Saw 4

Awful. Just awful.

I'm a huge horror aficionado and, I think, an intelligent and reasonable person. I enjoy horror on different levels depending on the film, which means that I'm not going to have huge expectations for the third sequel of what is now a franchise.

Nevertheless: this is surely the worst horror sequel I have ever seen.

I imagined it would be another fun and mindless blood-drenched romp through some more ingenious scenarios of technology-aided torture. And that would have been fine.

Instead, I sat incredulously for nearly two hours while scene after scene whizzed before my eyes and straight over my head. Having seen (and understood) the three previous instalments, the plot of this one still eludes me.

I'll allow the MTV-gen shaky-camera quick-cuts, confusing as they were; I can even forgive the copious use of flashbacks and tampering with the temporal narrative, putting it down to a desire on the part of the writers to overcome sequel stigma. But taking such massive liberties in what is clearly an attempt to produce something high-concept -- and, perhaps, high-minded? - bogged the entire movie down in a quagmire of questions from which it couldn't escape.

The writers clearly think they're producing something cool, edgy and intelligent; the director once again thinks he's helming a Britney Spears music video. The result is the kind of gathering you see here on this forum: a lot of people wondering what the hell they've just seen.

Clearly, the writers were working backwarRAB, starting with one or two scenes and then desperately trying to think of a framing story for them. Along, of course, with the obligatory 'twist'. A word of advice to them: if you have to explain every section of the now-story with a flash of the back-story - indeed, if you have to fabricate new flashbacks that have no place in the previous films - then you've obviously made a fundamental flaw in the narrative.

The movie felt like one long resolution - the story wasn't told, it was explained.

I feel frustrated because I'm far above average when it comes to deconstructing movie plots. I love it. I'm always the explainer, the one who gets the moral or the imagery or the poignancy and relevance of a particular scene.

Unfortunately, I can't give any answers for this film, because, in the end, I'm not sure what the questions are.
 
Because the whole premise of saw 3 was truly unbelievable.
How are we meant to believe that woman built all those machines herself? And lifting those pigs onto those ooks, all by herself (i get the feeling we will find out about more "apprentices" soon - there must be)
where did they get the money from?
how did they get away with it for so long?
where were all the torture devices held?
how many warehouses did they have?
how does 2 people (one of which is bedridden) manage to kidnap so many people?
The timeline is a few years - how can they achieve all this in such a small timescale, the planning, the building, no one ever knowing.
All of a sudden we get flashbacks of some woman - oh that explains everything now...

Oh, and the repetitious "let the games begin" YAWNFUL DRIVEL!

Saw 1 was awesome coz you didnt need answers to these questions. Saw 2 was getting silly, now saw 3 is shitshitshit.

my friend who shares a love of the same types of films warned me how bad it was but despite all this, shame on me, we were both saying how we want to see saw 4... while i dont believe it can get worse, i want to be proven wrong, and i have the feeling that i may end up perversly loving the saw series because of its true great shitness.




Now, can someone please explain why saw 4 is such a great film?
 
I love the Saw films, I thought Saw 3 was fantastic and the bloke with the cancer was super, but now he's dead I just don't know how good it will be. Maybe they should have just stayed with 3?
 
Right I'm not sure if these questions have been answered but hopefully someone can give me a complete run down.....Is Saw V going to be a follow on from Saw IV explaining why that detective was recruited by Jigsaw or will it follow on from where the FBI Agent gets locked in the room?

Now when exactly did Jigsaw's autopsy take place cuz that is what's pickled me most here?

Why is that detective listening to that tape from his stomach if he was already recruited?

The guy from Saw 3, was his daughter the one that Rigg is talking to about being abused or was it actually the guy Rigg hits daughter?




Okay from doing a little research I've worked a few things out....Like Jigsaw was in the autopsy room AFTER the event of Saw 3/4....Basically he learns that now he will be tested even though he has helped Jigsaw. Soooo now all I can hope for is that Saw V explains what happens to the FBI agent, and HOW Jigsaw's body gets to the autopsy room....And by Saw 6 it all gets wrapped up...

We find out what was in that letter to Amanda.
Where was Rigg's wife?
Where is Jeff's daughter?
And is Detective Matthews son still in this plot somehow?


Like it or not you've gotta hand it to the writers, you may think they're just trying to make cash off the Saw franchise and their aim is simply to make a more gorey and confusing film each time.....But fair play they're all connected and they all come together well at some point.
 
At least Hostel 2 had something to say about man's violent nature as well as being darkly humourous.
The Saw series is relentlessly depressing goth horror that has probably done wonders for the sale of kohl eyeliner.
Tobin Bell and the creators are laughing maniacally all the way to the bank.
 
I know what you mean. I thought the traps themselves were as imaginative as the previous films (nostalgia aside), but the idea of traps was getting old. Also the way Jigaw manipulates his subjects psychologically is becoming over-familiar. And I was getting fed up with the stupidity of the victims.

I expect they are committed to a 5th film, and if they are wise they will make it the last, and find some satisfying conclusion that brings closure to the whole series.

I found the plot quite hard to follow. That's partly because I have a poor memory for faces, and partly because I've seen each previous film only once, at the cinema, so the first was 3 years ago, and I've forgotten who I'm supposed to already know. However, I think the story could have been told more clearly. There were a lot of flashbacks making the sequence of events unclear, and several rather undistinguished male characters.

I disagree. Part of what distinguishes Jigsaw from other serial killers is his philosophy, and the idea that he is trying to help people - especially people who can't be helped by conventional means. I felt it was important to see his previous attempts at helping people. I liked the hints at his controlling character even before he became bitter.

That he inspires followers has been part of the franchise from the second film. It fits with the ambivalent morality; other people agree that he is doing good. It makes sense given that he is quite charismatic. And it fits with his basic philosophy of wanting people to save themselves. Even in the first film he got other people to play an active part in preparing and running the traps. He's clearly manipulative. It would make sense if he actively sought to create followers, especially when he knew he was dying.

He wasn't that honest. He attacked the child molester first, and evaded the rap for it.
 
gregoryjames...I'm just glad that I've only ever seen the first one ...that was enough for me.

And sorry that you went through watching them all to conclude that you knew what you knew from the very first one :p

I.e.....utter dire.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacres, Hills Have Eyes, Halloween, Hostel 2..................are all utter dire IMO.

I think one film in its entirety and left at that can have far more impact than all of these sequels.

Wolfcreek, Hostel and Seven are examples in originality and the same sort of genre as these sequels.

But it seems to me that all of these movie sequels are trying their hardest to capture what was in both of these movies and just can't...........because they are repeats of what we have seen over and over again.
 
I think people rate originality too highly. I much preferred Hostel II to I. It had a better story, and characters who were actually likeable. There's no point if you don't care what happens to them. It had a much better escape sequence. It did better at exploring the reasons why such an organisation should exist. (And Wolfcreek was dire. The sequence shows the director improving with each film.)

Similarly I prefer Saw II to Saw I. The first film was too arbitrary. The twist was not a surprise because it made no sense. Zep clearly enjoyed menacing Gordon's wife and child, which makes no sense if he was being coerced. The film doesn't stand alone; you need to know about Amanda and her agenda to understand why the key went down the plughole. I've never understood why, if the key hadn't gone down the plughole, it wouldn't have been found and used immediately.

Saw II is better than I because it makes more sense. I think it's better than III or IV, too.

I suspect the franchise has suffered from the time pressure. They've done a movie a year for 4 years. IV needed more time in editing, to tell the story more clearly. It probably needed to go to focus groups and get re-edited in the light of feedback. The story itself is fine, once you understand it. I gather they are having next year off. I wonder if they will use the time to produce a "director's cut" DVD which is easier to follow.
 
I don't even treat the Saw films as "horrors", to me they aren't scary at all, they are more of a thriller series in my opinion. I don't know what makes you think it's aimed at goths though :confused: It's not exactly a film where loaRAB of depressed teenagers slit their wrists while listening to the garbled ramblings of Marilyn Manson is it?

And regardless of having something to say about "mans violent nature", i personally think that the Hostel films are some of the worst films of the past few years.
 
i think saw iv was good, i do not put it on par as number 2 however... and lots of questions unanswered as people have said and a bit random towarRAB the end.

however a good twist in it like the older ones
 
I'm definitely fearing the worst for Saw 4. I thought Saw 3 was an improvement on Saw 2 so I wouldn't say they get worse and worse. But I mean, have you seen the advert. It looks like a massive pile of shit to me.
 
The problem with how Saw films have developed, is that its far more about grossing the audience out now, than having them on the edge of their seat by using tension and good plots
 
I loved the first 'Saw' film, very clever and scary. Now they are getting monotomus, but I was starting to raise my hopes with this one after all the recent publicity, I was almost tempted to go and see this one for myself until I read your post- which I believe is probably true.
 
Back
Top