|
|
Post by Quorthon on Mar 17, 2005 9:26:26 GMT -5
spacer, I agree with you that surprise is extremely good for a movie, albiet, rare as hell these days. And it's been said, "get 'em with the ending, and you've sold them the movie." But--and LivingDeadGirl, you might want to skip the rest of this if you want Saw's ending to still be new to you--while I liked the fact that Saw's ending caught me off guard, I got to thinking about it (pretty quickly) and was pissed off about it by the time my wife and I got to my truck.
Sure, it was a surprise, but, dammit, it was beyond realistic or feasible. If two guys were trapped in a little old public restroom for 6 hours with the killer pretending to be dead on the floor, at some point they would've noticed something about the guy still being alive. I was insulted that we were just supposed to believe this crap. The surprise, seriously, didn't work for me. Frankly, because I need to get to bed pretty soon, I'm holding back a lot--I really had issues with Saw, and each time I think about it, I dislike that movie a little more.
Only recently in my life (last couple years) believability and logic have become a big part of how I percieve a movie--even if it's a crazy-assed Science Fiction film. Stuff like Toxic Avenger, however, I understand to not only suspend belief and logic, but to pretend such things don't exist at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix on Mar 18, 2005 11:41:27 GMT -5
I agree totally w/what Quorthon said about ending, but here is my problem with Saw:
SPOILER ALERT!
You never actually see someone 'saw' through their leg. I mean, they couldn't hire a make-up effects artist to do that? The movie is called 'SAW'! He starts to saw through his pants - the director cuts away - and suddenly his pants are longer and there is a poorly made rubber foot laying next to him. C'MON! I was pissed. I mean if you are going to bombard me with shitty acting at least give me something to gross me out. I guess they spent all their budget on make-up with the girl w/the headpiece scene?
|
|
|
|
Post by LivingDeadGirl on Mar 18, 2005 20:37:33 GMT -5
*SPOILERS*
I finally saw this a couple of weeks ago so I can add my two-cents worth! ;D
First off, so I won't be repeating...I agree w/ everything Pheonix said above, esp. about the bad acting (which REALLY disappointed me coming from Cary Elwes) & the awful make-up. It could've been good, great even, but nothing worked, at least not for me. Not even the ending, which using all the suspension of disbelief that I have, I still didn't buy it. How could you be locked up in a room for that long & not realize the guy isn't dead? I mean, I know they were a bit pre-occupied but still...I just couldn't believe it.
I thought Taking Lives (which I just saw recently also) was a lot better than this one. It was def. more believable & the ending was a lot better.
|
|
|
|
Post by spacer on Mar 21, 2005 3:38:47 GMT -5
Is it the case of a bad movie that I hopelessly love?  Bad acting, especially Cary Elwes.
It was't that bad come on.The problem with the ending insulting the viewerQuorton wrote: Sure, it was a surprise, but, dammit, it was beyond realistic or feasible. If two guys were trapped in a little old public restroom for 6 hours with the killer pretending to be dead on the floor, at some point they would've noticed something about the guy still being alive. I was insulted that we were just supposed to believe this crap.
Well, you know it bugged me too. At first, I accepted it as the other things you take without asking in horror like the numerous ending scenes where the villain that is shredded and torn to pieces, devoid of blood and sometimes other vital organs suddenly stands up again to hit for the last time. That's not credible stuff too.
But then, I began to think how to resolve this prettily hard problem. And there is the way to solve it and to prove that it is possible and feasible.
I devised how to explain the fact that the man is lying down there and that he is not recognised as living without resorting to supernatural forces.
But I won't tell you now as probably you will quicly come up with this idea too.
I wait for your ideas how to explain this seemingly incredible ending. Remember don't resort to supernatural forces ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Mar 21, 2005 15:29:40 GMT -5
spacer: you saw Saw? Already? I am impressed - and feel inferior, too! It's been in Polish cinemas for several weeks now and I, a self-proclaimed lover of violent cinema, still haven't seen it!
|
|
|
|
Post by spacer on Mar 22, 2005 2:52:46 GMT -5
spacer: you saw Saw? Already? I am impressed - and feel inferior, too! It's been in Polish cinemas for several weeks now and I, a self-proclaimed lover of violent cinema, still haven't seen it! And I Saw it in Bielsko in Kinoplex next to your place ;D I'd got free tickets and it was a premiere. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by LivingDeadGirl on Mar 22, 2005 18:57:17 GMT -5
Bad acting, especially Cary Elwes.
It was't that bad come on. IMO, it was. I've seen him do much, much better work. Maybe it just made it seem worse b/c the movie as a whole was pretty bad. I dunno...he just seemed uninspired to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Termination on Mar 28, 2005 10:41:57 GMT -5
SAW wasn't that great, but wasn't that bad either. If it were not for a twist ending, I probably would have been more disappointed with this flick. btw, the version out now is supposedly the Edited cut.
|
|
|
|
Post by spacer on Apr 1, 2005 4:01:10 GMT -5
SAW wasn't that great, but wasn't that bad either. If it were not for a twist ending, I probably would have been more disappointed with this flick. btw, the version out now is supposedly the Edited cut. Nice to hear I am not the only one who liked this movie. Going back to the question of the ending that as LDG and Quorthon said was insultive to the viewer I can tell you that it isn't really ;D SPOILERS AHEAD!!!What if he is not pretending? What if he is really paralysed or in a state of temporary coma? (by means of taking a specific drug) Remember that the observer (the orderly) was doing all the surveillance and he could easily electrocute the guy who pretended to be dead. Remember that the bad guy was seriously and terminally ill and that his brain was seriously infected by the tumours too (the scene with the doctor and orderly) so it is believable that his body reactions were quite unnatural so in this scenario even paralysis is not required. But to me the version with paralysis is better because a conscious human is breathing in a distinct way so they should notice it easily. |
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Apr 20, 2005 0:28:31 GMT -5
RETORT AHEAD!!
And, er, SPOILERS AGAIN!!!
True, that the killerman was in the hospital, but with no explanation I just interpreted it as his faking it in order to set up his wacky killing ensemble.
What if he is really paralysed or in a state of temporary coma? (by means of taking a specific drug)
Remember that the observer (the orderly) was doing all the surveillance and he could easily electrocute the guy who pretended to be dead.
Remember that the bad guy was seriously and terminally ill and that his brain was seriously infected by the tumours too (the scene with the doctor and orderly)
so it is believable that his body reactions were quite unnatural so in this scenario even paralysis is not required.
But to me the version with paralysis is better because a conscious human is breathing in a distinct way so they should notice it easily.
Unfortunately, in the world of filmmaking, "if you don't see it explained or acted out, it didn't happen" is a rule that motion pictures are made with. It's for continuity--and without continuity, a story can't be followed by the audience. The viewer can't be forced to assume things that are unassumable. If we see someone purchasing a plane ticket, it's safe to assume they have money for it. But if someone is laying on a floor playing dead, we aren't really allowed the luxory of assuming that he took drugs to reach a state of near-death for believability. That kind of thing would require an explanation.
Overall, I think Saw's script was sloppy and the direction was uninspired--or unskilled, pick one.
As for the "Theatrical version was the edited version," well, these days, I have less and less faith in "Unrated Director's Cuts." Too many are for PG-13 films, which, how much more violent/sexy/verbally offensive could an unrated version of a PG-13 film be? And, with rare exception (as in Alien 3, and Aliens to a lesser extent) these alternate versions are almost exactly the same as the theatrical releases.
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Mar 31, 2010 9:55:01 GMT -5
I'd vote for Resident Evil: Apocalypse. Outside of the greatness Sci-Fi Channel gave us that year, it was one of the only films that was actually any good. The Grudge was really good, but R-rated zombie gore beats out PG-13 ghost jumps. Everything else isn't worth mentioning.
|
|
