| Author |
 Topic  |
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
 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. |
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 15:38:52
|
| I enjoyed the original Saw very much and have been reluctant to view any of the sequels for fear that their emphasis would be purely on the gore without regard to story and surprise. Based on your recommendation, I'll be more likely to check out the sequels. |
 |
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 16:30:35
|
Well, bear in mind that I like the gore of the movies much more than I like the story and surprise. Matter of fact, I kind of hate the first Saw. The ending of that movie is fucking stupid. Someone asked me the other day if I saw it coming -- no, of course I didn't, because it's fucking stupid. The retarded plot twists are still there in the sequels if you want them, but I see them as what keeps any of these movies from being horror classics. They make no sense if you give them even a little thought, whereas the gore is going to have the same visceral effect no matter how much you think about it.
They're more emotionally affecting too. The two main victims are being chained up for their sins, but they're not really forced to deal with those sins. Mostly, they just sit around trying to figure out how the hell they got there and how they can get out. The stories are more personal in Saw II and Saw III and the acting is better too -- Donnie Wahlberg and Angus MacFayden have some really powerful scenes. For example, MacFayden's problem is that his endless grief over his late son's death, whose memory he clings to -- he's told he has to burn all his son's possessions to save a man he hates from a grisly death. That's some raw stuff. |
Edited by - MisterBadIdea on 10/29/2007 16:40:24 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 19:21:26
|
I'm in two minds about Saw IV.
What it manages is a clever spin (either that or I wasn't paying attention at the start) with a curious parallel to the second film but this time it's only the audience that's being tricked. They certainly seem to be doing their darndest to weave an ever more complex story across the sequels which I think should be commended in this day and age of brainless films.
On the downside, none of the sequels have come close to the sheer simple brilliance of the first Saw and with each subsequent film still grasping so tightly to that first film they appear to be dragging it down somewhat. The first film worked for the same reason the first Matrix film worked- it was what it was, whereas the films that followed all tried a little too hard to expand the mythos yet work in relation to the original.
Still, Saw IV I thought was leagues away from the almost completely non-Sawniverse film that was Saw III. (In fact, it actually seems like we had to endure Saw III in order that Saw IV could be the cunning bugger it is).
My order of preference of these films: Saw, Saw II, Saw IV, Curly Sue, Saw III. |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 23:20:10
|
| I liked Saw, was bored shitless by Saw II as all I saw (nyuk nyuk) was some interesting traps with a bunch of people shouting at each other for 90 minutes. Yawwnnn.... So I didn't bother with Saw III and dont' think I'll be bothering with Saw IV. I don't mind gore at all but I just find movies with implausible nothingness characters boring. |
|
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 00:41:27
|
| What he said. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 01:38:51
|
Wow, I really am going to stand alone on this one, aren't I?
Well, fine -- I will make my lonely stand from my table for one: Every one of its sequels is superior to the first Saw, which sucks some anus. I distinctly remember walking out of that theater with my then-girlfriend into a cold Baltimore night in November of 2004, trying unsuccessfully to hide the rage in my heart.
Maybe someone else can explain the appeal to me. All I can tell you is that the movie strikes me as a collection of bad acting, bad dialogue, a plot with more holes than a golf course, a frustratingly vague villain, and one of the all-time most asinine twist endings. Seriously, that ranks up there with The Village and Secret Window as far as I'm concerned. I mean, I understand that Saw kept you in suspense with what would happen, but by the end, when you put it together, it was like a jigsaw* puzzle made out of two different sets; the pieces are wedged where they don't belong and the picture is nonsensical. I really hate it.
Saw II is hardly God's gift to cinema, but I appreciate that it fills in some motivation for his insanity, I appreciate that the twist ending isn't as meaningless, I appreciate that his plan actually makes some kind of sense, and of course the traps are great as ever. I really wouldn't call Saw IV smart as all -- the plotting is still as plothole-ridden as ever, and I wouldn't call it complex as much as convoluted. Pretty much the only thing I like about it is some of the violence and the added backstory on Jigsaw -- if the rest of these movies is disappointingly underthought, they've definitely invested some time and energy into this character.
Ranking: Saw III, Saw II, Saw IV, purple nurple, Saw. And now I'm curious why "Saw III" would not be part of the Sawniverse, as you put it; it looked to me like it has all the hallmarks.
*Heh. |
Edited by - MisterBadIdea on 10/30/2007 01:39:44 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 08:34:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
And now I'm curious why "Saw III" would not be part of the Sawniverse, as you put it; it looked to me like it has all the hallmarks.
Possible spoiler warnings...
Well, as I really like the first one I see that as the one the others should stay in keeping with and I found it very claustrophobic because it never really left the room. The second one scuppered things somewhat by involving scenes that took place outside (that weren't in flashback) and without the weird lighting but what I liked about it was that it still managed to effectively repeated the trick of the original (but on a larger scale). Ideally, the third one might have tried this again even bigger but it didn't.
Instead, right from the off, it was a gore fest for the sake of it. Previously, the gore had been pretty tame so it had always been more about the scares (non-existant in the second one admittedly) or the cunning twist. But just like the villain of the piece, all this blood was splattered unjustifiably and the whole thing just seemed all about that. Even the 'twist' felt pretty lame and for the first time, the traps seemed uninspired (A man drowning in guts? A woman freezing to death? The best it had to offer was a rip off from the security device in Rutger Hauer flick 'Wedlock').
In the end it was felt to me like a one off Twilight Zone episode about some completely unconnected guy trying to come to terms with the death of his son that had been rewritten to involve John and his apprentice as another plot line. Plus lashings of claret to keep the gorehounds happy.
Don't get me wrong, I like gore in my films and I was genuinely impressed that Saw III has one of the most ick-inducing opening scenes I've ever seen, but I just expected a little more connection with the previous films. In fact, if it weren't for Saw IV's efforts above and beyond, you could quite easily skip Saw III as being not part of the series (think of it as Halloween III: Season of the Witch) 
P.S. Just how many dictaphones does John get through? I lost count of how many there were in Saw IV, but if I were the police I'd just be on the lookout for anyone with a seriously huge business account at Staples. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 13:54:51
|
quote:
A man drowning in guts? A woman freezing to death?
Yeah, you really lost me there -- those are my absolutely favorite traps of the entire series. I call them the most inspired, because they're the ones that reach beyond just blood and broken bones. The freezing one is great because you can feel the pain with her; I was reminded of Dante's Inferno, even.
I like that Saw III is gore for the sake of gore. Scares are overrated and gore is underrated, I think -- Saw I is definitely suspense for the sake of suspense, and I think it adds up to a whole lot of nothing. But the gore taps into our fear of our own bodies, makes you face the fact that they're physical things that can be taken apart like Tinkertoys, and that's a gut reaction that sticks with you after the movie is over. I don't see how it's unnecessary either -- that guy's plot was way more compelling than most of the other victims (ESPECIALLY the two losers from the first movie), and gore was always what these movies were about. The guy with the dead son had to face his demons, just like the corrupt cop had to face his -- Dr. Gordon doesn't really have to deal with anything except the fact that he's chained up in a locked room, making his trial fairly meaningless.
But mostly, I love the sideplot with Amanda and Jigsaw. I thought he was about to cry when Amanda failed her test. Theirs was a very complex relationship, and I felt for both sides here. It feels weird even saying that, considering the type of movie that was (and especially considering that Shawnee Smith is not a good actress), but yeah, Saw III turned into a compelling character study. And good for it. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 15:44:15
|
I guess we're just from opposite camps on this. Certainly, gore at it's ickiest can make you squirm and ponder your own mortality, but in the end it's quickly forgotten (certainly, I've never feared watching a film again because of the gore effects). A well-made psychological horror will make you wary of turning the light off afterward and sit poking at the back of your mind for months or even years- for me THAT'S true horror.
Actually, the more I think about it, all horror is psychological really, just to varying amounts. Pure psychological horror (my preference) doesn't need any gore, whereas decent gore horror also relies heavily on psychological tricks to really screw with you.
Still, I always think of gore as the equivalent of expletives in comedy- you don't need them to get the laughs, but a lot of people use them as a lazy shortcut to get there, often when the joke isn't even funny  |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 17:30:27
|
quote:
I guess we're just from opposite camps on this. Certainly, gore at it's ickiest can make you squirm and ponder your own mortality, but in the end it's quickly forgotten (certainly, I've never feared watching a film again because of the gore effects). A well-made psychological horror will make you wary of turning the light off afterward and sit poking at the back of your mind for months or even years- for me THAT'S true horror.
For what it's worth, when I say suspense is overrated, that just means I don't see its inherent superiority over visceral gore effects. I like suspense too -- Alien, for example, is one of my favorites, as is the entirely gore-free The Haunting. But so many of the accepted horror classics are blunt and ugly -- Night of the Living Dead, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Evil Dead. There's nothing suspenseful about Linda Blair vomiting pea soup and stabbing herself in the crotch with a crucifix.
Gore can be a crutch, I agree (I hated Hostel), but so can suspense. Anything can be suspenseful if you ask an important question but don't provide an answer. I just don't find anything in Saw that resonates. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 17:58:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
For what it's worth, when I say suspense is overrated, that just means I don't see its inherent superiority over visceral gore effects. I like suspense too -- Alien, for example, is one of my favorites, as is the entirely gore-free The Haunting. But so many of the accepted horror classics are blunt and ugly -- Night of the Living Dead, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Evil Dead. There's nothing suspenseful about Linda Blair vomiting pea soup and stabbing herself in the crotch with a crucifix.
Gore can be a crutch, I agree (I hated Hostel), but so can suspense. Anything can be suspenseful if you ask an important question but don't provide an answer. I just don't find anything in Saw that resonates.
Yep- I agree, although I'm not really talking about suspense even. I'm just talking about unsettling horror in general- this doesn't even have to be using suspense (but that is one tool of the trade). What I mean is something that's just... off-kilter. The stair crawling horror of Ringu is one example or the girl jerking her way up the corridor in Kairo, John Cusack seeing himself staring back from the building opposite in 1408, the excruciatingly long, drawn-out hospital corridor shot in Exorcist II Exorcist III, almost every shot in Audition. I could go on, but I'm creeping myself out here!
I didn't find Linda Blair puking up all that scary, but a head slowly rotating 360 degrees or her spider crawling down stairs have both stick very firmly in my mind as unsettling images I'll be unlikely to forget. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
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. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 23:47:14
|
| . |
Edited by - Sean on 10/30/2007 23:47:55 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Saw IV
