Saw

[zaika]

Why are those movies so popular? I have yet to see one, and I don't think I ever will. But why are there now FOUR of them? I like scary movies, but when it's all about dismemberment...which it seems these are, it makes me worry about our collective state of mind.
I hope someone can enlighten me a little. Thanks.

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

I only, excuse the pun, saw the first one. I liked the fact that as gruesome as it was, the suspense and mystery was high, and the gore had reason to be there. As far as it's followers, I would have ended it after one movie.

The movie doesn't tend to exaggerate blood. That is only a minor detail behind a deeper concept, but at the same time, it is very graphic and you can really feel the pain when dismemberment occurs. Some gory movies can't do that, because they feed on the gore and you don't notice a story. Nightmare on Elm Street had the same effect. There was a story with that gore and it allowed you to see and hear it, whereas Friday the 13th fed on the gore and less on the story.

I wouldn't suggest you see it unless you are prepared to feel the pain the characters go through and if your stomach can take it. I don't remember it completely but I believe the gore was subtle. If you can watch movies like that, try a few minutes and see if it interests you, and if so, go further.

 

[Ecuador Jim]

The last great horror movie, IMHO was the original "Night of the Living Dead". Graphic violence an gore tend to sicken me.

I think Hitchcock had it right...the anticipation of the "bang" is worse than the bang itself. Night of the Living Dead allowed my imagination run wild. I didn't want to sit with my back to a window for several weeks.

So, I'm with you...I don't get it either. [huh]

 

[Doh!]

Gore, if well done, can be entertaining as hell (see Re-Animator). I've only seen the first Saw and it was enough. The gore didn't bother me; the horrible, horrible script did.

The villain's plan was so dependant on his hostages discovering clues in such a specific order that it became ludicrous. And the big "shock" ending was lame as well. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief... just not give it up entirely.

To get back to your question: I have no idea why we need 3 sequels in a 5-year period.

 

[JMADSENK]

Golly gee, maybe it has something to do with making money?

 

[Feraud]

The first Saw was good but I can do without the others.
I believe they intend to release a new film every October until... someone comes to their senses.
It is the latest film franchise in the spirit of Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street. Dreck.

 

[RondoHatton]

Enough!

Enough with the "saw", "hostel", et al torture and gore movies!
I refuse to go to the theatre anymore! Suspense, shock, horror are dramatic elements which may be useed creatively, but these "look, I just cut your puppy's head off!" movies are a waste of film stock. The inbred nepotistic parlayers of what passes for entertainment should just stay in their McMansions in Malibu and water their roofs.
Now go and view the best new horor movie (IMHO) produced by the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society - "The Call Of Cthulu".
http://www.cthulhulives.org/cocmovie/trailer.html

 

[Fletch]

The inbred nepotistic parlayers of what passes for entertainment should just stay in their McMansions in Malibu and water their roofs.

A bit late for that, unfortunately. [huh]
< SATIRE >
Maybe now they can all be herded into a cramped indoor arena, deprived of adequate food, water and sanitation and induced to slaughter each other in all sorts of imaginative ways...
As Hollywood Burns. (MUSIC: Dun dun dunnn.)
< / SATIRE >

PS: are you ripping off avatars from Modern Mechanix? I am.

 

[Fleur De Guerre]

The thing that disturbed me most about Saw was Cary Elwes's awful acting. Wat happened to the Dread Pirate Roberts I know and love!

 

[zaika]

i love scary movies, and i don't mind a little violence in a movie when it's part of the story (see 'resevoir dogs'...but i like tarantino...so...yeah). if that's the case with 'saw' then...okay, i guess. [huh]
dismemberment is the one thing i find disturbing rather than scary and shouldn't be the main focus in any movie. *shiver* as part of it...okay. 'silence of the lambs' was creepy and did the job without exposing every single slice and dice...you know? but when it's in your face for hours at a time, i would imagine that a person would become sort of numb to it. now THAT'S scary.
the only movie that really scared me and stayed with me for days after was 'the exorcist.' freaked me the hell out. mind you, i saw this movie for the first time just a few years ago. i still can't watch it.

 

[Feraud]

Saw falls more into the category of Gore/Splatter films than the thriller/horror genre. I do not mind the occasional gorefest like Ichi The Killer but generally go for a thriller like The Eye or Session 9.

There is rarely a reason for a Part 3 of anything.

 

[Lady Day]

Suspense, shock, horror are dramatic elements which may be useed creatively, but these "look, I just cut your puppy's head off!" movies are a waste of film stock.

You cant cut off puppy's head! Every animal rights group would be in protest! The dog always lives!

The thing that disturbed me most about Saw was Cary Elwes's awful acting. Wat happened to the Dread Pirate Roberts I know and love!

I hear ya sister.

I dug the first Hostel, if nothing more than the kicker of the Hispanic American who spoke German was the only one to make it out alive

The first Saw was all about the texture of the film and its lighting. The story was pretty stoopid.

And yes, horror did peak with Night of the Living Dead. *long live Ramero!*

LD

 

[ScionPI2005]

I think Hitchcock had it right...the anticipation of the "bang" is worse than the bang itself.

If I understand correctly, isn't that basically what a psychological thriller is? Those are the best in my opinion. And I truly believe that a good psychological thriller plot has a lot more quality and work put into it than some slasher film. Basically, the writer has to sit down and think to himself/herself, "Ok, I'm a human, what scares me?" Then, what scares them will likely scare any other human being.

 

[SarahLouise]

I am a horror fan but didn't like Saw one bit, I thought it was awful. Films such as Saw and Hostel are apparently catagorised as "gore porn" and are not considered to be traditional horror. I have no idea how they managed to make two films after the first Saw, let alone a fourth! I think David Lynch would make an amazing horror film as some of his themes and images in his work are truly terrifying.

Off topic but I've heard that Hellraiser is going to be remade. I'm praying that this isn't true

 

[zaika]

yeah, okay...so this movie was on TV last night, so i turned it on just for a peek. [huh] it didn't catch my interest, so it was back to my book for me.
and fleur...you were right!! the dread pirate roberts was nowhere to be seen...which is such a shame because elwes is one of those actors for whom i'd go see a movie.

 

[reetpleat]

Gore, if well done, can be entertaining as hell (see Re-Animator). I've only seen the first Saw and it was enough. The gore didn't bother me; the horrible, horrible script did.

The villain's plan was so dependant on his hostages discovering clues in such a specific order that it became ludicrous. And the big "shock" ending was lame as well. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief... just not give it up entirely.

To get back to your question: I have no idea why we need 3 sequels in a 5-year period.

I agree. I just don't get movies which have villians who are a special kind of movie crazy that causes them to go through elaborate scenarios etc. It is so unlike real life taht it is not even scary for that. They are laughable.

 

[reetpleat]

Could it be that our fascination with torture and dismemberment (the public at large) is tied to recent discussions of torture, as in, this is so foreign to us but now we have to thin about it but don't want to.

Or perhaps, as we become more divorced from responsibility and connection with our bodies and healthcare, we are more fascinated with the true frailty of the human body.

As far as pyshological thrillers go, not so into them. Perhaps due to the movies I grew up with, a movie like psycho does nothing for me.

Now zombie movies, the good ones not the cheap poorly made ones, I love. 28 days, etc. Both suspense, and the possibility of humans becoming an other, and overtaking us. Scary as hell to me.

I also love the ghost type movies, like the others, and sixth sense.

 

[zaika]

Now zombie movies, the good ones not the cheap poorly made ones, I love. 28 days, etc. Both suspense, and the possibility of humans becoming an other, and overtaking us. Scary as hell to me.

I also love the ghost type movies, like the others, and sixth sense.

shawn of the dead actually kind of creeped me out. [huh] lol

ghostie/paranormal movies are my favorites, though. if they're good they can scare me. the others was fantastic.

 

[dr greg]

wise up

Movie makers have always done what they can get away with remember that KING KONG had a scene deleted because it was deemed too scary for the public. In a world where you can watch real footage of dismemberment with the click of a mouse, entertainment has to stay ahead of the game, and scaring people for entertainment....that's been around since mediaeval Mummer's plays and Grand Guignol. And there actually was a Pirate Roberts, although doubtless not as smooth as Mr Elwes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholomew_Roberts

 

[Antje]

I really hated the saw movies, I think I saw the first en then the 3th,
on a illegal dvd,
what kinda sick mind makes this things up.
I could not stand to watch for more then 10 minutes.

I'm never watching any horror movie again, cause I got scared away from the theater when watching the grudge, an asian horror, terrible

just give me Lassie or King Creole or something.

Nice and old fashioned