aye. it's like defending underworld because it was directed by a stuntman. there's a world of difference between something being brilliant but flawed and something needing excuses to be made for it.
that said, i thought saw was alright. wouldn't watch it again and haven't bothered with any of the sequels, but it was good enough for what it was. there are plenty of established horror movie makers that don't do nearly as well with equally bankable material.
thats generous, it wouldve been 0 if not for the very last scene. probably the worst acing ive ever seen, and every horror flick cliche in the book.fucking terrible
Read a bit about the budget, age and expertise of the guys who made it, you might appreciate it a bit more.
i dont care about the budget, saying that a movie is better because of the financial shortcomings with which it was made is just basically giving it sympathy.
no its not, its recognizing what they accomplished using so little.
i understand exactly what ur getting at...but the thing is, when i watch a movie i expect it to be good. saw isnt good and i dont care how low their budget was. if i was to recognise that than the movie ceases to be a work of art, its just a bunch of guys saying 'hey look we made this with hardly any money, arent we great!'
i just dont like the idea of that. and anyway if u wana talk about low budget films i recommend 'Elephant', they didnt even use actors, just normal teenagers doing normal stuff,and its one of the most affecting films ive ever seen, its so good. :icon14:
thats generous, it wouldve been 0 if not for the very last scene. probably the worst acing ive ever seen, and every horror flick cliche in the book.fucking terrible
Read a bit about the budget, age and expertise of the guys who made it, you might appreciate it a bit more.
i dont care about the budget, saying that a movie is better because of the financial shortcomings with which it was made is just basically giving it sympathy. dostoevsky was living in extreme poverty when he wrote crime and punishment, he was actually writing against a deadline with a mean bastard of a publisher and he was doing it out of necessity, he need to write to eat. thats a situation where the artists financial background could be taken into account when assessing his work, Saw is not. Saw is just crap, tries to be sinister and clever but it just fails. imo
I notice you only acknowledged the point about budget, and ignored the points about age and expertise.
I can appreciate a movie more if I know its background. If 2 broke students take a massive chance and produce something far and beyond that which one would expect to be produced from such limited resources then it increases my enjoyment of the movie. I compare it on a different level to movies made by experienced directors/producers with 50 times more budget.
Evil Dead is probably my favourite horror film of all time, and my love of this film is all the more emphasised when I take into account the stage of their careers that Raimi, Campbell and the others were at when they made it.
I'm not saying these reasons can automatically make a shit movie good, but if you take them into account you may enjoy a movie more by being more accepting of its shortcomings.
Chupacabra wrote:agreed. Departed is amazing :icon14:
"Amazing" is a bit of a stretch, but it was fairly good. The end had somewhat of a "LOL BETCHA DIDNT SEE THAT COMIN!" kind of thing going that seemed slightly contrived.
Still pretty good though. I'd give it a 7.
Are you fucking kidding me???? The one with Jennifer Anniston?!
Go watch a real movie.
Yes, I am kidding you. But so many people just give movies here a 10/10 rating regardless of how good the movie is and I don't want to miss out on all the fun.
:icon14:
