Reply
  • May 14, 2021
    ·
    2 replies

    Critics were tripping, solid movie, 6.5/10 for me.

    The story and acting were good, Chris Rock really killed it imo, it could’ve used more traps and the ending was abrupt af.

    But what more do you want from a SAW spinoff. JIGSAW I thought was terrible and this was a great bounce back and a breath of fresh air.

  • May 14, 2021
    ·
    1 reply

    The voice was um u know very Diddy like if u catch my drift.

  • May 14, 2021
    ·
    2 replies
    Abhinav Singh

    The voice was um u know very Diddy like if u catch my drift.

  • May 14, 2021
    DonPierre

    Critics were tripping, solid movie, 6.5/10 for me.

    The story and acting were good, Chris Rock really killed it imo, it could’ve used more traps and the ending was abrupt af.

    But what more do you want from a SAW spinoff. JIGSAW I thought was terrible and this was a great bounce back and a breath of fresh air.

    Apparently there was another trap filmed that was too violent for the MPAA

  • May 14, 2021
    Nute

    I was surprised the villain wasn't RuPaul, all I'm saying.

  • May 14, 2021

    Hyped to see this, my local cinema being b****es I gotta travel into London just to peep

  • May 14, 2021
    DonPierre

    Critics were tripping, solid movie, 6.5/10 for me.

    The story and acting were good, Chris Rock really killed it imo, it could’ve used more traps and the ending was abrupt af.

    But what more do you want from a SAW spinoff. JIGSAW I thought was terrible and this was a great bounce back and a breath of fresh air.

    I don't know...a lot people who I wouldn't really categorize as "critics" aren't really feeling this

  • May 15, 2021

    Actually f***ing abysmal film. Was very hype too.

  • May 15, 2021
    ·
    1 reply

    Like Chris rock's acting is some of the worst I've seen in a studio picture leading role in a while.

  • May 16, 2021
    ·
    1 reply
    flootures

    Like Chris rock's acting is some of the worst I've seen in a studio picture leading role in a while.

    What didn't you like about it? I never saw any of the other saw movies

  • May 16, 2021
    Nute

    He means Diddy Kong

  • May 16, 2021
    ·
    1 reply

    4K transfer of Saw 1 is insanely well done. Recommend it heavily.

  • May 16, 2021
    ·
    2 replies
    ziggy

    4K transfer of Saw 1 is insanely well done. Recommend it heavily.

    i've never watched an upscale of an older movie

    does it enhance the experience?

    i get it in games but i like how old movies look

    you know?

  • May 16, 2021
    ·
    2 replies
    notesfromphilo

    i've never watched an upscale of an older movie

    does it enhance the experience?

    i get it in games but i like how old movies look

    you know?

    It was filmed on 35mm film, so you still get that film grain and "old movie look", you just see way more detail and the colors look better

  • May 16, 2021
    ziggy

    It was filmed on 35mm film, so you still get that film grain and "old movie look", you just see way more detail and the colors look better

    appreciate the knowledge

  • May 16, 2021
    Moses X

    What didn't you like about it? I never saw any of the other saw movies

    It's definitely one of the worse ones, the editing, acting, traps, pacing, everything is subpar. I was glad it was funny bad tho, I could laugh at it. I wasn't miserable. Chris rock was literally on his king Bach s***, like I truly have not seen him give such a weak performance. It was like a funny or die saw video.

    That being said, 21 savage spiral theme is one of the hardest OST tracks for a movie in a minute

  • May 16, 2021
    ·
    2 replies

    Some of the hard cuts to Chris rock's face with the massive shake filter on it, those "im going insane!" shots, had me actually dying in the theater. Tears.

    Why on earth they decided to grab the nigga from saw 2-4 to "inject new life into the franchise" is beyond me

  • May 16, 2021
    flootures

    Some of the hard cuts to Chris rock's face with the massive shake filter on it, those "im going insane!" shots, had me actually dying in the theater. Tears.

    Why on earth they decided to grab the nigga from saw 2-4 to "inject new life into the franchise" is beyond me

    mE TOO , da scene where he’s in the car screaming AAAAAA had me on my kNeesssss

  • Melz ⚜️
    May 16, 2021
    ·
    2 replies
    notesfromphilo

    i've never watched an upscale of an older movie

    does it enhance the experience?

    i get it in games but i like how old movies look

    you know?

    It’s not an upscale actually

    Old movies are shot on film not digital meaning that the detail is actually physical and can be scanned at higher resolutions while still having detail. 35mm Old movies if they have access to well preserved negatives can can be scanned at 4K and look basically as good as movies today and even better

    Movies today are shot on digital cameras usually at 2k or even higher for iMax/blockbuster movies but CGI is only done at 2K due to cost and time.

    Endgame was shot in 6.5k. This means endgame was down scaled to 2K to match the CGI and then they upscale it back to 4K to release 4K discs and streaming and such. Not real 4K

    TLDR: Older movies can look better than movies today. Older movies are scanned at 4K while newer movies are upscaled if they have CGI or were shot at 2K.

    PS: 70mm film is around 12K-ish making film far superior to digital currently

  • Melz

    It’s not an upscale actually

    Old movies are shot on film not digital meaning that the detail is actually physical and can be scanned at higher resolutions while still having detail. 35mm Old movies if they have access to well preserved negatives can can be scanned at 4K and look basically as good as movies today and even better

    Movies today are shot on digital cameras usually at 2k or even higher for iMax/blockbuster movies but CGI is only done at 2K due to cost and time.

    Endgame was shot in 6.5k. This means endgame was down scaled to 2K to match the CGI and then they upscale it back to 4K to release 4K discs and streaming and such. Not real 4K

    TLDR: Older movies can look better than movies today. Older movies are scanned at 4K while newer movies are upscaled if they have CGI or were shot at 2K.

    PS: 70mm film is around 12K-ish making film far superior to digital currently

    i really appreciate you breaking this down for me

    thank you!

  • ziggy

    It was filmed on 35mm film, so you still get that film grain and "old movie look", you just see way more detail and the colors look better

    man people forget the first film was really great

  • May 16, 2021
    ·
    1 reply
    Melz

    It’s not an upscale actually

    Old movies are shot on film not digital meaning that the detail is actually physical and can be scanned at higher resolutions while still having detail. 35mm Old movies if they have access to well preserved negatives can can be scanned at 4K and look basically as good as movies today and even better

    Movies today are shot on digital cameras usually at 2k or even higher for iMax/blockbuster movies but CGI is only done at 2K due to cost and time.

    Endgame was shot in 6.5k. This means endgame was down scaled to 2K to match the CGI and then they upscale it back to 4K to release 4K discs and streaming and such. Not real 4K

    TLDR: Older movies can look better than movies today. Older movies are scanned at 4K while newer movies are upscaled if they have CGI or were shot at 2K.

    PS: 70mm film is around 12K-ish making film far superior to digital currently

    Didn't know that about infinity war. Weirdly enough, one of the last movies where I truly LOVED the cgi.

  • Melz ⚜️
    May 16, 2021
    ·
    2 replies
    flootures

    Didn't know that about infinity war. Weirdly enough, one of the last movies where I truly LOVED the cgi.

    I said endgame but infinity war was shot the same way according to IMDb. if you look at technical specifications it tells you source format (what it was shot in) and master format (what it was released in)

    CGI not looking good is much more a problem of time, money, and amount of work. There’s so much cgi in movies today that they can’t focus and nail down cgi in every scene they have to just make everything look good enough across the board.

    And along with that there’s so much that studios don’t want to spend more time and more money when the budgets are already insane

  • May 16, 2021
    ·
    edited
    ·
    2 replies
    Melz

    I said endgame but infinity war was shot the same way according to IMDb. if you look at technical specifications it tells you source format (what it was shot in) and master format (what it was released in)

    CGI not looking good is much more a problem of time, money, and amount of work. There’s so much cgi in movies today that they can’t focus and nail down cgi in every scene they have to just make everything look good enough across the board.

    And along with that there’s so much that studios don’t want to spend more time and more money when the budgets are already insane

    Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing lol, but either way

    Really interesting too because IW got delayed, and I think they were able to reallocate that time in post really well. For endgame, it wasn't that same period of freedom. And interestingly enough, for all these movies that got delayed and dropped during the pandemic, they all kinda looked like s***/not that great on the cgi front either. Makes one wonder

    Spiral was a victim of this too, you'd expect a more strenuous post-production period just due to the time spent in the oven. Most of the work gotta be digital anyway

1
...
13
14
15
...
36