Yes! Yes! It's happened! It's finally happened! After 6 long years, they're finally doing it! Cary Elwes is returning to the Saw series in Saw 7 as Dr. Gordon! Fans (myself included) have been waiting for this moment since the first movie ended... and then it only grew after rumors began circulating with the second movie and how it was Gordon on the video tape, etc.
The seventh film is supposed to be the end of the series, and what a better way to end it than giving the fans what they wanted? Dr. Gordon is back... and he's most likely a Jigsaw accomplice. But you know what? I wouldn't care, because that's been the rumor since the beginning, and even if the twist is that obvious, I would welcome it.
Showing posts with label saw. Show all posts
Showing posts with label saw. Show all posts
12.26.2009
R2D2's Ultimate Top 10 Countdown Of The 2000s #5 - Horror.
[For the last 10 days of the decade, I'm doing a Top 10 list a day, all culminating into an ultimate post of Top 10 lists. We have previously seen Top 10 Comedies, Dramas, Animation, and Sci-Fi/Fantasy. Now we're moving on.]
Top 10 Horror Films of the 2000s
The day after Christmas... crazy sales... more shopping... going to wal-mart is like a horror film in and of itself. So it's only fitting that I discuss the best horror films of the decade now. Let's get it goin'.
Basically 10 Little Indians with a psychology twist. What I will always remember about this movie is that I was able to call the killer based on the trailer alone. Not because it was easy, but because I decided that the killer would be the least likely character. Granted, it actually made sense in the context of the movie. Anyway, it had one heck of a cast, too. John Cusack, Ray Liotta, Amanda Peet, Alfred Molina, Clea DuVall, John C. McGinley, Jake Busey, and Pruitt Taylor Vince. I also love the ending, especially how it ties back in a poem repeated earlier in the film. It's quiet and creepy. Love it.
Robert Rodriguez's half of Grindhouse (the better half, if I say so). It's wild and crazy and totally fun. Mutant "zombies." Fuzzy screens. Missing reels. A chick with a machine gun leg. Bloody action. It's almost too awesome for its own good. I put it this low on the list because it's really not scary whatsoever. I wouldn't even say it's marginally scary. But it's a horror film nonetheless. And, therefore, it's on my list.
Video game movies aren't known for being the best films ever created, but sometimes you get something at least halfway decent. Silent Hill is one of those. Sure, it has some flaws. If you know anything about the making of the film, it was originally going to be an all-female cast, but the production company didn't think that'd work. So what'd they do? They forced them to re-write the script and give the husband character a bigger role. And you can tell in the movie. Pretty much every part of the husband's part of the story is meaningless and somewhat boring (I always wanted to go back into the "Silent Hill" world when it flipped to the husband). Also, the ending is terrible and demands a sequel (which, luckily, I think they recently greenlit). But every other part of the film is fantastic and creepy. Pyramidhead is scary, as are all the other creatures. And the climax gets surprisingly violent. Fun stuff.
So... have you seen this movie? It's freaky. Not really much more to say after that. It has Matthew McConaughey in a role that isn't his usual. Is also has Bill Paxton (who also directed). It's a religious horror film, and you're never quite sure if all the religious stuff is true or not. But either way, it's unsettling. That's probably the best way to put this movie. Unsettling.
Most horror films these days are all about the shock factor. The jump scares. The blood and gore. The Mothman Prophecies has virtually none of this. And I don't know about you, but this movie scares the living crap out of me. What does it have? Creepy occurrences, telephone conversations, unexplained scenarios, and subtle scares that you have to be paying attention to get (the mirror lag, anyone?). Not to mention those red eyes. I always get scared to drive at night whenever I watch this movie. I know the first time I saw it, I had to drive home at night afterward, and at that time, I lived out in the middle of nowhere. So at one point, in the pitch black, my brake lights reflected off these two, well, reflectors that stood on either side of this little bridge... and in my rear-view mirror, they looked JUST like the two red eyes. I about had a heart attack. So it might not have the blood. It might not have the overt musical cue scares. But this is by far one of the most terrifying movies I've ever seen. So why, if it's so scary, do I have it at number 6 on the list? Because sometimes "fun," "concept," or even "depth" can trump ultimate scares.
Talking about the original here, of course. This is the case where "concept" and "fun" can trump scares. Is this movie scary? Not really. But its concept is super fun, and I love the heck out of this little film. It has some wickedly dark humor. It has creative kills. It's also the film that, believe it or not, really first introduced the world to Seann William Scott. And who didn't go "oh crap!" when you see the plane explode in the far background outside the terminal, right before the windows explode?
One of my favorite horror/comedies, and I place it under horror, as I believe there are more scares than laughs (though there are some good laughs). This is a film that totally takes the horror genre and turns it on its head... and then laughs mercilessly at it. From the opening moments with the "title cards" to the breaking of all horror rules, this movie is hella fun. It's just incredibly unfortunate that its two sequels are two of the most disasterous, unholy abominations ever put on celluloid (and I'm not being hyperbolic here).
It's rare to get a great sequel to a great film, but this was apparently one of the exceptions. It starred none of the original cast, nor did it have Danny Boyle behind the camera. But after the brilliant opening scene, you know you're in for a good ride. Sure, it doesn't have the depth of the original, but what it lacks in overall social commentary (I mean, it's there, but it's not as explored, I suppose), it totally makes up for in suspense.
Unlike the previous choice, this began a series wherein the sequels never quite lived up to the original. I mean, there's been some pretty good ones (2, 3, and 6 being the better ones), but there have also been a couple... not so great (4 and 5). Ironically, movies 4-6 were written by the same dudes who wrote Feast (and its sequels). So I suppose their record is for every good film they write, they also write two... well... not so good ones. But also, the guys who wrote and directed the first one didn't do that for any of the others (well, they acted as executive producers and helped with script ideas, but that was about it). Long story short (too late), the first Saw had a brilliant story and a jaw-dropping twist ending that's gone into the history books. I've seen this movie a ton of times, and I'll probably see it a ton more. And I love the main theme song, too. So... yeah.
I don't think I'll get a lot of arguments here. Danny Boyle created a horror film with complex characters, heavy themes, and strong social commentary. With a brilliant (second) opening that is essentially 15 minutes of Cillian Murphy walking around an empty London saying "hello?", the movie starts out artistically fantastic. It also had the balls to show full-frontal male nudity (Yes... yes... pun intended). I also love the main theme for this film, as well (the whole thing is nearly 30 minutes long in and of itself, but it has great pacing from slow and steady to fast and chaotic). And no, for the bajillionth time, they are not zombies.
The day after Christmas... crazy sales... more shopping... going to wal-mart is like a horror film in and of itself. So it's only fitting that I discuss the best horror films of the decade now. Let's get it goin'.
10. Identity (2003)
Basically 10 Little Indians with a psychology twist. What I will always remember about this movie is that I was able to call the killer based on the trailer alone. Not because it was easy, but because I decided that the killer would be the least likely character. Granted, it actually made sense in the context of the movie. Anyway, it had one heck of a cast, too. John Cusack, Ray Liotta, Amanda Peet, Alfred Molina, Clea DuVall, John C. McGinley, Jake Busey, and Pruitt Taylor Vince. I also love the ending, especially how it ties back in a poem repeated earlier in the film. It's quiet and creepy. Love it.
9. Planet Terror (2007)
Robert Rodriguez's half of Grindhouse (the better half, if I say so). It's wild and crazy and totally fun. Mutant "zombies." Fuzzy screens. Missing reels. A chick with a machine gun leg. Bloody action. It's almost too awesome for its own good. I put it this low on the list because it's really not scary whatsoever. I wouldn't even say it's marginally scary. But it's a horror film nonetheless. And, therefore, it's on my list.
8. Silent Hill (2006)
Video game movies aren't known for being the best films ever created, but sometimes you get something at least halfway decent. Silent Hill is one of those. Sure, it has some flaws. If you know anything about the making of the film, it was originally going to be an all-female cast, but the production company didn't think that'd work. So what'd they do? They forced them to re-write the script and give the husband character a bigger role. And you can tell in the movie. Pretty much every part of the husband's part of the story is meaningless and somewhat boring (I always wanted to go back into the "Silent Hill" world when it flipped to the husband). Also, the ending is terrible and demands a sequel (which, luckily, I think they recently greenlit). But every other part of the film is fantastic and creepy. Pyramidhead is scary, as are all the other creatures. And the climax gets surprisingly violent. Fun stuff.
7. Frailty (2001)
So... have you seen this movie? It's freaky. Not really much more to say after that. It has Matthew McConaughey in a role that isn't his usual. Is also has Bill Paxton (who also directed). It's a religious horror film, and you're never quite sure if all the religious stuff is true or not. But either way, it's unsettling. That's probably the best way to put this movie. Unsettling.
6. The Mothman Prophecies (2002)
Most horror films these days are all about the shock factor. The jump scares. The blood and gore. The Mothman Prophecies has virtually none of this. And I don't know about you, but this movie scares the living crap out of me. What does it have? Creepy occurrences, telephone conversations, unexplained scenarios, and subtle scares that you have to be paying attention to get (the mirror lag, anyone?). Not to mention those red eyes. I always get scared to drive at night whenever I watch this movie. I know the first time I saw it, I had to drive home at night afterward, and at that time, I lived out in the middle of nowhere. So at one point, in the pitch black, my brake lights reflected off these two, well, reflectors that stood on either side of this little bridge... and in my rear-view mirror, they looked JUST like the two red eyes. I about had a heart attack. So it might not have the blood. It might not have the overt musical cue scares. But this is by far one of the most terrifying movies I've ever seen. So why, if it's so scary, do I have it at number 6 on the list? Because sometimes "fun," "concept," or even "depth" can trump ultimate scares.
5. Final Destination (2000)
Talking about the original here, of course. This is the case where "concept" and "fun" can trump scares. Is this movie scary? Not really. But its concept is super fun, and I love the heck out of this little film. It has some wickedly dark humor. It has creative kills. It's also the film that, believe it or not, really first introduced the world to Seann William Scott. And who didn't go "oh crap!" when you see the plane explode in the far background outside the terminal, right before the windows explode?
4. Feast (2005)
One of my favorite horror/comedies, and I place it under horror, as I believe there are more scares than laughs (though there are some good laughs). This is a film that totally takes the horror genre and turns it on its head... and then laughs mercilessly at it. From the opening moments with the "title cards" to the breaking of all horror rules, this movie is hella fun. It's just incredibly unfortunate that its two sequels are two of the most disasterous, unholy abominations ever put on celluloid (and I'm not being hyperbolic here).
3. 28 Weeks Later (2007)
It's rare to get a great sequel to a great film, but this was apparently one of the exceptions. It starred none of the original cast, nor did it have Danny Boyle behind the camera. But after the brilliant opening scene, you know you're in for a good ride. Sure, it doesn't have the depth of the original, but what it lacks in overall social commentary (I mean, it's there, but it's not as explored, I suppose), it totally makes up for in suspense.
2. Saw (2004)
Unlike the previous choice, this began a series wherein the sequels never quite lived up to the original. I mean, there's been some pretty good ones (2, 3, and 6 being the better ones), but there have also been a couple... not so great (4 and 5). Ironically, movies 4-6 were written by the same dudes who wrote Feast (and its sequels). So I suppose their record is for every good film they write, they also write two... well... not so good ones. But also, the guys who wrote and directed the first one didn't do that for any of the others (well, they acted as executive producers and helped with script ideas, but that was about it). Long story short (too late), the first Saw had a brilliant story and a jaw-dropping twist ending that's gone into the history books. I've seen this movie a ton of times, and I'll probably see it a ton more. And I love the main theme song, too. So... yeah.
1. 28 Days Later (2002)
I don't think I'll get a lot of arguments here. Danny Boyle created a horror film with complex characters, heavy themes, and strong social commentary. With a brilliant (second) opening that is essentially 15 minutes of Cillian Murphy walking around an empty London saying "hello?", the movie starts out artistically fantastic. It also had the balls to show full-frontal male nudity (Yes... yes... pun intended). I also love the main theme for this film, as well (the whole thing is nearly 30 minutes long in and of itself, but it has great pacing from slow and steady to fast and chaotic). And no, for the bajillionth time, they are not zombies.
10.20.2008
Five Days Of Saw: Saw.
It was a movie that started a franchise; a film that I felt was so freakin predictable that I was blown out of my seat by it’s stunning ending. Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) and Adam (Leigh Whannell) wake up in a grungy, filthy bathroom, chained by their ankles on opposite ends, and with a body in the middle of the room in a puddle of blood and a gun in his hand. They discover that they’re in a game set up by Jigsaw, a man who sets ungrateful people up in fatal traps/situations in order to get them to further appreciate life to its fullest. Along for the ride are the paranoid Detective Tapp (Danny Glover), the hospital orderly Zep (Michael Emerson), Detective Kerry (Dina Meyer), Detective Sing (Ken Leung), and a list of other victims, including survivor Amanda (Shawnee Smith). But the current situation shows Dr. Gordon and Adam that they have until a certain time to follow the rules set up, and the rules are thus: Dr. Gordon’s wife and daughter are being held captive, and if he wants to be set free and see them again, he must find a way to kill Adam before time runs out. And how can he get free if he needs to? Well, there’s a pair of hacksaws that can be used to cut off your foot and set you free…
When I first saw this movie, I thought I had it figured out before I even reached the halfway point. I thought it was going to end like every other
The movie is in no way, shape, or form torture porn, as most ignorantly label it. Hell, it’s only moderately gorier than your weekly episodes of CSI. The traps in this movie are pretty tame, especially in comparison to the later movies. And it isn’t killing for the sake of killing. Jigsaw is actually a pretty well thought-out character (again, especially as shown in the later films), and he only sets traps up for people who are wasting away their lives in order to teach them appreciation and self-respect. This movie is intelligent horror, not brainless blood and death.
The acting is usually the wobbly ground for most people. Either Cary Elwes or Leigh Whannell are the big complaints, but I personally didn’t see any major issues with either of them. And for two guys with thick foreign accents (British and Australian, respectively), they both held American accents nicely (though if you pay close attention to the opening scenes, you can hear Leigh break accent once or twice). I also think Michael Emerson can play a really intense character no matter what he’s doing (see: LOST).
And then there’s the cinematography and music. The way the camera is used in these films, along with editing techniques, is like an art form (well… it is… but you know what I mean). From the intensity of the Reverse Bear Trap scene with Amanda to the now patented “Seizure flashback” that occurs at the end of each film, the camera/editing is done masterfully. Coincidentally, as I write this, the main Saw theme started playing on my playlist, just in time for me to bring up the music! The main theme is now classic, to me. It’s even being used in other film trailers (much like another modern classic theme from another movie, Requiem for a Dream). I really adore this theme song, from it’s slow build to it’s huge crescendo, increasing and increasing further until the massive shocking end, then BAM, it ends, just like the film. Thank you Charlie Clouser for creating such a hauntingly amazing theme.
So overall, this is one of my favorite horror/suspense films. It has a great story, great cinematography, great editing, great music, and a great ending. There’s really not much else I can say about this first film. I really recommend it.
Royale With Cheese
The following segment involves spoilers:
Questions Raised Thus Far:
- What's with all the pig stuff?
- Who the heck was the guy in the drill-to-the-neck trap and what did he do?
- Does Jigsaw just let Amanda go live her life now that she survived?
- What the heck ever happened to Dr. Gordon's wife and daughter?
- What the heck ever happened to Dr. Gordon?
- Does Adam just die of starvation, dehydration, and/or blood loss?
5.11.2008
Thoughts On Thrillers, Horror, and Torture Porn.
I’m going to do something here I don’t do very often: just have a discussion. That’s right, no movie reviews or anything like that. I felt like giving my opinion on certain semi-related (especially these days) movie genres: thrillers, horror films, and torture porn. These labels get thrown around a lot, and half the time incorrectly.
For instance, earlier this year, a Spanish film entitled El Orfanato (The Orphanage) was released. They called it horror. The movie is not so much horror as much as it is a supernatural thriller or mystery. Words got thrown in like “terrifying” that could turn people away from such an amazing film if they’re not fans of horror. The label gets thrown around so much that it can, in fact, ruin a movie’s turn out.
The biggest disaster to be caused by the act of mislabeling was M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village back in 2004. It was labeled (and advertised) as this super scary horror movie, so when people went to see it thinking they were going to be scared, the only thing we were left with were countless reviews being thrown around saying it was horrible and completely unscary. It’s all in how you go in to a movie. If it had been marketed as a thriller/drama/romance (which is what it was), it might have gotten slightly better reviews, because people's expectations wouldn’t have been elsewhere, meaning they wouldn’t have been nearly as hateful. Likewise, M. Night’s Lady in the Water was treated the same way, when it was more of a children’s fantasy/fairy tale. I remembered having to continually convince my mother that the movie was not meant to be a horror movie every time a trailer came on TV, and she never believed me.
A more recent example of this was Bug in 2006. With the director of The
Exorcist at the helm, it was immediately given descriptions such as “one of the most terrifying and truly scary movies I have ever seen.” And (gasp) it wasn’t. And it was never meant to be. It’s a psychological thriller and drama. There was a moment when I was waiting in line somewhere, and some lady started going off about Bug, and how it wasn’t scary at all and that she had demanded her money back. That’s faulty advertising for you. It's even on the poster (click to enlarge it).
Similarly, movies like the first Saw are labeled as horror or torture porn, and they’re usually neither. Bet let me digress for a moment and explain for those who are unaware of what I’m talking about.
The term torture porn came onto the scene because of Eli Roth’s Hostel, in which the first half of the movie is like Cinemax porno, and the second half is, well, people torturing other people to death (I also briefly go into the term in my discussion of the Japanese movie Audition, which has wrongfully been lumped in this subgenre, as well). Since then, people have been twisting the meaning of the term to fit a whole bunch of other films into this random and new subgenre of horror. The most recent to get slapped with the title has been Untraceable, which really only has the torture side down. What people are saying about the subgenre label is that it implies people get off to the gore and torture like they would to porn.
So back to Saw; not only is there no sex or nudity (we’re talking about the first installment only here), but the gory stuff is actually rather minimal. In fact, I wouldn’t even label it as horror as much as a crime and/or psychological thriller. Yet people continually thrust it in with (the God-awful) Hostel and the like. Why is that?
If Silence of the Lambs were to be made today, it would probably be considered torture porn because of Buffalo Bill, when it is, in fact, a crime thriller. In fact, any movie these days that has some kind of psychotic killer that likes to toy with his victims in any fashion will be considered torture porn, and I don’t think that’s right.
Honestly, the only movies I consider acceptable to fall under that label are Hostel and Hostel: Part II (and maybe Uwe Boll’s House of the Dead, because there’s a lot of sex, nudity, and blood, and it’s torturous to watch). And they’re all really, really horrible movies (and I don’t mean because of the subject matter… I just mean they’re boring, horribly made films). So when you link good movies like the first Saw or any other kind of remotely decent movie to that subgenre, it’s irking.
So I guess what I’m trying to say is this: Advertise the movie how it is, and it might just get a better response. Hopefully M. Night’s coming film, The Happening, really is as awesome as it appears. Also, Eli Roth and Uwe Boll need to stop making movies, because they both really suck at it.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)