Not Signed In - login
0 films ranked
Register for a Free Account
Bookmark Criticker!
Your Profile
All Your Rankings
Generate TCIs
Your Best TCIs
Your PSIs
Your Kumpels
Starred Reviews
Your Wishlist
You
Search


Heroes of Contentiousness #1 - Saw

Saw @ Amazon
We’ve been trying to kick-start Criticker’s blog this week with a bunch of new features. One of these is to highlight the films which have split our user community. And, yes, we’re using an uncomplicated mathematical formula to generate a complicated acronym. Try this on for size:

(min(P,N)/max(P,N) * (P+N)/T) * 100 = FCQ

P = Positive Rankings (Tiers 8, 9, 10), N = Negative Rankings (Tiers 1, 2, 3),
T = Total Rankings, FCQ = Film Contentiousness Quotient

Step off, pretenders. That Geek License is ours! To put the equation above into plain English, these are the films that equal numbers of people hate and love, and that the fewest number of people feel indifferent about.

 

First up, with a FCQ of 48.77 is Saw. Most people loved or hated it. Regardless of the film’s cinematic worth, Saw was a massive success and the harbinger of a new (or, revived) genre of film: Gorno. In Saw, the emphasis was not so much on the struggle of good versus evil, as it was on watching people get murdered in the most disturbing ways possible.

Seen in the light of more recent splatter films such as Wolf Creek and the Hostel movies, Saw is mild (and more clever). But taking the film itself plus its historical context into account, where do you stand? Was Saw (palindrome!) a great film or a terrible one? “In between” is not an option.

Personally, I’m coming down on the side of Terrible. Saw was entertaining, but I can’t excuse it for sexing up murder and violence, let alone for being successful enough to popularize the practice. But don’t take it from me! Criticker users can say it better. User jetjaguar, for one, agrees:

“A movie that seems to think it’s much deeper than it actually has any hope of being. The camera and editing trick wear out their welcome long before the story descends into absolute nonsense. I really hate this movie.”

On the other side of the fence, rockyrules said:

Say what you will about it, but I walked in expecting a gritty and gory psychological thriller and that’s what I got. I loved the atmosphere, and the film had a clever premise and interesting plot twists. And yes, Cary Elwes is laughably bad in this film, but despite that, I enjoyed it.

 

Ay, can’t we get along? Actually, we can. Here are two films everyone agrees on:
Unanimously Crap (FCQ 0.84): The Animal. Sorry, Rob, we are in agreement.
Unanimously Sweet (FCQ 2.03): The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. A classic.

3 Responses to “Heroes of Contentiousness #1 - Saw”


  1. 1 paulofilmo

    Love the new feature, guys. And the dork talk is hot.

    I haven’t seen Saw, but I thought Wolf Creek was quite good (despite the dodgy accents). I only watch a few horror films a decade, though, so what would I know?

    Anyone want to have a guess at future Contentious features? I’m having a hard time thinking of other marmite films. Equilibrium, maybe?

  2. 2 Tijl Kindt

    **cheers for the new weekly feature**
    As for future Contentious features. Maybe Titanic, paulofilmo? No idea, really.

  3. 3 KGB

    Nice one! It was pretty painful to say ‘Saw’ was -GREAT-. It wasn’t. It was awful, but it’s a big guilty pleasure of mine so I still enjoy it. Still, it isn’t great… Not terrible, but definitely not great. And since I had to defend one of these stands, I went with the first one. But still… It was OK.

    I want more of these!

Leave a Reply