|
|
Post by 42ndstreetfreak on Nov 20, 2005 9:38:00 GMT -5
"Saw" was lot's of fun.
Watched "Saw 2" last night at the cinema - After getting rid of a prick who insisted (even after being told by staff) to talk loudly on his mobile phone by hurling popcorn at him and yelling "shut the fuck up! Or i'll make you fucking eat it"...I sat down with mu good lady wife to watch this little treat.
Nasty, violent and with some excellent twists. The actual 'Saw Nasty Devices' in this seemed rather tacked on and of no real aid to the plot (the 'wrist grabbing box' really seemed shoved in simply to have a trap in the film at that point) but eveything else was spot on. GREAT end as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by spacer on Feb 3, 2006 7:21:27 GMT -5
Sorry to disappoint you Quorth and to make your old wounds bleeding again but I want to remind everyone that I was the only one who said that Saw was a good flick that I enjoyed it and it was Quorth indeed who was the only one to agree with some of my positive non-mainstream forum opinions about the Saw. ;D I Saw the sequel and it was even better than the original but there wasn't such a huge difference, in my opinion ;D, between those two flicks in the matter of their cinema merit as all of you say. But yes indeed the ending of the sequel was much more believable and reliable. P.S. Quorth must be already sharpening his beloved items that is: long curved knife, razor, Ax, tomahawk and finally his fave bayonet. Charge bayonets!!! P.S. 2 Full Agreement with the creator of this thread in the matter of the Saw 2  |
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Feb 3, 2006 11:21:13 GMT -5
Saw II is much better than Saw as far as acting is concerned: Saw sucked a lot there, II is alright. It still displays some horrible logical flaws (I wonder why you weren't pissed with them, spacer! I mean - YOU, the Plot-Hole Spotter #1!) but is enjoyable, surprising and thrilling.
|
|
|
|
Post by spacer on Feb 6, 2006 6:45:54 GMT -5
Rarely I'm pissed off by a flick. Mostly with non-fiction when historic data are falsified, twisted or shamefully incomplete. More often I'm disgusted by sci-fi when it is illogical, stupid and retarded, when the science is at stake. When I watch other genres I'm really tolerant and lenient. I look for good things, I don't focus on inconsistencies and flaws. My aim is to enjoy not to look for weak parts. And you know when the weakness is prevailing you don't have to seek for that ;D Especially in horror I'm eager to accept lot's of things I would be abhorred to see in other genre. Moreover, I'm an well-made-ending fan. And the end in this flick was without a flaw, fully logical, surprising, non-Hollywood-dull one. Sometimes flaws might be interpreted differently and they're flaws any more  . Tell me which flaws irritated you, I'm curious. Tell us. |
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Feb 6, 2006 17:13:37 GMT -5
Take this one: when they are opening the door with a gun planted behind it, how can one guy be pushing the door open and another having his eye still to the hole in the door?! And WHY would this second man be looking through it at this particular moment? I'll tell you why: because the bullet hitting him right in the eye looks cool!
There are more such things here and they clearly indicate that the film is effective just for the effectiveness sake - not because it makes sense or pushes the plot forward.
But I'm glad you liked it - and I did, too, though perhaps not that much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix on Oct 8, 2006 9:34:36 GMT -5
Saw another horror film via netflix this week - Saw II!
I was hugely disappointed in the first one but I re-watched it again on cable and found myself coming around. The premise is memorable.
Like it's already been said, Saw II has a bit more of a budget so the make-up and gore effects are sicker and better. Not that is all a horror movie needs but I think it's important considering this is a "gross-out" form of horror flick.
The story and puzzles are well done and I enjoyed the movie a lot. I didn't even see the twist at the end coming! Woo hoo!
Definitely worth the rental, even if you didn't like the first film.
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Oct 8, 2006 10:16:52 GMT -5
To tell the truth, I'm starting to come around to Q's viewpoint on both of these. I re-watched the first one recently and was quite honestly bored with it. It didn't do anything on a second go-round, and gave me a feeling of "I called this good for a reason, what was it?" and never got an answer. Thinking I had made a mistake, I watched it again three hours later (Gotta love Showtime and their East/West Channels) and came to the same conclusion. Terribly overrated, I gotta call it. Not because of the inconsistencies or whatever else is there, but because it just didn't do anything and failed to impress me.
2 is already guilty of this from the first viewing, while it took me three to get around to it. I'm gonna skip on part 3 and will pretty much wash my hands of this series unless it's being called a great film by someone who's impartial to the series. Will not watch it based on fanboy boasting.
|
|
.
