Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Saw II (2005)
6/10
More Fodder For Jigsaw's Slaughter
28 October 2005
Saw 2 - More Fodder For Jigsaw's Slaughter

Did you like the first Saw movie? You enjoyed its jump-cut array of clever puzzles, decrepit settings, and inventive butchery? Me too. So I watched Saw 2 without any notion that it could be an improvement on the original. It isn't.

Nor is Saw 2 even in the same weight class of the first. How could it be? The powerful wallop of the first movie was packed into a fistful of originality so it's no wonder that round two lacks that sucker-punch effectiveness. But, come on, this is a sequel! People go to them to have their expectations fulfilled and if that's what you want in Saw 2, your wishes are granted.

More intricate puzzles, more feculent buildings, more blood and more fodder for Jigsaw's slaughter. The main premise revolves around 7 people waking up in a locked room. Some of them we know. Some of them are purposeless other than to be ground up into bloody bits.

Some are just plain idiotic. In fact so witless that you wonder how such a single-minded moron could reach adulthood and it's unfortunate that a great deal of the tension of the movie relies upon this cretin being an uncooperative mountain of muscle. You'll see what I mean.

The scares are not up to the standards of the first Saw which formed a deep knot of unsettling dread in my guts that lasted for days afterward. Saw 2 does not even come close to any sense of worry and the director (Darren Lynn Bousman) seems to know it so he tries to compensate by tossing off some of the lamest over-the-shoulder "boo!" frights ever committed to film.

It's never a good sign when the audience laughs aloud at the on-screen stupidity of the victims. You know you've gone wrong when human suffering is met with cackles and snickers rather than sympathetic gasps.

The de rigueur twist ending somewhat redeems the film and invites another sequel but was set up in such a way that I didn't mind. At least it made more sense than the last 10 minutes of High Tension.

Final word: In Saw 2 you get what you pay for. You're not going to be surprised in any way. You'll be painfully aware that you're watching a movie with characters that play by the same tired horror-movie rules. But if you're in to inventive gore you'll go anyway. But don't expect to be disturbed by what you see. Or saw.

SAW 1 - ALTERNATE ENDING? Does anyone out there recall seeing an alternate ending to the original Saw? I watched the movie in Japan and remember a short flashback scene that takes place in between the time when Dr. Laurence crawled footless from the toilet chamber and Adam was locked in by Jigsaw. This is at the very end.

I watched the DVD and it doesn't match my memories of what I remember from the Japanese theatrical version. I recall seeing (in flashback) the moments leading up to the beginning of the film. Short flashback scenes of Jigsaw setting up his own faked death and placing Adam in the bathtub with the penlight keychain.

Then Jigsaw "kills" himself to make it look like suicide thus placing himself at the centre of the room between Adam and the Doc. Only moment after Jigsaw gets into suicide position on the floor, Adam wakes in the bathtub (which is the beginning of the movie).

After locking Adam in the toilet, I remember Jigsaw stalking a footless Doc. Laurence down the corridor. Then the movie ended.

Has anyone seen this or am I going crazy? I only recall it because I watched the Saw DVD this week and when it ended I wondered, "Hey, what happened to the other bits I saw in the theatre?" Figured they might be on the extras but no dice.

Japan often has theatrical releases that differ from the N.American release. Perhaps the extra bits I remember are in the recently released "unrated Saw" DVD? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tideland (2005)
7/10
touch of Gilliam
13 September 2005
Bizarre. Fantasmagorical. Frightening. A story-book nightmare.

Who else but Gilliam would give us a view of the inside of "The Dude's" ribcage?(Well, maybe Lynch)

In Tideland we approach to the edge of what is acceptable to the average film-goer but I kept wishing we would go over the edge and see what's there. Others in the audience claimed they wanted to escape to the lobby. It leaves most viewers uneasy, as if the film is an unpleasant taste to be rinsed from the mouth.

Whether or not you like it relies on the individual but what cannot be denied is that the film floats on the performance of Jodelle Ferland who plays 8 year old Jeliza-Rose as a modern day Alice though Tideland seems a far more frightening place than Wonderland. With the aid of her finger-puppet dolls' heads Ferland essentially inhabits 5 different roles withing the film. Easily one of the creepiest but most interesting performance by a child in years.

Good film? Bad? This hard-to-digest film seems to remain outside of such judgments. Best to see it for yourself. One thing is guaranteed: it's an unsettling journey into the realms of the weird.
228 out of 263 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Romero is 2 for 4
1 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Disappointing. Though Land of the Dead's advertising budget alone probably exceeds the total budget of a half dozen of his previous films combined (e.g. A 15 second prime-time commercial today costs more than the entire budget of Night of the Living Dead) there is nothing in this film to indicate the money was well spent. Romero is at his best with a smaller, tightly knit cast (NOLD, Dawn) rather than the extended ensembles of Land or Day. This is easily the weakest of his Dead films: The action is unremarkable; the actors are more wooden than the cast of Team America, the dialogue was as dull as unsauced pasta, and even Dennis Hopper was wasted. Face it - if you can't pump up the movie by handing Hopper one of his trademark over-the-top weirdos, you've got problems. And I DON'T want to feel sympathetic towards zombies. I want them to be mindless, ravenous eating machines, not portrayed as a disenfranchised lower class. One of the last lines encapsulated the idiotic flaws of Land of the Dead. It's said when the one of the humans has the King Zombie square in the sights of Dead Reckoning's cannons. She's about to blast him into tender vittles when main man Riley orders her to hold by saying, "Don't fire. They're just like us. They need a place too." WHAT? Never mind that less than 3 minutes earlier Riley showed us what a hypocrite he is when he gleefully hammered volleys of rocket fire into the chewed up masses of both the snooty rich and hungry zombies but to say, "They're just like us," is moronic. They're dead! And they only eat one thing - the flesh of the living! What does Riley think the zombies are going to do in the next few months? Start a vegetable garden? Idiot. Blast that mouldy sucker and spare me the empathetic live-and-let-live garbage! Dumb-dumb-dumb. Just like that other George (aka destroyer of the Star Wars mythos), Romero is riding the coat-tails of glories long past. Stay dead George. kiss-kiss, Scott H. Foree
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed