Saw III booing

On Saturday morning Breadly Moore wrote in and said he’d seen Saw III on Friday and that he was “stunned to find it booed at the very end by the full house.” (Not scattered boos, in other words.) He said it “made [him] happy” to hear this since he figured the type of people that enjoy these films would swallow any tripe the producers decide to shovel down their throats.” I was stunned by this news myself. Has anyone heard of audiences booing or sneering Saw IIIthis weekend? If so, what did the beef seem to be, other than the general fact they didn’t like it? What, I wonder, can a horror-gore film possibly do to earn boos?

  • Min

    I don’t have anything on Saw but I have two friends (NY)who walked out on “Running From Scissors”, as they called it. They’re not fanboy-types either.

  • Aguirre

    Times Square Friday night 12:30 AM. Annual tradition to go with that crowd for fun. STANDING OVATION (of which I was not a part). Not as bad as the second one, but whatever vibes of originality this franchise was riding on have gone back out to sea.

  • http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/invisible jesse

    I went to see it in Union Square, also in NYC, on Friday night at 8:20. I was fully prepared for the audience to be a bit rougher-hewn than average for the Union Square area (which typically gets semi-hip crowds, I find), because of the horror/opening night factor. Sometimes this can be fun (like seeing Final Destination movies in Times Square); other times, it just means audience feel even more entitled to talk, call their friends, whatever, generally act like jackasses.
    So I was prepared for this kind of experience in Union Square; maybe not as loud or massive as you’d get in Times Square, but the requisite talking, ringing, and general dumbassery.
    But a weird thing happened: the crowd was quiet and, um, respectful, pretty much throughout — I couldn’t even hear much background chatter during the parts where people weren’t getting mutilated. This was one of the most weirdly reverent crowds I’ve witnessed at a mainstream movie in the past month or so. At the end, there was … weirdly respectful applause. Not wild, but more than a handful of people were applauding. It was really the kind of reaction you’d expect to something like Flags of Our Fathers.
    In fact, I went back to the same theater the next day for Flags and also Nightmare Before Christmas in 3-D, and I can honestly say there was more chatter and/or cell noise at both of those movies than at Saw III. (Neither movie was at Times Square levels, but Nightmare especially had a couple of disruptors.)
    So, I dunno, I guess people really like these Saw movies. I mean, I kinda like them, obviously, or I wouldn’t have seen all three. They’re peversely enjoyable, a weird mix of better-than-average (for a slasher picture) and completely slapdash.
    Having actually seen the film, even with a rowdier crowd booing seems like a weird reaction, just because there’s no real reason someone who really liked the first two would find this one a real comedown, ya know?

  • sutter kane

    I went Friday night and I didn’t hear any boos, but I didn’t hear any applause, either. I didn’t care for it much myself, and I suppose audiences could dislike the twist- I mean, paradigm shift- or they did’t like the ‘cliffhanger’ ending. But it delivered what I expect most audiences were paying for: plenty of gory violence and a few stingers. Wouldn’t it be great if audiences were actually clamoring for a better story?
    That said, it is nice to see Angus Macfayden working. He’ll always be Robert the Bruce to me, but he’s a pretty good character actor. If these do well, maybe it’ll get him some better stuff.

  • breadlymoore

    “it is nice to see Angus Macfayden working. He’ll always be Robert the Bruce to me, but he’s a pretty good character actor. If these do well, maybe it’ll get him some better stuff.”
    That reminds me of this review for SAW III…
    “the trophy for worse acting job goes to Macfayden, a perennial ham with the worse male scream in the business and a sucker for performances without boundaries. Watching him emote in Hulk-like fashion is more painful than anything the Jigsaw could dream up.”
    -Brian Orndorf, efilmcritic.com

  • Walter Sobchak

    Booing “Saw III”? That’s like booing the North Pole for being cold. Serves the dumb asses right.

  • JD

    I spend a lot of time defending horror movies here (even though I only like about 10% of the horror films released these days), but I absolutely despise the Saw series. The first movie was a joke, the kind of horror movie that gives people like Jeff fuel to dismiss all horror movies. But it’s worth noting that many horror fans actually demand a little imagination, wit, and showmanship from their horror and this series has none of those things. I haven’t seen the third one yet, but I (reluctantly) rented the second one and was dumbfounded at how bad it was. Truly incoherent and idiotic. I just wish people would stop lumping this series and its creators with the films of Alexandre Aja, Rob Zombie, Eli Roth, etc. While those filmmakers all have significant weaknesses, at least they exhibit an understanding of basic cinematic grammar and narrative structure.

  • EDouglas

    I don’t know about booing but some people might have been bugged by the cliffhanger ending (which may or may not be continued into the already announced Saw IV next year). The movie wasn’t that bad but I heard a lot of complaints about the excess amount of gore…it really goes way beyond any of the previous Saw movies or any other movie I’ve seen for that matter.

  • slothroplt

    My 17-year old son went and saw it with a dozen or more of his high school friends on Friday and said, predictably, that it was gross and that he didn’t like it (“it sucked”).
    I then casually mentioned that he had told me the exact same thing when he came back from watching Saw II with his friends last year. “So why” I asked, “would you pay to see this one?
    “Because” he said, “no one — no one — wanted to see anything else. What am I going to do? Go see The Departed by myself?”
    And that’s how Saw III made $34 million dollars this weekend.

  • Krazy Eyes

    While I hated the first SAW, I actually thought the 2nd and 3rd ones were a huge step in a better direction. Certainly better than junk like Aja’s lame HILLS remake. I didn’t hear any grumbling in the audience I was with.
    Breadly’s (really? Breadly?) comment has the tinge of hyperbole or even outright shenanigans.

  • ejsteeler

    I saw it in San Francisco this weekend, and while I was disappointed, I was stunned that the (mostly) teenage crowd awarded it with rousing applause.
    I don’t live in Calif., but every time I’ve seen a movie there, people applaud, regardless of quality.

  • tholl-yung

    Speaking of people who spend a lot of time defending horror movies, Devin Faraci, Brian Jurgens and Michael Gingold were polled for comments in this story, which I culled and hopefully haven’t taken out of context.
    http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/ny-ffmov4948128oct29,0,5323578.story?coll=ny-movies-mezz
    Devin Faraci: “If you look back at the history of horror films, you’re going to get a really good psycho-social history of the eras they were made in.”
    On films today, it√¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s: “the kind of stuff you used to feel really creepy about renting in the VHS days. Only the most hard-core people went to go see them in the Times Square grind houses. Today, every 14-year-old kid is going. That’s an interesting change in the landscape. And it’s sad.”
    On is the new violence really new: “If you’re looking at the mainstream stuff, the answer is definitely yes. In terms of the whole genre, no, not even close. The mainstream stuff is more gruesome than it’s been in a long, long time – if ever. Besides ‘Last House on the Left,’ there was [1985's] ‘Re-Animator,’ in which a decapitated head rapes a girl – something you’re never going to see in a mainstream movie. Someone else is killed by exploding intestines. That’s never going to happen at the mall either. But the mainstream films of today are harkening back to those exploitation films of the ’70s, when things got really heavy, and they’re much more into torture, an element which you never saw in mainstream horror.”
    Brian Jurgens on films today: “They’re not about traditional horror storytelling. They’re about making people suffer in prolonged and gruesome ways. And audiences are eating it up. Whether audiences are looking for an escapist way to experience these things they’re seeing in the news every day, and don’t feel comfortable responding to them emotionally, I’m not quite sure. But the trend has really continued with ‘Hostel,’ ‘House of Wax’ – which is an incredibly meanspirited movie – and all these other big studio horror flicks that are coming out. Horror movie audiences are notoriously easy to please. I want good horror movies. I have an issue with the horror community celebrating every horror movie that comes out – ‘Grudge II’ was No. 1 at the box office last weekend for absolutely no reason. We have to be a little more demanding if we expect quality movies.”
    Michael Gingold on films today: There is a sub-genre now: “torture films,” “predicated on much more explicit violence and suffering than we’ve seen in mainstream horror for a while.”

  • DarthCorleone

    Despised the first one. I’m not a horror buff, but I do enjoy the genre on occasion.
    slothropit, I find your story very disheartening. I realize when you’re 17 you want to hang out with your friends, but could that be a major reason why Hollywood resorts to the lowest common denominator – simply because a group of people must settle on the only thing that sort of pleases everyone on a Friday night?
    More people need to go to the theater alone like antisocial me.

  • Dixon Steele

    Does Breadly Moore ever make sense?

  • T.H. Unfassung

    Speaking of people who spend a lot of time defending horror movies, Devin Faraci, Brian Jurgens and Michael Gingold were polled for comments in this story, which I culled and hopefully haven’t taken out of context.
    http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/ny-ffmov4948128oct29,0,5323578.story?coll=ny-movies-mezz

    Devin Faraci: “If you look back at the history of horror films, you’re going to get a really good psycho-social history of the eras they were made in.”
    On films today, it’s: “the kind of stuff you used to feel really creepy about renting in the VHS days. Only the most hard-core people went to go see them in the Times Square grind houses. Today, every 14-year-old kid is going. That’s an interesting change in the landscape. And it’s sad.”
    On is the new violence really new: “If you’re looking at the mainstream stuff, the answer is definitely yes. In terms of the whole genre, no, not even close. The mainstream stuff is more gruesome than it’s been in a long, long time – if ever. Besides ‘Last House on the Left,’ there was [1985's] ‘Re-Animator,’ in which a decapitated head rapes a girl – something you’re never going to see in a mainstream movie. Someone else is killed by exploding intestines. That’s never going to happen at the mall either. But the mainstream films of today are harkening back to those exploitation films of the ’70s, when things got really heavy, and they’re much more into torture, an element which you never saw in mainstream horror.”

    Brian Jurgens on films today: “They’re not about traditional horror storytelling. They’re about making people suffer in prolonged and gruesome ways. And audiences are eating it up. Whether audiences are looking for an escapist way to experience these things they’re seeing in the news every day, and don’t feel comfortable responding to them emotionally, I’m not quite sure. But the trend has really continued with ‘Hostel,’ ‘House of Wax’ – which is an incredibly meanspirited movie – and all these other big studio horror flicks that are coming out. Horror movie audiences are notoriously easy to please. I want good horror movies. I have an issue with the horror community celebrating every horror movie that comes out – ‘Grudge II’ was No. 1 at the box office last weekend for absolutely no reason. We have to be a little more demanding if we expect quality movies.”

    Michael Gingold on films today: There is a sub-genre now: “torture films,” “predicated on much more explicit violence and suffering than we’ve seen in mainstream horror for a while.”