Saw-PosterHorror, as with many other genres, has had several evolutionary branches develop over the decades, and different decades have had different branches take prominence. Monster movies, psychological thrillers, haunted houses, slashers, and even parody-homages have held the top spots at various times. The pendulum is swinging back to possessions now, but for a while in the mid-2000s, the genre of choice seemed to be films which focused on the fear of physical torment. Dubbed “torture porn” by its detractors, the most prominent of these films and the progenitor of most of them was 2004’s Saw.

Not one to shy away from disturbing content — at least, not within the month of Halloween! — I took the plunge and checked the film out this year.


The nice thing about the decision to watch a film like this is that it’s pretty much guaranteed to be better than the decisions of the characters.

Saw begins well enough. A photographer awakens in a bathtub in a dark room. He soon discovers two things: he’s chained to a pipe, and he has a cellmate. Once the other man, a surgeon, finds a light switch, they take assessment of their situation, and discover that neither can remember exactly how they got there. They soon realize they’re in the hands of “the jigsaw killer”, a serial killer whose modus operandi is to lead his captives to kill each other or themselves in their attempts to escape, allegedly to teach them to value the lives they’ve been taking for granted. Sure enough, messages on audio cassette confirm their situation, as the doctor is told that unless he kills Adam by 6:00, his wife and daughter will be murdered. As the doctor relates to the photographer what he knows of the killer, from being questioned during the investigation earlier, the audience is shown flashbacks of the killer’s earlier victims and death traps.

Curiously, this actually serves to weaken the suspense in the film. Besides the general sloppiness of flashbacks within flashbacks, by having Dr. Gordon relate twice-told tales, it takes some of the realness away from the killings. Coupled with the death traps being over-elaborate to the point of imitation Bond villainy, it makes it rather difficult to buy into the fear of the situations. Director James Wan then compounds this problem with some strange directorial choices, such as having the victims attempt their escapes in fast forward while adrenaline-charging music plays. It feels more like an action movie than a suspense film during these moments.


The puppet’s creepy, though. I’ll give it that.

There is one bright point to the flashbacks, and that’s Danny Glover as the detective who is trying to track down the jigsaw killer. Glover doesn’t get a lot of screen time compared to the main characters, but he puts such nuance into his role — no doubt aided by the viewer’s familiarity with him in weary cop roles — that it’s easy to get a sense of personality for his character.

That aside, the film is actually far superior when it’s just dealing with Adam and Lawrence in their cell. As the old masters of suspense knew, sometimes the scariest thing to show is nothing at all. Leigh Whannell, who co-wrote the film with James Wan, plays photographer Adam and is a natural at depicting somebody who expresses their fear through outrage. He’s angry, he’s mouthy, he’s almost out of control… and he’s in stark contrast with his cell mate, Dr. Lawrence Gordon. It’s always a pleasure to see Cary Elwes, whose talent tends to far exceed the movie offerings he seems to get, at least outside of The Princess Bride (though I’ll admit to having a soft spot for Robin Hood: Men in Tights, it would be a fib to say it was a great film). Here, Elwes plays Gordon with a sense of reserved calm; he knows he’s in trouble and there are times when he gets emotional, but he’s clearly applying his ingrained tendency to medical detachment. It makes it that much more powerful when he does let loose his emotions. When the film focuses on just Adam and Lawrence and their situation, it succeeds at being a suspenseful film far better than it does when it’s trying to show the pain and suffering of prior victims. Of course, there are still moments when the directing gets in the way, such as intermittent viewings through a closed-circuit camera. During these shots, it is difficult to see or hear what is going on, and the gimmick serves little purpose other than to remind the audience that somebody is watching, which is patently clear from the beginning. I also have to take issue, if only slightly, with the final twist of the film. Without spoiling anything, it relies on a trained medical professional failing at one of the key skills a medical professional is trained at. I’m willing to forgive it under “he was stressed”, but it was nevertheless a small concern.

In the interest of full disclosure, this is one more thing that I have to say about my personal viewing experience with the film. As I’ve stated in years past, one of the things I’m always curious about is whether or not a horror film will give me nightmares — no film of any genre has since I was a small child. I’ve had a personal rule that if any horror film should succeed in giving me a nightmare, I would automatically raise its rating by one point. I have to admit that when I went to bed after watching Saw, I did indeed have a Saw-inspired dream. It was not, however, a nightmare, as I wasn’t frightened or distraught in the dream. I was instead rather peeved, and spent the dream berating the killer’s hypocrisy and baseless assumptions in his motivations. As a conscious individual I am of course aware that a fictional serial killer is pretty much the last place one should look for warranted assumptions and internally consistent logic, but apparently my subconscious is an even harsher critic than its waking counterpart. So I’m afraid I can’t give Saw the nightmare bonus, as the dream it inspired did not qualify.

On the whole, Saw is a rather uneven experience. The acting is very good, and the basic plot is indeed worthy of suspense. But it’s a better film and a scarier film when it’s not dealing with the torture and gore that are ostensibly its reason for existing. In a way, it should have been an even lower-budget production; remove the fancier deathtraps, and it’s a more visceral experience.

Rating: 3 Pumpkins

About Morgan R. Lewis

Fan of movies and other media
This entry was posted in Halloween Haunters and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Saw

  1. I really enjoyed this, probably one of my favourite horror films, concept-wise anyway. I haven’t seen all the sequels but I’m a big fan of this one. Nice write up Morgan.

  2. CMrok93 says:

    Everything leading up to those final 5 minutes were okay, if procedural, but damn, those last 5 minutes really but put a wrench in your gut. Good review Morgan. Nice way to get the Halloween season started!

  3. Spikor says:

    At the time Saw 3 was just about to hit theatres, I finally watched this. I had passed it over as overhyped for 2 years. I hadn’t really looked into it, because had I known Elwes, Glover and that guy from Lost were in it, I would have jumped on it right away.

    Anyway, as it turned out, I loved everything about this movie. The tension, the traps, the twist. Everything. I’ve seen it 4 times now, and I’ve begun to be more critical of it. But I still love it. It literally gave me chills at the end. That rarely happens with me, and it’s almost always whenever a horror movie’s twist really takes me by surprise.

    Eventually, yeah, I thought “But… he’s a doctor… and I don’t care how many drugs you take that’s just not happening.” But that was, like, 16 hours later.

    I’d be interested to see your reaction to the sequels, and how many of them you’d go through before you shut it off mid-movie.

    • Honestly, I’m pretty disinclined to pursue the sequels at this point, since I had only a “fair” impression of the first one. Even so, I’m glad you got a kick out of it, and I can understand why. The tension aspect is what really works for me here.

  4. Tyson Carter says:

    One of my favourite films, such good memories from seeing this for the first time. I watch it and all the sequels every year, so needless to say I think you’re far too harsh on it! But thats all the fun of differing opinions, and nice to see your thoughts as always Morgan. 🙂

    • Well, I figured someone must like it, since there have been all those sequels. 🙂 But no, I still think it’s at its best when it’s just being suspenseful rather than going into the gore. For some reason, that just doesn’t manage to be frightening.

      • Tyson Carter says:

        I see it more in the style of Se7en, a serial killer film rather than an outright trying to scare people movie. The continuity amongst all 7 films is what I love. Little things, just for fans.

  5. Oh man, I forgot Danny Glover was in this. Been ages since I watched the original, but I have always been a fan of the series (even though the sequels got progressively worse). I might have to give it another go this month — will be interesting to see if I like it as much with a more critical eye.

  6. Jaina says:

    Big fan of the first Saw film. It’s a completely different type of film to the rest of the Saw films, which are just gorefest and retcons by the thousand! I liked the detective story feel that this one had. And bonus points of Cary Elwes!

    It has been a LONG time since I last saw it though. Maybe I should give it another watch this Halloween?

  7. Pingback: Halloween Haunters 2013 Roundup | Morgan on Media

Leave a comment:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s