RelentlessOblivion wrote:
I don't like 1, 2 or 3 because they were just weak films compared to 4, 5 and 6, if you look at them seperately they're decent though so I don't hate them
do hate the Saw franchise though that shit is just plain bad, bad acting bad storyline nothing going for it at all
I'm sorry, but that is wrong. I think you are probably someone who has not watched all the films or waited years in between them or something. I think it's unfortunate that only the fans seemed to see them as they were intended, IE, you knew what happened in the last movie and remember the characters and events well enough. Saw is a serialized story and I think the perception of them is just amazingly wrong. They tell a long ass story. I agree, the last couple of them were significantly worse story wise because they were finishing a story arc that fans had pretty much figured out once we all had seen Saw V and it was predictable if you'd been paying attention. We knew Dr. Gordon was likely in on it when we saw someone doing surgery and limping around while the narrative implied it was John Kramer as a deceptive plot device. The only thing I didn't like about it was the lazy excuses for testing the subjects as time went on. If you watch the original saw trilogy and leave it at that, you might be more satisfied with it. If I'm not mistaken the original writers of it wrote it as a trilogy and only put in the part about John swallowing a tape because they were basically forced to put in a plot device for a sequel. I thought the first four were great movies and the fifth one kept the story going and was good VI and VII (3d) were again, pretty predictable for anyone who kept up with these movies. The people who didn't were lost and confused. There was no in between for the last two movies at all. You were either going through the motions to see it play out or had no idea what was going on.