Saw 2

[Thompson 0]

Just watched it, and i reccomend it!

[Brock Manson 0]

I saw (heh) it last weekend

 

Pure class film. Not for the squeamish mind.

 

 

[Jonny_nufc 0]

aye it's mint

[Happy Face 29]

I've not seen it, but if it's half as good as the first one then it's absoloutley shit.

[Steve 0]

Wow, three of the most articulate movie reviews of all time seem to frequent our forum. After reading this thread I really want to see Saw 2, the reviews here are just fantastic in their depth.

[Brock Manson 0]

I've not seen it, but if it's half as good as the first one then it's absoloutley shit.

55715[/snapback]

 

You sir are mistaken if you think Saw was not a good film. Especially ebaring in mind they spent what little money they had getting Danny Glover and Cary Ewes (sp?) (and Ken Leung ).

 

Wow, three of the most articulate movie reviews of all time seem to frequent our forum. After reading this thread I really want to see Saw 2, the reviews here are just fantastic in their depth.

 

Saw II kicks off with a guy in a chair with a mask attached to his neck (see pic). If he doesn't find the key to get the mask off, it'll snap shut. I won't spoil where the key is but I guess you can tell from the pic.

 

The plot is quite clever, one massive twist at the end which some might see coming (I didn't though). The way all the traps are thought out is cleverly done but you might want to avert your eyes for some of them...

 

If the actors were shite, this movie wouldn't be as good but thankfully they're believable so no quelms there.

 

I wouldn't say it's better than the original though, as in that one there were just the 2 guys in a room and it was a lot more tense and gripping stuff. This time around they've opted for shocking as they've basically shot a similar film on a larger scale.

 

Go and see it if you like scary films, it isn't one of those shitty ones where a ghoulie jumps out from behind a bush, rather one that'll make you think "why the hell would you do that to someone ".

 

BUT I reckon it helps if you've seen the first film, there's a massive nod to it towards the end which you wont understand the significance otherwise.

Go for the plot at least, it's very clever.

[Happy Face 29]

I've not seen it, but if it's half as good as the first one then it's absoloutley shit.

55715[/snapback]

 

You sir are mistaken if you think Saw was not a good film. Especially ebaring in mind they spent what little money they had getting Danny Glover and Cary Ewes (sp?) (and Ken Leung ).

 

 

Saw reminded me of a film called Adaptation. In that, a character called Donald is an aspiring screenwriter. He goes to seminars and reads books on how to write a script. In the end his idea is that he'll do a serial killer film called "The 3". In it a serial killer is after a girl, and a hard nosed cop is trying to catch the killer but the twist is that they're all the same person. They get involved in horse back chases and everything but they're the same person all along. It mocks how idiotic most American 'thrillers' are, but Saw was even more stupid. There was no rhyme nor reason to anything that went on.

 

It could be forgiven if it was scary but it wasn't. The scariest thing is that the cinematographer is getting work. Darkness can be used expertly in a horror (see The descent but in Saw it seems they expect you just to be scared of the dark, they don't light any of the darkness to give you an idea of what's supposed to be scary.

 

Another 'loud bangs and quick cuts' film that left me bored I'm afraid.

[adios 717]

Saw reminded me of a film called Adaptation.  In that, a character called Donald is an aspiring screenwriter.  He goes to seminars and reads books on how to write a script.  In the end his idea is that he'll do a serial killer film called "The 3".  In it a serial killer is after a girl, and a hard nosed cop is trying to catch the killer but the twist is that they're all the same person.  They get involved in horse back chases and everything but they're the same person all along.  It mocks how idiotic most American 'thrillers' are, but Saw was even more stupid.  There was no rhyme nor reason to anything that went on.

 

It could be forgiven if it was scary but it wasn't.  The scariest thing is that the cinematographer is getting work.  Darkness can be used expertly in a horror (see The descent but in Saw it seems they expect you just to be scared of the dark, they don't light any of the darkness to give you an idea of what's supposed to be scary.

 

Another 'loud bangs and quick cuts' film that left me bored I'm afraid.

55746[/snapback]

 

The premise of "The 3" sounds to have far more in common with "Fight Club", and that's a tenuous link. Where do you stand on Chuck Palahniuk?

 

I like these horror/thriller movies as you often see young Writers/Directors expressing themselves on a low budget. For my money "Bad Taste" still has a lot more going for it than the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.

 

I haven't seen the second one but I enjoyed Saw, thought it was well put together. I thought the idea of cutting through one's leg was far scarier than darkness in the film, although I think you'll find a huge number of adults who would list it as their greatest irrational fear.

 

I have to say I really admire some Horror producers as it's such a difficult genre. They have to trap you in that spell for the whole ~90 minutes, one break and you're out and the experience is a failure. I didn't think they relied on many cheap tricks, can you explain what you mean when you say therre was no rhyme or reason to it?

 

Not every horror movie will hit everyone the right way but I feel you've levelled some bloody heavy critisism at this one, what would you consider to be the best Horrors?

[Thompson 0]

Wow, three of the most articulate movie reviews of all time seem to frequent our forum. After reading this thread I really want to see Saw 2, the reviews here are just fantastic in their depth.

55716[/snapback]

 

[Jimbo 175]

Wow, three of the most articulate movie reviews of all time seem to frequent our forum. After reading this thread I really want to see Saw 2, the reviews here are just fantastic in their depth.

55716[/snapback]

 

 

[snigger]Comic books ![/snigger]

[Happy Face 29]

The premise of "The 3" sounds to have far more in common with "Fight Club",  and that's a tenuous link.  Where do you stand on Chuck Palahniuk?

55755[/snapback]

 

I Love Chuck Palahniuk. I think I've read all his books except the last one. David Fincher did an excellent job in filming Fight Club too. The split personality idea worked there and the second reading/viewing was even better than the first because certain lines had more resonance when you knew the ending.

 

"The 3" is a joke from Adaptation. If the killer, victim and cop are all the same person why should we care about any of them? It's just a loon having insane thoughts with no impact on anyone else. The tenuosity of the link is not in question, I only made it because it comments on the stupidity of Hollywood scripts.

 

I like these horror/thriller movies as you often see young Writers/Directors expressing themselves on a low budget.  For my money "Bad Taste" still has a lot more going for it than the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.

55755[/snapback]

I also Love Bad Taste, not sure Peter Jackson would thank you for saying his glossy 5 year labour of love wasn't up to the standard of his budget horror debut though.

 

I haven't seen the second one but I enjoyed Saw, thought it was well put together.  I thought the idea of cutting through one's leg was far scarier than darkness in the film, although I think you'll find a huge number of adults who would list it as their greatest irrational fear.

55755[/snapback]

You want to buy todays Sunday Times. There's an interview with Sir Ranulph Fiennes where he explains how he cut off his own fingers because he got sick of waiting for his appointment. He just went to the hut and took a hacksaw to them. Also tells how his gangrenous toe fell off in the bath. He left it by the taps for his wife to find .

 

I have to say I really admire some Horror producers as it's such a difficult genre.  They have to trap you in that spell for the whole ~90 minutes, one break and you're out and the experience is a failure.  I didn't think they relied on many cheap tricks, can you explain what you mean when you say therre was no rhyme or reason to it?

55755[/snapback]

I saw it ages ago so I can't remember it well but from what I recollect, my main thought was "what was the point?" Why is he killing them and why is he doing it in such a contrived and meticulous fashion? That wouldn't be a problem if it was a slasher flick a'la Texas Chainsaw massacre, but they sold it as the best thriller since Se7en. I'm sorry but Se7en beautifully tied itself up with a twist that cleverly wove itself into the killers grand vision and managed to totally shock you. As far as I recall, the main shock at the end of Saw was that he was able to lie still for a few hours.

 

Not every horror movie will hit everyone the right way but I feel you've levelled some bloody heavy critisism at this one, what would you consider to be the best Horrors?

55755[/snapback]

I mentioned The Descent which I loved, the Top Horror Thread includes posts where I mention The Shining, Audition and The Ring (original)

[Brock Manson 0]

I've not seen it, but if it's half as good as the first one then it's absoloutley shit.

55715[/snapback]

 

You sir are mistaken if you think Saw was not a good film. Especially ebaring in mind they spent what little money they had getting Danny Glover and Cary Ewes (sp?) (and Ken Leung ).

 

 

Saw reminded me of a film called Adaptation. In that, a character called Donald is an aspiring screenwriter. He goes to seminars and reads books on how to write a script. In the end his idea is that he'll do a serial killer film called "The 3". In it a serial killer is after a girl, and a hard nosed cop is trying to catch the killer but the twist is that they're all the same person. They get involved in horse back chases and everything but they're the same person all along. It mocks how idiotic most American 'thrillers' are, but Saw was even more stupid. There was no rhyme nor reason to anything that went on.

 

It could be forgiven if it was scary but it wasn't. The scariest thing is that the cinematographer is getting work. Darkness can be used expertly in a horror (see The descent but in Saw it seems they expect you just to be scared of the dark, they don't light any of the darkness to give you an idea of what's supposed to be scary.

 

Another 'loud bangs and quick cuts' film that left me bored I'm afraid.

55746[/snapback]

 

Loud bangs and quick cuts? Not the sort of scare the film is going for at all.

 

The dark isn't meant to be scary in this film, hence for a good 3/4 of it the lights are on. Just because a film is in the horror genre does that immediately require it to be full of ghosts and dark corners and the odd person running around screaming? Maybe in the 50's...

 

The first time I watched Saw, it was late, I'd had a chinese and was ready for a scary film to relax to, what I got was a gripping film which bloody spooked the crap outta me!

 

The plot was very well-written, and did you see the twist at the end coming? Like bugger you did.

No rhyme nor reaosn to what was going on? Were you paying attention? If you were you'd see how the story linked together, and whilst I'll admit is was a bit far-fetched how Zapp's game came about (you have a slow-acting poison in your system ) but that was my only gripe. Which I formed after the 3rd play-through.

 

But you didn't like it, fair enough, does that really mean it wasn't a good movie? However coming out and calling it 'more stupid' than 'most idiot american thrillers' is bullshit imo.

 

 

I've just remembered that James Wan didn't direct Saw 2, which was a bit weird since he and Leigh Whannel were the ones who came up with Saw (Wan came up with the idea of two blokes chained in a room and Whannel got his head down and wrote the script). Personally I thought Wan did a good job for the 1st one but it's a matter of opinion I suppose. SOme will prefer the 1st, others the 2nd.

[Happy Face 29]

I've not seen it, but if it's half as good as the first one then it's absoloutley shit.

55715[/snapback]

 

You sir are mistaken if you think Saw was not a good film. Especially ebaring in mind they spent what little money they had getting Danny Glover and Cary Ewes (sp?) (and Ken Leung ).

 

 

Saw reminded me of a film called Adaptation. In that, a character called Donald is an aspiring screenwriter. He goes to seminars and reads books on how to write a script. In the end his idea is that he'll do a serial killer film called "The 3". In it a serial killer is after a girl, and a hard nosed cop is trying to catch the killer but the twist is that they're all the same person. They get involved in horse back chases and everything but they're the same person all along. It mocks how idiotic most American 'thrillers' are, but Saw was even more stupid. There was no rhyme nor reason to anything that went on.

 

It could be forgiven if it was scary but it wasn't. The scariest thing is that the cinematographer is getting work. Darkness can be used expertly in a horror (see The descent but in Saw it seems they expect you just to be scared of the dark, they don't light any of the darkness to give you an idea of what's supposed to be scary.

 

Another 'loud bangs and quick cuts' film that left me bored I'm afraid.

55746[/snapback]

 

Loud bangs and quick cuts? Not the sort of scare the film is going for at all.

 

The dark isn't meant to be scary in this film, hence for a good 3/4 of it the lights are on. Just because a film is in the horror genre does that immediately require it to be full of ghosts and dark corners and the odd person running around screaming? Maybe in the 50's...

 

The first time I watched Saw, it was late, I'd had a chinese and was ready for a scary film to relax to, what I got was a gripping film which bloody spooked the crap outta me!

 

The plot was very well-written, and did you see the twist at the end coming? Like bugger you did.

No rhyme nor reaosn to what was going on? Were you paying attention? If you were you'd see how the story linked together, and whilst I'll admit is was a bit far-fetched how Zapp's game came about (you have a slow-acting poison in your system ) but that was my only gripe. Which I formed after the 3rd play-through.

 

But you didn't like it, fair enough, does that really mean it wasn't a good movie? However coming out and calling it 'more stupid' than 'most idiot american thrillers' is bullshit imo.

 

 

I've just remembered that James Wan didn't direct Saw 2, which was a bit weird since he and Leigh Whannel were the ones who came up with Saw (Wan came up with the idea of two blokes chained in a room and Whannel got his head down and wrote the script). Personally I thought Wan did a good job for the 1st one but it's a matter of opinion I suppose. SOme will prefer the 1st, others the 2nd.

55774[/snapback]

 

Perhaps it went over my head. I'd gladly admit that, if you can explain to me why he was killing them as he was.

 

Just because you don't see a twist, doesn't make it good. The twist at the end of Gozu will not have been expected by a living soul, but it doesn't provide greater depth to what previously occured.

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

Wow, three of the most articulate movie reviews of all time seem to frequent our forum. After reading this thread I really want to see Saw 2, the reviews here are just fantastic in their depth.

55716[/snapback]

 

 

[snigger]Comic books ![/snigger]

55765[/snapback]

 

He's bound to be in a bad mood.

 

Yesterday we wiped the floor with the aussies, the argies, the pakistanis and the kiwis.

His country capitulated at sport, the one thing they are supposed to be good at.

[Brock Manson 0]

I've not seen it, but if it's half as good as the first one then it's absoloutley shit.

55715[/snapback]

 

You sir are mistaken if you think Saw was not a good film. Especially ebaring in mind they spent what little money they had getting Danny Glover and Cary Ewes (sp?) (and Ken Leung ).

 

 

Saw reminded me of a film called Adaptation. In that, a character called Donald is an aspiring screenwriter. He goes to seminars and reads books on how to write a script. In the end his idea is that he'll do a serial killer film called "The 3". In it a serial killer is after a girl, and a hard nosed cop is trying to catch the killer but the twist is that they're all the same person. They get involved in horse back chases and everything but they're the same person all along. It mocks how idiotic most American 'thrillers' are, but Saw was even more stupid. There was no rhyme nor reason to anything that went on.

 

It could be forgiven if it was scary but it wasn't. The scariest thing is that the cinematographer is getting work. Darkness can be used expertly in a horror (see The descent but in Saw it seems they expect you just to be scared of the dark, they don't light any of the darkness to give you an idea of what's supposed to be scary.

 

Another 'loud bangs and quick cuts' film that left me bored I'm afraid.

55746[/snapback]

 

Loud bangs and quick cuts? Not the sort of scare the film is going for at all.

 

The dark isn't meant to be scary in this film, hence for a good 3/4 of it the lights are on. Just because a film is in the horror genre does that immediately require it to be full of ghosts and dark corners and the odd person running around screaming? Maybe in the 50's...

 

The first time I watched Saw, it was late, I'd had a chinese and was ready for a scary film to relax to, what I got was a gripping film which bloody spooked the crap outta me!

 

The plot was very well-written, and did you see the twist at the end coming? Like bugger you did.

No rhyme nor reaosn to what was going on? Were you paying attention? If you were you'd see how the story linked together, and whilst I'll admit is was a bit far-fetched how Zapp's game came about (you have a slow-acting poison in your system ) but that was my only gripe. Which I formed after the 3rd play-through.

 

But you didn't like it, fair enough, does that really mean it wasn't a good movie? However coming out and calling it 'more stupid' than 'most idiot american thrillers' is bullshit imo.

 

 

I've just remembered that James Wan didn't direct Saw 2, which was a bit weird since he and Leigh Whannel were the ones who came up with Saw (Wan came up with the idea of two blokes chained in a room and Whannel got his head down and wrote the script). Personally I thought Wan did a good job for the 1st one but it's a matter of opinion I suppose. SOme will prefer the 1st, others the 2nd.

55774[/snapback]

 

Perhaps it went over my head. I'd gladly admit that, if you can explain to me why he was killing them as he was.

 

Just because you don't see a twist, doesn't make it good. The twist at the end of Gozu will not have been expected by a living soul, but it doesn't provide greater depth to what previously occured.

55780[/snapback]

 

If I told you that I'd ruin quite a bit of Saw 2

 

Basically your killer, Jigsaw is a cancer patient so is going to die at some point (not int he film mind). He therefore feels the need to demonstrate that life should be respected and not abused, that's why his victims are drug addicts, suicidal people, hypchondriacs etc.

The 'games' are his way of making people respect their life as unlike him they're likely to go on living. Oh and he watches them as most psychos do that weird sort of thing.

[adios 717]

Yeah, I'm a big Palahniuk fan myself. I liked the film but the way the ending was changed seemed a little odd, certainly not the kind of optimism I associate the author with! Apparently a 'Survivor' movie has been in the pipeline for a quite a while but the 9-11 hysteria is making it difficult, proably my favourite book of his and I'd love to see a movie done.

 

I liked 'Adaptation' and I appreciate what Kaufman(s) was/were getting at but I'm just grateful that there are so many movies made that I can enjoy. Considering it's mass media, it could all end up like 'XXX' or 'The Fast and the Furious'. Peter Jackson's life work was exactly that, his, he didn't do it for anyone else. Take away the breathe-taking scenery and CGI and what your left with is a pretty poor play. I read the book a long time ago and a couple of years later, as a young boy, I was wondering where the adult themes in that book were. I'm not a Tolkien fan, it really is the realm of yound children and Jackson was fulfilling some childhood fantasy in that trilogy. I fell asleep in the second and haven't bothered with the third. But I'll recognise it's a quality movie for alot of people.

 

It's funny, that list of Horrors you've come up with, it's exactly my taste, saw 'The Descent' a couple of days ago and thought it was excellent, apart from the timing of a couple of things. Loved 'Ringu', have you seen 'Dark Water', I preferred it, though I'm not sure why. I actually took the DVD out of the player when I finished watching 'Ringu'! I haven't seen 'Audition' yet but I've seen 'Gozu' and I loved it. Also loved 'Seven', but have to say I thought Saw was along the same lines, I didn't think either of them were particularly genius in the way they were crafted but I thought both were pretty similar. It is a while since I've seen either but I do have them both on DVD, may be time to refresh my memory. I think I would class 'Saw' as the scarier of the two.

 

EDIT: On the 'Gozu' thing, you may not have seen that exact circumstance but there was something very similar coming, in fact, wasn't the ending the most predictable thing in that crazy movie!

 

I'm going to have to ignore anything else written before this as I see Brock has kindly tried to give away the ending of Saw 2!

Edited November 13, 2005 by DotBum

[Happy Face 29]

If I told you that I'd ruin quite a bit of Saw 2   

 

Basically your killer, Jigsaw is a cancer patient so is going to die at some point (not int he film mind). He therefore feels the need to demonstrate that life should be respected and not abused, that's why his victims are drug addicts, suicidal people, hypchondriacs etc.

The 'games' are his way of making people respect their life as unlike him they're likely to go on living. Oh and he watches them as most psychos do that weird sort of thing. 

55788[/snapback]

 

 

Hang on. People who've become severeley disfigured crawling through forty odd foot of barbed wire or sawing off their own limbs are going to enjoy life more for having 'won the game'? He shows life shouldn't be abused by....er...abusing life?

 

If they're likely to go on living, why do so few survive?

 

Or do you mean people reading it in the papers or us watching the film will value life more for having seen it? In which case you're probably right, I know that spending time doing anything other than watching Saw is time well spent.

 

Now I get it.

[Happy Face 29]

Loved 'Ringu', have you seen 'Dark Water', I preferred it, though I'm not sure why.

55789[/snapback]

 

Yeah, I enjoyed Dark Water. Both films have a constant feeling of dread about them, but nothing in Dark Water had me shitting my pants like when she reaches the telly screen in The Ring.

[Brock Manson 0]

If I told you that I'd ruin quite a bit of Saw 2   

 

Basically your killer, Jigsaw is a cancer patient so is going to die at some point (not int he film mind). He therefore feels the need to demonstrate that life should be respected and not abused, that's why his victims are drug addicts, suicidal people, hypchondriacs etc.

The 'games' are his way of making people respect their life as unlike him they're likely to go on living. Oh and he watches them as most psychos do that weird sort of thing. 

55788[/snapback]

 

 

Hang on. People who've become severeley disfigured crawling through forty odd foot of barbed wire or sawing off their own limbs are going to enjoy life more for having 'won the game'? He shows life shouldn't be abused by....er...abusing life?

 

If they're likely to go on living, why do so few survive?

 

Or do you mean people reading it in the papers or us watching the film will value life more for having seen it? In which case you're probably right, I know that spending time doing anything other than watching Saw is time well spent.

 

Now I get it.

55790[/snapback]

 

All he had to do was kill adam, he didn't necessarily have to saw his foot off to do that did he?

 

If you truly valued life, you'd put a bit more effort into getting out wouldn't you?

 

Amanda wasn't horribly disfigured now was she? (She's in Saw 2, felt sorry for the poor lass )

 

Why do so few survive? Because they didn't play the game properly.

 

I'm going to have to ignore anything else written before this as I see Brock has kindly tried to give away the ending of Saw 2!

 

Yewut?

[adios 717]

Didn't you say something above to th effect of, "You see, I told you I'd give something away"? I don't really want to look to closely but it looked like that when I was scrolling past.

Edited November 13, 2005 by DotBum

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

Loved 'Ringu', have you seen 'Dark Water', I preferred it, though I'm not sure why.

55789[/snapback]

 

Yeah, I enjoyed Dark Water. Both films have a constant feeling of dread about them, but nothing in Dark Water had me shitting my pants like when she reaches the telly screen in The Ring.

55793[/snapback]

 

Make me shiver just thinking about that bit. Mind you, I'm another one who was scared by The Others.

[Brock Manson 0]

Didn't you say something above to th effect of, "You see, I told you I'd give something away"?  I don't really want to look to closely but it looked like that when I was scrolling past.

55798[/snapback]

 

Naw I didn't give anything away but Saw 2 does give a bit of background info on why Jigsaw kills people the way he does. I had to be careful to offer the Saw 1 explanation and not the Saw 2 that's all.

[Happy Face 29]

All he had to do was kill adam, he didn't necessarily have to saw his foot off to do that did he?

 

If you truly valued life, you'd put a bit more effort into getting out wouldn't you? 

 

Amanda wasn't horribly disfigured now was she? (She's in Saw 2, felt sorry for the poor lass  )

 

Why do so few survive? Because they didn't play the game properly.

55794[/snapback]

 

Eh? If you valued life you'd kill some random bloke who as far as you know might help you go on living? The wink doesn't doesn't reduce the idiocy of such a notion (the film makers idiocy that is, not yours).

 

And if he killed this Adam fella he'd have got a ten stretch. How would that make him value life more?

 

I'm arguing plot points over a film I haven't seen for years and had little interest in on that single viewing so forgive me if I've failed to recognise any of it's subtle points.

[adios 717]

Make me shiver just thinking about that bit. Mind you, I'm another one who was scared by The Others.

55799[/snapback]

That film was way too hyped for me and had to be a let down. The only bit that made me jump was the old lady (in the closet?) and her face on the child. The twist became obvious a bit too early as well.

 

I think there's a bit in a lift in 'Dark Water' that didn't do my heart any favours. My memory of a lot of Horror movies is awful anyway. I find a little smoke before hand helps the atmosphere, but not the memory!

[Gejon 2]

Will probably see it today.