You want me to Saw my...?

[Annie]

[color=indigo][size=1]I went to the movies last night and saw the "suspense/thriller" movie [b]Saw[/b]. Now, the movie wasn't all that bad..but it was [b]not[/b] good. It's sad, because there were points and scenes in the movie that could have been changed that would have made the movie awesome.

The thing that compelled me to roll my eyes at this movie was the acting. The actors, on the exception of one, are really good actors. However, it's not the quality of the actor's abilities; it's how they are directed to act. The direction for the actors was pathetic.

The theme of the movie is really great. It's sick, twisted, and had great potential. But it just couldn't show through the midst of insanely corny acting. The writer of the story did an amazing job. The twists and turns, and the way the "killer" planned out his "murders" is just...wonderful.

Why did I quote those two words? Well, I don't want to spoil the movie. I wouldn't pay eight dollars to go see it, but it was much better than a few thrillers I've seen in the past couple of years.

Has anyone else seen this movie?[/color][/size]

[Bullet Theory]

I went to see this movie with my girlfriend.

[QUOTE][size=1][color=#4b0082]The actors, on the exception of one, are really good actors.[/color][/size][/QUOTE]
I disagree with this. I thought that only one or two were good actors.

The writer was, indeed, a great writer for this movie and i agree 110% that the plot twists were amazing. It kept me guessing for the entire movie.

The ending was the best ending to a horror movie I've seen in a good while. So I'll give Saw a...how about a 7/10.

[Guest Sean]

[SIZE=1]Ita an 18 over here! That i so not fair, grrrr, heh. Well from what I've seen it looks a really good watch. It looks like I could get a few hugs out ofthis one, hehe, yeah that sounded wrong. But if its really as suspense as you say it is then I'll get my cousins student card, mwahahahaha.

Even though I look nothing like an 18 year old ^___^;;;[/SIZE]

[Transtic Nerve]

The movie had a million dollar budget. Which is nothing. They couldn't afford the great actors and great whatnot. Maybe you should see how great it is for what they had to work with before comparing it to things it really can't be compared to.

[Bullet Theory]

I wasn't aware of the short budget this movie was on. It was an amazing movie for such a short amount of given money.

Trastic is right. If I had known that it only had $1,000,000... I wouldn't have given it a low rating.

[i n d i g o]

[SIZE=2][COLOR=INDIGO]
I'm told that Saw was originally NC-17 on the independent circut, then cut down to R for the theatrical release.

Anyway, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, the writing was fantastic, and overall it kept me entertained and always guessing...Besides, you really have to give it credit for what it is, especially taking into consideration it's humble beginnings.


[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[Syk3]

[quote name='i n d i g o][size=2][color=indigo]I'm told that Saw was originally NC-17 on the independent circut, then cut down to R for the theatrical release.[/color'][/size][/quote]It's interesting.. because I saw it twice, and I felt that it should have been PG-13. They never actually show anything gruesome; most of it is implied by blood splattering to the side in the background, or a pool of blood. Maybe some of the dialogue, or themes caused it to be rated R, but I think that they could have got away with something lower.

So yes, I actually saw the movie twice. Once, I think the day it came out, with a friend of mine when we were bored, and again a week later when I was on a double date with some chick since there were no other good movies playing. I thought it was decent enough, or I would have refused to see it a second time, lol, whereas it was kind of cool to see all of the hints that they give you leading up to the conclusion.

As said, the acting was rather poor, especially near the beginning. I didn't like the way they just dove head first into the story, either, but it does kind of mix things up a bit. Both got gradually better, in my opinion, as the movie progressed, but not so much the acting. It did well for a low budget movie, which was evident a few times, but some poor dialogue could have been avoided I think. The twists in the story were great though, and the end kind of left you on edge without closure, which is both a good and bad thing I suppose, lol. It's good in the sense that there isn't a generic happy or sad finish. Could have been better, though.

[Annie]

[color=deepskyblue][size=1]Hmm, interesting. First of all, I did not know it had such a low budget. So, I will give it some credit. Second, I was not aware of the first rating. I wonder why they changed it; like Syk3 said, they didn't show anything too grotesque. I also agree that there were some things that should have been thought out better.

I like seeing everyone's thoughts on this. It makes you think a little further and appreciate hidden aspects. But I have one question, it may seem naive; where did they get the name "Saw" for the movie? I mean, there were saws in the movie, but is that why?[/color][/size]

[Syk3]

[quote name='Annie][color=deepskyblue][size=1]But I have one question, it may seem naive; where did they get the name "Saw" for the movie? I mean, there were saws in the movie, but is that why?[/size'][/color][/quote]I dunno, that kind of confused me, lol. The saw was such a miniscule part of the movie that either they were desperate for title, or it's supposed to have multiple meanings and make you think. For example, the guy behind it saw everything that his victoms went through, and as descibed in the movie, had a "front row seat". So that's two different meanings right there.

[i n d i g o]

[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=2]
The movie itself is argueably about the destruction of the human spirit,[spoiler]and using the saw to cut off his foot was his last resort, his mental state hiting rock bottom.[/spoiler] ...My opinion as to why the title is what it is.

Anyway, as I said, It was [b]cut[/b] to be rated R, meaning the NC-17 version is much more...unpleasent. I assume this means they[spoiler] [b]showed[/b] the girl cut into the guys stomach, the officer getting shot in the head,[/spoiler] and other crap along those lines. I'm assuming they'll release an uncut version witht he DVD...or something...
[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Syk3]

[QUOTE=i n d i g o][color=indigo][size=2]Anyway, as I said, It was [b]cut[/b] to be rated R, meaning the NC-17 version is much more...unpleasent. I assume this means they[spoiler] [b]showed[/b] the girl cut into the guys stomach, the officer getting shot in the head,[/spoiler] and other crap along those lines. I'm assuming they'll release an uncut version witht he DVD...or something...
[/size][/color][/QUOTE]That makes sense, but if they did show that stuff initially then I'm surprised that they could have done all that with a small budget. O_o In any case, from what I saw (heh..) in theaters, I think that either the rating could have been lower, or they could have showed more stuff to compensate for the R rating. :/