SAW III - Opinions

[Philly_SWAT]

I just saw SAW III for the first time yesterday. I enjoyed both of the first two movies, and was expecting to enjoy this third installment just as much. But while watching it, I thought it was inferior to the efforts of the first two. I found the beginning scenes much too dark (and I mean "not enough light", not forboding), the story difficult to follow, and the flashback scenes at times hard to even distinguish that they were flashbacks. I like the ironic twist of an ending, but overall, I thought the entire movie was wanting.

What was your opinion?

[MinionZombie]

Interesting, because I was let down by the second film.

I thought the first was fantastic, only cynical whingers and people who enjoy attempting to guess what happens at the end to make themselves feel superior (to a goddamn movie!) are the sort you'd expect not to like SAW ... apart from people who don't like horror, or those whose cup-o-tea it just ain't.

So aye, I thought SAW was fantastic, a real jaw-dropper I found. Then SAW II was the one I found 'wanting' - a series of cut 'n' paste characters so blatantly lined up for the chopping block ... and I duno, but it wasn't as horrific as I was expecting it to be. SAW I really made me cringe, as did SAW III (especially), but SAW II ... I was expecting more horror. SAW II had its moments, but over all I was let down.

SAW III however, I very much liked. It's no SAW I, but it's most definately better than SAW II, #3 is the icing on the cake, the final chapter (although they'll no doubt do a SAW IV), it rounds everything up. I loved how it flashed back to the first two movies and answered some questions or showed us a little more.

The torture scenes though ... DAMN ... it was kinda rough going for me, and I'm a hardcore horror fan. There's just something about a "twisting wrack" and liquidised rotting pig slush that I found quite tough the first time around (and second time). :elol:

The first is great because it's the start, we're seeing something new and punchy. The sequel is the difficult second album and it's kind of the jelly-belly middle of the trilogy. The third film is the final act, the big finish.

That's how I see the SAW trilogy. I've got the unrated version of SAW III, so I'll have to go re-watch the film and see how much tougher it is, it certainly was a tough film to get through, the cringe-factor was through the roof - but that's good, because finally there's a horror series out there that's once again making people cover their eyes with horror and disbelief. The genre has generally been too soft, or self-aware or flat out not tough enough - it's horror, it's supposed to scare - just like Rob Zombie was saying on The Devil's Rejects DVD.

[HLS]

What can i say. minion took the words out of my mouth. i as well was dissapointed with #2. 3rd was better but the 1st ruled.

[Djnatasisgod]

Saw was awesome, the second one was kinda of lame, the third was okay, but it kinda was too long in parts!

[capncnut]

The first movie was great but the other two are an excercise in how to deconstruct a semi-decent movie bad guy. They were passable, but only just.

[zombie04]

For me I liked Saw and Saw II, but I found Saw III to be complete crap. I was looking forward to it but all it turned out to be was people being tortured. I know that's basically what those movies are, but for 3 it seems like all they did was just sit around and wrote the movie around the torture scenes rather than writing a good movie and using the torture for effect. Sure they did make it more violent, but that only would have worked if they actually wrote a good script. The only real part I liked was the new stuff with Donnie Wahlberg.