What's new

"Now Showing"



SAW 4 is my favourite of the SAWs and SAW 5 is the only one I didn't care for as it took the a different approach, by letting the audience know the twist from the very start and watching an in movie character find it out for themselves rather than leaving us guessing aswell as it has done for the previous 4. Saw 6 looks good though and as I have a cineworld card I may aswell see it.

Uncle Arly

Well-Known Member
Myk said:
SAW 4 is my favourite of the SAWs and SAW 5 is the only one I didn't care for as it took the a different approach, by letting the audience know the twist from the very start and watching an in movie character find it out for themselves rather than leaving us guessing aswell as it has done for the previous 4. Saw 6 looks good though and as I have a cineworld card I may aswell see it.
You make 'The New Black'. Your opinion is void.


If you are ever going to see a movie that has been hyped to the hilt, then it is a damned good idea to see it on the biggest screen in the UK, and in 3D. I found myself in London on Saturday night and so Seb, Peter and myself booked tickets at the BFI Imax at Waterloo to see the latest offering from Pixar, Up.

I have to admit that I am fairly dismissive of animation in general as a movie - I don't think it can ever be compared to 'real' movies such as The Godfather, but then, with so much CGI on offer these days, I guess it is becoming more and more difficult to tell the difference. In May, it was suggested to me that I get at least Wall.E and Ratatoulie on Blu ray before dismissing animation completely. I took the advice and have to concede that, as its own genre, modern animation has come a very long way, both in terms of storyline and picture. Obviously, a movie which is conceived, produced and edited digitally should be a winner on Blu Ray, and with the latest in digital projection, it should be pretty impressive in the cinema.

On to Up then.

The story is decent, and goes from happy to sad in a heartbeat, some of the humour is outstanding and the sad moments are more than enough to induce a tear or two. In short, a well balanced little story which will appeal to all ages.

The picture is razor sharp, well defined and has way more colour than you could shake a fist at. It leaves your eyes bleeding with the detail of thew images and the dark ages of 3D are well and trully behind us. I suspect that 3D will be the way of the future.

Sound, as you would expect, is spot on from the quietest moments right through to the thunder and lightning scenes. The sound stage is absolutely perfect in every way.

So what would I critisise? Hmmm I guess that they could have given me neoprene framed glasses for comfort!

Movie 9/10 (It isn't a real movie)
Picture 10/10
Sound 10/10

I am now seriously debating whether to buy a multiregion Blu Ray player, so that I can buy this when it comes out in the states in November. I am also anxiously awaiting the arrival of Alice in Wonderland in 3D in March.


Well-Known Member
^ Alice in Wonderland is going to be 3D as well? What the heck, 3D use to be a treat, when it would just be on certain movies every once in a blue moon, but now it's everything, and I would rather just see the movie as it is than go for the 3D gimmick. Good storylines, decent regular animation or graphics, and good characters is what makes a good movie, not having **** pop out in your face.


Active Member
The 3D isn't used as a gimmick in most films, though. Okay, it was in My Bloody Valentine and things like that, but usually it's just used to add more depth to the picture, and create a more immersive experience.


Staff member
Lain said:
it's just used to add more depth to the picture, and create a more immersive experience.
And to add motion blur where there shouldn't be any and to take away my eyes own ability to work out depth on a 2D plane without the help of a pair of nerd glasses :roll:


Well-Known Member
Furie is right (and so is Taylor *punishes self harshly for such obvious blasphemy*)!

3D should be about the gimmick. I want to see things pop out of the screen and watch in amusement as the whole of the room reaches forward to touch something that's not there! :lol:

As opposed to making the picture just a wee bit sharper and fuller, I'm not too fussed about that, and it's certainly not worth a 33% price hike on normal screenings!

Plus, as I wear glasses the 3D ones over the top, are not only uncomfortable, but give me a huge headache for days afterwards.


Well-Known Member
3D does not really work for me :(

My sight in my left eye is very bad so all I end up with really is a blur from which I get a head ache and feel sick after about 10 mins.

I was sick after the Imax at NASA so all these new 3D films for me will be no good.

But as Areo has said 3D films have changed since the days of Jaws 3 and Spy Kids :) Maybe I should try again.

But I am ok with 3D films in theme parks which is strange.


3D films most certainly have changed. I still have one pair of 3D glasses in my 3rd Rock from the Sun box set, and the whole experience is horrid. I understand furies point about removing the ability to work out depth, but the same argument could be used against multichannel sound - jeez we only have 2 ears so why do we need 5.1 (or 7.1). The reality is the a well balanced sound stage gives you a depth which adds to the movie experience. 3D is no different in that it adds to the experience, as long as it isn't an 'in your face' experience. As I said, you did forget that you were wearing them, it really was that subtle.

It doesn't detract from the fact that you look a complete geek in the glasses, but then so were the other 499 people in the cinema. :p


Well-Known Member
I understand it adds depth and all that, but what I mean is, I hate seeing average movies (not saying Up is average because I haven't seen it, I just mean in general) get awesome reviews just because they're in 3D.. Yet they still have lacking storylines and all that. That's all I mean.. It's an easy way for movies to get better reviews without trying to think of good storylines.


Well-Known Member
3D is good for better perspective. I mean, it makes it look more sharper the closer things are (in the foreground) than those in the background. It does make the picture better, however, smaller things are just blurred and so not work.

Things like stuff 'coming right out at you' are really gimmicky. I'm in favour of it, just when used effectively.

Now, onto Up! which I saw last night. One word sums this movie up...FANTASTIC! I'd never thought I'd say that when I went in as the storyline to what I had heard was very basic and sounded slightly boring, though the whole plot had lots of depth.

Each character was simply amazing, and I'm not embarrassed to say this, but I wept about 4 times through it. Proper soppy tears and all. xD

Thank God that those 3D glasses are shaded, ey :p

Defiantly one of the best films I've seen of '09, and cemented in one of my top 30 films I've seen.




Well-Known Member
^OMG you really are a woman if you cried. :shock:

Anyway I'm off to the cinema tomorrow morning for my yearly dosage of Saw. :p
It'll be my first 18 I'll see in the cinema so it should be pretty cool. But the bad thing is that I may end up going on my own as no-one else nearby can make it to the morning showing (I'm away in the afternoon).
Another thing that annoys me is that people say it's **** as it's the the film and that they should of stopped making them ages ago. I disagree with this.

People who know nothing about horror films still like to take a cheap-shot when they can. They see a film with a 5 or a 6 in the title, and they get all clever: "Wow, part 6 already? Why? Who makes this stuff? Does anyone care anymore?" and all that jazz. Now, before I start ranting proper, I'm not saying that you're WRONG if you don't like the Saw films. I'm just sick of the knee-jerk reactions from people who'd happily mock a "Saw 6," but then run right home to catch the 11th season premiere of "CSI: New Jersey." Matter of fact, that's where I'll start:

It's a Serial!

The massively popular, horror-centric, and entirely silly True Blood is discussed like it's the reinvention of the vampire. (It's not. But it's good.) So far there have been 24 60-minute episodes of True Blood, which equals 1,440 minutes. By comparison the first five Saw films equal about 475 minutes. My point is this: Why should we hear cries of "enough!" on one and "ooooh, more please!" on another? Do the horror geeks not deserve their own equivalent of an "unending" soap opera? Is it fair that people bemoan a Saw 6 yet sit down for General Hospital ... every day for 15 years??

Saw 7 has already been confirmed and is going to be in 3D. This may ruin it but it will create loads of changes for sudden things coming out the screen which I love.

The Alien prequel looks ****. Ridley Scott has returned to direct it so if it's anything like the original Alien film then... ;)
http://www.variety.com/article/VR111800 ... id=13&cs=1

Oh and if you haven't seen them already. The Prince of Persia film looks absolutely gorgeous. Just look at these screens. Lets just hope the narrative is good and creates a good film.
http://geektyrant.com/2009/07/4-new-pri ... lm-images/

Also Pixar are going a bit adult now. :)
http://io9.com/5324303/pixar-artists-il ... -sexuality


Active Member
In regards to Ollie, I love the Horror & Thriller genre and still think Saw is awful and that's not anything to do with how much knowledge I have on horror films. I just think it's a clique mixed with repetitive use of traps and a storyline that weakens the more it progresses. Character development isn't as good as people make out, I can't relate to anything that they say or do. No twist in the world can make Saw good for me.


Staff member
I'm with Omerod, almost word for word.

I love horror, and have for years. I also enjoy all the cheese filled, crappy sequels - they're fun gore fests (I mean ALL things like Jason, Halloween, Nightmare on Elm street, etc, etc, etc).

However, I never try to elevate these films above what they are, fun splatter fests. I've seen Saw 1-5. I think Saw a great low budget horror thriller. The rest are "more of the same, with diminishing returns on story/character quality". This is the thing, they are what they are, but that doesn't mean that they're actually any good as a film. They do their job of having entertaining ways of getting people killed. The twists are to huge and obvious and over the top - but again, it's all part of the cheese.

However, they're NOT good films. They're just what they are, an hour and a half of blood filled entertainment. Nothing more, nothing less :)

I read that thing about the Alien prequel, and couldn't determine how good or bad it looks. You have missed the point of Alien again and again though Ollie - it's NOT a horror/thriller. It's a piece of great film making which pushed the boundaries when it was released. It's aged badly, but as a piece of filmic art, it's still brilliant. The lighting, camera work, panning, scoring, acting (except for one or two notable problems), pacing, production, writing, cinematography and direction are all absolutely top notch. It is a slow film, but you're meant to immerse yourself in it, not expect gratification every two minutes. It's a film that requires patience, which a lot of younger people (The Saw generation? :p ) just don't have with films.

Aliens was a great macho action flick. Completely different.

Alien 3 (I went to see it on my 18th birthday, as we're talking about that :) ) is a great debut for a new director (David Fincher), but nothing special.

Everything else is tosh, which makes me more concerned for the Alien prequel than for any other reason. The world has moved on, and audiences demand too much from this kind of film. They want action, explosions and blood thirst quenching gratification every three seconds - otherwise a film is "dull". I hope that Scott goes back to the good old days of telling a story and building a believable world. If Ollie hates it, he's got another classic on his hands :p


Well-Known Member
Saw (no pun intended ;)) it this morning. Cinema was dead and I was the only one in the screen until about a minute before the ads started and one other man came in.
The film began really well. The opening trap was great and really gory. Really kick started the film. The contents of Jills box is revealed in this one and what was in it was slightly disappointing. But anyway the film once again follows one man as he goes through a series of games choosing who he wants to live and who has to die. The traps in this film were great. They were all completely different from each other and you had no idea what was going to happen next.
Meanwhile the police/detectives are getting closer to finding out who is continuing Jigsaws work. Will they belive it was Strahm? (sp?)
About two thirds of the way through the film though I realised it was getting slightly less interesting. But it seemed the director realised this as well as the last few scenes were great and the ending was amazing.
The film answers alot of questions the other films have left open but also creates a few new ones for future Saw films.

So yeah it was good. I'd say it's about the same level as Saw 2 was but with more gore. I'd only suggest seeing it though if you've seen all the other Saw films (or you won't have a clue what's going on) and if you're interested in finding out more about the story.