Has anyone seen Saw 3 and if so is it any good? I'm a massive fan of the first two films but havent had chance to see the third yet, was thinking of renting it tonight, is it worth the £3.50 cause i heard its not as good as the first two??
2007-03-26 23:19:28 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
Yes, go and see for yourself. If anything its a chance to grab a take out, a DVD, something to drink and have a 'chill' night. In fact it sounds sooo good, can I come? lol
2007-03-26 23:23:45 · answer #1 · answered by Need_to_know 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends what you like about the first two. It's got all the gore, with change, of the first couple. But it's almost so relentless there's no room for anything else. In the first two (especially the first, my favourite) the brutality is kinda tempered by the story - it draws you in slowly with the flashbacks showing the back story, so that when something gross happens you feel more of an attatchment to the charecter it happens to. On the other hand, Saw3 just minces up it's cast as soon as they're introduced, they're not much more than an excuse to show off another death trap. Not a bad film, not as good as the previous ones though. In my opinion.
2007-03-27 00:07:49 · answer #2 · answered by Bultimus 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have seen it twice and it is very good. It really brings the other 2 films together and answers a lot of unanswered questions from the first 2 films.
Its not as good as the first one but better than the second one in my opinion. Well worth £3.50.
2007-03-26 23:23:13 · answer #3 · answered by Catwhiskers 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i havent seen it but this might help -
the film has gained a positive response from movie-goers, but mixed reviews by critics. "Saw III is the sickest, most brilliant, most twisted, most clever and most emotional Saw yet", and, "has the strongest acting (in the Saw franchise) to date,"[3] claims Fred Topel of CanMag.com. Other critics, such as Jeannette Catsoulis of the New York Times has scolded the film not for "the creativity of the bloodletting but the bleak view of human nature, specifically our talent for ruining the present to avenge the past."[4] "Hardcore horror geeks will love the extreme nature of the bloodletting here, calculated to torture an audience almost as much as those suffering on film,"[5] says John Monaghan of the Detroit Free Press.
At screenings in the United Kingdom three people were reported to have fainted at separate movie theaters due to the film's content, resulting in ambulances needing to be called.[6]
2007-03-26 23:24:26 · answer #4 · answered by qwerty u 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I also loved the first two and after reading all the hype about number 3, like all the people fainting in the cinemas i was dissapointed.dont get me wrong its a great film but it has nothing that saw 1 and 2 doesnt.
its definately worth watching but dont expect a brilliant film.
2007-03-26 23:24:12 · answer #5 · answered by Peanut butter Jelly Time!!!! 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Saw III definately sums up the rest of the films you kinda get a sense of ahhh right...but yeh see it if you've seen the others. I did find it more gorey than the last an nearly walked out in the first 15 mins (more from fright than it being rubbish - but then i am a wimp!)
2007-03-27 01:42:02 · answer #6 · answered by Mona Lisa 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I have seen it. Would definitely say worth the £3.50. Is just as good as the first two.
2007-03-27 00:51:53 · answer #7 · answered by Dom 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The story isn't as good as the first two, but it makes up for it by being the most gruesome. Especially if you get the extended version.
2007-03-26 23:22:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Thought it was great! My daughter, who is a huge horror fan liked it. I'd rate the saw series best to worse One, three, and two. Can't wait for four.
2007-03-27 00:06:02 · answer #9 · answered by Lisa T (Stop BSL) 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not as good as i thought it would be. Still worth a look. Saw 4? Can't wait.
2007-03-27 01:40:16 · answer #10 · answered by moopoppet 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋