Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup 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This topic has been archived.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

#41 of 72 Jean D

Jean D

    Screenwriter

  • 1,329 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 08 2004

Posted November 08 2004 - 06:31 AM

I liked the movie, but afterward I was wondering one thing
If the killer was infact the deadman in the room, how was he the one controlling the shocking of the two chained up characters? one hand was on the gun, the other was on the recorder. nobody noticed him move at all?

Gear: Crestron AADS, Crestron 4L, RTI T2C, SVS PC 16-46, Xbox 360, Wii, Bass Shakers, TiVo HD, Toshiba A3 HD-DVD, 42" Panasonic TH-42PWD8UK, two Denon AVR-2106's, Speaker Craft Aim 7 Five's, Samsung HD-950 DVD player.

#42 of 72 Niko Nykanen

Niko Nykanen

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 205 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 20 1999

Posted November 08 2004 - 06:52 PM

Jean D:
Of course it´s the filmmakers intent to fool the audience into thinking that the guy is dead. That´s why they never shown him moving a limb or a muscle. That would spoil the suprise. Don´t you agree?

Lyxdesics of the lowrd untie!

#43 of 72 Jean D

Jean D

    Screenwriter

  • 1,329 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 08 2004

Posted November 09 2004 - 12:48 AM

Niko:
What I was wondering, is how can the two characters not notice the body (which they cant reach) move or all of a sudden notice that the body is in a different position. He had to grab the remote shocking device from somewhere. Thats a lot of movement, you have to remember the body is in the center of two people facing toward each other. Someone had to notice something.Its not about whether I agree that the filmaker tried to fool the audience, obviously thats the reason, but its not realistic and takes away from the thrillingness of it. the more real it is the more thrilling it is to people cause it could happen realisticly. But when you make something unrealistic playout it draws away from the tension the viewers have. I was also dissapointed when they showed the killers face, it should have been kept from us, to build up for part 2 next year. Also, what would have happened if the first guy in the tub, acctually got the key to his lock before it went down the drain?

Gear: Crestron AADS, Crestron 4L, RTI T2C, SVS PC 16-46, Xbox 360, Wii, Bass Shakers, TiVo HD, Toshiba A3 HD-DVD, 42" Panasonic TH-42PWD8UK, two Denon AVR-2106's, Speaker Craft Aim 7 Five's, Samsung HD-950 DVD player.

#44 of 72 Brett_B

Brett_B

    Supporting Actor

  • 713 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 1999

Posted November 09 2004 - 04:14 AM

Since this is the DISCUSSION page, I am going to leave off the spoiler tags.

Quote:
He had to grab the remote shocking device from somewhere

Jean,

How big does this device need to be? Couldn't the device already be in his hand? Possibly the same hand that was barely holding onto the tape recorder? You are making the assumption that he had the device hidden somewhere other than in his hand. Again, how big does this device NEED to be. Better yet, can you describe what this device actually looks like, and the way to operate said device. Maybe we could solve this mystery quicker if we had that information.

#45 of 72 Greg*go

Greg*go

    Supporting Actor

  • 941 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 14 2002

Posted November 09 2004 - 06:04 AM

**Spoiler tags are not used**

Brett, You see the device in the end, so that answer is in the movie.

Jean, I can understand the younger guy not noticing the body move... or even breath. He got sick when he first saw it, so he probably wasn't busy looking at it. The doctor is a different story though. I think he should've notice, but that isn't a major plot hole, so I can live with that.

I think the key was on a string, so he should be able to pull it out.

I liked this movie, but I agree that you just can't think about it too much, which makes it bad in the end because it tries to be a movie that dares you to find a flaw in it. I'm a bit disappointed in knowing that there will be a sequel.

I can understand why this movie would get bad reviews, having multiple MAJOR plot holes at the end tends to do that to a movie. After watching the movie last night, and talking about it, I was really hoping to come onto this thread to find the answers to the questions I had about the ending. You can imagine my grief after the past 10-15 minutes of reading.

And on a side note, I saw The Machinist on Thursday night(I was surprised to not see a discussion thread on here about that movie), and this movie last night... after that 1-2 combo, I really need to go watch a CareBear movie or something.
I certainly don't expect anyone to remember me 65 years after I die, but you wouldn't know that from the way I act.

#46 of 72 Jean D

Jean D

    Screenwriter

  • 1,329 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 08 2004

Posted November 09 2004 - 06:16 AM

never heard of the machinist, Im gonna head on over to apple movie trailers to find it.
Gear: Crestron AADS, Crestron 4L, RTI T2C, SVS PC 16-46, Xbox 360, Wii, Bass Shakers, TiVo HD, Toshiba A3 HD-DVD, 42" Panasonic TH-42PWD8UK, two Denon AVR-2106's, Speaker Craft Aim 7 Five's, Samsung HD-950 DVD player.

#47 of 72 Scott Weinberg

Scott Weinberg

    Lead Actor

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

Posted November 09 2004 - 06:55 AM

Greg,

I had a streak at Sundance: Saw, The Machinist, Trauma, Haute Tension, Open Water

Lemme tell you: Garden State was a welcome sight indeed! Posted Image

#48 of 72 Brett_B

Brett_B

    Supporting Actor

  • 713 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 1999

Posted November 09 2004 - 07:41 AM

Quote:
Brett, You see the device in the end, so that answer is in the movie.

Scott,

I am aware of that, I was just commenting on Jean's comment. I took his quote that he was inferring that the device was NOT in his hand prior to them waking up. I was just pointing out the fact that WE don't know what the device was even though we see him USING it. Can anyone describe what it actually was? Was it something he bought in a store? Was it something of his own design so that he would be able to work it without anyone noticing that he WAS the operator (kind of like a magician)?

ONE MORE THING ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC (DEVICE IN HAND), but correct me if I am wrong. The "shock" was not administered until after they tried to fool "Jigsaw" in that the doctor indeed poisoned the other guy. Didn't they turn out the lights in the room so that they could discuss their plans? YES. Could "Jigsaw" have retrieved the "device" when the lights were out at that time?

In regards to seeing the dead body move, the only thing that I can say is that it wasn't me who was chained to the wall. It is easy for us (the audience) to critique that part, but if you were in the same situation would you actually be sitting there debating whether the guy was actually dead or not. They just assumed that he was another victim of "Jigsaw" based on the message. Granted the doctor would have been the best person to see the dead person moving, but I don't think that was at the top of his list. I am pretty sure that he had other things on his mind such as his daughter, wife, himself chained to a wall with a dead person in the middle of the room, the guy who he was to kill, and the killer himself.

#49 of 72 Alex Spindler

Alex Spindler

    Producer

  • 3,973 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 23 2000

Posted November 09 2004 - 08:47 AM

Quote:
Greg,

I had a streak at Sundance: Saw, The Machinist, Trauma, Haute Tension, Open Water

Lemme tell you: Garden State was a welcome sight indeed!
*As Napoleon
LUCKY!


I didn't see the electronic shocker to be much of a plothole. They show the device and I recall it being small enough that he could have palmed it the whole day.

And based on his very awkward rising and slow responses, I'm thinking that he had taken some kind of muscle relaxant to keep his outward appearance as 'dead-like' as possible.

#50 of 72 Seth Paxton

Seth Paxton

    Lead Actor

  • 7,588 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 05 1998

Posted November 10 2004 - 06:32 AM

Quote:
I still ask, where's the over-the-top gore?
All the butchering of bad dialog with bad acting perhaps? Posted Image

Wow, I didn't know Elwes could suck it up so bad. Frankly with Glover I'm growing to expect such a performance. I find him a lot more limited than some of his early career suggested.


The script is so ham fisted too. It awkwardly sets up backstory with flashbacks, it does a lot of "telling" and not enough showing/implying, it desperately tries to set up some kind of red herrings (I think) with sidebar stories.

For example, the film wants to enjoy the tension of the opening situation. Fine. But then it also wants the audience to have all this backstory/sidestory tension, so it has to rely on Elwes having been exposed to a lot of extra information previously, as well as letting the audience in on plotlines the trapped characters don't know about.

Flipping between the bathroom viewpoint and things Glover knows about is a flaw that Se7en didn't share. Se7en sticks to the investigator's view, the unknown. Here Saw opens with this great premise based on the unknown and then starts rushing as much known out to us as it possibly can, almost as if the writers are so pleased with all this other story that they just have to let us know it as well.

As a wanna-be writer I have to say that they really needed to pick their angle and just commit to it. Not every idea you have has to fit into the script, you also have to know when it just doesn't mesh with what you are trying to create overall.

The dialog throughout the film is quite corny and that probably didn't help the acting, but still. Elwes is going up for a Razzy this year I suspect.


Quote:
360 spins were fun and really got me into the total madness that was building with each tick of the clock.
That's funny, I kept thinking "wow, this is just as bad as it was in House of the Dead."

The film totally undermines itself by flipping between Fincher darkness and Zombie/Stone hyper-scenes like this or the car chase (ugh). The visual presentation is just as unsteady as the dialog.


Across the board this is a film that is clearly made by amateurs, with a cheap screenwriting class script as the backbone. On top of that the script's one strong point, the situations, are really just cribbed/extended from Se7en. Is it that great a step to say "hey, instead of ironically killing yourself based on your flaws, how about ironically killing someone else based on your (and their) flaws?"


On top of all this, I agree with everything Adam had to say about the film as well. Well, the Dr. was learning to appreciate the family but I have no idea what Adam was learning, especially since he was giving the key right away in a manner that he had little hope of recovering it in. And what was Zep learning?

Really aren't all the lessons just "appreciate being alive" which any near death experience invokes? Didn't yet another Fincher film cover this already - Fight Club?

Wow, the more I think about it the less I am impressed with even the concept.

#51 of 72 Seth Paxton

Seth Paxton

    Lead Actor

  • 7,588 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 05 1998

Posted November 10 2004 - 06:42 AM

Quote:
Can't wait for The Devil's Rejects. Man, it was great to see Sid Haig fronting a trailer like that.
I agree too. I don't think I will risk opening night, but if it gets reviews better than Ho1KC then I'll try it. I like Haig as a character actor and I like what Zombie WANTS to do with a film. He just failed at it pretty badly with 1K Corpses IMO.

I was certain that this trailer was going to be for a Dirty Mary Crazy Harry remake since I didn't realize he was making a sequel to Ho1KC.

#52 of 72 Greg*go

Greg*go

    Supporting Actor

  • 941 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 14 2002

Posted November 10 2004 - 06:46 AM

Seth,
Maybe you put your criticism in a nicer manner, or maybe I just feel a lesser urge to defend the movie, but I agree with you more then I have the other bad reviews.

Quote:
Wow, the more I think about it the less I am impressed with even the concept.

I believe I already answered that complaint earlier in my previous post...

Quote:
I liked this movie, but I agree that you just can't think about it too much...

I certainly don't expect anyone to remember me 65 years after I die, but you wouldn't know that from the way I act.

#53 of 72 Adam_WM

Adam_WM

    Screenwriter

  • 1,626 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 25 2001

Posted February 18 2005 - 03:44 AM

I just rented this and really liked it. I watched it and wasn't really too "un-impressed" with the acting (except for Cary Elwes' post foot-chopped off). However, upon further thoughts and the reading of this thread, I AGREE. There were plot holes BIG ENOUGH TO DRIVE A TRUCK THROUGH. Does it make me like it any less? Not really. I enjoyed it, like the swerve ending, and it met my expectations. That's all it needs to do for me.
.

 


#54 of 72 Lou Sytsma

Lou Sytsma

    Producer

  • 5,241 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 01 1998

Posted February 21 2005 - 02:34 AM

I enjoyed it - probably give it a 6.5 out of 10. I found this movie used the doubling back of time quite effectively - never was in doubt as to when something was occurring in the time line. I believe they took this approach to ramp up the tension for the audience because the movie is focused on the victims instead of the cops.

My biggest complaint would be the facial makeup for Elwes - especially near the end. He looks like he had a base applied in preparation for some zombie makeup and they decided to stop.

I agree that the gore was implied in most instances and not shown.

One of the best marketed movies in recent memory - even down to the distinctive case for the DVD.
Every man is my superior, in that I may learn from him.

#55 of 72 Marvin Richardson

Marvin Richardson

    Supporting Actor

  • 750 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 16 1999

Posted February 21 2005 - 02:54 AM

Wow, what an absolutely crappy movie! I high some pretty decent expectations with all the love it had been getting around here, but man what a let down. Absolutely one of the worst movies I had the displeasure of seeing from last year.
My God, I've not seen that kind of overacting since my high school drama class. I've never seen Cary Elwes look this bad. Hopefully it is a result of an inept director/screenwriter and not an indication of his real talents.
And if the acting wasn't bad enough, the dialogue was even worse. I thought Attack of the Clones had bad dialogue. Who talks like these people? And all the flashbacks and quick cuts and what not just struck me as a couple of amateurs trying to show off. Not impressive at all.
So...Cary Elwes is a doctor...and he decides to cut his whole freaking foot off? Above the bracelet?
Do you suppose Danny Glover and Ken Leung's characters could have been any more idiotic? What kind of moron chases a guy who's known to be devious and have all kinds of traps through his own lair when you don't know the layout?
Why didn't Adam at least try to kick the pipe off the tub? Instead he picks up an empty gun and trys to shoot the guy?
Everyone touts the "concept" of this movie being so impressive, but as already pointed out, its just an extension or a direct theft from "Se7en", depending on how you look at it.
And finally, for a movie that was supposed to be so gory, it wasn't...at all. If it had been, at least it would have had the shock factor going for it.
Oh, and am I the only one who figured out that Zep and the patient were the ones commiting the latest act? And that Zep was being made to do it...and the guy on the floor wasn't dead?

#56 of 72 Bobby K

Bobby K

    Auditioning

  • 5 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 24 2004

Posted February 21 2005 - 08:28 AM

Quote:
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



first off...some replies to this movie are made as if this is a best picture nomination. for this genre of movie it is as good as any other there is. it has a "seven" look to it but, by no means is it remotely comparable, nor do i think they were going for that. this movie and every movie like it has holes all over it, but it was a good idea with a nice little twist at the end.

second, not trying to sound like an ass, but the flashbacks were a typical story telling scheme that were quite easy to follow. in fact, it was THOSE flashbacks that enabled you to become connected to the characters.

you cant bash a movie as bad as some have and then not realize that danny glover, at no time, was watching the guys in the bathroom. it makes me think you didn't watch the movie?

on a scale of 1-10 i would give the movie a 5 or 6.

#57 of 72 Bobby K

Bobby K

    Auditioning

  • 5 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 24 2004

Posted February 21 2005 - 08:36 AM

Quote:
Oh, and am I the only one who figured out that Zep and the patient were the ones commiting the latest act? And that Zep was being made to do it...and the guy on the floor wasn't dead?


Be realistic.

#58 of 72 JackS

JackS

    Supporting Actor

  • 634 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 17 2002

Posted February 21 2005 - 09:26 AM

Wasn't it obvious after the first few minutes of this film that an obvious answer would be completly out of the question? Also wasen't it obvious during the mid portions of this film that any attempt at abstract reasoning to solve the "who is it" question would also be wrong? also obvious within the last few moments of the film we realised that the answer would only come at the very end, at that answer would obviously be something we haden't thought of.

#59 of 72 Joe Kamsan

Joe Kamsan

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 77 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 14 2002

Posted February 21 2005 - 11:38 PM

I really didn't have a problem with this film stealing from Seven. It was the execution of it that was poor, and that can be attributed to the tiny budget and the inexperience of the director. Cary Elwes and Danny Glover have been around and have no excuse.

The part where Shawnee Smith's character retells her ordeal is where the movie found its stride, albeit briefly. Lots of tension, minimal gore.

BTW, I found the poison cigarette and electrocution scene to be hilarious. Did anyone else?

#60 of 72 Shawn_KE

Shawn_KE

    Screenwriter

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

Posted February 22 2005 - 12:05 AM

Quote:
...and the guy on the floor wasn't dead?


So you knew throughout the whole movie that he wasn't dead? Come on. That was the one thing I didn't see coming in this movie, and I really doubt anyone else did either. One of the reasons why is during the scenes where Cary's character was being shocked, the dead body had nothing in it's hands.

It's not a movie I would watch over and over, but I did enjoy it.


Back to Movies (Theatrical)



Forum Nav Content I Follow