Sunday, October 28, 2007


Saw IV is another masterpiece.

Without getting into a discussion about its merits, there's a curious phenomenon developing here which one can't fail to notice upon visiting imdb.

Saw IV is an anomaly amongst the mainstream (if we can call it such) in that it demands a hell of a lot of work from you; not just the film itself, but the implicit presupposition of your total familiarity with the other three (if not the short). It's the type of referenced complexity usually only found in literature. To be so punishingly exacting, to me, is a pleasure in itself in an era when most movies still treat us like lobotomised imbeciles with constant scripted prompts, unnecessary repetition in the narrative, not to mention the clich├ęd musical emotional cues.

Therefore, I visited its imdb page to get my head around some of the dense new plotlines and was astonished to see the number of board postings. Hundreds of pages each containing dozens, in addition to each containing comments therein. In merely three days. To put that into perspective, the iconic Star Wars and The Godfather have eleven and twelve pages respectively.

Further to this veritable supernova of artistic feedback (which I highly value), you'll at once see how extremely polarised it is in terms of verdict (which I also highly value). So whatever your own view is, in addition to capturing people's imaginations like nothing else in recent memory, it's apparent we're split into two very clear camps. Trick or treat.


David Cotner said...

"The Godfather": A magnificent granite mountain, the pinnacle of geologic success.

"Saw IV": Buddy Holly.

Sarah Trotsky said...

I never cared for the Godfather.

(then again, I AM fond of Lucio Fulci, so count me right out of any sort of value judgments)

however, I have to say that the Halloween films
(after the first one, which was perfect and simple) have an intensely involved mythos one has to follow; new rules constantly being created, two immortal nemeses vying for power, utter absurdly...

I just love the idea of the writers for the different films creating little challenges for the writers of the next one.
Take for example the way they ended five...

The 90's really ended the whole thing.

I'm glad they're making unapologetic horror movies again, and to that end I'm satisfied.

Halloween III: Season of the Witch made a lot of people angry too.
I know it was 1982, but it STILL makes people angry. check the boards on that!
There's a lot of love in the world for Halloween III, and a lot of hate too. That doesn't make it a good movie by default. or a bad one.

but at the end of the day, all I really want to see is Tom Atkins (as the impressive Dr. Daniel 'Dan' Challis) fighting Conal Cochran, who when asked why he wants to kill children thinks for a second, and then replies "Do I really need a reason?"

SYpHA_69 said...

You know, I still haven't seen the first "Saw" yet I've seen the two that follow it and plan on seeing the fourth on Wednesday. There was some stuff in the third one that confused me, most likely because I never saw the first one. Oh well, one of these days...

Walter Peck said...

Funnily enough, 'unnecessary repetition in the narrative' is one of the things that bugs me most about the Saw series. Especially at the end of each when just as the twist is revealed there are about 20 cut-aways to scenes earlier in the film foreshadowing the big reveal.

David Cotner said...

Stacey Nelkin, who played Ellie Grimbridge in "Halloween III," at age 17 had an affair with Woody Allen; Mariel Hemingway's character in "Manhattan" is purportedly based on this affair.