"If it's Halloween, it must be SAW". Truer words have never been spoken, as SAW has quickly become the tradition of the season of the witch. You see, a sequel to this franchise, which began in 2004, has been released every year since then, the sixth coming out this Halloween. What I fail to understand is why they keep making sequels. You see, I am new to the SAW franchise. Not brand new, because I actually saw the third movie with my then-11 year old brother when it came out. He watched, while I covered my eyes most of the time. I'm a terrible older brother, but I thought it would be a good bonding experience. Because nothing says bonding like taking your brother to see what is known as a torture-porn! "But Kenny, what is a torture-porn?"
Torture-porn is a newer sub-genre of horror that has gone far beyond the other extreme sub-genres, like the exploitation of the 1970's and the slasher of the 1980's. What is the main trait? As opposed to other horror movies, which have a moral to their story (they do, trust me), the torture-porn is not interested in any of that morality nonsense. Instead, the selling point is seeing people die horrible deaths, mostly when in a tortuous device. The movies best known in this sub-genre are the latest SAW movies, and Eli Roth's Hostel saga.
Don't chew me out, this is from SAW 3!
However, there is something very interesting to consider: while the SAW sequels have gotten gorier and gorier, while the story has become more and more convoluted, the first SAW movie actually had very little, if any, shown violence... wait, what? Yeah, SAW actually started off extremely tame in the way of gore. "But Kenny," you ask, this joke obviously stolen from Zero Punctuation ohgoddonthuntmedown, "how was the movie interesting without the GORE?" Well, SAW was actually very deeply rooted in a much older sub-genre of horror, suspense. The first SAW had much less gore, and much more suspense, and as a result I could actually watch this movie without covering my eyes! I watched the first film last night, and I thought it would be appropriate to review it, seeing as Halloween, and another sequel, draw closer.
-Synopsis-
The story begins with Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) and Adam (Leigh Wannell) finding themselves locked in a dingy dungeon/bathroom, chained to pipes with no way out. They discover that they are in a trap crafted by a mad genius the world knows as the Jigsaw Killer. As events unfold, Gordon discovers that Jigsaw has his daughter and wife. Will he be able to save them, and his own life? Meanwhile, Detective Tapp (Danny Glover) is obsessed with finding the Jigsaw killer because of the death of his partner. Will he be able to solve the case and save lives?
- The Good -
One of the strongest points that immediately came to look me in the face in this movie was the overwhelming suspense that makes this an actual classic. While the sequels are filled with gratuitous amounts of gore, and the characters are about as flat as a cardboard cutout (much akin to the victims in slasher films), the few characters presented here are given gut-wrenching tasks that either lets them live or die. The tension builds up nicely between Dr. Gordon and Adam as their collective histories are revealed to the audience, the two characters all the while trying to desperately escape the trap they are in before the time runs out.
All the while, Detective Tapp's exploits in finding Jigsaw, while short-lived in terms of screen time, also add to that tasty suspense. For instance, when he and his partner encounter Jigsaw in a flashback, you think that they are able to capture him while they are thrown into a massive confrontation. However, just as you think the two detectives are about to get Jigsaw, BOOM. The partner sadly meets his maker. All of these scenes with Gordon and Tapp help to build up to the final climax, where the killer has a showdown with the detective.
You know what also helps build suspense? The off-screen violence that occurs. With the sequels, you have every little detail shown in the torture-porn moneyshots so nothing is left to the imagination. That's a huge mistake, because leaving more to the mind actually intensifies the thrill of the situation due to the fact that people can imagine far more horrifying things happening if they don't SEE what's happening. Even the part with Tapp's partner dying, while horrible in itself, was off-screen, so the impact was also greater than if you saw his brains get blown out.
Another thing I found appealing was the clever and inventive story. As opposed to its sequels and other horror brethren that came out during that time, SAW was actually different because it didn't treat the audience like idiots. To the contrary, it was like a harrowing yet intricate detective movie, leaving the audience clues to try and make their own conclusions. There were also little bits and pieces in the movie that made you go "Ooooooooh, it was HIM!" For instance, when you go into a flashback of Dr. Gordon's history as a doctor, you meet one of his patients, John Kramer. If you aren't familiar with who he is from the sequels, you'll find out what he does best at the very end of the movie. All in all, this made me very appreciative as a whole because it was fresh and exciting to be treated my age by a movie's plot.
This is the usual feeling in a modern horror flick that has the brain of a kid.
The last good thing I can really think of is the very ending of the film. It has a huge twist... which, in Horror Corner tradition, I will not give away. Yay!
-The Bad-
One of the things that really threw me off about SAW was some of the editing in some sequences, particularly when lives were at risk. For instance, you see Amanda Young, a heroin addict, strapped to the infamous Reverse Beartrap. As she struggles to get out of it, the editing is very similar to either a Rob Zombie dream sequence, or an MTV music video; it's extremely fast, extremely twitchy, and extremely confusing. However, to the editor's credit, it could have been put this way to give the viewer a sense of panic, utilizing the mechanism of the Soviet Montage and using the momentum of the cutting to create that feeling of confusion in the audience.
A nitpick was that the acting wasn't the best in the world. While some did a good job, like Cary Elwes, others were rather lackluster. For instance, Danny Glover may be a good actor in other films that he was in, but I just didn't feel like he did a very good job. It felt, to me, like he was just phoning in. He seemed like he was just randomly wandering around the place saying his lines without any real motivation behind his performance. Leigh Wannell was an actor I had mixed feelings about, so I really can't say much on his behalf.
Dr. Gordon before his first divorce.
-The Verdict-
SAW has created a legacy for itself in the horror world. While I can't say that it left a positive impact with what would eventually become the new sub-genre of horror, torture porn, I can gladly say that the original film was an excellent suspense-thriller that, if treated better with sequels, could have brought back the Hitchcockian form of film. With that said, SAW was probably one of the best horror films to come out in this decade, most likely to be remembered alongside Drag Me To Hell as an example that the genre is not dead, but is still alive and kicking.
With the various factors giving this film a great sense of suspense, the subtlety of the violence and deaths, the great twist ending, and the immersible story that treats you like an adult, and the only debatable flaws being the acting and the editing in some portions, which may or may not be an actual fault at all, this film receives:
4/5
Demon Days Retrospective Podcast-Video Hybrid *finished*
God knows I don't rush myself 
Go to page: 
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed