The Saw Thread

[Letti]

What do you think about this movie?
I am not interested in horror movies very much I hardly ever watch them... but this one. The idea in it is so great.

[Erin]

That scene with the girl who has the reverse bear trap in her mouth had me cringing and hiding my eyes.

[Darkthoughts]

Grim!! I've never even heard of this film - whats it about?

[Jean]

who is the director? What year was it released? I am intrigued, too.

[Erin]

The movie is actually called Saw. There have been 3 so far. I think the first came out in 2004.

[Matt]

I did like the premise in the first one. The whole idea that the guy was killing them to show how precious life was because he himself was dying.

But man...they went toooooo gory towards the end. I am more of a suspense thriller kind of guy

[Letti]

The whole idea that the guy was killing them to show how precious life was because he himself was dying.

Don't forget that...
In the first part he didn't kill anyone in fact.

[Matt]

That's very true :wub:

Another cool part about it.

[Letti]

That's very true :wub:

Another cool part about it.

*nods in silence*
But that's one of the most frightening parts of it all..

[Spencer]

I absolutely loved the ending of the 3rd movie, a HUGE twist, and the lead in to the current one, Saw 4. Haven't seen the new one yet, but I plan to as soon as I get a chance. These sequels seem to add to the franchise and continue a great overall story, rather than just rehashing the general plot of part 1 over and over with different characters and settings, as a lot of horror film franchises seem to do.

[Ruki]

i really liked the first one, and i'll buy every one that comes out, but i'm not so into it anymore. i think what turns me off now isn't so much the series but the fact that i keep running across books and smaller movies about a serial killer playing similar games. they're never as good but it still makes the whole idea feel a bit old and overdone, i'm ready for a new kind of psycho.

[Matt]

"A new kind of psycho" :lol:

What a great idea for a thread Ruki--we could all try to come up with an idea that has not been done yet.

[Ruki]

i steal your idea :)

[ZoNeSeeK]

The first one was a great psychological thriller.

Why they didnt just leave it at that is a shame. Why does everything have to be slapped into a series and any shred of the original decent idea milked for all its worth? Thats the movie business for you.

And its when you start getting sequels of remakes of old movies - thats when you know any movie business integrity is up the shitter. The Hills Have Eyes II? Sorry - hang on while I remake ET and then release a sequel to my already unoriginal remake.

[She-Oy]

I enjoyed the first one a lot. It was more psychological than slasher (but still pretty f-ing gory), but the second one was just meh. Parts were really painfully terrifying to watch (like the glass box and the needle pit).

I haven't seen the 3rd one because I figured it would be gorier than the 2nd, and just too much.

[Jean]

I enjoyed the first, too, but I didn't see anything especially psychological about it. When the whole situation is so artificial, all actions and reactions, and feelings the actors try to represent are entirely the matter of the authors' speculation. It's mildly curious, a little funny, more than a little sick, but it didn't touch me in any way. Both sequels are just ridiculous.

[Letti]

Have you watched it, Jean?
I would have been horrible surprised if you had written: "men, this movie rocks!!!" :D
I don't say it either but I think it's speciel and they could find a nice message to a bloody movie.

[Jean]

I, obviously, have watched it, but didn't find any message, not especially any nice one.

[Frunobulax]

I don't care to or plan on watching this or any other of the so-called tortureporn films. I have friends who watch and love the series and have talked to them about it, and they all seem a bit superfluous to me.

[Letti]

I, obviously, have watched it, but didn't find any message, not especially any nice one.

Life is valuable and everything that's good around us we handle as they are natural and we are dreaming of more and more and more. And when we get it we start to dream again and nothing is enough. We should love to live and we should see the nice sides of your lives. We can see and feel them just after we have lost them.
Isn't it a nice message? Even if it's put into a bloody movie?

[Jean]

Nikolett, you are not seriously telling me that you got it from that movie? I hope you also read some books, or watched something really good films, or maybe had some life experience that could give you the same idea? What you said now is much the same as saying that porn movies teach us love. It is a testimony of your own soul being big and generous, being able to get something even from shit, but it doesn't make shit itself any better.

[Frunobulax]

Letti, I'm surprised you gleaned that message as well. Jean said what I was thinking perfectly.

[Letti]

:lol:
Jean... yes, you are right I didn't learn it from that movie but YES I saw and felt this message in it. And you know what? Sometimes you can find some love in porn movies as well. I haven't seen many so it's not a proof but sometimes in the cheapest most stupid movies people say such things or do such things that burn into my memory and I yes YES it's worth to watch this movie. It gave me something.
It reminded me something important.

Once a homeless came to me as I was standing at a bus stop waiting for my little bus. He looked horrible he was incredibly dirty and sticky and he could hardly walk or talk. He seemed like a man who already put all his brain into vodka and beer. And I think it was absolutely true. I was a bit afraid of him.
He wanted to get some money but sadly I didn't have any on me. Usually if they come to me I give them but on that day I didn't have any money in my pockets, either. Not a Forint.
It was damn cold because it happened in the middle of winter so I was very sorry that I couldn't give him any so I told him:
- I really am sorry, but I have no money on me.
He looked at me and he was already quite drunk but he answered this:
- I might die today or I might live for long but I will never forget your beautiful blue eyes.
And after that he went on his way (it was hard for him becuse of the alcohol, it was a real miracle he didn't fall down) and I was just standing there speechless.
A man next to me came closer and he told me: - These are the shame of humans. I can't look at them.

It would be a long story to tell what my answer was to that man but all I would like to say is
that I say I claim that you can find wonderful messages in shit movies or books, too. And I say if you find something nice in a shit movie it makes it better.

[Frunobulax]

We need some levity now.

"I cried when I saw a man with no shoes. But then I saw a man with no feet....and I laughed really really hard."
-Jerri Blank

[OchrisO]

The message is get out and live your life and take joy in the fact that you are alive because you never know when some crazy guy might capture you and torture you to death.

[Jean]

We need some levity now.

"I cried when I saw a man with no shoes. But then I saw a man with no feet....and I laughed really really hard."
-Jerri Blank
Although Letti's story is very touching, yours is more to the point. The excalation of horrors and pseudo-psychological thrill in the movie was such it very soon became ludicrous.

And, Nikolett - no, it doesn't make the shitty movie better. It's all in the mind, soul and heart of the beholder. There's nothing wrong in seeing good things in poor movies, but trying to watch something really good might be a nice change (and killing more than one bird with one stone)

[Frunobulax]

Look, I've never seen Saw as I said--I saw trailers and stills and went, "Fuck this shit, man." To me the torture scenes from Gilliam's Brazil tell you many more lessons, all of which are more important than anything the Saw films can ever express.

[Letti]

We need some levity now.

"I cried when I saw a man with no shoes. But then I saw a man with no feet....and I laughed really really hard."
-Jerri Blank
Although Letti's story is very touching, yours is more to the point. The excalation of horrors and pseudo-psychological thrill in the movie was such it very soon became ludicrous.

And, Nikolett - no, it doesn't make the shitty movie better. It's all in the mind, soul and heart of the beholder. There's nothing wrong in seeing good things in poor movies, but trying to watch something really good might be a nice change (and killing more than one bird with one stone)
But dearest Jean, why is a movie good? Because you think and feel it is. It comes from you soul. Everything is born there. In your mind and in your soul. It's all in the mind, soul and heart of the beholder. Absolutely ture but it's true about all the movies and books and stories and so on.
For you if someone says somethng clever or valuable in a shit movie it's still shit. Because your personality needs more to accept something as good.
For me if someone says something interesting or deep in a shit movie I say "Hey, what has she just said?" or "What a minute, what has he just done?" and I start to think of it... and it makes it better for me.
I read a horrible book for 300 pages and it was so boring it's a surprise I could finish it at all. (It's a very famous Hungarian book and I felt I had to read it why the blue hell people were crazy about it.) And the last line of the book was incredibly good.
And altought the whole book was a bag of shit because of the last line I was it's worth to read it and it's an okay book.

My Moon would agree with you. He says a last line of a book can't make a book good. For him or you not. For me it's possible.

Many people don't like coffee. Me neither. But if I put lots of sugar in it I can drink it. It becomes drinkable moreover it's good however I can feel tat speciel coffee taste I don't like.
Most of the people who don't like coffee won't like or drink it with lots of sugar, either. They say it's still horrible.

[Frunobulax]

I feel as though your analogies are not getting the point across, Letti. However, it's almost 1:45AM here and I need sleep for Thanksgiving tomorrow/later today. I'll pass the proverbial baton to Messr. Melkovsky now.

[Letti]

I say we are different. For me only one good line can make better a shit movie or a book. For others it can't. That's all.
And because we judge everything through our souls we all are right in our own ways.

[Jean]

Melkovsky goes to work soon, but before he does:

Nikolett, let's not discuss everything at once. There are a few items, all different:

1. Whether or not Saw is a good movie. If we start discussing it, your post (#28) will come in handy.
2. Whether or not Saw, being a poor movie, has some redempting quality, like that message you keep referring to. (In my opinion, no, it doesn't.)
3. Whether or not a poor movie (given that all parties involved agreed that it is poor) can become better if anyone sees something good in it. (In my opinion, no, it can't)

[Letti]

The message is get out and live your life and take joy in the fact that you are alive because you never know when some crazy guy might capture you and torture you to death.
Absolutely. :)

[Ruthful]

What do you think about this movie?
I am not interested in horror movies very much I hardly ever watch them... but this one. The idea in it is so great.

I like the idea as well.

The concept of a sanctimonious psychopath who uses various forms of torture in order to force people into accepting his twisted notion of do-gooderism is intriguing. My problem with the movie-and I'll admit that I only saw one of the film's sequels, but I'm assuming it was nearly identical to the original movie-is the poor execution. Poor casting, no thematic development-it's basically the same idea on spin cycle-and no genuine conflict.

I thought Hostel was far superior for a number of reasons. It had not only one but several compelling plot points. The premise of the film, i.e. that there could be a secret torture chamber, catering to Western sadists and which is countenanced by the local authorities, located in an EU nation :eye roll: is beyond stupid, but the underlying themes of the film are interesting.

1. That the profusion of degrading, atomizing pornography accessible through modern channels has desensitized our society-or at least a large portion of it-to the point where we need to seek pleasure in something that literally turns our fellow man into a piece of meat-this also conjures up the unresolved questions of Europe's relationship to The Holocaust, and makes you search deeper for an explanation as to how/why so many individuals would be able to dehumanize another race so completely and utterly without resort to their own conscience. Does this imply that the thing we call a "conscience" is not biologically innate? Or that it does not exist at all? If so, what does that say about us as a species?

2. The utter credulity-some would describe it as ignorance-of Western, but in particular American, tourists. The idea that Americans have such a deluded view of how human nature operates-because we are so isolated from the depredations and horrors that are ubiquitous throughout most of the world-that we expose ourself to those very threats whenever we encounter the baser, more feral aspects of life. This reminds me of a store-owner near me whose sister relayed an anecdote about a crime that happened in her home county in China, where a businessman had his organs stolen from him when he went to use a restroom. We usually think of naive, stupid Americans in this role, e.g. Rachel Corrie, Lori Beronson, etc.,but the theme of Hostel could be applied just as easily to any prosperous, overly civilized Western country, e.g. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the countries of Western and Central Europe, etc...

I think the casting, direction, and most of the technical aspects of Hostel outshine Saw, which is why I think it's a much better film in addition to the aforementioned reasons.

[Matt]

The message is get out and live your life and take joy in the fact that you are alive because you never know when some crazy guy might capture you and torture you to death.

That's pretty much how I live my life every day. :lol:

I truly believe you have to love with every moment because it seriously could be the last one you have. None of us know that.

One moment you are there, the next you are gone.

[CyberGhostface]

I enjoyed the first three films quite a bit...the fourth one, not so much.

As a horror fan, I find the whole "torture porn" label demeaning. So because a horror film is gory its equatable with pornography? The Saw films have more plot development than all the Jason films combined. There's far more to it than people being tortured.

There are certain scenes in the DT series and King's work as a whole which come off as more gratitious in terms of gore and sex than the Saw films. (Particularly one in DT7...you know what I'm talking about...)

[JasKo]

I found the first two movies to be pretty entertaining and pretty grose. The two last weren't all that but watchable. I just hope they end it with this fourth. The acting in it was totaly bad and the two detectives didn't really "connect" with me and made me feel their feelings where real.

Jigsaw was the only real caracter in that show. I liked the fact that we got to know more about his past then before.

[Ricky]

Are there are die-hard Saw fans out there? I am a huge fan of the Saw series and can not wait until the 5th one comes out this October! Seriously, I've lost count of how many times I've seen each movie.

Anyone else like love Saw? I haven't met too many Saw fans, so if you're one of them, be prepared--I'm going to talk your ear off. 8)

[Mattrick]

FINALLY the got rid of that no talent hack Darren Lynn Bousmann from the director's chair. Let's hope we get a talented director for number 5, which I won't pay to see in theatres. SAW 4 was so bad it just hurt my head. It made plotlines from previous movies utterly pointless, tied things up horribly and left us with a 'who gives a fuck' twist that made my eyes roll into the back of my head...that darkness was more entertaining than that movie.

It's a shame, because I felt SAW three was a slight step up from SAW 2. SAW 4 went downhill from the moment they showed the title credits and just got worse and worse as it went. I haven't seen a movie that went from good to crap that bad since Dreamcatcher.


Me, personally, I'm still waiting for Dr. Gordon to make his return.

[mia/susannah]

I love the Saw series. I have the first 3 on DVD, Have not seen the fourth, hope to get it soon. Have heard it is not to good but will get it anyway. I hope there is a 5th.

[Mattrick]

Mia, from a SAW fan and a horror fan...do yourself a favour and avoid it. It's the only movie I've seen that managed to be bad AND cheapen it's predesecors in one foul swoop.

[mia/susannah]

My oldest daughter, all 4 of us are saw fans. We watch them as much as we can, she went to the movie with a friend to see the 4th and she said it was not good.

[Ricky]

Woo! Finally, another "Dr. Gordon is alive" supporter!

As for Saw IV, I don't think it was terrible, but it definitely did not live up to my expectations and could have been better. Though DLB is tallented, I too am glad that he's not directing Saw V. I think the more gore he added, the better he thought the film would be. He lied about things that we would see in the movie and completely blew off sub-plots that were important to the series.

Now that David Hackel is directing Saw V, I believe that it will be a large improvement over Saw IV.

[Mattrick]

Woo! Finally, another "Dr. Gordon is alive" supporter!

As for Saw IV, I don't think it was terrible, but it definitely did not live up to my expectations and could have been better. Though DLB is tallented, I too am glad that he's not directing Saw V. I think the more gore he added, the better he thought the film would be. He lied about things that we would see in the movie and completely blew off sub-plots that were important to the series.

Now that David Hackel is directing Saw V, I believe that it will be a large improvement over Saw IV.

What I hated about Boussman was that he brought nothing new to the table. All he did was borrow all of Wan's style and overuse it. What I hated about the SAW series was the jump cuts and flashes the entire damn movie. In the original, it helped display the insanity of the person in one of Jigsaw's traps, now it's just annoying. All the noises and crazy editing just isn't necessary. We get it after four movies, it's intense.

To be honest, these movies would fare much better with a documentary style of direction, no fancy editing for style or effects. It just be simply, down to earth and eerie.

I'm not sure how they can salvage the plot from SAW IV...I guess we'll find out. Maybe if they focused on creating a plot that actually goes somewhere istead of pumping out a movie every 12 months we'd get more out of it.

[Randall Flagg]

I am going to mergre this with a pre-existing Saw thread.

[Ricky]

Haha. So that's why I couldn't find it. :)

[CyberGhostface]

"Hello, Kevin. I want to play a game. So far, in what loosely could be called your life, you have made a living posting automated spam on messageboards. Society would call you a spammer...a shill...I call you unworthy of the body that you possess, of the life that you've been given...Now we will see if you are willing to look inward, rather than outward, to give up the one thing you rely on in order to go on living...How much blood would you shed to stay alive, Kevin? Live or die... Make your choice."

[Ricky]

That was awesome CyberGhost. :lol:

[Ricky]

Now that the fanbase for Saw is rapidly decreasing with each movie, I'm finding it hard to find people to discuss the movie over. :( Is there anyone out there that is excited for Saw V? Me? I can't wait!

Now that Bousman is out of the picture, I think Saw will start going back to focusing more on storyline than gore. Although I don't mind the gore. :)

[Heather19]

Are they really making another one??

[Ricky]

Yup, up to Saw VI and possibly Saw VII.

What do I say? Keep 'em comin'!! :)

[Mattrick]

SPOILER AHEAD

sadly this series will continue. Saw IV was attrocious. I was having an argument with my friend over the saw series. He was telling me I was being too critical over it and I nit pick. I nit pick, the guy who loves movies like the Evil Dead trilogy and owns the DVD to the 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead and has watched it numerous times, right.

You SAW fans must agree that SAW IV made SAWs 2 and 3 pointless. Jeff died stupidly, the black cop from SAW IV died, detective Matthews died (making him surviving Amanda's trap and being saved by jigsaw pointless) and on top of that who is Hoffman and why the hell should I care? I think these games are getting out of control. It went from:

A) two guys in a room, Zep holding a family hostage

to

B) Ten (was it ten?) people in an old house

to

c) A guy with various trapped people going through an old warehouse thing.

to

d) cop goes through the city finding people trapped all over the place.

It's just outrageous, in my opinion. They need to go back to basics. Since when did people's lives rely in someone else's hands? Doesn't that make jigsaw's came pointless? I know Amanda had a trap where she had to kill to survive but Jeff gets to pick who survives and who dies. If Jigsaw thinking some woman driving by who witnessed Jeff's kid get hit and not reporting/testifying is enough of a reason to put her up naked to freeze to death, then he truly is crazy.


As a horror fan and a fan of the first two movies I've thought the series has gone steadily downhill. SAW III was alright, but not as entertaining as the second or as gritty as the original. SAW IV was good up until the title of the movie came up (blind vs deaf was cool) but it felt so, uninspired, is the correct word.

[Woofer]

SPOILER AHEAD

sadly this series will continue. Saw IV was attrocious.

Only the end ruined it. Otherwise, I think it was still better than 2. The ONLY good thing about 2 was Shawnee Smith.


You SAW fans must agree that SAW IV made SAWs 2 and 3 pointless.

It made them illogical.


who is Hoffman and why the hell should I care?

Of course that could be said of anyone in just about any movie.



I think these games are getting out of control. It went from:

A) two guys in a room, Zep holding a family hostage

to

B) Ten (was it ten?) people in an old house

to

c) A guy with various trapped people going through an old warehouse thing.

to

d) cop goes through the city finding people trapped all over the place.



I'd like to point out that II wasn't even a SAW movie. It was turned into a SAW movie. That's why it feels so out of joint.


This film originally came from a script by the director Darren Lynn Bousman which was called "The Desperate". After trying for years to get it made but being told repeatedly that it was too violent, finally a company wanted to do it because they suspected "Saw" which was becoming a hit at Sundance might blow out big and they wanted to capitalize on its success. Some producers even described Bousman's script as "Too Saw-ish". Just before he was about to close a deal to make the movie, Saw (2004) opened huge at the box-office and the next day he received a call, and the producers asked if he could change it around to "Saw 2". Leigh Whannel (who wrote the first "Saw") was then brought on a little later to help Bousman with creating his original idea into a proper sequel to "Saw".


It's just outrageous, in my opinion. They need to go back to basics. Since when did people's lives rely in someone else's hands? Doesn't that make jigsaw's came pointless? I know Amanda had a trap where she had to kill to survive but Jeff gets to pick who survives and who dies. If Jigsaw thinking some woman driving by who witnessed Jeff's kid get hit and not reporting/testifying is enough of a reason to put her up naked to freeze to death, then he truly is crazy.

Uhm. Our lives are in other people's hands all the time. Also, was there EVER any doubt that Jigsaw was batshit insane?


As a horror fan and a fan of the first two movies I've thought the series has gone steadily downhill. SAW III was alright, but not as entertaining as the second or as gritty as the original. SAW IV was good up until the title of the movie came up (blind vs deaf was cool) but it felt so, uninspired, is the correct word.

I disagree. I rank them as I, III, IV, II.

[Ricky]

SPOILER AHEAD

Jeff died stupidly


That is the one thing that I agree with. I was so excited when he walked on screen in Saw IV, only to be shot 3 times by Strahm. What a waste of an excellent character.



on top of that who is Hoffman and why the hell should I care?


If you're serious, I'll explain. Hoffman was the police detective who's been "helping" JigSaw since Saw III. Being that Saw III and IV are happening at the same time, it hasn't been that long. Why or how he is helping JigSaw has yet to be revealed.


Since when did people's lives rely in someone else's hands? Doesn't that make jigsaw's came pointless?


There are two answers to this:

1. Jeff had to choose to let them die or live depending on if he felt they deserved to. In a way, just like Rigg, I believe that JigSaw was going to have one of them take over his "work" when he died depending if they

2. The victims lives rely in other peoples hands (aka unescapable traps) because Hoffman is most likely rigging them to make them unescapable. This too has yet to be revealed why.

[Mattrick]

Only the end ruined it. Otherwise, I think it was still better than 2. The ONLY good thing about 2 was Shawnee Smith.

I disagree, I thought SAW II is about the most entertaining of them all if you just want to see a big game. I love the twist at the end of that movie and the ending. Also like how it was just like the original, it was just more intricate. Still had that claustraphobic atmosphere. SAW IV lost that, with people going through the whole city.


Of course that could be said of anyone in just about any movie.

It was in the delivery. That was the twist? This guy who got hardly any air time to allow me to even give two craps about him is Jigsaw's partner? YAWN, boring. At least Amanda working with Jigsaw in the second was a good twists. Don't know Hoffman, don't care about Hoffman...knowing the writers he'll die in the opening scene of the next movie.


I'd like to point out that II wasn't even a SAW movie. It was turned into a SAW movie. That's why it feels so out of joint.

SAW IV didn't feel like a SAW movie at all. SAW had more elements from the original than 3 and 4.


This film originally came from a script by the director Darren Lynn Bousman which was called "The Desperate". After trying for years to get it made but being told repeatedly that it was too violent, finally a company wanted to do it because they suspected "Saw" which was becoming a hit at Sundance might blow out big and they wanted to capitalize on its success. Some producers even described Bousman's script as "Too Saw-ish". Just before he was about to close a deal to make the movie, Saw (2004) opened huge at the box-office and the next day he received a call, and the producers asked if he could change it around to "Saw 2". Leigh Whannel (who wrote the first "Saw") was then brought on a little later to help Bousman with creating his original idea into a proper sequel to "Saw".

And Alien 3 was originally supposed to be on a wooden planet. What was planned doesn't matter to the final project. I'm sure he got to make the movie he wanted while adding to the series.


Uhm. Our lives are in other people's hands all the time. Also, was there EVER any doubt that Jigsaw was batshit insane?

No, Jigsaw is pretty sane. It's his utter saneness that makes him appear insane. He just has a real skewed perspective on humanity and life, but there is a method to his madness and morals to boot.


If you're serious, I'll explain. Hoffman was the police detective who's been "helping" JigSaw since Saw III. Being that Saw III and IV are happening at the same time, it hasn't been that long. Why or how he is helping JigSaw has yet to be revealed.

I know who he is and what he did. I just meant, why should I care? Right after they successfully kill off every character to have been in the series they throw in a lame twist, 'hey, see this guy...*snicker* he's Jigsaw's buddy...bet you didn't see that coming'. Very lacklustre twists, which the other three movies at least ended on a strong note.

[Ricky]

I just meant, why should I care? Right after they successfully kill off every character to have been in the series they throw in a lame twist, 'hey, see this guy...*snicker* he's Jigsaw's buddy...bet you didn't see that coming'. Very lacklustre twists, which the other three movies at least ended on a strong note.

Yeah, I felt the same way when I was sitting in the theater waiting for "the big twist". I wasn't suprised. It just seemed to obvious. On another note, because he didn't get alot of screen time, I didn't care that he was the accomplice either. However, I do have faith in Saw V.

I'm pretty ecstatic that Bousman's gone. :clap:

[Woofer]

Only the end ruined it. Otherwise, I think it was still better than 2. The ONLY good thing about 2 was Shawnee Smith.

I disagree, I thought SAW II is about the most entertaining of them all if you just want to see a big game. I love the twist at the end of that movie and the ending. Also like how it was just like the original, it was just more intricate. Still had that claustraphobic atmosphere. SAW IV lost that, with people going through the whole city.


Of course that could be said of anyone in just about any movie.

It was in the delivery. That was the twist? This guy who got hardly any air time to allow me to even give two craps about him is Jigsaw's partner? YAWN, boring. At least Amanda working with Jigsaw in the second was a good twists. Don't know Hoffman, don't care about Hoffman...knowing the writers he'll die in the opening scene of the next movie.


I'd like to point out that II wasn't even a SAW movie. It was turned into a SAW movie. That's why it feels so out of joint.

SAW IV didn't feel like a SAW movie at all. SAW had more elements from the original than 3 and 4.


This film originally came from a script by the director Darren Lynn Bousman which was called "The Desperate". After trying for years to get it made but being told repeatedly that it was too violent, finally a company wanted to do it because they suspected "Saw" which was becoming a hit at Sundance might blow out big and they wanted to capitalize on its success. Some producers even described Bousman's script as "Too Saw-ish". Just before he was about to close a deal to make the movie, Saw (2004) opened huge at the box-office and the next day he received a call, and the producers asked if he could change it around to "Saw 2". Leigh Whannel (who wrote the first "Saw") was then brought on a little later to help Bousman with creating his original idea into a proper sequel to "Saw".

And Alien 3 was originally supposed to be on a wooden planet. What was planned doesn't matter to the final project. I'm sure he got to make the movie he wanted while adding to the series.


Uhm. Our lives are in other people's hands all the time. Also, was there EVER any doubt that Jigsaw was batshit insane?

No, Jigsaw is pretty sane. It's his utter saneness that makes him appear insane. He just has a real skewed perspective on humanity and life, but there is a method to his madness and morals to boot.


If you're serious, I'll explain. Hoffman was the police detective who's been "helping" JigSaw since Saw III. Being that Saw III and IV are happening at the same time, it hasn't been that long. Why or how he is helping JigSaw has yet to be revealed.

I know who he is and what he did. I just meant, why should I care? Right after they successfully kill off every character to have been in the series they throw in a lame twist, 'hey, see this guy...*snicker* he's Jigsaw's buddy...bet you didn't see that coming'. Very lacklustre twists, which the other three movies at least ended on a strong note.

I actually have a lot to say, but it is hard to think with non-stop talking going on in your ears. And I mean that literally. Non fucking stop.

I will say that your pointing out Alien 3 wasn't supposed to be an Alien movie explains a lot. It had potential, but it flushed potential down the toilet and chose, instead, to suck hugely.

Sorry, I usually like to explain more, as you can see, but I srsly cannot think.

[Ricky]

For those of you who care, the Saw V teaser poster and trailer have been released:

Teaser Trailer:

http://saw5.com/

Teaser Poster:

http://i33.tinypic.com/16911sj.jpg

[Ricky]

::waits for turtlesong to find this thread and have a lengthy discussion with me::

[Melike]

I've read entire thread. I see there is not much people who loves these series.
It's about expectations I thing.
I like SAW movies(yes, all of them), and first one was really good and best of all, to me. I never think these would be cult movies or valuable piece of art, but they are fine.


I, obviously, have watched it, but didn't find any message, not especially any nice one.

Life is valuable and everything that's good around us we handle as they are natural and we are dreaming of more and more and more. And when we get it we start to dream again and nothing is enough. We should love to live and we should see the nice sides of your lives. We can see and feel them just after we have lost them.
Isn't it a nice message? Even if it's put into a bloody movie?



We need some levity now.

"I cried when I saw a man with no shoes. But then I saw a man with no feet....and I laughed really really hard."
-Jerri Blank
Although Letti's story is very touching, yours is more to the point. The excalation of horrors and pseudo-psychological thrill in the movie was such it very soon became ludicrous.

And, Nikolett - no, it doesn't make the shitty movie better. It's all in the mind, soul and heart of the beholder. There's nothing wrong in seeing good things in poor movies, but trying to watch something really good might be a nice change (and killing more than one bird with one stone)
But dearest Jean, why is a movie good? Because you think and feel it is. It comes from you soul. Everything is born there. In your mind and in your soul. It's all in the mind, soul and heart of the beholder. Absolutely ture but it's true about all the movies and books and stories and so on.
For you if someone says somethng clever or valuable in a shit movie it's still shit. Because your personality needs more to accept something as good.
For me if someone says something interesting or deep in a shit movie I say "Hey, what has she just said?" or "What a minute, what has he just done?" and I start to think of it... and it makes it better for me.
I read a horrible book for 300 pages and it was so boring it's a surprise I could finish it at all. (It's a very famous Hungarian book and I felt I had to read it why the blue hell people were crazy about it.) And the last line of the book was incredibly good.
And altought the whole book was a bag of shit because of the last line I was it's worth to read it and it's an okay book.

My Moon would agree with you. He says a last line of a book can't make a book good. For him or you not. For me it's possible.

Many people don't like coffee. Me neither. But if I put lots of sugar in it I can drink it. It becomes drinkable moreover it's good however I can feel tat speciel coffee taste I don't like.
Most of the people who don't like coffee won't like or drink it with lots of sugar, either. They say it's still horrible.
Here, I can understand you well, Letti.


What do you think about this movie?
I am not interested in horror movies very much I hardly ever watch them... but this one. The idea in it is so great.

I like the idea as well.

The concept of a sanctimonious psychopath who uses various forms of torture in order to force people into accepting his twisted notion of do-gooderism is intriguing. My problem with the movie-and I'll admit that I only saw one of the film's sequels, but I'm assuming it was nearly identical to the original movie-is the poor execution. Poor casting, no thematic development-it's basically the same idea on spin cycle-and no genuine conflict.

I thought Hostel was far superior for a number of reasons. It had not only one but several compelling plot points. The premise of the film, i.e. that there could be a secret torture chamber, catering to Western sadists and which is countenanced by the local authorities, located in an EU nation :eye roll: is beyond stupid, but the underlying themes of the film are interesting.

1. That the profusion of degrading, atomizing pornography accessible through modern channels has desensitized our society-or at least a large portion of it-to the point where we need to seek pleasure in something that literally turns our fellow man into a piece of meat-this also conjures up the unresolved questions of Europe's relationship to The Holocaust, and makes you search deeper for an explanation as to how/why so many individuals would be able to dehumanize another race so completely and utterly without resort to their own conscience. Does this imply that the thing we call a "conscience" is not biologically innate? Or that it does not exist at all? If so, what does that say about us as a species?

2. The utter credulity-some would describe it as ignorance-of Western, but in particular American, tourists. The idea that Americans have such a deluded view of how human nature operates-because we are so isolated from the depredations and horrors that are ubiquitous throughout most of the world-that we expose ourself to those very threats whenever we encounter the baser, more feral aspects of life. This reminds me of a store-owner near me whose sister relayed an anecdote about a crime that happened in her home county in China, where a businessman had his organs stolen from him when he went to use a restroom. We usually think of naive, stupid Americans in this role, e.g. Rachel Corrie, Lori Beronson, etc.,but the theme of Hostel could be applied just as easily to any prosperous, overly civilized Western country, e.g. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the countries of Western and Central Europe, etc...

I think the casting, direction, and most of the technical aspects of Hostel outshine Saw, which is why I think it's a much better film in addition to the aforementioned reasons.
Ruthful, I agree with you. Though I like Saw movies, Hostel was more different. Especially Hostel: Part II. There are more things about human nature, in it.

[Spencer]

What I really hated was the fact that the end of Saw III, which I liked, was never resolved. Guy kills Jigsaw out of revenge, he's told he has to play a game to save his daughter. 2 seconds later, guy gets shot, and girl is rescued by Hoffman. Oh, I almost forgot, this 30 seconds or so took parts of 3 different movies to play out. <_< That sucked.

[Melike]

What I really hated was the fact that the end of Saw III, which I liked, was never resolved. Guy kills Jigsaw out of revenge, he's told he has to play a game to save his daughter. 2 seconds later, guy gets shot, and girl is rescued by Hoffman. Oh, I almost forgot, this 30 seconds or so took parts of 3 different movies to play out. <_< That sucked.
I get that and the other faultfindings about the movie. I agree these, but I am trying to say, I just find them entertaining. First one was really promising, so we all have had great expectations. But they just keep on repeating the same things.

[Brice]

We need some levity now.

"I cried when I saw a man with no shoes. But then I saw a man with no feet....and I laughed really really hard."
-Jerri Blank
Although Letti's story is very touching, yours is more to the point. The excalation of horrors and pseudo-psychological thrill in the movie was such it very soon became ludicrous.

And, Nikolett - no, it doesn't make the shitty movie better. It's all in the mind, soul and heart of the beholder. There's nothing wrong in seeing good things in poor movies, but trying to watch something really good might be a nice change (and killing more than one bird with one stone)
But dearest Jean, why is a movie good? Because you think and feel it is. It comes from you soul. Everything is born there. In your mind and in your soul. It's all in the mind, soul and heart of the beholder. Absolutely ture but it's true about all the movies and books and stories and so on.
For you if someone says somethng clever or valuable in a shit movie it's still shit. Because your personality needs more to accept something as good.
For me if someone says something interesting or deep in a shit movie I say "Hey, what has she just said?" or "What a minute, what has he just done?" and I start to think of it... and it makes it better for me.
I read a horrible book for 300 pages and it was so boring it's a surprise I could finish it at all. (It's a very famous Hungarian book and I felt I had to read it why the blue hell people were crazy about it.) And the last line of the book was incredibly good.
And altought the whole book was a bag of shit because of the last line I was it's worth to read it and it's an okay book.

My Moon would agree with you. He says a last line of a book can't make a book good. For him or you not. For me it's possible.

Many people don't like coffee. Me neither. But if I put lots of sugar in it I can drink it. It becomes drinkable moreover it's good however I can feel tat speciel coffee taste I don't like.
Most of the people who don't like coffee won't like or drink it with lots of sugar, either. They say it's still horrible.

I think I agree with you Letti. To my thinking it's sort of like this: If you live a lousy miserable lonely life, unhappy all the time, but find a bit of happiness (maybe even love) at the end wasn't it worth it? I not only like bad movies, I'm quite fond of them. The worse they are the better. :lol: The only thing I can't stand is boring. It doesn't have to be particularly good though.

[Melike]

For those of you who care, the Saw V teaser poster and trailer have been released:

Teaser Trailer:

http://saw5.com/

Teaser Poster:

http://i33.tinypic.com/16911sj.jpg

I can't wait to see this one, but I don't have time nowadays. Is there anybody who has seen it?

[Spencer]

I've seen it, not quite as good as the others, but I really did like it.

[Spencer]

What I really hated was the fact that the end of Saw III, which I liked, was never resolved. Guy kills Jigsaw out of revenge, he's told he has to play a game to save his daughter. 2 seconds later, guy gets shot, and girl is rescued by Hoffman. Oh, I almost forgot, this 30 seconds or so took parts of 3 different movies to play out. <_< That sucked.
I get that and the other faultfindings about the movie. I agree these, but I am trying to say, I just find them entertaining. First one was really promising, so we all have had great expectations. But they just keep on repeating the same things.

Oh I find them entertaining too, I just think that things would have been 10 times better if they'd followed up on that cliffhanger.

[Melike]

What I really hated was the fact that the end of Saw III, which I liked, was never resolved. Guy kills Jigsaw out of revenge, he's told he has to play a game to save his daughter. 2 seconds later, guy gets shot, and girl is rescued by Hoffman. Oh, I almost forgot, this 30 seconds or so took parts of 3 different movies to play out. <_< That sucked.
I get that and the other faultfindings about the movie. I agree these, but I am trying to say, I just find them entertaining. First one was really promising, so we all have had great expectations. But they just keep on repeating the same things.

Oh I find them entertaining too, I just think that things would have been 10 times better if they'd followed up on that cliffhanger.
Yes, that's right. I think they find the other way more easy to follow.