Sequels considered remakes?

Share your Criticker Collections with the rest of the community!
MmzHrrdb
Your TCI: na

Re: Sequels considered remakes?

Post by MmzHrrdb »

Rufflesack wrote:Yeah, well.. Even as that was possibly the single greatest moment in my theatre-going life, I'm still not sure going to see Grudge 2 was worth it. In fact, it was some promotional day in theatres in town and all tickets were half-price. Even at half-price I'm not sure it was worth it.

Given the evidence here I'd say you'd probably enjoy the first movie more. If you ever do get around to checking it out, I would recommend it as it scared the crap out of me and I'm not easily scared, esp. by Hollywood movies. Mind you, I was ten when it came out and most people on here would tell you otherwise and that it's a shitty film, but I myself think it's terrif and I give it my certified seal of approval. Watched it recently and it still scared me, so...

I still walked out, 10 minutes before the end, filled with rage at the quality of the movie and depression about the state of humanity (state of 14-year old girls who go to see horror films, anyway).

Ughhhhh, it is painful. It reminds me of several times when I used to go to high school and I overheard some girls, my age, talking about how they went to see "Saw IV" at the movies with their boyfriends and how it was reportedly, "sooooooo scary!!" - as if they can't tell the difference between gratuitous violence and actual suspense and terror. Fills me with rage, it does.

KGB
Posts: 746
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:44 am

Re: Sequels considered remakes?

Post by KGB »

But there was not even much gratitious violence in 'Saw IV'. I mean, it was all plot and stuff, and it was bad. Why try to do plot and stuff when you clearly can't and people already paid just to see the gratitious violence? The original 'Saw' looks down in shame and wonders.

Mediocrecy taken to such extremes Hollywood didn't believe were possible, no less.

EDIT: No, I was mistaken for 'Saw V'. For Christ's sake, how many of these did they make already?

MmzHrrdb
Your TCI: na

Re: Sequels considered remakes?

Post by MmzHrrdb »

KGB wrote:No, I was mistaken for 'Saw V'.

Seriously? "Saw V" is rated R here, and all the rest are MA...

KGB
Posts: 746
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:44 am

Re: Sequels considered remakes?

Post by KGB »

If in Australia R is harsher than MA, then I don't really understand why. Perhaps one of the scenes was extremely gory (although I don't actually remember one that violent), more than any other in the 'Saw' series, but I find it hard to believe. Compared to the rest of the gore-fest that was the 'Saw' series, the last installment in the serious is kid stuff. There's too much really really shallow detective stuff going on and very little gore, not to mention the fact that the two plotlines (the detective and the guys trapped in Jigsaw's game) had nothing to do with each other and just felt like a filler and an excuse to call the film 'Saw V'. And all together those scenes might have lasted about 30 minutes, no more.

MmzHrrdb
Your TCI: na

Re: Sequels considered remakes?

Post by MmzHrrdb »

KGB wrote:If in Australia R is harsher than MA, then I don't really understand why. Perhaps one of the scenes was extremely gory (although I don't actually remember one that violent), more than any other in the 'Saw' series, but I find it hard to believe. Compared to the rest of the gore-fest that was the 'Saw' series, the last installment in the serious is kid stuff. There's too much really really shallow detective stuff going on and very little gore, not to mention the fact that the two plotlines (the detective and the guys trapped in Jigsaw's game) had nothing to do with each other and just felt like a filler and an excuse to call the film 'Saw V'. And all together those scenes might have lasted about 30 minutes, no more.

Yeah, modern mainstream horror movies are rarely given R ratings here. Perhaps the case is that the DVD over here (maybe over there as well, not sure) is an uncut version of the film with footage removed from mainstream screening to acquire the "safe" American equivalent of an R rating, which I understand is usually how it happens since the MPAA tend to slice the crap out of these movies before they're released Unrated with additional scenes on DVD. In any case I'll have to check "Saw V" out, just like I need to check out "IV" and eventually "VI" - I'm a bit behind on the series, but only because they aren't very good and almost every person my age has seen each and every one of them so I like to stand out of the crowd a bit.

MmzHrrdb
Your TCI: na

Re: Sequels considered remakes?

Post by MmzHrrdb »

do they use a saw in every Saw movie? I dont understand why they keep naming the movies after the first movies lame gimmick. zomguh.

Post Reply