| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 15:19:46
Yes sir, it's Oscar season once again, the time of the year when the big studios shuffle out their prestige pics. So let's talk about Saw IV, which strikes me as far more interesting.
Now, the Saw series is important because it's the most popular and successful of the so-called torture porn genre, the most controversial movies of this day and age. Critics have called these movies sadistic, misogynistic, pandering to the worst and basest elements of humanity and an appalling sign of the decline of society. And they're absolutely right... if you're a pansy. Personally, I find movies like these much, much more challenging than numbing pap like Michael Clayton or whatever Oscar-bait bullshit comes out next week.
Saw IV is the worst of the sequels, but still slightly better than the original, which I hated. I guess I've sort of come around to the ridiculous logic and unrelenting nastiness (I thought the third movie was really very good). I think the first Saw is the worst simply because it's the one where we learn the least about the killer, who I really think is one of the more fascinating and complex villains I've seen in a while. Jigsaw, unfortunately, takes a backseat in this one, but what glimpses we do see of him (much of which fills in his backstory) is very much appreciated.
There's about four and a half different plotlines going on in this movie, much of it is not very interesting, there's a distinct lack of focus, and even the gore isn't as disturbing as it usually is. Like the other sequels, it fills in the plotholes of previous entries while adding dozens more of its own; this one in particular just feels like a setup for the upcoming sequels. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 04/28/2008 : 01:56:32
I'm just bumping this thread in light of Randall having just seen Saw.
I'm not as disappointed with the sequels as most people. I think they do quite well to extend the concept. However, Saw III is certainly the weakest. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 14:41:32
quote:
Originally posted by MrBadIdea
quote:
In torture contexts, I absolutely hate it (i.e. I hate seeing any aspect of torture), so I watch those scenes of these films through my fingers.
That doesn't sound like indifference at all, I would point out.
Which is why it was a separate point, quite obviously. I said "In most cases (vampires, people getting beaten up, disaster scenarios etc. etc.) I am completely indifferent to blood and guts - so long as it is fictional." Torture cases are the other cases. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 14:36:18
quote:
In torture contexts, I absolutely hate it (i.e. I hate seeing any aspect of torture), so I watch those scenes of these films through my fingers.
That doesn't sound like indifference at all, I would point out.
Thought of another reason Saw III is easily the best: It takes a definite perspective towards the victims. See, horror movies need to have a perspective towards its victims: Kill 'em or don't kill 'em, sympathetic or unsympathetic. Otherwise the deaths mean nothing, which is the biggest problem with Saw and Saw II, where you don't really care about any of the victims (perhaps excepting Donnie Wahlberg). In Saw III, we realize the victims -- all of them -- don't really deserve to be there, and that clarity is helpful. Jigsaw's realization of his ultimate failure at the end of the movie is also pretty damn affecting, I thought. The third movie is much like a very bloody character drama, which gives it more flesh beyond the cheap gimmickry of the other movies. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 10:27:12
Saw IV
My order of preference: Saw, Saw II/Saw IV, Saw III. I thought that Saw was just awesome.
I cannot relate to anyone being interested in gore. In most cases (vampires, people getting beaten up, disaster scenarios etc. etc.) I am completely indifferent to blood and guts - so long as it is fictional. I don't mind medical scenes whether fictional or not. In torture contexts, I absolutely hate it (i.e. I hate seeing any aspect of torture), so I watch those scenes of these films through my fingers. It's the set-up that I like, both in terms of getting the characters in place and the physical conundrum they end up in - I thought the one at the start of the this one (with the two men chained) was great. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 13:47:35
Unseen:
La Consequenza del l'amore
Fantasia
Fucking �m�l
Latcho Drom
Machuca
Four stars:
2001 A Space Odyssey
Godfather
Grave of the Fireflies
The Incredibles
Lord of the Rings trilogy
Memento
Once Upon a Time in America
Spirited Away
The Third Man
Good, Bad and Ugly
Once Upon a Time in the West
Pulp Fiction
3 1/2 stars:
12 Angry Men
2 1/2 stars
The Deer Hunter
March of the Penguins
Lost in Translation
Not good:
Roman Holiday |
| Sean |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 05:52:12
Well that list is pretty good overall. Looks like I was wrong.  A few comments of mine in red...quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
All these ones I regard as very good to excellent, i.e, 7.5-10/10.
King Kong (2005)
Night of the Living Dead
High Plains Drifter
Dogville
What's Eating Gilbert Grape
Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Airplane!
Almost Famous
Pan's Labyrinth
Boogie Nights
Memento
The Virgin Suicides
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
These ones ordinary but passable, i.e., 6-7/10
Apocalypto
Rocky
Ain't seen these...
Hedwig and the Angry Inch
Kalifornia
Final Destination 3
Say Anything
The Departed
I just sorted my reviews by movie score and here are the 6/5 movies, i.e, 10/10 or more in random order...
12 Angry Men
2001 A Space Odyssey
La Consequenza del l'amore
The Deer Hunter
Fantasia
Godfather
March of the Penguins
Grave of the Fireflies
The Incredibles
Latcho Drom
LOTR Extended Cut x 3
Lost in Translation
Machuca
Memento
Once Upon a Time in America
Roman Holiday
Fucking �m�l
Spirited Away
The Third Man
Good, Bad and Ugly
Once Upon a Time in the West
Pulp Fiction
not much in common with yours I suppose, only Memento.  |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 04:58:56
Don't really have them ordered, but here's what I list as my favorite movies on my Facebook page:
Hedwig and the Angry Inch
King Kong (2005)
Kalifornia
Night of the Living Dead
Final Destination 3
Say Anything
High Plains Drifter
Dogville
What's Eating Gilbert Grape
Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Airplane!
Almost Famous
The Departed
Pan's Labyrinth
Boogie Nights
Memento
The Virgin Suicides
Apocalypto
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Rocky
|
| Sean |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 04:49:36
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I am so far from these perspectives that I don't really understand them.
Actually a similar thought occurred to me, that you and I will never be fighting over a place at a queue in a cinema as we'll be queueing up for very different movies.   I often don't understand your perspective on what makes a good movie or bad movie. No worries though, each to their own. Fortunately there are enough movies out there to keep everyone happy.
BTW, care to list your Best 10-20 or so Movies Ever list? My guess is it'll be completely different to mine. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 04:20:55
quote:
I'm hoping that it's a phase that will pass and we can get back to actually frightening movies, not films only designed to repulse.
quote:
Gore doesn't do anything for me at all. I'm always looking at the gore and the blood and thinking about whether the colour/consistency is realistic or not. All I see is makeup, which is what it is.
I am so far from these perspectives that I don't really understand them. The first makes as much sense to me as saying, "I hope we can get back to funny movies rather than just scary ones." The second one, well, all movies are completely fake, and actors are faking it, I don't see what's the difference with the gore and makeup effects. I very much appreciate the defense of society against the charges of increased amorality, though, and I wholeheartedly agree with it.
Getting back to the Saw movies specifically, yeah, you don't care much about the characters in Saw II, and that is my least favorite thing about it. However, I don't see how that does not apply to Saw I. Matter of fact, I cared about exactly two people in Saw II: Jigsaw and Donnie Wahlberg. There's a great scene where Jigsaw asks Officer Wahlberg what the last thing he said to his son was, and he's forced to remember that his last words were angry shouting for him to get out of his sight. There's nothing like that in Saw I.
|
| Sean |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 23:48:53
quote:
Originally posted by dem8nic
I just find the lengths they are having to go to to get a response out of a largely numbed audience repellent. Unfashionable as it is, and mock away if you're inclined, I'm starting to think the general public's increasing fascination with torture porn is symptomatic of a general disregard for human life (at least in the UK - people in the US have been regularly shooting and stabbing each other for no reason for years so I can't comment on that). I'm hoping that it's a phase that will pass and we can get back to actually frightening movies, not films only designed to repulse.
Fair points. But, I don't see that fact that people are increasingly requiring more extreme fake violence in movies as being symptomatic of anything becoming wrong with society. I for one can't be shocked/impressed by any violence in a movie - as long as I know it's fake. But I've got an extremely low tolerance for real gore or even blood-free violence. E.g., I'm a real wuss when it comes to cuts and open wounds.    And I don't want to be near people when they're fighting even if there's no blood at all. And, I made the big mistake of watching <next few sentences contains information about something extremely disturbing I watched, I'll inviso it> one of those beheading videoclips from Iraq a few years ago, I have no idea why I watched it but I found it very easily on the net late at night as I was about to retire and watched it. Essentially it was a live hostage having his head slowly sawn off by a sadistic psychopathic serial killer (probably Zarqawi who's now dead thank god) with a knife. The clip also contained sound. I watched glued to the screen with sickened fascination until it was over, then I got up from my PC, went to the bathroom, had my head over the toilet for a few minutes on the verge of puking. When the nausea abated I looked at myself in the mirror and I was totally white, I looked like a corpse. Then for the next half hour I wandered around the house in a daze, I was bumping into walls, doorways etc. I finally went to bed and had a tortured night's sleep, I kept waking up with images of this grotesque act of evil in my head. I totally regret watching it and totally recommend that nobody does anything so stupid as to find one of these and watch it (and don't ask for links). I just mentioned this as it suggests that the fact people need more and more gore to be entertained doesn't necessarily mean that they're becoming sicker, it may just mean that they have a filtering mechanism that seperates reality from fiction. Although I suppose there may be people around who aren't able to seperate the two, and if they become accustomed to fake violence then perhaps they've also become accustomed to real violence. This debate has been going on for decades. |
| Sean |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 23:48:11
. |
| Sean |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 23:47:14
. |
| Sean |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 23:18:52
Yep I agree with everything everyone said above. I suppose in a nutshell you could categorise horror (movies or scenes) into three main groups:-
a) Scares (things unexpectedly jumping out at ya)
b) Gore
c) Suspense
I don't mind scares, but they are very short lived. There's only room in a movie for a limited number of them or they'll stop working. E.g., every 5 minutes or so. So on their own they aren't good enough, as once a scare is over (a second after it's happened) everyone is laughing. I suppose that's why these kind of movies work best when they're horror comedies, so you've got something to watch in between scares.
Gore doesn't do anything for me at all. I'm always looking at the gore and the blood and thinking about whether the colour/consistency is realistic or not. All I see is makeup, which is what it is. Or to look at this another way, does anyone think that the makeup artists behind the scenes feel some sort of revulsion at their own creations? I suspect not, and neither do I, although I am impressed with the makeup artists when they are able to make gore look real.
Suspense still works for me, ideally the suspense would be so strong as to become relentless creeping dread. The kind of dread that causes breathing to become increasingly shallower throughout the movie, and cause a massive sigh of relief when it's finally over. And that's not the end; as benj said it can keep coming back to get ya' weeks or months later. 
So I want suspense in a movie, which is why I liked Saw. Saw II was not suspenseful at all, I was bored hence my abandoning the series entirely after that one. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 21:32:06
quote:
Originally posted by dem8nic
The hospital corridor scene is in "Exorcist III" Benj - I wouldn't want you accidentally recommending that truly abysmal first sequel to anybody.
Dammit! You're quite, quite correct, my learned friend
I dunno- first I make out Lethal Weapon II is Lethal Weapon III and now this. Next week I shall be reporting how much the little cuddly teddy bears ruined The Empire Strikes Back...
quote:
I'm hoping that it's a phase that will pass and we can get back to actually frightening movies, not films only designed to repulse.
You can pretty much guarantee it. It happened in the 80s- the horror genre gored itself out and it took Scream to reinvent it (briefly).
I think we're now approaching critical mass again after 10 years of ever increasing one-upmanship. I really can't see where there is left to go other than the forced retirement of the genre for another 5 or so years. |
| demonic |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 20:09:53
The hospital corridor scene is in "Exorcist III" Benj - I wouldn't want you accidentally recommending that truly abysmal first sequel to anybody.
My take on the Saw franchise - I've only seen the first two, on TV, and thought the first was a solid, clever little movie with some admittedly poor acting at the end from Cary Elwes, but a very good twist... I just love the fact that Jigsaw is where he is. No spoilers just in case. Saw 2 I thought was totally dumb. I couldn't have given two shits about anyone, so all I was really watching was people I had no interest in being tortured. Whatever. I guess the draw is the inventiveness of the traps and the atmosphere evoked, but I'm starting to have issues with gore for gore's sake - I'm starting to find the more extreme stuff now being presented in mainstream cinema too much, and I love horror as a genre, and was a big gorehound as a teenager. I just find the lengths they are having to go to to get a response out of a largely numbed audience repellent. Unfashionable as it is, and mock away if you're inclined, I'm starting to think the general public's increasing fascination with torture porn is symptomatic of a general disregard for human life (at least in the UK - people in the US have been regularly shooting and stabbing each other for no reason for years so I can't comment on that). I'm hoping that it's a phase that will pass and we can get back to actually frightening movies, not films only designed to repulse. |
|
|
