Re: Saw 4
WOW! Blzer, it sounds like you are very disappointed with this movie and that is a shame if it turned out as bad as you say it did. I removed your spoilers so this way nobody has to see them twice, and I closed my eyes while removing them. LOL! I my wife and I go see it soon since we don't have anyone to watch the kids this weekend. I'm sitting here in suspense as to how IV unfolds as this is not sounding too good from your impressions. Is it that maybe their taking this franchise in a new direction now which is why its made you feel this way towards it or is it just overall bad?
The movie made plenty of sense, not too many plot holes. This is the only place where I actually enjoyed the writing. There are, however, still some big shoes to fill and I see where there are still some things unanswered for Saw V and Saw VI, but I hope to God they don't make a next one. I don't think LGF is grateful enough to Whannell's baby, and they're definitely taking it for granted. Saw III only had things missing so they could actually lead people to see Saw IV. As far as I can tell, 2.5 out of the 4 things were answered. Other than those four things (what happened to Eric, what happened to Jeff and his daughter, why John put wax on the tape, and what Amanda's letter contained), this book could have been closed on the franchise. IMO they wasted characters in this movie as well. Oh, and don't waste your money on the Director's Cut. It has an alternate ending and a "dream sequence" that you can very easily watch on YouTube.
BTW, I might see Saw V, but that's not the biggest problem. I won't see this movie again unless I want complete clarification on what I saw. I definitely won't buy it to see it, though.
Now let me talk about director Darren Lynn Bousman a little bit. First of all, he has a big ego and likes to show off his talents when talking in commentaries (to him, they're talents at least). Because of this, I know what to look for and what to expect. Rapid single-frame flashes and multiple audio cuts during traps make it feel like a music video and give near zero suspense. Watch Larry cut his leg in Saw, and tell me if that feels gruesome when watching it in Darren-O-Vision. To be honest, I probably wouldn't even know what he is doing half of the time. He considers it a "staple" in the franchise all because James Wan did it once in the first Saw with Amanda's trap, and I hated it then, too.
Darren admits that he loves S.W.A.T. What happened to the suspense of this movie with just a couple of obsessed players trying to track this guy down? Everything is blown way out of proportion now, and it takes away any suspense. And apparently he loves dumb S.W.A.T., too. Always one step behind, and sometimes one step ahead of their thoughts (think of what S.W.A.T. stands for... the "T" isn't used enough, especially by Rigg). If you're going to use them, don't overuse them... this isn't S.W.A.T. 2 (however, again, I can see where there is room to have re-written this into that, though the series would begin going a different genre).
Darren is obsessed with his transition scenes. I recall in Saw II seeing Eric Mathews entering the house and then the camera did a quick pan to the right and we saw Xavier going down the stairs, I was like "Hey, that was cool." Two scenes, one shot. I thought it was actually quite genious. Then I began seeing it three times in the first fifteen minutes of Saw III, and I'm like, "Okay, it's really not needed anymore." Well, these transitions this time are so ridiculously stupid, that for a second you actually think you're in the same scene even though you know that you shouldn't be. They don't feel right at all, and the needs to find a different way to weave in and out of scenes.
Once again, this isn't a music video. So why are we constantly hearing random opera ladies sing through 50 minutes of this movie, and the remaining 40 minutes are underground mixes and cut-throat sound-effects? Basically, remember Addison's scene in Saw II with the razor box? Every scene had directing almost exactly like that one. I remember in the Saw III commentary he notes in Kerry's kidnapping scene how he's bringing back an element in the original Saw how there's no music playing during the time that she's walking to her closet, and how it makes it a lot more intense.
Umm, Darren... little hint there, bud?
Instead, the instant you start hearing instruments blaring again before the pig captures her, all of the sudden there's no shock factor.
Oh, and speaking of sound-effects... every time there's a quick camera cut, there's either a slice sound, a lot of camera flash sounds, or something else bizarre. Every time there's a pan, there's a whoosh sound. And for the love of God, Darren... when T.V.'s turn on, they don't make extremely stupid static noises and then BOOM to give Billie a ruder entrance. Ahh... Billie, our beloved doll, of course. This thing looked idiotic in this movie. I know that for some reason they like to make him look different in every movie, but I actually had to hold in a laugh at how stupid he looked in this one. I can't tell you how scared I was the first time I saw Billie on screen in Saw; he was just so freaky. He still would be if they showed that version of him. Even the sound of his voice, since Saw II (the time that Darren signed on... coincidence?), has just been stupid. I would think that many agree, but perhaps it's just me.
Oh and one last thing about the music. Charlie Clouser is a mastermind, and his "Hello Zepp" score is amazing. It's so good, I enjoy that we can expect it at the end of each movie. But wait, there's more when Darren is around! Yes... four minutes into this movie, we actually hear it! Why? I have no ****ing idea. There's something called and luster, and the song loses its luster when played more than once. It especially annoyed me in Saw II when they used it while Xavier was cutting his neck, and then they decided to use it five minutes after for the main plot twist. Then they use it three times in Saw III. Why? I almost don't care for the reason, anymore.
I said this movie was 90 minutes in length, but had two hours of material. Commentary in this movie was like BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM! There was no time to breathe, no time to think, no time to comprehend. It seriously felt like Darren said: "Okay, guys... we only have enough film for 60 minutes. We'll do our first take only, and make sure you guys know your lines! The other 30 minutes, I'll find ways to very randomly put in stupid special effects that repeat the same shot over and over with different camera angles, camera flashes and voice echoing. We'll do some one-cut scene transitions, as well." They could have drawn it out some, and I would understand how people could feel more relieved that they entirely understood each scene (even though I did anyway) and that they had time to just... well, to relieve, like I said. Movies need breaks. Darren did it pretty well with Saw III, but it was just terrible here.
Oh, and these twist(s) aren't impossible to figure out, even though I figured out one, and one has (in another way, though) been done before, so I thought it was so obvious to not to again that I canceled it out. I especially love how Darren left a MySpace bulletin once and said (and I quote): "If you figure out this ending, you're my personal ****ing hero!" Begin making your ribbons, DLB. I obviously wasn't the only person to figure this one out, I can guarantee it. Darren overhyped this movie more than I ever recall a movie being hyped by its director. Not only that, but he lied to get people to see it. He said this was going to be the most explosive ending ever? Perhaps if a bomb went off before the credits rolled, I would understand what he meant... otherwise, it was just plain not "out of your seat" shocking even like three was in comparison. Plus, he said things would be answered that never were. What a load of crock. I'm sure he just has a different mind, and that's cool... but in all honesty, it's not right for this franchise.
Bye.
BTW, I might see Saw V, but that's not the biggest problem. I won't see this movie again unless I want complete clarification on what I saw. I definitely won't buy it to see it, though.
Now let me talk about director Darren Lynn Bousman a little bit. First of all, he has a big ego and likes to show off his talents when talking in commentaries (to him, they're talents at least). Because of this, I know what to look for and what to expect. Rapid single-frame flashes and multiple audio cuts during traps make it feel like a music video and give near zero suspense. Watch Larry cut his leg in Saw, and tell me if that feels gruesome when watching it in Darren-O-Vision. To be honest, I probably wouldn't even know what he is doing half of the time. He considers it a "staple" in the franchise all because James Wan did it once in the first Saw with Amanda's trap, and I hated it then, too.
Darren admits that he loves S.W.A.T. What happened to the suspense of this movie with just a couple of obsessed players trying to track this guy down? Everything is blown way out of proportion now, and it takes away any suspense. And apparently he loves dumb S.W.A.T., too. Always one step behind, and sometimes one step ahead of their thoughts (think of what S.W.A.T. stands for... the "T" isn't used enough, especially by Rigg). If you're going to use them, don't overuse them... this isn't S.W.A.T. 2 (however, again, I can see where there is room to have re-written this into that, though the series would begin going a different genre).
Darren is obsessed with his transition scenes. I recall in Saw II seeing Eric Mathews entering the house and then the camera did a quick pan to the right and we saw Xavier going down the stairs, I was like "Hey, that was cool." Two scenes, one shot. I thought it was actually quite genious. Then I began seeing it three times in the first fifteen minutes of Saw III, and I'm like, "Okay, it's really not needed anymore." Well, these transitions this time are so ridiculously stupid, that for a second you actually think you're in the same scene even though you know that you shouldn't be. They don't feel right at all, and the needs to find a different way to weave in and out of scenes.
Once again, this isn't a music video. So why are we constantly hearing random opera ladies sing through 50 minutes of this movie, and the remaining 40 minutes are underground mixes and cut-throat sound-effects? Basically, remember Addison's scene in Saw II with the razor box? Every scene had directing almost exactly like that one. I remember in the Saw III commentary he notes in Kerry's kidnapping scene how he's bringing back an element in the original Saw how there's no music playing during the time that she's walking to her closet, and how it makes it a lot more intense.
Umm, Darren... little hint there, bud?
Instead, the instant you start hearing instruments blaring again before the pig captures her, all of the sudden there's no shock factor.
Oh, and speaking of sound-effects... every time there's a quick camera cut, there's either a slice sound, a lot of camera flash sounds, or something else bizarre. Every time there's a pan, there's a whoosh sound. And for the love of God, Darren... when T.V.'s turn on, they don't make extremely stupid static noises and then BOOM to give Billie a ruder entrance. Ahh... Billie, our beloved doll, of course. This thing looked idiotic in this movie. I know that for some reason they like to make him look different in every movie, but I actually had to hold in a laugh at how stupid he looked in this one. I can't tell you how scared I was the first time I saw Billie on screen in Saw; he was just so freaky. He still would be if they showed that version of him. Even the sound of his voice, since Saw II (the time that Darren signed on... coincidence?), has just been stupid. I would think that many agree, but perhaps it's just me.
Oh and one last thing about the music. Charlie Clouser is a mastermind, and his "Hello Zepp" score is amazing. It's so good, I enjoy that we can expect it at the end of each movie. But wait, there's more when Darren is around! Yes... four minutes into this movie, we actually hear it! Why? I have no ****ing idea. There's something called and luster, and the song loses its luster when played more than once. It especially annoyed me in Saw II when they used it while Xavier was cutting his neck, and then they decided to use it five minutes after for the main plot twist. Then they use it three times in Saw III. Why? I almost don't care for the reason, anymore.
I said this movie was 90 minutes in length, but had two hours of material. Commentary in this movie was like BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM! There was no time to breathe, no time to think, no time to comprehend. It seriously felt like Darren said: "Okay, guys... we only have enough film for 60 minutes. We'll do our first take only, and make sure you guys know your lines! The other 30 minutes, I'll find ways to very randomly put in stupid special effects that repeat the same shot over and over with different camera angles, camera flashes and voice echoing. We'll do some one-cut scene transitions, as well." They could have drawn it out some, and I would understand how people could feel more relieved that they entirely understood each scene (even though I did anyway) and that they had time to just... well, to relieve, like I said. Movies need breaks. Darren did it pretty well with Saw III, but it was just terrible here.
Oh, and these twist(s) aren't impossible to figure out, even though I figured out one, and one has (in another way, though) been done before, so I thought it was so obvious to not to again that I canceled it out. I especially love how Darren left a MySpace bulletin once and said (and I quote): "If you figure out this ending, you're my personal ****ing hero!" Begin making your ribbons, DLB. I obviously wasn't the only person to figure this one out, I can guarantee it. Darren overhyped this movie more than I ever recall a movie being hyped by its director. Not only that, but he lied to get people to see it. He said this was going to be the most explosive ending ever? Perhaps if a bomb went off before the credits rolled, I would understand what he meant... otherwise, it was just plain not "out of your seat" shocking even like three was in comparison. Plus, he said things would be answered that never were. What a load of crock. I'm sure he just has a different mind, and that's cool... but in all honesty, it's not right for this franchise.
Bye.
Comment