Page 2 of 2

Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:20 am
by Ben
Yet another enormously strong idea done badly. This movie was a flop in my opinion. A few very basic thing to set that up:

1.terrible acting. even if you had never seen a movie you'd be able to tell how terrible that acting was.

2. bad development of characters. to be honest, I could've cared less about the Doc's wife and kid getting their head blown off compared to the connection you get from say the deputy's wife in Se7en.

3. bad development of the idea. The twist was so predictable.. sure, you couldn't know WHO did it.. but it's a classic boring way to end the movie. Who dun it? and a stupid switcharoo at the last second.

this movie was a complete waste of time... except for the fact that I got to go with the Queen of the universe.

What happened to the basics in movies? good acting, character connection, and believablity of the idea? This movie is the equivalent of seeing Puddle of Mud cover a Led Zeppelin song.

Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:24 am
by Chris Slack
I thought it ruled myself and that the ending was great.

Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2004 10:12 pm
by stypees back
This movie kicked major fucking ass! My only complaint was that it really wasn't scary. It was one of them psychological thingys.. It was paced very well and the script was really tight. I do agree on many of those of commented on the acting, wasn't great but I can't say it was all that bad. That scene with the chair (not a spoiler) where the chick has the brace thing over her face? The camera work on that was fucking awesome. Loved the editing and really felt old style Argento all the way. Let's hope he gets some inspiration and gives us a worthy end to the "three mother's" trilogy.

Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:24 am
by shawn
Ben wrote:Yet another enormously strong idea done badly. This movie was a flop in my opinion. A few very basic thing to set that up:

1.terrible acting. even if you had never seen a movie you'd be able to tell how terrible that acting was.

2. bad development of characters. to be honest, I could've cared less about the Doc's wife and kid getting their head blown off compared to the connection you get from say the deputy's wife in Se7en.

3. bad development of the idea. The twist was so predictable.. sure, you couldn't know WHO did it.. but it's a classic boring way to end the movie. Who dun it? and a stupid switcharoo at the last second.

this movie was a complete waste of time... except for the fact that I got to go with the Queen of the universe.

What happened to the basics in movies? good acting, character connection, and believablity of the idea? This movie is the equivalent of seeing Puddle of Mud cover a Led Zeppelin song.


Did you see the same movie? Doesn't sound like it... Oh well.
I don't understand why everyone jumps on the "bad acting" bandwagon on this one. How many other genre favorites have "questionable" acting? A whole fucking lot. Yes Gary Elwes over acted. But over acting isn't necessarily bad acting. But think about it. The makers of SAW were paying homage to classic Italian Giallo's thrillers, and if you are familiar with that genre (from reading your post I can tell you aren't to hip on that tip) the acting is most of the time way over the top. Elwes isn't usually like that so I suspect he was directed that way. Saw is a brilliant film.

Maybe you should stick to Jerry Bruckheimer films, at least you know what you're getting with that dreck.

Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:10 pm
by Ben
shawn wrote:Did you see the same movie? Doesn't sound like it... Oh well.
I don't understand why everyone jumps on the "bad acting" bandwagon on this one. How many other genre favorites have "questionable" acting? A whole fucking lot. Yes Gary Elwes over acted. But over acting isn't necessarily bad acting. But think about it. The makers of SAW were paying homage to classic Italian Giallo's thrillers, and if you are familiar with that genre (from reading your post I can tell you aren't to hip on that tip) the acting is most of the time way over the top. Elwes isn't usually like that so I suspect he was directed that way. Saw is a brilliant film.

Maybe you should stick to Jerry Bruckheimer films, at least you know what you're getting with that dreck.


haha. I laugh at you.

There is no bandwagon to jump on... if it seems cheesy I'm gonna interpret it as such. Opinions are just that.. and yes, I watched the movie saw only to find the homage paid, WEAKLY done and the acting just flat out boring. Personal opinion.

Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:14 pm
by DylanDog
Finally saw this tonight and loved every minute of it. I had no problem with any of the acting either. Elwes really only went over the top once and it was at a moment when it was required, imo. As far as Glover, if you can't think of anything but Lethal Weapon when you see him, that's your fault, not his. He did a good job. There was definitely more tension than scares, but I thought the scares were effective. Admittedly, you would have to suspend your disbelief just a bit to accept that everything would play out the way it did (and how embarrassed would the killer have been had they not?! lol) but it was definitely a great ride.

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 9:22 pm
by Latte Thunder
So I finally got around to seeing this. Here's what I thought:

I'm really conflicted on this. On one hand, we have a pretty original idea. Fresh produce in the horror world is tough to come by so when you find it, it's like the difference between Sunny D and real orange juice. Like everyone else here, it kept me guessing the whole time. I liked the seedy look of each shot, it was gritty enough to suggest that Wan had come up on a steady diet of 70's indie horror and gialli. A tribute without being hamfisted about giving nods to the movies that inspired it. The most impressive aspect of the movie is the entire third act. What a climax! The movie has some pacing problems, but when things start falling into place, the movie kicks into fifth gear and doesn't slow until credits roll. Absolutely amazing!

On the other hand, I'm going to have to fall in line about the acting. For the most part, the cast held it together well. Cary Elwes really over did it and it leaves me confused because I've seen him in other movies and he's a perfectly capable actor. So why did he go to such lengths to ham it up? Is he unfamiliar with genre roles? The dialog is a little awkward in places and I can see where it might throw an actor off, but it wasn't that bad. However, the positives of the movie managed to take my mind off the hammy acting on his part and it really didn't take away from the experience. Still, it drags in places. It's tough to keep the pace rolling at a steady clip when you're shooting on one primary set, so I'm willing to let this slide as well.

Overall, my gripes are minor and I liked this movie a lot. A lot. It's more proof positive that a good idea doesn't take a lot of money to be succesful with the right crowd. One more reason that I love Lion's Gate.

Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:42 am
by KenSONATA
the idea = amazingly unique
the acting = horrible