Customer Reviews

Saw [UMD for PSP]

5 star:		(231)
4 star:		(146)
3 star:		(97)
2 star:		(48)
1 star:		(78)

 

 

When I went to go see "Saw" late last night I was thinking "saw" as the past tense of see and not "saw" as the noun ("a hand or power tool or a machine used to cut hard material and equipped usually with a toothed blade or disk") or as the verb ("to cut with a saw"). What was I thinking? "Saw" is in the Grand Guignol of "Seven" and "The Bone Cutter," and apparently had to make some last minute cuts to avoid getting saddled with a NC-17 rating. That alone with give you an indication of what first time director James Wan and first time writer Leigh Whannell were going for in "Saw," even with only $1.2 million to make the film and 18 days to shoot it.

Adam (Leigh Whannell), a young man, wakes up underwater in a dark room with a chain around his ankle. He is not alone, and when the light come on he finds himself is what appears to be a long abandoned public restroom. At the other end is Lawrence (Cary Elwes), who is also chained to a pipe. On the floor in between them, out of their reach, is the corpse of a man who apparently killed himself with a gun. In his hand is a tape recorder. After becoming oriented to his strange surroundings, Adam discovers a plastic bag in his pocket, containing an envelope. Inside is a key and a small cassette tape with the words "Play Me." Let the game begin.

Beyond that you really do not want to know that much about this before you see it, and given the dreck that passes for horror thrillers in recent years "Saw" is worth the seeing in the theater. The last time I actually went to see a film in this genre in a theater was probably "Hannibal," and I have not had any reason to regret being selective in this regard. However, this is not going to be a date movie, but one for hardcore fans of the genre who prefer their DVD editions to be the director's unrated cut of the film. "Saw" is a film that works more in the world of horror films than it does in the real world, but that is certainly part for the genre at this point.

The entire film does not take place in the abandoned restroom, although that is main arena. Lawrence knows something about the "Jigsaw Killer," who has been constructing elaborate dances of death in which his victims have to try and save themselves. Only one victim has survived to date (Shawnee Smith), so it is possible to get out of this alive, just extremely difficult and we are treated to a couple of examples of where it did not go as well. Investigating the case are a couple of detectives, Tapp (Danny Glover) and Sing (Ken Leung), and the chronology of the film gets skewed as the present and the past become confused. The game also involves more than the two men chained to the wall, because Lawrence's wife, Alison (Monica Potter) and daughter, Diana (Makenzie Vega) are part of it as well.

During the film's endgame things are moving fast enough that you probably will not be able to figure out how it will all play out even though "Saw" overplays the obvious red herring card. The film pushes one of my least favorite buttons a couple of time, which is when somebody has a gun on the villain and does not blow them away. If there is one thing we have learned from all of these movies it is that hesitating when you have the bad guy in your sights is never a good thing. I especially go through the roof when a trained law enforcement officer is pointing the gun right at the killer and the killer still gets away (even Clarice Starling is guilty of this sin in "The Silence of the Lambs"). So there is some heavy handedness to Whannell's script that hopefully will be replaced by something more elegant when he and Wan make their recently announced "Saw 2" sequel for 2005.

But "Saw" is not an elegant horror film, although Wan gets points for keeping the most horrific moment of the film off screen (even though the rationale is small budget and not true aesthetic choice, which makes me fearful for what will happen when Wan and Whannell have a much bigger budget for the sequel). The "Jigsaw Killer" has a warped interest in having his victims better appreciate their lives, so getting out alive has to do not only with Lawrence and Adam solving the tasks they are given, but also with finding out some important things about each other. The important thing here is that the film's final scene is pretty horrific, even if the film cheats a bit to get to that point, and that even when the screen goes dark and the credits start to roll, Whannell keeps the horror going.

`Saw' is a delightful movie to review, as it is such a mix of both good and poor qualities that it is a challenge to weigh them against one another to see what comes out ahead. For the impatient, I will say that I think the two cancel one another out in weighing the overall quality of the movie; however, the interesting aspects make the movie worth seeing and buying, in spite of the negatives.

The first and most important positive for a horror film is the visceral reaction of the viewer. Did the movie scare, frighten, or cause mad dashes to the bathroom to clean out soiled underpants? The answer to this question for me is a tentative yes, but only with regard to a single, minor character, where the movie played the `Aliens' / `The Exorcist' card which put a child at genuine risk, not the supernatural, kinda spooky, kinda neat type of menace of `Poltergeist'. So my score on this point is positive.

A second important positive for a horror film is the inventiveness of the threat. `Halloween' scores big on this point with its creative minimalism of a psychopathic stalker with a blank, white mask. This is in strong contrast to a lot of more elaborate scare scenarios done up until `Halloween' was made, whereupon everyone copied John Carpenter's idea. Another prime example among `B' movies is '28 Days Later' which changes the rules about how zombies are expected to act. It doubles its impact by adding a twist to the behavior of a group of survivors which seems to be making a psychological statement not unlike the classic `Lord of the Flies' survivors novel. My favorite example from A list movies is the nature of the threat in `Alien'. The object lesson here is to be sure to hire a great graphic artist when you design your monsters.

The seemingly most striking original element of `Saw' is the fact that the perp is not literally killing the victims himself, he is putting them in situations where they do things which leads to their killing themselves, or at least failing to find their way out of a trap before the trap is sprung and they are killed by the environment created by the perp. While this is the element of originality explicit in the movie, this story line may not be quite as original as the authors would have you believe. There is a strong similarity between the fate of the victims in `Saw' and the way in which the murders are done in `Seven'. In both cases, the scenario in which the vics die is connected to perceived past sins. And, the deaths in `Seven' are to some extent a result of the victims' own actions.

The truly more original aspect of `Saw' is that it is laid out very much like an adventure video game, where progress or even survival is based on solving puzzles. Clues are doled out by a very stingy puzzle master and they are generally couched in riddles, so we double the fun by making one answer one puzzle to get the clues needed to solve the next puzzle. The frustration in seeing the nested puzzles, yet you are stuck at the first step. Reminds me of the frustration of trying to find my way into the Underground Empire in `Zork I'. I must also say that most of the perils created by the perp win points for originality. These add to the dangers to those among us with weak bowels.

The biggest question for the audience is for how long does the filmmaker maintain the suspense for the viewer? The answers to some of the puzzles are evident to the audience long before they dawn on the characters, partly because the producers let the cat out of the bag for at least one major piece of business in their promotional material. The writer did manage to keep the identity of the ultimate perp hidden until the very end of the movie, largely by presenting us with a fairly transparent red herring that kept our attention diverted from the real puzzle master.

Weighed against these positives is a rather serious list of negatives beginning with the question of whether the two main characters would really behave as they did in the movie if they were presented with their situation. I think the initial panic is real enough, but I think the writer does not give enough credit to the problem solving abilities of a normally intelligent person, and at least one of the two principals is a highly educated surgeon. I really suspect that with the tools at hand, the two principle vics would have been a lot more clever in being able to free at least one, so he could go get help. As evidence of this, I offer the resolution to a similar problem in Stephen King's novel `Gerald's Game'.

If you resolve the improbabilities, you are left with some bad writing for the roles of the police detectives working this case, lead by Danny Glover. The glaring contrast between Glover in this movie and Academy Award winner Morgan Freeman in `Seven' makes my point better than anything else I can say. This is not Glover's fault, except in the fact that he decided to play this weak role to begin with. I am inclined to say that the movie would have been much better if the roles of Glover and his partner had been eliminated or minimized. The movie makers probably felt they needed the detectives' business to have someone to chase perps and take bullets from the potential perp and from booby traps, since the two main characters are trapped inside their own personal dungeon. The cops also introduce scenes from past perp scenes that fill out the way in that our perp works and thinks.

The movie does not live up to its hype, but it is worth a good chill.

With some of the PG-13 tripe coming out as horror nowadays, SAW is a refreshing step back into the good old days where horror meant blood, and blood meant horror. No annoying harpies or pretty pictures of hell or tragically humanized vampires here, just an ingenious killer with an obscure motive.

SAW dives right into the depths of the madness too, opening with our killer's current victims, two men chained on opposite ends of a filthy restroom, a body in the center clutching a cassette player and a handgun. Each man is given a tape to play, which provides him with a nice dilemma to ponder during his captivity. The background of the killer and the events leading up to the men's current situation unfolds nicely during narrated recollections and well-placed flashbacks, while the actual motive stays hidden underneath the obvious delight the killer derives from the simple pleasures of torture.

Because SAW also brings to film an excellent `Whodunnit?', I am not going to elaborate on the storyline any further. Suffice to say that Cary Elwes and Danny Glover give excellent performances (Elwes surprising me since I have only seen him in comedy roles), the photography is good, the killing methods tasty, the blood not really overdone but still dosed out well, and the plot sustainable.

Lets face it fans, we don't go to horror movies to learn how to do decoupage, we go to get scared and grossed out. SAW fulfills that primal hankering, leaving you to utter `blech' and `bravo' in the same troubled breath, and wondering what your punishment would be like under the careful ministrations of this psychopath.

Aficionados of the genre are going to love SAW's mixture of gore, insanity, ingenious traps, and filth, while non-lover's of the theme should stick to `Sleepless In Seattle' and other such ilk. SAW put the taste of terror and gore back in my mouth, something that has been lacking in some of the recent sugar-coated intruders into this bloody domain. Enjoy!!

More like 3.5 stars.

First off, I agree, the acting in general is pretty bad. Not "the worst ever" by any stretch (there are any number of movies with worse acting) but it stands out because it's supposed to be a horror film and it takes away from the seriousness and overall mood of the film. I'm a Cary Elwes fan, but he's pretty bad in this film. Not much else to say about that. But as much flack as he's catching, I actually think Leigh Whannel, the co-star, was far worse. Danny Glover is good, but underused, and his character makes some pretty silly decisions.

In fact, one flaw of this film is that MANY characters make questionable decisions that seem to be made only for the sake of furthering the story. It's not exactly a plothole, per se, because in real life people do stupid things in life or death situations. It's plausible. But it, again, takes away from the terror. You feel a little less for the characters because everyone believes themselves to be smarter than to, say, not kill a man who would've killed you when you get the opportunity - regardless of whether you're actually that smart or not. Dumb horror movie characters is a cliche that's haunted the genre for a while. This movie should've been too smart for that.

The movie got a lot of hype for being gritty, grim and gory. It is a bit of those three things, but honestly there's been movies that outdo it in all three categories (Seven comes to mind immediately).

Seems like I'm writing a lot of negative stuff, but actually, I did enjoy the movie for the most part. Even though it fell into the oft occurring horror trap of "scary stuff happening for the sake of it being scary when it doesn't fit in the story" (or as I call it, SSHSBSWDFS... just kidding), it's a pretty entertaining story, and I'll seriously consider buying the movie when it comes out.

I'm a hard sell when it comes to horror/thriller type of flicks (even though I was pretty surprised on how much I enjoyed the 2003 version of 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre'). And aside from 'Kill Bill' (1 or 2), I cannot remember the last time I was genuinely excited to see an upcoming movie - oh yeah, I can, 'Return of the Jedi' - OK then, so that puts this in perspective.

The clever thing about 'Saw', is its primal simplicity in explaining the human condition. That is, when push comes to shove, a person will do some unsettling things to stay alive (remember that poor SOB that was caught under a boulder in the Rockies a couple winters ago - and had to cut off his own arm with a friggin' credit card to free himself?!). Now imagine you're in a similar siutation, BUT, you don't have to cut your own arm off - just some stranger. The bitter pill goes down a little easier, huh?

'Saw' if nothing else, is simple and unapologetic - and well it should be. 3 hour bio-pics like 'Ghandi' and 'Braveheart' need 20 richly developed characters and $100 million budgets - not horror movies. Besides, a lot of great flicks have ridiculously pedestrian plot lines (remember 'Speed'?). Moreover, if you took at least one social science class at college, 'Saw' is basically a grizzly 90+ minute version of Maslow's Experiment or the Prisoner's Dilemma (you may have to crack open a textbook to cite the reference).

Brass Tax folks - you WILL say to yourself during the movie, "She's not gonna do what I think she's gonna do?"; or "Please, don't tell me what I think is coming next, is actually coming next!". Either way, do yourself a favor and see it in the theater because 1) It may become a classic on the sub-genre; or better yet 2) It'll become a big cult film - and you'll earn bragging rights, 'cause you saw it BEFORE the hype.

SAW is a true horror classic no doubt about it. Damn he {or she} who remakes this film...EVER. In the world of gore-porn and endless remakes or "re-imaginations", {I have to say this ~ Rob Zombie is pathetic for "re-imagining" Halloween...thanks for trashing it Rob} SAW stands alone as a film that is sick, very disturbing, scary, intense, frightful, mentally numbing, thrilling, avante garde, theatrical, spontaneous, evil, and macabre! This is a film where the villains recorded voice is as disturbing as his actions..and the villain is not even revealed until the last minute of the film...literally the final scene. The film cannot be compared to Se7en because we see most of the torture in the film and the villain takes up more time giving his monologue than Jigsaw's "Most people are so ungrateful to be alive...but not you...not anymore."

Two men wake up in a grimy abandoned bathroom chained and unable to escape. We see a dead man laying in the middle of the floor. His tape recorder reveals the two men are part of a deadly "game" in which only one of them will survive...if he can find the primal instinct..the "will" to survive. As the film progresses we learn about "Jigsaw" who tortures his "test subjects" in order to make them appreciate their lives they have apparently abused. Jigsaw's "test subjects" include: Jeff a man who attempted suicide but failed, Amanda the drug addict, Adam the voyeur photographer and loser, and Dr. Gordon a doctor who neglects his wife and daughter. Jigsaw makes them realize their blessings in his tortuous devices where the subject must maime his/her self or another to escape.

The films gives us clues to the identity of Jigsaw, directing attention to the orderly called Mr. Hindel aka "Zepp"...or is the killer one of the men chained in the bathroom? Dr. Gordon? Adam? The film is a Hitchcockian mystery to figure out 'who is doing this...and why?' that draws you to an intense and disturbing {not to mention disgusting} climax that will leave you stunned.

I like the film because like Se7en there is a sick twisted pathos that is plain and painfully clear in our times: "most people are so ungrateful to be alive...."

The Curse of Aleister Crowley: Descent into Lies and Madness

This has got to be one of the most frustrating movies that I've seen in a long time. What mother would let a man put a gun to her child's head and then hesitate to kill him when she finally gets the gun in her possession? I found myself yelling at her to shoot him a million times and I don't even have to tell you what happened next because it was far too predictable. I was still angry after watching it because I know in real life that nobody could be so stupid. There are far better suspense thrillers out there to watch and I'm upset that I had wasted my money on this one!

I saw 'saw' a couple of weeks ago so I have dicided to write a review for it. The film starts of with two men who seem to be locked in a very dirty and dark bathroom and are also chained to the bathroom pipelines, they soon find out clues like a taperecorder with a message from someone called the jigsaw killer there also is a dead body on the floor that looks like he might have blown his brains off with a gun. How the killer gets to his victims is basicaly what makes this film good as each of the victims has to solve a puzzle in order to get out of the traps there in and they have a certain time to work with, my favorit scene is when a female victim who manages to escape from a trap that is strapped on here face that looks like it might have come from Marylin Manson's the beautiful people music video I'm not going to spoil it but you'll just have to see it.

Alot of reviews have complained about the acting mostly because it is very wooden which I have to admit but I have seen much worse. The film stars Cary Elwes who plays Dr. Lawrence Gordon along with Danny Glover (I'm to old for this sh**) who plays a burnt out detective who is obsessed about solving the case and catching the Jigsaw killer and Monica Potter who plays Dr. Gordons wife who is kidnaped by the killer along with there young daughter and is probably the most intense scene in the film, overall the film was more of a psychological thriller than a horror film but some of the gruesome scenes made it seem like horror, you can also see that the director was influenced by Dario Argento when a small puppet apaers riding a bike. I deffinently recomend this to horror and thriller fans.

Ask anyone about `Saw' and you'll get the same answer. "It was like `Se7en' but not as good."

`Saw' is only similar to `Se7en' in that they fall into the same genre of Serial Killer Thriller. But plot wise I'd compare it closer to `Usual Suspects.' Both stories are non linear. The plots are told from different points of view and through flashbacks, creating a very complex edge of your seat thriller.

The plot: As you may already know, `Saw' begins with a GREAT narrative hook about two men, Lawrence and Adam whom wake up in a cellar bathroom chained to pipes. The men must think back to how they could possibly end up in such a predicament.

The rest of the story is told by the men looking through their surroundings and finding objects their tormentor has left for them. Key words, and objects that end up taking shape in some way.

The plot is also told via flashbacks by Lawrence. He remembers being a person of interest in the "Jigsaw" killings, in which the people were tormented in truly sick and original ways. (`Se7en') The police detective (Danny Glover) uncovered an extramarital affair by Lawrence but cleared him of the killings, and left both Lawrence and Glover totally perplexed as to why the Jigsaw killings took place or why the victims were chosen.

This is the first hour of `Saw' and it's great. Chilling, well acted, and most importantly keeps you on the edge of your seat dying to know what will happen next.

The last third of `Saw' goes WAY down the drain with new narrative hooks which have no objective or conclusion. Next we see Lawrence's wife (Monica Potter) and daughter held hostage at gunpoint in their apartment. We see Danny Glover go from hero cop to revenge driven nut after the death of his partner.

Where was `Saw' going with these new narrative hooks? Nowhere! Sad to say but `Saw' ends with no conclusion as to whom lives or dies or what motives our characters had.

The most infuriating thing about `Saw' is how after so much originality, it attempts to wrap things up with old cheesy movie formulas. Characters that kill each other by struggling for a gun and shooting themselves at the same time, and cops with guns so stupid as to not call for backup and then get close enough to the killer so that he can pull a knife.

Spoiler Warning! Another pathetic last minute narrative hook is Adam's revelation that he knows Lawrence and was hired to follow him, and knows whom hired him. Not only does this blow the premise that Lawrence and Adam were strangers but shouldn't he have mentioned that right away?

Spoiler Warning! Who lives or dies? Having argued with fans there seems to be some dispute. I conclude that if Lawrence lives so must Adam, because if Lawrence is able to successfully hop away, the police will return to the scene of the crime and rescue Adam. The Jigsaw killer locking him in the room is pointless since Adam will be rescued and he now knows the killer's identity.

First off let me say if you are a light hearted person this movie probably isn't for you. The dvd itself has ok extra's.. it comes with 5 trailers and a music video. Now the movie is visually nice. The story is pretty twisted and sick.. I am a huge horror fan but I have to say I was pretty disgusted watching this movie.. it has alot of torture scenes that will make your stomach turn and disturb your sleep if you are weak hearted. One of the things that makes this movie so disturbing is the fact that there are real life people that actually go through sort of the same chainings and torture that the charachters in the movie go through and that is very unsettling to think bout.. The acting I felt was ok.. it could have been done better.. the charachters don't show the emotion that you would expect a person to have under the cirumstances that they were in.. all in all I give this movie 5 stars because the plot is brilliant.. and the ending is soooooooooooooo unexpected that you'll find your self saying WOW once you see it. Very .. very sick movie but a good one nevertheless.