![]() |
Re: Saw VI (2009)
Originally Posted by The O
(Post 9794524)
Of course, being a film critic, he's biased. Never mind the whole subjective writing thing. That's for suckers.
Originally Posted by Rival11
(Post 9794635)
: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. |
Re: Saw VI (2009)
Originally Posted by fumanstan
(Post 9794725)
The miniscule chance that you might suddenly love the movie 5 sequels in was probably pretty rare.
In the case of Saw VI, the movie wasn't enough to earn a positive review from Brian, but knowing his biases will make a big difference if he gives a good review to the next one, or some other movie like it, because it will illustrate that that movie must be doing something special. |
Re: Saw VI (2009)
Originally Posted by droidguy1119
(Post 9794976)
Ah, but in a sense, that's the whole point, isn't it? As people have pointed out, Saw VI has the highest Tomatometer rating of an entry since the original, and, if you hadn't seen the movie, wouldn't a glowing review from Orndorf grab your attention?
In the case of Saw VI, the movie wasn't enough to earn a positive review from Brian, but knowing his biases will make a big difference if he gives a good review to the next one, or some other movie like it, because it will illustrate that that movie must be doing something special. |
Re: Saw VI (2009)
This will be a bit weird since I feel like i've been defending VI the last few days, but I finally caught a showing this morning and didn't really find it any sort of great come back over the last few sequels, although certainly better then part V. For me, the first is still the best and this one is in some random order along with II - IV. Is it just because it finally answered a lot of questions that the other sequels left open? That was the most satisfying part of the movie for me, but the characters were fairly uninteresting to me, and while the health care slant fit Jigsaw's motives and character it didn't result in a particularly strong plot.
I've been doing my diligence and managed to watch 1 - 4 before hand, but didn't get a chance to re-watch 5. The weak part for me is following a character that I don't care about and is entirely new, just like part 3 with Jeff. I didn't really care about William since he was new, so watching him play the game didn't entice me very much. 4 at least followed Rigg around which we knew from the previous 2 movies. The traps have been mediocre for a couple movies now and most of the ones here aren't much, but I do agree that the merry-go-round was pretty creative and a nice tense moment. That and the revelations about Hoffman and Jill's involvement pretty much made it worth it for me. My Pro's and Con's - Pros Spoiler:
Cons Spoiler:
Overall I certainly enjoyed it and had fun with the movie, I just didn't think it was that much better then any of the other sequels. |
Re: Saw VI (2009)
I thought it was pretty great - reinvigorated the series for me. Extremely gory (I thought V lacked in that department) and some good twists/answers etc. I don't like hearing that Hackl is back for the next one, as I think he's the most bland director the series has had... as for the next few, I'd be good with Wan or Gruetert. Bousman was really phoning it in by the time he got to IV and it showed. I don't think he'd want to return, nor would I want him to.
|
Re: Saw VI (2009)
On a side note, I knew the black guy that worked for William looked famliar. He was Eddie Winslow on Family Matters :lol:
|
Re: Saw VI (2009)
Originally Posted by fumanstan
(Post 9794725)
The miniscule chance that you might suddenly love the movie 5 sequels in was probably pretty rare.
|
Re: Saw VI (2009)
Originally Posted by The O
(Post 9796824)
And there's the magic of filmgoing, my friend. You never know what you're going to get. It's gambling for nerds.
|
Re: Saw VI (2009)
Originally Posted by dsa_shea
(Post 9796894)
But considering that they all revolve around relatively the same characters, deadly traps and unforgiving situations then how can one expect a change of opinion from the first 5 movies to the 6th?
|
Re: Saw VI (2009)
Originally Posted by The O
(Post 9796824)
And there's the magic of filmgoing, my friend. You never know what you're going to get. It's gambling for nerds.
|
Re: Saw VI (2009)
:gah:
Fumanstan: It's pointless to argue with Brian any longer. He's obviously doesn't care about the people who actually take the time to read his reviews, but is more concerned w/ padding his writing samples for when he sends his resume to be the new film critic for the New York Times or Chicago Sun Times. You obviously aren't talking to a fair reviewer who can actually offer an impartial opinion to fans of this genre with any personal biases. I agree with your earlier comment, his reviews are worthless. |
Re: Saw VI (2009)
Originally Posted by DJariya
(Post 9797127)
Fumanstan: It's pointless to argue with Brian any longer. He's obviously doesn't care about the people who actually take the time to read his reviews, but is more concerned w/ padding his writing samples for when he sends his resume to be the new film critic for the New York Times or Chicago Sun Times. You obviously aren't talking to a fair reviewer who can actually offer an impartial opinion to fans of this genre with any personal biases. I agree with your earlier comment, his reviews are worthless.
Where is all this really coming from? Seems awfully mean-spirited without a proper history of discontent attached. Why am I not allowed to find “Saw VI” one-note, half-heartedly written, poorly acted, and underproduced? I’ve done the legwork, I’ve seen all the previous sequels. It seems that would qualify as an informed opinion. Why am I not allowed to question what fans of the series are actually looking for with these films? Why am I not allowed to see all of these movies (paying my own dime for five of them, for the record) and write reviews for them? And this: "actually offer an impartial opinion to fans of this genre" What does that even mean? So, it's a rave or nothing? |
Re: Saw VI (2009)
Originally Posted by The O
(Post 9797403)
Were we arguing? "Fair reviewer?" "Impartial opinion?" "Doesn't care?"
Where is all this really coming from? Seems awfully mean-spirited without a proper history of discontent attached. Why am I not allowed to find “Saw VI” one-note, half-heartedly written, poorly acted, and underproduced? I’ve done the legwork, I’ve seen all the previous sequels. It seems that would qualify as an informed opinion. Why am I not allowed to question what fans of the series are actually looking for with these films? Why am I not allowed to see all of these movies (paying my own dime for five of them, for the record) and write reviews for them? And this: "actually offer an impartial opinion to fans of this genre" What does that even mean? So, it's a rave or nothing? |
Re: Saw VI (2009)
Originally Posted by mdc3000
(Post 9790909)
^I think EVERYONE is going into this one blind - the only trailer I saw had less than 30 seconds of actual footage and didn't even give any indication what the plot was about... even all the TV ads have very little substance to them.
|
Re: Saw VI (2009)
Originally Posted by fumanstan
(Post 9796342)
On a side note, I knew the black guy that worked for William looked famliar. He was Eddie Winslow on Family Matters :lol:
|
Re: Saw VI (2009)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...98/DVD/saw.jpg
saw this last night. surprisingly enjoyable. i can't believe the hate it got. liked seeing the beginnings of Jigsaw and accomplice. the ending wasn't so bad either, maybe a little predictable and no real twist, but effective for me. gave it http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/images/3.5.gif liked it better than II-IV. now, really looking forward to seeing VI hopefully one night this week... |
Re: Saw VI (2009)
Paranormal Activity really has hurt this film, box office-wise.
|
Re: Saw VI (2009)
I thought VI sort of redeemed the 'second trilogy' in a way, although I still hate V and the way it tried to revise history and weave Hoffman into every facet of the backstory (after doing the exact same thing far more effectively with Amanda in III).
|
Re: Saw VI (2009)
I enjoyed saw V the more i saw it at home on DVD and BD. V is still the weakest entry but VI was made up for any shortcomings it had. I hope Hackl doesnt screw up VII because i loved how VI ended.
|
Re: Saw VI (2009)
just watched it today. It was surprisingly good!! I loved it.
|
Re: Saw VI (2009)
One question I kept thinking during this whole film, and forgive me if this was answered early on, since I just only read the last two pages of this thread;
Spoiler:
Other than this, I thoroughly enjoyed this and was 100 times better than V, which I thought was extremely weak. I'm glad they brought the twist aspect back into this. P.S. - Is Betsy Russell a MILF or what? |
Re: Saw VI (2009)
Originally Posted by benh911
(Post 9814956)
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
|
Re: Saw VI (2009)
Originally Posted by droidguy1119
(Post 9815056)
Good point, although
Spoiler:
|
Re: Saw VI (2009)
Yeah, there have been other traps where someone else is set up to die but not the person actually being tested.
|
Re: Saw VI (2009)
Watched this tonight and enjoyed it very much. As most would agree, very satisfying due to some of the mediocre sequels. I also liked the insurance company aspect.
kinda funny that Eddie Winslow was in it -wink- I've always liked that the Saw films avoid using big name actors as well. And I like that they have a core group of regulars. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:28 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.