You obviously haven't watched the movies closely enough. No single character that is tortured is "tortured for no reason". There is a reason for the excessive nature of Jigsaw's traps, and each trap advances the plot to the next part.

Whether you like the movie or not is one thing, but Saw is more than "just torture".

Bullshiat, these are torture vignettes strung together by the loosest possible definition of the word "plot".

If the torture scenes were toned down or deleted would you still see it? Would the remaining "plot" that you speak of be enough to engage you for two hours. Of course not, because the fans of this series are not there to see a story played out on screen, they want to see people killed in horrible ways. I find this interesting.

What Asteroth: chaos731: I'd like to point out that I've SEEN torture porn, and these movies ain't it, my friend.

Really? Sick. Aren't you ashamed of yourself?

What I'm saying is that I've seen movies that are everything that the Saw franchise is accused of being. Some examples include Fred Vogel's August Underground series. Literally, these films are faked snuff of the highest (or lowest, depending on your pov) order. They make no attempts to judge the "killers" or their actions; neither damning them nor glorifying them. They simply portray a group of people torturing, raping, and mutilating other people. Yes, they are splatter films, and as such, they are also "entertainments", but they are also nihilistic, empty, and completely vile pieces of filmed violence. The Saw films? Not so much.
And no, I'm not ashamed that I've ever watched anything that I've watched. Unless I was watching a REAL snuff film, I wouldn't feel terribly complicit in the events that are unfolding onscreen. Nevertheless, some of the best horror movies use cinematic techniques to make the viewer FEEL complicit (camera angles, forced perspective, etc). Admittedly, that's an uncomfortable position to be in as a viewer, but hey, that's why they call it "horror", no?

It's not such a bad thing to have a campy horror movie to look forward to each year. We grew up with multi part movies in the 80's and early 90's.

I think there are:

8 "A Nightmare on Elm Street" movies.
9 "Friday the 13th" movies.
5 "Halloween"
7 "Police Academy"

and I'm sure many more. They aren't so bad. It's just a movie. You can watch it and maybe you'll have a good time. You don't have to watch it if you don't want to though. Don't let it ruin your life.

Crazymuthafarker: Minor threadjack but...

Will someone please please tell Rob Zombie to stop making movies and go back to the recording studio?

And tell him to start making good music again, like back in the Hellbilly Delux days. farking 'Educated Horses' sucked big monster peckers. I was excited as hell when I bought it. Jumped in the car, threw it in the cd player, a quarter of a mile later out the window it went.

They keep making these for the same reason kids who want to be filmmakers make horror films first... cheap, fast and easy... like porn.

Doesn't anyone remember the "Faces of Death" series?

/recalling my BETAmax youth

The saw series has been always about people who do not value their lives, most of the time they are corrupt, deviants of society. Occasionally, there is an innocent but that person is usually how the corrupt came to play in the first place.

Love'em or Hate'em its better then most of the crap Hollywood churns out.

The story is interesting and I am curious how it will continue, it almost looked like he came alive during the previews in the autopsy room but I am probably mistaken.

The part that I like the most about SAW movies is Charlie Clouser puts together an awesome score.

/he did resident evil 3 as well, but you can only buy liike 3 tracks, the rest is a bunch of bands that never actually were in the movie.
//curses, soundtracks being inspired by

Yes....there will be suck.

Friar Simon:

Doesn't anyone remember the "Faces of Death" series?

/recalling my BETAmax youth

No comparison, really. As artificial and ridiculous as the Faces of Death (and the rip-off "Death Faces") series was, it at the very least tried to pass itself off as "reality". While most of the footage has long since been debunked to one extent or another, some of it was quite real (some of the animal violence, not including the infamous "hammering the monkey head" sequence, was all too real). The Saw films, and their ilk, make no qualms about their content, to be sure, but they also NEVER attempt to be anything other than what they are...good, gory popcorn entertainment.

The sheep will still go see them. Predicting #1 in box office for both releases. (I know I'm really going out on a limb)

mommatoldme: The sheep will still go see them. Predicting #1 in box office for both releases. (I know I'm really going out on a limb)

It's cute that you think the people who like a movie you don't are sheep.

Do you have an infowars.com bumper sticker, too?

takesdeepbreathkickspuppy: If the torture scenes were toned down or deleted would you still see it? Would the remaining "plot" that you speak of be enough to engage you for two hours. Of course not, because the fans of this series are not there to see a story played out on screen, they want to see people killed in horrible ways. I find this interesting.

Can't speak for everyone, but I certainly would. The series interests me.

lesliessexxy: mommatoldme: The sheep will still go see them. Predicting #1 in box office for both releases. (I know I'm really going out on a limb)

It's cute that you think the people who like a movie you don't are sheep.

Do you have an infowars.com bumper sticker, too?

/this

I'm not defending or damning anyone's likes or dislikes as far as movies are concerned, but I've always gotten a kick out of the whole "these movies are for the lumpenproletariat" argument. Too funny.

PsyLord: MacGyver

Actually that was already done..

Evil MacGyver was named Murdoc, played by Michael Des Barres

Cant believe I just admitted to knowing that..

Think I need beer..

They are aware that the general perception is that this sub-genre has crested and they want to crank out their franchise to the max now while there is funding and whatnot. They are not expensive movies to make and will show a profit even if they are released direct to video (which is unlikely - they will probably get a big screen release) or they just sit on the shelf a while until there is an uptick in interest for this sort of movie again.

I wouldn't mind if the violence was toned down as the story itself is interesting, I could go without someone climbing in a vat of needles, thank you very much.

terminalx: I wouldn't mind if the violence was toned down as the story itself is interesting, I could go without someone climbing in a vat of needles, thank you very much.

Heh...yeah, that scene is pretty brutal...not terribly pleasant for someone with needle phobias, I imagine. Ok...not terribly pleasant in general.

Just do what everyone else does (whatever they admit it or not)..."filter" the scary stuff through your fingers.
:)

Extreme violence in horror films will always be an issue for people that don't like the genre or explicit special effects, but movies like this are often released in tandem with violent, real life world events. That's why you got "Night of the Living Dead" during the Vietnam era, and it's why you're getting "Saw" and "Hostel" movies while we're in Iraq. The documentary American Nightmares does an excellent job of explaining this. If it runs on IFC around Halloween, check it out.

chaos731, thanks for your comments! BTW, there's an actual "torture porn" movie out there called "Forced Entry" with Harry Reems from the 70s. If you really want to blow chunks, see that.

"Torture Porn"

These words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean

chaos731: Robo Beat: These movies are just torture porn, anyway. Don't look for me in the audience.

Really? What does "torture porn" mean? Listen, I'm a professional film critic and media journalist (not that that fact makes my opinions any more valid than yours or anyone else's, mind you), and I'm sooooo godawful sick of that expression being thrown around. It's one of those designations that has no real bearing on what these movies are or represent. Like most "slasher" movies of the classic mold, these are essentially moralistic tales. Damned-near everyone who gets "tortured" in these films deserves it, at least in some sick sense of the term. "Porn" implies that these films are designed for the titillation of the masses...that they are designed to sexually stimulate. If that is in fact what you (and everyone else who uses the term) are trying to imply, then I'd like to point out that I've SEEN torture porn, and these movies ain't it, my friend. To each his/her own, of course, but please, for the love of god, please stop using meaningless designations that are more inherently exploitative than the films they are supposed to describe.

You can get right the fark out of here with that intelligent argument shiat.

/fear my MacGyver knowledge.

You win Indeed!

So when is Cleaver ever going to be released?

I only saw the first, thought it was excellent. Didn't expect what happened to happen.

Are Saw 2 and 3 good too? I need to see them soon.

ChicagoJohn: Not everything needs to be DEEP and INVOLVED.

Not everything needs to be WATCHED either.

JimmyTheHutt: There is no God. This is proof.

Those were my exact words when I found out there was going to be a Saw II. So you can imagine how I feel about this.

ssdninja: chaos731: Robo Beat: These movies are just torture porn, anyway. Don't look for me in the audience.

Really? What does "torture porn" mean? Listen, I'm a professional film critic and media journalist (not that that fact makes my opinions any more valid than yours or anyone else's, mind you), and I'm sooooo godawful sick of that expression being thrown around. It's one of those designations that has no real bearing on what these movies are or represent. Like most "slasher" movies of the classic mold, these are essentially moralistic tales. Damned-near everyone who gets "tortured" in these films deserves it, at least in some sick sense of the term. "Porn" implies that these films are designed for the titillation of the masses...that they are designed to sexually stimulate. If that is in fact what you (and everyone else who uses the term) are trying to imply, then I'd like to point out that I've SEEN torture porn, and these movies ain't it, my friend. To each his/her own, of course, but please, for the love of god, please stop using meaningless designations that are more inherently exploitative than the films they are supposed to describe.

You can get right the fark out of here with that intelligent argument shiat.

Yeah, except I do recall Fark threads about "Gipper Porn" when Reagan died. Clearly "porn" has a broader meaning that is pretty acceptible in these cases. After all, how many people will go see Saw V for the story structure and character development?

chaos731: What does "torture porn" mean?

I believe that when people refer to 'torture porn', they mean that it is glamorizing and using very graphic scenes just for the sake of making graphic scenes. The Hostel and Hills have Eyes(new ones) series are two examples of this.

I've seen Saw, and thought it was a well done film. I can't remember if I watched Saw II or not(I think I did, but can't remember how it ended), and didn't see Saw III. However unless they've gone the route of the Hostel series, I found that it was slightly less graphic, and there was more of a purpose to what was going on.

Great, three more movies I will never see.

The first one was at least moderately interesting. The second one was an obligatory crappy sequel. The third was laughably bad. A fourth and fifth only confirms that the "series" was reached the point where it will sell on name recognition and gore alone. I mean honestly, let's think about this here, Jigsaw died in the second movie. We're talking about a 6 movie series in which the main character and sole source of plot is only alive for the first two movies. Saw doesn't exactly have a progressive plot. It was two guys, chained in a bathroom, trying to figure out how they got there, why they're there, and how to escape from jigsaw's game. Everything since then has simply been "omg, we're all farked for no apparent reason and will get brutally maimed/killed by the end of the movie no matter what we do, simply because there's a guy named jigsaw that set it all up and does nothing as we wait for a painful death". Now it's pretty much just "omg, jigsaw's dead, but we're all still farked anyway and will all get brutally tortured and inexplicably killed for no particular reason by the end of the movie, now get ready to pay for the next sequel that will feature a bunch of different people getting inexplicably tortured for no reason in new and exciting ways!"

Krymore: A fourth and fifth

Whoops, sorry, fifth and sixth. I was thinking that this next shiatty sequel coming out was 3, but I guess they already made a 3..

steamingpile: The Glass Dragon: takesdeepbreathkickspuppy: True, but why do people PAY to sit in a room and watch projected inages of gruesome torture for two hours? Normally characters in a movie are tortured in service of the narrative, but in these movies torture is all there is. I dont get it.

You obviously haven't watched the movies closely enough. No single character that is tortured is "tortured for no reason". There is a reason for the excessive nature of Jigsaw's traps, and each trap advances the plot to the next part.

Whether you like the movie or not is one thing, but Saw is more than "just torture".

Kinda like the same reason "Dexter" on showtime is so popular, proving people like torture if someone was an ass.

Not true...I find cinematic torture very satisfying. Remember what Coleridge said about "suspension of disbelief"?

Keep repeating to yourself..."It's only a movie"...then have a coke and a smile and STFU.

Don't boil down character complexities and judge them as one whole. People like different heroes/villains/anti-heroes for differing reasons. Why aren't the Die Hard movies or Rambo films coined "gun porn"...do those people only like the characters because they shoot bad guys? Are you that simple?

I find Dexter (both novel and show) to be compelling and interesting because he has a strange perceptive view on the characters of his world. The violence in the show is rarely drawn out, and Dexter, himself, is no more sadistic than anyone that shoots an errant henchman or bodyguard.

People that indiscriminately label things are not organized and logical; they're simply childish and fearful of the explansion of creativity.

/Last comment, not really directed at anyone in particular but in general, the people that choose monosyllabic adjectives to summarize a movie, novel, or videogame
//Okay, maybe directed at Ebert...pompous jackass...

Whatever happened to the Hitchcockian style of suspense/horror films? Unless there is emotional investment in the characters, all the trauma they experience (or force on others) is nothing more than special effects. Much like porn, the actors are props to be acted upon, which is fine, but is not terribly interesting for more than a few minutes. I understand that Saw has the semblance of a good plot, and I would see it without the gore, but with it, it seems excessive. Not that I am adverse to gore integral to the plot - I enjoyed Disturbia (one of the best suspense movie I've seen this year, looking forward to the sequel) and the wife and I love Bones, which has no shortage of maggot-eaten eye sockets.

Perhaps Saw is the exception to the rule, perhaps it is John Carpenter at his best, but so many of these films (Rob Zombie's and Eli Roth's especially) are merely on par with Uwe Boll and have as much artistic value as such.

the thing with Saw is that it isn't new to anyone who is familar with horror films or widely versed in cinema.

the people who tend to think it is new and exciting (not everyone of course) are people who haven't seen the films that did the stuff before (and in my opinion better).

saw is just a new generation discovering Machiavelli boiled down to a simple form.

Crazymuthafarker: Ok, so where are all the Shawnee Smith pics dammit?!

/Only reason to watch those shiat movies

/Fap
//fappity fap

-flies back to Vancouver-
-goes to Lionsgate studios in North Van-
-slaps the President-

It makes good business sense. Seriously how expensive can it be to do a snuff film? Pay some methhead in a basement somewhere for a semen-stained script, get a few no-names and has-beens together and you've got a movie.

chaos731: Robo Beat: These movies are just torture porn, anyway. Don't look for me in the audience.

Really? What does "torture porn" mean? Listen, I'm a professional film critic and media journalist (not that that fact makes my opinions any more valid than yours or anyone else's, mind you), and I'm sooooo godawful sick of that expression being thrown around. It's one of those designations that has no real bearing on what these movies are or represent. Like most "slasher" movies of the classic mold, these are essentially moralistic tales. Damned-near everyone who gets "tortured" in these films deserves it, at least in some sick sense of the term. "Porn" implies that these films are designed for the titillation of the masses...that they are designed to sexually stimulate. If that is in fact what you (and everyone else who uses the term) are trying to imply, then I'd like to point out that I've SEEN torture porn, and these movies ain't it, my friend. To each his/her own, of course, but please, for the love of god, please stop using meaningless designations that are more inherently exploitative than the films they are supposed to describe.

Kudos to you, sir. These Saw movies would make amazing books, and THAT'S what separates them from say, Hostel, or The Hills Have Eyes. You just said what I've been trying to tell people who question my fondness for the Saw series, and I owe you a drink for it lol

How about some Dani Meyer pictures?

Saw is to the horror genre what Halo is to the FPS genre.

/Overhyped and mediocre at best
//Done a thousand times before
///Praised by fanboys for no explicable reason

I enjoyed the first 3 Saw films. I will certainly watch 2 more.

I think I will go watch #2 right now.

Oh c'mon people. Worse movies come out every other week, and getting all mad over a horror movie is pretty stupid. Granted it's not great, but at least it's not some remake of a Japanese horror film getting screwed up, or a bunch of teenagers getting killed by some... killer.

It's trying to be original. If you don't like it, go watch something else.

The Glass Dragon: My friends and I have seen every Saw movie

So, you've seen every Saw scene that one could see?

Sí, the see-saw scene in the sea in Saw IV is the worst scene I ever saw in the worst Saw I've ever seen, but it remains to be seen if other scenes which are to be seen shall see the see-saw scenes as *THE* chief scenes that one could ever see in Saw.

See, see the scenes in the sea in Saw and after you saw what we will all see in the scenes in the sea, you can see that what you've seen is a see-saw scene that we wish we never saw in a Saw that we have seen.

See?

neodio: As long as they keep the quality of the films consistent, I'm not seeing a problem with this. When I saw the first film in the multiplex, the theater was empty. The last 2 have seen an increase in attendance and given the film makers a good turnaround on their money. We should be sending Hollywood the message that we don't need fancy CGI in crappy movies like Transformers and The Incredible Hulk and Fantastic 4, etc...to keep us entertained. The Saw franchise has a good formula, b-list actors, a no name production company and no name directors/writers. Its working out, why stop now? I want to know what happens next.

I agree. Each film has a twist and is more and more interesting.

My wife is addicted to the series. Hearing there will be a 6th will make her day.

/Should I be worried?

You know, I liked the first Saw movie. It was pretty decent & I loved the twist at the end. The second movie? It was ok. Not nearly as good as the first since they seemed to go more for the gore than the first, but it still had a few neat twists in it. Then the third movie came out & I really just couldn't get into it. It seemed more like a few hours of random torture with the barest speck of plot than anything.

The Saw people have pretty much become a parody of themselves. I was so put off by the last Saw movie that I can pretty much guarantee that I won't see the next one. I can guess the entire plot from watching the previews.

/goes back to watch her old Dario Argento films
//at least he knew how to do horror-suspense right