MovieChat Forums > Saw (2004) Discussion > Anyone else prefer the sequels?

Anyone else prefer the sequels?

posted 4 years ago by SisterSuzy101 (361)
6 replies | jump to latest

I see a lot of people on this these boards (and elsewhere) talk about how great Saw is and that it should've remained a standalone film, but I don't agree. I think it's overrated.

I wouldn't say I hate the movie, but it's nowhere as great as it's made out to be - And especially not deserving of its 7.6 score on IMDb.
It's problems include tedious pacing, mediocre acting despite the talent onboard (Leigh Whannel as Adam is particularly bleh', while Elwes and Glover seemed to be phoning it in), ineffective scares and cliches, and a twist that's actually pretty stupid - Like, Zep's clearly showing sadistic pleasure when terrorising Gordon's family and watching the game through the monitors, yet we're expected to believe that he's simply following the rules for his survival?

I'm glad that it would spawn sequels, because not only do I enjoy them, but also prefer a good chunk of them (with the exception of Saw 3-D). Why? Because the psychology and influence of John Kramer (AKA "Jigsaw") is the main focus, as is the symbolism and complexity of the traps (however graphic they may be) - Which in my opinion, makes for a much more interesting story. Tobin Bell did a great job playing one of the most iconic horror villains of the 21st century.
Sure, the sequels do share some of the first films' flaws (see above), but is made up for by more interesting set ups (again, see above) and better pacing.

Does anyone else agree? Can anyone relate? I hope I'm not the only one.

[–] Kowalski (75523) 4 years ago

I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE ENJOY THE SEQUELS,MYSELF INCLUDED...I DONT KNOW ABOUT LIKING THEM BETTER THOUGH...THE ORIGINAL SAW IS THE ONLY ONE THAT I CAN KEEP STRAIGHT WHO/WHAT/WHERE/WHEN THE HELL IS HAPPENING.

[–] SisterSuzy101 (361) 4 years ago

No, I found the original to be a bit all over the place too. On first viewing, I couldn't tell what was a flashback or cutaway half the time. They even have flashbacks within flashbacks!

[–] RedbullSW1 (9) 4 years ago

I absolutely love the first Saw, but I agree with you about how Zep showing sadistic behavior does not make any sense.

[–] TheLovelyAnomaly (619) 4 years ago

I've seen the movie several times now and I do agree. But I chalk it up to Zepp feeling as though he was getting revenge on Gordon. At one point in the film we see Gordon be condescending to Zepp (when Zepp tells him John's name), which I think was supposed to suggest that Zepp routinely got treated as inferior by Gordon, and perhaps by other people in the hospital. So when he was holding Gordon's wife and daughter hostage, he felt as though he was "getting Gordon back" for being a bully. It's by no means an excuse (Michael Emerson, the actor who plays Zepp, once described Zepp as the kind of person you hope isn't around) but that's how I take it.

[–] WilloughbyStain (194) 4 years ago

I don't think this is the worst of the lot, but I enjoy several of the sequels more, and I did see this before any were made. There were several elements of this that seemed silly at the time, and moments which when viewed as a part of the series as a whole feel a little "off" now.

The main hype I never bought into was the supposedly "amazing" twist. [SPOILER] Yeah, I guess it's surprising that the "corpse" on the floor is actually a living person, but they knew Jigsaw was watching them the whole time, what difference does it make that he was there rather than watching a video monitor?

[–] NigerGolden (67) a year ago

I preferred Saw II. I had a dislike for Saw when it first came out as I had just seen Se7en on dvd and I thought it a weaker treatment of a similar idea but I've come around to think that Saw 1 is decent to good. I don't think Saw 1 is some powerhouse but it has a cool structure and mystery element to it and I liked Danny Glover.