If you enjoyed Saw

[dev!ls advocate]

Originally posted by surfnazi
Are you guys insane? I'm not meaning to disrespect you guys but House of Wax was undoubtedly the worst movie I've seen in the last five years except for maybe Blair Witch 2. Yes there were some enjoyable kill scenes(as there are in every horror film) but the acting was horrendous, the plot was terrible and not like the original(isn't that the point of a remake?), and the villains were terrible. I'm not even going to go into the shitty directing and writing and the dialogue that made me laugh my ass off in the theater.

Worst waste of money on the movies since going to see Darkness Falls.

Saw however, was great. It reminded me very much of Seven. The acting wasn't bad I thought, aside from Danny Glover who was pretty terrible. I thought the cinematography and camera work were excellent though, just because its rushed doesn't mean it can't be good. There were moments in the movie that seemed so slow that it would never go on but they passed quickly enough. And the kills man they were amazing and so creative and disturbing. I especially totally loved the scene where the man is forced to crawl through the barbed wire maze, that was fuckin creepy.

Sorry to rant.

house of wax was great! what was wrong with the acting? i normally notice really lame shit in movies, and i coudln't catch anything, give me an example :confused:

[alkytrio666]

Originally posted by surfnazi
Are you guys insane? I'm not meaning to disrespect you guys but House of Wax was undoubtedly the worst movie I've seen in the last five years except for maybe Blair Witch 2. Yes there were some enjoyable kill scenes(as there are in every horror film) but the acting was horrendous, the plot was terrible and not like the original(isn't that the point of a remake?), and the villains were terrible. I'm not even going to go into the shitty directing and writing and the dialogue that made me laugh my ass off in the theater.

Worst waste of money on the movies since going to see Darkness Falls.

Saw however, was great. It reminded me very much of Seven. The acting wasn't bad I thought, aside from Danny Glover who was pretty terrible. I thought the cinematography and camera work were excellent though, just because its rushed doesn't mean it can't be good. There were moments in the movie that seemed so slow that it would never go on but they passed quickly enough. And the kills man they were amazing and so creative and disturbing. I especially totally loved the scene where the man is forced to crawl through the barbed wire maze, that was fuckin creepy.

Sorry to rant.

Goddamn, maybe I saw a different version of Saw, but you cannot complain about the acting/cinematography in House of Wax when you're comparing it to Saw. Acting yes was bad in H.O.W. (yet not as bad as Saw), but the cinematography actually wasn't bad in House of Wax, there were some decent shots and angles, and yet you think Saw was shot better, when, I REPEAT, you can see the microphones in at LEAST 2 different scenes. (My cousin says he caught one more later.) That shits BAD, man.

[alkytrio666]

P.S. I'm not saying House of Wax was "good", because it wasn't, and you can't beat a Vincent Price classic. I'm saying I liked it better than Saw.

[arron wardlaw]

who gives a shit if you can see 1 tenth of the mike poking into view once or twice. sit back relax and enjoy the movie that these people dedicate their lives to making. saw is one of the top films of the genre in recent years and i for one am looking forward to the sequel

[jay o2 waster]

I enjoyed Saw to an extent, although I found it funnier than it was a "Shoker" by far. I know that I will end up watching Saw 2 though.

[dev!ls advocate]

Originally posted by alkytrio666
P.S. I'm not saying House of Wax was "good", because it wasn't, and you can't beat a Vincent Price classic. I'm saying I liked it better than Saw.

well, vincent price is the shit, this is true, but the remake was great... at least i thought it was... and saw was made in like 8 or 12 days, so i would expect some... uh... "mistakes" to be made but come on, so you can see the microphone, you know you loved that ending! (even if he did look like will ferrell :D)

[The_Return]

I thought Saw was definatly one of the best horror movies over the 2000's so far, barring 2-3 that were way better. The acting wasnt great, but Ive seen worse, I also thought some of the camera work was cool [Specially the scene with the guy in the room covered with numbers, and him with the candle], and even though I already knew how it would end [some ass told me], it still messed with my head!


However, Im certainly NOT looking forward to a sequel. Sure, Ill see it, but Im not expecting much. It'll just be a run of the mill serial killer flick[Albiet with a cool killer] now that we know who it is. But considering the same guy is writing it, there could be a chance of it being OK....

[alkytrio666]

Originally posted by arron wardlaw
who gives a shit if you can see 1 tenth of the mike poking into view once or twice. sit back relax and enjoy the movie that these people dedicate their lives to making. saw is one of the top films of the genre in recent years and i for one am looking forward to the sequel

I'm just saying that if people are going to say that saw had "great cinematography", they need to realize that...it didn't.

[surfnazi]

Originally posted by alkytrio666
I'm just saying that if people are going to say that saw had "great cinematography", they need to realize that...it didn't.

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

[jenna26]

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

My problem with Saw is that it seemed to try too hard to be something it wasn't. It tried too hard to be shocking. I didn't like the ending because it didn't make all that much sense to me. I think if just a little more attention had been paid to the writing, than maybe it would have been a great film. Because I personally liked the overall look and feel of the film.

I haven't seen House of Wax yet. But the original was a great film. And this is yet another so called "reimagining" rather than a remake which rips off the title but doesn't feel in the least obligated to pay proper respect to the original material. Fine, so be it. I personally never wanted to have to suffer through a film that has Paris Hilton in it (and it makes me cringe hearing her talk about it, give the girl a dictionary or a thesaurus already ).:D I haven't seen it so I can't say which is the superior film. My money would probably be on Saw though. Because at the very least they did try to do something a little special, even if they wanted it to be the next Se7en and failed.