The cult of SAW loves them. The rest of the world hates them. Some call it "reactionary horror", or horror with no redeeming social value, and therefore not worthy of discussing or even of giving credence to.
I hadn't seen Saw since the first time at The Grande three years ago, but I remembered liking it well enough. The traps were clever and the premise interesting: a killer who allowed his victims to do the murdering themselves. The structure judiciously doles out information, which keeps you guessing, or, if you're watching the second time, paying attention.
Mostly I picked it up because I didn't realize Michael Emerson was in it (he plays Zep in the movie). Many of you know Emerson as "Henry Gale" or Benjamin Linus on Lost, so I thought it would be interesting to rewatch it. And it was worth rewatching.
It's not a great movie, or without its flaws (Cary Elwes's accent drops more often than Keanu Reeves's in The Devils Advocate, and there are logic gaffes about) but in the end I have to say that even so-called reactionary horror can be enjoyed on a strictly entertainment level, so if the academics choose to dismiss it, then so be it.
I haven't seen Saw III yet, but I really didn't enjoy the second movie: I thought the acting was uniformly terrible, even if the traps were interesting, and while the twist was interesting enough (Amanda, not the surveillance), overall I just didn't feel it.
Off to a party for a few hours, then more company arrives. In the meantime, there's some MST3K playing on the VCR, just waiting for my return...
No comments:
Post a Comment