General Chat / SAW II

Absoloutely ridiculous. I expected more.

It actually wasn't as violent as I thought it would be. The whole used needles and syringes thing was disgusting, and the whole bat with needles in the back of the head made me weak.

Other than that, I thought it lacked any intelligence. But, a good halloween flick nonetheless.

And whoever wrote this, thought of all the traps is a fucking psycho.

fuck, i hate horrow movies.

I was supposed to go see this with some friends but I decided against it. Might go tomorrow, depending on people's thoughts.


-Alienated-

I saw the first one and loved it's twisted horror so I'm bound to see this one sometime, too. Jigsaw is pretty damn smart, if you ask me.

why are people so enthralled with horror?

The first film had SOOOOOOOOOO much potential.....but they shot their wad in the trailers and the film itself was abismal........I am stunned that they even decided (wait...this is Hollywood....nevermind)......to make a sequel.........I am of the opinion that Cary Elwes should only do overacting in films like Princess Bride and Ella Enchanted.......other than that.....he really needs to find a new line of work........now watch.....I'll work with him next month, and then I'll have to eat my hat.....or something.

Not gonna see this clunker......the first Saw was bad enough....if you want REAL horror.....see High Tension (Haute Tension in French)......FUCK!!!!! That movie was SCARY!!!!!!!!!

I've seen the first SAW, and it was brilliant, full of unexpected twists and stuff. One of the best horror movies i've seen. I havent seen the second yet, i think it came out yesterday over here- but i am really surprised they made a 'SAW II', seems just pathetic to me. Anything for money i suppose.
I hope it doesn't end up like Final Destination, and just do new films based on different ways of how people are killed.

-X-

I saw the new one last night, it was pretty good. Not as good as the first, but it still had its moments, like the needles, and that skin peeling part, too.
Not bad.

I saw the trailer - not my thing, I expect. I love schlock horror (Cronenburg etc), but when needles and shit are involved i'm not so keen. Not shit literally, you understand, although i'm not that keen on that either.

Come on, this movie was great. The plot twist at the end was crazy, and some of the scenarios had me on the edge of my seat. Not only does the movie maintain a good pace, but the opening scene... crazy start.

8.5/10

Damn, there's no way I'm seeing it now. Baseball bats with needles to the back of the head...skin peeling...

I can't even imagine that.

Who would think that this is a good movie? Just look at the trailer! It's clearly an inane gorefest created by a bunch of sadistic, aesthetically ignorant, college kids, who think Marilyn Manson is the greatest man, and musician, to have ever walked the face of the earth, or, at least, people who want to make money by pandering to those sorts of people.

The only horror film released this year which looks good to me is 3 Extremes, unless there's something I'm missing, and there probably is. I don't really pay attention to horror films, because they're so consistantly dull.

What on earth has Marilyn Manson got to do with horror films?

Seriously. What is with these types of gore flicks? Just hack hack slash scream guts blood SHOCK!... popular horror is as canned (and in much the same way, if you think about it) as modern trance. Build tension, release, build tension, release... fucking clockwork. This shit doesn't even work on me anymore, it's so lame. I found saw 1 to be boring fucking shit.

In real horror, the details are implied. It's supposed to let your mind fill in the blanks. Because in the end, we are able to scare ourselves much better than any director could. This is also why i like horror novels more than movies.

you know real horror when they don't have to flash shit in your face.
aka most of japanese horror films.

i never thought of cronenburg as horror, i just saw a history of violence and it was amazing, although i do not think it was a horror film?

Well it's quite a big departure from his normal mode of operation (eXistenz, Crash, The Fly...)

You saw a History of Violence? Ick. I'm not even bothering with that! Watching a master sell out is not on my "to do" list.

Watch a real Cronenberg movie, okay?

Some of the films Mantis mentioned are great, along with a lot of his other 90s films, but they're not really horror. Still eXistenZ, Crash, etc, are nessecary viewing for anyone who isn't easily shocked or disgusted (if you are you might want to stay away).

Look for "Shivers" about parasites which look crawling, bloody, penises, forcing their way into peoples body anyway they can, and turning them into mindless, violent, sex-crazed, lunatics, or "Scanners" about people who can read brains, control brains, and, for that matter, destroy brains (in a massive, bloody, explosion). Or, indeed, "The fly", where a baboon gets turned inside out, a human turns into a fly, and a woman gives birth to a gigantic maggot!

What on earth has Marilyn Manson got to do with horror films?

I missed this before.

Marilyn Manson has nothing to do with horror films in general (except drawing on their imagery), but a lot to do with a specific kind of person who would make, or enjoy, a movie like Saw 2.

I missed this before.

Marilyn Manson has nothing to do with horror films in general (except drawing on their imagery), but a lot to do with a specific kind of person who would make, or enjoy, a movie like Saw 2.

It's unfortunate that they don't make enough Lord of the Ring films to keep you satisfied, but how can you criticize a film you've never seen? You're dismissing a concept, which really defines the genre. "Hacking and Gore" pertains perfectly to a horror movie. It provides the contrast to seperate itself from other movies, which besides physcological effects, is what really does seperate the genre. As for me, I enjoyed the movie, I had a good time watching it. Some of the scenes were unbelievable, and almost hard to watch. It had a plot twist so unexpected that it leaves you thinking days after you get out of the theatre. Some people tend to criticize films to the extent where they forget the primary purpose of a film, and that is to provide entertainment for the audience. According to the box office, Saw made 55-million dollars opening weekend. So, apparently, the public must enjoy the franchise as for it to have made so much money. The audience was entertained, so the film succeeded in its task. If you're going to criticize the majority, you shouldn't refer to them as inferior, which you did imply as you obviously are degrading their taste in movies. I know you were "expressing your opinion," however, you criticized me in doing so, so, I thought I would express my opinion.

It's unfortunate that they don't make enough Lord of the Ring films to keep you satisfied, but how can you criticise a film you've never seen? You're dismissing a concept, which really defines the genre. "Hacking and Gore" pertains perfectly to a horror movie. It provides the contrast to seperate itself from other movies, which besides physcological effects, is what really does seperate the genre. As for me, I enjoyed the movie, I had a good time watching it. Some of the scenes were unbelievable, and almost hard to watch. It had a plot twist so unexpected that it leaves you thinking days after you get out of the theatre. Some people tend to criticize films to the extent where they forget the primary purpose of a film, and that is to provide entertainment for the audience. According to the box office, Saw made 55-million dollars opening weekend. So, apparently, the public must enjoy the franchise as for it to have made so much money. The audience was entertained, so the film succeeded in its task. If you're going to criticize the majority, you shouldn't refer to them as inferior, which you did imply as you obviously are degrading their taste in movies. I know you were "expressing your opinion," however, you criticized me in doing so, so, I thought I would express my opinion.

When did I criticise "hacking and gore?" I just recommended a film where a baboon is turned inside out! Did you read that? INSIDE OUT! That is, all of the stuff inside the baboon is outside, and everything outside the baboon is inside. Okay? AND THEN IT SCREAMS!

Apparently I'm a sweet guy who hates to see violence, then, right? Yeah.

However, it is very clear to me that you've missed my point entirely. Saw 2 is a horror film which, last I checked, was not defined by violence, but, wouldn't you believe it, horror. A film like Saw can't frighten you, and probably won't even make me cringe. It will just be a barrage of violent imagery and music without a point. Why do people eat it up? The same reason they eat up Marilyn Manson, and, actually, now that you've gotten me down this path, Britney Spears. "Toxic" probably is the most toxic song ever recorded.

To get back to definitions, though, there is one genre which is defined by violence: the bloodbath tragedy. Just listen to that name "bloodbath". THE WHOLE FUCKING GENRE IS DEDICATED TO BLOODBATHS! And it produced some of the greatest works of art of all time. Just to read the list of one man is enough, not that you'd know of any made by anyone else: Hamlet, Macbeth, Titus Andronicus... wait, you probably don't know that last one. In it, Titus Andronicus bakes the children of his enemies into a pie, and feeds it to them! HE MAKES HIS ENEMIES EAT THEIR OWN CHILDREN!

I have nothing against "hacking and gore", I have everything against bad art, especially if it doesn't even bother trying to be art in the first place, especially if it doesn't even try to be bad entertainment.

Saw 2 clearly doesn't try to be anything except a really loud nothing, which seems to be enough these days. Maybe it always ways.