To non-horror fans, the 80% that Saw X has on Rotten Tomatoes probably means it’s mid.
To horror fans/Saw fans, that 80% might as well be the rare 100% Rotten Tomatoes score that appears once in a blue moon.
611 notes
·
View notes
Friendly reminder that Costas Mandylor was in Sex and the City before Saw. You're welcome.
537 notes
·
View notes
before:
awwwhhh look at him he's so handsome I wanna pat his head I wanna ruffle his hair he's so cute I wanna kiss his adorable face and adore him so much awwww<3
after:
...............awwwhhh look at him he's so handsome I wanna pat his head I wanna ruffle his hair he's so cute I wanna kiss his adorable face and adore him so much awwww<3
68 notes
·
View notes
Just to emphasize how much of a left turn “Saw X” is for the franchise, you need to consider what “Saw” is to most people. Aside from the first movie which has been mostly re-evaluated as a decent thriller that was more focused on story than gore, the series has been criticized for being an excuse to show off people being mutilated in the worst ways possible. The series has been credited as a “pioneer” in the torture porn label, which you can’t really argue due to it being mostly true for the sequels. The series has also never been a critical darling (all the movies before X have all had negative Rotten Tomatoes scores), which I think contributed to the series’ image as low-grade torture porn.
As the story got more convoluted and frustrating, the more the series seemed to focus on killing people. For me, I started noticing this when the 4th movie featured a trap that didn’t really have a purpose in the story (the mausoleum trap with Art Blank). That trap felt more like the makers wanted to do a really brutal scene and didn’t care if it made sense.
Main characters would only last one movie. It was pretty much useless getting attached to any protagonist since they usually got axed off by the end of the movie. Because protagonists kept getting killed off, further sequels tended to focus on characters who played more minor roles. Rigg is probably the best example of this since I’m pretty sure no one was expecting this character to be a protagonist. Point I’m making here is that character development was essentially useless since protagonists were just glorified cannon fodder.
Then there’s the unfortunate existence of “Saw 3D”, which made the series look like it was just trend-chasing.
The series died for a few years. It then tried to come back with “Jigsaw” and “Spiral”, which the makers claimed to be a reinvention of the series that would renew interest in the franchise. Instead, they were both just sorta lackluster and didn’t really convince people that Saw was worth revisiting.
So, “Saw X” clearly had an uphill battle. But lo and behold, the movie gets released and ends up being:
1) A surprisingly good character piece centered around Jigsaw and Amanda. Yes, there are still death traps and gore, but the focus on story and character development is definitely felt more in this installment.
2) The only “Saw” movie with a positive Rotten Tomatoes score. In general, seeing positive critical reception about a “Saw” movie is crazy to me.
3) An actual, successful reinvention of the franchise since it’s centered around Jigsaw instead of having him be the mastermind in the background. Just by being a straightforward thriller instead of a convoluted horror-mystery is enough to distinguish this from the other 9 movies.
Kudos to “Saw”. This is why in one of my posts last night, I called it one of the greatest redemption arcs I’ve seen in horror. It’s the TENTH installment in a series that’s been critically savaged its entire lifetime, it shouldn’t have succeeded. But here we are.
354 notes
·
View notes