Hmmmm... On 3, I can see your point... I can completely see your point, though on the other side of it, because i felt vindicated... when I saw the first scene I was like... "why would Jigsaw change the game"... the answer was really, really convenient, but hey I am easy girl to please ;) .maybe not.... I dunno, I guess it just didn't bother me as much.
Grayson Reyes-Cole http://www.graysonreyescole.com Facebook Bright Star When evil is done for the greater good, a price must always be paid... Lyrical Press October 2008 --- On Tue, 11/4/08, ravenadal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: ravenadal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: The SAW movies (was:[RE][scifinoir2] Horror Marathons on Cable) To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 5:41 AM I completely agree with your assessment of Saw and Saw 2. The original Saw is a text book example of how to create horror and suspense on a very tight budget. The way the writer and director used their disadvantages to their advantage is nothing short of ingenious. For me, the series goes off the rails in Saw 3 because I believe this sequel violates the series implicit contract with the viewer when Jigsaw's assistant breaks the rules of Jigsaw's intricate puzzle tortures. Plus, Saw 3 recycled puzzle tortures from previous movies which, to me, is a sign of filmmakers who are either lazy or out of ideas. I have resisted both Saw IV and Saw V. ~rave! --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com, Grayson Reyes-Cole <grayson.reyescole@ ...> wrote: > > First a disclaimer, we frequently like or laud things that resemble our own aesthetic. So some of the things I like about the Saw series, I may be a little biased about simply because the writer seemed to be saying something I also tried to say (in much more ramped down manner) in my latest release. OK. now that that's out of the way... here are some of the reasons I like it. > > 1) Regardless of whether you think it's smart or not (I thought it was smart) or find holes in it or not (I didn't find any until late in the series) it'd be difficult for one to argue that this series is not plot driven. I like that. Some of the horror films I don't like are two dimensional. Evil people/creatures with no motive other than hunger do bad things. Sometimes the lore or story behind them is driven by popular culture and there's no value add to the film, which sometimes seems lazy. If not lazy, then pushed aside as the filmmakers tried to accomplish other things like shock. If you like the shock value movies, gore only, etc... that's ok and I don't mean to put anyone down... I'm saying that I get easily bored by it and usually don't finish the movie. I enjoy Saw because it has a plot, a three- dimensional antagonist, and despite the gore, the priority seems to be in the right place for my aesthetic. > > 2) The first movie absolutely beat my expectations. It did ask the question, hurt someone else or hurt yourself, but it asked more than that. It asked a person to do something abhorrent to save his/her life, thus be forced to recognize the value of life, or fail to do something abhorrent, thus showing that your life doesn't mean that much to you, so you die. I ask a similar question in my novel but it's quite a bit different from the Saw perspective and, well, I've mentioned I'm not much of a gore fan. The selection of the "victims" for these Jigsaw reindeer games, I thought, was also clever. > > 3) The second movie really hooked me because of a moment in the movie when me and my date (who had seen the first one in a theater together) both looked at each other and had a huge OMG moment when we recognized one of the characters from the first film and like a completed dot-to-dot, the plot gained dimension where I had *no* expectation for it to. I figured it couldn't possibly get me again... but it did. That made me happy. > > 4) The third movie, pleased me because we got to spend a lot of time with Jigsaw and two of his subjects. > > 5) The fourth movie was hard for me to get through... really, no lie... it took several tries for me to watch it, get it. Not that the plot was so intricate that I needed to study it, more that I found it convoluted. I finally only watched it because I wanted to decide if I would see V or not. Yep, four was when I started thinking that I might be done with the series, but V was released... and there was a big deal about the opening... and well... as long as they make them, I'll probably watch them. > > As a postscript, I also like the musical indicators. When I was little, I used to get scared by scary music in shows, whether what was happening on screen was scary or not... I like the way they use music in the series. > > Grayson Reyes-Cole > http://www.graysonr eyescole. com > Facebook > Bright Star > When evil is done for the greater good, a price must always be paid... > Lyrical Press October 2008 > > > --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Martin Baxter <truthseeker013@ ...> wrote: > > From: Martin Baxter <truthseeker013@ ...> > Subject: Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Horror Marathons on Cable > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com > Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:23 PM > > Keith, I'll give the first one some points for originality. Putting two > people in circumstances that demand that they either hurt themselves or those > they care for had a neat psychological edge. For me, that's where the better > part of horror kicks in. The gore didn't bother me at all because, at the > risk of freaking people out, I have seen worse in real life. > > > > > ---------[ Received Mail Content ]---------- > Subject : Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Horror Marathons on Cable > Date : Mon, 03 Nov 2008 04:52:44 +0000 > From : KeithBJohnson@ ... > To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com > > What is so good about "Saw"? Never seen any of the eps... > > ------------ -- Original message ------------ -- > From: Grayson Reyes-Cole > Just for the record :) though my pleasure with the series may say something > different, I am not a gan of "torture porn" either. > > > Grayson Reyes-Cole > http://www.graysonr eyescole. com > Facebook > Bright Star > When evil is done for the greater good, a price must always be paid... > Lyrical Press October 2008 > > > > --- On Mon, 11/3/08, KeithBJohnson@ ... wrote: > > From: KeithBJohnson@ ... > Subject: Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Horror Marathons on Cable > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com > Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 3:21 AM > > > "Psycho" is a classic, no doubt. So is the original > "Halloween", for that matter. As for the "Saw" torture porn > stuff, yeah, it doesn't exactly thrill me. > > ------------ -- Original message ------------ -- > From: "Martin Baxter" > > Precisely. The newer batch of filmmakers have lost sight of what real horror > is. All week long, we've been innundated with all of the classic horror > flicks, but the one horror movie that managed to scare me, "Psycho" > wasn't shown. TCM's going to show it on Tuesday at 6:00. > > And let us *never* mention the series of movies named after an implement used > to cut down trees... 8-O > > > > > > ---------[ Received Mail Content ]---------- > Subject : Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Horror Marathons on Cable > Date : Sun, 02 Nov 2008 01:06:36 +0000 > From : KeithBJohnson@ comcast.net > To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com > > Yes it did. Part of the unfortunate modern trend toward minimizing suspense, > and increasing FX and cheap shot thrills. > If anyone had known that the seminal "Friday the 13th" and even > "Halloween" would start a slide toward this...everything that came > after took the grossest, least creative parts of those films and made it the > standard for what's called "horror". I was reading a review of a > horror film on cable tonight ,and the blurb noted the number and variety of > grisly deaths the cast faced, as if that's the point of horror. > > ------------ -- Original message ------------ -- > From: "Martin Baxter" > Man, that "House on Haunted Hill" remake redefined bad, didn't > it? > > > > > > ---------[ Received Mail Content ]---------- > Subject : Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Horror Marathons on Cable > Date : Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:34:30 +0000 > From : KeithBJohnson@ comcast.net > To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com > > I agree! And I have to say, on further viewing, that TCM is superiour to AMC > because the latter's bringing in some fairly modern and mediocre stuff that > we've all seen --or avoided--before. AMC is doing a big block of all the > substandard Halloween movies today, followed, I believe by stuff like Jeepers > Creepers and Resident Evil. And FX is also doing a horror marathon, but they do > are doing a lot of more modern junk. I'm not sure which of those two is > doing which movies, but I remember seeing things like the Resident Evil, the > horrible modern remake of "House on Haunted Hill" (the original is > still a classic), etc. Maybe TCM owns more of the classics. And even though some > of the old B&W films aren't that scary to me now, they somehow bring > me more joy than a lot of the FX- and gore-heavy over-adrenalized films that > pass for horror nowadasy. "House on Haunted Hill", for example, is an > embarrassment in its lack of true chills. So TCM for me, baby! > > ------------ -- Original message ------------ -- > From: "Martin Baxter" > I've been watching TCM's offerings all night long. So far, "Tales > of the Dead" has been tops, because of that cool French existentialistic > angle. And Cartoon Network is apparently cranking up "Goosebumps" all > day long, for those interested. > > > > > > ---------[ Received Mail Content ]---------- > Subject : [scifinoir2] Horror Marathons on Cable > Date : Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:36:19 +0000 > From : KeithBJohnson@ comcast.net > To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com > > Meant to drop this yesterday. Both cable channels AMC and TCM are showing > horror movies all day. They started at least yesterday, th ough I've been > watching stuff on TCM in the evenings all week. Since they have so many hours to > fill, movies are going all the way back to B&W classics starting the > likes of Karloff and Chaney (so funny to watch the villagers with their > pitchforks and torches coming after the monster!) to more modern fare like > "The Fly" remake. > It's reall enjoyable, especially checking out the old classics. Now I see > why SciFi doens't show more of the classic stuff--the other stations own it.. >
