind me a bit of Seven.
    Saw II was not good, thought it had a few moments that made me shiver (thrown in with all those syringes...ugh). I thought it was pretty predictable.
    The Grudge was absolutely horrible. Seriously, it's one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It was like they took The Ring and stripped away everything that was good.
    I'll probably see Saw III (though not in the theatre) because I think that series still have potential and the ad looks good.
    I will never, under and circumstance, see The Grudge 2.
     
  5. 85bears

    85bears Member

    I thought "Saw" was one of the worst movies I've seen in the last 10 years or so, right ahead of maybe "Fear Dot Com."

    So many people had raved about "Saw," and it was the "it" movie of the time, I went in with high expectations, and kept waiting for this terrific, sharp movie I had gone to see. The acting and writing was so horrible, it almost felt like it had to be that way on purpose.
     
  6. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I don't scare easily. Saw I scared the fucking shit out of me...

    The second one was mediocre. I saw it on DVD, which I'm sure is where I'll watch this one unless people tell me it's great...
     
  7. Batman

    Batman Well-Known Member

    I liked Saw I. Some of the acting was bad, but the story was interesting and the ending caught me totally off-guard, which is pretty hard to do these days.
    Haven't seen Saw II, but wouldn't mind seeing Saw III

    Oh, and The Grudge sucked a giant turd straight from an elephan't diarrhea-laden ass. Rented it on DVD, and by the 45-minute mark it became a mission to get through it just so we could say that we did.
     
  8. kingcreole

    kingcreole Active Member

    I love horror movies. The original Halloween scared me so bad that I had nightmares about Michael Myers for days.

    Other great horror movies that freaked me out: Misery, The Shining (Jack Nicholson), and Carrie. There have been decent ones like Christine, the original Nightmare on Elm Street, and even the original Scream was a pretty good effort.

    That said, 90 percent of horror movies suck shit. People told me how "scary" The Sixth Sense was. I was bored. I Know What You Did Last Summer was crap. The Grudge? Sucked. The Ring? Had potential, but the last half hour really turned that movie into shit. I like watching horror movies, but almost every time, I kick myself and wonder why I wasted all that time/money.

    Now, onto Saw. I watched the first one and loved it. Absolutely loved it. The second one was pretty damn good too. I recall watching the second one with my wife and saying, "These movies are brilliant." Maybe overstated, but they are claustriphobic, they make you think, they have good plot twists and damn creepy. The acting leaves something to be desired, but who goes to those movies to see top-notch acting?

    I'll see Saw III.
     
  9. DrRosenpenis

    DrRosenpenis Member

    Amen, King.
     
  10. Kaylee

    Kaylee Member

    Well said.

    The problem with horror movies these days is that there's so little placed on character development. You mention "Misery"...what made it such a good movie? Put simply, the film took its time to fully illustrate Paul Sheldon and Annie Wilkes as people, not simply "victim" and "slasher."

    This is always tough when movies are dealing with supernatural themes, as there's a suspension of disbelief from the outset. But even then, it's possible to make something good. I'll freely admit that I loved - and was scared shitless by - the much-maligned "Blair Witch Project." Why? There's something inherently scary about slowly watching people break down into panic.

    What made "Saw" unique, to me, is that it was the first horror movie I ever saw where I thought "Holy shit...this could be easily translated to the stage. And it'd be just as creepy."
     
  11. BYH

    BYH Active Member

    My wife and I have a horror movie marathon planned for sometime later this month.

    The first two "Saw" movies, neither of which we've--warning! pun ahead!--seen, are absolutely on the menu. Will probably rent "The Grudge" too, and maybe both "Ring" movies, though she's seen those. I also really want to see "The Machinist" and "The Descent." Those commercials freaked me out.
     
  12. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    I saw all the scenes of Saw I.

    To Saw II, I say, "Pshaw."

    "Phantasm IV: Oblivion" -- best horror movie ever.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page