Saw II

Whats wrong with him? I know the twists havent been so hot as of late....but as far as directing talent......i would go with amazing as well. He's similar to Spielberg with the really long master shots....they just dont involve any special effects. I know everyone thinks the Village sucked....but as far as creating a mood and a special feel for a particular place and time...it was very good. Regardless of whether you like him or not.....he got 2 oscar nods for The sixth sense.....a PG-13 thriller.....and that doesnt happen very often.
 
Mood alone doesn't make a movie. Surprise twists that make no sense don't make a movie. Being a good director and writer means doing a hell of a lot more than that. Shamalamadingdong is hardly amazing. His films have gotten more and more absurd as the years have passed. I can hardly wait to see his rendition of "Splash".
Oscar nominations mean nada to me, since half the time people who deliver consistently good work are never recognized or win years later for a subpar work. The best don't always win.
 
I don't think the acting was noticeably better in this one. Most of the victims were just mediocore, with the exception of the stereotypical drug dealer who was horrendous. Wahlberg did a better job than Danny Glover did as the crazed cop.

What would have been interesting to me was if they hadn't even bothered to do a surprise ending like the first. I mean, really... you can't top it... we're all going in expecting it all to be a set up of some kind. I didn't mind the ending, but it was hardly a surprise or a shock.

-Robert
 
My two cents on this whole line of conversation:

#1: If you are going to give away any details of the plot specifically then put up a 'SPOILER ALERT' warning at the beginning of your post. Otherwise you are cheating other people out of the chance of enjoying a movie.

#2. M. Night. Look, The Sixth Sense was a good movie. I loved Unbreakable. SPOILER ALERT -that Mr. Glass comment stayed with me for a long time and I thought it was a great picture. Since then, nothing he has done has impressed me. It could be the projects or his directing style, but I just haven't been impressed. We could debate the merits of a Pauly Shore film all day, doesn't matter, everyone has different opinions and let's keep this thread on topic.

#3: Saw II-> In my opinion I thought the acting was better than the first film, I thought the story was good, and that the twists were entertaining enough to keep me interested. I think maybe one of the reasons why I liked this film more than other people is I knew going into see this movie that it was going to be garbage. Saw was an unexpected movie the first time through, and in turn it was a good suprise to most of the crap out there. By all rationality, by the rules of sequels, and according to logic of Hollywood Saw II should have completely sucked (anyone remember The Ring 2?). It was a good movie that was entertaining. It provided several cringe moments, a couple of good jumps, the sound should serve as a tutorial for anyone looking to do horror sound recording or set a mood with sound. It was a movie that should have been complete crap and was entertaining and pretty good.

Not every movie is going to be North by Northwest. For every great movie there are hundreds of Catwoman's that we are subjected to. For every Clerks there is are a hundred Jersey Girls. For every American Beauty there is a Home Alone 3. I went into Saw II expecting nothing and was treated to a pretty decent movie.
 
Yea, I didn't expect much and was pleasantly surprised that it wasn't Catwoman bad. They made a lot of interesting choices, some I agreed with some I didn't. Overall it was an entertaining horror movie...still, while the gore wsa better the overall film just can't top itself.

-Robert
 
Maybe that is why I am happy with this movie. If I even see a good movie I'm impressed. When it comes to sequels I expect them to be crap. Yeah this was made as a vehicle to the franchise, but it was good, entertaining, and exceeded my expectations.
 
And now, Saw III. I just read this morning that they are going ahead with it (not that it's a huge surprise). No script, director or actors are confirmed yet.
 
Yeah with their box office numbers I am not surprised. I just hope they move away from their formula for the third and offer something a little different, but still the same feeling.

-Robert
 
Saw is reminding me a bit of the Scream saga... Jeremy's gone crazy? Nope, just follow me for a second. The first Scream was a good movie, entertaining, and a new twist on the old horror film. The second Scream took it in a slightly different way, but still expanded the horror film genre. Saw was a new spin on the thriller film, and Saw II was yet another spin on the thriller film. I really believe they are looking for a franchise.

At the end of the day, if when you saw Se7en the first time you wanted to see more of John Doe's torture scenes and prayed for 40 deadly sins rather than just seven, then the Saw series will be good entertainment.

I'm not suprised at all that they are moving forward with the whole next chapter though.

~Jeremy
 
TheYankee said:
Saw is reminding me a bit of the Scream saga... Jeremy's gone crazy? Nope, just follow me for a second. The first Scream was a good movie, entertaining, and a new twist on the old horror film. The second Scream took it in a slightly different way, but still expanded the horror film genre. Saw was a new spin on the thriller film, and Saw II was yet another spin on the thriller film. I really believe they are looking for a franchise.

At the end of the day, if when you saw Se7en the first time you wanted to see more of John Doe's torture scenes and prayed for 40 deadly sins rather than just seven, then the Saw series will be good entertainment.

I'm not suprised at all that they are moving forward with the whole next chapter though.

~Jeremy
Click to expand...

Interesting... I just hope Saw 3 fares better than Scream 3 did. And though for me, Scream 2 was the best of the Scream trilogy. I'm probably the only horror fanatic that didn't like the first one.

Franchise is the hot word in Hwood. They're always looking for something else they can franchise, or prequel, or spin off.

-Robert
 
lol i know but it is what its ia concidered. http://www.houseofhorrors.com/craven.htm


?Wes Craven, the man who made all of our nightmares come true, has created a few classic films that have forever changed the shape of horror today. But before I can go any farther, I must state that , "Scream and Scream 2 +3 are not horror films!!!!!" Rather these films are thrillers that mock the genre we love. And although many so-called horror fans (mainly 12 and 13 year olds who think Scream is the greatest movie ever) cite their importance to the resurgence of the genre, I look upon them as furthering the digression of it. Can we blame Wes for that??? Maybe.... but I try to overlook these failings, because he has done so much for the genre."
 
spidey said:
lol i know but it is what its ia concidered. http://www.houseofhorrors.com/craven.htm


?Wes Craven, the man who made all of our nightmares come true, has created a few classic films that have forever changed the shape of horror today. But before I can go any farther, I must state that , "Scream and Scream 2 +3 are not horror films!!!!!" Rather these films are thrillers that mock the genre we love. And although many so-called horror fans (mainly 12 and 13 year olds who think Scream is the greatest movie ever) cite their importance to the resurgence of the genre, I look upon them as furthering the digression of it. Can we blame Wes for that??? Maybe.... but I try to overlook these failings, because he has done so much for the genre."
Click to expand...


I hardly consider houseofhorrors.com an expert in film. A fan, yes, but that's about it. You want to see the difference in a true parody watch Scream 1 2 or 3 then watch Scary Movie. BIG difference.

The Scream movies ARE horror movies that are also self-aware of the genre and wink at the audience for all the references...that's NOT a parody. A parody is definitely light in tone. Scream 2 or 3 light? Please!

Again, that's someone else's opinion, but I have to say it's way wrong. LOL.

If you haven't seen them yourself, there's really no reason to continue the discussion because its not even your own opinion you're serving up.

-Robert
 
HorseFilms said:
No, if I'm blaming him for anything it's Deadly Friend. *shudders*
Click to expand...

That geek in Deadly Friend had a long run playing geeks in the 80s. Then... *poof * he disappeared. But then again, Deadly Friend wasn't really a horror movie... it was a cleverly disguised parody of E.T. :evil:

-Robert
 
Taryllou said:
It's not a horror, it's not scary at all
Click to expand...

Ummmm, whetether or not you find it scary is irrelevant. The fact is Scream is a horror movie. There are tons of horror movies I don't find scary but that doesn't change the fact that they are horror movies.

Go into a video store and look for Scream... where will you find it...in comedy alongside other "parodies" like Airplane!... or in horror by Halloween???

I rest my case and really am shocked that we even had to have this discussion.

Scream the original rejuvinated the horror genre, not the parody/comedy genre. Whether or not its self-aware of itself doesn't change the fact that its a horror movie. Like it or not, find it scary or not... its a freaking horror movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top