I just rented Wrong Turn 2 as well. I think I fast forwarded thru most of the film. All it was, was just graphic violence, no story what so ever.
I just rented Wrong Turn 2 as well. I think I fast forwarded thru most of the film. All it was, was just graphic violence, no story what so ever.
Story is deplorably neglected in most movies I've recently seen. I think Wrong Turn 2 is for those who want to lose weight and, thus, to experience loss of appetite.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've never considered SAW horror. Often when I think of a horror movie it's often because of supernatural forces or monster or anything that is unnatural to the human mind. The unknown is the most terrifying thing for mankind. I like the saw franchise mainly because of the traps, how they set them up. SAW was about it's characters and the quality of the actors keeps dropping. It also doesn't help Darren Lynn Bousmann is a shit director who, after three movies, as proven that he can't surpass the original - he's just rehashing it.Originally Posted by Jean
What made SAW so good was the focus on Dr. Gordon and Adam, the intimate atmosphere and how the room itself was a character. It should be filmed very plain and very real looking. No jump cuts, or loud scratching noises (to display insanity of course DUH LSOLS) and other stuff that makes it flashy and hip instead of suspensful and dramatic, which is how they should.
I liked Saw II and III better than the first one, mainly for their focus on Jigsaw's character and the building on the initial storyline. IV, on the other hand, was by far the weakest out of all the films but I think that has more to do with the new scriptwriters than Bousman's directing abilities. I still think that III should have ended the series. (BTW, the original Saw had a number of 'jump cuts'--just look at Amanda's initial beartrap scene)
I don't see how they rehashed the plot of the first one either. Aside from the main theme of "Jigsaw 'tests' those who don't appreciate their lives" (which is a given) the latter two have been quite different in terms of how the storyline progressed.
Horror movies are in a slump right now. It comes and goes in ebbs and waves just like any other genre. Once in a while, you get the one or two really good, groundbreaking flicks, and then you've got years of sequels as the production companies try to squeeze as much cash out of it as they can. It's the way things have been going for decades.It seems to me that horror, like fashion, has lost a bit of its originality and we're now just rehashing old genres as fashion does old styles (incidentally, I'd like to see a horror where the fashion designer who bought back the 80's look is horribly and gruesomely killed)
Has horror reached the end of the spectrum of possibilities with the likes of nothings-shocking-so-we'll-gross-you-out films like Hostel and Saw? Which direction will it take next?
Thoughts please afficionados
Saw came out years ago, and while it was a 'splatter' flick, it was fairly innovative: set people up in these traps where they have to face their deepest darkest to get out. Now they're releasing a new Saw-quel every halloween.
Follow that same pattern back to Nightmare on Elm Street ... Friday the 13th ... hell ... even Night of the Living Dead. All interesting concepts, where a good part of the movie was just figuring out what the 'gimmick' was. You hit the sequels, and the 'gimmick' is old news, so a lot of times the directors just splash more blood and guts than before.
Eventually, somebody's going to come up with something new and innovative, and the wheel will turn again.
And again, and again, and again.
Please spoiler tags on Saw IV if anyone does decide to post what happens. I will see it eventually. Thankee-sai.
Or indeed follow it for the entirety of horror filmmaking. Tod Browning's Dracula directly spawned Son of Dracula, House of Frankenstein (multi "sequel" to Frankenstein, The Wolf Man and Dracula, brilliant!), and House of Dracula. And that's not even considering all the other off-shoots, adaptations, and re-envisionings.
Of the new, gorier horror, I truly enjoyed Saw. I thought the puzzles were interesting and unique. For some reason, I don't consider it terribly gory. I think the puzzle aspect of it overshadows that because every time I watch it I am reminded of how much gorier it was than I remembered.
Sometimes I am sucked into watching a movie even though I didn't like the original, and so it was that I recently watched Hostel II. I was genuinely surprised as I thought it much better than Hostel. I told Mr. Woofer (who is not a fan of the realistic gore horror) the next morning that Hostel II felt like it should've been the original and Hostel the cheap, soft-core porn sequel.
It'll take a lot more than words and guns,
A whole lot more than riches and muscle.
The hands of the many must join as one.
And together we'll cross the river.
Puscifer, "The Humbling River"
I agree about Hostel. I never really liked either of the movies though. I am a fan of the Saw saga.
I have no faith in human perfectability. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active - not more happy - nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. - Edgar Allan Poe
Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings, and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities expressed in crime, perversion, and insanity. - H.P. Lovecraft
I have been very disappointed with horror lately, but probably not for the same reason. Its too damn gory man, just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.
I am more of an intellectual thriller kind of guy so I don't go for the slash stuff anyway but I think the actual head coming off could be done in silhouette like the old days.
I agree, the crap by Rob Zombie is a good example.
He's touted as sort of the new horror guy but his movies are nothing but explorations of tackiness, seediness and violence.
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
Each saw movie follows a similar story arc; start with a string of deaths before the real plot begins. Add bits of backstory and some blood. A few twists and turns, some brutal deaths and of course a twist ending where in the Bousmann films always have a long, drawn out OMG THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. Let's not forget the way the bad guy wins and each film ends in tragedy.
I'm not a fan of the jump cuts in the original either but they're used a lot more in the sequels. The SAW series became less original and more stylish. The original was gritty, thought provoking with a great ending. The sequels were all about how flashy they could make it and how much more outrageous. SAW 4 was the worst for this. Spent more time with the traps and set design than a plot or characters that made sense. Half the events that happened made little sense.
I have been very disappointed with horror lately, but probably not for the same reason. Its too damn gory man, just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.
I am more of an intellectual thriller kind of guy so I don't go for the slash stuff anyway but I think the actual head coming off could be done in silhouette like the old days.
I agree, the crap by Rob Zombie is a good example.
He's touted as sort of the new horror guy but his movies are nothing but explorations of tackiness, seediness and violence.
Actually IMO if you can look past the admittedly excessive gore and violence I think he's a damn good filmmaker. I absolutely hate remakes of movies, but I thought his remake of Halloween was very impressively done. I also enjoyed both of his earlier films.
I had written off Saw as torture porn and decided not to see it a long time ago. Rjeso and I finally both saw it about a week ago and I was rather impressed. I'm still not a fan of the sub-genre and I've no intention of seeing the Hostel movies, nor will I even rush out to see the other Saw movies.
I miss the old slasher films, but even those were derivitive and repetitive.
Nowadays if I'm watching a horror film, it's to laugh at how awful they are.
I agree. I love Rob Zombie's films, and I think he's brought some life back to the horror genre.
And Jimmy, don't worry about seeing the other Saw movies. The only one worth watching is the first.
I'm not really for watching the same movie again and again.
I really enjoyed the Jeepers Creepers movies because while they were both under the same premise, they were 2 completely different movies.
How are the Jeepers Creepers films completely different from each other and yet the Saw films are "the same movie"?
I enjoyed the first Jeepers Creepers but the second was absolutely pointless and only made the barest effort to continue the previous storyline from the first film. (Besides having the Creeper, that is.)
The Saw films, or at least the first three, were all fairly unique with each other and did a decent job continuing the storyline.
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
JC 1 - Killer stalks a brother and sister killing everyone in his path to get at them
JC 2 - Killer traps a group of reens in a bus and picks only certain ones to eat, thereby creating paranoia and dissension between the characters.
Saw 1 - People in a room with crazy killer traps.
Saw 2 - People in a room with crazy killer traps.
Saw 3 - People in a room with crazy killer traps.
Saw 4 - People in a room with crazy killer traps.
And exploitation spinoffs!! Don't forget Blackula!! MUAHAHAHAHA!
Wow...I don't know if you've even seen the films now. Obviously they're going to going to involve traps in each film because that's the premise of the film series!It'd be like saying each Dark Tower book has "Crazy gunslinger looking for Dark Tower".
Especially since "People in a room with crazy killer traps." would only really apply to the second film.
The Saw films actually build upon each and compliment each other. Yeah, "crazy killer traps" are used in each film, but there's a lot more to it than that. Compare how Jigsaw was little more than a voice in the first film and he becomes a fleshed-out character in the sequels. There's actually a sense of continuity with the films. (For example, the character of Amanda.)
The only time that I felt it started to get repetitive was with Saw IV, and that was because it had different writers than the first three. (But even Saw IV was better than the snoozefest that was Jeepers Creepers 2)
Don't get me wrong, I thought the first JC was great. It had two main characters that I cared about, was pretty scary, had a great villain and was involving. JC2 was a minimalist creature feature at best. I didn't care about ANY of the characters, except for the father. I was bored to tears throughout most of the film.Yeah, it was "different" from the first film but not in a good way.
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
And you could just as well say the Bachman books (with the exception of maybe Regulators or Thinner) follow a formula as well. "Doomed protagonist attempts to fight back against society and ultimately pays for it in the end." And so forth. Yeah, thats pretty simplistic, but so was your "Saw formula".
So?
Again, as good as the first film was, I thought the sequels improved on the original story. They could have easily gone the route of the Friday the 13th films but they didn't. And for the record, the sequels did try staying in the spirit of the original without going for the big budget sequels that Hollywood usually churns out.
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
You weren't supposed to like the kids on the bus in JC2, you were supposed to feel the tension that they were creating. JC2 was not a character driven piece, it was plot driven.
It is true of the SAW series. I own the first three of them and while I like them they are all really similar, they use the same formula for each movie. copy/paste story telling. The format was great the first time but it's a series where each movie could be 'people in a room with traps' but done in different fashions. That is what made the Alien series so good. Each movie (ressurection aside) provided a different experience with the same premise.
Wow...I don't know if you've even seen the films now. Obviously they're going to going to involve traps in each film because that's the premise of the film series!
I enjoyed the change from two people chained in a room to a group of people in a house there are many factors that kill it. SAW is a character oriented series. If they weren't so concerned with pumping out a movie every year they could take the time to write a better script and better direction which would give the series that edge. The first movie had some talent to work with where the rest of the movies rely on Tobin Bell and a Donnie Whalberg cameo.
No. Many traps are a person trapped in a room (barb wire, candle/safe, Amanda's trap, original SAW) are all trapped in a room, most with crazy killer traps. Now, while they may not be everywhere the like the second one, there was also a trap for each person in the house, which accounted for that.Especially since "People in a room with crazy killer traps." would only really apply to the second film.
They've relied on Jigsaw the whole series. The cast and characters from the originals are all but gone now, the twist in the last movie had zero effect on me. The first is the best (8/10), second and third are around a 6/10 and the 4th was a 3/10. The story gets weaker and weaker. The fourth movie SHAT on everything the other movies built up.The Saw films actually build upon each and compliment each other. Yeah, "crazy killer traps" are used in each film, but there's a lot more to it than that. Compare how Jigsaw was little more than a voice in the first film and he becomes a fleshed-out character in the sequels. There's actually a sense of continuity with the films. (For example, the character of Amanda.)
SPOILER AHEAD SAW 4 AHEAD
Spoiler:
I'm sure it was, but it was still shit and I'm glad someone else paid for me to see it.The only time that I felt it started to get repetitive was with Saw IV, and that was because it had different writers than the first three. (But even Saw IV was better than the snoozefest that was Jeepers Creepers 2)
The first jeepers creepers was shit. I don't get what all the fuss was about. I take craps that are scarier than jeepers creepers.Don't get me wrong, I thought the first JC was great. It had two main characters that I cared about, was pretty scary, had a great villain and was involving. JC2 was a minimalist creature feature at best. I didn't care about ANY of the characters, except for the father. I was bored to tears throughout most of the film.
Haven't seen the Alien films (I plan to in the future though) so I can't comment on that. And obviously there are certain "staples" that appear in each of the films (the directors and writers have admitted it) but I don't think that means they are following a copy-paste formula.
I don't see how the first film had better 'talent'. Tobin Bell's the star of the films, but that doesn't mean the films have no talent in them. I can probably find a handful of actors who aren't the best, but the "main" ones (Shawnee Smith, Angus McFayden, etc) have all been pretty decent.
I agree with you on this part. Saw IV left a bad taste in my mouth.
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
It wasn't supposed to be scary, it was taking the regular routines of horror and spinning them in a different way.
It was the "The Quick & The Dead" of horror. All the cliches at once, told in a different way.
I don't think when Victor Salva made the film(s) he thought "This film isn't supposed to be scary" or intended it to be intentionally cliched.
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
I'm not trying to get into the guy's mindset, cause he's an abomination of pure evil in human form. This is just how I, and others I've spoken to about the films, have seen them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
