-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Saw III Discussion Thread


This topic has been archived.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

#1 of 23 OFFLINE   Jason Roer

Jason Roer

    Supporting Actor

  • 977 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2004

Posted October 27 2006 - 09:54 AM

Hey All,

I was surprised to discover there wasn't a single thread revolving around what will most likely be the number one movie at the box office this weekend.

Anyway, I just got back. To give you a little background - I thought the first Saw had a great concept, but I really didn't like the execution. Just didn't work for me. I thought the second one was slightly better in execution, however it lacked the inspiration of the first one - that great novelty of concept.

With Saw 3, I had my best experience with the franchise. I think it started with the pack - probably 15 - of 13 year olds who snuck in. Just brought me back to when that sort of thing was so damn exciting and I think it set the tone for how I would take in the movie. Hell, their conversation was worth the price of admission alone and so I was in a great mood.

On to the film. Well, I found it engaging this time around. The problems I had with the first 2 installments were still there - I hate the MTV style editing they've developed, clearly a Dan Bousman thing as James Wan's did not share this annoying (at least for me) trait. Despite this, I was interested in seeing where they were taking us. And it did feel mostly satisfying at the end. My biggest gripe with this one was what I consider to be a major plot hole or a major oversight on the part of the studio. I've heard this was intended to have a much longer runtime and that a director's cut DVD will include much more footage, so it could all wrap up nicely in the extended cut. If someone can tell me how to spoilerize I will put it out there and we can see if it's just something I missed or something the studio missed - but it revolves around the opening scene with the female doctor, Lynn. What aggravated me was that by simply removing one line, there wouldn't be a hole. Again, with additional footage I can see how they might be able to solve it, but it would work much better if only they lost that damn line. Oh Well.

Cheers,

Jason

#2 of 23 OFFLINE   Greg_S_H

Greg_S_H

    Executive Producer

  • 14,846 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2001
  • Real Name:Greg
  • LocationNorth Texas

Posted October 27 2006 - 10:28 AM

Quote:
With Saw 3, I had my best experience with the franchise. I think it started with the pack - probably 15 - of 13 year olds who snuck in. Just brought me back to when that sort of thing was so damn exciting and I think it set the tone for how I would take in the movie. Hell, their conversation was worth the price of admission alone and so I was in a great mood.

Heh. That's got to be a first. I usually groan when a bunch of kids come in, but I guess the kind of crowd you want depends on the movie you're seeing.

Every time the commercial comes on and the guy says, "Suffering. You haven't seen anything yet," I always think he's going to say, "Suffering succotash!"

I have never seen a Saw movie, but there was a Smallville episode last season that was apparently a complete ripoff. It was an interesting concept, so maybe I'll check one out sometime.

#3 of 23 OFFLINE   Paul_Medenwaldt

Paul_Medenwaldt

    Supporting Actor

  • 648 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 06 2001

Posted October 27 2006 - 03:34 PM

Just got home from seeing it and they were carding people as they walked into the screen. I saw a few kids walk away as they would of got busted for buying a ticket to a different movie.

I thought this movie followed more closely to the pace of the first movie. It took a while to get going, though it did keep you interested, there was just too much time lapse between the different plots.

The one thing I have a question on is towards the end when he was lying in his bed and going through the development of the game, there was a quick scene of him putting what looked like a wax substance over a book of matches. It was so quick I couldn't guage what exactly it was.

They set this one up to move right into a 4th movie, unlike the other 2 there were somewhat of an end.

I almost was expecting at the end when he was explaining his game to Amanda that he was going to get up and be faking his ailments, just proving how much he would go through to execute his game.

It was also a lot gorier then the other 2. This one i'll have to certainly watch again closer when it comes to DVD.

Paul
If there be one of them who does not follow the way of the Snitzil, let that one go and do not throw bowling balls at them.

#4 of 23 OFFLINE   CoreyII

CoreyII

    Second Unit

  • 474 posts
  • Join Date: May 15 1999

Posted October 27 2006 - 08:45 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg_S_H
Heh. That's got to be a first. I usually groan when a bunch of kids come in, but I guess the kind of crowd you want depends on the movie you're seeing.

Every time the commercial comes on and the guy says, "Suffering. You haven't seen anything yet," I always think he's going to say, "Suffering succotash!"

I have never seen a Saw movie, but there was a Smallville episode last season that was apparently a complete ripoff. It was an interesting concept, so maybe I'll check one out sometime.

Hey Greg,

You could do no worse then to at least check out Saw I at least once. I and II are both good movies (at least in my opinion), I've really enjoyed them. As far as horror movies goes, the Saw franchise in my opinion is the best thing going right now. It's not a remake of a Japanese horror movie and it isn't rehashing the slasher concept for the umpteenth time. As a matter of fact, the film's central villain Jigsaw comes off more as a demented Batman villain then an actual horror movie villain.

I actually caught an episode of Fear Factor a few days ago. In this episode a bunch of people had their head placed inside a glass box filled with either tarantulas or snakes. With the box on their heads they had to move across an oil slicked floor to get to their respective keys and unlock the box around their heads. As I was watching this episode it dawned on me why movies like Saw make money; we are a generation primed for this sort of entertainment. I mean placing someone's head inside a box full of spiders or snakes is definitely something Jigsaw would come up with.

#5 of 23 OFFLINE   Greg_S_H

Greg_S_H

    Executive Producer

  • 14,846 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2001
  • Real Name:Greg
  • LocationNorth Texas

Posted October 28 2006 - 06:14 AM

I tend to agree with your likes and dislikes when it comes to sci-fi and comic book movies, so I'll make an effort. The original is playing on cable quite a bit right now, but I think I'll keep doing title searches until it comes up on one of the HD channels.

#6 of 23 OFFLINE   Holadem

Holadem

    Lead Actor

  • 8,972 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 04 2000

Posted October 28 2006 - 08:25 AM

I never watched any incarnation of the franchise either, but it's kinda hard to avoid the hype. Even a lady friend who hates "ugly stuff" (her words), doesn't do Halloween, and who I can't even get to watch Aliens tells me it (Saw) is a good movie, WTF? Posted Image.

The problem is that gore, torture, mutilations, suffering and depravity hold no appeal to me at all. Neither do slashers (though the Scream flicks were fun). The only kind of horror I enjoy is psychological. So... am I likely to enjoy this movie?

I am thinking about this for the sake a good theatrical experience. This sort of stuff can be fun with a whole bunch of people and eh, tis Halloween...

--
H

#7 of 23 OFFLINE   Jason Roer

Jason Roer

    Supporting Actor

  • 977 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2004

Posted October 28 2006 - 09:17 AM

Holadem,

If you go with a bnch of friends you're sure to have a good time. This was more of a thriller than a horror film - in fact, I didn't find it scary at all. A couple of icky spots do to the incredible sound design and some gory effects. This film keeps you captivated and interested in what's going on. The only thing is, I really think it would be wise to see the first 2 films before watching Saw 3. You'll just get more out of it. This film had the most character development (though they still needed more - here's hoping the director's cut will solve this). Be forewarned about Saw 1. The acting is really rather poor - and from usually talented indivduals. My guess is the abbreviated shooting schedule killed them. They had 17 days to complete the film. They also didn't have a ton of film just lying around. I imagine they had to get most shots in 1 take.

Anyway, it's definately worth a shot. For what it's worth, my wife loved the first film and she's not usually a horror fan. Hope this helps. Have a great time at the movies!

Cheers,

Jason

#8 of 23 OFFLINE   CoreyII

CoreyII

    Second Unit

  • 474 posts
  • Join Date: May 15 1999

Posted October 28 2006 - 11:28 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holadem
I never watched any incarnation of the franchise either, but it's kinda hard to avoid the hype. Even a lady friend who hates "ugly stuff" (her words), doesn't do Halloween, and who I can't even get to watch Aliens tells me it (Saw) is a good movie, WTF? Posted Image.

The problem is that gore, torture, mutilations, suffering and depravity hold no appeal to me at all. Neither do slashers (though the Scream flicks were fun). The only kind of horror I enjoy is psychological. So... am I likely to enjoy this movie?

I am thinking about this for the sake a good theatrical experience. This sort of stuff can be fun with a whole bunch of people and eh, tis Halloween...

--
H

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Roer
Holadem,

If you go with a bnch of friends you're sure to have a good time. This was more of a thriller than a horror film - in fact, I didn't find it scary at all. A couple of icky spots do to the incredible sound design and some gory effects. This film keeps you captivated and interested in what's going on. The only thing is, I really think it would be wise to see the first 2 films before watching Saw 3. You'll just get more out of it. This film had the most character development (though they still needed more - here's hoping the director's cut will solve this). Be forewarned about Saw 1. The acting is really rather poor - and from usually talented indivduals. My guess is the abbreviated shooting schedule killed them. They had 17 days to complete the film. They also didn't have a ton of film just lying around. I imagine they had to get most shots in 1 take.

Anyway, it's definately worth a shot. For what it's worth, my wife loved the first film and she's not usually a horror fan. Hope this helps. Have a great time at the movies!

Cheers,

Jason


Hey Holadem,

I agree with Jason for the most part, except I didn't have a problem with the acting. As far as psychological goes, well if you are speaking in a post Silence of the Lambs / SE7EN terms then I would say the Jigsaw character is really a twisted hybrid of Hannibal Lecture and John Doe, there are definitely similarities.

Jigsaw is a bit more Hannibal-like in Saw 2. So as Jason has stated you should watch the first two films, but if you really aren't into torture and suffering well then I'll be honest the Saw films are what they are. Where as Silence of the Lambs and definitely SE7EN left much up to the imagination, the Saw films don't do that.

#9 of 23 OFFLINE   CoreyII

CoreyII

    Second Unit

  • 474 posts
  • Join Date: May 15 1999

Posted October 28 2006 - 11:30 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg_S_H
I tend to agree with your likes and dislikes when it comes to sci-fi and comic book movies, so I'll make an effort. The original is playing on cable quite a bit right now, but I think I'll keep doing title searches until it comes up on one of the HD channels.

Thanks for the support Greg,

I really hope you like the film, if not I'll feel kind of bad for highly recommending it to you. But I do understand not every one is going to like everything. Anyway please let me know what you think.

#10 of 23 OFFLINE   Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul

  • 37,748 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted October 28 2006 - 12:56 PM

Am I nuts to be laughing at some of the grisly bits in this film? It was dark and comedic, but not quite a dark comedy. There's a lull in the start of the middle section of the film (mainly the start of Jeff's subplot), but after that, the film settles into a nice rhythm of gore and mayhem that most people want and expect from this film franchise.

I give it 2.75 stars or a grade of B-.
"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012

#11 of 23 OFFLINE   Adam_WM

Adam_WM

    Screenwriter

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

Posted October 28 2006 - 01:40 PM

I suppose I'm kind of in the minority here, I LOVED IT. I thought it was highly entertaining and if you are a fan of SAW I and II, I cannot see how you can't LOVE this (especially with all the background of I and II).
.

 


#12 of 23 OFFLINE   Chad R

Chad R

    Screenwriter

  • 2,174 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 14 1999
  • Real Name:Chad Rouch

Posted October 28 2006 - 01:52 PM

I thought the first two films were clever for what they were, but this one was a complete bore. The main game with Jeff was highly unaffective, and I just didn't care about it. The main story was Jigsaw and the doctor, and I just felt that the Jeff stuff slowed the film down to the point where the "twist" came up at the end and everything was supposedly tied together, I wasn't interested at all.

Also, the twist just didn't work. The first two films had rather clever twists, but this one was just so laced with irony that the twist didn't twist the story so much as just shoot it to really ugly conclusions. To elaborate:

They spent a good amount of the film developing that Amanda was sort of regretful about her actions in the previous films. There was that agonizingly long sequence where they show the duo setting up the trap from the first film where Amanda seems upset that she's doing it. There's plenty of scenes where she goes out to the workshop and cries, or cuts or does any number of things to show regret. But, then she fails the test at the end and becomes a murderer? It wasn't set up. In fact, the opposite was set up.

Also, Jeff being the Doctor's husband lacked impact because that secret was held too long. By the time the secret was revealed I was so bored with his plotline I just didn't care.


Thumbs down, one star, take your pick.

#13 of 23 OFFLINE   Joe Karlosi

Joe Karlosi

    Producer

  • 6,000 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 05 2003

Posted October 29 2006 - 07:02 AM

Having mostly given up on newer horrors I was really impressed by the first SAW when I finally rented it on DVD and I gave it ****. I loved the whole concept of Jigsaw and why he was playing the warped games he was playing, which I felt made all the difference in the world to the plot and even worked with all the extraordinary over-the-top tortures and gore.

When I first watched SAW II in the theater I only thought it was "pretty good," but a brand new re-appraisal on DVD this month came off much better and I think it's almost right up there with the original (***1/2). What made SAW II work for me was, surprisingly enough, the character of detective Matthews as played by Wahlberg. When I sensed where the ending of Part 2 was heading I was a little disappointed, BUT...

...today I went to the movies to see SAW III and
I luckily liked Shawnee Smith's character and how she fits into all the craziness.

But much like I felt when I originally came from seeing SAW II, this new sequel was only "so-so" to me. It's possible my feeling will change with future viewings, but at this time SAW III is easily the least of the trio and not up to either 1 or 2. I thought the "MTV camera tricks" were much more distracting than they'd been in the past, and even if they were abundant in SAW II they never distracted me to the point they did with PART 3. It also seemed like there was much more going on, and things were all over the place. What held it all together for me somewhat (again) was Jigsaw and his "noble" intentions to all his twisted mayhem. That's what lies at the core of this series and what helps it to rise above "complete and utter exploitation with zero else". (**1/2)

#14 of 23 OFFLINE   Shawn_KE

Shawn_KE

    Screenwriter

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

Posted October 29 2006 - 02:51 PM

Liked it.

It also looked like Jigsaw covered a mini cassette with wax, not a book of matches.

#15 of 23 OFFLINE   Bob clamer

Bob clamer

    Supporting Actor

  • 651 posts
  • Join Date: May 12 2003

Posted November 01 2006 - 04:17 AM

I loved it along with the previous 2 films. Could not wait to see it. Going to be interesting though how the next 2 will be played out. Tobin Bell did sign on for a total of 5 features.

#16 of 23 OFFLINE   Dave Hackman

Dave Hackman

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 173 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 11 2000

Posted November 02 2006 - 01:29 PM

My initial feeling upon completion of this film was of complete disgust. I actually felt bad after seeing it. I found zero entertainment in watching the shock scenes, which dominated the weak storyline. I’m starting to think those bible thumpers may be right when they talk about the disservice stuff like this is to all who see it.

I cannot stand the camera spinning around continually. It never stops from beginning to end. What I liked in the first film was the sort of mystery behind who was running these games and the puzzle like contraptions, which allowed the folks inside a slight chance of survival. In this film, the mystery is more about the true intentions of the game and less on the victims involved.

I had zero emotional connection with anyone in this film so whether he or she lived or died made no difference to me. There were way too many flashbacks especially for a horror movie even though 2006 seems to be the year of the flashback. Tension with those in contraptions was more shock then substance. Time with victims was kept to a minimum in order to focus on Jigsaw’s big plans.

This darkly shot movie looks murky and bland. Combine this with the continual spinning camera and it was tough to make out any kind of detail. This won’t be something you’ll use to demonstrate your new or old HD display’s capability.

It looks like this Saw series is a one hit wonder with me but I keep seeing the sequels hoping that it again shines.

Please don’t bring your kids to this film. I couldn’t believe a father brought his two young boys to the showing I attended. This is definitely not something any young kid should absorb. I wish I hadn’t.

F

#17 of 23 OFFLINE   JasonB

JasonB

    Agent

  • 49 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 28 1999

Posted November 02 2006 - 01:39 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawn_KE
Liked it.

It also looked like Jigsaw covered a mini cassette with wax, not a book of matches.

I came here specifically this evening to try to get an answer for why he did that. Perhaps I wasn't paying attention but why did Jigsaw cover it in wax??!!! Plot device they failed to follow up on? Something to lead to a Saw 4?

Also I'm not sure how they left this one open for a Saw 4 other than the waxed tape.


Jigsaw is dead. His protege is dead. Yeah the daughter is still missing out there somewhere but who's left to drive the next game? The cop (Wahlberg)? Post-mortem game driven by Jigsaw from the grave!! Posted Image

Edit: Excellent points Dave. I left feeling somewhat dirty for having seen it. And I'm definitely not the type of person to feel that way. I can't believe for one nano-second that someone would think it acceptable to bring anyone under the age of 18 to see this film.

#18 of 23 OFFLINE   Joe Karlosi

Joe Karlosi

    Producer

  • 6,000 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 05 2003

Posted November 02 2006 - 10:34 PM

For those who've seen the film:

Regarding the "death" of Jigsaw - c'mon now. We've all seen enough horror films to know there's always a way to revive a character if the series is to continue. The whole damn ending to SAW III could have been a dream... maybe someone finds Jigsaw's ashes and performs a ritual to bring him back from the dead, but now healthier and stronger than ever, etc... etc.. etc...


#19 of 23 OFFLINE   James Spraggs

James Spraggs

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 74 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2001

Posted November 06 2006 - 05:19 AM

what if jigsaw is not the real killer? What if it is someone else, and jigsaw was just a pawn in the true killers game?

#20 of 23 OFFLINE   Jason Roer

Jason Roer

    Supporting Actor

  • 977 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2004

Posted November 06 2006 - 08:31 AM

James,

That would be the best choice for them to go in - in my opinion. It would certainly make this story feel "bigger". It could easily go off in a direction where these events are going on elsewhere in the world and there is one "master" who is pulling strings for them all. So another "Jigsaw" like killer is in France and one in Japan, and one in Argentina, etc. The series could literally go forever this way. Great way for Lionsgate to continue making a whole heck of a lot of money.

Cheers,

Jason


Back to Movies (Theatrical)



Forum Nav Content I Follow