Comments on: Review: SAW V

By: Grim1020

Grim1020 — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:24:08 +0000

….. I liked it……. oh well I’m a minority I guess :(

By: Darren J Seeley

Darren J Seeley — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:11:33 +0000

One of the main problems with the Saw franchise is that those that make them feel that the audience needs to know the entire backstory…within a backstory. That’s what a good chunk of Saw V is all about. We see how traps are set up and planned by John, Amanda and Hoffman. Interesting at first-so what a minute later. We also get the same problem that has plagued the Saw sequels, but here it is much more noticeable:

The filmmakers think that they are so clever, when in fact it seems with every film, they feel need to fill in the gaps of logic left by the previous film. What eventually happens is a desire to over-think and over explain, until by an audience viewpoint, it gets tiresome.

Saw V also keeps the inane tradition of Jigsaw (even in death) and his apprentices accurately predicting the behavior of varied opponents and trap subjects right to the letter as well as the twisted excuse of “I never killed anyone (but I put them in harmful situations which could result in injury and/or death)”

The above could be present, but it does not need to be too obvious. The fans of the series want to see the traps, how people may or may not get out of those traps, and as much blood as possible.

I thought the first film was brilliant and it kept me on the edge of the chair. It was all downhill from there.

By: Sean

Sean — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:13:42 +0000

There was nothing wrong with the nightmare series until Freddy Vs Jason. Same with Friday until Jason X (Cmon, the best kill was when he punched the black kid’s head off into a trash can.)

However, when Hellraiser left what it was doing around…3? Yeah, that was pretty crappy.

Not as crappy as Saw though!

By: Ryne

Ryne — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:30:41 +0000

Ouch. =)

By: Peter Hall

Peter Hall — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:19:24 +0000

Scott, should have clarified that I started that rule this year.

Maybe after catching up on last night’s True Blood I’ll write a longer review of SAW V.

By: Scott Weinberg

Scott Weinberg — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:57:35 +0000

“Due to an obscene obligation to see every horror movie that comes out theatrically within the first week of release, SAW V has the honor of being the first of the SAW films I’ve seen in theater.”

I’ve read this six times, and it still makes no sense. If you have an obligation to see them all, then how could this possibly be the FIRST?

This site is like a brain-teaser.

By: Matt J.

Matt J. — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:02:18 +0000

Look at how long they kept Firday the 13th going, Nightmare, even Hellraiser had a few more than they should have…If we have learned one thing form hollywood it is this…

As long as people keep paying to see them, they will keep making them.

By: Peter Hall

Peter Hall — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 01:08:39 +0000

John, I probably should write a legitimate review, but until then, the reason for the D is that SAW V will make you squirm, which is all this franchise is good for. I like Julie Benz, Tobin Bell and Scott Patterson, so watching the movie is not inexcusable. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever as to why this ever needs to be seen in a theater, though.

The editing alone is brain shatteringly awful. It physically hurts me to watch it.