MovieChat Forums > w Delta z (2008) Discussion > What a bloody ridiculous idea for a film

What a bloody ridiculous idea for a film

posted 16 years ago by jdvhal
50 replies | jump to latest

I saw the trailer for this before watching 'No Country For Old Men'(which I recommend) at the cinema and I had to get out of the room in order to compose myself and recover. For goodness sake. Why the hell would anyone want to watch a film in which people were TORTURED until they ELECTRICUTED their own family? How much more depressing and depraved can you get.

It's obviously just trying to cash in on the success of Saw - they could have at least tried to disguise this by coming up with a remotely different name. Was? - that's basically just Saw backwards.

Also, so that it isn't considered just gratuitous violence for the sake of it (which lets face it - it is) They have some bloody ridiculous thing about carving Algebra into the dead peoples bodies. ALGEBRA! What the hell?

How horrific will the premise of these types of film have to be before people decide the film makers have gone too far? Killing pets of something? I shudder to think.

[–] mohito 16 years ago

I saw a trailer for "No Country For Old Men" at the cinema and I had to get out of the room in order to compose myself and recover. For goodness sake. Why the hell would you want to watch a film in which about a dozen people were SHOT in the FIRST FEW MINUTES and then DOGS and WOMEN were KILLED? And then they kill THE HERO? This is really sick, and obviously just trying to cash in on the success of other films made by the Coen brothers. It made me decide one thing though and that thing is this: that I am never EVER going to watch another movie all the way through. From now on I am just going to watch the TRAILERS and make up my mind about every aspect of a film based on what is contained in those few minutes of footage. After which, I'm going to come onto IMDB and post in SCANDALISED TONES using LOTS of CAPITAL LETTERS in order to EMPHASISE my POINT. I mean, they actually KILL PETS in "No Country For Old Men"!! What the hell? How horrific will the premise of these types of film have to be before I practically pass out from sanctimonious outrage, even though I haven't actually even seen the film? I shudder to think.

[–] foxonthedocks 16 years ago

Well said, mailjaneharris. Why the hell would somebody post a review attacking a film that they haven't seen? I HAVE seen the film (pardon the capitals), and can confirm that, although it is quite nasty, it is not a simple copy of such films as Saw or Hostel. It is far more intelligent.

[–] nelsonphillipio 16 years ago

Hilarious :)

i might go see it next week!

"I'd buy that for a dollar!" - Bixby Snyder, Robocop (1987)

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rullirock 16 years ago

Top critics are also comparing WAZ to Seven!

[–] Airwaves23 16 years ago

my friend, please clarify... what did you find so intelligent about this inter-racial gay torture porn of a film that makes it more clever than saw????

[–] rullirock 16 years ago

Why would you want to post a total spoiler for the film like that? Shame on you. You should be reported for that.

[–] jamesstewartowen 16 years ago

Airwaves23, you appear to equate interracial and gay relationships with torture. You have a problem with films that depict those things? I think this says more about how intelligent you are than it does the film.

[–] ben2bob 16 years ago

no country for old men was rubbish. the ending was the worst ever. just get that off my chest! people can say what they want about "layers" etc but it's just bollocks. it's a simple cat and mouse movie with little action.

waz was also pretty bad. it's not torture porn cos there's only really one true scene of torture, and that was pretty poor. not even close to being as good as any saw film. and i could empathise with no-one. overall, absolute *beep*

o, and not even a pair of tits! when i read about there being a rape scene i had my fingers crossed it'd be melissa george. but no. and there was no tits. what a letdown this film was. or "waz".

[–] mohito 16 years ago

"when i read about there being a rape scene i had my fingers crossed it'd be melissa george. but no. and there was no tits. what a letdown this film was" (quote from ben2bob, above).

Wow! The insights. I bet ben2bob gets to be president of the United States someday.

[–] eliarulli 16 years ago

I would tell you you're pathetic ben2bob but you know that already so I won't bother.

[–] andrew-1268 16 years ago

Terible film not worth wasting the time to watch or any money to buy the DVD. The worst film I have seen this year total rubbish!

[–] roobad 15 years ago

You get off on rape scenes? Really gonna take your opinion seriously then...

"I have so many objections I don't know where to start"

[–] mohito 15 years ago

Yeah, good one, ben2bob, based on your last two lines about "tits", I don't think we need set much store by your critical faculties. That and your use of the phrase "not even close to being as good as any saw film". Ahem. Or LOL as you might say.

[–] Nuclear_Exorcist 15 years ago

So you were disappointed because you wanted to jerk off to Melissa George getting raped? Nice going, you worthless piece of human waste.

[–] Thought_Criminal_J62377 8 years ago

Airwaves23, you appear to equate interracial and gay relationships with torture. You have a problem with films that depict those things? I think this says more about how intelligent you are than it does the film.

By your moronic logic, if someone has a problem with something, (as in) not enjoying to watch it, it is a sign of low intelligence. How hard did you think about this before you posted? Because it proves you're intelligence is lacking.

But you liberal idiots will hurl any insults and criticism at someone that doesn't agree with you, which makes you as guilty as the people you hate. But again, you're too stupid to figure that out on your own or even understand it, now that I've explained it to you.

Tolerance Is Intolerant Of Politically Incorrect Thought...🇺🇸

[–] therefdotcom 16 years ago

where is this movie in any way more intelligent? that script was less inspired, less tricky, less surprising. the plot line all the way through switched around between thrilling, slightly thrilling, boring, weird and simply ridiculous throughout the movie. the acting was mostly ok but on lots of occasions either bad, over the top or not believable.

[–] snowmonster-1 16 years ago

That HAS to be one of the FUNNIEST replies I've read in a long time. Nicely put!

[–] Weirdsmile 16 years ago

good call man.

m.s.

[–] MysteryFilm 16 years ago

I have just fallen in love with mailjaneharris for that reply.

Will you marry me?!

Funny, funny funny! Surely best reply to a post award winner!

[–] big_bad_baba 16 years ago

AHAHAHAHAHA maijaneharris this has to be one of the best replies ive heard OWNED!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ashthepanzerwalrus 16 years ago

Hahaha! Excellent.
-
I was like an egg rolling through time until I was 21. Then the egg cracked and I popped out.

[–] jktemp 16 years ago

Thank you mailjaneharris your reply has made my day- i couldn't have put it better if i sat up all night thinking about it! It put that IDIOT! (lol) in his place in an intelligent and hilarious manner.
I look forward to more posts from you.
I have not seen the film- WAZ yet but i will definitely be checking it out now.
And 'No country for old men' excellent film with quite possibly the worst ending 'never' filmed! Did they get bored or run out of money?? (personal opinion of course)

[–] moleman-4 16 years ago

jktemp: The ending to No Country was exactly the same ending as the novel, so no. I think you're just missing some extra layers, or maybe you were expecting a typical Hollywood ending?

[–] johnslegers 15 years ago

Just hilarious :-)

Oh, and I definitely agree with your POV here...

[–] Nemhain 16 years ago

I read a review in which it was compared to Seven more than Saw.

Personally I think it looks good, and I'm looking forward to seeing it.

[–] LiamHoward 16 years ago

i thought the seven thing when i watched the trailer

Tim: Yeah but Jar Jar Binks makes the Ewoks look like... *beep* Shaft.

[–] rullirock 16 years ago

Yes ALGEBRA! As in W delta Z, not "WAZ". As in nothing whatsoever to do with 'Saw'. Subtle little things like this one gets when one actually sees a film, not just the trailer. How bored are you to take the time to comment on a film you know nothing about?! Wow. Oh no wait, you're busy shuddering to think. There's a schedule.

[–] mr_facehead 16 years ago

"What a bloody ridiculous idea for a film"

Well said
It's spelt WAZ, because WAS is SAW backwards.

I saw a poster for SAW IV on a bus a while ago, and i wanted to throw up.
These films are just ridiculous gymicks that are supposed to be hardcore horrors.

The quality of Horror isn't just how extreme the initial idea is. It actually has to be a good film.
Hollywood is churning countless horror films with no imagination, just a gymick and some elaborate gore.

The reason why they can do this, is because people fall for it. People genuinely think the films are good, just because it's more extreme than the last film.

In the shining, a man goes mad and kills his family. Quite a straight forward concept, but the what makes it good is the way the story is told.

I could go on about the collapse of the film industry for hours, but i'd rather not. Hopefully you understand what I mean already.

[–] rullirock 16 years ago

Have you seen this film? Have you?

Obviously not otherwise you would understand that what you talk about here - while true for the films you mention - does not at all apply to W A Z. Also - it is not spelt WAZ because Was is Saw backwards. Its W Delta (see? its a triangle not an A) Z. It is algebra. Not "Waz" but "W Delta Z". How difficult is this for people to get through their heads?

I agree that Hollywood is churning horror films with no imagination. Unfortunately the case is also that people are very quick to judge a film by their own preconceptions of the trailer and not actually see the film, what it says and how it says it before coming on IMDB and spouting off. Judge a film when youv'e seen it, not the trailer.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] moleman-4 16 years ago

Try watching the movie. Then you'll understand that the movie's based on Price's equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%27s_equation - the formula starts "w delta z = ..."), which is an equation describing altruism within natural selection. That's the premise of the movie, hence the title.

Of course, since Americans are apparently too dumb to realise this, it's been retitled "The Killing Gene" over there.

[–] bren35 16 years ago

why do people like you jdvhal even bother posting i presume that by being a memeber of this site you consider yourself a film fan?
no self respecting film fan would post a message critiscising a movie they havent even seen thats just...bizzare!
its because of knee jerk reacting people like your self that movies get censored and banned,like the occurances here in the uk in the early 80s when we had movies banned on video (video nasties)
seriously if you havent seen the movie just dont comment or failing that stick to disney movies then hopefully you wont be offended?

[–] helene-troy 16 years ago

i don't know what waz means
i don't know what saw means
i liked both movies !
and i refuse to compare the movies
because both movies had a message in it
its up to you if you want to understand the truth of both movies
think baby think,maybe you get it.

[–] sypherdivine 16 years ago

Definite props on that Moleman, you made everyone seem stupid who thought it was Saw backwards. Nothing shines more than the facts.

[–] sypherdivine 16 years ago

I can't lie though, it was a terrible film, it had some potential to be more, but failed and was a waste of an hour and half of time I wanted back from my life.

[–] the_dirty_bandage 14 years ago

Of course, since Americans are apparently too dumb to realise this, it's been retitled "The Killing Gene" over there.

Is there some sort of code that says that foreigners have to insult the collective American intelligence every time they think something's wrong? I've been seeing it most recently on the Let Me In boards, all the Swedish fans of the film with their superiority complex droning on and on about the stupidity of Americans for needing a remake.

Maybe the marketers of the film wanted it to be seen for what it is rather than everyone thinking that it's a cheap Saw clone? I mean, everyone who looked at W delta Z so far has come to that conclusion, and if its title is not that here in America then it can be deduced that some of those idiots aren't... gasp!... American.

Of course The Killing Gene serves as something of a double entendre... which reeks of something trying to be too clever for its own good.

"I hate it when a guy looks like Tarzan, sounds like Jane."

[–] chrispeters29 16 years ago

Its got nothing to do with saw at all ! W delta Z is not saw backwards u lunatics !!!
Anyway its a crap film , crap ending , real crap acting ,
loads of pointless characters and dialect. Rubbish torture scenes that show nothing,hugely boring at times too. I guessed the ending about halfway thru the film.was not much of a twist to me too expected.
3/10 *beep* !!

[–] eliarulli 16 years ago

Wow, I guess everything you wrote above means you're really cool. We're all extremely impressed!

[–] emkey86 16 years ago

Well, i bought it yesterday on dvd and i gotta say, i was surprised...

I expected a splatter, and over-blooded movie like saw or hostel, because of the picture of the dvd-cover...

but after seeing the movie, and always waiting for the torture scenes, my impression was more like i just saw "Seven"...

The movie isn't a horrifing, bloody, torture movie, that's gonna change your mind... It's in the way of "seven", you have an psychopathic killer, who kills in a really sadistic way, and i gotta say, that just the idea of this is horrifing, but you don't see the killing at all...

And on this point, for the mentaly-thrill what it is here, with more imagination than actually pictured scenes, the movie is kinda weak. If i compare it to another really brutal movie, which isn't working with pictures but more with imagination, "John Ketchum's The girl next door", WAZ isn't brutal at all.

In my opionion, one of the hardes pictures/imagination the movie is working with

SPOILER!!!!!

is the raping and torturing of the actuall killer in the past. THis idea is horrifing, brutal, just the idea of raping a woman with a broken bottle... kinda reminds me again on Seven, where the guy had to fu"" the whore with that knife-sex-toy...

---------------------

So, after all that saying, and the fresh way of "Not-that-good" actors fitting into this dark impression of New York, i submit that i'm gonna put this movie to the higher sheets on my collection, cause i think it's worth seeing it, or even more, it's a good movie

So.... 8/10

[–] lethargynow 16 years ago

So, without watching the flim you have your own preconceptions... and decide that the film is just a cheap gimmick. Ummmm... the acting was far better than what was on hand in the Saw films. The motive and therefore the plot were certainly not the same (yes, perhaps somewhat similar)but this really wasn't about a whole lot of twists to keep viewers on the edge of their seat. Try watching a movie before starting a pointless thread.

[–] msheren 16 years ago

to jdvhal, because people enjoy watching movies like this. Just like some people like comedies, love stories, etc. It doesn't mean you're depraved or a pervert.

[–] CrucifaxAutumn 14 years ago

W Delta Z backward is actually "Zatledw"! What does that have to do with Saw?

[–] jackthegreat2004 14 years ago

the poster obviously has no idea what altruism is...thats what this film was about. The tortue made more sense than that in Saw...

[–] trailinghome 14 years ago

You're a moron