| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| randall |
Posted - 04/25/2008 : 21:18:44
Well, four years after the fact, I finally done saw it. I'm assuming everyone reading this done saw it too: if not, quit reading right now.
While this may be the most gruesome High Concept I've ever heard of -- two guys each with a leg shackled, and all they can use to get away is a pair of saws, which can't cut the chain -- I thought it was dazzling but offputting: not the torture-porn aspect, which was actually much milder than I'd expected, but the unexpected "reveal" of Jigsaw, which truly made no sense. I think this is a park-your-brain kind of movie, and the careening pace of the "replays" toward the end which showed you what was REALLY going on prevented you from pondering them; I don't think they'd stand serious scrutiny. The constant flashbacks were all about style, and frequently got in the way by de-revving the tension.
On the other hand, I spent most of the running time wondering, "Are they actually going to let a guy saw his foot off?" And I wasn't disappointed. IMHO, the most critical and potentially effective part of a horror movie is the sound, and this one was easily as good as any Japanese picture I've seen.
I have to remind myself that this was 2004 as I note a few things: the leached-out greenish "flourescent" look may have been cutting-edge back then, but now it's a horror/thriller cliche. And Michael Emerson was such an unknown back then that they didn't mind showing his identifiable face in profile before revealing him as the cloaked villain. But now, of course, he's an icon of LOST, and fellow fans would suspect him of shenanigans the first time we saw him. To the original SAW audience, he was a cipher. [Ken Leung of LOST is also in the movie.] In fact, it may well be that he's on LOST because the producers saw him in this movie; the timing would be about right. Further, a couple of shots in last night's LOST episode clearly tip directly to SAW: a whirling Emerson throat-slice, and Emerson on a rooftop with a telescopic lens; in the movie, of course, it's Danny Glover snooping on him.
My take is that it was a stylish nail-biter that let me down at the end. I understand completely why benj is such a fan, and there's great work here indeed. I'm glad I saw it, but disheartened that it seems to have started a thriving torture-porn genre, and I definitely won't be seeing any of the sequels. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/27/2010 : 14:46:25
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Will it never end?
Apparently not.
I suspect if they ever wanted to remake (or update) the Back to the Future movies that they'll have to change that scene when Marty is in the future and this huge shark comes out of a billboard in 3D advertising another remake of "Jaws". Instead, they'll have a 3D Saw come out showing that Saw 200 is coming to a theater near you soon! |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/26/2010 : 19:51:21
Will it never end? |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 11/02/2009 : 09:45:59
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Saw VI is better than its predecessor. Not much better, but better. It dials back a bit on the countless flashbacks that made Saw V such a bore, but unfortunately, the untimely death of Jigsaw in Saw III have made them somewhat of a necessity. They keep fleshing out the backstory of Team Jigsaw, and as far as I'm concerned, I know all I need to know about them. A new twist in the relationship between Det. Hoffman and Amanda means nothing and adds nothing, and even makes Saw III a little worse. This series has disappeared up its own ass, and has been doing so for a while now.
Of course, the main thing about Saw VI is its topicality. As The AV Club put it, Jigsaw weighs in posthumously on the health care debate by putting his support into a robust public option. The main victim is a villainous health insurance executive who all but laughs in the face of his clients while denying their claims (personally; you'd think there were people lower on the rung who could deal with this). Jigsaw is punishing him for being such a callous greedy capitalist.
This is fucking ridiculous. I certainly have my opinions on the healthcare debate, but regardless of how anyone feels about it, there is no political point that could survive being spoken by someone known as the Jigsaw Killer. Part of the reason I believe Saw III is the only actual good Saw movie is that it rubs Jigsaw's face in his own hypocrisy, and is accordingly the only one with a sense of morality that isn't actively retarded. In Saw VI, the sympathies are again back with Jigsaw and against his victims who like totally deserve it. There's a reason a lot of stupid people believe that Jigsaw is a hero, and that's because the movie presents him as such. Jigsaw is punishing the executive for "deciding who lives or dies" -- SAYS THE FUCKING JIGSAW KILLER. At this point Jigsaw's posthumous bullshit has piled so high that it could bury all his previous deathtraps combined.
This is a wonderful bit of analysis. Well done!
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 11/02/2009 : 03:29:56
Saw VI is better than its predecessor. Not much better, but better. It dials back a bit on the countless flashbacks that made Saw V such a bore, but unfortunately, the untimely death of Jigsaw in Saw III have made them somewhat of a necessity. They keep fleshing out the backstory of Team Jigsaw, and as far as I'm concerned, I know all I need to know about them. A new twist in the relationship between Det. Hoffman and Amanda means nothing and adds nothing, and even makes Saw III a little worse. This series has disappeared up its own ass, and has been doing so for a while now.
Of course, the main thing about Saw VI is its topicality. As The AV Club put it, Jigsaw weighs in posthumously on the health care debate by putting his support into a robust public option. The main victim is a villainous health insurance executive who all but laughs in the face of his clients while denying their claims (personally; you'd think there were people lower on the rung who could deal with this). Jigsaw is punishing him for being such a callous greedy capitalist.
This is fucking ridiculous. I certainly have my opinions on the healthcare debate, but regardless of how anyone feels about it, there is no political point that could survive being spoken by someone known as the Jigsaw Killer. Part of the reason I believe Saw III is the only actual good Saw movie is that it rubs Jigsaw's face in his own hypocrisy, and is accordingly the only one with a sense of morality that isn't actively retarded. In Saw VI, the sympathies are again back with Jigsaw and against his victims who like totally deserve it. There's a reason a lot of stupid people believe that Jigsaw is a hero, and that's because the movie presents him as such. Jigsaw is punishing the executive for "deciding who lives or dies" -- SAYS THE FUCKING JIGSAW KILLER. At this point Jigsaw's posthumous bullshit has piled so high that it could bury all his previous deathtraps combined. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 10/27/2008 : 12:41:10
Spoilers, I guess, though spoiler policy confuses the hell out of me on this board.
Anyways, I can't help but notice that way back at the beginning of this thread, I said that I would watch Saw movies every Halloween weekend for the rest of my life. Saw V has firmly disabused me of that notion. I've said repeatedly that I really really like Saw III but even then the series was beginning to swallow its own tail.
Saw V feels like nothing but flashbacks that make the new bad guy make sense within the context of previous installments. That's fine, but I wanted to see a movie, not what amounts basically to deleted scenes from the last movie. I loved getting glimpses of the man behind the monster in the previous franchise, but Jigsaw spends so much time being just an old guy with some weird beliefs that he stops being interesting. It's like watching the guy playing Mickey Mouse take off his costume at Disneyland.
What made Jigsaw so creepy is his perverse conviction that he's doing righteous work. The new guy clearly doesn't share his fervor and is just covering his own tracks. What lesson was the main victim supposed to learn? What exactly did he do wrong here?
Saw V is the first movie in the franchise to not insult me with ludicrous plot holes, and somehow, that's exactly what's wrong with it. It's all so straightforward. There's no mystery. A failure from beginning to end. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/24/2008 : 23:24:49
Saw V
Given the nature of the beast, I'm going to treat this all as spoilers for simplicity: This is the last one, right? It's certainly run out of steam. The set-up and twists are just totally standard now, although I still thought the ending was reasonable in being so frustrating, rather than having a goodie solve it all (other than in isolation). The main test is so obvious in its solution that it seems ridiculous that they ignore it (although in the second room it's not really fair that Jigsaw asks which one of them will be sacrificed, thus not allowing the possibility of their having passed and got all five through to that point). The most annoying thing is the lawyer/ex-wife scene. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that when people are found out to be mass murderers, they are not just allowed to have mysterious boxes passed on according to the whims of their last will and testament without the police at least having access first! |
| Ali |
Posted - 05/02/2008 : 07:13:45
Still talking about this piece of shit?
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 05/02/2008 : 03:54:00
If it's sad, doesn't that make it interesting in its own right? Maybe interesting isn't the right word, but compelling, how's that? |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/02/2008 : 01:44:00
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
The point isn't that it's a difficult choice, it's that it's a painful sacrifice. I think you're trivializing this character's grief and anger, which has consumed his life; granted, I did explain the situation pretty badly.
Indeed (to your last remark): you seemed to want to emphasise that having to choose this act was interesting, when in fact it is not interesting at all. It is very sad, but totally standard. All bereaved parents turn their children's things into relics. |
| Sean |
Posted - 05/02/2008 : 01:40:01
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Or sticking with the horror movies, I found Silent Hill to be wayyyy scarier and more intense than Saw, but when you look at it and ask what this movie was ABOUT, what it MEANT, you come up with nothing. That's how I feel about Saw.
That makes sense. But, I never expect 'meaning' in horrors. I just want to be glued to the screen for a couple of hours, and if it does that then it's a success for me. E.g., Exorcist, Alien, Ju-On, Ring, Night of the Living Dead are great horrors IMO, but I've never thought about what they 'mean'. |
| randall |
Posted - 05/01/2008 : 22:49:31
Man, I am so skipping the fucking sequels! |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 05/01/2008 : 22:48:51
quote:
A non-psychopathic human shouldn't need to think about this for more than a tenth of a second. It wasn't like this guy had murdered his family, all he did was give someone a lenient sentence. That's no justification for a 'normal' person to watch him die to save a few soft toys. Hence I didn't find the character of Jeff credible as he had to think about this.
The point isn't that it's a difficult choice, it's that it's a painful sacrifice. I think you're trivializing this character's grief and anger, which has consumed his life; granted, I did explain the situation pretty badly.
I don't know, I just think a movie, even horror movies, should have a dramatically consistent story arc. Like 21; I didn't like it because it has the structure of a morality tale but has no moral. Or sticking with the horror movies, I found Silent Hill to be wayyyy scarier and more intense than Saw, but when you look at it and ask what this movie was ABOUT, what it MEANT, you come up with nothing. That's how I feel about Saw. |
| Sean |
Posted - 05/01/2008 : 00:29:22
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
As far as I'm concerned, Saw has about as much interest to me as a crossword puzzle -- once you have the solution, there's nothing there that merits any further attention.
Agreed. But the solution comes at the end, which is fine. I seldom watch movies again, and this one is no exception. It was two hours of good entertainment which is all I was expecting.quote:
I think it's a very shallow experience; "How do I get out of a locked room" means much less to me than "Would I destroy the cherished possessions of a lost loved ones in order to save the life of a personal enemy?"
A non-psychopathic human shouldn't need to think about this for more than a tenth of a second. It wasn't like this guy had murdered his family, all he did was give someone a lenient sentence. That's no justification for a 'normal' person to watch him die to save a few soft toys. Hence I didn't find the character of Jeff credible as he had to think about this.
@duh: Good point!  |
| duh |
Posted - 04/30/2008 : 16:58:41
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Whereas numerous characters in movies such as [i]LOTR,
...
etc seemed very real, and whether I liked them or not I could relate to them as human beings.
or relate to them as hobbits, dwarves and elves.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 04/30/2008 : 15:41:55
But is that interesting? Either one thinks one shouldn't kill anyone at all, or one doesn't. The scenario in the first one, being less extreme and thus more imaginable, is more frightening. |
|
|
