horrorfan_1986

So I finally got around to seeing it, below are the pros and cons:

Pros:
I enjoyed all of the little missions that Riggs had to go through.

The deaths remain to be the highlight of the series.

I liked the little twist at the end having Riggs obsession of always saving the day be the cause of death.

Cons:
I loved the first one, but with every sequel, they're losing more and more of what I loved about the original. The surprise of John being alive and being the one behind it all was better than any kill. These days, it's just about making a movie with a bunch of badass kills.

They spent too much time on either story while ignoring the other. Especially in the end, they took so much time getting back to the other story that I had started to get out of the mood of it.

Waiting until the final few minutes to bring back Jeff (survivor of Saw III) was so damn random. I'm assuming that a lot of people forgot who that even was. If that wasn't bad enough, you kill him after a minute. Like seriously, WTF?

Meanwhile, what about Jeff's daughter? I was under the impression (after Saw III) that Saw IV would be all about Jeff trying to get back his little girl.
--

But I guess the important thing is that there's a new Jigsaw like character to accomplish all of these missions.

__________________

Tommy Platinum

I too recently watched this.

I have been a fan of every Saw film, and this one was no exception. I don't see how you can say that with every sequel, they are losing more of what you loved. I see the first three at least, as one big movie. It is just a story cut into parts, and all three are essential, although if I had to pick a favourite, it would be the second one.

I love the whole concept of Saw, and I think the Jigsaw Killer is one of the greatest characters in anything ever, horror or otherwise. Despite my enthusiasm for the first three films, I didn't expect much from Saw IV. One reason for this was that it received a lot of bad reviews, and my friend said that it was really bad, despite being a fan of the first three films. Secondly, the first three seemed to fit together nicely and I thought we saw a definitive end in the third film, so I was sceptical of a third one.

However, I was pleasantly surprised. Sure, this may have been because my expectations were low to begin with, and I would still rank it as the weakest of the entries in the Saw series, but I think the story of the film was very good. As always, the lesson that Jigsaw wanted to teach was logical, and it was very good the way Riggs caused the death at the end because he failed to learn that lesson. I agree with you that the little missions were very good, and the traps/games were as unique and inventive as ever, despite me hearing beforehand that this was not the case.

My main criticism would be the same as yours. The fact that we only saw Jeff at the end. Saw is often hard to understand at the best of the times, and to be honest I really had to think this one through. I read a review that said the only way you could understand everything in this movie would be to watch the first three movies back to back right before entering the cinema, and I can see what they mean by that. I had to really think about what happened in the other ones, and go back and remind myself of them to get my head around what was happening.

Having said this, I enjoyed it a lot and certainly it is a must see for fans of the other three Saw films. I wouldn't say it was unnecessary to release it, because it is a good addition to the story. I got the impression it really would just be a money spinner and wouldn't be the same with Jigsaw dead, but they proved me wrong.

I now hear there will be a Saw V and VI. They are going to have to prove me wrong again because I don't see a lot of mileage for two more sequels.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

__________________

neXus

horrorfan_1986

The original Saw for me at least was a mystery. The entire time, I was wondering who's the mastermind behind it. For the entire film, they kept pointing fingers that it could be the creepy Zep (Holy shit, that's Ben from Lost:eek: I love IMDb
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
) or the slowly crazed Danny Glover. In the end having it revealed to be the cancer ridden John and have him be the dead body was shocking. That was what impressed me so much, for a guy who watches so many horror movies, I didn't even think that it would be John or that he would be "There" the entire time.

For the sequels, it's obvious who's Jigsaw. Instead, it becomes more about the game of the kills and the minor "Shocking" endings. While the endings were a surprise, nothing could compare to the original ending. The series no longer has the depth that the original had. It's like Friday the 13th, the first one was great since you weren't sure who was the killer. But with the second one on (Minus part 5) you knew it was Jason. So the series became more about just killing some horny teenagers instead of a mystery.

__________________

Tommy Platinum

Ok I see what you mean now, and I can see your point. Noone could see the ending to the first movie coming. I do think that the sequels have been of a high standard though. They were not just about the kills, also about filling in the story as to who Jigsaw is and why he is like that. I don't really see one as better than the others. As I said, I see them all as vital components to the series, as the series as a whole tells the story.

__________________