It’s Torture, I Tellya, TORTURE!!

ENOUGH ALREADY!!! WE HOPE WE'RE NOT the ONLY ONES WHO'RE SICK-and-TIRED of SEEING HOLLYWOOD CRANK OUT TEEN-PORN-TORTURE FLICK AFTER TEEN-PORN-TORTURE-FLICK.

WHILE SAW IV MAY BE a TAD MORE CLEVER THAN MANY of ITS CLONES, WE STILL SAY: MOVIE-GOERS, PLEASE STOP GOING to THIS KIND of GARBAGE...WHILE YOU'VE STILL GOT a HEAD!

FEEL FREE to JOIN OUR RANT -- OR RANT RIGHT BACK AT US IF YOU DISAGREE -- BELOW...

"Ladies and Gentlemen, Live On-Stage...It's Cirque-du-So-Bloody's SAW IV!!"

I am not usually one to argue that certain films have "no right to even be made" -- I often find myself defending artistic freedom over censorship. But trash ike the Saw and Hostel films, which have next to no redeeming value and desensitize their audiences to human suffering and gore, make a pretty good argument that censorship of SOME things may be in order... 

Response from Head RAZZberry: While I agree with your sentiment in damning crap like SAW IV, I must disagree with any argument that agrees to censorship of the arts. In a democracy like ours, the kind of sick, sad souls who "enjoy" this garbage have a right to subject themselves to this sort of mind-numblingly inhuman "entertainment." But by the same token you, I, everyone who belongs to the RAZZIE Foundation (and anyone who agrees with us) also have the right to RAZZ the Holy sh*t out of it!!! 

How many god damn SAW movies are they gonna make? Why does every horror movie have to have 5,000 sequels, remakes, re-imaginings, or prequels. What's the point? We already know what's going to happen. A bunch of people get killed, there's one survivor who comes back for the sequel, the killer is either blown up, stabbed, hung, electricuted, cut up, or their head is cut off but they always come back to life for extremely complicated reasons. Didn't the Scream movies put these type of movies to rest?

I partially agree with #1 Film Freak:  Personally, I believe the NC-17 rating should be expanded to include movie like this, so stupid parents won't be able to take their 5-year-old children to see this .

For a further discussion of rating systems, go to What Good Are Ratings, Anyway? 

Response from Head RAZZberry: One of the more terrifying comments I ever read regarding parents taking their offspring to inappropriate movies was a mother in USA Today defending her decision to haul her 8-year-old daughter to an opening night showing of the SILENCE OF THE LAMBS sequel HANNIBAL (in which a man's skull was sawed open, and his brains were then sauted -- while he was still alive!).  

When I managed a movie theatre while attending UCLA's film school years ago, I was alwaze more adamant about enforcing an "R" rating if it was about graphic violence than if it was about sex or language -- And many times, parents would actually argue with me that sex scenes were "more damaging" for their children to see than graphic gore(!). Some Americans sure have a skewed sense of "values"...

There was a documentary about this subject, "This Film is Not Yet Rated".

I still don't understand why people freak out about nudity more than graphic violence. Conservative america has really repressed our sexuality and it really hasn't done any good. There are more unwed teenage mothers in the U.S. than anywhere on the planet! Maybe Gertie can give us the Euro perspective, but from what I've notice about Europeans, they don't seem to over-react to sex and nudity like us Yanks. 

A thing about Saw's past with critics appears here.  They enjoyed having critics reviewing the first Saw.  They only quietly allowed reviews for Saw II, and then they shut the door for Saw III.

And Saw IV, Saw V, and Saw VI.  Four of six kept away from critics due to pure crappiness.

I made the Honor Roll, so my parents are taking me to see this. I'm going to see it in the next week or so.

Response from Head RAZZberry: Congratulations on the Honor Roll -- But are you sure you want to subject your parents to SAW IV?? Its graphic gore and violence might give them reason to question your judgment from here on out...