Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Saw 3, or Flaw 3?

  • 31-10-2006 6:00pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,221 ✭✭✭


    Ive heard mixed reviews and frankly nothins clear

    Ive heard it extremely gory, thats about it

    but is it scary? [I dont count gory as scary]


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭pbsuxok1znja4r


    Implied....or implode? ;)

    Personally I thought SawII was utter, utter, abominable, woeful bollocks. I don't see SawIII being any better. Gory ain't scary. My mate's still draggin' me to it, though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    Saw III is excellent, much better then Saw II. There are already several threads on this movie....

    None of the Saw movies are "scary", and they aren't particularly meant to be a traditional scarefest either.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,417 ✭✭✭Miguel_Sanchez


    I'd go to see Flaw 3 if I was you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,356 ✭✭✭Donegal Lass


    i didnt see saw2 but saw the first one and thought it was horse****!! went to see Saw3 there on mon night and it was pretty nasty now but i thought it was far better than the first - a better storyline as far as the saw films go! didnt think it was for the faint hearted at all!! rough to say the least!:D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,630 ✭✭✭gline


    i liked the 1st one and didnt think the 2nd one was so bad, so is it recommended to see the 3rd one??


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,325 ✭✭✭Q_Ball


    gline wrote:
    i liked the 1st one and didnt think the 2nd one was so bad, so is it recommended to see the 3rd one??

    I liked them too but I thought the third one was muck. Sacrificed the story for more gore. Still feel ill after it but not impressed


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,655 ✭✭✭Ph3n0m


    apparantly you arent the only one

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6101704.stm


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,584 ✭✭✭c - 13


    Ph3n0m wrote:

    Ah FFS it wasnt anywhere near that bad. Bloody pussehs ! :eek: :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    Ah now, whilst it has a fair share of gore and brutality it's not going to have you fainting in the aisle.... andto be honest, if it does induce that kind of response in you, you should already have known not to go in the first place...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,589 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    that article is a great advertisement for the movie though! Bet it increases the ticket sales rather then stopping anyone seeing it.

    Actually reminds me of that movie (the name of which i cant remember) where a bunch of psychiatric patients ideas get used to advertise products, one of which is a horror film where they say it'll make you crap yourself and collapse in fear, or something to that effect, and this honesty policy gets the film a massive turnout. god damn thats annoying me, what movie is it?! they all get given new cars for some reason at the end..


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭Giruilla


    The fact that they had to explain the plot twist at the end through a series of flashbacks (to moments already shown in the ****ing film), says exactly who who the target audience for this film is.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,745 ✭✭✭doonothing


    saw 3 is absolutely terrible.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,655 ✭✭✭Ph3n0m


    well saw 4 is announced, with Jessica Alba

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0890870/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,221 ✭✭✭abetarrush


    Ph3n0m wrote:
    well saw 4 is announced, with Jessica Alba

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0890870/
    yeah, prob cos she did so good in the MTV Movie Awards spoof

    actually, the spoof was way more Saw than Saw 3!!!!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,149 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    doonothing wrote:
    saw 3 is absolutely terrible.

    I concur with the above ^^.

    I wont even grace this film with the effort of saying its name. Avoid. Up to and including the prospect of death.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    Considering they made their budget back 3 times over in the opening weekend, beating the likes of the Departed, the franchise isn't going to slow down anytime soon.

    And anyway, I thought Saw III was brilliant.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 44,195 ✭✭✭✭Basq


    The Jessica Alba casting stuff is a mistake... the whole 'Saw IV' IMDB page is one big misprint by IMDB.. they've gotten confused with US remake of The Eye.
    Saw IV (2007)

    Directed by
    David Moreau
    Xavier Palud

    Credited cast:
    Jessica Alba
    Goran Visnjic
    The Eye (2007)

    Directed by
    David Moreau
    Xavier Palud

    Credited cast:

    Jessica Alba .... Allison
    Goran Visnjic .... Tom Matthews (rumored)
    Torrey DeVitto .... Michelle Parker

    PS - on a side-note... no interest in seeing the crap fest of 'Saw III' after the borefest that was 'Saw II'


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,352 ✭✭✭plonk


    HavoK wrote:

    And anyway, I thought Saw III was brilliant.


    Usually your opinions on films are pretty good but honestly saw 3 is one of the worst films ever for the amount of hype that was involved


Advertisement