IT SUCKED!!


I found myself laughing through most of the movie.

wtf is SAW?

btw, love your title- quite fitting

I will never see it or any other movie that stars...Danny Glover.

Quoted: wtf is SAW? btw, love your title- quite fitting

It's a new movie that opened Friday. It's about a serial killer that traps people in "games" that fit the type of person they are and plays with their heads. It was a waste of money. Grudge on the other hand was scary as shit!

I thought The Grudge was terrible.

SAW was great, except for the pitiful cliffhanger ending, which pissed me the fuck off.

The DVD better have an alternate ending and be unrated. It also sucked because they dropped the rating from NC-17 to R.

btt

I'll take your word for it,  thaks for the review Justa

I "Saw" it today and thought it was ok. I'll buy the DVD. Worth renting on a dark and lonely night.

Sqad Automatic Weapon

Quoted: So what kind of trap would I be caught in

A big glass tank with water valves wired up to a laptop full of arfcom trivia you have to answer correctly, you only have 24 hours before the water rushes in???

Quoted: Quoted: So what kind of trap would I be caught in A big glass tank with water valves wired up to a laptop full of arfcom trivia you have to answer correctly, you only have 24 hours before the water rushes in???

We already did that to him.  

Hence the avatar.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So what kind of trap would I be caught in A big glass tank with water valves wired up to a laptop full of arfcom trivia you have to answer correctly, you only have 24 hours before the water rushes in??? We already did that to him.   Hence the avatar.

I was thinking, something with donuts.

Aries

Quoted: Aries

I like Aries!

Spoilers:
I thought it was alright but the ending was a bit odd.

I get that the guy who was laying down in the room was the "real" killer. However I dont get that whole flashback sequence at the end there?

A friend and I watched it and he told me "its like they show in other movies, where they tell you that someone else was really the killer and they show you the clues you missed that point to that guy being the killer." However the flashback sequence in this movie didnt really show anything new or reveal anything.

That confused us, my friend thought it was trying to show that the doctor was involved with the killer's work, however I thought that wasnt right because if the doctor was in on it he wouldnt have cut his own foot off. But if the doctor wasnt in on it then why was the guy chained in the room panicking when the lights were turned off and the door was closed becaue the doctor would get help and rescue him.

All that being said if I were in the Doctors position I would have tried to get the gun and used the one bullet to break a link in the chain. I would then have used the gun to beat the other guy to death.

I just 'saw' it, better than most movies these days. I would recommend it.

Quoted: Spoilers: I thought it was alright but the ending was a bit odd. I get that the guy who was laying down in the room was the "real" killer. However I dont get that whole flashback sequence at the end there? A friend and I watched it and he told me "its like they show in other movies, where they tell you that someone else was really the killer and they show you the clues you missed that point to that guy being the killer." He is correct However the flashback sequence in this movie didnt really show anything new or reveal anything. Yes, it did That confused us, my friend thought it was trying to show that the doctor was involved with the killer's work, No, he wasn't however I thought that wasnt right because if the doctor was in on it he wouldnt have cut his own foot off. correct But if the doctor wasnt in on it then why was the guy chained in the room panicking when the lights were turned off and the door was closed becaue the doctor would get help and rescue him. He figured the doc had been killed when the "killer" got there to kill them both All that being said if I were in the Doctors position I would have tried to get the gun and used the one bullet to break a link in the chain. I would then have used the gun to beat the other guy to death. That would make sense

The supposed "killer" was also a victim of the real killer. His job was to kill a family if one of the men in the crappy bathroom didn't kill the other. He failed miserably.

Quoted: So what kind of trap would I be caught in

A headlock by a certain chick mod??

Quoted: I will never see it or any other movie that stars...Danny Glover.

I'm pretty much the same way. I try my best to avoid giving money to anti-American idiots.

That means I'm down to seeing about one movie a year now. LOL

Scott

Quoted: I will never see it or any other movie that stars...Danny Glover.

+1

Danny Glover?!  Sheesh.  He should just stick to playing second fiddle to Mel.  DG couldn't act his way out of a paper bag.  Further evidence that the Hollywood Useful Idiots are stupid and wrong. . . They agree with Danny Glover.

Quoted: Danny Glover?!  Sheesh.  He should just stick to playing second fiddle to Mel.  DG couldn't act his way out of a paper bag.  Further evidence that the Hollywood Useful Idiots are stupid and wrong. . . They agree with Danny Glover.

Oh but he was so great in "Predator 2"

Quoted: Quoted: Spoilers: I thought it was alright but the ending was a bit odd. I get that the guy who was laying down in the room was the "real" killer. However I dont get that whole flashback sequence at the end there? A friend and I watched it and he told me "its like they show in other movies, where they tell you that someone else was really the killer and they show you the clues you missed that point to that guy being the killer." He is correct However the flashback sequence in this movie didnt really show anything new or reveal anything. Yes, it did That confused us, my friend thought it was trying to show that the doctor was involved with the killer's work, No, he wasn't however I thought that wasnt right because if the doctor was in on it he wouldnt have cut his own foot off. correct But if the doctor wasnt in on it then why was the guy chained in the room panicking when the lights were turned off and the door was closed becaue the doctor would get help and rescue him. He figured the doc had been killed when the "killer" got there to kill them both All that being said if I were in the Doctors position I would have tried to get the gun and used the one bullet to break a link in the chain. I would then have used the gun to beat the other guy to death. That would make sense The supposed "killer" was also a victim of the real killer. His job was to kill a family if one of the men in the crappy bathroom didn't kill the other. He failed miserably.

What they showed was that the real killer was going to die from the inoperable tumor, so that proved that the dude left chained would starve or die of the infection from the gunshot by Dr. Larry.

The question was "Did Dr. Larry live, or did the guy catch him and kill him as he left?"

I guess the only odd question could be that the guy who was laying on the floor could have been sent by the real killer also?