Saw

"Saw" is far from intelligent.

is that all u can say from my post?,lol u dont think it was a great acheivement for 2 first time filmakers,i mean when u look at steaming piles of crap like the blair crap project it just shines
oh but i did have a good day today i picked up some rare horror movies 10 for $10 they were :
brutes and savages (mondo,uncut)
horror hospital (uncut)
splatter university(crap,but very hard to find here in aus,uncut)
scream for vengeance(very,very hard to find in aus or the uk,uncut)
dance of the dwarfs(uncut)
combat shock(crap,but uncut)
murder rock(fulci,uncut)
savage weekend(uncut)
the beast must die(uncut) and
fright(uncut)
so all in all aint been a bad week 🙂

I've exhausted my views of the movie in pretty much all 1,000 "Saw" threads that have run through the forums. If I watched "Phone Booth" and "The Usual Suspects" a few more times than average, coupled with some Nine Inch Nails video footage, and were subsequently given a budget, I could make "Saw" just as easily. Only I would know who to cast in my roles to make them effective, and not unintentionally, uproariously funny.

usual suspects is brilliant i agree with that not a nine inch nails fan myself,lol but theres no accounting for taste m8,1 thing i will say u answer fast,lol,lets face it if every1 liked the same things,music movies etc wed all be bored and boring 🙂

intelligent? how is a movie with just a bunch of gore intelligent? no good sketch.

they filmed the movie in 18 days, first time writter, first time director, I say it was good for what it was. Poor acting yes. Great idea for a screenplay? YES!!

ok what does no good sketch mean and it isnt just gore have u actually seen it ?id say theres very little gore actually,the film is good as far as im concerned and thats my point of view,u dont have to agree with it

gore can be body parts cut off, its not always whats on the inside.

I loved Saw.

However, I didn't like how the only time they really mention the time is when it is actually six o'clock. They should have made quick shots of the clock to show how close it was getting to six (although they did have the digital clock every now and then, although I think it would have seemed more urgent for the clock in the bathroom to be shown)

Originally posted by Cowboyography
they filmed the movie in 18 days, first time writter, first time director, I say it was good for what it was. Poor acting yes. Great idea for a screenplay? YES!!

I thought the acting was fine.

Originally posted by TedO
However, I didn't like how the only time they really mention the time is when it is actually six o'clock. They should have made quick shots of the clock to show how close it was getting to six

I believe they show it:

Past ten o'clock - when they first turn on the lights
At twelve o'clock - before Cary Elwes starts telling his stories
At two o'clock - Before they turn the lights off
and At six o'clock

That may not be 100%, but I think that's close.

Yeah, we do see quick shots of the clock Zepp had.

whatever. ive seen better.

WOW! The acting was nothing special, but it wasn't bad. I agree with all the people who wrote about how it was a first time director + writer, low-budget, shot in 18 days film.

It shows, lol.

Originally posted by Konjammenson
I thought the acting was fine.

some of it was ok, but Danny Glover sucked, as did the guy who played the Dr. he was shitfull, he just swung between emotions, it was kinda sad to watch really

Well, it was to show him progress from the cool-headed person he was at the beginning to the saw-off-your-limbs savage after seeing the full extent of the danger his family is in. It's one thing to be told your family is in danger, it's another to see(photo) and hear(phone) it.

while i did LOVE the premise of this movie and thought it was good overall, the only real down point was cary elwes acting, which i thought was horrible, disappointing to me b/c im a fan of elwes in his work before, he was great in the princess bride and robin hood: men in tights, maybe his acting skill is limited to only that of the comedy genre? whatever the case his acting stunk in the movie, everyone else was belivable and good

i can understand how the director tried to show the decent into insanity the doctor went through, but damn did the acting let him down. there were no transitions, they just jumped like a record skipping along in a song

yeah the acting was poor, but is that the fault of the actor or the script? The dialogue in the film was either unnecessary, misplaced, or just terrible. Many scenes in the film i believe were to show realism or build suspense. For example one scene in the very beginning where Adam is trying to get the tape recorder from the dead mans hand... We watch Adam for about three minutes struggling to get the tape recorder. Scenes like this are scattered all through out the movie.

I also think the sceanerio was drawn out. Two guys trapped in a room for an hour and a half. where in between we are introduced to things that really dont matter. couldnt they just have told us how they ended up in the room instead of wasting thirty minutes showing us? Maybe if the writer would have focused more time on how to convey suspense rather than disturbing deaths this would have been a different movie.