Originally Posted by VooDooXII
@ the first part.
@ the second...that's really the only reason I want to see this one. I'm not going to the theaters for it.
I really want to see Se7en.
u have never seen 7?
@ the second...that's really the only reason I want to see this one. I'm not going to the theaters for it.
I really want to see Se7en.
u have never seen 7?
Nope.
People tell me that Saw is a blatant rip of Se7en, and if I liked the traps like the razor wire maze in Saw, then I'd LOVE that movie.
SAW rips off Se7en in the psychological standpoint where the killer performs his murders by killing people who personify one of the Seven Deadly Sins by making them do the sin until they die. Se7en is elaborate, disturbing, and a great psychological thriller. In addition, it is actually believable.
SAW took that whole concept, but got a 5th grader to write it. It's only saving grace is the traps, which weren't enough for me. SAW has twists, but ****ing stupid twists. In addition, SAW isn't believable at all. For example, in SAW 1, how could cancer boy lay motionless through the whole bull**** fiasco in the room with dudes chained together without them noticing? Some parts of that movie were so dumb, that people in the theater were laughing at it. IMO, in a good scary movie, the moviegoers get scared, they don't laugh at one of the most "pivotal" points of the movie.
SAW = Hostel to me. Pseudo disturbing, only because of the gore factor, but NO plausible storyline whatsoever. BTW that ****ing doll on the tricycle is the stupidest thing I have ever seen. Very scary
RottenTomatoes.com ratings of the SAW movies:
SAW 1: 46% (bad)
SAW 2: 35% (worse)
SAW 3: 27% (don't even think about seeing it)
See a trend?
RottenTomatoes.com rating of Se7en: 84% (good, especially for a scary movie)
Last edited by nreggie454; 10-25-2007 at 01:28 PM.
UGA: Everybody is laughing at us this year.
Ive seen both, they're not the same, and box office figures dont lie. saw ownz. What is rotten tomatoes anyway?SAW rips off Se7en in the psychological standpoint where the killer performs his murders by killing people who personify one of the Seven Deadly Sins by making them do the sin until they die. Se7en is elaborate, disturbing, and a great psychological thriller. In addition, it is actually believable.
SAW took that whole concept, but got a 5th grader to write it. It's only saving grace is the traps, which weren't enough for me. SAW has twists, but ****ing stupid twists. In addition, SAW isn't believable at all. For example, in SAW 1, how could cancer boy lay motionless through the whole bull**** fiasco in the room with dudes chained together without them noticing? Some parts of that movie were so dumb, that people in the theater were laughing at it. IMO, in a good scary movie, the moviegoers get scared, they don't laugh at one of the most "pivotal" points of the movie.
SAW = Hostel to me. Pseudo disturbing, only because of the gore factor, but NO plausible storyline whatsoever. BTW that ****ing doll on the tricycle is the stupidest thing I have ever seen. Very scary
RottenTomatoes.com ratings of the SAW movies:
SAW 1: 46% (bad)
SAW 2: 35% (worse)
SAW 3: 27% (don't even think about seeing it)
See a trend?
RottenTomatoes.com rating of Se7en: 84% (good, especially for a scary movie)
Se7ens killer made them do the sin until they die, correct. Saw's killer is totally different. His victims are wrongdoers and made them pay for what they did, but gives them a chance to get out.
If your judging movie quality, Seven. If you're wantign to see a scary movie, Saw ownz hands down.. But the fact is Saw and Seven are two different movie genres also. Saw, Hostel=torture porn; Seven=horror
BTW, Saw 5 is in the works and 6 is being written, there is also talk about going up to 10 provided they can keep coming up with sick methods of torture
There really aren't any "good" horror movies. Most of the movies produced now are more for shock factor than they are to scare you. If they get you to jump even the slightest, then they've done their job. Movie ratings and the people reviewing them are all from an opinionated standpoint. Some get scared, while others don't. If the person reviewing the film doesn't get anxious, nervous, or scared at all, then it gets a poor rating. The only horror critics I will even consider are those that are actually horror movie directors or creators. I can't stand the others that actually shoot down the movie because it isn't thought-provoking enough or believeable. Think about it. Some of the greatest horror movies around aren't believeable (think Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Hellraiser).
Oh, and I laugh during every single "scary" movie. I have never had one scare me, but that's just me.
...ninja
I disagree. There are good horror movies out there that are still being made (i.e. 1408 and 28 Weeks Later IMO), but purely gory films are not scary whatsoever. For example, the guys that made Hostel knew that their movie wasn't scary, so they hyped up the gore in all their advertisements.
I said one reason that SAW was bad because it wasn't believable was because it is just supposed to be a human serial killer killing other people, so IMO, it should be pretty believable. Also, that was far from my only complaint about the movie. The movies you listed are good, and they don't have to be believable at all. Two different categories of horror movies IMO.
It takes more than a couple pop ups and gory scenes for a movie to scare me, especially when the main character (Cary Elwes from Robin Hood: Men in Tights), makes William Shatner look like the best actor ever. Also, I see more complex twists when I tie my shoes than when I watch SAW.
UGA: Everybody is laughing at us this year.
28 Weeks Later lived up to it's hype, but it just wasn't scary. 1408 was good, but could have been better. Hostel was a damn good movie IMO, mainly because of what that movie accomplished. Slovokia was PISSED when that movie came out (similar to Brazil and Turistas) because it was portraying that area to be a violent place. It might be true seeing as I've never walked the streets of any European cities/towns.
28 Weeks Later was only believeable because it was a virus taking over (ala Resident Evil), and not some unknown force. Hell, I looke forward to the next installment.
I expected more out of 1408 though. I'm a huge Stephen King fan (I'm looking forward to The Mist) and after reading the novella that the movie was based on, I had high hopes. It did indeed do what it was meant to do, considering it was only a PG-13 film. It's just that I read the story and expected it more to look like "spirits" instead of this "home movie" projection when he was seeing stuff in the room.
...ninja
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
