Post by Fickle81 on Sept 25, 2005 4:15:38 GMT -5
MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD
Ok...
I finally got to have a second viewing of Saw,and while some of the bad writting was more evident this time around,there were also some things that people complained about that really aren't valid.
The bad acting:
I wouldn't say its bad. Yes there are some spots where the overacting (especially on Elwes' part) is laughable,but trust me...I've seen much worse acting than this film. I think the acting,for the most part,is just fine.
Being able to recall memories that the character wasn't there to see or know about:
I spotted one instance of this,and its when Gordon started his story...you assume that he's able to tell exact details of the two murder scene examinations (for Paul,the razorwire guy...and Mark,the guy who burned alive). Personally,I believe that he was merely speaking details he read from news articles about the crimes,and those article details were told by actually going back and seeing the cops investigating the crime scenes.
There is an acclaimed film that does something similar to this,yet nobody has a problem with it...and that film is Saving Private Ryan. In the beginning of said film,you see the camera zoom in on the old WW 2 veteran's eyes,then immediatly start the flashback through the perspective of the eyes of Captain John Miller (Tom Hanks) and the rest of the US troops arriving on Normandy. It continues through the rest of the story as if the old man you saw in the beginning was John Miller,recalling his memories of what happened...but it wasn't. At the end,you find out that its Private Ryan and that Miller dies...Ryan was not there for the arrival of Normandy and a good chunk of what happens in the movie,and yet its filmed as if everything thats shown is him recalling what happened as if he was right there. Just something to contemplate...
Zep revealing his face to Gordon's wife and child:
Ok this I'll give you...however,maybe he HAD to do that as part of "the rules." Thats just an assumption on my part,and since its not concrete,I'll admit that this is faulty writting.
Telling Gordon vital information about the case:
There was no reason NOT to because his alibi checked out and perhaps the officer wanted him to know some things because it WAS his pen and it was obvious somebody was trying to set him up so maybe he would have liked to know more info about the case to find whoever it was that was trying to frame him.
Jigsaw wearing the magician's robe/having the weapon when he doesn't/isn't supposed to kill people:
Personally I think this is nitpicking,but I'll explain it anyway.
The way I see it,he wore the robe for 2 reasons:
#1:To help conseal his identity from anybody who saw him (said robes DO help with this)
#2:To help conseal his blade weapon,to use in self defense in case he was cornered by police (and thats indeed what happened)
Tapp paying Adam money to follow Gordon because he still thought Gordon was Jigsaw:
I had a problem with this upon first viewing,and I still have a problem with it now. The two voices didn't match,and Tapp should have known that and known he couldn't have been Gordon. I do excuse it SOMEWHAT because Gordon's pen was the only lead he had left...but again,the alibi checked out,so there was no possible explaination that would support Gordon being Jigsaw.
The flashy "music video" editing:
I actually liked this and it made the film more entertaining and more of an adrenaline rush...however,using that editing for the car chase scene? Yea that was definatly laughable and a flaw in the film.
Using Zep as a pawn in the game when Zep didn't fit Jigsaw's target criteria:
Ok,upon this second viewing,I can give this one to you...There REALLY IS no evidence that suggests that Zep didn't appreciate his life...however,I'm not gonna slam the entire movie just for this. It IS a flaw,but it didn't take away the overall enjoyment for me.
The ending:
This actually caught me by surprise during the second viewing and showed that I needed to pay more attention when I first saw it. I,along with everybody else,thought that he was in a coma when he was in the hospital...however,upon a second viewing,I found that there is no evidence that suggests he was in the first place. All Gordon said was that he had come in for a checkup,there was an inopperable tumour in his head (that means unremoveable even by opperation),and that they were monitoring his declining health.
Now...this is how he could have had access to Gordon's pen AND he could have very well checked himself out before AND after he was there during that particular scene. Therefore the ending IS scientifically and physically possible,making it NOT a plothole.
Speaking of plotholes,I'm not sure if anybody noticed,but there is a BIG plothole in the film that some people compare Saw to...the almighty Se7en. In the end,John Doe said to Detective David Mills that "he had visitied his apartment that morning and killed his wife". How could he have done that,when he was in police custody the entire time since at least the day before? He make bail? I don't think so...not with what he had done...nobody in their right mind would let him post bail. See? Nobody complains about that,but yet they slam Saw for all kinds of plotholes that if you think about it,aren't really holes at all.
I admit,it DOES have SOME bad writting in it...but so do a good chunk of the Dario Argento films that were heavy inspiration for Saw. Take Deep Red for example...that movie has a TON of bad writting and plotholes that I would completely spank most other movies for...and yet I love the movie,as do many other people. Why? Because it does a lot of things VERY well (like the direction,the kills/stalk sequences,and the musical score to name a few).
Saw is not the complete epic beast the hype made it out to be,I admit...but its STILL a pretty ballsy thriller that doesn't fail to entertain. If you do decide to give it another chance,try viewing it the way its supposed to be viewed...as an American modern day Argento style giallo film. Who knows,you might get some enjoyment out of it this time.
Thats my story and I'm stickin to it. If I left out anything,be sure to speak up...otherwise,my original film rating stands.
4/5
Ok...
I finally got to have a second viewing of Saw,and while some of the bad writting was more evident this time around,there were also some things that people complained about that really aren't valid.
The bad acting:
I wouldn't say its bad. Yes there are some spots where the overacting (especially on Elwes' part) is laughable,but trust me...I've seen much worse acting than this film. I think the acting,for the most part,is just fine.
Being able to recall memories that the character wasn't there to see or know about:
I spotted one instance of this,and its when Gordon started his story...you assume that he's able to tell exact details of the two murder scene examinations (for Paul,the razorwire guy...and Mark,the guy who burned alive). Personally,I believe that he was merely speaking details he read from news articles about the crimes,and those article details were told by actually going back and seeing the cops investigating the crime scenes.
There is an acclaimed film that does something similar to this,yet nobody has a problem with it...and that film is Saving Private Ryan. In the beginning of said film,you see the camera zoom in on the old WW 2 veteran's eyes,then immediatly start the flashback through the perspective of the eyes of Captain John Miller (Tom Hanks) and the rest of the US troops arriving on Normandy. It continues through the rest of the story as if the old man you saw in the beginning was John Miller,recalling his memories of what happened...but it wasn't. At the end,you find out that its Private Ryan and that Miller dies...Ryan was not there for the arrival of Normandy and a good chunk of what happens in the movie,and yet its filmed as if everything thats shown is him recalling what happened as if he was right there. Just something to contemplate...
Zep revealing his face to Gordon's wife and child:
Ok this I'll give you...however,maybe he HAD to do that as part of "the rules." Thats just an assumption on my part,and since its not concrete,I'll admit that this is faulty writting.
Telling Gordon vital information about the case:
There was no reason NOT to because his alibi checked out and perhaps the officer wanted him to know some things because it WAS his pen and it was obvious somebody was trying to set him up so maybe he would have liked to know more info about the case to find whoever it was that was trying to frame him.
Jigsaw wearing the magician's robe/having the weapon when he doesn't/isn't supposed to kill people:
Personally I think this is nitpicking,but I'll explain it anyway.
The way I see it,he wore the robe for 2 reasons:
#1:To help conseal his identity from anybody who saw him (said robes DO help with this)
#2:To help conseal his blade weapon,to use in self defense in case he was cornered by police (and thats indeed what happened)
Tapp paying Adam money to follow Gordon because he still thought Gordon was Jigsaw:
I had a problem with this upon first viewing,and I still have a problem with it now. The two voices didn't match,and Tapp should have known that and known he couldn't have been Gordon. I do excuse it SOMEWHAT because Gordon's pen was the only lead he had left...but again,the alibi checked out,so there was no possible explaination that would support Gordon being Jigsaw.
The flashy "music video" editing:
I actually liked this and it made the film more entertaining and more of an adrenaline rush...however,using that editing for the car chase scene? Yea that was definatly laughable and a flaw in the film.
Using Zep as a pawn in the game when Zep didn't fit Jigsaw's target criteria:
Ok,upon this second viewing,I can give this one to you...There REALLY IS no evidence that suggests that Zep didn't appreciate his life...however,I'm not gonna slam the entire movie just for this. It IS a flaw,but it didn't take away the overall enjoyment for me.
The ending:
This actually caught me by surprise during the second viewing and showed that I needed to pay more attention when I first saw it. I,along with everybody else,thought that he was in a coma when he was in the hospital...however,upon a second viewing,I found that there is no evidence that suggests he was in the first place. All Gordon said was that he had come in for a checkup,there was an inopperable tumour in his head (that means unremoveable even by opperation),and that they were monitoring his declining health.
Now...this is how he could have had access to Gordon's pen AND he could have very well checked himself out before AND after he was there during that particular scene. Therefore the ending IS scientifically and physically possible,making it NOT a plothole.
Speaking of plotholes,I'm not sure if anybody noticed,but there is a BIG plothole in the film that some people compare Saw to...the almighty Se7en. In the end,John Doe said to Detective David Mills that "he had visitied his apartment that morning and killed his wife". How could he have done that,when he was in police custody the entire time since at least the day before? He make bail? I don't think so...not with what he had done...nobody in their right mind would let him post bail. See? Nobody complains about that,but yet they slam Saw for all kinds of plotholes that if you think about it,aren't really holes at all.
I admit,it DOES have SOME bad writting in it...but so do a good chunk of the Dario Argento films that were heavy inspiration for Saw. Take Deep Red for example...that movie has a TON of bad writting and plotholes that I would completely spank most other movies for...and yet I love the movie,as do many other people. Why? Because it does a lot of things VERY well (like the direction,the kills/stalk sequences,and the musical score to name a few).
Saw is not the complete epic beast the hype made it out to be,I admit...but its STILL a pretty ballsy thriller that doesn't fail to entertain. If you do decide to give it another chance,try viewing it the way its supposed to be viewed...as an American modern day Argento style giallo film. Who knows,you might get some enjoyment out of it this time.
Thats my story and I'm stickin to it. If I left out anything,be sure to speak up...otherwise,my original film rating stands.
4/5
