anyone here like the Saw movies?
I really liked the first two. Saw 3 I thought was OK, but not nearly as good. I just got back from seeing Saw 4 and thought it totally sucked. Had good potential at first, and then quickly went downhill, even though it had several entertaining traps to watch (my favorite being the one with the "blind" and "mute" man being chained together. I thought that was up there with the death mask trap of Saw 2).
The franchise is getting pretty ridiculous now and a victim of its own formula. Saw 4's general plot, and especially its twists and ending were just so crappy. And it's already been confirmed there's going to be at least two more films.
The best thing about this franchise is that it's managed to flesh out its villain, Jigsaw, in ways other horror movies haven't even come close to. Saw 4 doesn't fail here, but at this point in their writing, he has become clairvoyant. For once, I'd like to see a different kind of ending, where someone actually plays Jigsaws game right, comes out of it alive, or even get the jump on, or find a flaw in his setup. But that isn't going to happen as long as a Saw movie is scheduled to come out each Halloween. Oh well.
I thought the first film was very average, so never bothered to follow the series. However, I've read reviews saying the fourth one is better than the third.
Quote from: Jakew on November 03, 2007, 02:43:26 AM
I thought the first film was very average, so never bothered to follow the series. However, I've read reviews saying the fourth one is better than the third.
The only reason why I could understand some people thinking 4 was better than 3 is because 4 doesn't try to just gross you out with how much gore they can throw in. The film is still very gory though, it just doesn't feel like that's all it's trying to be, while that's pretty much what 3 did. In terms of story, 4 could have kept the series relatively afloat if it didn't get so out of control in the second half. And there's a whole lot of holes and raises way more questions than the last 3 combined. Ugh.
If you're curious, I'm going to rant on why it sucked, so if you're a fan and haven't seen 4 yet, don't read:
[spoiler]What ticked me off the most about this movie besides the obvious reasons is what they keep doing with recurring characters - killing them off in the most brutal way possible. In Saw 3, it was Kerry (the girl who got her rib cage ripped out). She was completely innocent and didn't deserve to be in Jigsaws game. In this one, they decided to bring back Eric Matthews again (the detective from the second one and making a cameo in the third one). I thought, and really hoped, this character would make it out alive and finally be a wild card in Jigsaws setup. But instead, he's tied up for pretty much the whole movie and is obliterated in the end. The guys been through torture for 6 months in the movies. The least they could do is finally let him live, especially since he actually won the second test he was put through (Saw 3). Plus, I really liked the actor, Donnie Whalberg, so seeing him basically explode at the end (his head is smashed between two battering rams) was really just stupid to watch.
Oh yeah, and there's a new Jigsaw revealed at the end, but as to how he's connected to Jigsaw or why he's continuing his work is beyond anything Saw 4 even starts to explain, thus paving the way for 5 and 6 to be made. It's so stupid, and any kind of twists the movie made were already done in the first three. In Saw 1, you don't know who the real Jigsaw is until the very end. Similarly, they do that in 4 with the new killer. In Saw 2, the trap being displayed through the majority of the movie already happened prior to Jigsaw and Det. Matthews meeting. Again, this happens in 4, only with flashbacks played on the audience instead on characters in the movie. In Saw 3, one of the main characters is forced to go through a game of choices by allowing certain people to live or die. That happens again in 4, and like both films, the reality of the purpose of the game is revealed at the end, but of course nobody realizes what that is until it's too late.
Sometimes Jigsaw seems justified in what victims he chooses to play his game, but this is starting to become obviously flawed when he starts to pick seemingly innocent people and stretches out his reasoning to choose them for life or death. This started in 3, with Kerry, who was "dead on the inside" according to Jigsaw. In this one, he puts a cop who's been upset at his coworkers becoming victims of Jigsaw (Kerry and Eric Mathews) through a game of life and death choices. It's ridiculous, despite the fact that 4 does a really good job of showing how and why Jigsaw is doing what he's doing - he's a brilliant engineer and his reasons for killing people who don't appreciate life goes beyond him having cancer and surviving a suicide attempt.[/spoiler]
Actually, I thought Saw 2 was the weakest of the lot- they shoehorned the Jigsaw motif into another person's script, and I felt the seams really showed.
[spoiler]
I share your irritation with the plot holes left as setups for Saw V and VI, as well as my own irritation with the reuse of the same general motif from Saw II. I also found the fact that the events in III take place concurrently with the events in IV odd, and a difficult connection to make.
However, I do believe you're wrong about Wahlberg's character. He failed his test (in Saw II, not III) and was presumed dead. Indeed, Whalberg is on record as being upset that his character was not killed in II as everyone thought, and demanded to be killed in this one.
Also, Kerry was chosen by Amanda, not by Jigsaw, and the whole point of III is that Amanda is too flawed to Be the next Jigsaw, so obviously her choices would be flawed.
I found the flashback scenes in IV to be brilliantly done, and the layers of complexity they added to the character more than made up for the other, relatively minor flaws the movie possessed.
Besides, only one character was unbearably stupid (the so-called Jigsaw "expert"). In II and III, there were several characters that were, so there was a vast improvement here.
While not classic cinema (none of them are, though the original comes close) I actually thought this was the best of the lot since the original.
[/spoiler]
Two things, one spoilered, one not:
[spoiler]
I do have a bit of a problem with Jigsaw's whole line of reasoning- he wants you to appreciate your life, so he puts you in a position where you will have do/feel something horrible in order to get to live. Except that if you don't do/feel the horrible thing you die a gruesome, painful death anyway! So you're choosing between gruesome horrible painful thing but then life- or gruesome horrible painful death! No ones going to turn him down that way! If he really wanted to test how much people valued their life their choice should be gruesome horrible painful thing plus life or easy, painless death. But I do understand that wouldn't be much of a movie.
[/spoiler]
Funny second bit -I went to high school with the actress who plays Kerry in those movies. We almost dated. Its one of the few regrets I do have over the course of my life.
Quote from: bredon7777 on November 03, 2007, 06:51:57 PM
[spoiler]
However, I do believe you're wrong about Wahlberg's character. He failed his test (in Saw II, not III) and was presumed dead. Indeed, Whalberg is on record as being upset that his character was not killed in II as everyone thought, and demanded to be killed in this one.
Also, Kerry was chosen by Amanda, not by Jigsaw, and the whole point of III is that Amanda is too flawed to Be the next Jigsaw, so obviously her choices would be flawed. [/spoiler]
In response about Whalberg's character:
[spoiler] I know he failed his test in part 2. But at the end, when he was placed in that room, were we supposed to think he was just going to be left there to rot? I thought, at least how the entire ending of 2 was, that he was placed into another test, with his leg chained to the pipes in the same place and situation Dr. Gordon was in, in the first one. Thus, at the beginning of 3 he bashed his leg and dislocated his ankle so he could free himself from the shackle. Wasn't that his next test as Amanda's first test subject (as she said in her recorded tape to him)? He then attacked Amanda after he freed himself and for the most part won, until, as seen in the 4th movie, a shadowed figure comes and knocks him out and puts him in the situation we see in part 4. I don't know why Whalberg would want his character to die anyways. Afterall, it gives him the chance to be in more sequels, right? But personally I thought he was great in Saw 2 and really liked his return in 3. I guess I was just really hoping they'd do something
different with 4. Have a good guy get some type of advantage for once, instead of, like I said, everyone essentially dying at the end or placed in another trap. And Whalberg's character would have been a great choice as the guy's been through so much hell and still survived.
and if Kerry was chosen by Amanda instead of Jigsaw, why then is it Jigsaw's voice when the tape is played for Kerry when she's in her trap? [/spoiler]
[spoiler]
It was all part of Amada's test - after all, she could've let Kerry go at any point up until it went off. Jigsaw couldn't veto her choice or not help and still have it be a fair test. [/spoiler]
never saw them... *wah wah wha waaaahhhh*
i dont mean to sound boast full but i must be the only one i know that worked out the original saw's twist so early in the film it made it annoying to watch that others didn't see it.
[spoiler]the gun was to powerful and would have totally destroyed his head. plus once it was said that he liked to be close to watch that clinched it[/spoiler]