Anyone plan to see this movie? I have read mixed reviews about the movie...almost all saying it has an excellent storyline but the acting could have been done better.
Date: 6 October 2004
Summary: The scariest movie i have ever seen
I have seen many horror movies in the cinema over the last twenty years. This is without doubt the scariest i have ever seen. This movie is so sick and twisted it makes Se7en look like a Disney movie. The cast are all fantastic. The twists and turns keep you on the edge of your seat. The serial killer in this makes Hannibal Lecter seem as scary as Dora The Explorer. It;s been a long time since anyone called a horror movie a instant classic. But this is truly a classic. This is one horror movie that is not mindless blood and guts, this is clever blood and guts. People called Open Water scary it wasn't. This will cause nightmares, If you like Horror prepare to see the best. 10 out of 10.
Date: 18 October 2004
Summary: The film of 2004
I am not an easy person to please when it comes to films. I am picky, I gripe at minor points, I'll happily rant about something for hours. So it was an incredibly nice surprise to see this low budget shocker. Having gone to the cinema on a whim, I had the choice between this or Resident Evil 2. I stand by my choice. The acting, whilst a bit shaky, seemed to fit the mood of the film. The story was inventive, the bad guy the most interesting movie villain since Se7ens murderer. In fact, probably more interesting. The camera work was amazing, using fantastic techniques to highlight panic, and the film was filled with enough misdirection to keep me guessing throughout. And then we get to the ending. Wow. I'm not sure I've seen a better ending. As I was walking to the cinema, I was even moaning about conclusions in recent films, and how difficult it is to end a story in a satisfactory manner. But then having seen this, my faith is final acts has been restored. As the credits rolled in the cinema, I was sitting there, open-mouthed, trying to comprehend what I had just seen. It took me most of the walk home, it was that good. Put simply, this is easily the best film made this year. And to not see it is an act of masochism. 10/10
Date: 18 October 2004
Summary: Intense, scary & gruesome but goes a little OTT !
Funny to see an American film come out in the UK well ahead of its US release - SAW is doing pretty well here in the UK. Starting off as a claustrophobic little horror film promises intensity and intrigue, it starts off well as a mystery, as both the viewer and the characters figure out where they are and what is going on. But when the film steps outside of its primary location - a dirty basement cellar - it tries to become a 'Se7en' style murder-mystery, going off at random tangents, introducing many new characters and spreading out its story over several locations, with images of ever-more gruesome murders, dead bodies and extreme trap situations. Some of them are clever, some scary, but others become silly and way over-the-top, both in the scenario and in the script. Anyway, it's still worth waiting around to find out what the hell is going to happen. Definitely more interesting than most horror films have been for a long time, and if you forgive the cheesy script, it's definitely worth watching although the detective part of the story lets it down (is it a horror film or a detective thriller ? - please choose one category - don't try to be both). This is also very gruesome, quite disturbing, and perhaps unique as it introduces the viewer to some disgusting images that have never been seen before in cinema. Go and see it. You may even want to see it a second time as it is crammed with a bit too much for its own liking. Would have worked better if it stayed as a tight, little claustrophobic horror film but it tries to be far more than it really is. Anyway, very ambitious and promises many more things for the director.
Date: 17 October 2004
Summary: If every year has a 'Showgirls,' 'Saw' is the prime candidate for 2004...
Saw
Awakening from a drugged stupor, Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) finds himself chained to a pipe in a dingy bathroom, with another man (Leigh Whannell) in the same situation across the room. The men are the latest victims of the Jigsaw Killer, a maniac who uses elaborate traps to test his victims' dedication to life. Given six hours, a hacksaw, and a bullet, Dr. Gordon tries to figure out a way to freedom, hoping his kidnapped family (including Monica Potter) can survive the nightmare as well. Hot on the Jigsaw's trail is Detective David Tapp (Danny Glover), an equally as insane cop who was once the victim of the Jigsaw's evil scheme.
For a film about puzzles, this film sure cheats a lot.
The debut feature for writer/director James Wan, 'Saw' looks to put a little pizazz back into the stone dead horror genre with heaps of perverse visuals and a killer concept that is ripe for the taking. What we actually get with 'Saw' is a profusion of great ideas repeatedly sabotaged by Wan's catastrophically limited range as a filmmaker. Wan appears to be a student of horror legend Dario Argento, stacking 'Saw' with playful homage which genre fanatics will immediately recognize. However, outside of ghoulish black-gloved monkey business and a ripe eye for torture devices, Wan hasn't stolen enough from the maestro.
Admittedly, Argento wasn't the most reliable director in terms of injecting logic into his films, preferring style to substance. Wan's film is the opposite, electing to explain everything that can possibly be observed in any given frame during the film. The sheer amount of exposition in 'Saw' is both absurd and annoying, with the film's clunky storytelling devices (a flashback within a flashback is a favorite) routinely interrupting the pace of the film, or severing the artery of the devilish fun that should be happening. 'Saw' is relentless only in its desire to make sure the audience understands everything they are watching. This approach decimates the mystery at hand, and forces dreadfully limited actors to simply talk their way through scenes, which is not what any of them should be doing.
Wan and his co-writer (and co-star) Leigh Whannell stack the cards against themselves at the outset by only cobbling together about 5 minutes of good ideas (including a moral that was better served in 'Fight Club'), and eventually suffocating them in an effort to drag this disaster out to 100 minutes. You can sense the stretch marks all over the film, from Wan's insistence that every sequence have some type of unexplained tension, to the what-planet-are-they-from? finale, which lumbers on in its robust stupidity for an eternity.
'Saw' works like this: if a scene isn't pointless or expository, it's endless. Wan has the defense of this being his first film (which is obvious from his Gap-commercial-like shooting style), but he asks the audience to swallow quite a bit of malarkey even for a horror film. This genre doesn't usually demand much in terms of logic or common sense, but 'Saw' still seems disquietingly lacking in both.
I'm not sure it's fair to blame the cast of the film for their collective awfulness, considering that they are just carrying out Wan's clueless wishes. Still, that doesn't excuse them entirely, and if every year has a 'Showgirls,' 'Saw' is the prime candidate for 2004. If Danny Glover is hilariously bonkers, Monica Potter typically vapid, and Whannell needlessly boisterous, then I would classify star Cary Elwes's acting in the film as a peculiar amalgamation of the previous three styles. The Razzies should polish their trophy up now, because I can't imagine a worse performance this year. As the sniveling Dr. Gordon, Elwes huffs and puffs, moans and groans, and generally whimpers his way through the entire film. The actor leaves nothing to chance, infusing every movement with an acting tic, achieving a new level of amateurish performing that I've never seen him reach before.
The final crime of 'Saw' is the careless way the film ends. It should come as no surprise that for the climax, Wan pulls out every last horror trick he could think of. But to expect the audience to accept the eventual revelation behind the identity of the Jigsaw Killer is a flat-out slap in the face, summing up the immense letdown 'Saw' genuinely is. Wan had a superior premise here, and in the end, maybe he is the real Jigsaw Killer, since it is the audience that is truly made to suffer. ---- 0/10
Date: 6 October 2004
Summary: The scariest movie i have ever seen
I have seen many horror movies in the cinema over the last twenty years. This is without doubt the scariest i have ever seen. This movie is so sick and twisted it makes Se7en look like a Disney movie. The cast are all fantastic. The twists and turns keep you on the edge of your seat. The serial killer in this makes Hannibal Lecter seem as scary as Dora The Explorer. It;s been a long time since anyone called a horror movie a instant classic. But this is truly a classic. This is one horror movie that is not mindless blood and guts, this is clever blood and guts. People called Open Water scary it wasn't. This will cause nightmares, If you like Horror prepare to see the best. 10 out of 10.
Date: 18 October 2004
Summary: The film of 2004
I am not an easy person to please when it comes to films. I am picky, I gripe at minor points, I'll happily rant about something for hours. So it was an incredibly nice surprise to see this low budget shocker. Having gone to the cinema on a whim, I had the choice between this or Resident Evil 2. I stand by my choice. The acting, whilst a bit shaky, seemed to fit the mood of the film. The story was inventive, the bad guy the most interesting movie villain since Se7ens murderer. In fact, probably more interesting. The camera work was amazing, using fantastic techniques to highlight panic, and the film was filled with enough misdirection to keep me guessing throughout. And then we get to the ending. Wow. I'm not sure I've seen a better ending. As I was walking to the cinema, I was even moaning about conclusions in recent films, and how difficult it is to end a story in a satisfactory manner. But then having seen this, my faith is final acts has been restored. As the credits rolled in the cinema, I was sitting there, open-mouthed, trying to comprehend what I had just seen. It took me most of the walk home, it was that good. Put simply, this is easily the best film made this year. And to not see it is an act of masochism. 10/10
Date: 18 October 2004
Summary: Intense, scary & gruesome but goes a little OTT !
Funny to see an American film come out in the UK well ahead of its US release - SAW is doing pretty well here in the UK. Starting off as a claustrophobic little horror film promises intensity and intrigue, it starts off well as a mystery, as both the viewer and the characters figure out where they are and what is going on. But when the film steps outside of its primary location - a dirty basement cellar - it tries to become a 'Se7en' style murder-mystery, going off at random tangents, introducing many new characters and spreading out its story over several locations, with images of ever-more gruesome murders, dead bodies and extreme trap situations. Some of them are clever, some scary, but others become silly and way over-the-top, both in the scenario and in the script. Anyway, it's still worth waiting around to find out what the hell is going to happen. Definitely more interesting than most horror films have been for a long time, and if you forgive the cheesy script, it's definitely worth watching although the detective part of the story lets it down (is it a horror film or a detective thriller ? - please choose one category - don't try to be both). This is also very gruesome, quite disturbing, and perhaps unique as it introduces the viewer to some disgusting images that have never been seen before in cinema. Go and see it. You may even want to see it a second time as it is crammed with a bit too much for its own liking. Would have worked better if it stayed as a tight, little claustrophobic horror film but it tries to be far more than it really is. Anyway, very ambitious and promises many more things for the director.
Date: 17 October 2004
Summary: If every year has a 'Showgirls,' 'Saw' is the prime candidate for 2004...
Saw
Awakening from a drugged stupor, Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) finds himself chained to a pipe in a dingy bathroom, with another man (Leigh Whannell) in the same situation across the room. The men are the latest victims of the Jigsaw Killer, a maniac who uses elaborate traps to test his victims' dedication to life. Given six hours, a hacksaw, and a bullet, Dr. Gordon tries to figure out a way to freedom, hoping his kidnapped family (including Monica Potter) can survive the nightmare as well. Hot on the Jigsaw's trail is Detective David Tapp (Danny Glover), an equally as insane cop who was once the victim of the Jigsaw's evil scheme.
For a film about puzzles, this film sure cheats a lot.
The debut feature for writer/director James Wan, 'Saw' looks to put a little pizazz back into the stone dead horror genre with heaps of perverse visuals and a killer concept that is ripe for the taking. What we actually get with 'Saw' is a profusion of great ideas repeatedly sabotaged by Wan's catastrophically limited range as a filmmaker. Wan appears to be a student of horror legend Dario Argento, stacking 'Saw' with playful homage which genre fanatics will immediately recognize. However, outside of ghoulish black-gloved monkey business and a ripe eye for torture devices, Wan hasn't stolen enough from the maestro.
Admittedly, Argento wasn't the most reliable director in terms of injecting logic into his films, preferring style to substance. Wan's film is the opposite, electing to explain everything that can possibly be observed in any given frame during the film. The sheer amount of exposition in 'Saw' is both absurd and annoying, with the film's clunky storytelling devices (a flashback within a flashback is a favorite) routinely interrupting the pace of the film, or severing the artery of the devilish fun that should be happening. 'Saw' is relentless only in its desire to make sure the audience understands everything they are watching. This approach decimates the mystery at hand, and forces dreadfully limited actors to simply talk their way through scenes, which is not what any of them should be doing.
Wan and his co-writer (and co-star) Leigh Whannell stack the cards against themselves at the outset by only cobbling together about 5 minutes of good ideas (including a moral that was better served in 'Fight Club'), and eventually suffocating them in an effort to drag this disaster out to 100 minutes. You can sense the stretch marks all over the film, from Wan's insistence that every sequence have some type of unexplained tension, to the what-planet-are-they-from? finale, which lumbers on in its robust stupidity for an eternity.
'Saw' works like this: if a scene isn't pointless or expository, it's endless. Wan has the defense of this being his first film (which is obvious from his Gap-commercial-like shooting style), but he asks the audience to swallow quite a bit of malarkey even for a horror film. This genre doesn't usually demand much in terms of logic or common sense, but 'Saw' still seems disquietingly lacking in both.
I'm not sure it's fair to blame the cast of the film for their collective awfulness, considering that they are just carrying out Wan's clueless wishes. Still, that doesn't excuse them entirely, and if every year has a 'Showgirls,' 'Saw' is the prime candidate for 2004. If Danny Glover is hilariously bonkers, Monica Potter typically vapid, and Whannell needlessly boisterous, then I would classify star Cary Elwes's acting in the film as a peculiar amalgamation of the previous three styles. The Razzies should polish their trophy up now, because I can't imagine a worse performance this year. As the sniveling Dr. Gordon, Elwes huffs and puffs, moans and groans, and generally whimpers his way through the entire film. The actor leaves nothing to chance, infusing every movement with an acting tic, achieving a new level of amateurish performing that I've never seen him reach before.
The final crime of 'Saw' is the careless way the film ends. It should come as no surprise that for the climax, Wan pulls out every last horror trick he could think of. But to expect the audience to accept the eventual revelation behind the identity of the Jigsaw Killer is a flat-out slap in the face, summing up the immense letdown 'Saw' genuinely is. Wan had a superior premise here, and in the end, maybe he is the real Jigsaw Killer, since it is the audience that is truly made to suffer. ---- 0/10
posted by:
|
Unsubscribed |
-
Re: Saw - Spoilers
Thu, November 17, 2005 - 1:48 PMi watched saw to catch up for the upcoming saw 2...i loved it...the twisted sick scenarios and games the killer puts his victims in...
-
Re: Saw - Spoilers
Thu, November 17, 2005 - 1:52 PMcreative and interesting and very entertaining...
