Saw

[iEatBrainMatter]

I have seen the 2 trailers for this flick and read some sneek peak reviews of the film. I am so excited to see a movie like this coming out. People are saying its the next Se7en. Lets hope so.

Trailer links:
1st Trailer
http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/saw.html

2nd Trailer http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=4755

[The Baron]

Yeah, I'm definitely looking forward to Saw. I saw (pun not intended) both of these trailers two weeks ago, and my heart rose in hope for the fall releases.

[zombiefreak]

i can't wait for this. every review that i've read of people that have already seen it, say it's awesome.

[iEatBrainMatter]

Hey Zombiefreak. *Shares brains with his zombie buddy*


This movie doesnt seem like it will disappoint.

[RamenPreacher]

Saw definetly looks like it's going to take the level of sadistic brutality to a new level, the only thing I don't like in the trailer is that MTV style editing.

It's ok sometimes but I think it's getting a little overused in movies now, though some directors are still finding intresting way to use it in their films.

[AmaiStina]

im looking forward to seeing it too.

[Resident Alien]

I'm quite eager to see this. I'd prefer to to catch the NC-17 version, but *sigh*, I'll have to wait until the DVD release.

But, it looks really interesting. When it comes to horror films, filmmakers these days (especially American filmmakers) seem to shy away from doing anything that's as 'over-the-top' as this appears to be. Therefore, many of the so called 'ultra-disturbing' films from the past few years end up being cliched trash (Butterfly Effect anyone?). They better serve as an excuse for catching up on your sleep than anything else.

It's for that reason that I look forward to this. Hopefully this will cause me to have the same reaction that I had while watching Cannibal Holocaust.

[AmaiStina]

Originally posted by Resident Alien
I'm quite eager to see this. I'd prefer to to catch the NC-17 version, but *sigh*, I'll have to wait until the DVD release.

But, it looks really interesting. When it comes to horror films, filmmakers these days (especially American filmmakers) seem to shy away from doing anything that's as 'over-the-top' as this appears to be. Therefore, many of the so called 'ultra-disturbing' films from the past few years end up being cliched trash (Butterfly Effect anyone?). They better serve as an excuse for catching up on your sleep than anything else.

It's for that reason that I look forward to this. Hopefully this will cause me to have the same reaction that I had while watching Cannibal Holocaust.

ooo yes, yes, to your last statement. although, Pasolini's 120 Days of Sodom will give CH a run for its money.

[Resident Alien]

Yeah, I've heard it's pretty brutal. When I first heard about it, I didn't want to see it, but the more people mention it the more interest I have in it.

[El Duderino Diablo]

Originally posted by Resident Alien
Therefore, many of the so called 'ultra-disturbing' films from the past few years end up being cliched trash (Butterfly Effect anyone?).

I have no doubt that Butterfly Effect was indeed cliched trash but I don't remember it being promoted as "ultra-disturbing" unless of course one is easily disturbed by the presence of Ashton Kutcher.
Now, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, that was promoted as being pretty disturbing and even without seeing it I think it's safe to say that it was a fetid, steaming pile of cinematic cliche.

[Mr B Natural]

Originally posted by The Dude

Now, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, that was promoted as being pretty disturbing and even without seeing it I think it's safe to say that it was a fetid, steaming pile of cinematic cliche.

Did I read that right? Are you really judging this film without even seeing it? That's just incredible. Is it Bruckheimer that makes you hate it? Or the ad campaign?

Unbelievable.

[unlickedcub]

More like anything that has to do with Michael Bay is a piece of crap. Even though the Dude didn't see this particular piece of crap he's 100% correct.

Aside from a couple of instances I can think of most video directors who go on to feature films suck and should die.

[Resident Alien]

Originally posted by The Dude
I have no doubt that Butterfly Effect was indeed cliched trash but I don't remember it being promoted as "ultra-disturbing" unless of course one is easily disturbed by the presence of Ashton Kutcher.
Now, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, that was promoted as being pretty disturbing and even without seeing it I think it's safe to say that it was a fetid, steaming pile of cinematic cliche.

Perhaps you've forgotten the ad campaign, but the commercials for BF consisted of images from night-vision cameras in theaters showing the audience jumping from their seats, and screaming in fear. The announcer would then go on to call it "one of the most disturbing films of all-time."

[El Duderino Diablo]

Never saw those particular ads.
:shrug:

[Mr B Natural]

Originally posted by unlickedcub
More like anything that has to do with Michael Bay is a piece of crap. Even though the Dude didn't see this particular piece of crap he's 100% correct.



I agree that the Texas Chainsaw remake was terrible, but that's beside the point. The point is that the Dude formed his opinion without ever seeing the movie. Its one thing to not want to see a film becuase you think its going to suck -- hell, people do that all the time, myself included. But to actually blast a film without ever seeing it makes your opinion lack credibility.

[El Duderino Diablo]

Okay Hank, I want you take a deep breath, close your eyes, count to ten and maybe unbunch your panties while you're at it.
Okay? Now, I just want to clarify that in regard to the TCM remake I did say I think it's safe to say... ie, I suspect that TCM is a fetid, steaming pile of cinematic cliche.
The numerous reviews and first hand accounts from viewers of said film have suggested to me that TCM is a fetid, steaming pile of cinematic cliche.
The press and previews I've seen have suggested to me that TCM is a fetid, steaming pile of cinematic cliche.
I'm saving a statement to the effect of: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake is a fetid, steaming pile of cinematic cliche. for after I've endured said film.

[AmaiStina]

Originally posted by The Dude
Okay Hank, I want you take a deep breath, close your eyes, count to ten and maybe unbunch your panties while you're at it.
Okay? Now, I just want to clarify that in regard to the TCM remake I did say I think it's safe to say... ie, I suspect that TCM is a fetid, steaming pile of cinematic cliche.
The numerous reviews and first hand accounts from viewers of said film have suggested to me that TCM is a fetid, steaming pile of cinematic cliche.
The press and previews I've seen have suggested to me that TCM is a fetid, steaming pile of cinematic cliche.
I'm saving a statement to the effect of: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake is a fetid, steaming pile of cinematic cliche. for after I've endured said film.

^_^

[Mr B Natural]

Originally posted by The Dude
Okay Hank, I want you take a deep breath, close your eyes, count to ten and maybe unbunch your panties while you're at it.
Okay? Now, I just want to clarify that in regard to the TCM remake I did say I think it's safe to say... ie, I suspect that TCM is a fetid, steaming pile of cinematic cliche.
The numerous reviews and first hand accounts from viewers of said film have suggested to me that TCM is a fetid, steaming pile of cinematic cliche.
The press and previews I've seen have suggested to me that TCM is a fetid, steaming pile of cinematic cliche.
I'm saving a statement to the effect of: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake is a fetid, steaming pile of cinematic cliche. for after I've
endured said film.

True, you did preface your statement with "I think its safe to say," and your assumptions are well founded as far as I am concerned, since I didn't like the movie either. But you should admit that making statements about something you've never seen is risky. Sure, you probably won't like the TCM remake. But how many times have you seen something you thought you wouldn't like and acutally enjoyed it? Or the opposite?

[El Duderino Diablo]

Originally posted by Mr B Natural
But you should admit that making statements about something you've never seen is risky.

Oh, absolutely. I do tend to research the bejesus out of prospective movies before I lay down my cold, hard cash or, more vlauable to me, my time. As a result I do tend to more often be let down by movies that I had higher expectations for than find myself pleasantly surprised.

Still, in the spirit of rampaging irresponsibility I reserve judgement to publicly presume that Michael Bay may never produce a movie worth viewing.
;)

[Mr B Natural]

Originally posted by The Dude
Oh, absolutely. I do tend to research the bejesus out of prospective movies before I lay down my cold, hard cash or, more vlauable to me, my time. As a result I do tend to more often be let down by movies that I had higher expectations for than find myself pleasantly surprised.

Still, in the spirit of rampaging irresponsibility I reserve judgement to publicly presume that Michael Bay may never produce a movie worth viewing.
;)

Hah! That's awesome. If anyone deserves that reserved judgement, it has to be him.

Lots of research before seeing films is definitely a good move, especially if you see lots of movies. No need to pay to be bored and pissed off for 90 mins if you can avoid it.

Isn't it funny how much one's expectations can influcence how much they enjoy the movie?

[unlickedcub]

Originally posted by The Dude
Still, in the spirit of rampaging irresponsibility I reserve judgement to publicly presume that Michael Bay may never produce a movie worth viewing.
;)
That was exactly my point! :)

I've seen enough Michael Bay movies to know that I have never liked a Michael Bay movie, nor ever liked any movie associated with Michael Bay.

There may be a time in my life in the future where I will be pleasantly surprised about a film associated, but not directed (he will never direct a good film) by Michael Bay.

At that point I will stand up and say outloud for the world to hear: "I was wrong! There is a movie that has Michael Bay's name that isn't a steaming pile of dog crap", but until then I will be highly suspicious of all Michael Bay movies...and probably be suckered into watching them anyway (on video!), hating myself later for giving two hours of my life.

[El Duderino Diablo]

I am now officially entitled to say that the TCM remake was a fetid, steaming pile of cinematic cliche.
However...
R. Lee Ermey brings class to every proceeding.
I have no complaints about having to watch Jessica Biel run around in her wet little t-shirt thingy and jeans. I'm a guy, so sue me. :shrug:
Some of the violence was pretty hysterical to watch.
Don't get me wrong, TCM was awful but it was almost enjoyable in it's awfulness.

[Certex]

is Michael Bay?

Dude, yer right about Jessica Biel in her tee-shirt; quality estrogenerated mayhem. I must admit, I didn't totally hate the remake. The cinematography was excellent, and I thought the bit where Leatherface chased the kids into the room they couldn't get out of and hung one kid up on the chandelier before killing him was totally excellent; bad-dreamlike; no escape velocity rendered perfectly.

But I still don't know who Michael Bay is. Mrs Bay's son, I should suspect.

G.

[El Duderino Diablo]

thus I cannot say for certain, but, Bay does claim to be the son of John Frankenheimer though Frankenheimer vehemently denies it. I would probably publicly deny being responsible for Michael Bay also.

The dude getting his leg sawed off amongst the drying sheets. Hysterical. I laughed and laughed and laughed some more.
R. Lee Ermey and the corpse. Classic.

[Seedy Edgewick]

Michael Bay is responsible for Pearl Harbor (sorry, "Harbour"), Armageddon, The Rock, and Bad Boys I & II. He produced, directed, or did both on each of these turdpiles. Need I say more?

[Mr B Natural]

SPOILERS AHEAD





So I saw Saw last night, and man was it disappointing. Most negative reviews I've read are correct when they suggest that eliminating the flashbacks and sticking to the one room concept would greatly improve the film. This is just the tip of the iceberg...

The filmmakers rarely try to let tension build -- they'd rather the film scream at you like its selling a Dodge Ram. In the rare cases that the filmmakers let the tension build (i.e. the lurker in the closet, the photographer nabbed in his apartment), the scenes work fine, even though they're not perfect. If the scene is scary or tense, I'll forgive a lot of bad acting or other production values. However, in Saw, the mistakes in plot, direction, acting, and script are so numerous, start to finish, that the film never works for very long, and never really amounts to anything. At the end, when Cary Elwes' character breaks down and starts blubbering, the audience I saw the film with didn't buy it at all. They were laughing at him. Making an effective horror film is all about selling the reality of the situation, and when you can't do that it just gets funny. Then you know you've failed.

On a different note, I've read that this film was cut from NC-17 to R. Anyone know what was excised? And what do other people think about the movie?

[AmaiStina]

i saw it yesterday afternoon.

it had its moments. the ending, the big plot twist, is either clever or corny.. or just plain stupid. i dont want to be too specific, so im going to use vague terms.... but you know that part about X marking the spot? i immediately thought that a certain part of the plot twist formed an X.

and even though in terms of the script, i was wrong..but in terms the plot twist..i wasnt too far off.

i started laughing too when Cary Elwes really broke down. i dont know why....

i started thinking about Fear Factor too.



Originally posted by Mr B Natural
SPOILERS AHEAD





So I saw Saw last night, and man was it disappointing. Most negative reviews I've read are correct when they suggest that eliminating the flashbacks and sticking to the one room concept would greatly improve the film. This is just the tip of the iceberg...

The filmmakers rarely try to let tension build -- they'd rather the film scream at you like its selling a Dodge Ram. In the rare cases that the filmmakers let the tension build (i.e. the lurker in the closet, the photographer nabbed in his apartment), the scenes work fine, even though they're not perfect. If the scene is scary or tense, I'll forgive a lot of bad acting or other production values. However, in Saw, the mistakes in plot, direction, acting, and script are so numerous, start to finish, that the film never works for very long, and never really amounts to anything. At the end, when Cary Elwes' character breaks down and starts blubbering, the audience I saw the film with didn't buy it at all. They were laughing at him. Making an effective horror film is all about selling the reality of the situation, and when you can't do that it just gets funny. Then you know you've failed.

On a different note, I've read that this film was cut from NC-17 to R. Anyone know what was excised? And what do other people think about the movie?

[Mr B Natural]

Originally posted by AmaiStina

it had its moments. the ending, the big plot twist, is either clever or corny.. or just plain stupid.

Yeah, I kept on thinking about that...its a pretty neat idea, but it didn't work (not a suprise, since the rest of the film didn't work either). I wonder if the end would have worked better if the entire film had taken place in that one room? How shocking would it have been then? How much more unexpected? Of course, it would still have to be done well, but one can imagine...

[ghostudio]

i was studying it pretty hard. i think the camera placement was the big 'shot in the foot'. i noticed that the pop out of the closet scene was well timed, but the camera wasn't really in a spot to make you fell like you were apart of. i think most of the shots were too wide. it should have had a more claustrophobic feel.

cary's breakdown was kind of laughable, wasn't it?

[Mr B Natural]

I think they left the shots in the apartment wide so you wouldn't know which shadow the villian was going to jump out of. Its a technique I like when its done well (i.e. Halloween, The Thing, shit, just pick a good Carpenter and he's probably doing it). In this case, I think it was just done in a moderately effective manner -- pretty by-the-books if you ask me. Which can still be effective because this technique almost inherently creates a lot of tension.

I totally agree with you about the lack of claustrophobia, in both the cinematography and the script. Not having any claustrohphobia in a film about two people trapped in a room is a real missed opportunity.