|
Post by captainrhodes on Oct 21, 2009 14:46:06 GMT -5
Saw this 2day,pretty good movie with a few scary moments,i really jumped at one scene lol the screener is now online and features an alternate ending to the movie,i havnt seen the theatrical ending but it sounds better,i didnt really like the alt ending,if u like ghost or haunted house movies its easily worth a watch at this time of year.
|
|
|
Post by The Chief Archivist on Oct 21, 2009 21:57:51 GMT -5
Definitely want to see this, if only because of all of the phone calls and emails I've gotten about it. Haven't seen anything more than the poster. Not even a trailer.
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Oct 26, 2009 6:03:12 GMT -5
Haha, this beat Saw IV at the box office.
Saw is expected to only make 14.8m.
A movie that cost $15K to make may have finally killed the series that is 3 sequels too long.
|
|
|
Post by The Chief Archivist on Oct 26, 2009 8:12:49 GMT -5
Haha, this beat Saw IV at the box office. Saw is expected to only make 14.8m. A movie that cost $15K to make may have finally killed the series that is 3 sequels too long. First off, I don't think Paranormal Activity beat Saw IV at the box office. Saw IV owned the box office by opening at number one, $20 million ahead of the film in second place. I think you mean Saw VI. Paranormal Activity beat Saw VI pretty ragged at the box office. Saw might have stood a chance had it not been going up against one of the most incredible box office phenomena of all time. PA is a powerhouse horror film. Now is it due to quality? I don't think so. Many feel that this Saw is the best since the original. I certainly do. The cast was terrific, the answers were plentiful and it dared to be political in a way that I admire. It has a 43% freshness score on Rotten Tomatoes, which is good for a horror film. Consider that Saw III has 25%, Saw IV has 18% and Saw V has 15%. That's quite a step up in quality according to mainstream reviewers. I'm not sure where you got the $15 million budget for Saw VI. I can't find that reported anywhere. I can find the trade magazines talking about an $11 million budget, which sounds more in line with Saw. Add to that marketing and prints, and you can throw a few more million on the fire, though these are never part of the budget and I doubt this is what you meant. Saw's underperformance here is not unlike what happened to Halloween 2 earlier this year, which opened to a weak $16 million. Neither franchise performed as it should have and only one really deserved it, in my opinion. Both sequels were hurt by their preceding film as well as what it opened against. I think H2 took the much worse blow between the two of them. As many commentators are wisely pointing out, Saw VI can still be "modestly" profitable for Lions Gate, but they'll need another strategy for next year. Nix the already annoucned 3-D aspect. Lower production costs. Do better marketing (poster and trailers for this one were abysmal.) At the end of the day, Saw has clawed its way to becoming one of the most profitable and highest grossing horror franchises of all time. This won't be the death of it. Jigsaw is much more resilient than that. Last year, Saw V learned a lesson. Don't go head to head with mainstream films (High School Musical 3). This year, Saw VI learned not to go head to head with another horror film, though no one could've seen it coming. Next week you've got another horror film and Michael Jackson's film coming out, so tough competition. We'll see how it pans out.
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Oct 26, 2009 8:41:58 GMT -5
Haha, this beat Saw IV at the box office. Saw is expected to only make 14.8m. A movie that cost $15K to make may have finally killed the series that is 3 sequels too long. Ugh..The effects of half-awake posting. Let me clarify. PA beat out Saw VI at the box office this weekend, not IV. Saw VI is only expected (by the studio) to pull in 14.8 million this past weekend.
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Nov 1, 2009 13:58:21 GMT -5
Saw it yesterday.
Other than 2 scenes, it was a snoozefest, 1.5 hours of two people with a hand cam. Bleh. I would grade it at a D-. Wasn't worth my $8.
|
|
|
Post by gratefuldead on Nov 6, 2009 18:58:23 GMT -5
I liked it,pretty creepy in spots.I preferred the alternate screener ending versus the theatre one.It left more to the imagination.
|
|
|
Post by The Dead Walk! on Nov 6, 2009 21:09:27 GMT -5
Saw it yesterday. Other than 2 scenes, it was a snoozefest, 1.5 hours of two people with a hand cam. Bleh. I would grade it at a D-. Wasn't worth my $8. Agreed totally. Glad I watched a pirated version in the comfort of my own home for free.
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Nov 7, 2009 7:24:55 GMT -5
I did that with Rob Zombie's Halloween II. Haha.
|
|
|
Post by The Dead Walk! on Nov 7, 2009 9:55:35 GMT -5
Haha, isn't it great to NOT waste money? I don't feel bad at all for watching a pirated copy.
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Nov 7, 2009 13:10:15 GMT -5
Indeed it is! I didn't feel bad either.
I do want to give Paranormal Activity a watch though. Probably when it hits DVD.
|
|
|
Post by gratefuldead on Nov 7, 2009 16:05:52 GMT -5
The movie reminded me of Blair Witch,I can see how some folks were turned off by it.I still dare you to watch Blair Witch and then go camping.
But I do agree that PA was not the scariest movie in years as was hyped,I thought The Descent was scarier.
|
|
|
Post by UndeadNed on Nov 9, 2009 18:22:08 GMT -5
I'd like to see this but unfortunately I don't think I'll be viewing it at the Cinema. Mainly because I've spoken to other people and no-one else is really that interested in grabbing it at the cinema.
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Jan 19, 2010 22:05:34 GMT -5
Still need to see this but I hear it's getting a sequel.
|
|
|
Post by UndeadNed on Jan 20, 2010 8:12:11 GMT -5
Still haven't seen it either, I'd download it but I don't particularly trust any of the freely available sites/torrents on the net, nor do I trust any of the P2P sharing programs either, nearly downloaded a virus last time I used it
|
|