Your opinions on the 'Saw' movies
- Thread starter Mercernary
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I haven't seen the movies, nor am I going to waste my time in bothering to see them. They're waaaay too hyped up for me. Besides, I've actually dreamed up scarier things and seen things in other movies that actually scared me, and I'm not scared easy. I think the Saw franchise has just become a mindless gorefest at this point.
What make me the most frustrated about the Saw franchise is the fact people consider it to be original, but this idea of death trap scenarios has been around for ages, but in all I thought the first one was pretty good despite it's flaws, the second one also pretty good, but after that basically the same outline for the plot.
I've seen most but the fifth and sixth.
Personally, I approve of the first two and think the third is a good way to finish off the series...
but they didn't seem to like that idea, they continued pushing out more and more movies just to ramp up the gore. While the traps got more complex, the story started fixing a trap onto itself in thus that it's become more laughable than the Star Wars prequels.
Personally, I approve of the first two and think the third is a good way to finish off the series...
but they didn't seem to like that idea, they continued pushing out more and more movies just to ramp up the gore. While the traps got more complex, the story started fixing a trap onto itself in thus that it's become more laughable than the Star Wars prequels.
First one was pretty good, second one was meh, third one was more meh and I gave up after the fourth one. I just don't see the point of torture films, and im sure they have their place but I prefer my psychological crime thrillers, give me Se7en any day of the week. But Saw? Ill pass.
He's placing people, for the most part, in a situation where they'll have to go thru great pain or sacrifice something to live, it's his way to make people who are wasting their lives wake up and start living.
I never said he wasn't a freakin' nutjob, but at least it's a little more original than 'I wear a mask and I like stabbing teenagers'.
Seems almost all the time, if you take your punishment, and follow his rules you'll live.
I see him as a psychopathic Derren Brown figure, someone who understands the human mind so well, that he's even managed to map out how things will go...
I'm sure anyone who's seen a few of the movies, or even some of the later movie posters will know that spoiler, but I'm being extra careful because I haven't seen 6 yet, and I'll be most annoyed if I get it spoiled
Always annoyed me how Saw and Hostel got lumped in together as torture porn as sure, Saw was violent, but it had a plot, and a reason, whereas Hostel to me just felt like they were gratuitously filming the torture for kicks, and it was the sole intent of the movie.
I also think if Saw was like Hostel, they'd rely on nudity and sex to draw in the teen demographic, whereas sex is almost irrelevant in the series.
I never said he wasn't a freakin' nutjob, but at least it's a little more original than 'I wear a mask and I like stabbing teenagers'.
Seems almost all the time, if you take your punishment, and follow his rules you'll live.
I see him as a psychopathic Derren Brown figure, someone who understands the human mind so well, that he's even managed to map out how things will go...
long after his death
I'm sure anyone who's seen a few of the movies, or even some of the later movie posters will know that spoiler, but I'm being extra careful because I haven't seen 6 yet, and I'll be most annoyed if I get it spoiled
Always annoyed me how Saw and Hostel got lumped in together as torture porn as sure, Saw was violent, but it had a plot, and a reason, whereas Hostel to me just felt like they were gratuitously filming the torture for kicks, and it was the sole intent of the movie.
I also think if Saw was like Hostel, they'd rely on nudity and sex to draw in the teen demographic, whereas sex is almost irrelevant in the series.
The only SAW movie I've seen was the 10 minute short film that spawned the series. That short was brilliant and creative, but the movies seem to emphasize on the gore which is probably why the studios wanted it in the first place.
First two were good, then the series spireled down to a buch of sick and overthetop gorey traps.
I just saw the new one to see what the big deal was.
It was crap. Liked the
(SPOILERS I guess) commentary on the health care issue(END KIND-OF SPOILERS)
and seeing Eddie Winslow in there was a good laugh, but besides that it was just overplayed on every level.
It was crap. Liked the
(SPOILERS I guess) commentary on the health care issue(END KIND-OF SPOILERS)
and seeing Eddie Winslow in there was a good laugh, but besides that it was just overplayed on every level.
The Saw movies have to be looked at (in my opinion) as a three part story.
Part one is made up by the first Saw movie. It was a gripping psychological thriller without much blood. It had a simple premise that a serial killer was going around killing people because he believed they didnt deserve the life theyve been given, kidnapping them and placing them in traps that could either save or kill them. Jigsaws victims always had a way out, a lesson to be taught. There isnt even much blood in the first Saw movie compared to the others. It was a great movie and great standalone had sequels not been made
Part two is made up by Saw II. It introduced several new characters to the series, and changing the one of the characters from the first film (Amanda Young). It was a great sequel to the first movie, building only a bit on the first Saw movie, while still being an enjoyable experience to watch.
Part three is more complicated. It is made up by Saws III-VI. Saws III, IV, and V can all be considered the same film told at different times by different people. (Spoilers for anyone who hasnt seen them yet ahead) Saws III and IV take place in the same time frame (which was the one of the big twists at the end of Saw IV.) Saw V takes place only a few hours after Saw IV and can more or less be considered part of the past two films, as it ties up some loose ends from them. Saw VI can be considered the macabre epilogue to the Saw series, finally explaining Jigsaw's overall plan throughout the entire series.
In my opinion Saws I and II were excellent films which all fans of this genre must see. That said, I would rather see Saws III-VI edited together into one single film that eliiminates many of the unneeded scenes and subplots from these films (such as the entire trap subplot in Saw V as well as the bloody trap scenes in Saw VI). Also, I would rather focus on Reinhart and Rigg's storylines from Saws III and IV than going into extreme detail in Amanda Youngs traps from the early scenes in Saw III. In that way we can get a much better (and yes albiet much longer) version of Saw III that we can call the end of a trilogy of the movies. If they wanted to extend the series to six parts, they should have focused more on story than gory traps.
As a whole, I enjoyed the Saw series. the latter four simply bored me a bit when it came to showing the traps, not all of which were needed. I focus on the story of a film and Jigsaw's story keeps my attention better that the story of five victims continually turning on each other throughout the story of Saw V, a plot which ultimately did not need to be shown to affect the plot of the film.
I know ive droned on for a while, i just felt i should offer this view on it as many people simply dismiss the Saw films using the slanderous term "torture porn" to describe it rather than "enjoyable entertainment experience".
Part one is made up by the first Saw movie. It was a gripping psychological thriller without much blood. It had a simple premise that a serial killer was going around killing people because he believed they didnt deserve the life theyve been given, kidnapping them and placing them in traps that could either save or kill them. Jigsaws victims always had a way out, a lesson to be taught. There isnt even much blood in the first Saw movie compared to the others. It was a great movie and great standalone had sequels not been made
Part two is made up by Saw II. It introduced several new characters to the series, and changing the one of the characters from the first film (Amanda Young). It was a great sequel to the first movie, building only a bit on the first Saw movie, while still being an enjoyable experience to watch.
Part three is more complicated. It is made up by Saws III-VI. Saws III, IV, and V can all be considered the same film told at different times by different people. (Spoilers for anyone who hasnt seen them yet ahead) Saws III and IV take place in the same time frame (which was the one of the big twists at the end of Saw IV.) Saw V takes place only a few hours after Saw IV and can more or less be considered part of the past two films, as it ties up some loose ends from them. Saw VI can be considered the macabre epilogue to the Saw series, finally explaining Jigsaw's overall plan throughout the entire series.
In my opinion Saws I and II were excellent films which all fans of this genre must see. That said, I would rather see Saws III-VI edited together into one single film that eliiminates many of the unneeded scenes and subplots from these films (such as the entire trap subplot in Saw V as well as the bloody trap scenes in Saw VI). Also, I would rather focus on Reinhart and Rigg's storylines from Saws III and IV than going into extreme detail in Amanda Youngs traps from the early scenes in Saw III. In that way we can get a much better (and yes albiet much longer) version of Saw III that we can call the end of a trilogy of the movies. If they wanted to extend the series to six parts, they should have focused more on story than gory traps.
As a whole, I enjoyed the Saw series. the latter four simply bored me a bit when it came to showing the traps, not all of which were needed. I focus on the story of a film and Jigsaw's story keeps my attention better that the story of five victims continually turning on each other throughout the story of Saw V, a plot which ultimately did not need to be shown to affect the plot of the film.
I know ive droned on for a while, i just felt i should offer this view on it as many people simply dismiss the Saw films using the slanderous term "torture porn" to describe it rather than "enjoyable entertainment experience".
I'm pissed off that the thoughts of the writer portrayed in the film would land a normal guy in a lunatic asylum/prison, yet making a film of them grants him immunity, classes him as a genius and makes him millions.
I write about torture in the book I've been writing for years now and people think I need help.
I write about torture in the book I've been writing for years now and people think I need help.
I like them because they're mostly cleverly thought out (stories and the "games")
Not because they're a gore fest like people would assume.
Not because they're a gore fest like people would assume.