FOT Forum

FOT Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: Andy on October 26, 2008, 10:50:17 PM

Title: Saw
Post by: Andy on October 26, 2008, 10:50:17 PM
I've never seen any of the movies, but they appear to be ridiculously popular.  I can't even make it through the synopsis of the first one.  Are they any good or are they as disgusting as they appear?
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: todd on October 26, 2008, 10:53:42 PM
They're horrible. It's Se7en for jocks.
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: jamesp on October 26, 2008, 11:00:41 PM
Yeah, they're awful and each one gets worse (The first one was C-/D+ material.. the rest are F- territory). I'm surprised they are still drawing $30 million opening weekend. I see that Saw VI is in production for October 2009. Six movies since 2004, a movie a year. How much longer can this go on?
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: emdasher on October 26, 2008, 11:10:21 PM
I thought the tag line for Saw V, "You Won't Believe How It Ends," was indicating that there would be no more sequels. I was wrong.

I hate when horror movies have so many awful sequels that somehow it makes the original film a "classic," when actually the original film was never very good in the first place.
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: emdasher on October 26, 2008, 11:12:48 PM
I hate when horror movies have so many awful sequels that somehow it makes the original film a "classic," when actually the original film was never very good in the first place.

This probably goes for all movies.
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: Beth on October 26, 2008, 11:14:04 PM
 I've only seen the first one. I've seen worse?


The ending of the first Saw was so bad that the entire theater was laughing hysterically. I have fond memories of that moment, which is perhaps why I tolerated that movie. I saw the second one on a whim and really wish I hadn't.

So yes. They're as bad as they seem.
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: <<<<< on October 26, 2008, 11:30:53 PM
My tolerance for gore has gone waaaay down as I've gotten older.  Unless it's a zombie movie.  For some reason, zombies still make everything feel better.
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: daveB from Oakland on October 27, 2008, 01:25:06 AM
I ain't never saw Saw, and I don't want to. I've heard the term "torture porn" applied to the Saw series. Or maybe it was Hostel. Or maybe it was both of them. In any case ... I don't want nothin' to do with it.

Recently I was in one of the San Francisco underground trolley stations where they had blanket advertising for this thing, which I thought was a movie:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5b/Left4Dead_Windows_cover.jpg)

But it turns out it's not a movie, it's a videogame. Some kind of scenario about a post-apocalyptic battle against severe arthritis. Or something.

Anyway, it's a bummer to have an image like this thrown at you when you're just trying to slog your way through the morning commute.

Here's a picture I took of a Saw V poster in SF, along with some Angel/Devil W posters.

(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t55/davebucket68/100_0146.jpg)

I like the unintelligible graffiti
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: <<<<< on October 27, 2008, 04:04:01 AM
Anyway, it's a bummer to have an image like this thrown at you when you're just trying to slog your way through the morning commute.

Seems indicative to me that we, as a society, don't even take violence seriously as being real anymore.
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: Sarah on October 27, 2008, 06:53:01 AM
But it turns out it's not a movie, it's a videogame. Some kind of scenario about a post-apocalyptic battle against severe arthritis.

It's great!  One of the early challenges involves a quest to find anti-inflammatories in bottles that don't have childproof caps.
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: iAmBaronVonTito on October 27, 2008, 12:25:34 PM
My tolerance for gore has gone waaaay down as I've gotten older.  Unless it's a zombie movie.  For some reason, zombies still make everything feel better.


same here.  i thought Grindhouse was trash.  but zombies, there like a comforting blanket of fresh brains. 
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: Beth on October 27, 2008, 12:47:17 PM
What was it about the Grindhouse zombies that failed to lure you in, BVT?
I thought Grindhouse was fun-- and trash. I mean it was supposed to be trash in a way. I like it mostly for the experience  of a cheesy double feature--and the trailers.  Particularly Rob Zombie's "Zombie Women of The SS" trailer. And I liked Planet Terror much better than Death Proof, because of the zombies mostly. Zombie Zombie Zombie.

Title: Re: Saw
Post by: iAmBaronVonTito on October 27, 2008, 01:00:07 PM
they were slimy, nasty, pussy creeps...not zombies.  it was unfortunate, Beth, because i was looking forward to posthumous flesh eating.  

and youre right, Planet Terror was much better than Death Proof.  people die in car accidents all the time, sadly.  the last thing i need to see frame-by-frame is how a human body comes apart in a horrendous car wreck.  bleghck, sick.
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: tenspeed on October 27, 2008, 01:06:15 PM
they were slimy, nasty, pussy creeps...not zombies.  it was unfortunate, Beth, because i was looking forward to posthumous flesh eating.  

I have to agree.  It's all about the puss.  Check out the puss in Dead Alive, around the :50 to :58 mark.  It's a much kinder, gentler puss than Grindhouse.

http://www.youtube.com/v/S6HVFfvuZvM&hl=en&fs=1
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: Martin on October 27, 2008, 01:21:03 PM
slimy, nasty, pussy

Good grief.
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: iAmBaronVonTito on October 27, 2008, 01:56:14 PM
slimy, nasty, pussy

Good grief.

Martin!
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: Martin on October 27, 2008, 02:39:31 PM
(I'm sorry, don't judge, etc)
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: Beth on October 27, 2008, 02:47:58 PM
Martin!

Close, but that one was about a vampire, not a zombie.

(http://www.dvdoutsider.co.uk/dvd/pix/m/ma/martin/martinr2_2.jpg)
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: tenspeed on October 27, 2008, 03:19:28 PM
Martin!

Close, but that one was about a vampire, not a zombie.


I won't even bring this to the next level: Brian DePalma's subtext* in Carrie.

(http://pointlessbanter.net/files/2007/10/039_39789carrie-sissy-spacek-posters.jpg)



*Note: This is not 10-Speed's theory, rather, a batty experimental film professor, who was bent on proving both Carrie and The Shining as allegories of womanhood.


Title: Re: Saw
Post by: Martin on October 27, 2008, 03:27:34 PM
You wouldn't exactly have to bend over backwards to read that into Carrie.
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: Beth on October 27, 2008, 03:51:10 PM
You wouldn't exactly have to bend over backwards to read that into Carrie.

Yeah, I mean they throw tampons at her in the beginning for crying out loud.
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: iAmBaronVonTito on October 27, 2008, 04:05:35 PM
edit: garbage in, garbage out.

i cut the fat.  im learning.
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: ericluxury on October 27, 2008, 05:30:14 PM
The people who make the Saw movies must be pretty self-aware (or greedy?), since despite making huge money they keep the budgets at straight-to-DVD levels and have gotten stingier about hiring proven actors since the first one.
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: jbissell on October 27, 2008, 05:42:35 PM
The people who make the Saw movies must be pretty self-aware (or greedy?), since despite making huge money they keep the budgets at straight-to-DVD levels and have gotten stingier about hiring proven actors since the first one.

I'm pretty sure I saw a commercial for a reality show on one of the channels where the prize is a role in Saw 6.
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: Andy on October 27, 2008, 05:44:44 PM
The people who make the Saw movies must be pretty self-aware (or greedy?), since despite making huge money they keep the budgets at straight-to-DVD levels and have gotten stingier about hiring proven actors since the first one.

I'm pretty sure I saw a commercial for a reality show on one of the channels where the prize is a role in Saw 6.
Scream Queens.  It's passable.
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: Pride of Staten Island on October 27, 2008, 06:06:58 PM
The people who make the Saw movies must be pretty self-aware (or greedy?), since despite making huge money they keep the budgets at straight-to-DVD levels and have gotten stingier about hiring proven actors since the first one.

That's true. I haven't seen any of the Saw movies but didn't the first one at least have Danny Glover and the guy from The Princess Bride in it?
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: iAmBaronVonTito on October 27, 2008, 06:20:42 PM
The people who make the Saw movies must be pretty self-aware (or greedy?), since despite making huge money they keep the budgets at straight-to-DVD levels and have gotten stingier about hiring proven actors since the first one.

That's true. I haven't seen any of the Saw movies but didn't the first one at least have Danny Glover and the guy from The Princess Bride in it?

ive onyl seen the first one,half of the second one and dont remember one thing except that danny glover and carey ewles (the guy from "the princess bride") were in it. 

i IMDB'd the rest and apparently SAW I-III was written by the main character (IMDB: Leigh Whannell) then he dropped the ball on the fourth.  also, donnie wahlberg has some face time in the last three. 
Title: Re: Saw
Post by: samir on October 27, 2008, 07:13:34 PM
I'm pretty sure I saw a commercial for a reality show on one of the channels where the prize is a role in Saw 6.
Scream Queens.  It's passable.

They had to eat fruit all sexy-like.
So look out for the sexy fruit eating scene in Saw VI.