Re: The SAW movies (was:[RE][scifinoir2] Horror Marathons on Cable)
I resisted HOSTEL but upon finally seeing it, I came away primarily impressed with Eli Roth's undeniable talent as a filmmaker. I was similarly impressed with Rob Zombie's helming of the HALLOWEEN remake, which is grade A work and is presaged by his gonzo work on HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES and THE DEVIL'S REJECTS - both of which are unabashed trash (but well made trash). ~rave! --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Grayson Reyes-Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Er... probably... And to answer your other question. There are scenes I didn't watch, rather listened to... not out of fear but out of is this really necessary? So in that case, yes there are some really gruesome scenes... but they don't go on for long (ok... maybe a couple of them do)... I think I'm just making excuses because I like the story, lol... I haven't seen Hostel or Turistas or a ton of other movies expressly because I'm not interested in that stuff and yet, Saw does have a few of those elements. I cannot tell a lie. 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, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The SAW movies (was:[RE][scifinoir2] Horror Marathons on Cable) To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 5:53 AM So, to my point of inferiour sequels or clones, do Saw 4 and 5 fall into that bad category, along with all the Friday the 13th, Halloween, and Children of the Corn sequels? -- Original message -- From: ravenadal [EMAIL PROTECTED] com 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 l ike 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
Re: The SAW movies (was:[RE][scifinoir2] Horror Marathons on Cable)
I really like the Halloween revisit. 1000 Corpses and Devil's Reject make all my happy sad. 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, 6:27 PM I resisted HOSTEL but upon finally seeing it, I came away primarily impressed with Eli Roth's undeniable talent as a filmmaker. I was similarly impressed with Rob Zombie's helming of the HALLOWEEN remake, which is grade A work and is presaged by his gonzo work on HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES and THE DEVIL'S REJECTS - both of which are unabashed trash (but well made trash). ~rave! --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com, Grayson Reyes-Cole grayson.reyescole@ ... wrote: Er... probably... And to answer your other question. There are scenes I didn't watch, rather listened to... not out of fear but out of is this really necessary? So in that case, yes there are some really gruesome scenes... but they don't go on for long (ok... maybe a couple of them do)... I think I'm just making excuses because I like the story, lol... I haven't seen Hostel or Turistas or a ton of other movies expressly because I'm not interested in that stuff and yet, Saw does have a few of those elements. I cannot tell a lie. 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 Tue, 11/4/08, KeithBJohnson@ ... KeithBJohnson@ ... wrote: From: KeithBJohnson@ ... KeithBJohnson@ ... Subject: Re: The SAW movies (was:[RE][scifinoir 2] Horror Marathons on Cable) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 5:53 AM So, to my point of inferiour sequels or clones, do Saw 4 and 5 fall into that bad category, along with all the Friday the 13th, Halloween, and Children of the Corn sequels? -- Original message -- From: ravenadal [EMAIL PROTECTED] com 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 l ike 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
Re: The SAW movies (was:[RE][scifinoir2] Horror Marathons on Cable)
Er... probably... And to answer your other question. There are scenes I didn't watch, rather listened to... not out of fear but out of is this really necessary? So in that case, yes there are some really gruesome scenes... but they don't go on for long (ok... maybe a couple of them do)... I think I'm just making excuses because I like the story, lol... I haven't seen Hostel or Turistas or a ton of other movies expressly because I'm not interested in that stuff and yet, Saw does have a few of those elements. I cannot tell a lie. 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, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The SAW movies (was:[RE][scifinoir2] Horror Marathons on Cable) To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 5:53 AM So, to my point of inferiour sequels or clones, do Saw 4 and 5 fall into that bad category, along with all the Friday the 13th, Halloween, and Children of the Corn sequels? -- Original message -- From: ravenadal [EMAIL PROTECTED] com 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 l ike 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 abou t the opening... and well... as long as they make them, I'll probably watch
Re: The SAW movies (was:[RE][scifinoir2] Horror Marathons on Cable)
So, to my point of inferiour sequels or clones, do Saw 4 and 5 fall into that bad category, along with all the Friday the 13th, Halloween, and Children of the Corn sequels? -- Original message -- From: ravenadal [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Grayson Reyes-Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.graysonreyescole.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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Martin Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Horror Marathons on Cable To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.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
Re: The SAW movies (was:[RE][scifinoir2] Horror Marathons on Cable)
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 scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Grayson Reyes-Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.graysonreyescole.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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Martin Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Horror Marathons on Cable To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.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 + From : [EMAIL PROTECTED] To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com What
