DVD Talk Forum
Page 5 of 6
« First
3
4
5
6
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Movie Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk-17/)
-   -   Saw VI (2009) (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/562572-saw-vi-2009-a.html)

dhmac 10-24-09 01:40 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Originally Posted by DJariya (Post 9754342)
You can bash them all you want, but the movies make money and the producers behind the series are smart businessmen. Not counting the 1st and 2nd movies, the budget for each movie is no more than $10M and is a money making machine for Lionsgate.
That's a bit of a given for the Horror Movie genre: they are cheap to make yet the genre is popular enough that they usually turn a profit.

(It amazes me when a studio spends more than ~$20 million on a Horror Movie production because it's not necessary to spend a lot in this genre or have established stars in the movie in order to sell tickets. The high-budget Horror Movies are usually the only ones that ever lose money.)

tylergfoster 10-24-09 02:10 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Originally Posted by sirbrady (Post 9793853)
I liked it. One of the best of the series imo. Have a question/comment here. I need someone to confirm this.

Spoiler:
Jill was dropping the package off at the hospital. She goes to the office and we get a glimpse of the nameplate. It was blurry, but I think it said "Dr. Lawrence Gordon". Our new theater has been opened for a week and the pic quality is really good. Did anyone else see this?
I'd be shocked.
Spoiler:
I thought she was delivering the package to the armless girl.
Shit, now I gotta go see it again!

Rival11 10-24-09 02:20 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
For people questioning my stance on "production" view I then V then tell me if there is a difference or not. I think it's pretty obvious.

If you're a fan of the series, have at it and have fun. Shouldn't matter what people like me say for you to enjoy it but to say you can't see a difference or a "saw film is a saw film" doesn't cut it - to a certain extent they are the same but there is huge noticeable lack of effort with IV & V (which a lot of people have already agreed with as well, not just myself).

Also, having just recently watched both Drag Me to Hell & Trick R' Treat doesn't help much either - I would much prefer going back to both of those soon (which I will be).

dsa_shea 10-24-09 05:35 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
The first Saw was made for like a million or something. You can't go much lower than that for production value. We watched this movie today and I have to say that it was pretty damn good. Some of the violence in it is cringe worthy and some of the questions the movie raises about humanity and money are on the target. It also answers quite a few questions posed in earlier films.

J. Farley 10-24-09 06:04 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Originally Posted by zombeaner (Post 9793663)
I should've waited at the theater and seen Wild Things instead.
You would have been 11 years too late.

dsa_shea 10-24-09 07:04 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Originally Posted by J. Farley (Post 9794275)
You would have been 11 years too late.
:lol:

zombeaner 10-24-09 08:15 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Originally Posted by J. Farley (Post 9794275)
You would have been 11 years too late.
Well played.

xage 10-24-09 08:24 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Who is Orndorf? Was he/she a movie producer? I just dont get the "Production Value" point?

Originally Posted by Rival11 (Post 9793690)
The deciding factor for me in Orndorf's review was the low "production" value. No, I was not getting my hopes up that this would change at all but after V, I can't sit through such a shitty movie like that again. While watching V, no matter what set the players were on, it always felt like the torture rooms\bad guys were right next door via a paper mache wall.

Believe me when I tell you, I am in no way a stickler for low value as well but when it comes to the Saw films, it bothers me beyond belief.

Also, as far as his review goes, he mentioned the "bore" factor once again during the extreme scenes, again....This is what I got out of 5 as well; I just don't want to sit through the same movie again.

I don't think his review was biased at all either but make of it what you will.

tylergfoster 10-24-09 09:02 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Originally Posted by xage (Post 9794456)
Who is Orndorf? Was he/she a movie producer? I just dont get the "Production Value" point?
:lol: Brian Orndorf is a DVDTalk critic.

I remember before I started writing for DVDTalk, I would often see his reviews on the Tomatometer and I started to think it was ridiculous how many movies he hated that I enjoyed. Personally, though, that became the appeal for me, because he usually makes clear points, and the longer you read his stuff, the more you get a feel for what he is going to like (Indy IV and Drag Me to Hell, for instance).

The O 10-24-09 09:07 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Originally Posted by xage (Post 9794456)
Who is Orndorf? Was he/she a movie producer? I just dont get the "Production Value" point?
He produced "Love Actually" and "Condorman," and he supervised the subtitling on the "Hindu Superman" debacle.

He also collects every single DVD version of the "Evil Dead' movies. But some find that weird. I think he's the only guy in Earth to do that.

I believe Orndorf meant, and I'm just guessing here, that the "Saw" movies require a budget yet barely show any of that coin on screen. They look cheap, and at this point, needlessly so. Something to that effect. Of course, being a film critic, he's biased. Never mind the whole subjective writing thing. That's for suckers.

He told me he loves DVD Talk.

DJariya 10-24-09 09:39 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Just got back from a late matinee and I loved it.

IMO, this is the 2nd best Saw sequel behind Saw II. I think Melton and Dunstan have finally grown comfortable writing for this series. Enjoyed how well they tied up alot of the loose ends from Saw III.

And I was glad that they added the twists recap at the very end, which was missing at the end of Saw V.

Regarding Detective Hoffman's role:

Spoiler:


It made sense to me that Jigsaw was only using him as a pawn to finish his work after his death and when he was no longer needed, Jill would eliminate him. It seemed to me that Hoffman was only using Jigsaw's work as an act of vigilante-ism after the death of his sister and really didn't believe his philosophies. Does anyone think Hoffman is actually dead? It looked to me like his jaw was ripped apart, so I think it's feasible that he could return in a small capacity in VII.



At the very end, I was actually surprised that:

Spoiler:


The mother and son were related to the man that William rejected the insurance claim. And that the blonde reporter was actually William's sister (fixed).



I do think they are running out of ideas for compelling traps. But, the one I did enjoy was:

Spoiler:


The Merry Go Round with the shot gun. Loved how William's employees turned against each other.



As I mentioned earlier, the Production value point is nonsense when it comes to these films. It's supposed to be gritty, dark and dirty and voyeuristic. These films don't need a $50-60M budget to make them "look" better. In a way, I think Saw is like watching a over the top snuff film.

tylergfoster 10-24-09 09:43 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Originally Posted by DJariya (Post 9794588)
Spoiler:
Does anyone think Hoffman is actually dead? It looked to me like his jaw was ripped apart, so I think it's feasible that he could return in a small capacity in VII.
Spoiler:
Well, he was still screaming when they cut to black, so I'm pretty sure he'll be back in some capacity. Remember, until you brutally and definitively die on screen in a Saw movie, you'll probably show up again (unless, so far, you're Cary Elwes).
Originally Posted by DJariya (Post 9794588)
At the very end, I was actually surprised that:
Spoiler:
The mother and son were related to the man that William rejected the insurance claim. And that the blonde reporter was actually William's wife.
Spoiler:
Sister, not wife.

DJariya 10-24-09 09:47 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Originally Posted by droidguy1119 (Post 9794595)
Spoiler:
Well, he was still screaming when they cut to black, so I'm pretty sure he'll be back in some capacity. Remember, until you brutally and definitively die on screen in a Saw movie, you'll probably show up again (unless, so far, you're Cary Elwes).
Spoiler:
Sister, not wife.
My bad. Thanks

stingermck 10-24-09 09:57 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Originally Posted by DJariya (Post 9794588)
Just got back from a late matinee and I loved it.

IMO, this is the 2nd best Saw sequel behind Saw II.
I agree! I loved II, hated IV and skipped V, but a friend wanted to see it and I tagged along.

DJariya 10-24-09 09:59 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Regarding 1 returning character:

Spoiler:


It was cool to see Shawnee Smith return as Amanda. I vaguely recalled when Amanda read the note at the end of Saw III and lost it. I thought it was really clever writing to incorporate that Amanda was actually involved with Jill's miscarriage when she was a druggie.

I can't remember how she found that note. Did she just open a drawer and discover it with her name on it? I know they incorporated Hoffman into that scene and he was the one that dropped it off.

DJariya 10-24-09 09:59 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Originally Posted by stingermck (Post 9794622)
I agree! I loved II, hated VI and skipped V, but a friend wanted to see it and I tagged along.
You mean hated IV right? I wasn't a fan of it either.

V wasn't great, but it's still IMO worthwhile viewing. There are a few characters that were introduced in it who are quite prevalent in VI. Agent Peter Strahm (Scott Patterson), who was introduced in IV actually became the lead and some remnants of his story from V linger in this film.

Rival11 10-24-09 10:04 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
:lol: Damn, I can't believe I posted this much in a "Saw" thread :lol:

Ok guys, I'm done, this movie looks like shit, V was terrible, and there was huge drop off with both IV & V in terms of quality (I actually liked them all/tolerated them up to III).

That's it. I'm sure six is "Amazing" and I'll take you're word for it.

xage 10-24-09 10:08 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
you went to the extent seeing up to the fifth installment. Why not try wasting one more time with sixth.

dsa_shea 10-24-09 10:10 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
VI was damn good fun and I'm looking forward to VII but I'm hoping they wrap it all up with that one. It seems that they could continue right where they left off in this one and have a second trilogy with IV being like an in between. The only thing is that I wish they would change their mind about the 3D business and make the 7th film just like the did the first 6.

DJariya 10-24-09 10:11 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Originally Posted by xage (Post 9794639)
you went to the extent seeing up to the fifth installment. Why not try wasting one more time with sixth.
He's done with this discussion. It's a waste of breathe and characters.

xage 10-24-09 10:13 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
"O"h thanks for the inf"O".

I just read the review: http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/40304/saw-vi/

I got the point now on the the "production value"


Originally Posted by The O (Post 9794524)
He produced "Love Actually" and "Condorman," and he supervised the subtitling on the "Hindu Superman" debacle.

He also collects every single DVD version of the "Evil Dead' movies. But some find that weird. I think he's the only guy in Earth to do that.

I believe Orndorf meant, and I'm just guessing here, that the "Saw" movies require a budget yet barely show any of that coin on screen. They look cheap, and at this point, needlessly so. Something to that effect. Of course, being a film critic, he's biased. Never mind the whole subjective writing thing. That's for suckers.

He told me he loves DVD Talk.

DJariya 10-24-09 10:13 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
I agree with Matthew Chmiel's comment earlier that the pacing was really good in this film. I actually felt like I was watching a horror movie than a Gory detective story which Part V essentially was.

DJariya 10-24-09 10:25 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
I know David Hackl is slated to direct Part VII. But, if Lionsgate does decide that they will end the series with a Part VIII, I hope they can somehow talk either Darren Lynn Bousman or James Wan to direct and finish it off the franchise.

dsa_shea 10-24-09 10:43 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Originally Posted by djariya (Post 9794663)
i know david hackl is slated to direct part vii. But, if lionsgate does decide that they will end the series with a part viii, i hope they can somehow talk either darren lynn bousman or james wan to direct and finish it off the franchise.
+1

tylergfoster 10-24-09 10:54 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Originally Posted by The O (Post 9794524)
He produced "Love Actually" and "Condorman," and he supervised the subtitling on the "Hindu Superman" debacle.

He also collects every single DVD version of the "Evil Dead' movies. But some find that weird. I think he's the only guy in Earth to do that.

I believe Orndorf meant, and I'm just guessing here, that the "Saw" movies require a budget yet barely show any of that coin on screen. They look cheap, and at this point, needlessly so. Something to that effect. Of course, being a film critic, he's biased. Never mind the whole subjective writing thing. That's for suckers.

He told me he loves DVD Talk.
What, do you have an inside line to the guy or something?! SPILL!!!
Originally Posted by DJariya (Post 9794645)
He's done with this discussion. It's a waste of breathe and characters.
No, a waste of characters is adding an "e" to the end of the word "breath".

;)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:59 PM.
Page 5 of 6
« First
3
4
5
6
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.