| alkytrio666 |
06-08-2005 06:35 AM |
Quote:
Originally posted by surfnazi
Don't be a pompous ass and state your opinion as fact man, cause thats wrong. Cinematography is not all about little things like a microphone popping into the picture(Jesus it was made in like two weeks man) but about the overall scenery and mood to each setting, and that is something that Saw did beautifully. The scenes describing how the killers previous victims had died had me biting my nails man, and yes some of the acting was mediocre but there was still some decent acting, way better than a film starring Paris fucking Hilton.
Seriously why the hell would you cast Paris Hilton in a movie? She's not an actress and couldn't act decently if someone had a gun down her throat. The only reason she was in it was because the producers wanted a big name to draw in teenagers to make money off of a piece of shit like House of Wax.
And am I the only one who noticed that the House of Wax remake was completely not a remake? It had almost nothing to do with the Vincet Price classic(still one of the scariest classics) and the only real similiarited were wax.
And just to add one more example of how I believe Saw is easily superior to House of Wax, is that Saw got into theaters in a wide release after starting off as being a really limited release that wasn't going to do much, but because of word of mouth from horror fanatics all over the internet the buzz for it overflowed and it had a wide release. House of Wax got a wide release because it has Paris Hilton in it.
Yikes
|
Ok, first off. I'm sick of people bitching about "Well it's ok that they've got some shitty mistakes that should only be in 7th grade home videos, because it was only shot in 2 weeks!" THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO SHOOT IT IN TWO WEEKS, SO MAYBE THEY SHOULD HAVE TAKEN SOME FUCKING TIME, EFFORT AND CARE IN MAKING THE DAMN THING. Second: I don't like Paris Hilton either, but a) she wasnt the star, she got a total of probably a half hour of screen time and b) when she died it was way better than anything in Saw. Saw, like Jenna said, tried WAY to hard. The commercials all set it up to be "the scariest, goriest, most gruesome movie...ever!" It wasn't. So why don't you think before you call me a pompous asshole when I, just like you, was stating my opinion, and that opinion is if a movie can't even be carefully made and edited, than fuck it.
P.S. After seeing both movies, I think Paris Hilton ACTUALLY did a better job acting than that pussy in Saw. I don't even like Paris Hilton, at all, whatsoever. But that guy was completely, absolutely, downright terrible. |
