Et de six. L’épisode tant redouté, d’abord au niveau de son titre français (rire assuré du caissier de votre cinéma, au moins les premières fois ; mais la sonorité a le mérite d’annoncer la boucherie visuelle…), ensuite au niveau de son intérêt tout court (franchement : aucun), débarque en ce début novembre comme le marronnier des films d’horreur qu’il est devenu, avec encore plus d’idées tordues, plus d’images gore, plus d’imbrications tarabiscotées entre nouveaux acteurs et victimes des jeux macabres de John Kramer alias Jigsaw, le type qui a décidé de vous punir du fait que vous ne respectiez pas assez la vie. Comme lui s’est mis en tête de bien vous la pourrir (en fait, on le soupçonne d’être jaloux de la bonne santé des autres ; si c’est pas puant, comme leitmotiv, ça…), on se demande si tout cela ne vire pas au paradoxe un peu bête mais enfin, il y a des fans et suffisamment de gens se ruant sur la chose chaque année pour justifier qu’un nouvel opus générateur de beaux dollars voie le jour, hélas.
De deux choses l’une, donc : soit les spectateurs arrêtent de se déplacer en masse pour voir des films de merde (pour mémoire, le réalisateur des quatre épisodes précédents s’appelait « Bousman » ; c’est prophétique, non ?) comme celui-là, soit les producteurs arrêtent de se justifier à la manière autrefois d’un Patrick Lelay déclarant sûr de son argument « les gens aiment, la preuve, ça marche ». Une véritable quadrature du cercle (critique, culturelle) qui ne peut pas nous aider à résoudre cette éternelle question du « pourquoi le public va-t-il voir ça », d’autant qu’au final, les producteurs se fichent bien qu’une partie dudit public et de la critique en pense du mal (et après tout c’est leur droit), et ne se soucient guère du fait que les qualités cinématographiques du film soient inexistantes (ce qui est vrai : techniquement, hormis les effets de maquillage, c’est d’une pauvreté effarante). Pourquoi vont-ils « tous » voir ça, donc ? Parce que c’est violent, exutoire, prétendument subversif ? Parce que c’est imaginatif (sic) dans les meurtres ? Parce c’est tortueux, malsain (très formaté, là, le malsain…) et que la torture parle à chaque bourreau sommeillant en nous ? Parce que c’est fun et trop gore, trop invraisemblable de toute façon pour être pris au sérieux donc pour exercer une mauvaise influence sur les esprits fragiles, déséquilibrés ? Tout cela à la fois sans doute, et chaque argument se tient d’une certaine façon. Pour autant, être amateur du genre horrifique même dans ses représentations les plus basiques, ne signifie pas qu’on doive, côté réalisateur, se passer d’une vraie responsabilité visuelle ; côté spectateur, se satisfaire d’un film qui, dans le fond, n’a aucun respect pour ceux qui le visionnent.

La preuve avec cette histoire multipliant les personnages et enjeux secondaires juste par principe de surenchère et de brouillage narratif (le mot « brouillon » serait plus approprié, même si Kevin Greutert, monteur des précédents, assure un peu plus de stabilité visuelle que Darren Lynn Bousman). Dans Saw VI, le détective Hoffman (l’horrible Costas Mandylor, au jeu au moins aussi gras que son physique), légataire du sanglant héritage de John Kramer (des indices sont laissés ici et là, ou remis à de tierces personnes, bref, c’est toujours le même schéma démultiplicateur de protagonistes liés au tueur), initie un « nouveau jeu » censé révéler, je cite le dossier de presse, « le véritable grand dessein derrière les machinations de Jigsaw »… Le grand dessein, comme toujours dans la saga, consiste en un twist qui n’en est pas vraiment un, une révélation en forme de sortie de secours vers les possibilités d’une séquelle « plus » : brutale, absurde, stupide (ma foi, ça n’est pas censé être à tout prix intelligent), gratuite (toute violence est gratuite mais dans ces cas-là autant ne pas chercher à justifier les enjeux, et balancer directement la sauce – rouge sang, évidemment)., etc. Sans trop révéler les affres d’un film que les plus acharnés seraient prêts à aller voir malgré tout (au prix que coûte le billet, vous n’avez pas honte ?), disons que le seul apport notable du film (au-delà de cette imagination débordante – c’est effarant – pour concevoir les instruments d’une cruauté qui franchement n’amuse pas du tout) reste la critique, simpliste mais « louable » en ces temps de volonté de réforme de Barack Obama sur le sujet, du système étatsunien de l’assurance maladie. Voilà Jigsaw pourfendeur de la politique de « rentabilité » de la sécurité sociale privée, avec douloureuse leçon de vie / de mort prodiguée à un gestionnaire cynique qui ne voudrait « miser » que sur des gens sains, donc économiquement viables. Et le pauvre diable d’être entraîné dans une suite d’épreuves qui lui démontreront (et à nous aussi, les Saw n’étant jamais à une leçon de morale près, avec un premier degré qui laisse pantois), que l’arrivisme et la réduction de l’humain à des formules économiques, mathématiques, des produits calculés sans âme (tiens, comme la saga, non ?), sont néfastes, nihilistes, destructeurs. Cette menue réflexion, pour une fois un tout petit peu ancrée dans la réalité sociale, se trouve vite raillée par une logique certes anti-cinématographique mais réelle : prôner le droit aux soins (donc la bonne santé) pour tous est une bien jolie idée, mais s’il faut que les gens se mutilent ou se coupent un bras pour la faire accepter, alors la morale s’annule.

Au-delà de cette considération décadrée, Saw VI déconcerte dans sa culture vivace du « torture flick », un genre devenu tendance, donc débarrassé de sa capacité à déranger (puisqu’il rameute et avec consensus). Comme le déclare l’un des personnages estropiés : « regardez mon bras, je suis censée tirer quelle leçon ? ». Voilà une réplique qui veut tout dire ; même sans céder aux sirènes de la bienséance tronquée (le cinéma n’a pas inventé la barbarie, c’est l’homme et lui seul, donc avant d’éradiquer les films « barbares », éradiquons les barbares eux-mêmes), il faut bien considérer que cette marchandisation poussive de la violence graphique, ce gore ultra lucratif, sont aussi déplaisants qu’artistiquement condamnables. Le cinéma n’y gagne rien sauf des éclaboussures de sang qui n’entâchent aucune manière de faire du système (capitalisme, libéralisme et tout ce qu’on veut), et ne font bien au contraire que lui cirer les pompes ostentatoires. Quant on pense que Jigsaw / Kramer reproche à ses victimes d’instrumentaliser le monde et leur entourage. Quel sort réserverait-il aux producteurs de ses « aventures » dispensables ?

Stéphane Ledien

> sortie le 4 novembre 2009

Dying Breed is an Australian film that I heard about from a Cinematical article about the controversial poster it had when it was released. From what I gathered with the rejected poster was that it had to deal with cannibals. I just wished that the cannibals would devour the producers of this film.

This movie centers around the folklore of Alexander Pierce (Peter Docker), the Irish convict who fed on human flesh to survive in the woods and his descendants.

Nina (Mirrah Foulkes) is a researcher that goes to the same Tasmanian woods where her older sister (Sally McDonald) disappeared eight years earlier. The sister tried to look for a rare Tasmanian tiger that was rumored to be extinct. Nina tries to resume her research.

Her doormat of a boyfriend, Matt (Leigh Whannell) comes along with her with his pompous older brother, Jack (Nathan Phillips) and his girlfriend, Rebecca (Melanie Vallejo).

The quartet goes to a podunk town near the Pieman River where the locals size them up. They creep out the girls and Jack wants to throw down when one of the local keyed his brand new pickup truck.

Nina is concerned that things are not what they seem when he has newspaper clippings about a couple of hikers disappeared from the area over the last years of recorded history in the area.

Going out into the woods, the four hikers realize that maybe it was a mistake to search for something that is not there.

I wasn’t terribly impressed with this movie. The performances were fine. I thought that Nathan Phillips annoyed me. I wanted him to die so much. The movie is typical. He does. I was happy. The only thing that I marginally like was the ending.

As a bonus, I will show you the rejected poster for this movie. I hope you haven’t had anything to eat yet.

Judgment: This movie will certainly leave a bad taste in your mouth.

Rating: **

This is the rejected poster for the movie that gives away a possible spoiler for the movie.

Where does the barrier between grisly and mainstream films begin?

In the new film, “Saw” that very aspect is explored so much that for more than half the film you aren’t sure what you are witnessing.

Saw’s premise begins something like this:

Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) awakens on a decaying bathroom floor. His ankle is handcuffed to one of the bathroom’s many pipes. In the centre of the room lies a dead body that seems to have died by apparent suicide. Blood leaks from an open head wound and the victim holds a revolver.

On the other side of the room sits another man named Adam (Leigh Whannell, also the film’s co-writer) who seems to be in the same situation as Gordon.

On a microcassette, their abductor instructs Gordon to kill Adam or the two men will die and so will Gordon’s wife (Monica Potter) and daughter. Other than the microcassette, their abductor has left the men a couple clues and two badly worn handsaws that are only strong enough to cut flesh and bone. What are they to do? Who is more desperate? What would you do?

We have seen so many of these grisly horror films and some of the better made films have gone on to be critically-acclaimed horror classics which include “Se7en” and “Silence of the Lambs”. That is just it; Saw isn’t even in the same league as those classics.

What “Saw” has going for it is an unbelievable spine-tingling premise that is horrific unto itself. When the film veers away from the room holding the two men it loses its momentum and its horrific impact.

The film tries to allow the audience to see what is going on away from the room with a disillusioned detective named Tapp (Danny Glover) and even allows us to see the long drawn out history between Tapp and the abductor. Not for one moment do we care and all we want to see is more of what is going on inside the bathroom.

I loved this film’s premise and wanted it to slowly uncover the insanity of the situation and its grisly but all too human outcome.

I didn’t need to see some bloated detective chase down yet again another serial killer. I wanted more psychology and less grime.

I loved the performance of Cary Elwes as the desperate doctor and he is probably the best actor in the piece.

This marks two stellar performances for Elwes who was also incredible in the A&E film “The Riverman” where Elwes played infamous serial killer Ted Bundy. If you haven’t seen that film, seek it out.

As a premise I would give this film a perfect score but in overall execution I give it…

2.5 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

Species Name: Repeaticus Sameoldshitius

I should like this franchise.  I mean, it’s essentially about a wacko, named Jigsaw, who kidnaps the shitheads of the world and places them in “tests” that they have to escape out of to stay alive.  Jigsaw is essentially making these people thin themselves from the herd.  It’s pretty brilliant.  And you know what?  I loved the first SAW.  I own it on DVD and consider it to be a very inventive, gory, fun yet disturbing flick with a great twist at the end.  I even gave SAW II a chance, curious to see how they would expand the plot, and that’s where I turned on the franchise.  They didn’t expand the plot at all, the only difference is that Jigsaw has all his “victims” locked in a house.  Lame.  This franchise has gone from creative to outright insulting.  This franchise has gone from creative to outright insulting.  I don’t even fault Lionsgate for continuing to put these movies out.  If people are still dumb enough to go see six of essentially the same movie, that’s their own dumbass fault.  Lionsgate is in the business to make money, and they make buttloads off this franchise.  Well at least they did until this weekend when SAW VI was trounced by Paranormal Activity, an actual fresh take on the horror genre — what a novel fucking concept.  Maybe American movie watching audiences are finally wising up…probably not though.

Frankly SAW, you’ve worn out your welcome, and your constant rehashing of the same story, with new ways to make a person sever their own limbs has become nothing more than gratuitous torture porn.  As an avid horror film fan my whole life, it hurts my heart a little bit, but I feel compelled to thin you from the herd.

In a world where the SAW franchise didn’t exist to induce vomiting in theaters:

• Cary Elwes career would never have been reinvigorated…oh wait…

• Studios would actually have to produce quality horror films to compete for the Halloween movie season, instead of surrendering in defeat to the mighty SAW franchise.
• HOSTEL VI would be in theaters right now (I fucking hate you Eli Roth, except in Inglorious Basterds, you were the shit in that, just please stop directing shitty horror movies please.)

DOOOOOOOOOUCHE!

• James Wan and Leigh Whannell, the creators of the SAW franchise, would be waiting tables at The Olive Garden and Chili’s, respectively, instead of being multi-millionaires doing lines of cocaine off of hot model’s asses.
• Tobin Bell would go back to sitting in his windowless van outside elementary schools.

Interested in some free candy little girl???

• Danny Glover’s career would never have been reinvigorated…oh wait…

• Horror movies would go back to being scary instead of just disgusting.

I wish that the disappointing opening weekend of SAW VI would spell death for the franchise, but because those movies cost six dollars to produce, and they have already started pre-production on SAW VII, the end appears to be far from over.

But one has to have dreams right?

I'm in a glass case of emotion!

Saw – L’enigmista è un thriller/horror del 2004, diretto da James Wan, che ne ha anche scritto il soggetto con Leigh Whannell.
Il film è stato girato in soli 18 giorni e nel mese di gennaio 2004 c’è stata la prima proiezione al Sundance Film Festival. È uscito negli USA il 29 ottobre 2004; il 14 gennaio 2005 in Italia.

Leggi altre notizie su: | Thriller | Horror | James Wan | Tobin Bell | Leigh Whannell | Cary Elwes

Saw – L’enigmista è un thriller/horror del 2004, diretto da James Wan, che ne ha anche scritto il soggetto con Leigh Whannell.
Il film è stato girato in soli 18 giorni e nel mese di gennaio 2004 c’è stata la prima proiezione al Sundance Film Festival. È uscito negli USA il 29 ottobre 2004; il 14 gennaio 2005 in Italia.

Leggi altre notizie su: | Horror | Thriller | James Wan | Tobin Bell | Leigh Whannell | Cary Elwes | Danny Glover

Dr. Lawrence Gordon and Adam come to terms with their capture in "Saw".

(James Wan, 2004)

October 28, 2009

by Joel Crary

The conclusion of “Saw” is so audacious that I can’t help but be in awe of it, even after a second viewing. The film’s puzzle pieces are not pieced but hammered together, and that is simultaneously its greatest strength and weakness. It is orchestrated as though the script was written backwards from the twist, which is totally unbelievable, but also kind of brilliant.

If only the same could be said for all that comes before it. Two men wake up in the filthiest bathroom imaginable with no recollection of how they got there or who the other man is. Adam (Leigh Whannell, who also wrote the screenplay) and Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) are chained to large pipes on opposite sides of the room. Between them is a body with a gun in its hand and a very large hole in its cranium.

For a while, the men attempt to make sense of their situation, and this is when the film really works. Gordon’s wife (Monica Potter) and daughter (Makenzie Vega) are being held captive elsewhere. Unless he kills Adam by 6 o’clock, they will die. The room is being monitored by a camera. In a device influenced by a score of noir films, Gordon recounts his implications in the murders of a killer dubbed Jigsaw (Tobin Bell), whose MO is teaching his victims the value of life. He places them in nightmarish situations that will cause them harm yet prevent their own deaths if they successfully follow his instructions. The killer’s lone survivor (Shawnee Smith) is questioned by police, who relates her experience of having to gut a man alive in order to unlock a reverse bear trap that Jigsaw had strapped to her mouth.

It’s all pretty gruesome, and the scenes of struggling victims are shown at high speed, cut with quick edits and accompanied by roars of machinery and inhuman screams to drive home the point that they’re having a really bad time. The film contains some great sets and lighting, and the traps are diabolical works of the talented design crew.

Unfortunately, everything tends to get a little carried away at the expense of the story. Villains striking at people we root for make for effective thrillers, and the film loses steam outside of the bathroom set. Take Detective Tapp (Danny Glover) and his partner Detective Singh (Ken Leung), the two men tracking Jigsaw. The obsession of Glover’s character is never based in anything. A few weeks ago I championed the merits of David Fincher’s “Zodiac“, a film that built obsession in a character until the obsession propelled the film’s suspense, not the grisliness of the murders. Detective Tapp is a cardboard cutout. He is obsessed because the plot requires his anger to sustain a feverish pitch when the story diverts away from Gordon and Adam, yet his scenes are dulled by his lack of depth. He becomes a potential suspect, but it’s an ineffective red herring because we’re never given the chance to form an opinion about him.

Even Gordon and Adam can’t hold up their end of the drama. I was shocked at the level at which Elwes hams it up by the film’s conclusion. He’s a great actor, but he takes the character far out into unintentionally funny territory, barking histrionic demands that would raise Patton’s eyebrow and losing his mind with the conviction of a temper tantrum. The men’s memories return at moments when past events are necessary to advance the plot and after a while it starts to feel a little contrived.

I like a twist that hangs in front of my eyes the entire time but never reveals itself. The genius of setting much of the movie in a single room is the implication that everything in the set is exactly as it seems. “Saw” contains all of the necessary elements for a terrific character drama, but squanders it to a large extent for hyperactive editing and jump scares. Terror always comes out of character, not situation. For a while, “Saw” gets this right, but ultimately it can’t keep its chains on.

Written & Directed By: Mark Hartley
Cinematography By: Karl Von Moller & Germain McMicking

FEATURING: Quentin Tarantino, Russell Mulcahy, Barry Humphries, Jamie Blanks, Russell Boyd, Jamie Lee Curtis, Rod Hardy, Richard Franklin, Wendy Hughes, Stacy Keach, Ted Kotcheff, George Lazenby, George Miller, Philippe Mora, Greg Mclean, Steve Railsback, Fred Schepisi, Rod Taylor, James Wan, Jack thompson, Brian Trenchard-Smith, Leigh Whannell, Simon Wincer, Susannah York

A fun rollicking, No holds barred documentary about the Australian film industry from the beginning in the sixties to it’s peak during the 70’s and 80’s which produced more exploitation type movies then anything but also put several of it’s filmmakers and stars o the map. It also showed a emerging style of filmmaking that rightly deserves to be noted and noticed. Which is still kicking around today though unfortunately not as much.

This is a fun documentary with tons of clips from those movies. Which allows a viewer like myself to discover a lot of these films only half of which are still available to see in the united states. It let’s you in on some behind the scenes details on these films and what it’s influence was at home and abroad. While celebrating the directors who deserve credit for there strides in helping put Aussie films on the map.

You hae details from most of the people involved in these films from the actors, Producers Directors, Crew Members, Directors and the critics even Quentin Tarantino gets involved.

Without this ozploitation series of movies there would be no films as diverse As MAD MAX, WALKABOUT, PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK, MY BRILLIANT CAREER, STARSTRUCK, BMX BANDITS.

This film is a genre lovers wet dream my only complaint is that I wish it was longer.

I really enjoyed myself watching this if you are a true film fan. I think you will to. Its not just boring talking heads interviews, Because as fun and crazy as the films are. The filmmakers are just as crazy if not crazier as they tell stories of using real ammo firing at the actors in action scenes. Not using any proper safety precautions. A lot of things they couldn’t have gotten away with today. 

GRADE: A+       

Aos que gostam do Cine em Cena, segue o post dos cinco filmes da semana. Na verdade criei coragem para ver alguns filmes mais “brutais”. Só para lembrar, a escala é a seguinte: de 0 a 2, não assista – não vale nem R$1,99! 3 é por sua conta, assista e tire sua conclusão. 4 e 5 eu “agarantio”: pode assistir sossegado, vale R$1,99! 

 Confira:

Turistas:  ’Turistas’ é um suspense tenso e inquietante que gira em torno de um grupo de jovens viajantes aventureiros. Depois que um terrível acidente os deixa perdidos em uma remota cidade praiana, eles descobrem, aos poucos, que as praias de areia branca e a bela floresta que a cerca escondem um segredo obscuro e cruel.

Nota: não merece, mas aconselho que veja para ter sua opinião sobre o filme. “Turistas” é polêmico. Mostra um Brasil verdadeiro, mas “exagerado aos extremos” – sim pleonasmo! Recordo que na época do lançamento do filme muitos brasileiros se manifestaram a respeito, fizeram muito barulho e ameaçaram boicotar o filme. Engraçado. Se o cenário não fosse real, e sim fictício, até acharia o filme interessante. Mas como mostra o Brasil e faz um belo marketing negativo do país, a reação foi contrária. O filme mostra jovens estrangeiros que vão para o Brasil a procura de sexo, drogas, bebidas e mulheres. Novidade?! Não, minha gente… Isso é real, acontece. Só que, a partir daí, o que acontece na ficção é uma outra história. Exageraram e pegaram muito pesado. Portanto, não merece nota.

Jogos Mortais: Dois homens acordam em um banheiro sujo e deplorável, acorrentados, um em cada canto do local. Em meio à eles, há um corpo de um homem que estourou sua cabeça com uma magnum 44. Eles são vítimas de um serial killer que coloca duas pessoas em situações extremas, para que uma saia viva apenas se matar a outra. Em um jogo de gato e rato, ambos vão descobrindo as pistas para tentar se salvar do jogo desse insano assassino, enquanto descobrem o porquê de terem sido escolhidos pelo tal.

Nota 5. Apesar de não ser muito fã do estilo, achei Jogos Mortais bem interessante, com uma história bem bolada e amarrada. Nota 10 para a atuação de Michael Emerson, o Ben de Lost, que interpreta um enfermeiro na trama. Esse ator é muito talentoso e novamente deu um show. 

Doom – A porta do inferno: Baseado no game de tiro em primeira pessoa mais famoso do mundo, a história é a seguinte: em uma base militar em Marte, uma experiência científica dá errado e acaba abrindo um portal para o Inferno, onde habitam criaturas assustadoras e mortais.

Nota 4. Como também sou fã de games, achei o jogo interessante, mas está longe de se comparar ao ótimo jogo Doom. Tudo bem, comparar filme com game, ou até livro com filme é algo muito, digamos, precipitado. Mas como sou fã de games, já deve imaginar que isso nem sempre é muito claro na minha cabeça. Nas últimas partes do filme deu até aquele “gostinho de game”, mas não tem uma história tão convincente. Talvez por isso não tenha agradado tanto assim. Nota 4 ficou de ótimo tamanho – 4 sem louvor.

10000AC – Ambientado em 10 mil anos antes de Cristo, o filme narra a saga do jovem D’Leh, um caçador de mamutes e sua aventura para liderar um exército na travessia de um vasto deserto, lutando contra tigres dentes-de-sabre e outros predadores pré-históricos. Em sua arriscada missão, o guerreiro e o exército que lidera acaba de encontro a uma civilização perdida, e ele precisa lutar para salvar Evolet, a mulher que ama, das mãos de um temível e maldoso chefe de tribo.

Nota 4. Legal, com bons efeitos sonoros, uma boa história, mas nada tão especial como disseram por aí. De qualquer forma vale a pena ver.

Ladrões de Diamantes: Max Burdett (Pierce Brosnan) é um ex-famoso ladrão de jóias. Aposentado, viaja com sua namorada Lola (Salma Hayek) para uma ilha paradisíaca, para, enfim, gastar o dinheiro que ganhou com seus golpes anteriores. Só que, nessa ilha, há um diamante caríssimo, o único que Max ainda não roubou. Desconfiando que de ele pode estar para dar o seu último golpe, o agente Stanley P. Lloyd (Woody Harrelson) o segue, afim de impedir o provável novo plano.

Nota 2 e nada mais. Em alguns momentos é até legalzinho, mas é mais trucado do que Triplo X. Não aconselho.  É fraquinho!

Bom, é isso… Agora é prepar a pipoca e correr para a frente da TV!

Please check out this awesome Leigh Whannell fan site, it’s really great!!

Whannell Fan – The #1 Leigh Whannell Resource

Shared via AddThis

Look no further, I’ve got it all mapped out for you….in blood.

When Saw 1 first came out it was hailed as a brilliant new revolution for horror films. Why? The script had a raw and unexpected twist that fooled even the most die hard horror fans. Now, I realize some of you will say that you knew exactly what was going on! It’s quite possible but if you deny that this film made waves in the world of horror, you would be lying.

Think of a killer who rehabilitates his victims. Not only that, add in unique twists that all of his victims have in common. Next sprinkle in some crazy never-before-seen contraptions or “tests” that the killer has put together. I’m not done yet. Add in a crazy Jigsaw guy who rides on a tricycle and tells you what your task is going to be as you sit chained, stapled, nailed, clamped to a death contraption. He is going to give you a choice…and the films become famous for Jigsaw saying “Make Your Choice”.

Jigsaw is a puppet used by the real killer, who is revealed as the series goes on. You learn what his motives are, how he picks his victims, who knows about him, what his personal life is….and why he has chosen a life of rehabilitating others. No doubt it sprouts from some severe mental thrush of his own.What’s really great about this series is you begin to UNDERSTAND this killer and in some occasions- respect what he’s doing.

Now get this… most of his “Make Your Choice” tests are smart, deceptive and cunning. They play upon a person’s negative first instincts versus a better choice that ultimately saves them from 100% death.  I’m not saying they walk away unscathed if they pass a test- that just wouldn’t be entertaining now would it? How bad do you want to live?

What’s the best contraption I have seen? I have to say that MY favorite was in Saw 5- I liked the series of contraptions and rooms tied to their first decision with all original victims. I think that’s where Saw 5 hit a stride because it did it better than say for example Saw 2.  The last room where you had to stick your arm in and give blood from a table saw into a beaker- (the amount required was just above a death wish for the human body)…was one of the worst and most poignant in my opinion.  What was your favorite? The needle bath was a close second! hah

Let’s go through these films briefly and I will give you my mini review on each. Maybe then you can decide which one to rent.

Saw 1 2004:

You’ll recognize some of this cast:   Talk about a big change for “Wesley” in the Princess Bride!

	Leigh Whannell	…	Adam
	Cary Elwes	…	Dr. Lawrence Gordon
	Danny Glover	…	Detective David Tapp
	Ken Leung	…	Detective Steven Sing
	Dina Meyer	…	Kerry
	Mike Butters	…	Paul
	Paul Gutrecht	…	Mark
	Michael Emerson	…	Zep Hindle
	Benito Martinez	…	Brett
	Shawnee Smith	…	Amanda
	Makenzie Vega	…	Diana Gordon
	Monica Potter	…	Alison Gordon

This is a MUST see. The film will allow you to get an amazing twist on a usual horror film and get to the point where you can pretty much go and watch any of the series and somewhat understand the direction. Although in this film you get less of the killer information that becomes available in the second film. The IMDB summary is very confusing to someone who hasn’t seen the film so I’ll do my best here. People wake up in a disgusting bathroom tied and chained to the bathtub, etc.  So begins the game because neither person knows why they are in there. Jigsaw presents the clues and these men must make a choice that can end up killing them or their family or just basically hurting themselves. What you don’t realize is there is a HUGE ending here that will shock the hell out of you.

5/5 Blood Spatters

	Tobin Bell	…	Jigsaw / John
	Shawnee Smith	…	Amanda
	Donnie Wahlberg	…	Eric Matthews
	Erik Knudsen	…	Daniel Matthews
	Franky G	…	Xavier
	Glenn Plummer	…	Jonas
	Emmanuelle Vaugier	…	Addison
	Beverley Mitchell	…	Laura

Saw 2: 2005

Saw 2 presents the killer’s lair (and he eventually is revealed head on) where a cop is being held hostage trying to pry his way out of a death contraption. At the same time is a house of horrors where strangers with common ties are being tested one room at a time.  Jigsaw is at it again! This time with more gore so you as a viewer are satisfied with the sequel! We can see the house on video from inside the lair… turns out the killer is sick. I won’t give away anything more but it’s a story in of itself. We learn that the series is always going to have this killer but a whole new set of people and reasons for rehabilitation. At the same time, cops will die and need to be replenished so you may not see all of the same cast moving forward!

4/5 Blood Spatters- Good Follow Up (Informative and Great Gore)

Saw 3:

Tobin Bell … Jigsaw / John Shawnee Smith … Amanda Angus Macfadyen … Jeff Bahar Soomekh … Lynn Donnie Wahlberg … Eric Matthews Dina Meyer … Kerry Leigh Whannell … Adam Jeff is an anguished man, who grieves and misses his young son that was killed by a driver in a car accident. He has become obsessed for revenge against the man and reckless with his wife and daughter. When Dr. Lynn Denlon, who has troubles with her marriage, is abducted by the deranged Jigsaw’s apprentice Amanda, she is brought to a gruesome warehouse to keep John Kramer alive in spite of having a terminal brain tumor. Amanda puts a necklace gadget full of explosives around Dr. Lynn’s neck connected to John Kramer’s life support system, and tells her that if he dies the device will explode. Meanwhile, Jeff is submitted to a sick game of forgiveness with surprising dark consequences. This film does a good job bringing on the gore but most people would say the plot was so- so. If you need to skip one, I think you can skip this one. Just read the full synopsis on IMDB to understand what happens to John Kramer aka Jigsaw. 3/5- Decent Plot, Decent Gore- Good to learn about Kramer (Jigsaw’s next steps) Saw 4 2007 Tobin Bell … Jigsaw / John Costas Mandylor … Hoffman Scott Patterson … Agent Strahm Betsy Russell … Jill Lyriq Bent … Rigg Athena Karkanis … Agent Perez Justin Louis … Art Simon Reynolds … Lamanna Donnie Wahlberg … Eric Matthews Jigsaw and his protege are dead but guess what? Jigsaw is still planning killings despite his death. I LOVED THIS FILM!  During the autopsy of John Kramer, the coroner finds a tape inside his stomach and calls Detective Hoffman. Some people do not like this film at all but here is a great review on IMDB  “Here’s where the line’s drawn between Saw IV and it’s predecessors. With the deaths of two main characters in Saw III, you can’t possibly think of how Saw IV could really be close to a decent film. Instead of a basic storyline of traps, unlucky individuals who don’t appreciate their lives, and suspenseful jump scenes, Saw IV delivers a completely different premise: it’s darker, edgier, scarier, more complex, more intricately designed, and more controversial than its predecessors. In some ways, the most horrifying thing about the film is instead of watching people being tested on screen–YOU, as a viewer, are tested–challenged to see what Jigsaw sees, feel what Jigsaw feels…judge how Jigsaw judges. The traps aren’t there to entertain, or to make you recoil in disgust…they’re there to make you THINK.” 3/5-  Great Opening- Not as much gore, more audience intellectual involvement. Saw 5: 2008 Tobin Bell … Jigsaw / John Costas Mandylor … Mark Hoffman Scott Patterson … Agent Strahm Betsy Russell … Jill Julie Benz … Brit Meagan Good … Luba There is a new apprentice and this film plays a “Who is it?” amongst the characters- (the cop characters that remain). Jigsaw’s instructions have somehow floated through to the 5th installment but they do a good job at relieving that a bit with this new apprentice and via flashback scenes. We see some great new traps and rehabilitation scenes.  If you watched this film and had no idea about the others in the series you would be freaked out and a bit lost. Some say this was the best film since Saw 2 and others say that it doesn’t beat Saw 3. I think each viewer is different when it comes to this. Personally, I liked it..and I thought the traps were just as good and fulfilling! If you are a true SAW fan, this film is worthy of a watch. 4/5- More Gore!! New Apprentice!! Some Great Scenes.

At one point in NOT QUITE HOLLYWOOD, Mark Hartley’s primer on the history of Australian exploitation films or Oz-ploitation, Quentin Tarantino states that if you grew up watching some of those films that you would believe that there was a desert everywhere and that those deserts were filled with marauding packs of bullies in cars they could never afford just looking for women to rape and guys to beat up.

Whether you know first hand what Tarantino is talking about or whether this is all shiny new information, Hartley’s film is just a flat out fun ride. Soft core films like AUSTRALIA AFTER DARK matched local box office totals with JAWS, films like NEXT OF KIN, PATRICK, LONG WEEKEND and MAD MAX inspired more than a few members of the next wave of filmmakers, and the stories of how those films were made will often leave you astounded that several stunt people didn’t lose their lives in the process. But the proof of Hartley’s convincing “argument” as to the viability of the genre is this: you can not help yourself but make a mental list of film titles to add to your movie library while watching the film. It’s NOT QUITE HOLLYWOOD, but it’s more than entertaining.

1.   Why did you feel the 40 year history of Ozploitation films deserved such a thorough and arguably “loving” documentary?
It seemed to me that this was really the last bastion of genre cinema in the world that hadn’t been explored in any way. We’ve had fevered examinations of genre films from many other countries – American Grindhouse, English horror, Italian Giallo etc… but “Ozploitation” had never been documented because I don’t think anyone – within or outside of Australia – had ever connected the dots and realized that a wealth of genre films had been made down-under by a select number of prolific individuals (including Brian Trenchard-Smith, Antony I. Ginnane, Richard Franklin and John Lamond).

2. Filmmakers like Quentin Tarantino, Greg Mclean, James Wan and Leigh Whannell speak enthusiastically about the influence films like PATRICK, LONG WEEKEND, ROAD GAMES and MAD MAX had on them and their films. Was there someone you spoke to that surprised you with their reaction or even respect for those films?
The thing that I think is really interesting is that in Australia the general public never heard about the success of our genre films because they we’re considered “American Films” and embarrassments to our film culture. We heard about PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK receiving a standing ovation in New York – but what we weren’t told was that “Picnic” was screening in one cinema and Trenchard-Smith’s THE MAN FROM HONG KONG was screening in the same city on 15 screens! So, it was important in NOT QUITE HOLLYWOOD to have people like Tarantino inform us that these films found enthusiastic audiences all around the world. It was also important to hear from Whannell, Wan, McLean and Jamie Blanks that these films were inspirational to their generation of Australian filmmakers (maybe more so than our more lauded big screen exports like PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK and BREAKER MORANT).

3. In your opinion, what is the most singular contribution Australia has made to the cinematic art form: The vomit shot or the nuns on fire shot?
I think it’s the mouse in the werewolf fetus suit. To understand what I’m talking about, people will have to see the film.

4. Let’s pretend you’re directing the movie about a comatose guy with evil telekinesis powers. Are his eyes open or closed while he controls objects in his vegetative state?
Screenwriter Everett DeRoche and Director Richard Franklin decided that they should be open when they made “PATRICK (1978) – the Italians obviously agreed when they made their own unofficial spaghetti sequel, “PATRICK IS STILL ALIVE” (1980) – so who am I to argue with visionaries of their caliber!

5. Would you agree that a young Nicole Kidman “isn’t werewolf enough?”
I think the key word here is “young”. Our Nic (as Aussies affectionately like to call her) is so versatile now that she’s added rubber noses to her repertoire that I’m sure she could play a werewolf in her sleep (but possibly quite easier, a Vampire!).

6. What should every director remember to do before it’s too late? Set him/herself on fire to prove to your lead actor that he/she should do the same for the sake of your film… and cast Ozploitation’s greatest heavy, Roger Ward, in your film.

7. Of the various legends of Oz-ploitation you spoke to (John Lamond, Anthony I. Ginnane, Brian Trenchard-Smith, etc.) Who was the most entertaining interview for you personally?
To be honest, all of the interviewees were entertaining. Certainly the most emotional interview I conducted was with director Richard Franklin (PATRICK, ROADGAMES). I first met Richard soon after he directed PSYCHO II. I was in my early teens and I invited him to give a talk at my high school. I stayed in touch and we became friends. Richard was incredibly supportive during the 10-year period it took to get NOT QUITE HOLLYWOOD financed. Just after we finally raised our money he told me that he had cancer. He said that he would not live to see my film – but he would not let me down. True to his word, Richard allowed us to interview him. He was paralyzed from the waist down and in excruciating pain, but he put on a brave face and struggled through his final on-camera interview. Sadly Richard passed away less than three weeks later. It was at this point I realized that NOT QUITE HOLLYWOOD was more than a rag tag bunch of maverick filmmakers telling funny anecdotes – it was going to be the final word on this extraordinary period of filmmaking in Australia told by the guys (and girls) who were there in the trenches. NOT QUITE HOLLYWOOD is fondly dedicated to Richard.

8. Tarantino says that, “No one shoots a car the way Aussies do.” Why would you agree with that statement?
If you look at the car chase films that were coming out of Hollywood at the time of MAD MAX and MIDNITE SPARES they were slapstick demolition derby pictures like SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT and THE CANNONBALL RUN. The Australian car chase films certainly were more dynamic – tougher, grittier and I imagine a helluva lot more dangerous in their derring-do stunt work. The cars were shot wide angle with the camera close to the ground and with the lens inches away from the bumper. Throw in a hostile environment like the outback and you have an iconic shot that Australian cinema can proudly claim as it’s own.

9. Popcorn or candy?
Hot dogs.

10. Since you are now as much of an authority of Ozploitation as anyone after completing the film: Name your five favorite films in that genre and explain why.
THE MAN FROM HONG KONG (1975)
Asia’s Steve McQueen, Jimmy Wang Yu, and Australia’s very own James Bond, George Lazenby, go head to head in director Brian Trenchard-Smith’s down-under kung fu classic. I dare any audience to find a car chase with more camera rigs or a martial arts sequence with more kicks to the groin!

LONG WEEKEND (1978)
A bickering couple on vacation discover what happens when you disrespect the Australian bush in this taut, atmospheric “mother nature goes ape-shit” thriller from prolific Ozploitation scribe Everett DeRoche and journeyman director Colin Eggleston.

MAD MAX (1979)
Doctor turned amateur filmmaker, George Miller, battled a non-existent budget and a weary non-believing crew on the outskirts of Melbourne to bring his post apocalyptic revenge thriller to the drive-in screen.  On release, cars quickly became stars – and in my humble opinion, the level and style of automobile action featured in MAD MAX has never been equaled.

ROADGAMES (1981)
REAR WINDOW set in a truck! US imports Stacy Keach and Jamie-Lee Curtis play a deadly cat-and-mouse game with a serial killer across the desolate Nullarbor desert in this smart, suspenseful and finely crafted thriller from director Richard Franklin (affectionately dubbed by Curtis “Australia’s Alfred Hitchcock”).

TURKEY SHOOT (1982)
What started out as a serious (but action-packed) Orwellian cautionary tale was pushed into high-camp overdrive by director Brian Trenchard-Smith and producer Antony I. Ginnane when a large chunk of change vanished from the financing a week before shooting. “Stunts are expensive – but blood is cheap” – so Turkey Shoot transformed into a blood and thunder splatter spectacle that 25+ years later still has to be seen to be believed.

NOT QUITE HOLLYWOOD screens at 10:00PM April 2 @ Landmark’s Magnolia 3

Jigsaw’s late October moralizing continues with 2007’s Saw III, directed by Saw II director Darren Lynn Bousman. Bousman continually insists that the Saw movies and others like it aren’t made for “mainstream critics,” adding that Saw audiences know and love what they’re going to get. Certainly there’s a case to be made for that, especially if tacky acting, dizzying camerawork, and childish plot strings comprise what the primarily male fans of this increasingly ridiculous series love to see.

That said, Saw III is a fair shade better than Saw II (not like that’s hard). In my continued insistence on subjecting myself to cinematic punishment, I took in the third instalment of the series with low expectations after the bland and tasteless 2006 forerunner. Astoundingly, Saw III did the trick in the gore column (finally) and provided some reasonably squirm-worthy moments. I actually had to turn away at one point, which pleased me deeply in my expedition for gruesome material.

The film opens right where we left off in the second entry. Detective Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg) is stuck in the bathroom. He has a smashing plan to escape his predicament, however, and we’re off and running on the right foot for the time being. The flashback-heavy narrative takes us to about six months after the capture of Mathews. We get in touch with the same crew of cops from Saw II as they’re investigating Jigsaw’s latest crime. There’s a difference this time, though, as the cops discover that this latest trap was inescapable. Hmm.

We’re then transferred to Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) and his partner in gore, Amanda (Shawnee Smith), as they begin to set up their next series of games. This time, a skilled doctor (Bahar Soomekh) and a father (Angus Macfadyen) obsessed with revenge against the drunk driver who killed his son are the targets. Jigsaw wants the doctor to help keep him alive while the father runs around completing various gory tests. If Jigsaw dies or the father fails, the doctor loses her head.

All of the elements that helped create such a shaky and stupid experience in Saw II are sorrowfully present in the third movie. Bousman’s work with cinematographer David A. Armstrong once again resembles a music video, with sound effects-laden cutaways providing some incredibly dumb shots. Bousman and Co. use echoes, edits, and other tricks of the trade to create “atmosphere,” but the layered screams and cries of various characters just come across as silly once they’ve been layered on top of one another. It seems that Bousman is either clueless in terms of suspense or deliberately sabotaging the film’s potential for thrills.

The performances are basically bizarre. Once again, the Saw series employs a cast of hams (no, not the liquefied ones) to help guide this ship through to its destination. Reactions are silly, with characters coming across as blathering idiots. While Bell’s Jigsaw remains the picture of calm, cold villainy, the other characters turn up the volume around him and become ludicrous in their attempts to outdo their competition. Soomekh’s facial reactions and daft fits of “emotion” are among the most over-baked in the movie, while Macfadyen doesn’t help matters with his trouble in finding safe ground between featureless and stupid.

Luckily, Bousman’s Saw III does exceed its predecessor in the gore department and this wins the movie some points. The disaster of Saw II was that it remained an extremely mind-numbing exercise and was extremely light on the bloodshed. This time around, Bousman features more than a fair share of gruesome sights. Best of all, a cringe-worthy ad hoc surgery sequence involving a power drill and, of course, a saw highlights the blood-spattered righteousness.

And so it is, Saw III is an unconditional crapfest when one looks at the bigger picture of cinema. While I am proud, somewhat, of my endurance in watching both Saw II and Saw III in relatively close succession and while I am also proud of my penchant to use the word crapfest, there’s really no reason to experience this tribulation of a picture. It is an entirely laughable episode for all of its dour bluster, one only salvaged by a pretty sweet look inside the head of the one and only Jigsaw.

1.9/10

Trailer:

Perhaps because I’ve been unwittingly trapped by a crazed cancer patient, I’ve decided to check out the Saw films in relatively quick succession. Having already watched Saw a while ago and being moderately entertained, something inside told me that I should take the opportunity to check out the second, third, and fourth instalments of the series as they slid across my desk. Fine.

That means that this whole ordeal begins with 2005’s Saw II. Directed by Darren Lynn Bousman and given that greenish cinematography by David A. Armstrong, this sequel was rushed to completion and finished in 25 days inside one building save for externals. And believe me, it looks like it was done in 25 days. Using characteristically juddering and garish camera tricks and rapid-fire edits that would make most music videos seem cautious by comparison, Bousman and his Armstrong have concocted a movie that looks and feels really unsightly and meaningless.

Saw II opens with some poor unfortunate soul in a trap, of course. It’s a helmet locked around his head that will close up like a Venus flytrap should the bastard not find the key. Of course, the trap’s been set up by Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) and the key is behind the guy’s eye. As the situation ends predictably, we are introduced to Detective Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg) and his son Daniel (Erik Knudsen). Matthews and his son don’t get along, which probably has something to do with the fact that the cop can’t talk to anyone without yelling or flipping over a table.

Anywho, Matthews gets called to the scene of the crime with the helmet guy and he follows some clues to locate Jigsaw’s lair. Once there, he discovers a weakened Jigsaw – he has cancer, after all – and the fact that his son has been kidnapped to play one of the killer’s notorious “games.” Daniel is in a house with a few other people and the place is filling up with gas. Amanda Young (Shawnee Smith) is among the victims, as she’s been through this situation before. The story follows the people in the house as they bicker and try to find a way out. Meanwhile, Matthews and Jigsaw talk to each other about sports, needlepoint, and how the killer came to hold his worldview.

The Saw franchise is a big hit for a reason, I suppose. I’m told it’s because it appeals to fans of so-called “hardcore horror.” In my mind, there is nothing “hardcore” about Saw II. I found the whole ordeal rather tedious, with the dialogue and the performances doing nothing for the prospect of suspense. The encounter between Jigsaw and Wahlberg’s idiot cop was featureless and woolly, with Bell only sometimes reaching levels of interest. Wahlberg’s character’s basically just a tedious dolt and trashing things appears to be his only recourse when he isn’t yelling idiotically.

The character interaction inside the booby-trapped house is just as dim-witted. The characters squabble uselessly with one another, only half focusing on the actual task at hand. It seems that the writers want to portray these people as morons of the highest order and it works. The problem with such a rendering is that I found myself not caring if they got out of the bloody place or not. As if my apathy wasn’t enough, I found myself wishing for a quicker death once the actors really started hamming it up.

Stylistically, Saw II is a searing turd. Not only does Bousman’s direction grass on any actual sense of surprise with brainless cuts, camera pullbacks, zooms, and slash-and-dash editing, but the movie just looks soiled. I realize that part of the aesthetic is to give things a lifeless, shadowy sort of look. But things in Saw II just look grubby and childish, like subway bathroom grubby and childish. It doesn’t help that Bousman’s direction essentially consists of a mould of reaction shot-pullback-other reaction shot-pullback-zoom, either. After a while, I began to predict what he was going to depict next. I was always correct.

For thrills, chills, terror, and legitimate scares, Saw II just doesn’t cut it at all. It is, instead, a meaninglessly unenthusiastic exercise that isn’t even gruesome enough to make up for its weakness. If this is any indication as to the direction the series is going, I might start praying for that damn bear-trap helmet instead…

0.9/10

Trailer:

Si el término Ozploitation no te habla, no hay problema, es muy probable que hayas visto al menos una película que cae en esta etiqueta sin saberlo. Mark Hartley, un tipo muy simpático, se dio a la tarea de recopilar material para ilustrar una época [70's y principios de los 80's] cuando el cine australiano explotó lanzando esquirlas de horror, sexo, violencia y acción en todas direcciones.

Hartley se avienta uno de los documentales más entretenidos e ilustrativos sobre un género que merece redescubrirse con entrevistas a expertos y cineastas que vivieron el nacimiento como George Miller, Brian Trenchard-Smith, Everett De Roche, Philippe Mora, Richard Franklin, y más contemporáneos como James Wan, Leigh Whannell, Greg Mclean y Quentin Tarantino, que aunque no es aussie, siempre parece tener algo qué aportar.

["Mi momento favorito fue cuando James Wan y Leigh Whannell, confiesan cómo un momento feroz en Mad Max inspiró a escribir la trama de Saw".]

Después, Hartley, aceptaría estar sorprendido porque era la primera vez que una audiencia aplaudía cada que una nueva película aparecía representada en el documental. Fue toda una experiencia.

Esa misma noche, convivimos con Brian Trenchard-Smith durante una presentación de Turkey Shot [incluso, Kaleb logró obtener la firma en su dvd de la cinta], y después de presentarla, a disfrutar ozploitation como se debe.

Los otros dos documentales que vi en el año no le llegaron.

1. Religulous. Entretenido, controversial, vale la pena porque Bill Maher es inteligente y provocador.

2. Super High Me. ¿Qué pasa si decides fumar mariguana por 30 días seguidos? Creo que ya muchos lo han logrado, y Doug Benson no necesitaba ilustrarlo.

I just saw SAW. Blir lite latjo på engelska.

Men titeln SAW är en översättning av “såg”, inte “såg” – blev det klarare nu? Alltså, titeln syftar på en såg som man sågar med…. eller i alla fall kan såga med… om man vill… eller måste…

Två killar finner sig i ett rum, kedjade till varsinn sida av rummet, och mitt i rummet ligger ett lik på mage. Tanken bakom detta scenario är att det är en lek på liv och död. Hur långt kan du gå för att få behålla livet? Och OM du överlever – lär du dig då uppskatta livet?

Sen måste jag ju säga, utan att berätta handlingen för mycket, att om du gillar slut där man inte ser ett förälskat, lyckligt par traska iväg i solnedgången så är denna film värd att se!

Den var spännande, gripande, äcklande och full av frågetecken ända in i slutet!

The Jigsaw Killer
makes his victims kill themselves
or kill each other.