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.)

I'd be shocked. Shit, now I gotta go see it again!

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).

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.

You would have been 11 years too late.

Well played.

Who is Orndorf? Was he/she a movie producer? I just dont get the "Production Value" point?

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).

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.

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:



At the very end, I was actually surprised that:



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



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.

My bad. Thanks

I agree! I loved II, hated IV and skipped V, but a friend wanted to see it and I tagged along.

Regarding 1 returning character:

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.

Damn, I can't believe I posted this much in a "Saw" thread

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.

you went to the extent seeing up to the fifth installment. Why not try wasting one more time with sixth.

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.

He's done with this discussion. It's a waste of breathe and characters.

"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"

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.

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

What, do you have an inside line to the guy or something?! SPILL!!!No, a waste of characters is adding an "e" to the end of the word "breath".