Saw

Not since Se7en's John Doe has there been a serial killer with such a bizarre philosophy behind his actions (not that Jigsaw actually kills anyone; more on that later). Sure, in light of the increasingly deteriorating sequels it's hard to think of Saw as little more than a franchise- starter (something the writer and director never planned), but viewed on its own, astonishing merits, it's a good, nasty thriller, filled with solid scares and (especially compared to the follow-ups) quite well written.

According to the film's notorious back-story, it took only 28 days to shoot it. Not that strange, given most of the action takes place in just two locations: one is a bathroom where Adam (Leigh Whannell) and Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) fins themselves with their feet chained to the wall, with no recollection whatsoever of how the hell they got there; the other is the lair of the mysterious Jigsaw, a serial killer whom Detectives Sing (Ken Leung) and Trapp (Danny Glover) have been tracking down for weeks.

The two facts are linked in a most ingenious way: Jigsaw doesn't really kill anyone, but "plays a game" with his victims. In the case of Adam and Dr. Gordon, as the tape recorder found in a dead man's hand tells them, each of them has two hours to free himself and kill the other, or they will both die. Problem is, the only way to get rid of the chains is to saw your foot off. And so, while the two unfortunate cell-mates have to choose who gets to live (that's Jigsaw's perverse logic: he offers you a choice), the police close in on the elusive psycho, whose previous deeds and MO are shown in flashbacks.

Whereas the subsequent Saw films use the messy chronology just for the hell of it (though they do get away with some neat narrative tweaks thanks to it), the first installment takes advantage of its non-linear storytelling to increase the suspense and provide some valuable clues to how everything fits together. It is to James Wan and co-writer Whannell's eternal credit that they, like Se7en writer Andrew Kevin Walker, went beyond slasher clichés and came up with something more. Okay, so Saw's philosophical undertones aren't entirely original, but what the heck, they do manage to keep the audience interested in what's going on. In addition, adding a little more depth to the killer ensures that the movie's more gruesome parts (and there are a lot of them) don't come off as gratuitous bloodletting (for an example of the latter, look no further than the countless sequels to A Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday 13th).

Furthermore, the intelligence behind the film's structure might also have had a positive effect on the performances, given the acting is more convincing here than in most post-2000 shockers: Elwes and Whannell's desperation is conveyed with an intensity that's almost too painful to behold, Glover plays the aging cop role resisting the temptation to do a Lethal Weapon in-joke (you know, the "too old for this sh*t" gag) and when Jigsaw himself appears... well, it's the horror equivalent of Keyser Soze - chilling and impossible to forget (and, for once, not played by Kevin Spacey). Just like the movie.

The Saw movies tend to get a pretty bad rap. Most people think of them as senselessly violent and overly gory torture fests with no actual interesting plots or characters. Granted, some of the movies are like that. But, when you watch this 2004 original, leave those expectations at the door, because this movie is just a genuinely good thriller and mystery.

This movie has an intriguing premise of two strangers waking up in a room, handcuffed to pipes. As the move progresses, this mystery unfolds as we learn more and more about these two characters and about the situation that they are in. There are many twists and turns as the movie unfolds, but they never feel forced. These twists feel organic and are truly shocking. Because of this, I don't think of this movie really as a horror movie. It feels more like a mystery thriller, and it draws you into its premise. However, it is a very tense movie and there are some frightening scenes, so it does succeed as a horror movie as well.

If gore is the main thing keeping you from watching this movie, I would give it a try. Granted, there is gore in this movie, but it's not nearly as much as you would expect from a movie these days with Saw in the name. The gore is never intrusive or over-the-top, and it certainly is never meant to be the point of the movie. If you cannot watch gore at all, there may be a couple of scenes where you'll want to close your eyes, but there is still so much to enjoy from this movie outside of those moments.

Okay, i have seen a lot of horror films. Saw was another one that i liked much. Saw 2,3,4...and so on were movies i disliked. The splatter was increasing for no apparent reason, the atmosphere and the whole set up and the feeling, that made the first a success, were all missing from the rest.

So here we are. I review the first one that is the best in my opinion. I liked it. A friend of mine, a co-student at College, told me to watch the movie together. She couldn't remember how many times she had seen it. It was her favorite so she wanted to share it with me.

I liked the flow of the movie. And then the movie ended. And i found my jaw fallen on the floor. Incredible movie. No i wont spoil you anything!!! Go and watch it!

Warning though, it has extreme violence. I was about to eat something, while i was watching Saw. I reconsidered. I paused... i ate... then i watched the film.

A sicko movie whose nastiness is almost topped by its weirdness...so obviously any true horror fan worth their salt needs to seek it out! The story is about a surgeon and a photographer who wake up and to find themselves shackled at opposite ends of a nasty-looking toilet. Don't want to say too much but plenty of ugliness ensues. This movie has the perfect mix of scares and a really bizarre plot. The movie's got a decent budget for an indie horror (a little over a million, i think) but it's pretty small for a film that got such a big release. I hear it made a "killing" at the box office, so TAKE NOTICE Hollywood! People want to see this stuff. Go!

Two seemingly unrelated people (Cary Elwes and Leigh Whinnell) wake up in a secluded, dingy bathroom, chained to the wall. With nothing but their wits, a few clues, and a hacksaw, they must figure out who put them in their predicament and how to get out. Well, assuming they're able to get out. For an added bonus, one of the men has a kidnapped family on the outside.

Falsely categorized as "torture porn" (the violence and gore here are more in line with "Seven" than "Hostel"), this film was the first smart horror film of the 2000s. Intelligent horror fans not only got the blood they wanted, but a clever villain and a mystery to solve. Later sequels would get more complicated than episodes of "Lost", and the series loses something as it goes (all franchises do), but this original stands as one of the modern greats. And, luckily, you can watch it without any of the sequels and it makes sense.

There has been an effort in recent years to academically analyze "Saw", injecting a false connotation on to the film. One scholarly article points to the "militarization" of Jigsaw in a post-9/11 world. Jigsaw, like the military, carries out violent acts, but has found ways to rationalize them with moral justifications (saving the worthy, letting the undeserving die). The author makes various other parallels about a "military" setting, mentioning IEDs and the industrial setting of Jigsaw's workshop. I find this to be largely silly, and not at all the creators' intention. I see a much more obvious line of progression from "Silence of the Lambs" to "Seven" to "Saw" with the advent of the brilliant, self-moralizing serial killer. Even Hitchcock's "Rope" offered a justification for murder, albeit a poor one. Terrorism or not, the horror film will go on.

You can make complaints, sure. But for young writers and directors, this was a blockbuster and deserved the massive success it got. As someone who pays close attention to a film's writing and plot, I was stunned. My only real concern is at the very end, when the key's location is revealed. I can't discuss this in a review, but let's just say I found that to be uncharacteristic and unfair of the killer.

If you haven't seen "Saw" yet, see it. And see the second film. After that, they start to go downhill. But the first two are quite good and must-see viewing for all horror fans.