Print Page | Close Window

Itís Torture, I Tellya, TORTURE!!

Printed From: Official RAZZIEģ Forum
Category: 2007 RAZZIEģ MOVIE FORUMS w/LYNX!
Forum Name: SAW IV
Forum Discription: We Know It's Just a Coincidence, But Having "IV" in the Title (As In Intra-Veinous) Gives It That Extra Creepy Edge...
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2217
Printed Date: October 31 2014 at 3:11pm


Topic: Itís Torture, I Tellya, TORTURE!!
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Itís Torture, I Tellya, TORTURE!!
Date Posted: October 21 2007 at 5:57am

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...

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/gallery/photodir.php?dir=1324 -

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

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/gallery/photodir.php?dir=1324 -  



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: Nasty Man
Date Posted: October 21 2007 at 6:32am

Even as a Razzie member, I cannot justify spending my money to see disgusting garbage like "Saw 4." Sight unseen, though, I may be voting for it as a contender for our new category, Worst Horror Movie!

Response from Head RAZZberry: As the "grand-daddy" of the current Teen-Torture-Porn trend, SAW arguably gave birth to our new category, which at this point may wind up being called Worst Excuse for a Horror Movie... 

 



-------------
Everything SUX!


Posted By: #1-Film Freak!!
Date Posted: October 21 2007 at 6:40am

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!!! 

 



-------------
Nobody LUVS movies more than ME!


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 21 2007 at 7:43am

I like the Saw movies (excluding the 2nd). What makes Saw different from other torture porn movies is that it's intelligent, and it makes you think. It's not all about the kills, no. It has a storyline, and if it has fresh sotires, I will watch the movies. That's why I liked the 1st and 3rd. The 2nd pretty much repeats the first, but people watch this because they want to know what happens.

There are 2 more sequels to go until this franchise ends.



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


Posted By: Criss808
Date Posted: October 21 2007 at 11:56am

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?



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 21 2007 at 2:37pm
Umm...if you have actually seen the movies, no, people don't just get killed. As I say, these movies have a plot and have sequels for a reason: To continue the story and to finish it when Saw 6 comes out in two more years. That's when all questions are (hopefully) answered.


Posted By: deadguy76
Date Posted: October 21 2007 at 4:36pm
Amanda is dead, Jigsaw is dead. This is the equivalent to Halloween 3 (the one that didn't have Michael Myers) for horror fans. I'll admit that the traps are interesting, but they're just an excuse to get more and more bloody.

-------------
"Woody Allen, whatever his failings, does not make movies for morons. Most directors do. Of course, most directors are morons."

- Joe Queenan

http://www.myspace.com/deadguy76


Posted By: MJ Narcy
Date Posted: October 23 2007 at 2:17am

These movies are so cheap to make, they can turn a profit even if they don't stay in theatres more than two weeks.  Of course, that could explain a lot of other movies, too!   

Originally posted by Criss808

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?





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


Posted By: MJ Narcy
Date Posted: October 23 2007 at 2:33am

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 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=890&PN=1&TPN=1 - 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"...

Originally posted by #1-Film Freak!!

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...




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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 23 2007 at 11:41am

I saw two kids at Halloween, with only like 15 people in the theater. It was funny, because my mom didn't want to watch this movie (she said it's rated R, and she's right).

 



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


Posted By: deadguy76
Date Posted: October 23 2007 at 3:16pm

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. 

Originally posted by MJ Narcy

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"...



-------------
"Woody Allen, whatever his failings, does not make movies for morons. Most directors do. Of course, most directors are morons."

- Joe Queenan

http://www.myspace.com/deadguy76


Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: October 24 2007 at 12:47pm
Ohhhh..... no percentage rating on RT. Looks like Saw IV, with its predecessor Saw III, is a stinker





Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: October 24 2007 at 1:16pm

Originally posted by thomsonmg2000

Ohhhh..... no percentage rating on RT. Looks like Saw IV, with its predecessor Saw III, is a stinker



A thing about Saw's past with critics appears http://www.wafflemovies.com/sawiii.html - 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.



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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 26 2007 at 12:42pm
I found Saw II very horrible and Saw III a lot better.


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 2:01am

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...

 



-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 3:06am

I haven't seen the movie, but reading about on the web, the critics (and probably most of the audience) are missing one key aspect of Saw IV

SPOILER of the SPOILED!!!

The beginning is real time.  The rest of the movie, however, is a flashback running concurrently with the story of the previous movie Saw III.  It's not that Jigsaw pre-planned and pre-taped all these post-mortem deaths.  All these deaths are going on while he is supervising over the other deaths.  That's why at the end of Saw IV Jeff from Saw III is still alive, screaming about his daughter.  That's why at the end of Saw IV Detective Matthews from Saw III is also still alive, and is in a trap of his own.  That's why the beginning plays again at the end.

So, if there are any movie critics who have yet to write their own reviews, your challenge is to write about this movie without spoiling what is probably its only good point--that it makes you think this is all happening AFTER the previous movie, only to find out it's happening DURING the previous movie.

Just a comment, though.  I don't know how good this good point is if most people miss it.  To me, that's not very good.



Posted By: tomsmobr
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 4:07am

I read some where that there may be a Saw V? And they're maybe gonna do SIX of them... 

 



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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 7:20am

The reason my parents are letting me see it is that I've proven myself mature enough to see movies like this. The only times I've been immature at a movie were at "Borat" (in my defense, everyone else was acting the same way!) and "The Forgotten" (there were teenage girls shouting at every moment. And, they were doing it on purpose! I, honest to God, heard one of them say "I love to scream"! They were so annoying, that the entire audience got free tickets for our troubles.)

 



-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 11:59am

Yeah, that's what some have been saying...

Originally posted by tomsmobr

I read some where that may be a Saw V? I guess they're gonna do Six of them... 

 



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


Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 12:08pm
The first SAW made $55.1 Million at the U.S. Box Office in 2004, SAW II made $87 Million in 2005, and SAW III made $80.1 Million last year. After Friday's Box Office results, SAW IV topped the Box Office charts with $14.3 Million, with DAN IN REAL LIFE finishing second with $4.1 Million.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 2:33pm
I'm VERY, VERY surprised that this film opened with $14.3 million. I mean, I'm VERY surprised. I thought that the audience would've been lost because they don't care or that there were surprisingly less tv spots than Dan in Real Life. Wow. I'm just in shock. Well, I had a marching contest today, so I could'nt go. Tomorrow will be a church thing...so I might see it next week.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 11:39am
Ok, I ended up seeing it today with low expectations (just because I'm kinda tired of the torture) but I was fairly surprised. For one moment in the movie, I thought it would've been the best in the series, but it ended up being 2nd or 3rd place. I think #3 and #4 are as good as each other. The movie was still fresh with ideas


Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 2:33pm
I liked the movie, as I saw it opening day. I reviewed the movie for a website and gave it 3.5 out of 5 stars (or, as my rating system, 2.5 out of 4).
http://christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2007/saw2007. html

Ccostas Mandylor and Tobin Bell are signed up for both Saw films, and I heard Alexa Vega (Spy Kids, the upcoming Repo: the Generic Opera) is begging to appear as a victim in one of those.

SPOILER
It'll be interesting to see what the cop character Detective Hoffman does with the legacy of Jigsaw's tests of survival. Will he follow Jigsaw's path (i.e. games with a 50% chance of escape) or will he follow Amanda's (i.e. games with no chance of an escape)

And to whoever saw this film. For the guy who survived the first trap when his mouth was sown shut. How did his mouth heal that fast? (Would've made sense, because the other guy with his eyes sown shut might have died if it was the reverse.)


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 8:24am

Be prepared. This review is very long (probably the longest ever):

Saw IV (8/10):

Jigsaw and his apprentice Amanda are dead. Now, upon the news of Detective Kerry's murder, two seasoned FBI profilers, Agent Strahm and Agent Perez, arrive in the terrified community to assist the veteran Detective Hoffman in sifting through Jigsaw's latest grizzly remains and piecing together the puzzle. However, when SWAT Commander Rigg is abducted and thrust into a game, the last officer untouched by Jigsaw has but ninety minutes to overcome a series of demented traps and save an old friend or face the deadly consequences.

So it's another October month. There's another "Saw". And there are more traps. And there are more victims. And there are new characters. And there is a similar plot. This all sounds so too...familiar. If this is going through your head when watching the TV spots or trailers for this movie, and you're not okay with it, you should skip this. On the other hand, if you just want to know, if you have to know the truth, watch it.

There are two types of people for this kind of film. People who won't watch it because it's basically a repeat of the previous films and people who just want to know the truth. I'm in the group who just wants to know the truth. I don't care if this is a torture porn movie. I don't care if it basically repeats itself with a "been there, done that" scenario. I just want to know.

"Saw 3" could've been a great ending for a trilogy. But you know the studio will make more just to cash in. Of course, that's the reason. But "Saw 3" could've also left us (fans) in a cliffhanger. When we last saw "Saw 3", we don't know what happened to Jeff, our protagonist. I'll just leave you there because it'll ruin the movie if I tell you.

On the other hand, this movie starts with Jigsaw dead (yes, he's dead and no, he's not going to be alive) in the hospital where the doctors are performing an autopsy. They find a tape in his stomach that says his work will continue even though he's dead and that's how it all begins...like the previous films.

Should a fan of this franchise be willing to watch six movies to learn the truth about the who's, why's, when's, how's, and what's in the film? If it stays like how "Saw IV" played it, I'll definitely be watching more "Saw" films in the future. What makes "Saw IV" so good, in my opinion, is that you are put on the spot. You see what Jigsaw sees. You feel what he feels. You judge what he judges. This film is more or less like a origin film for Jigsaw, if you want to call it that.

What I found really good/bad in here is that the film's pacing is fast. The good in that they think the audience is smarter and the bad thing about that is that it gets us confused while it continues on with the story. There's even a point in the film where I considered this to be the best film in the franchise so far. But there are some weaknesses in the film that prevented this to happen. It's very apparent that this isn't a simple story where you can find a simple solution to resolve it.

What you want to know is the twist, right? Well, I suppose it's depressing and encouraging. The twist(s) have already been used in the previous films but at least they didn't try too hard to top off the ending for the original. And I like that there are enough twists to satisfy the freshness of this film.

Everything else pretty much is the same. The flashy cinematography is still here. The famous music is still here. The very depressing characters are still here. Let's just hope the movie will end in a happy ending(?)

If there's a fourth movie to a franchise, you'll think it has gone down the drain by now. Yeah, some will think that. For me, I think it's getting better and better. My expectations were so low for this film because I thought it would be the same thing over and over again. I was right but there were some few surprising things in here that I really liked. "Saw" fans will love this. As for people who don't care about these films, just walk past it.



Posted By: #1-Movie-Fan!
Date Posted: November 07 2007 at 4:41am

Since I keep reading that movie theatre owners make most of their money from concession sales (rather than ticket sales) I am curious to know: If Hollywood keeps making movies so graphically violent that patrons are likely to barf in their popcorn, doesn't that eventually effect theatre owners' bottom line, and will theatre owners at some point have the balls to stand up to the studios and refuse to book movies like this?? 

 



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: November 07 2007 at 6:55am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

On the other hand, this movie starts with Jigsaw dead (yes, he's dead and no, he's not going to be alive) in the hospital where the doctors are performing an autopsy. They find a tape in his stomach that says his work will continue even though he's dead and that's how it all begins...like the previous films.

SPOILER!

Ahem.  It sounds like we have a disagreement. 

If the rest of the movie follows this scene, instead of precedes this scene, then why does Detective Strahm find Jeff with the bodies of Amanda, Lynn and Jigsaw at the end of the movie?  How could he find Jigsaw's body in that room if his body has already been autopsied?

Saw III and Saw IV are concurrent, not consecutive.  Most of Saw IV is a flashback from the autopsy.  Since these movies are concurrent, then Jigsaw is alive until sometime before Strahm enters that room.  That's the biggest mindblower in this movie.

 



Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: November 07 2007 at 11:54am
The acting is also atrocious in the Saw movies. Or, at least, that's what I heard. In the first movie, the formerly charming Cary Elwes was stated in one review to make room for a Razzie trophy for his awful performance. Saw II didn't mention any actors who did awful, but did say they were just as bad. In Saw III, Angus MacFayden was called "a perennial ham with the worse male scream in the business and a sucker for performances without boundaries. Watching him emote in Hulk-like fashion is more painful than anything the Jigsaw could dream up." Of course, I've heard Scott Patterson of Gilmore Girls fame offered the only decent performance.

-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 07 2007 at 12:50pm
I know that...I know that whole thing you said cvcjr13


Posted By: Sanndman228715
Date Posted: November 08 2007 at 8:59am
I've said it before, but in The Saw movies Tobin Bell always gives a good performance (Is he even in Saw 4?). Donnie Wahlberg was also ok in parts two and three. The other actors aren't good, though. Cary Elwes gave the worst performance of his career in the first Saw. Danny Glover also seemed to be coasting in that one. As for Saw 3, the girl that played Amanda is much better as a victim than a villain. I still haven't seen Part 4.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 08 2007 at 2:17pm
Why does everyone hate Cary Elwes in the first one? For thier first practice/rehearsal as a scene in the movie, I thought it was pretty good.


Posted By: Sanndman228715
Date Posted: November 08 2007 at 2:55pm
I usually like Cary Elwes. He was good in The Princess Bride, Robin Hood: Men in tights (He was more convincing as Robin Hood than Kevin Costner was, even though the movie was a comedy), and I heard he was quite good in Kiss the Girls. But something just seemed off about him in Saw. I can't pinpoint what exactly it was, but he didn't do much for me in that one.


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 18 2007 at 9:07am
I finally got around to seeing this. It was actually good. My dad likes it as well. There was some nice kill scenes. We both felt it was an improvement over "Saw III". I liked that one, he didn't. Overall, this wasn't as good as "Hostel Part II".

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: December 06 2007 at 5:21am
On the Filmjerk  website, release dates have been announced for the final two Saw films.

Saw V (Lionsgate): In October 24, 2008 (this one should be pushed back by a week because Halloween (October 31) falls on a Friday!
Saw VI (Lionsgate): In October 30, 2009


Posted By: tomsmobr
Date Posted: December 06 2007 at 5:41am
Are they already written, or might these dates be changed due to The Writers Strike??   

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


Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: December 07 2007 at 11:36am
No. They're set dates for release. Nothing has been written yet.


Posted By: tomsmobr
Date Posted: December 07 2007 at 2:48pm

I'm not a huge fan of the Saw movies, was just wondering if they would have to change The Release date due to The Writers Strike. I think that Saw VI should come out October 30th, 2009, since that's when they release most of The Saw films, around Halloween... 

 



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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 08 2010 at 11:27am
The movies suffer a curse I don't know what's called.After 3 movies,the audience knows the pattern,especially that there will be a twist endin'(that's why Shyamalan's 1st. 3 movies THE 6TH. SENSE,UNBREAKABLE and SIGNS were hits,and the 3 last ones THE VILLAGE, http://www.razzies.com/forum/lady-in-the-water_forum129.html - LADY IN THE WATER and http://www.razzies.com/forum/m-night-shyamalans-the-happening_forum284.html - THE HAPENNING weren't).
 
The movies are the best horror movies,'cuz they're deep,but they focus a lil'too much on the blood,and people don't see what's "inside".
 
The 3rd. is the last one that's great,and I blame Leigh wannell for not writin'them anymore.The rest are O.K.,but they keep gettin'worse'cuz after JIGSAW dies,his games continue,'cuz we don't know where the saga is goin'.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 08 2010 at 1:50pm
Repeat post!

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 13 2010 at 1:49pm
I just rated it on Rotten Tomatoes.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/user/812172/ratings


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 09 2010 at 12:56pm
[Post deleted]


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: October 19 2011 at 8:01pm
Well, time to review Saw IV. Also, ignore that postive comment I left a few pages back. I was young and didn't know better.
 
The good:
 
Some of the acting: For a shlocky horror movie, the acting isn't terrible. There's one exception that I'll get to in the ugly.
 
Donnie Wahlberg's devotion: I've gotta hand it to Wahlberg for coming back. It's gotta suck to just stand on a block of ice for a couple days. Then again, he probably got paid a sh*t load of money.
 
The bad:
 
The story: As sloppy as Saw III's script was, this out-does it! Seriously, how's the main character guilty of anything? He wants to save everyone. What's wrong with that? Hell, that's what Jigsaw wants to do as well! It's just that Jigsaw's method involves horribly maiming people.
 
Darren Lynn Bousman: It's obvious that Bousman didn't have his heart into this. He wanted to do Repo! The Genetic Opera first, but the recording process took too long. His direction is half-assed, but I'd rather watch Saw IV a trillion times before Repo again!
 
The ugly:
 
Costas Mandylor: This guy cannot act! He's boring and he's insufferable. The decision to make him the main villain of the series was a BIG miscalculation.
 
Well, that's Saw IV. It's not as bad as the next one though. Grade: C+
 
Next-up: Saw V!


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: October 20 2011 at 7:38am
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Seriously, how's the main character guilty of anything? He wants to save everyone. What's wrong with that? Hell, that's what Jigsaw wants to do as well! It's just that Jigsaw's method involves horribly maiming people.

I think that was the point.I mean,JIGSAW is the villain,so we're not meant to agree with his mantras.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 02 2013 at 9:57am
My review of the franchise (skip to 07:31):

[TUBE]qMCCVKUcuyE[/TUBE]

Any thoughts?



-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile



Print Page | Close Window