Absolute vile trash - Saw (2004) Discussion

cant argue with those reasons. oh wait.

reply

[–] cshak4 9 years ago

'Oh wait.' I don't understand what you mean here. Are you someone who is in favour of grotesque torture of humans? Surely you can see that the entire Saw movie franchise is full of such abhorrent behaviour? I respect your right to have your own opinion but come on. These films are all the very worst that Hollywood can produce.

reply

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

Are you someone who is in favour of grotesque torture of humans?

Yes. When it's fake.

Can't stop the signal.

reply

[–] oystergirl94 9 years ago

Thank you!

reply

[–] Mars70175 9 years ago

I understand where you're coming from, but they've been playing on a loop on my cable the last couple months, so I've watched a little of it. It is gratuitous, disgusting, and all kinds of sick, but you get caught up in it sometime.

reply

[–] oystergirl94 9 years ago

It's definitely not gratuitous but for one scene. The vast majority of the film is dialog.

reply

[–] ssllaasskk 8 years ago

Hint 1: "cant argue with those reasons"
Hint 2: "those reasons"
Hint 3: "reasons"

*dramatic music*
*camera spins out of control*

reply

[–] chamohlamb 8 years ago

Watching a Saw film does not mean someone supports murder and torture in real life.

reply

[–] koffeenkreame41-1 8 years ago

Watching a Saw film does not mean someone supports murder and torture in real life.

This. Of course. OP, Saw's not the only violent horror franchise, look at the Texas Chainsaw Massacre films or the Friday the 13th films.

"I'm the ultimate badass,you do NOT wanna f-ck wit me!"Hudson,Aliens😬

reply

[–] psmithyyyyy 8 years ago

Well I'm glad somebody came here to say this. I think its not so much the movie itself, although it is horrible. what makes me more upset is that people like cary elwes and danny glover wiould choose to be in something like this. you mean I have the see Wesley from princess bride saw his own leg off? I think ill pass, don't want to taint my image.

reply

[–] SpideyFan914 9 years ago

This movie was produced independently.

reply

[–] Totemkauf 9 years ago

'Oh wait.' I don't understand what you mean here.

Sarcasm

Are you someone who is in favour of grotesque torture of humans? Surely you can see that the entire Saw movie franchise is full of such abhorrent behaviour?

'full' suggests 'mostly of' . There is probably a total of what, 10 minutes of graphic material in the 8-10 hours of films. That's one of the things I love about this franchise, its not 95% of bloody gratuity, its only a fragment of a bigger story (although I could see how it got a little convoluted as it went on)

Just because a movie has some X in it does not mean it 'Glorifies X' , wants everyone in the world to love X and do X. It doesn't mean everyone that loves or even just watches it to be into X and want to devote their lives to X.
It's a story, stories have conflict.
Can no movie ever have anything bad in it? You are supposed to think the violence is bad, and feel bad for the good guys and negative toward the bad guys.

reply

[–] toomuchfruitforonepieceo 8 years ago

Academics have argued that horror films are the most moral. This is because, for example, in a film like 'Rambo' in which Rambo goes out and kills people, we are rooting for the man doing the killing. Meanwhile, in horror films, we are rooting for the victim(s) of the killer.

There was also a term coined during Saw's era; and that term is 'morality thriller.' It refers to films that have a moral message either for the viewers or characters.

reply

[–] gamer_12 8 years ago

I don't know, as series like Friday the 13th progressed, you almost start to root for Jason to kill the stupid camp counsellors or whatever.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Narcissist00 7 years ago

Yeah, from part 2!

reply

[–] catsidhe (1649) 5 years ago

Always root for Jason.

reply

[–] catsidhe (1649) 5 years ago

Oops. I've been doing horror movies wrong all this time...

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

But Rambo is killing scumbags who deserve it, in horror films it's usually scumbags killing innocent victims who don't deserve it most of the time.....there's a big difference in the morality of these films. Academics are full of shit on that one. There's nothing morally reprehensible about destroying evil which is what Rambo does, someone like Jason or Michael are horror icons that people root for as well even though they kill innocents yet the audience doesn't care. I think it's the other way around and these so called Academics sound hypocritical for making that claim.

reply

[–] magnusplin 8 years ago

The first film is a very well-acted, well-structured, entertaining movie with characters people actually cared about and rooted for. I agree with you about the sequels, though. Absolute garbage.

reply

[–] bobbydallas (8110) 5 years ago

After all these years.. and all the torture-ish porn that has flooded the mainstream Hollywood movie I have no choice but to agree with you..

This movie should've never been greenlit. People who enjoy this are sick in the head no doubt.

reply

[–] ChipDouglas (1606) 5 years ago

Saw 1 should never have been green lit? It is the least violent of the series and essentially a detective thriller no different than Se7en.

reply

[–] bobbydallas (8110) 5 years ago

with all due respect, Se7en does not show you the crimes/tortures being committed...

reply

[–] ChipDouglas (1606) 5 years ago

That is true, but I don't think Saw should've never been made. It does have a point to it and entertaining "what would you do" scenarios.

There are far more disturbing movies that were released before Saw.

reply

[–] ArmadilloKnight (456) 5 years ago

I disagree about the first one. I think it was actually a decent movie, and the violence/gore was fine. The sequels are just sick though. I didn't think there would be that many people who would also agree that these movies are sick, glad I'm not the only one.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

The sequels certainly upped the gore. The first was more suggestive due to the lack of budget.

If you really want to avoid disgusting movies, avoid zombie ass: toilet of the dead, feast, and human centipede 2.

reply

[–] Rossva (15) 5 years ago

Saw & saw 2 were actually pretty good movies. 3 was all about the gore and not much else, although it did a decent job of back story and tying all together.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

cshak4 It called FICTION/MAKE BELIEVE which makes it not real, nobody is really sick here....it's just a movie! Chill out. You act like this is real life or snuff.....if you don't like it don't watch it! What point are you trying to make here?

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

I think the first film was great

Then, yeah, I kind of agree with the sequels. The torture became the main focus of the series and the gore and suffering became gratuitous

The original concept, while grotesque, was kind of intriguing. You take the horrible people in the world, and give them a chance to live and redeem themselves through some awful trial that tests them both physically and mentally

But with the sequels the quality control took a huge dip. B-list actors gave way to D-list actors. Solid directing and writing gave way to exploitative filmmaking. Cinematography went from spooky to ugly AF. Story went from complicated to straight up ludicrous

But I still believe the original was a very good Horror movie. The industry greed just tarnished it by turning it into a big fat franchise

reply

[–] Jones70 (6195) 5 years ago

Apart from the first 2 I agree with you.

reply