Saw VII
Shock Value: 20 of 33
Queasiness: 33 of 33
Suspense: 20 of 34
Total Scare: 73 of 100
Ok – this is supposed to be the grand finale of the Saw series. It's actually called SAW 3D but I hate that title, so I'm keeping it Saw VII. This movie starts out – surprise surprise – with a trap. The big difference is that this looks like a public execution. WOW! That's new – that's something that hasn't been done. How does it tie into Hoffman, Jigsaw, or anything else in the Saw series? Who knows? They never explain who set it up, or if it provided the cops with any more clues. While this was a very intense intro scene they never brought it up again...and this is the last movie! There will never be a chance to explain it!
Ok – moving on... This movie probably has the most, and most grotesque traps in all the saw movies. The car scene in the junkyard was probably the most horrific, but there's plenty to choose from.
Hoffman seeks revenge from Jill. Now...think back to the last movie. John told Jill he PROMISED a way out for her. Did he keep his word? No. Somewhere in the story the promise changed – and the insurance that John was hinting at was for someone to take care of Hoffman WHEN and IF he tried to do anything to Jill. So – sorry Jill – even though he promised you, I guess he would rather wait and avenge your death than prevent it. (This just doesn't match John's character at all...I wish she would have been granted her escape – even if she didn't make it out, the way should have been there!)
The game in this movie has absolutely no bearing on Hoffman – except that he offers to end it if Jill is turned over to him voluntarily. We know that this game was designed by Jigsaw – the people in this game were all connected to him...so Jigsaw wasn't the one who authorized the game's end in exchange for Jill – that was all Hoffman, because he wanted revenge!
So the man in this game goes from room to room and again he has to save other people (The director of Saw 6 and 7 were the same...I don't think he understood the psychology behind the traps...in these last two movies it's all about saving someone else when the victims are supposed to save themselves.)
I was intrigued by the main character who lied about his original Jigsaw encounter...and it was perfectly fitting for him to re-enact the same trap that he had bragged about escaping. But does he succeed? With anyone? No – every person he tries to help dies...including his wife. Where's the justice in that? What's the point? Supposedly he was going to prove his love for her – is the writer/director saying that he didn't really love her? Or was the trap just “too hard”...(that wouldn't make any sense either – all of John's traps were escapable for those who valued life...)
The final chapter of this series still leaves us wondering “what's going to happen next?” and “what about the little girl?” (we have been shown scenes with the little girl enough now...we were expecting her to come back and point out Hoffman as the killer...I guess those were wasted scenes too, because she's never going to get her chance.) The return to the original set is fitting, but also pointless. If a certain doctor (who shall be left unnamed for those of you who haven't seen it yet) was really in on it from the beginning – how come Hoffman never knew about it? How come the cops don't know? What about Amanda – did she know? Yes – we were all expecting him to come back and play a part...but what part did he play? It had to be a small part to go unnoticed by so many people that were close to Jigsaw. I'm betting there will be another Saw movie...one of these days someone will start noticing all of the ends that weren't tied up, and they'll say: hey, what if we just made another movie? And again we'll get another boring knock-off that doesn't really answer anything.
-----------SPOILER ALERT------
And another thing...Every movie in this series has a WOW ending...except this one. Who thought of that great idea? Part 1: The killer is the dead guy! (Best ending of a horror movie ever!) Part 2: the kid was safe the whole time – the entire story surrounding the kid happened in the past! (excellent). Part 3: Jigsaw Dies, Amanda Dies... (how can Jigsaw keep rehabilitating people if he's dead?) Part 4: It's not a sequel but happens simultaneously as part 3! (I've NEVER heard of this twisted ending before) Part 5: They could have all survived! (it actually had a semi-hopeful moral to the story – strange and unique in the saw universe) Part 6: They weren't HIS family – he was responsible for her husbands/his fathers death! (they way the story is told you could never figure it out) Part 7: Hoffman dies to be replaced by another Jigsaw copycat? Wow...this plot device has been used throughout the series...(Jigsaw/Amanda, Jigsaw/Hoffman, Rigg was a suspected copy cat and so was agent Straum) and this is the ending to it all? Weak...
I had to lower the ratings on the Saw movies because, even though they're all very gross and shocking their story lines get weaker and weaker. The over-all story is very well designed, and you always want to know more about the big-picture. However, the smaller stories within each movie get very repetitive. Their only redeeming factor is the twist endings.
SAW MOVIES In order of favorite endings...
1, 5, 2, 4, 6, 3, 7
In order of favorite traps...
1, 6, 5, 7, 2, 3, 4
In order of favorite characters...
1, 3, 5, 6, 2, 7, 4
In order of favorite contributions to the overall plot
1, 3, 5, 4, 6, 7, 2
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Movie Review #12
Saw VI
Shock Value: 20 of 33
Queasiness: 30 of 33
Suspense: 20 of 34
Total Scare: 70 of 100
The series continues with it's blood-filled sequences, and characters that come and go. Hoffman is still around – he's causing a lot of problems. The FBI reveals that Perez never really died, and Hoffman is aloud to work with them. As they get closer to realizing it is Hoffman himself he gets ready to go berserk.
The game in this movie revolves around a manager of an insurance company. It seems to me that this movie really does a good job of drawing the audience to hate this man (and insurance companies all together.) He goes from trap to trap – each time he is the one who has to help someone else to survive.
In the previous saw movies the victims help themselves – this is the defining difference of this movie. He acts as a guide/decision maker and chooses which people live or die. The twist in this movie is also very good (probably the best thing about these movies is their fake-out endings). I won't spoil it, but I was happy when the ending came...I really don't think I could have seen it coming.
The traps in this one were ok – maybe a little less creative, but still gross and shocking. I didn't really like the scenes between a mother and son that had been locked up. Throughout the movie they are arguing on weather or not they should pull the lever. I mean – if that's all they're going to talk about why does the movie waste time SHOWING US that's what they're talking about...surely their characters could have been a little deeper, but no...if you watch this movie and you see the mom and her son, fast forward because all they talk about is the lever...
Jill's part is expanded again, I was grateful for that, and she plays a big part in the story when she strikes back at Hoffman – saying it was John's final will that Hoffman be tested.
Shock Value: 20 of 33
Queasiness: 30 of 33
Suspense: 20 of 34
Total Scare: 70 of 100
The series continues with it's blood-filled sequences, and characters that come and go. Hoffman is still around – he's causing a lot of problems. The FBI reveals that Perez never really died, and Hoffman is aloud to work with them. As they get closer to realizing it is Hoffman himself he gets ready to go berserk.
The game in this movie revolves around a manager of an insurance company. It seems to me that this movie really does a good job of drawing the audience to hate this man (and insurance companies all together.) He goes from trap to trap – each time he is the one who has to help someone else to survive.
In the previous saw movies the victims help themselves – this is the defining difference of this movie. He acts as a guide/decision maker and chooses which people live or die. The twist in this movie is also very good (probably the best thing about these movies is their fake-out endings). I won't spoil it, but I was happy when the ending came...I really don't think I could have seen it coming.
The traps in this one were ok – maybe a little less creative, but still gross and shocking. I didn't really like the scenes between a mother and son that had been locked up. Throughout the movie they are arguing on weather or not they should pull the lever. I mean – if that's all they're going to talk about why does the movie waste time SHOWING US that's what they're talking about...surely their characters could have been a little deeper, but no...if you watch this movie and you see the mom and her son, fast forward because all they talk about is the lever...
Jill's part is expanded again, I was grateful for that, and she plays a big part in the story when she strikes back at Hoffman – saying it was John's final will that Hoffman be tested.
Movie Review #11
Saw V
Shock Value: 25 of 33
Queasiness: 33 of 33
Suspense: 22 of 33
Total Scare: 85 of 100
Personally this is probably my second favorite movie in the series. While the story is no longer very suspenseful (the franchise uses the same formula for each movie...although each gets it's own twist ending you should know what to expect by now in pacing, deaths, gore, character and so on.)
The movie begins with a “jigsaw trap” - the pendulum and the man in the trap dies before he escapes. This is the first movie where jigsaw is actually dead all the way through...and Hoffman is the main villain. We see in this movie his involvement with jigsaw from the beginning. How did Jigsaw move all those bodies around if he's such an old guy? Well – he had Hoffman helping him.
In this movie Hoffman focuses his attention on the latest game – four rooms that house five people. They must complete each trap in each room before a certain time (when nail bombs explode killing anyone left in the room). At the beginning they are told “You will want to do one thing, but I implore you to do the other.” In the last room there is two survivors who discover that all five of them could have made it out...if only they had worked together. This is the theme that I love so much about this movie. While their reason for being in this trap is still vague at the end of the movie (They claim that they were all involved in destroying a building while there were still people living inside...none of them were punished for it...but how does Jigsaw know about this? What does he care?) their success is overshadowed by the larger plot of the movie – Hoffman is being chased down by agent Straum from the FBI.
Hoffman leads him ever closer and when Straum finds him he is told to get inside a glass coffin with broken glass on the inside – it's his only way out. Straum ignores the advice, and Hoffman ends up in the coffin...the room is one big compactor and crushes Straum, but Hoffman is spared. It seems like Hoffman gets away, for now.
My least favorite trap in this movie is the room with the glass bottles that hold the keys to the cells. It's a little too obvious that they could have all survived that one...but the resulting mess is quite stimulating...
Jill Tuck gets her character fleshed out – we see her relationship with John (before he formally became Jigsaw) and we also see her receive a mysterious box... Hoffman's escape and Jill's mystery box are a great ending. While we never learn about what happened to the survivors of the game we realize it doesn't really matter – their test was unique and they failed to see the answer before three of them had died.
Shock Value: 25 of 33
Queasiness: 33 of 33
Suspense: 22 of 33
Total Scare: 85 of 100
Personally this is probably my second favorite movie in the series. While the story is no longer very suspenseful (the franchise uses the same formula for each movie...although each gets it's own twist ending you should know what to expect by now in pacing, deaths, gore, character and so on.)
The movie begins with a “jigsaw trap” - the pendulum and the man in the trap dies before he escapes. This is the first movie where jigsaw is actually dead all the way through...and Hoffman is the main villain. We see in this movie his involvement with jigsaw from the beginning. How did Jigsaw move all those bodies around if he's such an old guy? Well – he had Hoffman helping him.
In this movie Hoffman focuses his attention on the latest game – four rooms that house five people. They must complete each trap in each room before a certain time (when nail bombs explode killing anyone left in the room). At the beginning they are told “You will want to do one thing, but I implore you to do the other.” In the last room there is two survivors who discover that all five of them could have made it out...if only they had worked together. This is the theme that I love so much about this movie. While their reason for being in this trap is still vague at the end of the movie (They claim that they were all involved in destroying a building while there were still people living inside...none of them were punished for it...but how does Jigsaw know about this? What does he care?) their success is overshadowed by the larger plot of the movie – Hoffman is being chased down by agent Straum from the FBI.
Hoffman leads him ever closer and when Straum finds him he is told to get inside a glass coffin with broken glass on the inside – it's his only way out. Straum ignores the advice, and Hoffman ends up in the coffin...the room is one big compactor and crushes Straum, but Hoffman is spared. It seems like Hoffman gets away, for now.
My least favorite trap in this movie is the room with the glass bottles that hold the keys to the cells. It's a little too obvious that they could have all survived that one...but the resulting mess is quite stimulating...
Jill Tuck gets her character fleshed out – we see her relationship with John (before he formally became Jigsaw) and we also see her receive a mysterious box... Hoffman's escape and Jill's mystery box are a great ending. While we never learn about what happened to the survivors of the game we realize it doesn't really matter – their test was unique and they failed to see the answer before three of them had died.
Movie Review #10
Survival of the Dead
Shock Value: 28 of 33
Queasiness: 28 of 33
Suspense: 24 of 34
Total Scare: 80 of 100
This is the start of “the sequels” section. Survival of the Dead is part 2 of Diary of the Dead. It has a funny introduction by George Romero that really shows a good sense of humor from the master of zombie movies. It might have been that introduction, or some other bias on my part but this movie really did feel pretty funny. Not “Scary Movie...STUPID funny,” but “Tremors...SCARY funny...” Many of the gruesome scenes had me laughing. Don't get me wrong – it was gross – but it was also a little over-the-top / yeah-right kind of grossness.
I was very pleased with some of the issues this movie brings out that other zombie movies ignore. Why don't the zombies eat animals? Are the zombies really dead? Can they be cured...or at least civilized? I love the characters in this movie...we begin with a band of characters that were “bad guys” in “Diary.” Then we include an old man from an island (who thinks he's doing the world a favor by killing all the zombies). The opposing force on that island had banished him so they could try and civilize their dead. It was a creepy thought. Survival isn't filmed from a hand-held camera, so its easier to watch. This gives you more of a third-party type of view which means you have to figure out who's the good guys and who's the bad guys. (In “Diary” you could argue that because the movie was filmed from the film student's point of view then they were automatically the good guys and any opposing force were the enemy. However – with this movie we begin with characters who we thought were bad...and now we see their good side.) The man who's trying to do God's will seems to be the one who is in the wrong...however – the end scenes of the movie suggest that maybe he wasn't wrong either. In a post-apocalyptic world it's not so easy figuring out who is on who's side, and who's side is the best side.
Shock Value: 28 of 33
Queasiness: 28 of 33
Suspense: 24 of 34
Total Scare: 80 of 100
This is the start of “the sequels” section. Survival of the Dead is part 2 of Diary of the Dead. It has a funny introduction by George Romero that really shows a good sense of humor from the master of zombie movies. It might have been that introduction, or some other bias on my part but this movie really did feel pretty funny. Not “Scary Movie...STUPID funny,” but “Tremors...SCARY funny...” Many of the gruesome scenes had me laughing. Don't get me wrong – it was gross – but it was also a little over-the-top / yeah-right kind of grossness.
I was very pleased with some of the issues this movie brings out that other zombie movies ignore. Why don't the zombies eat animals? Are the zombies really dead? Can they be cured...or at least civilized? I love the characters in this movie...we begin with a band of characters that were “bad guys” in “Diary.” Then we include an old man from an island (who thinks he's doing the world a favor by killing all the zombies). The opposing force on that island had banished him so they could try and civilize their dead. It was a creepy thought. Survival isn't filmed from a hand-held camera, so its easier to watch. This gives you more of a third-party type of view which means you have to figure out who's the good guys and who's the bad guys. (In “Diary” you could argue that because the movie was filmed from the film student's point of view then they were automatically the good guys and any opposing force were the enemy. However – with this movie we begin with characters who we thought were bad...and now we see their good side.) The man who's trying to do God's will seems to be the one who is in the wrong...however – the end scenes of the movie suggest that maybe he wasn't wrong either. In a post-apocalyptic world it's not so easy figuring out who is on who's side, and who's side is the best side.
Movie Review #9
Diary of the Dead
Shock Value: 25 of 33
Queasiness: 30 of 33
Suspense: 25 of 34
Total Scare: 80 of 100
One more installment into the Dead series. This is not the blockbuster (like the new Dawn of the Dead) and certainly not the wannabe blockbuster “Land of the Dead” but a straight to DVD, small budget movie by the zombie master himself: George Romero. Romero doesn't need big budgets to get big scares out of movie audiences, and this movie is a good example. While there is always a little bit of “going to far” to show the gore in these kinds of movies at least there is an attempt to present a realistic landscape and characters. The hand-held camera techniques seem to be more popular these days (perhaps after Cloverfield made its appearance) and it's (in my opinion) a great medium for a zombie movie. Romero picked it up at just the perfect time (I'm a little surprised that he hadn't thought of it sooner).
Zombie movies usually attempt to present a far-fetched horror tale in a very realistic style, and “Diary” goes one step further to make you feel like your in the movie. The narrator is one of the survivors who has edited the film sometime after it all takes place, and it's in memory of the kid who was supposedly shooting most of the movie. Near the end the film student dies and his girlfriend announces she's going to finish his movie for him.
Throughout the movie we are reminded about what a hassle the camera is for our team of survivors. No one really seems to appreciate the fact that the main character always has it with him and is always shooting the film. There are several statements made about photography, cinematography, directors, actors and the like which force the audience to think about the reality of it. When one character says “we are inoculated to the world around us by looking through a lens...”(paraphrased) she is directly talking about their experiences with death and zombies...but you can also see how the statement can be applied to the media and the movie industry our world. This is not a new technique but I think it is used successfully in this movie.
There aren't very many plot twists: that seems to be a recurring theme among zombie movies in general. We start with a group of people who are killed off one by one. They roam the country side looking for survivors. Sometimes they find someone still alive (usually that someone dies before they leave the temporary sanctuary) and sometimes they just find more zombies.
Another commonality among zombie flicks is the lack of explanation as to why or how the zombie virus spread. In most movies I would see this as a negative thing, but I think with zombie movies its actually important that we don't know the reasons for it. The idea is this: if it were to happen in real life, we probably would never figure it out. Suggesting a rationality for something like a zombie virus suggests that humans are powerful smart creatures that can overcome the unknown...but the purpose of most zombie movies is to express the opposite. That there are some things we'll never know and some things we cannot hide from. Survival is less sure. Have you noticed how most zombie movies end before the story ends? You usually never find out the rest of the movie, because the audience is forced to be a part of the story...and not a part of a survivor, but a victim. It's almost as if the directors/writers are saying there are no survivors...and if there are no survivors, what's the chance you'll get to be the last one alive? Not good. These story elements are almost essential to “the zombie movie” and are all included in “Diary.” I think Romero will be making these creepy movies the rest of his life...and maybe even longer...
Shock Value: 25 of 33
Queasiness: 30 of 33
Suspense: 25 of 34
Total Scare: 80 of 100
One more installment into the Dead series. This is not the blockbuster (like the new Dawn of the Dead) and certainly not the wannabe blockbuster “Land of the Dead” but a straight to DVD, small budget movie by the zombie master himself: George Romero. Romero doesn't need big budgets to get big scares out of movie audiences, and this movie is a good example. While there is always a little bit of “going to far” to show the gore in these kinds of movies at least there is an attempt to present a realistic landscape and characters. The hand-held camera techniques seem to be more popular these days (perhaps after Cloverfield made its appearance) and it's (in my opinion) a great medium for a zombie movie. Romero picked it up at just the perfect time (I'm a little surprised that he hadn't thought of it sooner).
Zombie movies usually attempt to present a far-fetched horror tale in a very realistic style, and “Diary” goes one step further to make you feel like your in the movie. The narrator is one of the survivors who has edited the film sometime after it all takes place, and it's in memory of the kid who was supposedly shooting most of the movie. Near the end the film student dies and his girlfriend announces she's going to finish his movie for him.
Throughout the movie we are reminded about what a hassle the camera is for our team of survivors. No one really seems to appreciate the fact that the main character always has it with him and is always shooting the film. There are several statements made about photography, cinematography, directors, actors and the like which force the audience to think about the reality of it. When one character says “we are inoculated to the world around us by looking through a lens...”(paraphrased) she is directly talking about their experiences with death and zombies...but you can also see how the statement can be applied to the media and the movie industry our world. This is not a new technique but I think it is used successfully in this movie.
There aren't very many plot twists: that seems to be a recurring theme among zombie movies in general. We start with a group of people who are killed off one by one. They roam the country side looking for survivors. Sometimes they find someone still alive (usually that someone dies before they leave the temporary sanctuary) and sometimes they just find more zombies.
Another commonality among zombie flicks is the lack of explanation as to why or how the zombie virus spread. In most movies I would see this as a negative thing, but I think with zombie movies its actually important that we don't know the reasons for it. The idea is this: if it were to happen in real life, we probably would never figure it out. Suggesting a rationality for something like a zombie virus suggests that humans are powerful smart creatures that can overcome the unknown...but the purpose of most zombie movies is to express the opposite. That there are some things we'll never know and some things we cannot hide from. Survival is less sure. Have you noticed how most zombie movies end before the story ends? You usually never find out the rest of the movie, because the audience is forced to be a part of the story...and not a part of a survivor, but a victim. It's almost as if the directors/writers are saying there are no survivors...and if there are no survivors, what's the chance you'll get to be the last one alive? Not good. These story elements are almost essential to “the zombie movie” and are all included in “Diary.” I think Romero will be making these creepy movies the rest of his life...and maybe even longer...
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Movie Review # 8
Book of Blood
Shock Value: 23 of 33
Queasiness: 27 of 33
Suspense: 29 of 34
Total Scare: 79 of 100
I found another Clive Barker story that I'd never heard of before that was turned into a movie. Book of Blood starts off like your normal ghost story. It has several familiar elements to Poltergeist and other such movies. If you liked Hellraiser, or even Midnight Meat Train (See Movie Review #2), then I would definitely recommend this movie. Barker does a good job at pointing out all of the disgusting little details. Its not just the images on the screen that give you the chills, but the ideas behind them. Also, he likes to push the story much further (and in stranger directions) than other story tellers.
If you find yourself watching this movie, you have to be very careful about finding yourself getting comfortable with the “all too familiar ghost story.” Don't forget how the movie opens, either. The first thing we see is a drifter who is caught by a sociopath who is going to kill him. The drifter doesn't struggle at all, in fact he almost seems to invite death to come.
The next thing we see is our main character: a middle aged woman professor who is also a paranormal investigator. The brilliant thing about this movie is character development. Our main character will reveal that she isn't so innocent, and although she says she's never recorded any proof of ghosts or other paranormal activity (don't worry, I'm not reviewing THAT movie) we later find out that she had several paranormal encounters when she was a child. It isn't clear how much her partner believes in the paranormal, but clearly he believes in her. As the movie plays out we see that he's very interested in her and as her relationship grows with one of her students her partner gets jealous. This is another interesting twist to this movie. Although the main character is a middle aged woman there is a kind of love-triangle between her, her partner, and a student. It's almost taboo, but then again: so is ghost hunting, isn't it?
The love scenes almost make you feel out of place, but I think it works well in this kind of movie where the audience isn't allowed to get too comfortable. Throughout the movie you want to be comfortable: this is a same-old, same-old ghost story movie, right? Wrong. The more you watch the movie the more you realize how different it is.
I won't spoil the ending, but I'll say I wish the last twenty minutes of the movie would have been made into the last half of the movie. There's a big turning point in the plot where you lose everything you're familiar with. It's no longer the same-old ghost story, but has been completely twisted into something new. Of course, the opening scene is shown again. Now we know a little more about the characters, and we think we understand that opening scene now...but no! Again, there is another twist.
While there weren't nearly as many “gross parts” to this movie the few scenes that showed blood did show A LOT. Again, this is a classic Barker strategy. I'm going to try and find this movie on DVD – its very well done for a low-budget movie.
Shock Value: 23 of 33
Queasiness: 27 of 33
Suspense: 29 of 34
Total Scare: 79 of 100
I found another Clive Barker story that I'd never heard of before that was turned into a movie. Book of Blood starts off like your normal ghost story. It has several familiar elements to Poltergeist and other such movies. If you liked Hellraiser, or even Midnight Meat Train (See Movie Review #2), then I would definitely recommend this movie. Barker does a good job at pointing out all of the disgusting little details. Its not just the images on the screen that give you the chills, but the ideas behind them. Also, he likes to push the story much further (and in stranger directions) than other story tellers.
If you find yourself watching this movie, you have to be very careful about finding yourself getting comfortable with the “all too familiar ghost story.” Don't forget how the movie opens, either. The first thing we see is a drifter who is caught by a sociopath who is going to kill him. The drifter doesn't struggle at all, in fact he almost seems to invite death to come.
The next thing we see is our main character: a middle aged woman professor who is also a paranormal investigator. The brilliant thing about this movie is character development. Our main character will reveal that she isn't so innocent, and although she says she's never recorded any proof of ghosts or other paranormal activity (don't worry, I'm not reviewing THAT movie) we later find out that she had several paranormal encounters when she was a child. It isn't clear how much her partner believes in the paranormal, but clearly he believes in her. As the movie plays out we see that he's very interested in her and as her relationship grows with one of her students her partner gets jealous. This is another interesting twist to this movie. Although the main character is a middle aged woman there is a kind of love-triangle between her, her partner, and a student. It's almost taboo, but then again: so is ghost hunting, isn't it?
The love scenes almost make you feel out of place, but I think it works well in this kind of movie where the audience isn't allowed to get too comfortable. Throughout the movie you want to be comfortable: this is a same-old, same-old ghost story movie, right? Wrong. The more you watch the movie the more you realize how different it is.
I won't spoil the ending, but I'll say I wish the last twenty minutes of the movie would have been made into the last half of the movie. There's a big turning point in the plot where you lose everything you're familiar with. It's no longer the same-old ghost story, but has been completely twisted into something new. Of course, the opening scene is shown again. Now we know a little more about the characters, and we think we understand that opening scene now...but no! Again, there is another twist.
While there weren't nearly as many “gross parts” to this movie the few scenes that showed blood did show A LOT. Again, this is a classic Barker strategy. I'm going to try and find this movie on DVD – its very well done for a low-budget movie.
Movie Review #7
Event Horizon
Shock Value: 28 of 33
Queasiness: 22 of 33
Suspense: 27 of 34
Total Scare: 77 of 100
This was a good movie to watch and review as I saw many similarities between this movie and Ghost Ship (see movie review #4). Event Horizon opens with a short but frightening nightmare. It is unclear at first but later we learn that the horrific figure is indeed Dr. Weir. He looks demonic, surrounded in flames and screaming or laughing. This is similar to Ghost Ship in that it is an attention-getter scene, not completely related to the current time line of the main part of the story. While Ghost Ship opened with a death scene from before the movie begins, Event Horizon gives us a glimpse of the future. Dr. Weir awakens and we learn that he is responsible for building the Event Horizon which has been missing for seven years. He is working with a search and rescue team on a top-secret mission to go out and find the missing ship. This is just like Jack Ferriman from Ghost Ship. The crew, and especially the captain doesn't want him going with them, and when they arrive at the ship he is ordered to stay behind.
In both Ghost Ship and Event Horizon the victims are followed around by ghostly figures, the primary difference here is that in Ghost Ship they were actually ghosts and in Event Horizon they seemed to be more like hallucinations caused by the ship itself. In both films the smaller ships that brought the crews out to the middle of nowhere are rendered useless. In Event Horizon, however, the crew thinks they can fix their own ship (the Lewis and Clark) whereas in Ghost Ship they try to repair the larger vessel instead.
In both movies the person who brought the crews out are much more at home on board the ships, they don't care about returning to the outside world. Its strange, though, because Sam Neil's character doesn't seem to desire the deaths of the other crew members, he wants them to all come along with him (back to hell). Alive, or dead it's the same principal as Jack's idea, collecting souls to take back with him.
The endings are also very similar : the survivors are rescued by a third party ship. My big complaint about Ghost Ship was that they had gone out of their way to say that there was no distress signal sent, and yet the rescue ship still came. In Event Horizon they do take time to send a distress signal, but I still have a big complaint. Throughout the movie they say “the ship itself is alive...the ship is evil...it knows what we fear, it shows us what we don't want to see...” etc, etc...yet how do the survivors escape? They escape ON THE SHIP! It doesn't make any sense... I'll admit it's possible that JUST THE CORE of the ship was haunted, it seemed to be the thing at the center of all the ghostlike activity...but they never said that specifically....they kept on insisting that it was THE SHIP that was alive...not the core.
Of course, if the whole ship were demon-possessed it would explain Dr. Weir's brief appearance again. Like in Ghost Ship the villain makes one last appearance. They suggest it was a dream, but really, in these kinds of movies, you know they're saying “you cant keep a good bad-guy down”... Neil's character is probably alive and well, popping in and out of hell trying to “collect more souls” just like Ferriman in Ghost Ship.
All in all it is a pretty scary movie – it was a good mix of horror and sci-fi, I would have preferred a darker ending...or at least one that was more believable.
Shock Value: 28 of 33
Queasiness: 22 of 33
Suspense: 27 of 34
Total Scare: 77 of 100
This was a good movie to watch and review as I saw many similarities between this movie and Ghost Ship (see movie review #4). Event Horizon opens with a short but frightening nightmare. It is unclear at first but later we learn that the horrific figure is indeed Dr. Weir. He looks demonic, surrounded in flames and screaming or laughing. This is similar to Ghost Ship in that it is an attention-getter scene, not completely related to the current time line of the main part of the story. While Ghost Ship opened with a death scene from before the movie begins, Event Horizon gives us a glimpse of the future. Dr. Weir awakens and we learn that he is responsible for building the Event Horizon which has been missing for seven years. He is working with a search and rescue team on a top-secret mission to go out and find the missing ship. This is just like Jack Ferriman from Ghost Ship. The crew, and especially the captain doesn't want him going with them, and when they arrive at the ship he is ordered to stay behind.
In both Ghost Ship and Event Horizon the victims are followed around by ghostly figures, the primary difference here is that in Ghost Ship they were actually ghosts and in Event Horizon they seemed to be more like hallucinations caused by the ship itself. In both films the smaller ships that brought the crews out to the middle of nowhere are rendered useless. In Event Horizon, however, the crew thinks they can fix their own ship (the Lewis and Clark) whereas in Ghost Ship they try to repair the larger vessel instead.
In both movies the person who brought the crews out are much more at home on board the ships, they don't care about returning to the outside world. Its strange, though, because Sam Neil's character doesn't seem to desire the deaths of the other crew members, he wants them to all come along with him (back to hell). Alive, or dead it's the same principal as Jack's idea, collecting souls to take back with him.
The endings are also very similar : the survivors are rescued by a third party ship. My big complaint about Ghost Ship was that they had gone out of their way to say that there was no distress signal sent, and yet the rescue ship still came. In Event Horizon they do take time to send a distress signal, but I still have a big complaint. Throughout the movie they say “the ship itself is alive...the ship is evil...it knows what we fear, it shows us what we don't want to see...” etc, etc...yet how do the survivors escape? They escape ON THE SHIP! It doesn't make any sense... I'll admit it's possible that JUST THE CORE of the ship was haunted, it seemed to be the thing at the center of all the ghostlike activity...but they never said that specifically....they kept on insisting that it was THE SHIP that was alive...not the core.
Of course, if the whole ship were demon-possessed it would explain Dr. Weir's brief appearance again. Like in Ghost Ship the villain makes one last appearance. They suggest it was a dream, but really, in these kinds of movies, you know they're saying “you cant keep a good bad-guy down”... Neil's character is probably alive and well, popping in and out of hell trying to “collect more souls” just like Ferriman in Ghost Ship.
All in all it is a pretty scary movie – it was a good mix of horror and sci-fi, I would have preferred a darker ending...or at least one that was more believable.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Movie Review #6
Attack of the Giant Leaches
Shock Value: 3 of 33
Queasiness: 9 of 33
Suspense: 8 of 34
Total Scare: 20 of 100
I'm sure this movie was covered by Mystery Science Theater 3000 or some such show, and while there were several parts that I thought I could add my own bit of cheap comic wit I have to say this movie almost compares with some of the other horrible monster movies they make these days (how about Lake Placid, for example?) The movie begins with one character coming into close contact with one of the monsters and scaring it off, of course no one believes him until people start dying. The giant leaches kill off four or five people before being killed themselves, and these leaches didn't just kill people, but they kidnapped them then held them hostage for a while and killed them slowly... kind of gruesome for such an old movie, eh? The movie's scary parts consisted of showing 1) the monsters themselves and 2)the bloody victims with sucker marks on their bodies. The monsters were way too fake, they should have kept them “in the shadows” more often. The victims looked like they were just dirty, only once did the marks on the bodies look like blood. There were a lot of “suspenseful” moments, but many times these moments turned into boring parts.
My favorite part of the movie was related to the setting. These giant leaches dragged their victims underwater to an underground cave. While it was hard to believe I thought it was pretty creative. Their victims could be helplessly trapped beyond the other town folk and still be alive.
There were too many references to coffee, I was starting to wonder if the coffee was spiked with something that was making them all hallucinate. Also, Steve, the hero of our story was called by his name in almost every scene. Steve was the tall-dark-and handsome man but he was just such a pig-head when it came to using the dynamite. Steve worked for the state, so Steve would have to go through a lot of paper work to get the dynamite authorized. Steve was kind of shocked when his girlfriend went behind his back and her and her father went to use the dynamite themselves. At first it was just to dredge up the bodies of the victims that they just knew had to be underwater. The shock wave freed some of the bodies from the cave, and that convinced Steve to go scuba-diving. Even though the large gun used earlier in the movie had absolutely no effect on the monsters, his harpoon gun was sure to get them. Steve killed one of the Giant Leaches and then the last victim's body floated to the surface, so now that there weren't any more hostages they could just wipe out the rest of the monsters (whatever they were, it was now hypothesized that the radiation emitted from the rockets at Cape Canaveral must have cause the genetic mutations) so they put over 100 sticks of 40% dynamite into the lake and blew it up, killing all (?) of the giant leaches.
One of my favorite scenes was when Steve saved the girl early on in the movie, he was holding a gun, and when she was embracing him (out of fear? Or something more?) he was pointing the gun right at her, maybe he was more scared of her than the monster that was chasing her? It was her fault, after all, that they got pulled into that mess.
Shock Value: 3 of 33
Queasiness: 9 of 33
Suspense: 8 of 34
Total Scare: 20 of 100
I'm sure this movie was covered by Mystery Science Theater 3000 or some such show, and while there were several parts that I thought I could add my own bit of cheap comic wit I have to say this movie almost compares with some of the other horrible monster movies they make these days (how about Lake Placid, for example?) The movie begins with one character coming into close contact with one of the monsters and scaring it off, of course no one believes him until people start dying. The giant leaches kill off four or five people before being killed themselves, and these leaches didn't just kill people, but they kidnapped them then held them hostage for a while and killed them slowly... kind of gruesome for such an old movie, eh? The movie's scary parts consisted of showing 1) the monsters themselves and 2)the bloody victims with sucker marks on their bodies. The monsters were way too fake, they should have kept them “in the shadows” more often. The victims looked like they were just dirty, only once did the marks on the bodies look like blood. There were a lot of “suspenseful” moments, but many times these moments turned into boring parts.
My favorite part of the movie was related to the setting. These giant leaches dragged their victims underwater to an underground cave. While it was hard to believe I thought it was pretty creative. Their victims could be helplessly trapped beyond the other town folk and still be alive.
There were too many references to coffee, I was starting to wonder if the coffee was spiked with something that was making them all hallucinate. Also, Steve, the hero of our story was called by his name in almost every scene. Steve was the tall-dark-and handsome man but he was just such a pig-head when it came to using the dynamite. Steve worked for the state, so Steve would have to go through a lot of paper work to get the dynamite authorized. Steve was kind of shocked when his girlfriend went behind his back and her and her father went to use the dynamite themselves. At first it was just to dredge up the bodies of the victims that they just knew had to be underwater. The shock wave freed some of the bodies from the cave, and that convinced Steve to go scuba-diving. Even though the large gun used earlier in the movie had absolutely no effect on the monsters, his harpoon gun was sure to get them. Steve killed one of the Giant Leaches and then the last victim's body floated to the surface, so now that there weren't any more hostages they could just wipe out the rest of the monsters (whatever they were, it was now hypothesized that the radiation emitted from the rockets at Cape Canaveral must have cause the genetic mutations) so they put over 100 sticks of 40% dynamite into the lake and blew it up, killing all (?) of the giant leaches.
One of my favorite scenes was when Steve saved the girl early on in the movie, he was holding a gun, and when she was embracing him (out of fear? Or something more?) he was pointing the gun right at her, maybe he was more scared of her than the monster that was chasing her? It was her fault, after all, that they got pulled into that mess.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Movie Review # 5
Thinner
Shock Value: 10 of 33
Queasiness: 25 of 33
Suspense: 30 of 34
Total Scare: 65 of 100
(Stephen King's) Thinner: This is one of the few books by Richard Bachman (S.K.) that I have yet to read. It was almost half-way through the film that I remembered it was a R.B. book, his stories are usually even darker and the characters are more twisted and less merciful than S.K.'s...the protagonists usually aren't very good guys. Right away I remembered one of the negative sides of this movie – the acting really isn't all that great. It's obvious that the main character is wearing a body suit and has loads (and LOADS) of make-up on to make him look fat. While that is forgivable, what I can't stand is that he ACTS like he's trying to be fat, all the jolly chuckles and over-the-top gestures just make him look fake, not fat. Even when he does get skinny his acting never really improves. The plot is pretty straight forward for the first half of the movie, and there isn't a lot of great lines. The plot actually gets interesting once he's so thin that he decides to do something about it and tracks down the gypsies... then he puts a curse on them, and in order to make this curse happen he needs a little help from his criminal friend...ok, so it's a little hard to believe...in the beginning he seemed like a family man who had good values and all of a sudden the criminal guy is his best buddy... anyway, believable or not, that's when things get interesting. Since he's just a “white man from town” he has to give them a curse the old fashioned way, with threats, killing their animals, and guns. I wish they would have played out this part even more... once the curse is lifted the main character doesn't stop with the gypsies but goes back home and kills his wife and his doctor (who she was having an affair with...again, here's another plot element that was played down that needed to be played up...). I really like the Bachman style of protagonist and twist ending...but I think the movie should have been more consistent...and had better acting...and better dialogue...there were several “scary parts” where you saw the results of all the gypsy curses, but they seemed to mean very little in the grand scheme of things – he was just interested in healing himself.
I would really like to see a remake of this one (let's call it “Richard Bachman's Thinner”) and have it give the other victims more character (so you care when they die), play out the affair (so you sympathize with his “vengeful personality”, and focus more on “the white-man's curse”. These are good ways to make it a deeper story with more emotional impact on the audience.
Shock Value: 10 of 33
Queasiness: 25 of 33
Suspense: 30 of 34
Total Scare: 65 of 100
(Stephen King's) Thinner: This is one of the few books by Richard Bachman (S.K.) that I have yet to read. It was almost half-way through the film that I remembered it was a R.B. book, his stories are usually even darker and the characters are more twisted and less merciful than S.K.'s...the protagonists usually aren't very good guys. Right away I remembered one of the negative sides of this movie – the acting really isn't all that great. It's obvious that the main character is wearing a body suit and has loads (and LOADS) of make-up on to make him look fat. While that is forgivable, what I can't stand is that he ACTS like he's trying to be fat, all the jolly chuckles and over-the-top gestures just make him look fake, not fat. Even when he does get skinny his acting never really improves. The plot is pretty straight forward for the first half of the movie, and there isn't a lot of great lines. The plot actually gets interesting once he's so thin that he decides to do something about it and tracks down the gypsies... then he puts a curse on them, and in order to make this curse happen he needs a little help from his criminal friend...ok, so it's a little hard to believe...in the beginning he seemed like a family man who had good values and all of a sudden the criminal guy is his best buddy... anyway, believable or not, that's when things get interesting. Since he's just a “white man from town” he has to give them a curse the old fashioned way, with threats, killing their animals, and guns. I wish they would have played out this part even more... once the curse is lifted the main character doesn't stop with the gypsies but goes back home and kills his wife and his doctor (who she was having an affair with...again, here's another plot element that was played down that needed to be played up...). I really like the Bachman style of protagonist and twist ending...but I think the movie should have been more consistent...and had better acting...and better dialogue...there were several “scary parts” where you saw the results of all the gypsy curses, but they seemed to mean very little in the grand scheme of things – he was just interested in healing himself.
I would really like to see a remake of this one (let's call it “Richard Bachman's Thinner”) and have it give the other victims more character (so you care when they die), play out the affair (so you sympathize with his “vengeful personality”, and focus more on “the white-man's curse”. These are good ways to make it a deeper story with more emotional impact on the audience.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Movie Review #4
Ghost Ship:
SHOCK VALUE: 24 of 33
QUEASINESS: 24 of 33
SUSPENSE: 27 of 34
TOTAL SCARE: 75 of 100
A chilling movie about a salvage crew that is tempted into finding an old/abandoned ship that might be worth some money. While on the ship they discover 1) Gold that is worth more than the boat itself and 2) a bunch of ghosts. The ghosts begin killing them and it turns out that the guy who brought the crew here is also a ghost who is responsible for “collecting souls”. While its a familiar formula there are a few good twists. The opening scene is very dramatic – taking place just when the original crew was killed. Later in the movie you find out there's a lot more to it – the killing of the crew was even more planned out – from poisonings to stabbings and hangings this crew was murdered for the cargo they carried. The killers then turned on themselves...
I think this ghost story is a little scarier than many others because the ghosts have some power – they aren't just there to scare people (for example – they are able to blow up the tugboat that the salvage crew brought with them, cutting off their only escape). It's pretty strange how the last survivor is saved – a random boat picks her up (supposedly they were in the middle of nowhere, in international waters...and they never had time to send out the distress signal. Perhaps her being saved had something to do with the one good ghost – an innocent child that helped her along the way.) Anyway, it was a little too easy – but then, of course we see that the villain wasn't finished after all, and he has enlisted her former crew to help him with his continuing mission...
I remember when I first saw this movie I thought it was very gory – but I couldn't give it too high of a gore-rating because now-a-days there is so much more of it. I might need to come back and change this, after all I did watch the tv version...
SHOCK VALUE: 24 of 33
QUEASINESS: 24 of 33
SUSPENSE: 27 of 34
TOTAL SCARE: 75 of 100
A chilling movie about a salvage crew that is tempted into finding an old/abandoned ship that might be worth some money. While on the ship they discover 1) Gold that is worth more than the boat itself and 2) a bunch of ghosts. The ghosts begin killing them and it turns out that the guy who brought the crew here is also a ghost who is responsible for “collecting souls”. While its a familiar formula there are a few good twists. The opening scene is very dramatic – taking place just when the original crew was killed. Later in the movie you find out there's a lot more to it – the killing of the crew was even more planned out – from poisonings to stabbings and hangings this crew was murdered for the cargo they carried. The killers then turned on themselves...
I think this ghost story is a little scarier than many others because the ghosts have some power – they aren't just there to scare people (for example – they are able to blow up the tugboat that the salvage crew brought with them, cutting off their only escape). It's pretty strange how the last survivor is saved – a random boat picks her up (supposedly they were in the middle of nowhere, in international waters...and they never had time to send out the distress signal. Perhaps her being saved had something to do with the one good ghost – an innocent child that helped her along the way.) Anyway, it was a little too easy – but then, of course we see that the villain wasn't finished after all, and he has enlisted her former crew to help him with his continuing mission...
I remember when I first saw this movie I thought it was very gory – but I couldn't give it too high of a gore-rating because now-a-days there is so much more of it. I might need to come back and change this, after all I did watch the tv version...
Movie Review #3
Dracula has Risen from the Grave:
SHOCK VALUE: 0 of 33
QUEASINESS: 5 of 33
SUSPENSE: 5 of 34
TOTAL SCARE: 10 of 100
This is a very old (1960's) movie with a “young” Christopher Lee staring as Dracula. While this movie was very pathetic (it was more like a soap opera focusing around the random characters that live in the little town) I did get the chance to see some clips of the second movie in this trilogy (“Risen” was actually the 3rd in the series). The second movie looked much scarier – with more gore and special effects.
This installment in the series just seemed to lack any budget (not to mention good writing, and scary parts). The opening scene had me laughing and I actually fast-forwarded through much of the movie to try and see the better parts...there weren't many. Too much time was taken to show the main character (a guy that continually repeated how good looking he was), his girlfriend (the minister's daughter), the bartender (jealous of the girlfriend) and another minister (who seemed to come under Dracula's spell in the beginning of the movie and then snapped out of it sometime later).
At one point the daughter was walking along the rooftops of the houses – to escape from her bedroom and secretly visit her boyfriend who turned out to be drunk and making out with the bartender. There was too much melow-drama and not enough about Dracula. Also there seemed to be very few deaths – I guess Dracula didn't come back to kill people, just to take back his castle which had been sealed off from him using a cross (he really hated crosses in this movie). Once the cross came off it fell down the mountain and landed in the dirt sticking upright – a little later Dracula was thrown onto the cross which impaled him and he died a sort-of slow death. I don't know if there was a fourth movie in this series...but I hope not.
SHOCK VALUE: 0 of 33
QUEASINESS: 5 of 33
SUSPENSE: 5 of 34
TOTAL SCARE: 10 of 100
This is a very old (1960's) movie with a “young” Christopher Lee staring as Dracula. While this movie was very pathetic (it was more like a soap opera focusing around the random characters that live in the little town) I did get the chance to see some clips of the second movie in this trilogy (“Risen” was actually the 3rd in the series). The second movie looked much scarier – with more gore and special effects.
This installment in the series just seemed to lack any budget (not to mention good writing, and scary parts). The opening scene had me laughing and I actually fast-forwarded through much of the movie to try and see the better parts...there weren't many. Too much time was taken to show the main character (a guy that continually repeated how good looking he was), his girlfriend (the minister's daughter), the bartender (jealous of the girlfriend) and another minister (who seemed to come under Dracula's spell in the beginning of the movie and then snapped out of it sometime later).
At one point the daughter was walking along the rooftops of the houses – to escape from her bedroom and secretly visit her boyfriend who turned out to be drunk and making out with the bartender. There was too much melow-drama and not enough about Dracula. Also there seemed to be very few deaths – I guess Dracula didn't come back to kill people, just to take back his castle which had been sealed off from him using a cross (he really hated crosses in this movie). Once the cross came off it fell down the mountain and landed in the dirt sticking upright – a little later Dracula was thrown onto the cross which impaled him and he died a sort-of slow death. I don't know if there was a fourth movie in this series...but I hope not.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Movie Review #2
The Midnight Meat Train:
SHOCK VALUE: 20 of 33
QUEASINESS: 33 of 33
SUSPENSE: 27 of 34
TOTAL SCARE: 80 of 100
I didn't know there could be a movie gorier than the Saw franchise, but I think this one fits the bill. Though the gore isn't spread throughout the entire movie the peaks of bloody fun in this movie are higher than that in Saw. The main difference is that this killer doesn't really torture his victims...he just kills them and then he butchers them. There were lots of actors I recognized in this film which was really surprising since it was a low-budget/straight to DVD movie. It was surprisingly well written and directed too.
It's based on a Clive Barker story which explains the gore and scares...it also explains the strange ending. I won't even call it a twist ending because too me it felt like this ending was just slapped on at the last second...there was very little foreshadowing. I hope in the book/story there is more clues early on that suggest the science-fiction ending. Most of the movie is a slasher style horror flick. Looking back I saw the potential for foreshadowing (one character talks about “the city” as an entity and another about how there “were never any good old days”...these conversations should have been referred to again later in the movie). Some people might have seen the gore as a little fake – it's mostly cg blood (I think) – but it's good enough for what it is.
The main story is around a photographer so I loved the look of the movie – how its almost through a photographers eye (literally – as seen by the cameraman and figuratively as seen by the character). There are several scenes with odd camera angles, where you see people through lenses - actual and metaphorical (lots of reflections etc.)
There is one strange shifting of gears when before this point the girlfriend simply doesn't want her boyfriend to be out late photographing strangers and following them around at night...and after this point she goes ballistic. There was no gradient to her character - she just does a 180 in the middle of the film which forces the main character to choose between his obsession and her. He lies to her and tells her he'll stop...and when he doesn't - SHE gets drawn into the obsession as well. I'm willing to bet they cut her character development out of the film to shorten it...that's what seems most likely to me, because it makes little sense why she would change so radically without any kind of gray areas.
All-in-all if you can stomach the gore in this film (even I had to look away at the teeth-pulling scene) then you should watch it. It's one of those that you say "hey - why haven't I ever heard of this one before?" If there was ever a sequel to this film it would almost have to be purely science fiction, with more explanation for the mutants and more interaction between them and the humans. It doesn't sound like it would really fit with the first movie - so maybe we should just leave it how it is.
SHOCK VALUE: 20 of 33
QUEASINESS: 33 of 33
SUSPENSE: 27 of 34
TOTAL SCARE: 80 of 100
I didn't know there could be a movie gorier than the Saw franchise, but I think this one fits the bill. Though the gore isn't spread throughout the entire movie the peaks of bloody fun in this movie are higher than that in Saw. The main difference is that this killer doesn't really torture his victims...he just kills them and then he butchers them. There were lots of actors I recognized in this film which was really surprising since it was a low-budget/straight to DVD movie. It was surprisingly well written and directed too.
It's based on a Clive Barker story which explains the gore and scares...it also explains the strange ending. I won't even call it a twist ending because too me it felt like this ending was just slapped on at the last second...there was very little foreshadowing. I hope in the book/story there is more clues early on that suggest the science-fiction ending. Most of the movie is a slasher style horror flick. Looking back I saw the potential for foreshadowing (one character talks about “the city” as an entity and another about how there “were never any good old days”...these conversations should have been referred to again later in the movie). Some people might have seen the gore as a little fake – it's mostly cg blood (I think) – but it's good enough for what it is.
The main story is around a photographer so I loved the look of the movie – how its almost through a photographers eye (literally – as seen by the cameraman and figuratively as seen by the character). There are several scenes with odd camera angles, where you see people through lenses - actual and metaphorical (lots of reflections etc.)
There is one strange shifting of gears when before this point the girlfriend simply doesn't want her boyfriend to be out late photographing strangers and following them around at night...and after this point she goes ballistic. There was no gradient to her character - she just does a 180 in the middle of the film which forces the main character to choose between his obsession and her. He lies to her and tells her he'll stop...and when he doesn't - SHE gets drawn into the obsession as well. I'm willing to bet they cut her character development out of the film to shorten it...that's what seems most likely to me, because it makes little sense why she would change so radically without any kind of gray areas.
All-in-all if you can stomach the gore in this film (even I had to look away at the teeth-pulling scene) then you should watch it. It's one of those that you say "hey - why haven't I ever heard of this one before?" If there was ever a sequel to this film it would almost have to be purely science fiction, with more explanation for the mutants and more interaction between them and the humans. It doesn't sound like it would really fit with the first movie - so maybe we should just leave it how it is.
13 Movies for October 2010
How do you determine how scary a movie is? Webster's Standard Dictionary defines "scare": to frighten, and "frighten": to cause alarm or terror. "Alarm": ...a sudden fright or apprehension. "Terror": a great fear. "Apprehend": to capture, grasp mentally, await with dread. "Fear": A state of anxiety or dread, uneasiness or concern.
“Scary” then is many things. To simplify it I have ordered these into 3 categories. 1)Sudden Fright (SHOCK/JUMPINESS), 2)Mental Grasp (Queasiness/Grossness), 3) Await with dread (Suspense).
Movie Review #1:
Saw IV:
SHOCK VALUE:25 of 33
QUEASINESS:30 of 33
SUSPENSE:25 of 34
TOTAL SCARE: 80 of 100
This is the first Saw movie that is part of the “second legacy”...the original movie was slated to have only 2 sequels but I guess the franchise was making enough money to continue the story. I always wondered how there could have been so many Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elmstreet movies; now-a-days SAW is the ongoing franchise, so I guess I know what it's like...
Saw IV begins with a scene showing Jigsaw – the main villain of the previous 3 movies – as dead. So how are all the traps set up for this next set of victims? The Saw movies are known for their crazy twist endings...and this one is no exception. Although I never really cared for the character Rigg and his test (“never go through an unsecured door”), I do think the twist ending is like none I've ever seen – it turns out that this movie isn't really a sequel at all. It doesn't take place after Saw III but actually occurs SIMULTANEOUSLY. That's right – the seen at the beginning is very out of place. In reality – for most of this movie the crazy guy is actually alive. That first scene doesn't take place at the end of Waw 4 like you might think – and it's not even an introduction to Saw V (though the creators seem to want us to believe that)...it takes place near the beginning of Saw V – but not at the very beginning. I understand the reason for having this scene at the beginning of Saw IV but I think it's too far removed from its place in chronological order. It feels to me like Hollywood was kind of cheating here...enough people would remember the end of Saw III and could have assumed that Jigsaw was dead – there wasn't any need to show this scene now...it should have been left in it's place early on in Saw V.
One of my favorite parts of this movie doesn't have to do with the story or characters at all - but just the way it was filmed. It may be just in the "Director's Cut" but there are several transition scenes that are very fast and very fluid. The scenes change when you don't expect them to - in ways you don't expect them too. You know how George Lucas is known for his "wipes" - well there's something similar going on here, but it's not as simple as a screen-wipe. You might have to watch the movie to know exactly what I'm talking about but the direction sets up the scene changes so they're more seamless...you go from the FBI's perspective to Rigg's perspective very fast - you might not even notice it if you aren't paying enough attention.
The traps in this one are weaker than any of the other Saw movies. The final Ice-Block Head-Smash is very cartoony if you ask me, and it wasn't even a surprise. They show the set-up half-way through the movie so you knew it was coming...and when they show it the 3 characters in the room act like they just noticed it...but they should have seen it a long time ago... its an awkward moment in the film. The opening trap is by far the best in the film – though it's unclear if the trap itself would actually kill the victims it sure looks cool. I guess that's the point though – the victims usually end up killing themselves, so that part is forgivable. I like all the flashbacks into Jigsaw's past but I would have liked to see more character development on Rigg's character.
Had Rigg actually done as he was supposed to then he would have appeared on the final scene after the timer went off and the lawyer and Erick Mathews and Hoffman would have been "saved". I'm curious as to this because now we know that Hoffman was in cahoots with Jigsaw - so it's possible that he would have killed them himself. I hate how he just gets up at the end - his part of the trap was obviously a fake. Jigsaw has never set up a fake trap before...the movie clearly shows Hoffman's chair lowering into the water which should have electrocuted him. Rigg is never shown as dead at the end of this movie...so is he still alive? Another interesting thing - if Rigg had done as he was supposed to then the other victims in the movie - the prostitute in the chair would still be dead. Her only escape was Rigg's assistance. This is another variation from the other Jigsaw traps - he usually gives them a way out that they have to solve for themselves. I wonder if this trap was actually designed by Amanda (as she set up the traps in part 3).
“Scary” then is many things. To simplify it I have ordered these into 3 categories. 1)Sudden Fright (SHOCK/JUMPINESS), 2)Mental Grasp (Queasiness/Grossness), 3) Await with dread (Suspense).
Movie Review #1:
Saw IV:
SHOCK VALUE:25 of 33
QUEASINESS:30 of 33
SUSPENSE:25 of 34
TOTAL SCARE: 80 of 100
This is the first Saw movie that is part of the “second legacy”...the original movie was slated to have only 2 sequels but I guess the franchise was making enough money to continue the story. I always wondered how there could have been so many Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elmstreet movies; now-a-days SAW is the ongoing franchise, so I guess I know what it's like...
Saw IV begins with a scene showing Jigsaw – the main villain of the previous 3 movies – as dead. So how are all the traps set up for this next set of victims? The Saw movies are known for their crazy twist endings...and this one is no exception. Although I never really cared for the character Rigg and his test (“never go through an unsecured door”), I do think the twist ending is like none I've ever seen – it turns out that this movie isn't really a sequel at all. It doesn't take place after Saw III but actually occurs SIMULTANEOUSLY. That's right – the seen at the beginning is very out of place. In reality – for most of this movie the crazy guy is actually alive. That first scene doesn't take place at the end of Waw 4 like you might think – and it's not even an introduction to Saw V (though the creators seem to want us to believe that)...it takes place near the beginning of Saw V – but not at the very beginning. I understand the reason for having this scene at the beginning of Saw IV but I think it's too far removed from its place in chronological order. It feels to me like Hollywood was kind of cheating here...enough people would remember the end of Saw III and could have assumed that Jigsaw was dead – there wasn't any need to show this scene now...it should have been left in it's place early on in Saw V.
One of my favorite parts of this movie doesn't have to do with the story or characters at all - but just the way it was filmed. It may be just in the "Director's Cut" but there are several transition scenes that are very fast and very fluid. The scenes change when you don't expect them to - in ways you don't expect them too. You know how George Lucas is known for his "wipes" - well there's something similar going on here, but it's not as simple as a screen-wipe. You might have to watch the movie to know exactly what I'm talking about but the direction sets up the scene changes so they're more seamless...you go from the FBI's perspective to Rigg's perspective very fast - you might not even notice it if you aren't paying enough attention.
The traps in this one are weaker than any of the other Saw movies. The final Ice-Block Head-Smash is very cartoony if you ask me, and it wasn't even a surprise. They show the set-up half-way through the movie so you knew it was coming...and when they show it the 3 characters in the room act like they just noticed it...but they should have seen it a long time ago... its an awkward moment in the film. The opening trap is by far the best in the film – though it's unclear if the trap itself would actually kill the victims it sure looks cool. I guess that's the point though – the victims usually end up killing themselves, so that part is forgivable. I like all the flashbacks into Jigsaw's past but I would have liked to see more character development on Rigg's character.
Had Rigg actually done as he was supposed to then he would have appeared on the final scene after the timer went off and the lawyer and Erick Mathews and Hoffman would have been "saved". I'm curious as to this because now we know that Hoffman was in cahoots with Jigsaw - so it's possible that he would have killed them himself. I hate how he just gets up at the end - his part of the trap was obviously a fake. Jigsaw has never set up a fake trap before...the movie clearly shows Hoffman's chair lowering into the water which should have electrocuted him. Rigg is never shown as dead at the end of this movie...so is he still alive? Another interesting thing - if Rigg had done as he was supposed to then the other victims in the movie - the prostitute in the chair would still be dead. Her only escape was Rigg's assistance. This is another variation from the other Jigsaw traps - he usually gives them a way out that they have to solve for themselves. I wonder if this trap was actually designed by Amanda (as she set up the traps in part 3).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
