Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

*** Official SAW Discussion Thread


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
71 replies to this topic

#1 of 72 OFFLINE   Niko Nykanen

Niko Nykanen

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 205 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 20 1999

Posted October 28 2004 - 09:08 PM

I think word of mouth is gonna be real good one on this movie. It´s the initial draw that i´m interested in, especially in the states.

Out of 10 people (or so) I know that have seen the movie 10 say it´s ws very good or great.

So that´s gonna make the movie a hit. Good word of mouth.
Lyxdesics of the lowrd untie!

#2 of 72 OFFLINE   Matt Stone

Matt Stone

    Lead Actor



  • 9,070 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 21 2000

Posted October 28 2004 - 09:14 PM

Word of mouth has me worried. It's only running at about 50% on RT right now with an average rating of under 6. If it gets any worse it will be in Grudge territory. My concern is that it may be a little too grisly for mainstream audiences.
In Heaven, everything is fine.
[ 2006 Films | 2005 Films | 2004 Films | 2003 Films | YMDB Top 20 ]
[ Star Wars | Sideshow | HT | DVDs | LDs | AIM: Maulrat87 ]

#3 of 72 OFFLINE   Niko Nykanen

Niko Nykanen

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 205 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 20 1999

Posted October 28 2004 - 10:53 PM

Isn´t RT only reviews? I´m talking about WoM of "real people"

images/smilies/smile.gif



This one is a psychological thriller just like Se7en in my book. How´bout you others?
Lyxdesics of the lowrd untie!

#4 of 72 OFFLINE   JohnRice

JohnRice

    Lead Actor



  • 8,571 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2000
  • Real Name:John

Posted October 29 2004 - 02:33 AM

Oh come on! Psychological thriller? Give me a break. Sure it has the thriller aspect to it, but it is pure gory horror. All horror has a thriller aspect, but this one is entirely about blood and torture.

The Hybrid System

The Music Part: Emotiva XSP-1, Thiel CS 3.6, Emotiva XPA-2, Marantz SA8004, Emotiva ERC-3, SVS PB-12 Plus 2

The Surround Part: Sherbourn PT-7030, Thiel SCS3, Emotiva XPA-5, Polk & Emotiva Surrounds.


#5 of 72 OFFLINE   Scott Weinberg

Scott Weinberg

    Lead Actor



  • 7,482 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 03 2000

Posted October 29 2004 - 02:39 AM

Gotta disagree with you there, Johnny. images/smilies/wink.gif

#6 of 72 OFFLINE   Shawn_KE

Shawn_KE

    Screenwriter



  • 1,295 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 25 2003

Posted October 29 2004 - 02:51 AM

Gore horror is what I'm after with this movie. The Seven and Silence of the Lamb stuff is just extras for me images/smilies/wink.gif

#7 of 72 OFFLINE   Niko Nykanen

Niko Nykanen

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 205 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 20 1999

Posted October 29 2004 - 02:53 AM

Oh please Johnny, where was the blood and gore? Huh? Don´t remember it. images/smilies/smile.gif I think it was all in your head.

Just like people remember seeing
Spoiler:
Gwyneth Paltrows head in the box
in Se7en. Just happened in your head.

images/smilies/smile.gif
Lyxdesics of the lowrd untie!

#8 of 72 OFFLINE   JohnRice

JohnRice

    Lead Actor



  • 8,571 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2000
  • Real Name:John

Posted October 29 2004 - 03:09 AM

quote:


Just happened in your head.


Nope. Didn't happen in my head. I know very well that scene wasn't there, just like I know Patrick Bateman does not harm the kitten in American Psycho, even though I have seen rants about him doing exactly that.


And, as far as the comparisons between Saw and Se7en, Se7en is absolutely one of the goriest movies I've ever seen. It's not Peckinpah style constant gushing blood, but intensely gory.

The Hybrid System

The Music Part: Emotiva XSP-1, Thiel CS 3.6, Emotiva XPA-2, Marantz SA8004, Emotiva ERC-3, SVS PB-12 Plus 2

The Surround Part: Sherbourn PT-7030, Thiel SCS3, Emotiva XPA-5, Polk & Emotiva Surrounds.


#9 of 72 OFFLINE   Niko Nykanen

Niko Nykanen

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 205 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 20 1999

Posted October 29 2004 - 03:38 AM

JohnRice:

Have you seen Saw? You never indicate that in this thread?

If you have, what did you think of it?

Where did you see it as you seem to live in the states?
Lyxdesics of the lowrd untie!

#10 of 72 OFFLINE   Matt Stone

Matt Stone

    Lead Actor



  • 9,070 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 21 2000

Posted October 29 2004 - 07:34 AM

I'm with Scott and Niko on this one. For the most part the gore is implied. Not that there isn't gore to be seen, but there is no way this is one of the goriest movies.



quote:


It's not Peckinpah style constant gushing blood, but intensely gory.





It's certainly "intense" but I wouldn't say intensely gory.



BTW, I'm off to see it again right now.
In Heaven, everything is fine.
[ 2006 Films | 2005 Films | 2004 Films | 2003 Films | YMDB Top 20 ]
[ Star Wars | Sideshow | HT | DVDs | LDs | AIM: Maulrat87 ]

#11 of 72 OFFLINE   Matt Stone

Matt Stone

    Lead Actor



  • 9,070 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 21 2000

Posted October 29 2004 - 10:54 AM

Well, I'm back from it again. Got to see trailers for The Devil's Rejects and Haute Tension too.



I still ask, where's the over-the-top gore? Aside from the
Spoiler:
intestines


the movie isn't that gory. I just checked RT and it's still running at about 50%. Strangely, most of the bad reviews are criticizing the film for being too grim? WTF do this guys expect. It's a horror movie! I guess you're not allowed to get good reviews if you make an effective grisly film. I can't wait to see what these people think of Haute Tension when it opens stateside.



BTW, I still love the movie. Absolutely fantastic. I took my mom, and she loved it too. She loved the Grudge last week (which I've been making fun of her for images/smilies/smile.gif), but she turned to me as we were talking to the car and said "The Grudge was nothing." The audience was in to it too. There weren't many there, but they all cringed and jumped at the right moments. I can't wait to see it again.
In Heaven, everything is fine.
[ 2006 Films | 2005 Films | 2004 Films | 2003 Films | YMDB Top 20 ]
[ Star Wars | Sideshow | HT | DVDs | LDs | AIM: Maulrat87 ]

#12 of 72 OFFLINE   Al Stuart

Al Stuart

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 128 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 14 2002

Posted October 29 2004 - 12:39 PM

quote:


originally posted by JohnRice

Se7en is absolutely one of the goriest movies I've ever seen.




There is very little gore in Seven. It is almost entirely implied. Even the scenes which might have benefitted from gruesomeness, such as when they discover the prostitute, we only see the image of the tool that was used.





As for Saw, it is abysmal and gets worse the more you think about it. The young writers and director had a solid concept. Two guys in a room, chained to the wall, with a dead man between them, and no idea how they got there. They are told that they have a time limit to get out before they are both killed, and there is only way to get but they first have to figure out how to get that chain off. It's like Oldboy mixed with Cube. And from that point, after the first 8 minutes, it goes nowhere. The remaining 90 minutes is all flashback and exposition, but play more like padding, with characters doing inexplicable things and scenes that go on and on, incoherent surprise twists that follow no logic, and a kitchen sink ending that tricks you right out of giving a shit.


The killer's motivation is flimsy and the filmmakers pray you don't think about the inconsistency of it, and the acting is stunningly awful for a professional film, especially from Cary Elwes and Danny Glover. Glover fares worse though, because his part doesn't make any sense at all, and the way they try to tie him into the final act (which is on the level of Taking Lives bad) is mindbogglingly stupid. There are a lot of TV and B movie actors in the film, usually with one short scene (Benito Martinez, Dina Meyer, etc.), so I wondered if they had more scenes that were scrapped, or they just wanted exposure in a low budget movie.


One of the largest problems is that the movie has no point of view, so as we see flashbacks and backstory for each person, we don't know from who's perspective each scene is from, as it constantly shifts. It makes it impossible to identify with anyone on screen for that reason. The visuals are a headache, with the speed cutting and the "we cribbed this from Feardotcom and every movie that stole from too" look. However, the biggest problem is that the film tries to engage your brain. If the viewer never expects anything from a movie, and just enjoys it, no matter how stupid or ridiculous it is, because the movie never challenges them or even makes the effort, then it can get away with being braindead. But if there is that attempt to engage your head, but the movie doesn't follow through and plot hole after plot hole is left gaping, then it's simply irritating and frustrating.



Spoiler:
There is no explanation whatsoever for how Glover seems to be watching the video as Elwes and the Whannell are chained up in the room. It's even more contrived that this guy dying of cancer was following around Glover and the guy taking pictures, etc., etc. And how lame is the clown head? Did the Chiodo brothers secretly work on this?


#13 of 72 OFFLINE   Matt Stone

Matt Stone

    Lead Actor



  • 9,070 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 21 2000

Posted October 29 2004 - 02:07 PM

quote:


There is no explanation whatsoever for how Glover seems to be watching the video as Elwes and the Whannell are chained up in the room.





Are you saying that Glover was watching the film of Elwes and Whannell chained up? Because he wasn't.



Interesting analysis, but I disagree with all of it.
In Heaven, everything is fine.
[ 2006 Films | 2005 Films | 2004 Films | 2003 Films | YMDB Top 20 ]
[ Star Wars | Sideshow | HT | DVDs | LDs | AIM: Maulrat87 ]

#14 of 72 OFFLINE   Eric Howell

Eric Howell

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 103 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 05 1999

Posted October 29 2004 - 02:35 PM

I’m guessing this is now the discussion thread too… so here goes…



SPOILERS Below, so don’t read, darn it



I rather liked the movie but I did have problems with the end. It has been a while since I saw it, but as I remember, every victim had a clearly defined simple task set before them. Elwes had to kill Whannell, Whannell had to stay alive, Jaw Lady had to free herself with a key, Barb wire dude had to ahh crawl through the barbed wire (don’t recall the other victims off hand, but the point was all of them had rather basic tasks that while hard to do from an ethics / pain threshold perspective were relatively easy to comprehend)….. The big problem for me was the last victim(that we are introduced to, you know the guy from Elwes’ clinic), his task was… as far as I can tell(please correct me if my memory is off, or I completely missed it)….



“haha! I’ve poisoned you, now wait for me to kidnap these two guys, then go to that dude’s house and capture his wife and daughter, then bring this computer equipment into that dude’s house and setup the connection so you can get a live feed from it to this room I’ll be holding them in, keep an eye on that computer so you’ll know how the game is progressing, then depending on the outcome of the game I have setup for them you might have to kill the wife and daughter, after that come to the room I’ve got them held in and you might need to kill one or both depending on how the game turned out, after you do that I will give you the antidote, clear as mud? Ok let’s get moving before you like die and stuff.”

"ok wait, what are the rules going to be for their game?"

"I do wish you'd listen, Wymer. It's perfectly simple. If you're not getting your hair cut, you don't have to move your brother's clothes down to the lower peg. You simply collect his note before lunch, after you've done your scripture prep, when you've written your letter home, before rest, move your own clothes onto the lower peg, greet the visitors, and report to Mr. Viney that you've had your chit signed."
My:Hardware LDs DVDs

#15 of 72 OFFLINE   Al Stuart

Al Stuart

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 128 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 14 2002

Posted October 29 2004 - 03:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Matt Stone
Are you saying that Glover was watching the film of Elwes and Whannell chained up? Because he wasn't.

Doesn't he come into the room at the end? Don't they show a brief shot where he's watching on a monitor? Not that he's watching with the guy in the hospital (even though they have that bizarre "maybe Glover's the killer" slow-mo reveal which could only be intended to confuse), but on his own, somehow somewhere else.

Quote:
Interesting analysis, but I disagree with all of it.

Such as?

#16 of 72 OFFLINE   Shawn_KE

Shawn_KE

    Screenwriter



  • 1,295 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 25 2003

Posted October 29 2004 - 03:51 PM

I liked it. Not enough gore for me, but what was there was acceptable. Some holes and some bad acting, but I had a good time.



And I'm sure no one going fresh into this had any clue that
Spoiler:
the dead headshot guy on the floor was the bad guy .


#17 of 72 Guest_DAN NEIR_*

Guest_DAN NEIR_*
  • Join Date: --

Posted October 29 2004 - 04:26 PM

Danny Glover was watching Cary Elwes house. He heard the shots and ran over there. Glover was watching his home and paying the other guy to take pictures of him because he thought Cary was the killer.

#18 of 72 OFFLINE   MattGentry

MattGentry

    Second Unit



  • 257 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 22 2003

Posted October 29 2004 - 05:55 PM

I really must agree with Al Stuart on nearly every aspect of his analysis.


The acting was really quite atrocious, especially from Elwes. It's as if he has no idea how to truly convey pain and sadness, so he just draws short gasps and contorts his face into odd "anguish."


Glover's character seemed to remind me for some reason of his character in "Switchback." Only far worse than that.


Also, apparently every cop in the movie is incompetent.

Spoiler:
There before you sits a man with a drill on either side of his head. Rather than try and save this man, you COVER HIM BACK UP and hide in the corner. Then, when the serial killer - one who has already killed quite a few - comes into the room you tell him to freeze and let him walk around. Shoot the guy in the leg. Something.



And for the love of all things holy, stop watching MTV and stick with a scene. Stop speeding it up to the point where it becomes seizure-inducing.


And that ending - has everyone in the movie suddenly become a moron?



Spoiler:
Monica Potter - A man has come into your home, attacked your daughter in the night, and now has the two of you tied up. He is going to kill you - there is no doubt about that. He is going to kill your husband as well. Suddenly, after a struggle, you find yourself in control of the gun. SHOOT HIM. Don't talk with Elwes about things...



Danny Glover - You're crazy because of this man. He killed your partner, got you driven off the force, and has been the subject of your pursuit for the past five months. Now, he has shot as a woman and her child, and is right in front of you. SHOOT HIM. Don't rush him like you're a damned linebacker.



Elwes - Your family needs you. Ok, that I can understand. How the hell do you plan on helping them while you're bleeding to death? That doesn't help matters, it just places another life in danger.



Director - I like that you're trying. Really, I do like that. However, please, oh please, at least plant an inclination of your killer. Yeah yeah, Zapp says "His name is John." Nice. Don't use the last thirty seconds of the movie to pull an ending out of nearly nowhere. You've used mis-direction to make us believe the killer was Zapp, and then introduced the idea of Glover as well. Just use one of those two. Don't use flashbacks in the last seconds of the movie to introduce a nearly entirely new character.




And this one had potential...

#19 of 72 OFFLINE   Matt Stone

Matt Stone

    Lead Actor



  • 9,070 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 21 2000

Posted October 29 2004 - 06:26 PM

quote:


Such as?





Such as, almost all of it. I'm not going to type up one of those quote and debate posts. Needless to say, every point you make, I think just about the opposite. Looks like this will be another one of those love it/hate it movies.



BTW, I'm sorry if I sounded like an ass. I'm not trying to belittle your opinion, I respect it. I just disagree with it.



I didn't find as many acting problems as you guys did. The logic problems (if there were any) didn't bother me...and certainly didn't take me out of the film. You can write up a bunch of "Why didn't he/she do this..." responses to every action in the film. Just because you disagree doesn't make the action "wrong." Why didn't Monica Potter shoot? I don't know, maybe she was afraid of killing someone. I really have no idea, and her actions weren't "stupid" enough to take me out of the story.



BTW, with the comparison to Seven...I decided to watch it when I got home. It's definitely a better film. Fincher's style bleeds from every frame, and it looks fantastic. That doesn't mean I didn't like Saw, I just thought it's style was more tame. Some of you have expressed problems with the editing pace. I didn't find it as MTV-ish as some films (like House of 1000 Corpses for instance). I liked the frantic pace at the end, and felt it represented the intensity of the film overall.



...but that's just me, and you all disagree with me anyway images/smilies/smile.gif
In Heaven, everything is fine.
[ 2006 Films | 2005 Films | 2004 Films | 2003 Films | YMDB Top 20 ]
[ Star Wars | Sideshow | HT | DVDs | LDs | AIM: Maulrat87 ]

#20 of 72 OFFLINE   Quentin

Quentin

    Screenwriter



  • 2,507 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002
  • Real Name:Quentin H
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted October 29 2004 - 08:27 PM

The editing is often the way it is to cover up lack of camera coverage. Pretty clever for a low budget trick.



I told you people to lower your expectations! images/smilies/smile.gif



It's a first film from some guys trying to break in. They just happened to get a good cast (who mostly perform terribly) and an awesome marketing campaign. The film still shows some potential...but, you're right, Al....it's pretty bad. Full of cliches, inconsistencies, bad dialogue, bad acting, etc. But, it's chock full of some style and Argento atmosphere. Just don't think about it so much when it's over.





Forum Nav Content I Follow