adios 717 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 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. 55800[/snapback] Aah, no hassle, I had you down for a child botherer and a movie spoiler there for a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 HF - You're still preaching the idiocy of a film that you admittedly don't remember. I think for homework this evening you should sit down and watch both 'Saw' and 'Seven' and then explain to us why one was so clever and the other so stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 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. 55801[/snapback] Probably wouldn't have got a sentence thinking about it since his and his family's lives were at stake though. Fiml makers' idiocy? Not at all. But if we're going to get personal over this keep it to pm. (you fucknugget ) I can't be arsed to explain the plot to you, since you've made up your mind that the film is shit what's the point. It would be like trying to get me to watch AI again (worst. film. ever.). But for anyone else: Long story short Adam and Lawrence in a room, Lawrence has to kill Adam otherwise his family are murdered and he's left stuck in the room. It has Ken Leung in it and he rules. "wipe yourself. You're bleeding." Rush Hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Probably wouldn't have got a sentence thinking about it since his and his family's lives were at stake though. Fiml makers' idiocy? Not at all. But if we're going to get personal over this keep it to pm. (you fucknugget ) I can't be arsed to explain the plot to you, since you've made up your mind that the film is shit what's the point. It would be like trying to get me to watch AI again (worst. film. ever.). But for anyone else: Long story short Adam and Lawrence in a room, Lawrence has to kill Adam otherwise his family are murdered and he's left stuck in the room. It has Ken Leung in it and he rules. "wipe yourself. You're bleeding." Rush Hour. 55808[/snapback] How wude! Who's getting personal? I wasn't suggesting you're an idiot (I even clarified I wasn't in brackets). Why would I PM you? If anyone's an idiot it must be me. Everyone loves Saw. I'm the one who's missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 HF - You're still preaching the idiocy of a film that you admittedly don't remember. I think for homework this evening you should sit down and watch both 'Saw' and 'Seven' and then explain to us why one was so clever and the other so stupid. 55807[/snapback] You're right like. It's difficult to point out why it was poor when it was so easily forgettable. I am being unfair. I've said it was poorly lit but I saw it before it came out at the cinema (if you get my drift -nudge, nudge, , ) . So that's not really a valid complaint. The acting was terrible too, but most horrors are. I might give it another watch when I get home so I can specifically point out the stupid bits, but I've got Doictor Zhivago to watch so I probably won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Probably wouldn't have got a sentence thinking about it since his and his family's lives were at stake though. Fiml makers' idiocy? Not at all. But if we're going to get personal over this keep it to pm. (you fucknugget ) I can't be arsed to explain the plot to you, since you've made up your mind that the film is shit what's the point. It would be like trying to get me to watch AI again (worst. film. ever.). But for anyone else: Long story short Adam and Lawrence in a room, Lawrence has to kill Adam otherwise his family are murdered and he's left stuck in the room. It has Ken Leung in it and he rules. "wipe yourself. You're bleeding." Rush Hour. 55808[/snapback] How wude! Who's getting personal? I wasn't suggesting you're an idiot (I even clarified I wasn't in brackets). Why would I PM you? If anyone's an idiot it must be me. Everyone loves Saw. I'm the one who's missing something. 55813[/snapback] I wasn't getting personal If you're admitting you're missing the film watch it again. The acting isn't crap That's like saying Hayden Christiansen deserves an oscar for his "noooooooo" at the end of Revenge of the Sith tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 I know what you mean, I learned to wait for a decent release the hard way! The reason I haven't seen Saw 2 yet is that I can't find a TeleCine, whatever that is... Cary Elwes' acting at the start of 'Saw' was shocking and took a bit of getting used to. But I've been thinking alot about this recently. I think we've been fed over-acting for years and have got so used to this surreal version of things in screen that when we get something closer to how people would actually react in a situation it seems too flat. 'Lost' for example, the US show, I think the acting is spot on and the breakdown of different character types seems very real (from my personal experience of crash landing on desert islands, obviously). It's just a shame it's been so 'whored'. Stretched over 7 seasons when 2 was enough and a few weaks ago the preview revealed someone was going to die in the next episode. Can you imagine a Soliliquay in 'Hamlet' where you suddenly get a run-down of the final act? Anyway, slight detour there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 I wasn't getting personal If you're admitting you're missing the film watch it again. The acting isn't crap That's like saying Hayden Christiansen deserves an oscar for his "noooooooo" at the end of Revenge of the Sith tbh. 55817[/snapback] Worst analogy ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 I wasn't getting personal If you're admitting you're missing the film watch it again. The acting isn't crap That's like saying Hayden Christiansen deserves an oscar for his "noooooooo" at the end of Revenge of the Sith tbh. 55817[/snapback] Worst analogy ever! 55820[/snapback] I thought it was rather good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Probably wouldn't have got a sentence thinking about it since his and his family's lives were at stake though. Fiml makers' idiocy? Not at all. But if we're going to get personal over this keep it to pm. (you fucknugget ) I can't be arsed to explain the plot to you, since you've made up your mind that the film is shit what's the point. It would be like trying to get me to watch AI again (worst. film. ever.). But for anyone else: Long story short Adam and Lawrence in a room, Lawrence has to kill Adam otherwise his family are murdered and he's left stuck in the room. It has Ken Leung in it and he rules. "wipe yourself. You're bleeding." Rush Hour. 55808[/snapback] How wude! Who's getting personal? I wasn't suggesting you're an idiot (I even clarified I wasn't in brackets). Why would I PM you? If anyone's an idiot it must be me. Everyone loves Saw. I'm the one who's missing something. 55813[/snapback] I wasn't getting personal If you're admitting you're missing the film watch it again. The acting isn't crap That's like saying Hayden Christiansen deserves an oscar for his "noooooooo" at the end of Revenge of the Sith tbh. 55817[/snapback] Eh? Are you trying to baffle me with wordplay? You suggested I was getting personal and should take it to PM (then called me a fucknugget). To verify I wasn't getting personal I said "who's getting personal?". Now you suggest I accused you of getting personal although I didn't (even though you called me a "fucknugget"!) . And that analogy has stopped me in my tracks. How can I argue with such illogicality? Let's see if I can get to the root of your point... If acting in one film is shit, shit acting in another film deserves an Oscar? That can't be it. The acting in Sith was shit but was Oscar worthy compared to Saw? That's it. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Probably wouldn't have got a sentence thinking about it since his and his family's lives were at stake though. Fiml makers' idiocy? Not at all. But if we're going to get personal over this keep it to pm. (you fucknugget ) I can't be arsed to explain the plot to you, since you've made up your mind that the film is shit what's the point. It would be like trying to get me to watch AI again (worst. film. ever.). But for anyone else: Long story short Adam and Lawrence in a room, Lawrence has to kill Adam otherwise his family are murdered and he's left stuck in the room. It has Ken Leung in it and he rules. "wipe yourself. You're bleeding." Rush Hour. 55808[/snapback] How wude! Who's getting personal? I wasn't suggesting you're an idiot (I even clarified I wasn't in brackets). Why would I PM you? If anyone's an idiot it must be me. Everyone loves Saw. I'm the one who's missing something. 55813[/snapback] I wasn't getting personal If you're admitting you're missing the film watch it again. The acting isn't crap That's like saying Hayden Christiansen deserves an oscar for his "noooooooo" at the end of Revenge of the Sith tbh. 55817[/snapback] Eh? Are you trying to baffle me with wordplay? You suggested I was getting personal and should take it to PM (then called me a fucknugget). To verify I wasn't getting personal I said "who's getting personal?". Now you suggest I accused you of getting personal although I didn't (even though you called me a "fucknugget"!) . And that analogy has stopped me in my tracks. How can I argue with such illogicality? Let's see if I can get to the root of your point... If acting in one film is shit, shit acting in another film deserves an Oscar? That can't be it. The acting in Sith was shit but was Oscar worthy compared to Saw? That's it. Right? 55823[/snapback] Ah but I added a ' ' to 'fucknugget' so I was only fooling. I was trying to put across that the acting is Saw isn't shit. Put it this way: if someone said the acting in star wars ROTS is great, they'd be wrong (although I did like the film since it tied up the loose ends). Just like someone who says the acting in Saw is shit, if you ask me they're wrong. Can't see why you'd think that myself but again, you have your opinion and I have mine. But the acting isn't shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 I was trying to put across that the acting is Saw isn't shit. 55824[/snapback] Ah, I see. Put it this way: if someone said the acting in star wars ROTS is great, they'd be wrong 55824[/snapback] Agreed (although I did like the film since it tied up the loose ends). 55824[/snapback] Me too and it totally changes episodes 4 - 6 when you watch them. Just like someone who says the acting in Saw is shit, if you ask me they're wrong. 55824[/snapback] Riiiight. Your point was if someone is wrong about one thing, they can be wrong about other things. I don't see why that's pertinent. When did I say the acting in Sith is good? Can't see why you'd think that myself but again, you have your opinion and I have mine. But the acting isn't shit. 55824[/snapback] Yes it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Yes it is 55825[/snapback] Care to explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10978 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 got to admit, I thought the acting in saw was awful, never once did I buy that the husband and father was going to do anything, and never once did I buy that he cared enough about his family, I didn't believe the other guy in the rooma nd I didn't give a crap about whether they all died in an incadescent ball of fire and fury or went on to become president of the United arab Emirates or whatever. good acting involves the audience, it engages the audience, I felt neither part of the piece, nor did I feel remotely amused by it. It was a nice idea, but it failed badly in my eyes, I'm not a movie snob I don't watch foreign films umming and arring over the use of sepia to convey the artists mirth at modern histrionics. I just didn't rate this film which seemd to end up being a mans exploration of new and funky methods of forcing self mutilation and or suicide... If I wanted to watch the work of a psychotic who wants people to mend their wicked ways I'd watch Phonebooth (which I admit has Colin Farrel, but it's a better concept than Saw) or I'd speak of the examples set by John Doe in Seven. Both superior films. this, to my mind, is put in the same bracket as final destination. all about the gore and "ewww" factor than any genuine substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 (edited) Yes it is 55825[/snapback] Care to explain? 55832[/snapback] I've got to explain why it's shit but I've just got to accept your opinion that it's good. sheesh, what double standards. Danny 'I'm gettin too old for this'/Operation Dumbo Drop/Gone Fishin'/Predator 2 Glover is a shit actor full stop. But his lame attempt at a Morgan Freeman rip off fell woefully short of that standard. The 'jaded cop gets a rookie partner' story is a conceit as old as film but Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt (along with a good script) kept it fresh and pulled it off superbly. Danny Glover and his little mate were nowhere near, so it was just fell into horrible cliche. I don't know who it was that played Lawrence but I had to avert my eyes from the screen a lot of the time he was on. It was just cringeworthy. The kid the wife and the other bloke in the room couldn't have been to bad though because I don't feel nauseous thinking about them. Edited November 13, 2005 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 got to admit, I thought the acting in saw was awful, never once did I buy that the husband and father was going to do anything, and never once did I buy that he cared enough about his family, I didn't believe the other guy in the rooma nd I didn't give a crap about whether they all died in an incadescent ball of fire and fury or went on to become president of the United arab Emirates or whatever. good acting involves the audience, it engages the audience, I felt neither part of the piece, nor did I feel remotely amused by it. It was a nice idea, but it failed badly in my eyes, I'm not a movie snob I don't watch foreign films umming and arring over the use of sepia to convey the artists mirth at modern histrionics. I just didn't rate this film which seemd to end up being a mans exploration of new and funky methods of forcing self mutilation and or suicide... If I wanted to watch the work of a psychotic who wants people to mend their wicked ways I'd watch Phonebooth (which I admit has Colin Farrel, but it's a better concept than Saw) or I'd speak of the examples set by John Doe in Seven. Both superior films. this, to my mind, is put in the same bracket as final destination. all about the gore and "ewww" factor than any genuine substance. 55835[/snapback] Spot on. Especially the bold bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now