Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I like both series......but it seems many of you don't.

Give it up people......you're never going to get The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Last House on the Left, A Nightmare on Elm St. or Dawn of the Dead again. Those days are long gone. Hell......as great as those films are, they couldn't even recreate the feel in their sequels or remakes. They only chance you've got to see something of the like is from small independent films like 28 Days Later.

you guys will b tch about anything. It's not like you have to sit through teeny bopper 12 year old shit films like I know What You Did Last Summer and Urban Legend. These films actually have stories, gore and a generally dark overtone.

Saw 1-3, Hostel 1 & 2 are all better flicks than 99% of the shit that's gets made these days and has the "horror" label slapped on it. There's the odd goody like The Devils Rejects but most of it is The Ring, The Grudge or some other shit made for 12 year olds.

ps. before any of you bitches start whining about there already being threads dedicated to Saw and Hostel respectively.......get the f ck over it.

The Saw movies are grossly overrated. The original, while not terrible, was nothing special, and the twist was retarded. The second one was kinda alright, but again, got more attention than it deserved and even again, with another stupid ****ing ending. The third was a huge pile of shit with no redeeming factors at all. The original Saw should have gone down as a fairly competent horror film and that should have been that. Instead, it's gotten 3 sequels with more on the way, and it's shitty, boring villain (poor man's Jon Doe) has become an icon. And I don't think Saw is any better than The Ring or The Grudge, what those movies are to generic predictable jump scares Saw is to generic predictable gory death scenes. And the Saw movies are the new teeny bopper horror films. Go to a theater playing Saw IV and you will see the theater filled with, well, teeny boppers, screaming and giggling about some guy getting his eyeball ripped out by a Parana while having the key he could unlock himself with shoved in his anus while acid is dumped on him slowly.

Both Hostel movie's are pretty decent, I thought.

And I don't agree that we will never see great horror films again getting wide releases (if that's what you were implying). Yes, they're rare, but they always have been. Films like The Descent got a wide release and it was grand, the Hills Have Eyes remake was quite good, and that made bank. Of course, mostly we will need to go to the indie realm for good horror films, but that's how it's always been. Not like TCM, Last House, or Dawn of the Dead were huge blockbusters that got money dumped on them at the time of their release, they were all indie.

Bit late to go over all of this again. This is a love or hate thing and as shown in this forum's many threads about these movies, nobody really allows their opinion to be changed.

Can't speak for Hostel 2 (haven't seen yet...thanks to playing video games) but the original Hostel had the gore and characters that really appeal to me. Plus I felt that Hostel had some pretty good homeages to Fulci and films like Children of the corn. I'll say it now, I'm bias towards Hostel and can't seem to find Saw appealing.

The Saw franchise for me it's like a M. Night film with only the gore and average dialogue added. Yeah, I'll be honest, the gore in saw is well done. Yet still, I feel cheated after watching the same "people are trap and can't get out" and the upcoming twist near the end.

Now, it's true that both Saw and Hostel use the method of "people are trap and can't get out" for storytelling. However, what Hostel brings in the storyline is the "revenge" factor (which may also be consider as a homeage to films like Last House and others)

When put together both original films. Hostel belittles Saw (at least for me) I did not sympathise with the ending of Saw. But the ending of Hostel made me stood up and cheer! A film that brings that kind of emotion delivers in all bases of entertainment. Saw on the other hand was a reaction like..."WTF? I don't buy that for a second".

Let me give you an example of how I feel Saw should have ended. Have you seen a spaghetti western by the name of The Great Silence? No? See it! That's exactly how Saw should have ended in my opinion. Even though the Great Silence and Saw are totally different genres. It is the ending that stays with you after the movie. A memorable ending makes a great film. Saw didn't have a memorable ending. It had a "WTF?" ending.

Originally posted by BackFire
The Saw movies are grossly overrated. The original, while not terrible, was nothing special, and the twist was retarded. The second one was kinda alright, but again, got more attention than it deserved and even again, with another stupid ****ing ending. The third was a huge pile of shit with no redeeming factors at all. The original Saw should have gone down as a fairly competent horror film and that should have been that. Instead, it's gotten 3 sequels with more on the way, and it's shitty, boring villain (poor man's Jon Doe) has become an icon. And I don't think Saw is any better than The Ring or The Grudge, what those movies are to generic predictable jump scares Saw is to generic predictable gory death scenes. And the Saw movies are the new teeny bopper horror films. Go to a theater playing Saw IV and you will see the theater filled with, well, teeny boppers, screaming and giggling about some guy getting his eyeball ripped out by a Parana while having the key he could unlock himself with shoved in his anus while acid is dumped on him slowly.

you should write the fifth one! Go to any theater showing any movie and it's filled with teenagers. They are the core audience. That's why great films like Apocalypto and The Last King of Scotland don't do aswell theatricly as they should, teenagers aren't interested in them. Hell, if you went to a theater to watch A Nightmare on Elm St. or Hellraiser, who was in the theater? Teenagers. That's not what I meant by "teenybopper" films. Those are films with little to no story, plot or structure. They are simply noisy, action, jump scare flicks to get the attention of those teenagers with short attention spans who are going to get bored if there's a plot. I draw the distinction because while they are the core target audience of any film wishing to make money theatricly, most films don't pander to them, others can appreciate them aswell.

Both Hostel movie's are pretty decent, I thought.



it's no coincidence the best horror films were made by small indie companies or by independent producers with financial backers in the 70s and 80s. Films were much cheaper to make then and there were many independant theaters to deal with one on one. In today's world it's just not going to happen very often. Even the great independant movies that come out, you'll only hear about or see because it was sold to a huge distributor like Lion's Gate with the makers of the film taking it in the ass on the deal.

While you're free to have your own taste in movies, Backfire, I don't think you give the Saw sequels as much credit as they deserve. Sure, you may not like the films but they have come nowhere near to reaching the absurdity of other films that horror fans like. Look at Friday the 13th and Halloween. Friday the 13th hit ridiculous in the second movie.......while Halloween staved off till the fourth. Those two franchises should be shunned far and away more than Saw. When we start seeing Saw 5 : Saw in Space....or John comes back to life as a zombie for a few movies.....dies and begins jumping his soul from body to body in yet another sequel or we learn that John's killing isn't really about testing the will to live of those he deems unfit to live, it's really because he was part of a satanist ceremony as a baby and given a tatoo of a skillsaw blade...........then it will equal the absurdity of Jason, Michael Myers and their respective franchises.

I'm actually slated to write the sixth one. The fifth one is being written by the person who wrote "Bratz: The Movie". A downgrade for him, but the money's right.

Yeah, I don't feel the Saw films have any better a plot or story than the campy horror classics you mention. Saw films are basically some cancer dude and some 80 pound crack-whore dumping people in a room/house/weird haunted-house-esque labyrinth for 90 minutes, while leading up to the inevitable forced twist that doesn't make sense, while the teenybopper horror films you mention is some a masked main character murdering other main characters, leading up to the inevitable forced twist that doesn't make much sense. The difference is Saw has more gore. The substance is the same, and the plot is just as generic and boring.

While it's true that many indie horror films don't get to see a theatrical run at all, time's have changed. What indie theaters were to the indie horror films of the 70's, DVD is to indie horror films of today. In the end, regardless of the method, people will find the good horror films and make them cult classics, with or without the backing of a major studio.

I feel I give the Saw sequels as much credit as they deserve, and as much as I give the shitty sequels you mention (I'm not a fan of any of them), I.E. none. They don't deserve any credit. I see them all as bad horror films, and that's what they all get treated as. The difference is some of those shitty Friday the 13th sequels at least know what they are, and just go over the top in order to be fun(ny). The Saw films may not be as absurd as the sequels you mention, that doesn't mean they're any better. The setting of the Saw films is based in reality more so than those other films ever were, even in the originals. Either way, in the best case scenario, the Saw sequels are slightly better than the other shitty horror sequels (your argument, not mine), so what kinda credit should I give them?

I thought the first saw movie was a creative movie which offered some fine suspense. Even though it suffered from some spotty writing, i think it succeeds in being clever and stylistic.
The second saw movie, i thought, was a very poor movie. although it was an interesting concept. The execution failed. The acting was horrid and the script, unlike, the previous was unbelivable.
The third seemed to take a great deal of risk. Instead of spewing out yet another typical scenario. It offered a story with consequence to all characters. There was no safe zone for anyone in saw 3 not the victim or the perpetrators.

Most horror movies are bad. Most horror movies know they are bad, but still try for greatness. The saw movie dont try to be great movies. They try to deliver some genuine emotional uneasiness with great death scenes. This is why they tend to be fun. They are also stylistic.

I dont like the hostel movies because they are just pointless to me. I can appreciate the first hostel for attempting to be a justified torture fest. In viewing with friends, the first Hostel can very entertaining, but i wouldnt bother watching it alone. The second Hostel was one of the most pointless horror movies i have ever watched. Not only did it have even less of a story, the torture sequences were censored and un inspired. The characters were trifle and un engaging. Hostel 2 felt like a edited for TV version of the first.

mmm...finally a decent discussion topic.

I love both Hostel and the Saw franchizes, both new and modern and dont really follow the typical "so whos the killer".

In modern horror films, the audience tend to want to be entertained rather than shit scared, i think thats why they throw GORE GORE and more GORE into movies.

Scream....mmm, when it first came out it did introduce us to the 90's horror genre but it got old very fast.

anyways, I am entertained by most of the modern horrors, devils rejects, saw and Hostel are all great

Discos - The Descent, *yawn* that I disliked.

Backfire.......fair enough. Just know that 99% of the dolts I've seen around here in the past few years don't share your views. They have Halloween/Friday 13th sigs and whatnot.......actually like the franchises.

My point was simply that I don't believe many films made today are going to live up to the great films of the past........but some like Saw and Hostel are better than a lot of the movies idiots like.

I know. Of course, I can't speak for them. I can only speak for me, and I don't like any of those movies very much, outside of maybe for camp value, or some cheesy fun halloween viewing with friends.

My problem with the Saw movies isn't that they don't live up to the great films of the past, my problem is that I see them as genuinely bad, if somewhat passable, horror films that people seem to think is something more. They act like because the main villain has cancer it's deeper than other horror films.

I'm one of the few in my age group that doesn't like either of the franchises. Having raised myself on a diet of classic zombie and horror movies, I was sadly disappointed when every new horror coming out suddenly involved a bunch of very annoying screaming teenagers.

Saw and Hostel promised to be different, and they were. I very much liked the first Saw, but I was terribly let down at the end of the first movie by the (as mentioned before) utterly retarded twist. One of the guys in the room was a doctor and didn't notice the dead guy wasn't actually dead.. no thanks. Since then imo, the films have been way too similar. Only so many times I can watch scared people in some annoyingly elaborate deathtrap before I get kinda bored.

I know they attempted to vary it, but it just didn't work for me.

Hostel I enjoyed, at least the first half. For some reason the guy escaping just really brought the film down for me, I can't explain why. I might have to rewatch it.. as a result of not liking the end, I haven't bothered watching Hostel 2 yet.

Feel free to flame, I haven't exactly given reasons why I don't like the films, just stated my opinions on them. I just think they've been massively overhyped by a lot of people my age (15-19) because they involved some torture scenes in mainstream cinema.

Originally posted by eggmayo
I haven't bothered watching Hostel 2 yet.

Don't bother watching it. Waste of time.

best post ever!

I've seen the first three in the Saw series so far, they are films I can watch but wouldn't be bothered to seek them out to watch again. Hostel was pure crap imo, sequel was an improvement for me but like the Saw series, wouldn't see it again. Eli Roth needs to stop writing scripts and just direct other peoples' work. I just hope he doesn't mess up his Heroes episode.



They appeal to you? the characters in Hostel were shallow morons(if you meant the 'good' guys...) What's appealing there...



Those two films are fantastic, especially The Descent I do hope the sequel falls through, no need for one.

one word: profit, if these films make a profit then dont expect them to stop being made,

meh.....I never got that they were supposed to be deeper or anything. Just appear to be regular run of the mill slasher type flicks to me. I like them because they don't follow the same ol' formula (I know, they follow a formula but it's atleast not the same ol' formula) and have a much darker atmosphere. They pull off a darker atmosphere and atleast try to have somewhat intelligent plots other than a bunch of teenagers being chased by madman wielding some sort of gardening tool through the woods/small town. That's the reason I like The Descent so much. It's dark......and doesn't follow the same ol' common formula. Hell....I even like The Cave which is very similar yet inferior for that same reason. I like movies with plots.



irrelevant what it sounds like to you as that is not what I stated. If you check my favorite movies list in my profile you'll see the likes of The Evil Dead, Re-Animator, A Nightmare on Elm ST., The Shining, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead, etc.

while those were the glory days of horror, anyone with two brain cells to rub together realize why those glory days are gone for good. All of those great flicks I just listed.....none of them made $30 million dollars their opening weekend. As a matter of fact, all were low-budget productions by independent, small companies. In those days, movies could be distributed ala-cart to theaters. All theaters were not owned by corporations who had deals with distribution companies and/or hollywood studios. That is not the case today. 99% of theaters are corporate owned with said contracts with distributors or studios. Therefore, the only small independent movies you will see period are those which have been bought by studios or distribution companies. Fact.

If you don't like movies because they aren't Hellraiser or Dawn of the Dead.....that's up to you but everything is judged by their contemporaries. Tom Brady is the best QB in the league period.....there's no comparison to Namath or Bradshaw because the game is much different now, just as with movies. Industries change.

If you're not going to watch anymore horror movies until they start making more movies like Day of the Dead, you're going to have one hell of a sun tan because you're dvd player shall be empty for a long, long while. Studios don't make those movies because they don't appeal to large audiences. Unless studios make a movie or buy a movie because they think it might appeal to a large audience, you shall never see it because studios run the theaters.

Instead of pissing and moaning about a movie not being as good as a movie you saw 30 years ago, stop to realize that the very same movie may be better than 99% of it's contemporaries made within the past 5 years. If that movie you saw 30 years ago is the be all, end all to you.......just keep it in your dvd player, no need to ever watch anything else again.

Fair enough, Ed. Fair enough. Love you.

Anyways, here's a funny article about Saw V -- http://www.bestweekever.tv/2007/10/30/10-more-moralistic-torture-porn-ideas-for-saw-v/

Originally posted by MildPossession




They appeal to you? the characters in Hostel were shallow morons(if you meant the 'good' guys...) What's appealing there...





At one time in my late teens and early20's I was a very careless and clueless kid. I can relate to them and remenber the times in which I gotten into trouble (of course not in an extreme way like Hostel) I was also a skirt chaser. So I was easily fooled by females. If I had been in the same spot as the characters in Hostel...very likely I wouldn't be here making this post. Some nutjob Euro-masochist would have cut my nuts by now. Trust me, given the chance for revenge...I would have taken it. That is how the characters appeal to me.

hilarious. God damn I wish the actual show "Best Week Ever" could be that funny. 6 is my favorite.

Love you too Backfire....

Hugs & Kisses,
ED