ok, i love saw. the first was the best. havent seen 5 yet but its next on my Q at netflix.

friday the 13th i just dont get, nightmare on elm street was alright, hellraiser rocks, but saw has a place in my heart

I'm a huge Saw fan too.    Seen 2-5 in theater...I enjoy the psychology of Jigsaw.  I'd go further with what I like, but first, question.  You say Saw 5's on your Q.....Does that mean you've seen 2-4?  If you havent, you REALLY need to see them first.  The series is quasi-linear.

Nice to have another fan here.  Personally I think the first three are best and the second two, thus far, are a step below but at least still somewhat decent.  I really want them to stop badly after 6 though.

i have seen 1-4 , 1 was the best, id say 3 was the worst. jigsaw is the man! i wondering what happened to Dr. Lawrence Gordon? dont worry about spoiling it for me, i'm still going to watch it.

I can't answer that question....because I really can't...but I will say you do find out more about that particular important character in Saw 4 who shall remain nameless, how he met up with Jigsaw...and also....more about a trap in Saw 1, and that is all I will say.

just watched it, and it was sweet! but i'm a sucker for jigsaw lol. i love when jigsaw tells the guy his blade was inferior!

Tobin Bell's always been the best part of the series.  If he ever doesn't sign on, they're totally screwed.  lol.

I'm a Saw freak :) I love how the story can never end. It's so interesting. The twists are so unpredictable it's incredible. Especially the ending in Saw 3. Wow.

I saw the first one, and it was ok. Like, I enjoyed it but it didn't do much for me. It did inspire me to check out the horror section of HMV a few days later, where I got Night Of The Living Dead, which sparked off my love of horror... So I've gotta thank it for that.

The second one really disappointed me, and I wasn't expecting much. I just don't get the hype. Its not even that gory or shocking. I suppose I just don't get the hype.

Ah well, either way, I'm not gong out of my way to see any of the others. If they come on TV or a friend lends me them I'll give 'em a view, but no way jose will I pay for 'em.

Saw the first 2 Saw movies, first one was okay, liked the 2nd one better, but just felt like I'd better leave it at that.  Felt it would go down hill from there.

I watched the first 2 Saw movies and only partly watched the 3rd movie and just stopped.it's just o.k.

If you saw the first one then the others are pretty much the same.

i dont find jigsaw even remotely freaky or scary.he just looks like some old average guy with issues.

Yea, and it all seems a little far-fetched and over the top. I know that's what horror's about, but the supposed "realism" of Saw makes it a real flaw to me here. Although I loved the tenuous Tenebrae, part of the brilliance of Tenebrae was its strangeness and its implausibility was key to the film's overall greatness, while in Saw they try to present it as a realistic, un-absurd possibility.

jigsaw IS mostly just some old average guy with issues, his main issue is his brain cancer. they have played it off that the cancer is affecting his judgement, but overall he wants people to appreciate their lives.

the saw movies are so good for just that reason. while i do appreciate most horror movies in general, most have a flaw, that flaw being that very little about the killer is realistic. take friday the 13th for instance, how many times did jason die, and through some unrealistic means become resurected? and everything about nightmare on elm street is supernatural.

a lot of movies are scarry while your watching them, but the credits roll and the feeling is gone. dont get me wrong, we all still have unrealistic fears, and if that movie touches on that fear, well all the better but do you fear that the next friday the 13th, jason may be lurking around your neighborhood? probably not.

after watching jigsaw do his thing, i'm left wondering about the true nature of people, and that is scarry to me. because in the real world, people like him do exist. the usa has 76% of the worlds serial killers.

the way we treat each other everyday, is way more frightening than anything that comes from imagination.

So its an every day occurance to be treated in such a fashion so that you wake up in a situation where you are almost certainly going to die if you don't do some ridiculous task? Yes there are a lot of serial killers in the USA, that could be down to a strong gun culture, a private health service, incompentent policing or the consumerist, exploitative pressures of a capitalist society. Hell, that's only the tip of the iceberg, and only from my perspective. But blimey, it is amazing to find out its all down to...err...some bloke with brain cancer?

I mean, don't get me wrong, the normality of individuals can be very scary, just look at ol' Norman Bates, Patrick Bateman or the dude from Black Christmas. But some old dude who thinks killing people will make them care about life, all because he has cancer, is neither shocking, scary, or remotely normal. The three mentioned above DO represent 'normal', all-American serial killers. The ones you don't expect. The sweet guy at the motel who lets you in and fixes you a meal late at night, the high flying New York businessman at the top of his game, an intellectual college kid who wants to have a baby. Whiel Jigsaw...I just can't take him seriously, his madness is clearly lacking method (kill people to make them care about life?) while his method is far too advanced for his madness (is it even remotely possible he could set up EVERYTHING you see throughout the movies? The same guy who fails to appreciate dead people fail to appreciate life?).

What's more, Saw II's sentimentalist ending kinda blew any true sense of supposed brutality right out of the window for me. It was "ew look at this I bet it'd hurt, wouldn't it? C'mon cough up the dollar audience..." throughout the movie, rather than shocking or particularly interesting.

It could also be seen as kinda offensive to those with brain cancer. "Oo look at this guy, he has cancer so he kills people!" rather than "he kills people, and just happens to have cancer".

But he doesn't kill people cause of his brain cancer. If you had watched the 4th movie then you would get it.

*rubs temples in frustration*

1)  He doesn't kill people because of his cancer as Orlando already mentioned,

2)  He doesn't set everything up himself....Which you'd know if you'd gotten past Saw 2.....

3)  For me, you're right, its not gory or shocking.  I don't watch for that.  I watch for Jigsaw's musings on human nature which became the backbone of the movies from 2 on.  I don't even really care about the traps anymore, since they haven't been particularly good for a couple movies now.

4)  He doesn't kill people to make them appreciate life.  He sets a task that could, concievably, kill someone if they arent willing to sacrifice and show him they value their own life enough to do whatever it takes to stay alive, in whatever state, mutilated or whole.  Half the time, theres a very simple answer to everything (Saw 5's predicated on that whole idea. Saw 2 has some good ones where, for example, if one person didn't get greedy, he would've been fine, and another where a person stupidly shoved her hands up into a blade box without listening to his message, probably missing the fact that there was a lock with a key in it on the other side of the box.  Hell, one character's fate in Saw is linked to the fact that if he hadnt been an idiot at the beginning of the movie, he wouldve lived, perfectly fine. (I'm trying to avoid spoilers).  There's a reason that when a trap is physically inescapable, you discover in Saws 3 thru 5 that HE DIDNT MAKE IT.  The point is to have the person either find a way to escape and survive, or freak out, not think straight, and die.)

5)  That word you used to describe the ending of Saw 2....sentimentalist....I do not think it means what you think it means.  You'd understand why it ended that way and what led up to it better if you saw Saw 3.  My only thoughts on that are, he told Donnie Wahlberg how to win the game, but Donnie let his anger, rage, and wrath get the best of him and doom him, and that, I repeat, the unseen events that led up to the twist ending of Saw 2 are all shown pretty much in Saw 3.

I want to make it clear here, I have no problem that you don't like the movies, and I agree with you that Jigsaw in and of himself as a character is a little over the top to be realistic, but A) it's a movie, and B) he's not Jason, Pinhead, Michael Myers, Freddy unrealistic.  The fact that he has opinions and has beliefs and a backstory give him depth and, at least to me, make him and the movies entertaining (Which is why I said they'd be screwed if he didnt sign on for one of the sequels).  My issue is just that you're making comments that aren't true which really isn't something you'd be able to prevent though since you havent seen anything after 2.  The least I can do is try and be as unspoilery as possible in refuting them.  I'm not saying you have to see them...point of fact I don't believe in forcing people to watch anything.  I'm just saying that storylines evolved further as the movies went on, doubling back and explaining plot holes in the first 2.  That's all.

Oh, and Shackelfore wasn't saying that she thinks Jigsaw himself is a real-life threat, she specifically said the movie makes her wonder about human nature.  Look at Xavier throwing Amanda into the needle pit in Saw 2 because he didn't want to go in himself.  Saw 3's traps are all about the flaws of a life of blind vengeance, as another example.  From Saw 2 onward, people screw themselves in his games because they get greedy, or they dont listen, or they think only of themselves, etc.  I don't think Shackelfore really thinks a man in a black coat is going to kidnap her in the night and throw her into a rusty trap, but I do think these movies have a deeper subplot about human nature that's pretty novel and that the bad things it says about human nature (Saw 5's a good example, but I can't say why because thatd be a spoiler) that can be pretty chilling.

thank you crypticpsych for explaining it so well. and no i'm not worried that a man in a black coat is waiting to kidnapp me and throw me in a trap lololol

if jigsaw is offencive to people with brain cancer, wouldent jason vorhes be offencive to people with facial malformations, or how about freddy cruger being offencive to the mentaly ill? (born of 1000 maniacs)

one of my favirite fictional serial killers once said, and i think it applies very well here....

"If you can't keep up with the conversation, best not try to join in." hannibal lecter

Lecter's a great example of one of the point I'm trying to make actually lol.  I'm not saying Saw is as good as Silence of the Lambs....it isn't.  But you have to admit a key crucial component of the movie is Lecter and Anthony Hopkins just like Tobin Bell's Jigsaw is in the Saw series.  It's not easy to think of the movies without them actually...which is kind of why I still pick 4 and 5 as my least favorites...since Bell's in the movie and does great things...but is not the major focus of it.

It appears I sounded a bit more aggressive or whatever than I intended... And I was only basing the above upon my experiences of the first two, which did not impress me.

The last statement wasn't meant to be taken particualrly seriously. Although I feel compelled to point out that Nightmare and Friday don't try to be deep, philosophical movies where the individual's motives are especially important. Furthermore, Jason's avenging his mother and Freddy's just a sadist (which is only tenuously linked to his *criminally* insane ancestry).

I guess I don't like the realism/unrealism because he's presented as realistic. Pinhead, Freddy and later Myers are not meant to be realistic, while Saw's tried to retain some semblance of reality, which I felt made it a bit contradictory, as it was attempting to be realistic while being incredibly unrealistic.

I'm sorry I pissed so many people off, I really didn't mean to. I still don't agree with you, but as you say, I haven't seen the rest of the movies, but I'm sure not going to pay for 'em, because of all the things I've disliked about the first two and, well, the concept in general (I have read reviews and whatnot for the later ones).

Anyways, I have to go, otherwise I could miss a very important train to London.

STAY OFF THE MOORS!

not pissed at all :) i see what your saying, jigsaw is no hannibal lecter, that is completely true, but hes also not jason, freddy, or michale **sp**.  i just never really "got" those killers. i really liked freddy in the begining, but at a point in the series they started to throw humor into it, and i was majorly put off. i do like comedy in horror, like evil dead.

i like my killers, intelligent, deep, psychotic, and most importantly serious.

I tried sticking the the main roads but this  bastard dog thing came out and bit me, ugly, huge and incredibly vicious...I'm lucky I only got one bite...I think it could have been Michael Bay...

I guess I see what ya mean in that Jigsaw as an individual is a bit more believable... Like, he's  just a normal (though very smart) guy who had a string of bad luck which somehow lead him to do what he does, while Jason, Freddy, Michael and Lecter are inexplicably evil and psychotic (well, apparently Hannibal Rising explains Lecter, but I'm not up to that yet (I'm reading the books before seeing the films)) and you can't really relate to them in any way, while with Jigsaw you can to a mild degree... I think it all just kinda clicked in my head lol... I still don't like the transition from bad luck to murderous...It just seems a bit far fetched, and I feel the series takes its moral aspect a little too seriously at times. In saying that, Thomas Harris is one of my favorite authors at the moment and he claims all he writes is an exploration of human evil. Ah well, the internal contradictions in taste never cease.

i would see the hannibal lecter movies first, then read the books. if youve read the books first the movies will dissapoint in my opinion. not that they arent good, just that they dont follow the books as closely as i would have hoped. for instance (dont worry no spoilers) where clarise really ends up at the end of hannibal, in the book its terrifying, in the movie not so much.

Exactly though, I'll know the basic plot so the book just won't seem as good. I made the mistake of watching Silence Of The Lambs first and kinda wish I'd waited...Although I'll be unable to read them for quite some time...

either way, the story is excelent. i tend to be that way with most books, i always like them better than the movie, but its mostly due to more info in the books, movies dont have that luxury. with the exception of short stories, usually the movies have more info.

 I'm not entering into the Saw arguement (oops-I mean discussion).   I only saw the first three and allthough I thought the first was very good and original, I was starting to see the decline in the sequels-- I'll eventually watch 4 and 5 on DVD.

I just feel the nit-pickedty need to take issue with the "and later Myers" line above.  The only one who predates Michael is Psycho (well maybe the axe-killer in Dementia 13- a very widely overlooked movie) and I'll put Mikey up against Norman any day.  Jason, Freddy,  and the rest all came later.  Carpenter's Halloween set the stage for the teen slasher films to follow. 

(I am biased too-- Halloween is constantly locked in battle with NOTLD for my favorite movie)

Yea, I know Michael came before, I meant like, Myers in the later movies, as in after Halloween II.

And I usually prefer the books too, which is why I like to read them first, because then i get the full picture and the suspense is still there, whereas if i see the movie first I know what's gonna happen, which dullens the effect of all the little bits which make the book better than the movie for me. Its hard to explain, but yea.

I may be a fan of the series, but I totally agree with this comment.  I've seen 4 and 5, but for me, while I like them, it's quite obvious they're nowhere near as good as I think 1 2 and 3 are because the amount of Jigsaw gets less and less and less.

I enjoyed the first one, that is by far my favorite. Also liked #2 & #3, didnt like #4...havent seen 5 yet.

does anyone know who won Scream Queen for a role in #6? I hope to god that model Beaaaach that has such a high opinion of herself didnt get it. I cant stand her!

Your winner is:

Tanedra Howard.

Personally I was pulling for Lindsay Felton (even though I didnt watch the show much).  I mean, come on, she was the star of Caitlin's Way!

Thank God that other chick didnt win that I didnt like. Was the one you were rooting for an actress when she was younger? If so I liked her too.  Thanks for posting it!

I really enjoyed the first one. The second was alright, but a serious step down (for me). The third was just sad, and both 4 and 5 were unimpressive. I imagine 6 will also be pretty poor, but I'll still watch it just for completeness.

Jigsaw is what makes the film interesting, and his desire to test people's will to stay alive. Giving them a real chance to survive is what made it interesting for me. As that slowly got phased out (for various spoiler-ish reason) I became far less interested in it. (Yes, I know it sort of comes back, but it makes itself far less apparent than in the first and second). It feels that in 5 it was always more of a puzzle. There is a way to survive, but you have to figure it out. At the beginning, he provided people with simple choices. Live or die, make your choice. For me, that was what made it interesting, just butchering people in creative ways doesn't impress me much.

Tobin Bell is amazing, and quite Handsome.

I like them yes, it helps to think of them as a mini series rather than sequals to movies.

Also to actually get the over all picture of whats going on.

Jigsaw did it to prove to people that life is valuable.

Beliving that Amanda could follow in his footsteps he took her under his wing.

But she did it out of revenge. Although She is my favorite person in the movies.

She is worse than Jigsaw.

Then others followed under her footsteps rather than Jigsaws.

So if you think about it, it is a pretty clever plot.

And also I was upset to see Jigsaw and Amanda die but, aleast they are in following movies.

So yes, I do like them.

I haven't seen Saw VI yet. I'm scared it won't be good.

So's you know, Saw VI goes a touch deeper into Jigsaw's relationship to Amanda.

Really, I think I will like it then :)

Thanks ;)