www.loopzorbital.com

Loopz wrote:
oh i think the recording is more to do with disguising the voice rather than to be scarey. ANY doll in a "horror" is pathetic.

I agree about the second sentence! ... But obviously it's true that they have to have an excuse to use spooky voices, but come on - do you think they would've used a ridiculous "smurf-ish" high-pitched squeak in the same fashion, if THAT would've done the camouflaging?
(I think not.)

(in a squeaky pitch:) "Appreciate the fact that, pip-pip, you're still alive! And I'm a lemming!"

Loopz wrote:SAW was filmed on a low budget and i believe in less than 3 weeks!

No harm in low budget, and I'm willing to believe you're right about the shortcomings of the sequel (although people HAVE been saying it's up to par with the original, so I'm indecisive...), being a hollywood revamp after all. And like I said, the atmosphere and the settings were pretty neat. But you can't convince me on some of the obvious silliness in dialogue, plot development and acting. And the dolls, maaaan!

oh, and hex, I'm glad we agree. And how could I have forgot about The Princess Bride??
(Actually, he's been in a couple of good films, like Coppola's Dracula, but does that mean he's a good actor? well.)

Kansler wrote:
I agree about the second sentence! ... But obviously it's true that they have to have an excuse to use spooky voices, but come on - do you think they would've used a ridiculous "smurf-ish" high-pitched squeak in the same fashion, if THAT would've done the camouflaging?
(I think not.)

As long as the voice is not recognised then it doesnt really matter if its a smurf, a gremlin or a dog called jeff The whole point i would say is to disguise the voice but i'm not trying to convince you

Kansler wrote:No harm in low budget, and I'm willing to believe you're right about the shortcomings of the sequel (although people HAVE been saying it's up to par with the original, so I'm indecisive...), being a hollywood revamp after all. And like I said, the atmosphere and the settings were pretty neat. But you can't convince me on some of the obvious silliness in dialogue, plot development and acting. And the dolls, maaaan!

Go watch the 2nd one and tell me what you think. i will be interested

Last night I went to bed and watched Notting Hill (bleurh) then watched Mystic Pizza (ok chick-flick but laughably 80's) and now I'm bloody tired

I just watched Saw ... what a briliant movie!

Mr and Mrs Smith

Enjoyed this film whilst recovering from the Prodigy and clubbing the night before....

I'm cheating, since I already saw other films after this, but the last film I watched on the computer:

Carnosaur

Which is probably THE best movie ever created!!!!

The synopsis: Genetic scientist creates chicken eggs that infect women, causing them to become pregnant with dinosaurs.

Kvagga wrote:
The synopsis: Genetic scientist creates chicken eggs that infect women, causing them to become pregnant with dinosaurs.

Great! That sounds almost as good as Piranha II.

I'll keep my eyes open for that one.

Just watched the Family Guy movie. Very funny indeed.

i saw Harry potter last saturday ... hmm a tad bit disappointed but hmmmmmmmmm how they cast have grown

Howard Stern's 'Private Parts'. This is a brilliant film!!!

Haven't seen SAW or SAWII but it looks like there won't be a SAWIII...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4506300.stm

Rich

Thats way too young to die!

I dont think a third SAW would be a good idea. It was in production by the looks of things.

Saw Doom last week - good fun actually.
The Rock is superb in it....

well, I finally sat through SAW II...

*WARNING! THESE SPOILERS MIGHT SPOIL YOUR LIFE!*

What a greatly entertaining and ridiculous film!

My comments are directed at those who've seen the film, so don't bother reading on if you haven't!

...

I was prepared to judge it WORTHLESS after the first few scenes, but it turned out so entertaining towards the end that I couldn't resist actually enjoying some of the worst dialogue - and least credible plot development - in cinema history.

Now, i won't reiterate what I already said about the first film. Let's just say many of the things that made the first film interesting are missing from this piece, like the decent actors (okay, half-decent), or the surprise element of not knowing what's going on.

Secondly, some of the most boring things from SAW are back again: dolls, anyone?

This time, most of the actors are extras, even the ones that supposedly matter, like the Cop's ex-partner, or nearly everybody inside the house. Some of them die immediately, but even the ones that survive are little beyond caricatures of unimaginative horror flicks: we got the hysterical girl, the macho man, the token black guy, the restless ugly dude who is killed off immediately, the mysterious experienced woman, the bad cop (= a bad father!), the ex-partner of that cop (with whom that cop has a strained, if affectionate, relationship), the emotionally distant son of that same cop (Father: "Fine! Go!" - son: "Ugh. Dad...") ... And then a horde of nameless police force, of course.

Luckily the junkie girl from the first film is back, and she saves the show as far as I'm concerned, gotta adore her.

Well, you see, I got to adore somebody, since I definitely couldn't adore any of the other actors - although, to be fair, the cancer patient has some obvious charm, even if his character speaks like any other serial killer story in history, and has the same "calm" and ridiculous amount of self-confidence. The cop, played by Donnie Wahlberg, is set up as a worthless father and a failure in life, he has no soul and I couldn't care less if he loves his son or not. His ex-partner has no place in the film. The son himself is a loser and doesn't have the aura of "innocence" that a victimized person should have.

Here are some clichéd exchanges that only professionally untalented script writers could come up:

Mentally Disturbed Cop to his Beautiful Ex-Partner: "You know - you and that doll have something in common: you both like playing games."

Macho Man to Hysterical Girl: "Look who's talking - the only door you know how to open is between your legs!"



Now, I'll say it right away: I enjoyed the last 30 minutes of the film tremendously, and the conclusion WAS sufficiently surprising and fitting to give me a chuckle.

But there's no way any of the story made any sense!
Why did the hired killer have to die, and why was he such a wimp in the end? Why did they come up with this RIDICULOUSLY ELABORATE GAME to catch the cop, relying on the infinitely remote possibility that the cop would end in that one room at the end? Why did the junkie invite that bastard into her house in the first place, and why did she turn psycho? Why didn't anybody notice and stop the cop and the killer from leaving the crime scene? Why does any of this make sense?

Well, OK, so I enjoyed when I didn't care about these things, but I got to point out that bad dialogue is bad for your brain: It starts melting away and you're left with nothing but decrepit brain cells by the end of this 90 minutes. Then who's laughing? You, or that stupid doll?

Don't get me wrong: This film does give you a RUSH, but the same effect can be achieved by sniffing glue.

Haha, yea: 6/10.

Wow, that's a long reply! I guess I was "moved" by this film.

I think you take films way too seriously