Looking Back At The 'Saw' Series

Add a Comment

Comment by ryante on October 24, 2009 at 2:55am

Guilty pleasures of mine: Constantine; The Fountain; Solaris; Escaflowne: The Movie. Can't really think of much else.

Comment by Don Panini on October 24, 2009 at 12:32am

Hey, us humans like to treasure the things we love, and we can get extremely pissed off if someone tries to pee on our parade. However we do need to realize the true nature of those things we treasure and be able to say "You know what? Saw is not a good film by any stretch of the imagination, but I still love the FUCK out of it. Thanks for your concern, sir"

Now that you bring it up: What are some of your guilty pleasures?

Comment by ryante on October 23, 2009 at 11:49pm

@ Liberate:

But, damn it, if you aren't one of the more insightful human beings who frequent this site. If that's all I needed to say, I certainly wasted a lot of effort, now didn't I? You're exactly right about the guilty pleasure thing, and for the record, I have no problem with guilty pleasures at all, so long as someone doesn't put one forth as something better than just that. This whole debacle reminds me of a blog post by Gabriel himself (who woulda thunk?) a while back, in which he reviewed Transformers: ROTF. He gave the damn thing a "Full Price" edging on "Better Than Sex," and that set me and some other guy off our rockers. Later, a consensus was reached that transformers was a guilty pleasure, and not actually a good movie.

Saw was an interesting film. It had a really awesome premise / set-up, then proceeded to utter ruination with flashbacks, side-stories and twisted moralizing, not to mention some of the worst acting and dialogue I have ever born witness to. That said, it is one of the more intriguing horror films of the last decade, but not anything close to a good movie. I won't say anything about the Saw spawn.

But yeah, guilty pleasure for anyone who likes it (not me) -- a designation against which I bear no grudge. Great catch on your part.

Comment by Liberate29 on October 23, 2009 at 9:13pm

Hey ryante, I'm not sure if it happened on this blog or in another one, but I think I just found out the true escence behind the Saw series:

Gabriel within his very heated argument claimed that Saw is his own personal guilty pleasure. I have to say I agree with him. I know I loved the first 2 movies of the series, but I never claimed them to be fantastic movies, or movies worthy of any merits, much less Oscar contenders.

The Saw series IS a guilty pleasure, that's why it sticks so much to its fans and that why it gets such a negative reaction from critics an non-Saw fans.

It's not a good movie in any aspect, and as a Saw fan I can freely admit that, however I do admit that I loved those 2 first films for a variety of reasons, and none had anything to do with it being a high-quality movie.

I think you just won your argument, sir. You proved the Saw series is not made by great films, it's made by guilty pleasures that it's fans keep marking out to this day.

Interesting

Comment by ryante on October 23, 2009 at 7:50pm

"The guy is just complaining to complain."

Hmmm, that seems familiar -- oh yeah, the very comment in which you wrote that. Refuting valid points simply for the sake of doing so. Oh I love hypocrisy. But I tire of this pointless debate. Quickly now:

Saving Private Ryan is not "war porn" and Saw is "torture porn" because you are not meant to enjoy the violence in the former, yet you are in the latter. In Ryan, the violence wears down the spirit, a refutation of the act, while during Saw you giggle and get some sick pleasure out of it. That's why the characters they wrote for Saw are mere cardboard cutouts of people, caricatures. If those poor bastards had been written as anything other than the most stupid, selfish, detestable human beings you've ever seen, the movies would not have worked or garnered any success. It's why no one bothered writing a sequel to Se7en. Once is enough when you actually think the killings are sick and wrong and depressing.

As for your trite counter-examples in some vain hope to argue for the Saw plots -- just stop. Even if those films did not consist mostly of flashbacks and inane, popcorn-enertainment puzzle scenes (though I would never be able to eat while watching them) they are still completely heartless, with no connective theme or human relevance to their stories. That's why the performances and dialogue and technical aspects are as god-awful as they are: because the films aren't about those things -- integral, necessary aspects of any good movie -- and never will be. They're just soulless, money-grubbing machines, mass-produced to take advantage of some sick pleasure Hollywood wants to graft onto the current movie-going generation so that come Halloween, everyone wants to go to the cinema and see cardboard people get psychologically and physically tormented for sport by a villain whose ideology is so two-dimensional and twisted, you have to be temporarily inhuman to agree with him at all, let alone take pleasure in what he does.

Never mind the poor plot-twists, the contrived complexity of the so-called story; never mind that, How could Jigsaw have timed the self-administered shot so well that its effect stopped just when he needed it to? -- that's all irrelevant compared to the sheer fact that the Saw movies simply suck overall, including the first one.

I find your wayward ideology perfectly summed up when you say "So you're only foundation is the opinions of critics and IMDB users. Nice." Because, yeah, I'm such a sell-out for trusting the opinions of people who have seen enough films to know what makes them good or bad, and yeah, I'm such a sell-out for trusting the aggregate averages of tens of thousands of opinions regarding film quality. I am such a tool. To end my sarcasm, let me say that I don't need to see Meet the Spartans to know that it's cat-vomit wrapped in shit. You're only insulting your own intelligence by dismissing such excellent tools for indicating overall film quality, especially since you're on a website run by movie critics, who, by the way, were barely joking when they all unanimously anticipated their reviews for the next Saw film to be "Some Ol' Bullshit".

Comment by Zog on October 23, 2009 at 4:40pm

And that review was garbage. The reviewer ACTUALLY complains that there was not enough gore in the first two movies. Are you serious? He also complains that the first movie is not scary despite the fact that it never intended to be. He also says Danny Glover's subplot was pointless and made no sense. Really? Danny Glover's character finds Elwes' character's pen at a crime scene and suspects him of being in league with Jigsaw. What doesn't make sense about that? He spends half his Saw II review complaining about one line that has no impact on the story at all. He's pissed off because he thinks Jeff in Saw III was supposed to be a normal guy holding a common viewpoint that the rest of us would. HE WASN'T. He thinks the third ends on too nasty a note when it basically ends on the same note the first two do. The guy is just complaining to complain. You did better in terms of criticism, though that's not saying much.

Comment by Zog on October 23, 2009 at 4:14pm

"Would there be a plot without the torture element? Could you cut that aspect out, and still tell the same story in Saw?"

Would there be a plot to saving Private Ryan without the war and its violence? No. I guess you deem it war porn.

"That is convoluted storytelling, and also serves another function: to cover the writers’ asses. It’s ingenious on their part, because they have established a system which allows them to cover holes in the previous films by relying on the fact that people attribute such mistakes to information that is intentionally missing and will supposedly be addressed in the next film, thus making such solutions contrived."

Here is where you are wrong. For example, at the end of Saw II *SPOILER* it is revealed that Amanda is an apprentice. In Saw III, it is shown the role that she played in the previous films' traps. How is this the writers covering their own asses? We didn't NEED to know that Jigsaw had help from Amanda in the first movie. It worked fine on its own. It was added to develop more of a relationship between Jigsaw and Amanda in the third movie. The same applies with Hoffman in the fourth and fifth movies.

"By extrapolation, and the fact that all but the first have terrible scores on imdb and rotten tomatoes, I can say with confidence that the Saw series sucks."

So you're only foundation is the opinions of critics and IMDB users. Nice.

"Remember what I said about the writers covering their asses? This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about -- a contrived plot detail that seems farfetched enough on its own -- implausible -- which serves to rectify a hole or mistake in a former film."

How could they have possibly revealed that Jigsaw took a shot to slow his heart rate in the first film? It would either be stupid or spoil the ending. Did you seriously want Jigsaw to get up at the end and just randomly say "Haha got you bitch, I took this here shot to slow my heart rate!"
The plot detail of the shot is implied heavily, as NO ONE could lay on the floor for six hours and not make the slightest motion without some kind of drug. People would notice breathing motions. Your stomach would rise. Not everything needs to be spelled out for the audience.

Comment by Liberate29 on October 23, 2009 at 4:06am

Damn, the heated debate goes personal again.

Chill out guys, everything that had to be said has already be said, arguing anymore is wasting typing energy

Comment by ryante on October 23, 2009 at 2:01am

You know what? I'm probably not even going to argue against the Saw series ever again. I'll just let this review do it for me. Awesome stuff. Just like that dumbass Jigsaw guy, I can simply let someone else take over my work for me. Plus, if I could ever argue anything so well and coherently as that writer picked Saw apart, I could die happy.

Comment by ryante on October 22, 2009 at 7:55pm

"Do you know what "horror" is? Horror movies are meant to scare..." and so forth.

You make the mistake of insinuating that the primary definition for Horror entails quick moments of fright or suspense. In fact, it's much broader a genre than that. Here's a definition from the great internet: "Horror fiction is, broadly, fiction in any medium intended to scare, unsettle, or horrify the audience." Notice "unsettle" and "horrify". That does not necessitate a quick scare -- someone jumping out of the dark -- or even a serial killer or monster. It can be anything -- anything at all! -- whose goal is to psychologically upset the audience. The Saw films certainly did that for me. I considered myself unsettled during and after watching them. So, my original contention -- that Saw really is horror -- is correct. We could argue all day on whether they deserve the more respectable label "psychological thriller," but that's very much beside the point.

As for your misunderstanding regarding "torture porn," let me clear this up. Just because a movie utilizes torture -- like your example that war movies use war violence but cannot be called "war porn" -- does not make it torture porn. Torture porn means that the torture is the central theme, the main event, the prime mover of the film. You may have gotten that. Maybe not. The disagreement here centers on whether or not the Saw movies revolve around the torture depicted in them, and the answer is a very clear "yes." Yes, they do. Just because over the series of the films, they don't increase in torture violence, does not mean anything. That is irrelevant data. What is relevant are the posters, the advertisements, the story itself. You cannot argue that the posters and adverts for the Saw films do not centralize around the torture. You simply cannot. Then, the story. Tell me true: Would there be a plot without the torture element? Could you cut that aspect out, and still tell the same story in Saw? No, you really couldn't. Torture porn.

"You're "arguments" are mostly opinions that you wish to force upon others and to call them stupid for not thinking the same way. That's why I put "arguments" in quotes. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. However, if someone's logic is severely flawed and they still feel the need to act pretentious and holier-than-thou, then yes, I'm going to call them out on it."

All arguments are opinions which you impose on another. You cannot argue facts, for instance (you can state or ignore them, that's it), and how could you argue without another person? Here I've encountered yet another deluded individual who subscribes to the "respect all opinions" meme. Did you read any of my comments between the first one and this one? You should, but I'll summarize what I've written regarding opinions. This meme, which seems to have been set loose on society with the current blogging generation -- the "respect all opinions" meme -- is perhaps the most deadly and insulting one to intelligence I have yet encountered. I completely respect that you are entitled to an opinion. I will never argue against or deny your inherent right to an opinion. But that does not mean opinions should go unscrutinized. There are informed, intelligent opinions, and ignorant, stupid opinions, and I don't have to respect the latter at all. Opinions need to be reinforced with proper context, standards, logic and reasoning, or they are ignorant. It's not enough to simply like or dislike something, to consider something complex or intriguing or "good". You must tell me why, and why I'm wrong for thinking otherwise. Which brings me to...

"The stories are complex because there are many layers to them and many secrets which all end up coming together in the end. But since it's a movie you don't like (nothing wrong with that) it's automatically and unarguably "contrived" and "shitty." Grow up."

At least you have elaborated on why you consider the stories complex. Note that in my original comment I did not disagree, but stated that they are indeed complex, albeit in a “contrived, convoluted and utterly ridiculous” fashion, not in the positive light you seemed to infer. And they are contrived, convoluted and ridiculous. The details in the films which add to the plot only do so because there must be an excuse for the puzzle scenes, the torture, to take place, and that doesn’t make a good plot. One of my biggest problems with the franchise’s story is that you must see the next iteration in order to fully understand the one that came before it. That is convoluted storytelling, and also serves another function: to cover the writers’ asses. It’s ingenious on their part, because they have established a system which allows them to cover holes in the previous films by relying on the fact that people attribute such mistakes to information that is intentionally missing and will supposedly be addressed in the next film, thus making such solutions contrived. To top it all off, the whole thing gets increasingly ridiculous and implausible. You would have a very hard time disagreeing with that particular point.

All this is very apparent to me because I have seen most of the Saw films, though not all of them entirely, and out of order. Except for the first one, which I saw in theaters, I saw the second and several parts of the fourth and fifth ones, rented by friends of mine. So, you're both right and wrong. I haven't seen all of them in their entirety, but I know enough about them to have formulated an opinion regarding their few merits and countless flaws. All of the ones I have seen, even parts of, have sucked. By extrapolation, and the fact that all but the first have terrible scores on imdb and rotten tomatoes, I can say with confidence that the Saw series sucks.

Let's clean up here.

"It's revealed in the third movie that Jigsaw takes a shot to slow his heart rate thus making him appear dead."

Remember what I said about the writers covering their asses? This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about -- a contrived plot detail that seems farfetched enough on its own -- implausible -- which serves to rectify a hole or mistake in a former film. Unfortunately, they weren't clever enough to cover the possibility of one or both of the men escaping -- via key or saw -- then finding out, upon inspecting the corpse, that it was actually alive and the villain, and finally shooting the fucker dead with the pistol conveniently lying on the ground. That could have happened, which makes the killer an idiot -- ballsy or not. Don't bring the electrocution thing up, because that in turn brings in too many unforeseen and unknowable factors, like whether or not Jigsaw would be quick enough to shock them before they shoot him. It was a poor plot twist and you know it. As to your question, the writers could have addressed that factor in a way far less stupid than having their villain be in the same room and vulnerable.

Add to this many other problems plaguing the Saw series -- shitty performances by a majority of the actors; horrendous dialogue (I mean, awful); cheap, overdone visuals; bad editing -- and you might begin to understand why I believe this series to be nothing special. In fact, it just sucks.

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last