| Author |
 Topic  |
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
 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. |
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 04/25/2008 : 23:20:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
I definitely won't be seeing any of the sequels.
Good move. I liked the original, but was bored out of my skull by the sequel so didn't bother with the rest. |
 |
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 04/26/2008 : 00:03:51
|
I have now seed all the Saws I'll ever see.
|
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 04/26/2008 : 03:48:06
|
My advice is actually to see the sequels. I will watch "Saw" movies every Halloween on opening night until they stop making them, ludicrous though they may be -- I love 'em. And the important thing is that all the sequels -- every single one of them -- is a million times better than the worthless original. I left the theatre with rage in my heart after seeing the first "Saw"; it's one of the most overrated horror movies of all time.
The plot turns in "Saw" are insulting and moronic. That isn't going to change throughout the rest of the series, but the original is the only one that actively made me angry. The plot turns defy basic logic in the sequels, but they defy emotional logic in the original. So in the end Jigsaw was the guy on the floor. So the fuck what? What was the point of that? The worst moment is when Adam finds out there was a key that slipped down the drain. What if he had managed to grab it? Then what?
One of the criticisms I've heard of the sequels, "Saw II" in particular, is that they don't have the character development of the original when the original actually has the least character development of all four movies. Even putting aside the plot holes, there's still very very deep questions about Jigsaw's scheme. What were these two characters' sins? What were they supposed to do to get out of the room? And when they did it, what were they supposed to learn from it? These questions all remain maddeningly unclear. All the sequels are improvements because they answer those crucial questions.
They're also all improvements because they have Tobin Bell do more than lie on the floor. It was a real stroke of luck finding this actor. Bell is a great actor, and they've really invested some thought into the Jigsaw character; he's like the anti-Hannibal Lecter, in that he's not insane and he actually becomes more interesting the more you find out about him. |
Edited by - MisterBadIdea on 04/26/2008 03:49:54 |
|
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 04/26/2008 : 07:09:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
My advice is actually to see the sequels.
Thank you for that encouragement. I liked the first very much and was not going to watch the others because I thought they would focus on obligatory gore without much story.
I agree with you about Tobin Bell. Some of you may recall that I pointed out his physical similarity to the now-deceased Brion James, in one of the "separated at birth" posts. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 04/26/2008 : 08:03:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by duh
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
My advice is actually to see the sequels.
Thank you for that encouragement. I liked the first very much and was not going to watch the others because I thought they would focus on obligatory gore without much story.
There have been threads on this here before, so I'm not gonna debate these movies again. Keep in mind that MBI said "And the important thing is that all the sequels -- every single one of them -- is a million times better than the worthless original", i.e., he hated the original (that you liked), but likes the sequels that I thought were garbage. (OK, I only saw No. 2 but was so bored I couldn't imagine wanting to put up with two more).
Perhaps a good compromise is to watch No. 2, and if you're bored by it then forget the rest. And if you like it then you've got more to go.  |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 04/26/2008 : 11:25:32
|
I'm not gonna waste my time. I have no interest in the genre. Also felt this way after watching the original FRIDAY THE 13TH: I'm positive.
HALLOWEEN sequels first broke my heart; I still cherish the original. |
Edited by - randall on 04/26/2008 11:27:48 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 04/26/2008 : 11:32:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
I'm not gonna waste my time. I have no interest in the genre.
I guess the main thing is you gave it a chance. Whether in agreement or not, I'm always fascinated to hear what others think of films I either love or hate  |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 04/27/2008 : 01:07:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
I'm not gonna waste my time. I have no interest in the genre.
I guess the main thing is you gave it a chance. Whether in agreement or not, I'm always fascinated to hear what others think of films I either love or hate
To repeat: I'm glad I done saw it, which is totally due to you, benj. [I'm just sorry it took so long!] And it definitely has the hand over DEAD SILENCE. Except for those creepy dolls... |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 04/27/2008 : 01:45:41
|
quote:
Perhaps a good compromise is to watch No. 2, and if you're bored by it then forget the rest.
No, man, you've got to get to the third one, which is the good one of the series (the others are just guilty pleasures for me). Saw III is practically a character drama that just happens to have lots of blood and guts. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 04/27/2008 : 02:28:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
quote:
Perhaps a good compromise is to watch No. 2, and if you're bored by it then forget the rest.
No, man, you've got to get to the third one, which is the good one of the series (the others are just guilty pleasures for me). Saw III is practically a character drama that just happens to have lots of blood and guts.
Oh all right all right, I nexflixed it just to keep you happy. 
Actually I've been watching so many 1930's- '50's dramas lately that something like Saw 3 doesn't seem like such a bad idea - just for a change. I'll watch it with an open mind. |
|
|
|
Yukon 
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
Posted - 04/27/2008 : 02:37:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
The plot turns in "Saw" are insulting and moronic. That isn't going to change throughout the rest of the series, but the original is the only one that actively made me angry. The plot turns defy basic logic in the sequels, but they defy emotional logic in the original. So in the end Jigsaw was the guy on the floor. So the fuck what? What was the point of that?
I think the point was for a completely original ending that shocked the hell out of me. I never would have guessed the killer was the corpse! I'm with Benj, the first Saw is one of my favourite all-time horror films and its because of the ending.
I thought the movie started out with a simple yet great idea of two guys locked in a room together.
But as the movie went along, I was disappointed because it appeared the filmmakers fell into tired cliches. There was the shot of the crazy janitor, who turns out to be the killer. And then I thought the film fell apart because it didn't follow its own rules about Jigsaw never atually killing people himself.
I just remember thinking to myself, "what lazy screenwriters."
So when Jigsaw stood up off the floor, I was floored. All the mistakes suddenly fell into place and made sense.
MisterBadIdea, did you figure out the janitor wasn't the real killer before the ending? I didn't, that's why I was blown away.
As a side note, I hate it when I figure out the twist of a movie before it happens. I had friends who loved Derailed with Jennifer Anniston but I figured it out the twist within the first 10 minutes of the movie.
On the other hand, another one of my favourite surprise endings was Seven because I remember watching Pitt and Freeman standing out in the field and thinking to myself "I have no idea where this movie is going or what is about to happen." But one of my friends thought it was completely obvious and she was expecting "a package" to be delivered. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 04/27/2008 : 05:44:33
|
quote:
MisterBadIdea, did you figure out the janitor wasn't the real killer before the ending? I didn't, that's why I was blown away.
No, of course I didn't figure it out. No one did. Because it's stupid. The killer could have turned out to be Ernie from "Sesame Street" for all the sense it made. I sure wouldn't have seen it coming! |
|
|
|
duh
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 04/27/2008 : 07:40:23
|
| Need white panel |
Edited by - duh on 04/27/2008 07:40:57 |
|
|
|
duh
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 04/27/2008 : 07:41:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yukon
On the other hand, another one of my favourite surprise endings was Seven because I remember watching Pitt and Freeman standing out in the field and thinking to myself "I have no idea where this movie is going or what is about to happen."
Possible spoiler in inviso-text:
One of my favorite surprise endings is in 'Fallen' where it turns out that the narrator is Azazel himself. There was a pretty good hint earlier in the film, but I didn't make the connection.
That is one of my all time favorite movies. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 04/27/2008 : 16:58:11
|
Granted not everything in Saw makes sense, but for me that never factors into whether a horror film is good horror film or a bad horror film. After all, in the wide scope of cinema, horror is about as far removed from reality as any genre gets (heck, even Sci-fi is usually based on scientific theories already being researched).
Let's face it... how many horror films are otherworldly-based? As someone who resolutely doesn't believe in ghosts, spirits, demons, Satan, the undead, werewolves, vampires or the like, I definitely don't easily go with the protagonist being not of this world. And yet a great many horror films I consider great horror films are of this type: Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Candyman, Hellraiser, The Exorcist, The Omen, The Ring.
No, logic really doesn't factor into it. Sure, realism can enhance the horror- the recent outbreak of handheld horrors is the perfect example of this, but it isn't what makes or breaks the horror. Just like the one true requirement of a comedy is to be funny (Airplane, for example, makes no sense whatsoever but is unquestionably hilarious), a horror film has to be scary or deeply unsettling above all else.
So yeah, there's leaps of logic- heck, even the pig's head is never explained until later in the series (for now it's just another disturbing element of the whole piece), but so what?
There's cliches, but horror is built on cliches- the best horror for my money plays on these cliches in fact (such as the double bluff jumps or sinister music playing at the wrong time).
But there's a great twist (which needs no more explaining here) and excellent set-ups- the various tests (which have in the ensuing films become horribly overblown charicatures of the original brilliant ideas) and, especially so, the scene in the darkened apartment where the photographer sees the way with only his camera flash. And through all this, via the grimness of the whole film (something they shat all over by externalizing way too much in later films), a deep sense of dread.
Yep, it's a great horror film by my reckoning but each to their own |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Saw, probably crammed with spoilers
