How many sequels of Fred Claus will I have to watch to make the first one good?
While the OP might be a little over the top in his descriptions of why Saw is dumb, that doesn’t mean he’s not wrong. Saw is terribly dumb, and that dumbness is why I haven’t bothered with the rest of the sequels.
-
The reasons that Jigsaw uses to go after the Doctor are stupid and petty.
-
The fact that we are given no inkling that his accomplices even exist is bad storytelling. OK, it was resolved in the sequel, but in the first movie, it’s a massive plot hole.
-
Jigsaw hiding in the dead guy suit in the middle of the room is a dumb reveal (opinion, not fact, I know. But there it is).
Give me the Friday the 13th remake (or the sadly direct-to-DVD Trick 'R Treat) any day.
Horror movies 101
-
Enter theater
-
Switch off all critical faculties
-
Hang (suspend) your disbelief (willingly) in the cloakroom and pick it up when leaving
-
Load up on popcorn
-
Sit back in seat
-
Watch movie
Thank you. Yes, I do know how teenagers do it.
Yes, that’s so much better.
At this point, I’m hoping for a Jigsaw vs MacGuyver bit where the intended “student” works his way past the elaborate deathtraps with cleverness and lateral thinking and doesn’t get a scratch on him.
I would totes watch that.
Golly gee, to think that someone (somewhere) would actually want to watch an intelligent horror movie which is self-consistent? Inconceivable!
I caught the end of I last night, watched II in all its entirety, and suffice it to say I was not impressed (so I didn’t catch III). Your basic Idiot Plot; in the hands of a competent writer/director, the premise could work, but not when everyone inside the house (in II) were numskulls (including the accomplice) and spent more time arguing and then killing each other than working on possible solutions. And Jigsaw’s little trap for the male cop wouldn’t have worked if someone had thought to put a tail on the van.
Saw is self-consistent.
What they were really nervous about was……that they managed to cast Shawnee Smith in the protege role, because they weren’t sure if they’d be able to get her to come back. In the first movie she just has a throwaway role, as does Jigsaw himself.
For real? Dumb and petty motives for an insane serial killer bothers you? You must have hated Silence of the Lambs.
There are indeed inklings in the first movie pointing to who the protege is. Maybe the complaints of the movie being dumb are just insecurity covering up not being able to catch the hints?
I don’t think Saw is some masterpiece or anything; it’s a fun little movie. I love commentary tracks in general and will watch them on anything I rent. I didn’t get Showtime until a couple years ago, so I had to rent the Saw movies to see them, since they have an exclusive deal with Showtime. That’s the only reason I watched the commentaries; don’t think I think they’re perfect movies by any means.
But I think the objections raised in this thread are patently stupid. Opinion, not fact, I know. But there it is. I’ll think up my objections to the series while watching football today and post them later.
He had a good motive. He was hungry.
Then you’ll have no problem telling us what they are.
You’re preaching to the choir, my friend. I love horror movies, always have done, and there are a host of intelligent ones out there, right from Benjamin Christensen’s Haxan (1922) and Carl Dreyer’s Vampyr - Der Traum des Allan Gray (1932) (two of the creepiest horror films I’ve ever seen) through to (to take a modern example at random) Polanski’s Tenant (1976) and beyond.
The method I laid out was a way to enjoy schlock horror, and I should have made that clear . (I certainly class the Saw series as schlock horror.)
Sorry for the whoosh moment then.
I’ve only seen the first two so can’t comment on what was revealed later in the series. There were a lot of holes in Saw but the one I can’t get my head around is this. Right at the start Adam wakes up in a bath filled with water. So he can’t have been in there that long otherwise he would have drowned. When he gets out of the bath Lawrence talks to him and says something like “Nobody can hear you” or something else that gives the impression that he has been awake a while. So if Lawrence has been awake and alert then he must have been conscious for Adam being brought into the room.
If that was the case then he’d have to know that the killer didn’t leave the room afterwards.
Maybe the killer did the whole ‘make lighter and lighter sounding steps without actually going anywhere’ thing. 
ACCOMPLICE
I’m not going to use any other movies in the series to explain actions in* Saw *because none of them were very good at all, but I think Saw is mostly self-consistent (within the conventions of cinema in general). The only problem I have is with the key in the drain.
Saw was generally well received for a horror film, I think it’s just taking a lot of heat now because of what the series has become.
Yeah, that was pretty bad, and obviously just done for artistic license. But again, to repeat, Jigsaw’s protege helped him set up that scene. A fanwank could say that the guy was set in the tub with his head above water, and gradually slid underneath the surface over time, waking him up. Not the worst liberty to take, but certainly not the greatest.
I will never understand why so many people seem to think that Jigsaw has to have been able to do everything himself, and anytime two things happen at once it gets painted as a plot hole. Did you not see the other guy running around all movie doing Jigsaw’s bidding? I mean, c’mon already, use your brain.
The worst part of Saw by a country mile was the bad acting, particularly Cary Elwes. Just horrible.
You mean the person who flat out said that Jigsaw saved her? Yeah, can’t imagine she’d ever team up with the guy that saved her.
It sounds like you saw the sequels. Given that, what problem could you possibly have with the key down the drain?He eventually kills Amanda because she sets traps that nobody can survive, which is in direct opposition to Jigsaw’s motives. Amanda set up the bathtub in such a way as to guarantee the key would go down the drain. Jigsaw had planned it so the key would NOT go down the drain. Amanda was a true psychopath; Jigsaw was actually trying to “help” people in his own twisted way. The bathtub key was his first clue that she had gone off the reservation. I think that’s why he sent her in to the dungeon in part 2, though that’s never stated. Amanda sets other unwinnable traps in parts 2 and 3, leading to Jigsaw testing her in part 3, which she fatally fails.
My problem is you shouldn’t have to see a sequel to understand a movie. Saw wasn’t sold to audiences as the first part of a trilogy.
So your problem is with the marketing?
EDIT: And there’s no need to see the sequels to understand it. We saw a coerced accomplice running around all movie doing bad things. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that there might be other accomplices doing stuff. Hell, a couple minutes of critical thought should reveal that there had to be an accomplice helping set up the bathtub. Really, it doesn’t take a genius to figure that out. You can walk out of the first part thinking “man, I’d hate to be the accomplice who let the key go down the drain; Jigsaw will be pissed!”
EDIT 2: Also, the irst part ended with the killer getting away scot free, and without needing to be supernatural to do it. Of COURSE there would be sequels. It would be dumb to think anything else as you left the theater.
That’s some nice foreshadowing for the sequels, but it doesn’t do anything with addressing his accomplices for the first movie.