Reviews by Title:  0-9 | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z
Reviews by Year:  2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008
Reviews by Rating:  0 star | 0.5 star | 1 star | 1.5 star | 2 star | 2.5 star | 3 star | 3.5 star | 4 star | 4.5 star | 5 star
Saw (2004)

Visitor Comments

Re: Saw (2004)
Added by Joe   on 2004-10-28 18:54:40

I cannot wait to see this come Saturday. It looks positively disturbing and the perfect film for Halloween weekend.

Re: Saw (2004)
Added by Joe Rickey   on 2004-10-30 18:18:07

Brilliantly constructed, Saw is a bonafide horror masterpiece.

Re: Saw (2004)
Added by John   on 2004-10-31 04:40:40

It got some really bad reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Then again some of the best films have a track record of being misunderstood on their initial release.

Re: Saw (2004)
Added by Joe Rickey   on 2004-10-31 13:14:57

It still got a higher % than most horror films get upon their release, especially good for a production that cost very little and will reap huge profits as a result.

Re: Saw (2004)
Added by Justin   on 2004-10-31 21:03:34

That picture is of a girl, not a boy!

Re: Saw (2004)
Added by John   on 2004-11-02 09:17:52

>>>>Added by Justin on 2004-10-31 21:03:34
That picture is of a girl, not a boy!

Whoever added it just thought it was a guy. From the photo it does look like a male.

Re: Saw (2004)
Added by Joe Rickey   on 2004-11-02 13:57:18

According to The Hollywood Reporter a sequel has been given the greenlight for release October 2005. I hope it's as good as the original but I doubt it with such a limited time table.

Re: Saw (2004)
Added by John   on 2004-11-02 14:32:40

Why, every time a fairly unique movie is made in Hollywood, does there have to be a sequel?

As anyone who has seen "Saw" knows, there is no need for a sequel. Its ambiguity is part of the reason it works so well.


What would they feature? More work from Jigsaw the serial killer? Boring.

Now that we know who he is, there would be no mystery. That, plus the fact that part of the reason the end works so well is that we don't know what happens to his remaining "victims." Frankly I don't really want to know.

Guaranteed the only reason it's getting a sequel is because it did so well in Europe -- in the US it has only grossed $17 million which, even for a low budget horror movie, is not extraordinary and not something that would necessarily warrant an immediate sequel. One would think the producers would wait a few weeks to see if it doesn't completely drop off the charts in the US.

I really hope the sequel falls through...

Re: Saw (2004)
Added by Joe Rickey   on 2004-11-02 18:24:54

With actuals it ended up with over 18 million. Even if it didn't make anything more it still would have made enough to warrant a sequel when you consider that it had a budget of only 1.3 million, which means that it has already made about 18 times its budget in one weekend, not to mention all the money it's made in the UK.

Re: Saw (2004)
Added by John   on 2004-11-03 04:54:45

You're right. I still hope a sequel isn't made, though! At least I hope if there is one, it doesn't become another silly franchise like I Know What You Did Last Summer, etc. Horror sequels are almost always terrible.

Re: Saw (2004)
Added by Jake   on 2005-07-28 00:56:01

Sorry, I really hated this movie. I already get irritated when I'm jerked around by a "clever" story structure that exists only to jerk you around, but this one set some sort of record. It digs itself so deep that it needs about eighteen ludicrous coincidences and impossible explanations for it to even *look* like it's making any sense. And I'm incredibly tired of movie serial killers who care only about creating intricate little puzzles for whoever finds the dead bodies of their victims. (If I hear of anyone who has ever done this in real life, I will be amazed.)

[spoilers below!]

Plus, two things haunt me: doesn't it bother the killer that everyone he kidnaps ends up horribly dead or hopelessly insane, if the whole point is that they're supposed to appreciate life more? And why does it never occur to either of the main characters to just use the gun to shoot the chains attached to their ankles?

Add new comment

Comment Title:
All comments are owned by their posters.

Please e-mail with complaints.

Copyright © 2003-2021   All rights reserved.