Quote:
Originally posted by alkytrio666
I'm just saying that if people are going to say that saw had "great cinematography", they need to realize that...it didn't.
|
Don't be a pompous ass and state your opinion as fact man, cause thats wrong. Cinematography is not all about little things like a microphone popping into the picture(Jesus it was made in like two weeks man) but about the overall scenery and mood to each setting, and that is something that Saw did beautifully. The scenes describing how the killers previous victims had died had me biting my nails man, and yes some of the acting was mediocre but there was still some decent acting, way better than a film starring Paris fucking Hilton.
Seriously why the hell would you cast Paris Hilton in a movie? She's not an actress and couldn't act decently if someone had a gun down her throat. The only reason she was in it was because the producers wanted a big name to draw in teenagers to make money off of a piece of shit like House of Wax.
And am I the only one who noticed that the House of Wax remake was completely not a remake? It had almost nothing to do with the Vincet Price classic(still one of the scariest classics) and the only real similiarited were wax.
And just to add one more example of how I believe Saw is easily superior to House of Wax, is that Saw got into theaters in a wide release after starting off as being a really limited release that wasn't going to do much, but because of word of mouth from horror fanatics all over the internet the buzz for it overflowed and it had a wide release. House of Wax got a wide release because it has Paris Hilton in it.
Yikes