I also saw the movie(thought it was great), but I have one question. It may spoil something for some people, so I wouldn't reccomend reading it unless you've seen the movie. --------------Possible Spoiler----------------- In the end, how come the doctor couldn't just come back with help to get the photographer? They could have easily opened the door...unless I'm just daft.
Good question, I think either they didnt want that to happen so it would leave it open for a sequel or maybe they want to leave the possibility of maybe thinking he hated him for taking pictures of him cheating on his wife....I am not exactly sure.
Yep. I think it kind of adds more appeal to the movie that way. It leaves you wondering(as I am now) about it, which makes for a longer impact the movie has upon you, and that's what the filmmakers want. I look forward to this guy's next movie.
*SPOILER* the doc already lost a good amt of blood and he wasn't gonna get very far on one leg. besides that, how would you feel being left alone with 2 dead bodies? the photographer just felt safer with the doc there.
Dude, its not you and you're not getting old. I just got back from watching "The Grudge" at the AMC on Dunvale. Ghetto as hell. People jabbering, laughing, and being plain idiotic. God I hate teenagers! They need their own freakin theaters where they can be stupid without disturbing others. Oh and the movie sucked. But I hate horror movies because they're just too funny to be scary to me. But at least I'm respectful enough to stifle my laughter and inane comments, unlike the ghetto people around me.
SAW SPOILER ALERT ok in the part of the movie where the asian cop is chasing the killer, and he shoots him in the back with a shotgun, then steps over the trip wire and dies...how did the killer survive the shotgun blast to the back? he went down and then after killing the asian guy, got back up fine... all in all a good movie though
He prob had some kind of body armor on, I know it prob sounds a little weak because a shotgun shot should go through the armor, but they had to have him survive wouldnt of been right to just stop it at this part. I dont know just what I got out of it
I was checking out rottentomatoes...gave saw a 45%...still better than the 38% they gave the grudge...any particular reason why it's so low, do you know? Regardless, I plan to see it once midterms are done raping me.
My guess is that the doctor died. Based on his condition, I dont see him going more than 100 yards before dying.
Ok, I've seen both now and they both sucked to high heaven. I have to say that Saw was worse though and that is saying an awful lot. The Grudge was pretty bad but the acting in Saw was so freaking terrible that it became funny. Not like, damn that sucked funny but gut busting laughter funny. The whole movie theater was cracking up. Some of the lines and faces they made were hysterical. The thing is Saw had potential to be good if they tweaked the story and the acting was better. Wesley was just horrible. His faces were crazy funny, we all laughed so freaking much. It was worth the money just to go laugh.
Worst overstatement ever. I thought the grudge was okay. I liked some of the style of the movie, other than that cgi crap at the beginning, but once they decided to reveal the "plot", I was , but hey, it is a horror movie. Also, that cop was a freaking idiot.
But the "twist" or whatever the hell you're supposed to call it was so obvious about 10 minutes into the movie...it was just a horrible movie. Of course, it's all a matter of personal taste, and I know which movies I've thought were the worst I've ever seen. To me, The Grudge is in that list.
There was a twist? I thought it was just generic campy story telling, the type that'd you'd see in Friday the 13th, or Ammityville. Saw seems like it would be the over the top movie trying to get by on a twist. The flashback scenes to the origination of the curse were just horrible, if that's what you're refering to, and I don't see how it could be much of a surprise, just like most of movie "payoffs" out there. And how dare you assume like you know what movies belong in your worst list. Only the hangout should decide something as trivial as that.
OK, twist probably wasn't a good word, which is why I put it in quotes. I was just generally bored with the story and I was surprised that the movie was so simple, I guess. I figured out what happened 10 minutes into the movie, and them playing it out was a waste of time unless there was supposed to be something special about it, which there wasn't.
Spoiler for you Saw lovers: Are you going to tell me that guy could just play dead on the floor for at least the 9 hours we know he was there?? Gimme a f-ing break! I know it's "just a movie" and unlikely things happen but this was just nuts. He laid on the ground that long yet all of the other things fell into place just perfectly? And the orderly guy was able to set up an elaborate computer system in the doctors house so he could monitor the doc and photog while he held the wife and kid hostage? C'mon, guys! The photog was able to take pics of the doc in the parking garage...WITH A FLASH...and not be seen or heard by the doctor? And the doctor should have banged the hot asian in the hotel just to make the R rating more worthy. And, yes, the acting was horrible. The worst was the photog (who I later found out was the writer of the movie so that explains that). Glover should be ashamed.
This plot had more holes than 50 Cent. ---SPOILERS FOLLOW--- A couple things jumped out at me as very ridiculous. The guy could not have played dead for all that time. Period. They would have noticed him breathing, he would have moved or something eventually. Also, we see at the end that he used a remote to electrocute Adam and Lawrence, but what did he press it with? It wasn't in his hands. In one hand was the tape recorder, and in the other was the gun. And my parents said that the gun wasn't in his hand. I honestly don't remember, but even if it wasn't, they would have seen the remote in his hand when they were looking all over him. As a doctor, Lawrence had to have known that he would die if he sawed off his leg. I know that he wasn't thinking clearly, but he should have been able to rule out that possibility early on, and not let the thought enter his head when crazed. I don't understand why no one in movies shoots anyone else when they should. If Danny Glover shoots Zap or Zep or whatever his name was while he had him on the ground, then he's still alive, still has his gun, and can go down the hall and find Adam and Lawrence. My biggest issue with the movie? That a sickly, 70-something year old man with cancer could overtake and kidnap all these younger people. And so quickly, too. All he had to do was rush at them, apparently, and he was able to subdue them and knock them unconscious. There are a few ways to put someone under, and I can't think of any that are instant. If he had knocked them in the head from behind, I could understand. But he didn't. And if he used chemicals or needles, it still wouldn't be instant. And how was he able to kidnap Lawrence in the garage, and Adam didn't see anything? The more I think about it, the more I disapprove of this movie.
