CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › SAW 3D Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SAW 3D Discussion

post #1 of 66
9/13/10 at 5:43pm
Thread Starter 
(I don't think this needs a pre and a post-release thread, so lets put both of it in here. I heard first screenings will be held this month. so we'll get reviews really soon.)

So, this is the seventh, obviously not final movie, but at least it's said to end this one basic storyline for good. Dr. Gordon is finally back and we'll see how Hoffman tries to take revenge on Jill. I think it'll do every fan service that saw all movies (and especially liked the last one), but I don't think it will be that cruelly ignoring like the others. From 2 on, none of them even tried to explain shit, so if you didn't see or remember the earlier flicks, you were pretty much fucked. No narrations, no texts. Without knowledge, every movie looked like useless chains of gruesome deaths, kinda like the Final Destination movies in "taking itself way too serious. And it didn't help that IV and V sucked.

I seriously expect this to be the ROCKY BALBOA of Saw movies, meaning that right now it's advertised with the story out of focus, aiming for everyone that maybe saw Saw 1 or 2 and didn't bother with the additional sequels. I'm convinced it'll be enough to see Saw for Saw 3D to make sense.

But what's your stance? Indifference? Still annoyed but at least expecting some fun 3D gore? Or actual interest in how they're trying to tie all of it up? With all these flashbacks and padded backstories it kinda feels like LOST. Let's just hope they don't hold hands and walk into the light.
Reply
post #2 of 66
9/13/10 at 5:48pm
I hope they're true to their word and never make another one, even though I know in my heart that they will
Reply
post #3 of 66
9/13/10 at 6:06pm
Also, and maybe I'm just misreading your post, but what makes the FINAL DESTINATION series better than SAW (even if they're still not great movies) is that they don't take themselves too seriously. There's an infectious glee going on there.
Reply
post #4 of 66
9/13/10 at 6:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Benenson View Post
I hope they're true to their word and never make another one, even though I know in my heart that they will
I still believe anyone who thinks this is not really listening. They all want to use the "Final Chapter" argument, but III was their "Final Chapter", where they claimed it was over because it was creatively at a stopping point, and the story was done.

I believe they're done because the producers took a financial hit last year and all things considered I wonder if they'll actually rebound that much this year. The producers are pretty straight about saying that they think they've beat this dead horse as much as they can, so unless this one's a box office miracle, I believe they're done. (In theaters, anyway. DTV is a different beast, I could see more DTV sequels because they can brand anything with the Saw name if they really want to.)

I love the series as the modern Friday the 13th. I get great enjoyment of trying to follow the series' increasingly convoluted chronology and retconning. I've seen every one on opening day or earlier (starting with the first, which I saw prior to opening, with James Wan and Leigh Whannell in attendance). I hope this is a good conclusion. Cary Elwes fuels my anticipation, as well as the return of Kevin Greutert, as VI was the best of the sequels.

I would care more about the Final Destination series in comparison if the third hadn't been lacking and the fourth hadn't outright sucked. I mean, yeah, most people would say the Saw series sucks too, and I wouldn't go too far to defend them, but I can speak for myself, and they don't bore me.
Reply
post #5 of 66
9/13/10 at 6:45pm
You've got me there, I'm not listening - I don't like these movies, so I'm not reading articles about them or interviews with the filmmakers or anything. I based that statement on the marketing and the fact that the movies do still have fans, diminishing returns or not. But if that's really truly the case I'm glad.
Reply
post #6 of 66
9/13/10 at 6:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler Foster View Post
I believe they're done because the producers took a financial hit last year and all things considered I wonder if they'll actually rebound that much this year. The producers are pretty straight about saying that they think they've beat this dead horse as much as they can, so unless this one's a box office miracle, I believe they're done.
Considering how cheap these films are, I am certain that SAW VI made a profit last year. I do agree that the series is a dead horse though.
Reply
post #7 of 66
9/13/10 at 6:58pm
I like how movie six tackled for-profit health insurance companies. I hope the seventh film goes after the Tea Party movement.
Reply
post #8 of 66
9/13/10 at 7:08pm
Having recently watched all of the SAW films finally, I have come to the conclusion that the biggest flaw of the series isn't the gratuitous torture, or the ludicrous, labyrinthine retconning, or Jigsaw's utterly flawed moral posturing and philosophy -- it's the way the whole thing is structured. It's structured like an ongoing TV narrative, like 24 with graphic torture. But the problem is, unless you watch all of the previous films before the new one comes out, you completely forget important story developments, neutering the impact of the big reveals. Half the time they're revealing that something from the previous SIX FILMS wasn't what I thought it was, I'd already forgotten it. The whole franchise is flawed in its design.
Reply
post #9 of 66
9/14/10 at 12:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Benenson View Post
There's an infectious glee going on there.
Which means dick if the movie is as utterly terrible as The Final Destination. That flick is worse than friggin' Saw V.
Reply
post #10 of 66
9/14/10 at 12:40am
No, even in that instance it means it's fun to watch in a stupid b-movie way. Not very fun, mind you, but not a dreary slog. But I actually do think the SAW movies have a shred of "so bad it's good" appeal with all the convoluted plotting, I'm just sick of them dominating the Halloween season (and that's already been getting better).

Do I sense a little my franchise is better than yours butthurtery there? I'm not trying to start shit or champion the FINAL DESTINATION series, just stating why I've personally enjoyed watching one set of bad movies slightly more than another.
Reply
post #11 of 66
9/14/10 at 3:02am
Neither is my franchise. I don't have a stake. I like the first three FD movies. I just think it's silly to say Final Destination is automatically better because it isn't serious. The last flick was dreadful and dull, regardless of its tone.
Reply
post #12 of 66
9/14/10 at 3:09am
I'm not saying it's automatically better, I'm saying that from experience I've enjoyed watching those movies because they are not serious, including the most recent one (though to a much lesser extent. The second is by far the best).
Reply
post #13 of 66
9/14/10 at 4:03am
The last Final Destination movie (minus the 3D) is unwatchable dreck. The last Saw movie is at least watchable dreck.

I like the other Final Destination movies though.
Reply
post #14 of 66
9/14/10 at 4:45am
What's this? Subjective tastes!?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post
Having recently watched all of the SAW films finally, I have come to the conclusion that the biggest flaw of the series isn't the gratuitous torture, or the ludicrous, labyrinthine retconning, or Jigsaw's utterly flawed moral posturing and philosophy -- it's the way the whole thing is structured. It's structured like an ongoing TV narrative, like 24 with graphic torture. But the problem is, unless you watch all of the previous films before the new one comes out, you completely forget important story developments, neutering the impact of the big reveals. Half the time they're revealing that something from the previous SIX FILMS wasn't what I thought it was, I'd already forgotten it. The whole franchise is flawed in its design.
I don't really think that's true. The movies tend to do a competent enough job in showing the audience where these new reveals fit within the timeline. I'd argue you just don't really give a shit enough to remember any of the specifics. Plus the amount of retconning and blank filling is just silly and convoluted (so are attempts at a coherent philosophy for Jigsaw), so I don't quite see why someone not particularly devoted would be blown away by the reveals. That crazy adherence to the overall narrative is for the fourteen year old kid that watches these movies every other week, and is always trying to introduce it to new friends. You've never seen Saw IV!? They'll eventually grow up and realise how most of these are terrible, except for X of course, and Y is second best because it has the best kill, and be all nostalgic about it like many grown up folks of today are about Nightmare and Friday.
Reply
post #15 of 66
9/14/10 at 5:48am
The first two FINAL DESTINATION movies are better than anything in the SAW canon. One poor sequel doesn't invalidate the whole franchise.
Reply
post #16 of 66
9/14/10 at 6:01am
And the second two are as good as anything in the Saw canon.

Or maybe they're not really comaparable since the Saw films insist on taking themselves so seriously and The Final Destination films are allowed to be fun and entertaining in a way the Saw films won't attempt. The Final Destinations films are inherently more energetic films. You have to be way into the mythology to get the same level of entertainment out of the Saw films, and even then it's not a fun! kind of entertainment.

ETA: Hmm, I'm not going to change comaparable because it should be a word.
Reply
post #17 of 66
9/14/10 at 9:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Dnim View Post
The Final Destination films are allowed to be fun and entertaining in a way the Saw films won't attempt. You have to be way into the mythology to get the same level of entertainment out of the Saw films, and even then it's not a fun! kind of entertainment.
This I won't give you.

I think the Saw films are totally fun, without necessarily enjoying the mythology, but that's because I enjoy them simultaneously as films and as movies that exist in the real world (like I assume most people enjoy a Friday the 13th or a Nightmare movie). Like the beginning of the Saw III, in which Donnie Wahlberg smashes his foot, I was laughing quite a bit, because as not funny as it is, it's also designed to get a rise out of the audience in a way that I find funny. I'm sure "clever" is going to be a loaded word for everyone but I think they're clever, and it's usually in this way that they're clever: the ways they goose the audience into a reaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Dnim View Post
The Final Destinations films are inherently more energetic films.
But this is true.
Reply
post #18 of 66
9/14/10 at 10:25am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Dnim View Post
They'll eventually grow up and realise how most of these are terrible, except for X of course, and Y is second best because it has the best kill, and be all nostalgic about it like many grown up folks of today are about Nightmare and Friday.
So, nostalgic fans of these actually think that those are good movies?

The question here is the definition of terrible. Unwatchable dreck like, say, Vampires Suck, or just not that good? Many tend to lose interest in watching all kinds of movies and only want to see good movies from then on. Of couse, this way anything that's below a 5/10 descends into a waste of time when earlier, one watched everything just for the sake of having seen stuff.

But I wouldn't say that the personal decision of not wanting to see everything anymore is a sign of growing up. Many franchise sequels are sub par, but I think, most already know it when they saw it for the first time. I'm not talking about the hardcore fans that are in franchise-centric message boards and count thousands of posts on IMDB, but most of us already knew back in the day that Jason goes to Manhattan sucked - as a movie. Still, what's wrong about having a soft spot for it? It's goodwill out of nostalgia, right, but I don't think people wrongfully see quality where there's none.
Reply
post #19 of 66
9/14/10 at 10:37am
I wonder if that Amanda After Credits scene in SAW VI will make a reappearance here?
Reply
post #20 of 66
9/14/10 at 12:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler Foster View Post
Like the beginning of the Saw III, in which Donnie Wahlberg smashes his foot, I was laughing quite a bit, because as not funny as it is, it's also designed to get a rise out of the audience in a way that I find funny. I'm sure "clever" is going to be a loaded word for everyone but I think they're clever, and it's usually in this way that they're clever: the ways they goose the audience into a reaction. But this is true.
I doubt the filmmakers intended you to laugh at Donnie Wahlberg brutalizing himself to escape. You're supposed to take it serious within the context of the film. You're getting entertainment out of seeing the director's hand so blatantly attempt to manipulate the audience. Which can be fun, but you've divorced yourself from the context of the film to enjoy the moment and acknowledge the movie making technique. I do agree people enjoy Friday and Nightmare in a similar fashion, but they're in the same category as a Final Destination type of flick. The kills are the point. I think the Saw films are intended by their makers to be more than just their kills.

They put a lot of effort into overall plot and attempting to establish Jigsaw as having some legitimate philosophical/moral stance. And I think that's what keeps them from being fun in the same way a Final Destination film tries to be. The kills haven't been allowed to dominate series. They're an important part of branding the series, but don't seem to be treated as the point by the makers.

They do attempt to be clever with their kills (even if coming off as labored now and then--drowning in rotted pig carcasses), but they haven't let the kills dominate the movies, or descend into self parody. It doesn't try to be openly in on the joke. It's still within the context of the film taken serious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Myers View Post
etc...
Not really sure what you're going on about here. You seem to be arguing against something I'm not saying.

Edit: I think I see what you're saying. I'm talking about the kids that are real into it. Those who don't see deficiencies because they're not discriminating yet. And I'm not saying there is anything wrong with having a soft spot for these movies. Everyone has a weaknesses for something but that doesn't mean being unaware that some of the movies of your past probably aren't as solid as they seemed when you were less discriminating.
Reply
post #21 of 66
9/14/10 at 12:58pm
I wouldn't label the Saw films unwatchable dreck. I'm not a fan personally, and I think are ludicrous and overly serious, but they are films to which some thought has been given, Maybe too much thought. People dismiss them as stupid torture films, as did I before I watched them, but in truth the series is a police procedural/mystery with torture elements thrown in to add "thrills". It's SEVEN the tv show, but you get to see the victim's tortured in rube goldbergian traps and it's not a tv show. My point is that if you dig that premise, the series is watchable, and within the parameters of it's own silly universe it's not stupid.
Reply
post #22 of 66
9/14/10 at 1:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Dnim View Post
I doubt the filmmakers intended you to laugh at Donnie Wahlberg brutalizing himself to escape. You're supposed to take it serious within the context of the film. You're getting entertainment out of seeing the director's hand so blatantly attempt to manipulate the audience. Which can be fun, but you've divorced yourself from the context of the film to enjoy the moment and acknowledge the movie making technique. I do agree people enjoy Friday and Nightmare in a similar fashion, but they're in the same category as a Final Destination type of flick. The kills are the point. I think the Saw films are intended by their makers to be more than just their kills.

They put a lot of effort into overall plot and attempting to establish Jigsaw as having some legitimate philosophical/moral stance. And I think that's what keeps them from being fun in the same way a Final Destination film tries to be. The kills haven't been allowed to dominate series. They're an important part of branding the series, but don't seem to be treated as the point by the makers.

They do attempt to be clever with their kills (even if coming off as labored now and then--drowning in rotted pig carcasses), but they haven't let the kills dominate the movies, or descend into self parody. It doesn't try to be openly in on the joke. It's still within the context of the film taken serious.
I would say that yes, the filmmakers would like you to take it a little seriously, in the sense that they want you to care about the story and characters, but disagree that anyone thinks anybody buys into Jigsaw's blather. You don't have to take Jason's "no sex no drugs no drinking" stance to enjoy a Friday the 13th.

I feel like Saw III was the one where you and I would agree the most. Saw III gets really bogged down in Jeff's mopey story about his dead kid, and as a result the movie is very moody and depressing because it spends so much time watching Jeff wail in despair. But that close-up of the dude forcing his sewn-shut mouth open right before the Saw IV title card? That's a total hand-buzzer jab moment in my book. I think most horror fans watch slasher horror in the same half-aware half-engaged way I was describing, and I think the series plays to the fans.
Reply
post #23 of 66
9/15/10 at 12:26am
Saw III's the reason I defend the series, and why the "Final Destination is more awesome 'cause of the LOLz" argument annoys me. Final Destination -- the sequels, at least, the first is pretty serious -- just sets up on a variety of gags and delivers on the punchline. Saw III, even if you hate it, is actually trying to be a drama. It's a movie about a guy getting over the death of his child. It's about a bunch of pissed off parents (Jeff at the man who killed his son, Jigsaw at Amanda for fucking with his legacy) dealing with their issues.

Even if you think that movie is a bore (and many do), I'll take an honest-to-God attempt at being interesting over silly slasher gags any day of the week. I love the fact that the kills in Saw aren't particularly important. It's why I love Halloween and hate most of the Friday the 13ths. Gore is maybe the least interesting thing in film to me. Whenever Saw stops to put a nameless guy in a torture device, I get bored.
Reply
post #24 of 66
9/15/10 at 12:37am
Saw III is one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life. If Saw III is the reason you defend the series, I apologize for apologizing about questioning your taste. There is an art to a Final Destination gag that isn't present in the awful screeching noise that is Saw III.
Reply
post #25 of 66
9/15/10 at 12:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
There is an art to a Final Destination gag that isn't present in the awful screeching noise that is Saw III.
Was that art completely missing in The Final Destination? I'm serious, here -- I remember that film being an utter chore to sit through and a failure on just about every level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
If Saw III is the reason you defend the series, I apologize for apologizing about questioning your taste.
It'll be hard, but somehow I'll find the strength to move on with my life even with your disapproval.
Reply
post #26 of 66
9/15/10 at 3:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post
Saw III's the reason I defend the series, and why the "Final Destination is more awesome 'cause of the LOLz" argument annoys me. Final Destination -- the sequels, at least, the first is pretty serious -- just sets up on a variety of gags and delivers on the punchline. Saw III, even if you hate it, is actually trying to be a drama. It's a movie about a guy getting over the death of his child. It's about a bunch of pissed off parents (Jeff at the man who killed his son, Jigsaw at Amanda for fucking with his legacy) dealing with their issues.

Even if you think that movie is a bore (and many do), I'll take an honest-to-God attempt at being interesting over silly slasher gags any day of the week. I love the fact that the kills in Saw aren't particularly important. It's why I love Halloween and hate most of the Friday the 13ths. Gore is maybe the least interesting thing in film to me. Whenever Saw stops to put a nameless guy in a torture device, I get bored.
But... this is almost exactly what we've been talking about. It takes itself too seriously and tries to be something more than it is, more than what the filmmakers are capable of achieving, and it falls short. Maybe it has noble intentions (which I'm not convinced of, I think the only reason the movies exist is for the kills and the "dude it's all so fucked up!" factor) but in terms of enjoyment I'd rather watch a movie that knows and embraces what it is and excels at it.
Reply
post #27 of 66
9/15/10 at 5:30am
Indeed. Trying to be a serious drama means shit when said serious drama is badly acted, nonsensically plotted and features hilariously OTT "death traps".

EDIT: Holy shit you think the kills in SAW aren't important. They're only the entire reason the franchise exists.
Reply
post #28 of 66
9/15/10 at 2:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jigsaw
"Death is a surprise party...unless you're already dead on the inside."
Pretty sure Saw III is the crowning dramatic achievement of all time up until this point.
Reply
post #29 of 66
9/15/10 at 4:26pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Benenson View Post
But... this is almost exactly what we've been talking about. It takes itself too seriously and tries to be something more than it is, more than what the filmmakers are capable of achieving, and it falls short.
But maybe you just think they want to be something they can't be. I don't think Wan and Whannell ever thought their Saw was as good as Se7en. Maybe rabid fans do, but not them. I really doubt they see their franchise as an intelligent, remarkable entry... just being simply more than the typical slasher, and given that most slashers are stupid killings, that can't be too much. Wan followed it with Death Sentence and Dead Silence, a typical revenge and a typical ghost story. There's no sign of him trying to be that much more than a solid genre director.

What I see is that people think Saw sees itself as Aronofsky material, fails at that and thus gets unfairly treated as being in the same league as FearDotCom. Compare the movies to other "serious" recent flicks like The Collector, Paranormal Activity, Wrestlemaniac, Against the Dark, The Unborn, Rob Zombies Halloween rapes, Whiteout, Case 39, Laid to Rest, Rest Stop, the ANOES remake, Reeker. Aren't the Saw flicks at least as good as those and better than some of them? None of them seeks to be stupid fun like FD4 and I can't see those guys doing a more competent job. I'm not saying that they're cream of the crop - they're still beneath stuff like Splice, sure, but in the last bunch of years there was tons of worse material.

The tapes and traps and philosophies may feel goofy, but that always depends on how serious you take it. I think you could have said the same about the Friday flicks in the 80ies. You could've argued that if they want to be funny, then fuck, go all the way and be full-on comedy in the likes of Mel Brooks or Leslie Nielsen. At least parts 1-4 want to be taken seriously, but not as seriously as say The Shining. The mask, the random killings and ki-ki-ki were as goofy as the tapes and traps today - but only if you saw them like that. I just don't think any of the Saws or Fridays warrant a clear fuck you of of 10.
Reply
post #30 of 66
9/15/10 at 7:42pm
I don't even know how to begin to unpack everything you're saying. In no way do I believe the SAW movies are trying to be Aronofsky. Their aspirations are much lower than that and they still fall short. They are easily in the same ballpark as FEARDOTCOM, maybe a notch or two up at best. They're worse than many of those films you listed, although you're talking about a wide range of quality and some films that don't really have anything in common to compare.

I'll just restate this one more time and then I'm done with this argument, since I think we're primarily arguing about subjective personal tastes: if I'm watching a movie that is shit, I'd rather it be fun shit, not dour, self-serious shit. That's why I'm generally not a fan of the SAW series; they're bad movies, and not the fun kind.
Reply
post #31 of 66
9/15/10 at 11:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Benenson View Post
I'll just restate this one more time and then I'm done with this argument, since I think we're primarily arguing about subjective personal tastes: if I'm watching a movie that is shit, I'd rather it be fun shit, not dour, self-serious shit. That's why I'm generally not a fan of the SAW series; they're bad movies, and not the fun kind.
And I would still counter that fun is subjective. Even taking the meta-argument out of it I really don't think they're that dour. But I'm also basically desensitized to violence in movies.

At the very least, the argument can be made that the last one is not dour. Jigsaw going after a health insurance guy for denying him coverage is pretty clearly a joke, and every trap in the movie is a riff on it.
Reply
post #32 of 66
9/15/10 at 11:14pm
Of course it's subjective, I never said otherwise. In fact I pretty clearly stated in the post you quoted that we're talking about subjective personal tastes. Everything I said was my perspective, not something I believe to be fact. But isn't that pretty much a given here? I didn't think we needed to include a disclaimer.
Reply
post #33 of 66
9/15/10 at 11:33pm
I've been watching the Saw movies every year (strangely enough, I've only seen the even numbered ones in the theater, which will change once I see Saw 3D in October in the theater) and I don't think they're "deep" movies, but the traps and Costas Mandylor's increasingly large role have had me really liking them. I didn't like Saw V all that much the first time that I saw it, but it's grown on me, and part VI was great for the Healthcare subplot, and having a bunch of the plot threads answered.
Reply
post #34 of 66
9/16/10 at 11:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Benenson View Post
Of course it's subjective, I never said otherwise. In fact I pretty clearly stated in the post you quoted that we're talking about subjective personal tastes. Everything I said was my perspective, not something I believe to be fact. But isn't that pretty much a given here? I didn't think we needed to include a disclaimer.
Well, I guess I was reacting less to your positive/negative opinion of the series and more to your statement (which reads more like you're taking it as a given) that the series was dour.
Reply
post #35 of 66
10/28/10 at 10:58am
Apparently there's nothing to see in this entry as well. Found this site that spoiled the entire movie. It's all by the numbers. No big revealations or anything. Only that a certain character from the first film returns for this one last twist.
Reply
post #36 of 66
10/28/10 at 3:37pm
Not being a proud acheivement, I have seen all 7 entries. The first Saw is not a bad film at all, neither is the 2nd. The 3rd film, was decent, and ended fine. 4 and 5 were both utter pieces of shit. 6 was a little better. 7 is basically the same quality as 6, and yes... SPOILER, Cary Elwes is back, and turns out to be Jigsaws, Super triple probation, Apprentice... meh, 3-D was Shite too...
Reply
post #37 of 66
10/29/10 at 12:51am
Final chapter my ass. There's no reason to have two other pig guys with Gordon other than to set up a sequel.

Thought it was fun. First hour was standard Saw (Dagen is not a very engaging protagonist), but it just goes off-the-rails fun when Hoffman turns into the Terminator going after Jill.
Reply
post #38 of 66
10/29/10 at 3:02am
Like with every film I'm not planning to see but have a vague curiosity about, I read through the plot on Wikipedia. So about that ending...

Seriously? They end the film by locking a dude in that same bathroom from the first film AGAIN? lol
Reply
post #39 of 66
10/29/10 at 4:04am
Yeah. It's the total fanboy ending, because the bathroom hasn't been seen in something like four films.
Reply
post #40 of 66
10/29/10 at 7:42am
I love how every asshole who survives being maimed and brutalised by Jigsaw suddenly sees his philosophy as just and true. These films are fucked.
Reply
post #41 of 66
10/29/10 at 8:46am
No, Andrew, one-armed black girl clearly makes a passionate argument for the other side.
Reply
post #42 of 66
10/29/10 at 8:58am
I'd like someone to just dismantle Jigsaw and his acolytes, completely. Tear them down, counter their crappy nonsense games and masks, and so on. This series needs an Ahab, then it might be halfway bearable.
Reply
post #43 of 66
10/29/10 at 9:16am
The games just don't make any sense anymore. At least in the first 2 films, there was at least some chance of beating them (which is the point really).
Reply
post #44 of 66
10/29/10 at 12:35pm
This is one of the few English movies playing in Taiwan right now, so that kind of means I need to see it by default. But to do that, I'm going to have to watch Saw 4, 5, & 6. I watched the first three all in one night a few years ago. They were bad, but not nearly as bad as I'd heard. I have little interest in watching four movies where Jigsaw is dead, though.

I guess what I'm asking is, do they make that big goddamn Jigsaw statue or what?
Reply
post #45 of 66
10/29/10 at 12:40pm
No. And not a single goddamn trap comes alive.
Reply
post #46 of 66
10/29/10 at 12:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post
I'd like someone to just dismantle Jigsaw and his acolytes, completely. Tear them down, counter their crappy nonsense games and masks, and so on. This series needs an Ahab, then it might be halfway bearable.
Ya know I would actually watch that movie. It would be cool to see someone just as smart go against team jigsaw. I mean whatever scares it had are long gone why not do something different. Changing the formula can't possibly hurt it now. Hell I haven't watched since 4 I think but this might get me to pick it back up.
Reply
post #47 of 66
10/29/10 at 2:08pm
Going to see this later in the evening. Sounds like Hoffman is still awesome, which is good, since he's the main reason I've been liking these last few films. Aside from the nifty traps of course, which from what I've seen and read, are pretty damn nasty this time around.
Reply
post #48 of 66
10/29/10 at 8:11pm
If you like Hoffman, the last twenty minutes of this movie will make you gleeful.
Reply
post #49 of 66
10/29/10 at 8:26pm
Somebody likes Hoffman? Dullest movie villain ever.
Reply
post #50 of 66
10/29/10 at 9:05pm
You hold your tongue. Mark Hoffman is a saint.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › SAW 3D Discussion