Page 1 of 1

Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:34 pm
by Leisher
I won't bother with the who's and what's as everyone should know what this series is all about.

I thought this one was miles better than part 2, but I'm not sure that it was better than part 1 as some have claimed.

I liked how the twists and turns at the end all came together (as usual), despite being predictable.

I can't say that I think they were wise in how this one ended though. I'm not sure where the series goes from here. I mean, yes, there's a sequel that can easily be done, but that doesn't solve the franchises other problem. A problem that I would've liked to have seen solved before another sequel occurs.

Although, I'm thinking about it and I think they actually may have put a solution into place, but if it winds up being what I think, it was very subtle.

My real complaints are some very odd choices in direction, editing, and storyline through the first 20 or so minutes, but it starts to flow normally after that. Plus, there are some timing issues or general issues I have with the plans of the villains. What do I mean by that? Well, if you put a rat in a maze and then lay out an elaborate plan based on the rat's movements, the biggest variable is going to be the rat. Well, this "rat" moved at just the right pace for the plan and that bugged me. Also, certain things occurred that seemed more as a convenience to make the story work. Normally, such things don't bug me, but it does in this case for two reasons: 1. There were too many instances of this sort of thing happening (Take two people who don't really fire weapons, then put them under REALLY intense and emotional situations and they normally won't be crack marksmen...). 2. As you know, Jigsaw has elaborate plans, but nobody's plan can account for all the variables here. In fact, the ending shows that he didn't plan AT ALL for one thing that would've been a by product of his plans/traps. It just so happens that one of those conveniences took care of it for him.

Overall, Saw III goes back to the basics after the mess that was Saw II and succeeds for the most part. I like the concept and I hope they plan on continuing the series, although I'd like to see them lose the gritty look a bit. Let Jigsaw play with more modern toys. Lots of gore here and it's a bit heavier on dialogue than most horror films.

7 out of 10.

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:07 am
by GORDON
..... hmm.

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:19 am
by Paul
I heard it was coming out.

They had an interesting commercial campaign. There was maybe a three second commercial of the static and a flash of the Jigsaw puppet stuffed -other commercials. I actually rewound the DVR to make sure I saw what I thought I saw.
Then a little later it happened again, a bit longer the second time.

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:00 am
by GORDON
3's out on DVD, 4 is coming out in theaters this month. I watched 1-3 last night.

3 is more of the same, except maybe grosser. And more child killinger.

It does a good job tying 1 and 2 in together with it, though. We get more background and behind the scenes stuff from the first movies.




Edited By GORDON on 1191773846

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:43 am
by Paul
My bad. The commercial was for IV.

I only saw #1, but I read the spoilers for 2 & 3.

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:19 pm
by GORDON
These movies are about... well, they're pretty much torture porn. Trying to understand the movie from reading spoilers is like jerking off to the cliffnotes version of (insert your favorite pornography here).

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:35 pm
by Malcolm
I almost can't believe someone greenlighted the FOURTH installment of this mediocre series. It's fucking pathetic.

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:54 pm
by GORDON
I realize this is something Catt would say... but I heard each movie has made more than the previous. Sequels are guaranteed.

Hell, didn't they make 10 Friday 13th's?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 1:09 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:Hell, didn't they make 10 Friday 13th's?
Well, technically speaking, more. & there's novels & shit, too. But at least it was a flick or two in there that was worth watching. Typically, the original of a series is viewed as the best (as sequels topping their inspiration is rare [but has been done]), but the first "Saw" sucks. Seriously, if this is the sort of shit that gets picked up for a film & three sequels AND turns a profit every time, well shit, I guess I'm just in the wrong biz. Apparently there's a demand for hack writers who're willing to whore themselves out & churn out shit.

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:42 am
by Leisher
Saw 1 was original and decent. Not at all horrible.

Saw 2 was complete and utter ass. It was all about body count. A terrible film.

Saw 3 was ok, but really stretched our disbelief with the storyline. I mean, the killer would have to be a genius on top of a genius to see the dominoes fall the way they do and plan for it all.

Saw 4 makes the killer look like the smartest human being ever or a time traveler. I fully expect that somehow we're going to discover he's still alive.

The biggest problem I have with Saw is that the guy has cancer and wasn't given long to live. So how the hell has he had the time to create this identity and all these elaborate traps, hideouts, and plans?

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:59 am
by Malcolm
The first "Saw" was abhorrent. In the perfect world, the writer would've been drawn & quartered.

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
by GORDON
I've seen worse. I'd say all 3 Star Wars prequels were worse.

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:08 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:I've seen worse. I'd say all 3 Star Wars prequels were worse.
Such a high-water mark to reach, too.

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:20 pm
by Leisher
The first "Saw" was abhorrent. In the perfect world, the writer would've been drawn & quartered.


You're being a bit too critical. Of all the horror movies released in the last decade or so, SAW was original and wasn't so terrible that it never should've had a sequel.

Yes, it had flaws, but you have to wonder if the director had a hand in that rather than the writer. For example, I remember thinking how stupid it was that the killer was a guy from a 5 second scene earlier in the film.

Still, it tried something new which earns it more points than most of the hack and slash shit coming out.

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:37 pm
by Malcolm
Written by two dudes, one of which directed. Most of it was crap writing, some of it was crap acting. I've not been so ashamed of Danny Glover since "Operation Dumbo Drop."

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:09 pm
by Leisher
Ok, Danny Glover was fucking brutal, but I blame him. Maybe he missed his cab to the set?

But seriously, the premise, kills, and killer were original enough to pull this up from any "suckage" rating.

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:34 pm
by Paul
GORDON wrote:These movies are about... well, they're pretty much torture porn. Trying to understand the movie from reading spoilers is like jerking off to the cliffnotes version of (insert your favorite pornography here).
I'm not into torture porn.
I have no desire to watch it. It's not the aspect of the film I was interested in. If it was, sure, there' be no substitute for watching it.

It's sort of like sports. I'm happy reading a quick summary of the game. I don't care enough to buy tickets and drive to the game.

If I care, I'll buy the ticket and do the time. But Hollywood rarely makes it worth my time.

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:42 pm
by Malcolm
Leisher wrote:But seriously, the premise, kills, and killer were original enough to pull this up from any "suckage" rating.

The premise seemed like some weird, fucked up ancient morality story. The kills, fine. I suppose there were some mildly interesting things. But gore does not offset bad writing. The killer seemed to me to be the most forgettable dude. Horror supervillains are fun to watch cos they're doing the killing most of the time. It sounds extremely strange, but traps, recordings, lackeys, & IMPOSSIBLY well planned out shit coupled w\ godlike luck, lacks the personal touch of a person killing you as opposed to some mechanical contrivance. If they were smarter or more creative perhaps they could find a way to sell their premise so that it didn't look like a patchwork quilt of hackery.




Edited By Malcolm on 1191879824

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:25 am
by Leisher
Re-watched and this was still a ton better than #2.

That being said, there's a twist in the plot regarding Jigsaw's own rules that gets completely ignored in the next two films.

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:37 am
by Malcolm
There's still all kinds of bullshit they don't explain until 3 movies later.