Print Page | Close Window

Who Knew They Could Count This High??

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: FORUMS on 2009 RELEASES
Forum Name: SAW VI
Forum Discription: Do They Mean Six...or SICK?!?!?
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3920
Printed Date: December 18 2014 at 7:24am


Topic: Who Knew They Could Count This High??
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Who Knew They Could Count This High??
Date Posted: October 19 2009 at 3:54am

YOU MIGHT THINK the PERPETRATORS of SUCH UTTER GARBAGE AS http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=saw.htm - ARE SUCH CRETINS THEY COULDN'T COUNT BEYOND the NUMBER of FINGERS THAT CAN BE GRAPHICALLY SEVERED from a SINGLE HAND -- BUT, SADLY, YOU'D BE WRONG...

JUST WHEN WE THOUGHT HOLLYWOOD's CARNIVAL of COPYING-WHAT's-WORKED-BEFORE COULDN'T GET ANY CRAPPIER, HERE COMES http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=392 - .

SINCE WE'LL GLADLY ADMIT WE SKIPPED http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1233227/movieconnections - , WE HAVE NO INTENTION of BOTHERING to ACTUALLY SEE THIS ONE. IF YOU FEEL COMPELLED to SEE IT, YOU HAVE OUR SYMPATHIES.

AND, AS with ALL MOVIES THIS DEVOID of ANY REDEEMING VALUE, WE'RE GIVING OUR VOTING MEMBERS a PASS ON IT AS WELL: FEEL FREE to NOMINATE THIS ONE for AS MANY RAZZIES® AS YOU WISH, SIGHT UNSEEN.  WE EXPECT YOU'LL SLEEP BETTER at NIGHT IF YOU DO...


"OMG -- You mean it isn't just a nightmare...I'm actually 

IN this piece of sh*t?!?!?!"  


ALARMING FOOTNOTE:

We were shocked, in researching this posting, to discover that NONE of the previous SAW films have received even a single RAZZIE® nomination...WE THINK THIS IS the YEAR to RECTIFY THIS INCREDIBLE OVERSIGHT! 



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



Replies:
Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: October 19 2009 at 6:01am

Am I the only one who DOES like this series?

For your consideration, HeadRazz, you could add two more into your 2010 and 2011 considerations ---- they've got two more in the works, and part seven is supposed to be in 3-D.


 



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


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: October 19 2009 at 9:06am

I watched (and liked) the first 2 Saw films.  I never watched past that. 

But Saw Seven and Saw Eight?  I wonder if they have a device attached to the developers' heads and set to split them in half -- and they have to make more of these films to receive the turn-off key...



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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 19 2009 at 11:32am
Don't worry. There will be at least 2 more.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: October 19 2009 at 2:57pm
That is precisely why I'm worried...or make that astonished that western civilization survived the first five.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Headbanger14
Date Posted: October 19 2009 at 3:08pm

Oh dear God, sure Friday the 13th and Hellraiser had like 10 sequels and they all sucked too. What makes them think all these Saw sequels'll be any good?



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: October 19 2009 at 4:27pm

At least one regular contributer here will go see them.   

Originally posted by Headbanger14

Oh dear God, sure Friday the 13th and Hellraiser had like 10 sequels and they all sucked too. What makes them think all these Saw sequels'll be any good?

 



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 20 2009 at 12:05pm

Unlike those franchises, the Saw sequels have all opened above and below $30 million each time. Even when I had not seen one single Saw V commercial last year on TV, it still managed to open around $30 million. Considering the cost of each of these movies is around $10 million, they make their budgets back in their first week alone.

Originally posted by Headbanger14

Oh dear God, sure Friday the 13th and Hellraiser had like 10 sequels and they all sucked too. What makes them think all these Saw sequels'll be any good?
 


 



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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: October 20 2009 at 2:49pm

First of all, MWG, I'm completely baffled by two things...

1. How does a movie open "above and below $30 million..." ? It either does one or the other.

2. The Oakland A's were one of the worst teams in baseball this year. They were also at the bottom of the league in attendance. I mention that because figuring an average of $30 per ticket (which is probably about right) at 1.4 million in attendance they made well over $30 million also and they were a piece of crap team that wasn't much fun to watch. However, given the choice between seeing an Oakland A's game, even if they were playing an equally dreadful team like the Kansas City Royals or seeing any Saw movie ever made, I'd go see the A's.

As I've mentioned before, box-office doesn't always correlate well to quality of the film, nor have any of the Saw movies been particularly big overall box-office draws. So the fact that they are having modestly good openings and the fact that they are making money doesn't lend much credence to the value or quality of the movies. A guy got enormously rich back in the 70's sticking rocks in a box with a cute little book. Sometimes people do get rich selling crap. In fact, it happens a lot.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 22 2009 at 11:19am

Well, since there have been 5 movies so far, they all, excluding the first, opened between $27 million and $31 million. Wasn't it obvious what I meant?

As I've mentioned before, box-office doesn't always correlate well to quality of the film, nor have any of the Saw movies been particularly big overall box-office draws. So the fact that they are having modestly good openings and the fact that they are making money doesn't lend much credence to the value or quality of the movies. A guy got enormously rich back in the 70's sticking rocks in a box with a cute little book. Sometimes people do get rich selling crap. In fact, it happens a lot.

I never said the Saw movies were good...



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


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: October 22 2009 at 11:55am
I will disclose that I more or less enjoyed the first three Saw films.
Yeah, they were uneven but their selling point was the devilishly inventive
traps and situations that the screenwriters concocted up with their wicked
imagination, and because of that, I was willing to look over some of the
plot holes and just enjoy them for what they were. As with the last two
installments, the series has really run out of gas and no matter how
clever the traps Jigsaw sets up, they can't compensate for the howlingly
awful dialogue and implausible plot twists they throw at us.

Eric D. Snider says it perfectly: "The latest Saw movies are as rote
and mechanical as one of Jigsaw's traps, though at least Jigsaw's traps are
suspenseful and ingenious. The movies themselves are neither of those
things."


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 23 2009 at 9:13am

Wait, wait, wait, wait. Saw VI has a 44% on RT and Amelia has a 17% on RT?! Am I just seeing things or is Saw VI the highest rated movie since the first?! Your thoughts?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/saw_VI/ - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/saw_VI/

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I have recently begun to suspect there may be deliberate "skewing" going on with RT Ratings numbers. While both RT and MetaCritic concur that AMELIA has some of the year's least favorable reviews ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/amelia_2009/ - RT LINK / http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/saw6 - METACRITIC LINK ) the reviews for SAW VI at RT appear to be unexpectedly high ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/saw_VI/ - LINK ) while those for SAW VI at Meta Critic ((currently 27 out of a possible 100 points) are among 2009's lowest -ranked ( http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/saw6 - LINK ).

Since MetaCritic prides itself on contacting the critics themselves to rank & rate their own reviews, I can only assume that RT is losing its edge as a reliable source of critical consensus. If this keeps up, MetaCritic may have to replace RT as our "go to source" for how crix are ranking mainstream movies...

 



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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: October 23 2009 at 9:45am

You need to learn to look at all the numbers, and where they are coming from.

The ranking for Amelia, a movie that  doesn't look particularly good based upon the trailers, is based on 74 recorded reviews. The ranking for Saw is based on only 16. In essense, the numbers for Amelia are probably close to where they will end up when all the reviewers are heard from, whereas the numbers for Saw could move substantially...probably downward.

Quite a few of the early reviews recorded for Saw are also coming from reviewers for the horror movie rags...



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 23 2009 at 11:34am
Sure, but it did manage to get positive reviews from 2 top critics, which the last 3 Saw films couldn't manage to do.

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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 23 2009 at 12:33pm

I wasn't ever going to go see this movie. In fact, the only reason I saw Saws 4 and 5 in theaters was because of my brother. Now this year, he doesn't want to see Saw 6 because of how bad Saw 5 was. But you know what, I might actually go see this. I'm reading in reviews that they're bringing political themes like health care into this, which I really like, since I loved Sicko.

I don't know, though. I'm going to wait it out to hear the reactions.



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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: October 23 2009 at 5:28pm

Well, there is no question in my mind that Saw VI will do wonders for advancing intelligent debate about health care...at least as much as the commericals the Republicans are airing. I especially liked the one where the lady who claimed she had breast cancer came on and told us that if she lived in England, where they have public supported health care, she would have been more likely to die.

That is true. If a woman contracts breast cancer in England she is 8% more likely to die per capita. What the G.O.P neglected to mention is that in the British system which is oriented toward prevention rather than curing illnesses once you have them, women are 16% less likely per capita to get breast cancer in the first place. Gotta love the Republicans. They'd never lie to us...someday, I plan to visit the Iraq WMD museum.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: phe_de
Date Posted: October 24 2009 at 9:33am
The rating is at 42% now, with 31 critics counted.

I only have seen the first two Saw movies. Therefore I might not see Saw VI in a theatre; but when it plays on TV, maybe I'll give it a chance.



-------------
Everything is possible, and nothing is sure.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: October 24 2009 at 12:51pm
I'm sure thousands of brain dead teenagers are drooling over thoughts of seeing how everyone will die over the top deaths this time. Because of these morons, I bet "Saw 7" will be in the works the nano-second the numbers for the weekend come out, if it's not already in the works. Hopefully, these teenagers will grow brains this year and go see "Paranormal Activity", thus killing this stupid series once and for all. Come on, "PA" was made for $11,000 and makes $30 million in return as of this day, while the "Saw" movies are made for $10 million and make only $30 million back. Big whoop with "Saw", very newsworthy for "PA".


Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: October 24 2009 at 12:54pm
But it won't hurt to highlight the first failed Oscar baiter this year on these forums, right?


Originally posted by moviewizguy

Wait, wait, wait, wait. Saw VI has a 44% on RT and Amelia has a 17% on RT?! Am I just seeing things or is Saw VI the highest rated movie since the first?! Your thoughts?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/saw_VI/ - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/saw_VI/

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I have recently begun to suspect there may be deliberate "skewing" going on with RT Ratings numbers. While both RT and MetaCritic concur that AMELIA has some of the year's least favorable reviews ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/amelia_2009/ - / http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/saw6 - ) the reviews for SAW VI at RT appear to be unexpectedly high ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/saw_VI/ - ) while those for SAW VI at Meta Critic ((currently 27 out of a possible 100 points) are among 2009's lowest -ranked ( http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/saw6 - ).

Since MetaCritic prides itself on contacting the critics themselves to rank & rate their own reviews, I can only assume that RT is losing its edge as a reliable source of critical consensus. If this keeps up, MetaCritic may have to replace RT as our "go to source" for how crix are ranking mainstream movies...

 






-------------
Seltzerberg is back?

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

http://www.disastermovie.org
http://www.vampiressuck.org/


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: October 24 2009 at 5:38pm
MetaCritic as the new standard? Sounds good to me. RT has been hit or miss these days, and like H-Wood itself, it's mostly miss.


Posted By: phe_de
Date Posted: October 25 2009 at 12:15am
I just checked the MetaCritic site.

Nicely presented; but mostly, the scores aren't that far away from RottenTomatoes.

Not with Saw VI however.

Saw VI is at 27 at MetaCritic, but it's still rated better than Saw V.
Saw VI is currently at 44% at RottenTomatoes.

The number of critics however is more in favor of RottenTomatoes. 34 versus 9 at MetaCritic.
So who is more reliable? I guess it's up to the viewers to decide.




-------------
Everything is possible, and nothing is sure.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 25 2009 at 2:18am
Well, more people trust Metacritic than RT because instead of having fresh and rotten, that site has good, medium, and bad, so there's this whole balance thing to it but it's hard to figure out which is more reliable sometimes, since there are rare cases where RT and Metacritic are completely different from one another. For example, Saw III has the highest rating on Metacritic in the franchise (48), even higher than the first (46)! However, the RT rating for #3 is 25%.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: October 25 2009 at 3:46am

Well, since the two sites are sometimes polar opposites of each other, perhaps we should take BOTH of them into account.

PS: I so love the fact that "Paranormal Activity" is kicking the ever loving crap out of "Saw 6" at the box office (according to Friday and Saturday grossings)!



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: October 25 2009 at 5:22am
I find it rather curious that as of late Sunday morning as I write, only 34 reviews have been presented for Saw VI. Either RT has been amazingly slow in collecting them or they just haven't been published. The latter is a rather telling suggestion that the bulk of critics out there just don't want to review this movie...that would be a pretty serious indictment of the series.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: October 25 2009 at 9:24am

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I have recently begun to suspect there may be deliberate "skewing" going on with RT Ratings numbers. While both RT and MetaCritic concur that AMELIA has some of the year's least favorable reviews ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/amelia_2009/ - RT LINK / http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/saw6 - METACRITIC LINK ) the reviews for SAW VI at RT appear to be unexpectedly high ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/saw_VI/ - LINK ) while those for SAW VI at Meta Critic ((currently 27 out of a possible 100 points) are among 2009's lowest -ranked ( http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/saw6 - LINK ).

Since MetaCritic prides itself on contacting the critics themselves to rank & rate their own reviews, I can only assume that RT is losing its edge as a reliable source of critical consensus. If this keeps up, MetaCritic may have to replace RT as our "go to source" for how crix are ranking mainstream movies...

Saw 6 has 35 total reviews from RT while it only has 9 from MC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be easier to skew the rating number if there were less reviews? (albeit, it would be more obvious). But you can't say that RT has some hidden agenda when you could easily make the same case against MC, it just doesn't make any sense. This is just a knee jerk reaction because we all wanted to see this movie get hammered, and it didn't.

That being said with only 35 reviews it's hard to gauge a movie,(although curiously enough, The Stepfather has the same number of reviews and is at 11% which I think, and I'm sure a lot of people on this site think, is a fair number for that POS of a movie). But I think the point made by Saturnwatcher is probably the best one:

I find it rather curious that as of late Sunday morning as I write, only 34 reviews have been presented for Saw VI. Either RT has been amazingly slow in collecting them or they just haven't been published. The latter is a rather telling suggestion that the bulk of critics out there just don't want to review this movie...that would be a pretty serious indictment of the series.

The latter is probably more accurate, I think the reviews are coming in slowly because critics by and large are just tired of watching and reviewing this series, and want to see it bomb, or at least underwhelm. (Sidenote: PA beat out Saw by about 8 million this weekend... Justice!). So even though the rating might be a little high for Razzie standards, this movie should not be ignored come award season. We can think of it as a cumulative type thing.



-------------
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: October 25 2009 at 10:31am

I don't blame them for not wanting to see Saw VI. I mean, for crying out loud, the main villain of the series died in the third movie, and yet here we are three movies later. WTF?! But of course there will be a 7th one, because this series is the only thing keeping Lionsgate alive. Well, that and anything Tyler Perry makes.

Oh, and a quick way to fix the fact this series has never gotten a single nod or award? A special Worst Movie Series Of The Past Decade Razzie!

 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 25 2009 at 2:11pm
But it hasn't been a decade...


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: October 25 2009 at 5:39pm
The first movie come out in 2004, then a sequel came out every year since for five years. That's more than half a decade between 2000 and 2009. That counts as a Worst Movie Series of the Past Decade.


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: October 26 2009 at 2:05pm

Here are some interesting stats that may prove Saw VI to be one of the less awful movies of the year:


Eric D. Snider gave Saw V a "D" and gave Saw VI a "C".
Wesley Morris hasn't given a single Saw film more than two stars, yet he gave VI two and a half stars.
James Rocchi gave V one star, and gave VI two stars.
Rossiter Drake gave V one star and gave VI two.
Dustin Putman gave both IV and V one and a half star gave
VI two.


This is just a sample, and yeah, there are still a fair number of critics who are bashing this movie just as badly as its predecessors. But the overall consensus suggests that VI is better than what most critics were expecting it to be. 

 



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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: October 27 2009 at 3:00am

Well, at this point, there's only two ways they can go with the 7th movie:

1. Finally end the series with closure.

2. The ever popular "reboot".

Or, the third option, as we all wished they would do ... stop making these movies, period!



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 01 2009 at 10:01am
Special Agent Strahm is dead, and Detective Hoffman has emerged as the unchallenged successor to Jigsaw's legacy. However, when the FBI draws closer to Hoffman, he is forced to set a game into motion, and Jigsaw's grand scheme is finally understood.

SAW VI is the point in the series where I'm starting to second think myself if I should continue with the series anymore. I have to admit, the movie is better than SAW V, but the set up in here is oh-so-familiar: A guy wakes up and finds himself in a grimmy old room where he has however many minutes to complete however many tasks to survive or whatnot. I've never been bothered by this set up until now.

While watching the film, I found myself bored and slightly uninterested in what's going on on screen. The funny thing is that the film is less about the infamous traps and more about attacking on the issues of the health care and economy, which makes SAW VI the most relevant in its series. And yes, I think the addition of these issues puts a fresh spin to the series, along with the fact that I find these issues interesting.

But what I hope for SAW VII is for it to do something different than a person awaking in a room to do a series of tasks. Saying that, I do like that this film did tie a lot of the plot lines made since the third film. I also liked seeing the returning of some old faces. However, the best thing of all is the last ten minutes of the film. It's truly jaw dropping and the ending is one of the best cliffhangers I've ever seen in this series in a long time.

So yes, I probably will be seeing SAW VII next year not only because of the cliffhanger ending but because the filmmakers fixed their mistakes since the fifth film. The series is headed toward the right direction yet this is me being completely generous because I wasn't all "wow'ed" by it until the last ten minutes of the film. It's a decent addition to the series and the fans of the series will definitely like it. 6/10


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 01 2009 at 12:28pm
Yet another rating of somewhere between 6 and 9 out of 10.  Ummmmm ... no comment.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: January 26 2010 at 6:55pm
Has anyone been following the "fight" between Paramount and Lionsgate? David Hackl, director of Saw V, was originally attached to do Saw VII while Kevin Greutert, who directed Saw VI, was attached to direct Paranormal Activity 2, both movies going head on head this Halloween. However, Lionsgate made an option which put Kevin on Saw VII, kicking out Hackl and now the director chair of PA2 is empty. It's a pretty dick move by Lionsgate. If you go to Kevin's blog, he says he feels like being raped by his dad.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 26 2010 at 8:09pm
Well hopefully "Paranormal Activity 2" will beat the sh*t about of "Saw 7" so that the studios will finally get a clue and let this tired series die! Sadly, it may also result with there being a new "P.A." movie every Halloween. Me, I just want there to be a director with talent behind the "P.A." sequel, since it was talent that made the first movie a run away hit.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: January 27 2010 at 1:17pm
From this: http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=13849 - http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=13849

Whether he likes it or not, http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/films.php?id=6097 - Saw VI director Kevin Greutert is indeed heading back to Toronto to direct http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/films.php?id=11206 - Saw VII .

In a blog post entitled "Woo hoo! Lawyers are sending me to Canada tomorrow!" he writes this (Update: This entry has since been pulled from his site.):

I just had the task of telling my 83 year old mother that no, I'm not going to be allowed to direct the movie we were all so excited about when my family last got together, and that I'm being forced to leave town before getting a chance to see her again. Yes, I'll be filming people getting tortured YET AGAIN. So we'll have to put off me making a film she can actually watch for another year.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 27 2010 at 2:36pm
Hopefully this little legal battle will result in the this uncalled "Saw" sequel being canceled altogether.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: January 27 2010 at 6:52pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Has anyone been following the "fight" between Paramount and Lionsgate? David Hackl, director of Saw V, was originally attached to do Saw VII while Kevin Greutert, who directed Saw VI, was attached to direct Paranormal Activity 2, both movies going head on head this Halloween. However, Lionsgate made an option which put Kevin on Saw VII, kicking out Hackl and now the director chair of PA2 is empty. It's a pretty dick move by Lionsgate. If you go to Kevin's blog, he says he feels like being raped by his dad.
Does this mean Paranormal Activity 2 won't be released this autumn?
 
Originally posted by HeadRAZZBerry

YOU MIGHT THINK THE PERPETRATORS... ...THIS IS THE YEAR TO RECTIFY THIS...
As for Saw VI, a single nomination Worst Prequel, Sequel, Remake, or Ripoff would suffice for me.


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


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 28 2010 at 7:12am
Originally posted by GTAHater767

Does this mean Paranormal Activity 2 won't be released this autumn?
I take that as a good sign. Just because a movie is cheap to make, that doesn't mean it should be rushed into theaters within one year. I say they should take their time with it and make it a worthy follow-up to the first movie.
 
Originally posted by HeadRAZZBerry

As for Saw VI, a single nomination Worst Prequel, Sequel, Remake, or Ripoff would suffice for me.
There's no reason for the series to keep going. The last one was a flop, the main villain has been dead since the third movie, and each movie is pretty much the same as the one before it. It's time to pull the plug on it. But, knowing the studios, it's time for the magic word ... reboot.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 03 2011 at 11:41am
I just saw this and I can assure it ties with SAW I as the best of the franchise.There's still the same flaws:too much non-scary gore(but this one had a lot of actual thrills)and focusing too much on the timeline and the flashbacks it feels like LOST(but this isn't a filler episode like the previous movie).Having the editor direct the movie and writing political satire and honest ethical debates were nice touches.

I give this 7/10.


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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: October 21 2011 at 8:59pm
The Scott Pilgrim curse strikes again! For those who aren't aware of what that saying I just made up means, the Scott Pilgrim curse is when audiences, fed up with a certain formula, rejects the latest movie to use it and the movie turns out to be good. It called the Scott Pilgrim curse because of it being Michael Cera's third good movie and his sixth movie overall. After how terrible Saw V was, audiences were leary of the franchise. Not helping matters, a little horror movie by the name of Paranormal Activity was causing a stir. With that useless info out of the way, let's get to the review.
 
The good:
 
Peter Outerbridge: Outerbridge is interesting as William Easton, an amoral health insurance executive. You can clearly see that he learns his lesson throughout the movie.
 
Kevin Greutert: Greutert has an interesting vision for this. There's more to this than a simple gore-fest.
 
The script: The script for this isn't as good as the first two's, but compared to the last three's, it's Drive!
 
The bad:
 
Costas Mandylor: Dammit, why did they keep this guy around?
 
The ugly:
 
The end: This REALLY pissed me off! After learning his lesson, Easton gets turned into goo. Yes really. Afterwards, Hoffman gets put in a trap and is horribly maimed, but he continues to live. Damn.
 
After watching this, I had hope that Saw VII* would be good. How wrong I was! Grade: B-.
 
Next-up: Saw 3D!
 
*I didn't know that it would be 3D when I saw this one.


-------------
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 21 2011 at 9:28pm
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

The bad:
 
Costas Mandylor: Dammit, why did they keep this guy around?
The fact that you moved him from Ugly to Bad should answer your question.Wink
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

This REALLY pissed me off! After learning his lesson, Easton gets turned into goo.
What did you expect?Most of the main characters from the first 5 movies didn't get a happy ending.


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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: October 21 2011 at 10:06pm
My gripe with the ending wasn't that it wasn't a happy ending. It was how he actually LEARNED something this time! He learned how his job screwed over a lot of innocent people and was going to right his wrongs. Then he becomes goo.

-------------
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 22 2011 at 5:52am
Good point.Looking back,a lot of the characters(specially the protagonists in JIGSAW's game)didn't really learn...which is why they didn't get a happy ending.

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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 02 2013 at 10:01am
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