User Reviews (1,804)

Add a Review

  • I watched some of the next movies before this. I wasn't expecting this one can be this good!

    There was some minor flaws in it but the story was really good overall with it's effective twist and all. Amazing editing, scores and sound by the way.

    I believe this is not just an ordinary horror movie, it's also a really great crime movie.

    Even if the movie wasn't that good at most, the ending would save it, the ending is so perfect with that "Hello Zepp" score. That music makes the scene two times better.

    If I had to mention the minor flaws, here is one example. I don't know why the car parking and all the other areas so dark and feels abandoned? I know, It's because this is a horror movie and the movie tries to scare you. But it's a bit much actually.
  • 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.
  • One of the best movies I've watched. I didn't get any spoilers while watching this movie and the ending was devastating.

    The tension was perfect and you are looking forward to the end.

    Soundtrack is one of the best. I always watch it, even if the series gets worse as it goes.
  • MaxBorg893 November 2008
    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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I have utmost respect for Wan. To my knowledge, he and his buddies were right out of film school. Instead of slowly building status by making mediocre films, he showed the world right from the get-go that he had something to prove.

    Along with Silence Of The Lambs, Saw is the only horror movie that truly chills me. You see, I am not easily frightened by gratuitous bloodshed and screams that you might see in films like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The plot has to be coherent, and there can't be anything ridiculous like a monster. Saw evokes strong emotions of terror and fear, all the while remaining plausible. Well, the story is actually unlikely, but everything in the film is physically possible.

    The scenes that are meant to be frightening don't require things that jump out at you every two seconds, or cheesy orchestral flailings. The situation is what frightens you, not the presentation. Saw does have some second-rate acting, but then again it is a low-budget film and I suppose they couldn't exactly afford Robert De Niro. The script is not fantastic, but one true redeeming quality of the whole film is the story. It is dense, complex, but so captivating. I can only think of a few mystery plot lines that can even compare to this one. The Usual Suspects is probably up there, but Saw stands alone.

    I strongly recommend this film who appreciate good stories, and aren't easily scared by the garbage you see in theaters like House Of Wax. For people who get squeamish, steer clear of this film. It is very nice graphic, and very sadistic at times. A brilliant debut, and a terrifying ride. 9/10.
  • Since "Nattevagten" I have not seen a thriller that has kept me on the edge of my seat as well as "Saw". Right from the beginning this original story sucks you in and doesn't let you go until the very end. Thrillers as gripping as this one have become extremely rare in times like these, where people have seen almost everything and can guess any twist during the first half of the movie. With "Saw" James Wan and Leigh Whannell, the creative heads behind this project, set new standards. Think you're hard-boiled? Think again and watch "Saw", a movie that will creep you out and surprise you beyond your expectations.

    "Saw" has been advertised as the new "Se7en" and while both movies are definitely in the same tradition, "Saw" does a much better job at actually being creepy. Jigsaw is the most gruesome killer the cinema has seen in a loooong time. Wan and Whannel really came up with a monster that has no peer. Where many movies drift into ridiculousness trying to establish the villain as an almost superhuman evil being, "Saw" does never get anywhere near that trap. Sure, the cops are depicted way too stupid and the killer is unrealistically smart, outshining each and every opponent with his perfect plans, but hey, "Se7en" and "Silence Of The Lambs" didn't care too much about realism, either, did they?

    "Saw" does have some flaws. Those sped-up tracking shots have just been used too many times by now, the structure of the script is weird and jumps from one period of time to another, some characters' lines are a bit clichéd. However, considering that this movie was made in only 18 days by two independent filmmakers with literally no budget at all, it's really inappropriate to be petty about technical subtleties, when Wan and Whannel came up with such an original and stirring movie.

    I can't remember the last time I've been surprised by a movie's final twist, but "Saw" has an ending that I didn't see coming at all. This thriller is the most original piece of independent film-making since "Cube". I'm really looking forward to seeing how Wan and Whannell's career develops after this fine sleeper.
  • AngelHonesty12 August 2021
    I was always terrified to watch this movie because I thought it would be over the top blood and gore. I finally found the nerve and was extremely surprised. Unlike other horror movies this one takes in the entire scene of the detectives trying to catch the murder while you're trying to figure out what is going on. Even though the movie keeps flashing back it helps take some intensity off of what's going on and adds a nice story to it. Instead of a meaningless film with blood and gore, this one had a well thought out storyline and a killer with rules. It reminded me a little of Silence of the lambs, they both have that edge that anything brutal and gory can happen any moment keeping up the intensity of the film. Don't get me wrong there is blood and gore in the film, but it's done in a tasteful way unlike some of the final destination movies.
  • 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.
  • bevo-136782 April 2020
    I accidentally stumbled onto this one when I googled how to make a wooden pencil box. I wasn't disappointed
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Only read this if you've already seen the movie!

    Just two things to add to my heading:

    Bad bad makeup job on Cary Elwes. Definitely not "as you (read:I) wish"...;-)

    The biggest laugh (really, I think moviegoers are so often much smarter than movie makers....;-)): At the end, the mobile is ringing, he's reaching, reaching, but no, just cannot touch or grab the phone ---then: tada! - OK, I'll take the saw (get it?? get it??) and cut my foot off. The saw is the regular garden variety type, not a very big one, but BIG ENOUGH TO HAVE REACHED AND SHOVED OVER THE MOBILE PHONE!!! Geez, that was SO bad, it really made me angry while laughing...

    I hope I'm not the only person to have noticed that, but just in case no-one has....;-)
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Once the extremely improbable ending comes any viewer will feel sucker-punched in what I believe resembles any David Fincher film, most notably SE7EN, with a Takashi Miike spin. Which doesn't detract that for the most part it's claustrophobic, depressing, bleak, and filled with a growing sense of stomach-turning dread as the omnipresence of an unseen killer comes through, making us known anyone could be killed at any given moment, if his plans are not carried out to his satisfaction. Plans that largely include doing something unspeakable to solve a puzzle and thus, be set free.

    The problem with SAW its in the script itself, with plot holes galore, and character motivations/reactions completely unclear. The two main characters undergo the suffering victims are meant to and do so down to the end, but the supporting characters fair poorly. Danny Glover's character goes through being a broken man through the death of his partner to being badly obsessed with the Jigsaw Killer, and not once could I believe he would do most of the things he does throughout the film, like not requesting backup as he enters a deserted warehouse (in a flashback sequence), or allowing a clearly wimpy killer to get the best of him later on. Monica Potter plays Cary Elwes' wife who witnesses the killer point a gun to her daughter's temple while listening to her frantic heartbeats, but when she gets the chance to give him his just desserts she fails to do so because she was on the phone with her imprisoned husband. (It was a "Huh?" moment where motherhood somehow didn't enter into the plot logic, but then again, not many did.)

    Another thing which works against it is the fact that that for a genuinely interesting and even innovative premise like this one, SAW would be best as a film 20 - 30 minutes shorter with an equally shorter time span (the plot extends for an approximate five hours from start to climax), and then would the shocking twist at the end make some sense. As it is, it has the look and feel of a video game in which the menacing growl of a voice orders the victims through audio/videotape to commit a horrible and nearly impossible act in order to survive, with some rapid-fire MTV editing to add to the viewer's disorientation and Giallo overtones (which do work here if you think of Dario Argento's PROFONDO ROSSO or Mario Bava's BLOOD AND BLACK LACE). Here's hoping James Wan will make a much better film as he does have an overall good technique with his visuals.
  • wamweri6 December 2004
    Wow. The critics weren't wrong. Not since seven has horror been portrayed so majestically.

    From the first minute to last this film twists and turns you till you feel rather poorly. Just like 'Se7en', the all-round Grittiness that director James Wan creates disgusts and enthralls. Just like 'Se7en', there is a H U G E twist that makes your blood curdle.

    A lack of star names helps the movie flow as the pace builds to a finale that won't be forgotten by this viewer in a hurry!

    I still can't sleep.

    It is well scripted, well acted, and, for everyone who guesses the killer after the first few minutes, keeps you guessing right up to the final reel. It is better than Seven for shock value. It is not over the top gory but there is a final scene which makes you sweat.

    Very highly recommended!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Two men wake up in an empty room and finds themselves being manipulated in to playing a sadistic game by a mysterious character called Jigsaw

    Looking at the above short summary you can how easy it is to pitch to the Hollywood studios . Yes I know SAW started out as an Australian short film by director James Wan and screenwriter Leigh Whannell but even so the premise alone is enough to intrigue the most cynical studio boss and make them want to develop it in to a feature length movie . It's easy to forget but the original SAW was marketed as a smart thriller with a twist ending and certainly my own reaction on seeing it was " Wow I never expected that " . This was very much an era inspired by THE SIXTH SENSE where films sometimes liked to surprise an audience . Despite the often graphic violence seen in this movie it's the shock twist at the end that led to the film gaining very good word of mouth on its initial release

    The problem is that once you know the twist ending it doesn't really stand up to repeat viewings . Worse than that the original SAW's reputation has been greatly damaged by the large amount of sequels that followed it . None of them really concerned themselves with cerebral plotting and most of them concerned themselves with a function of continuity that would see yet another sequel set up . Perhaps worst of all each sequel tried to out do its predecessor by the amount of gore on offer . Indeed the phrase " Torture porn " became more and more increasingly used with the franchise and it's difficult to defend the later films from this which lurched from one gory set piece to another featuring a terrified victim suffering a cruel and graphic death

    SAW was a film that succeeded as a gory mainstream thriller when it was released in 2004 . It's easy to dismiss it just another horror film but that's to ignore and sadly forget that it had a market outside the normal teen horror crowd . It's also a film that suffers from having a franchise started after it which has damaged its heritage
  • tat2guy23 January 2005
    Warning: Spoilers
    I have to give this movie a 4 because of a couple of things.

    1. What I'll call the "stupid victim syndrome". If you have the killer on the floor and you have his gun - shoot him please. If you are a cop and you have your shotgun pointed at the killer's back - shoot him please.

    2. When you are in a high stress situation and you have your finger on the trigger of a gun - your first instinct is to squeeze. This is one of the first things they teach you in handgun training and the reason that you don't put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire - ask any hunter or infantryman. If you are electrocuted, your muscles should also contract - making you squeeze your finger.

    3. It's really hard to lay on the floor completely still for 8 hours without 2 other people - one of them a doctor - not noticing that you aren't dead. Even more so if you are supposedly dying of a brain tumor and were in the hospital just a few months earlier.

    4. Technically, the killer did kill one of his victims - the guy he injected with poison that had to get the antidote. If you poison someone, that is murder.

    5. What was Adam's lesson that he was supposed to learn? Yes, the doctor needed to be there, but what was Adam's crime? Maybe I just missed something.

    Other than those things, I would have given this movie a higher grade. The plot was pretty good, and the ways the killer chose to kill his victims were very inventive. I can even forgive the terrible acting on the doctor's part - the scenes with his family were enough to make me sick. The cinematography and soundtrack were very good, but the ending seemed contrived and just didn't work for me. Thank goodness I didn't have to pay to see this or I would have demanded a refund.
  • Not only does this movie create an extremely tense atmosphere the moment it starts, it has plenty of gore and violence to bombard your eyes, not to mention that it has one of the best twists seen in any horror movie.

    I watched this film alone at night with the lights off, expecting to be freaked out by it since I thought it was just another typical horror movie; but instead I was completely intrigued by the story line, and utterly drawn into the film for the whole 100 minutes. At the end I did not feel scared, rather, I felt something very few horror movies have to offer: satisfaction! This movie left me in a slightly disturbed but very thoughtful state. It did not give me nightmares, rather, it plagued my day-dreams; for two days my thoughts could not stray far from this film, that's how powerful it is.

    If you want a cringingly gory and violent horror movie, watch "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "Hostel"; if you want a nightmarishly scary horror movie, watch "The Grudge" or "The Ring"; if you want a clever and disturbing horror movie with an excellent story and a great twist, watch "Saw".
  • 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.
  • 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!
  • I've always been meaning to watch this film.

    I have to say that while it is an interesting concept, there are several instances where things would have had to go exactly right for Jigsaw's plan to work.

    On top of that is people not using guns when they were in a situation where it was shoot first ask questions later. I found that extremely annoying! And I thought America was a gun-mad place where shooting first happens frequently.

    Obviously not in the Saw universe...

    6/10 for being OK, but this movie isn't half as clever as it thinks it is.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "Saw," a film that was originally planned for a straight-to-video release but after receiving positive nods at test screenings, was finally given the green light in October 2004 - just in time for Halloween. "Saw" contains one of the those plots that shows you everything it's got up its sleeve, then doubles-back on itself three-fourths of the way through and reveals something entirely new.

    It's not hard to see why this almost hit the straight-to-video fodder list. I mean, people will closely observe that it obviously contains the traits of its successors, namely "Seven" (1995), and that may be all the ammunition the haters will need to trash it. Already, I see that the IMDb voters have averaged "Saw" a 7.5, with those people who have rated it with an "8" or a "10" being neck-and-neck at the polls.

    But I begin with reassurances that "Saw" is a genius thriller, if not entirely original or daring. The film does its best to exploit the claustrophobia and mounting tension that collects as it progresses. "Saw" will also make you think twice about bladed objects as well.

    Ironically, the title has very little to do with plot, as there is no chainsaw-wielding maniac on the loose as the ghastly cover art of a severed foot would imply. The only saws here are the ones the two main characters Lawrence (Cary Elwes) and Adam (Leigh Whannell, also the film' screenwriter) have been given.

    The two men awaken to find themselves chained to lead pipes in a decrepit public bathroom. In the middle of the floor, is a dead body that's surrounded in a pool of its own blood, with a gun in one hand and a tape recorder in the other. As it would turn out, they're the latest victims of a serial killer known as the "Jigsaw Killer."

    Jigsaw has a nasty little way of torturing his victims by trapping them in a situation where they have to kill if they want to survive. As Lawrence explains, technically Jigsaw is not a killer, simply because he hasn't killed anyone; the victims do that for him. As one fortunate victim observes, who survived her ordeal, she is bound to a chair with a reversed bear trap-like device strapped to her head with pliers wired into her upper and lower jaws. A timer is on the device and if she does not locate a key before it runs out, her mouth will be ripped open and no more pretty face. In order to get out, she must open up the stomach of a dead man lying on the floor next her to get the key.

    As Jigsaw ever so carefully points out to his victims, he doesn't just choose them at random. To him, they're all perfectly immoral individuals and he uses their immorality to set up horrific situations where the victim rarely survives the trap; in essence, life is its own reward because Jigsaw's victims don't value it, as he explains to the one young woman lucky enough to fight through his plan. Also on the case of Jigsaw, are two detectives Tapp (Danny Glover) and Sing (Ken Leung), who bring forth the news of Jigsaw's previous victims in one particularly gruesome flashback sequence.

    Lawrence is pretty well aware of the case of Jigsaw, as even once he was considered a suspect by the police. As you would have it, Adam is not especially trustful of Lawrence being that he seems to know a lot and is not reporting many details to him. They realize, however, that if they are going to survive this nightmare, they're going to have to play into Jigsaw's game, observe the clues he's willing to give them, and ultimately make it out alive.

    "Saw" was directed admirably by James Wan and written by Whannell, who also makes an effective victim alongside Elwes. Elwes, a highly underrated actor, is given a chance to shine here, even though this really isn't an actor's movie, as it is more in the hands of the director. However, we do get a sense of the desperation of the two leads, who soon realize that they're not the only ones trapped in this madman's game.

    "Saw" does benefit from its moody atmosphere, which may cover up any of the film's shortcomings. Towards the end, it does lose pace a little bit as things seem to be spiraling down the haunted house route, but quickly regains momentum as it draws to a close. I know that despite its flaws, I was glued to the seat and really "in" the film's tight tension, which thankfully doesn't let up.

    Is "Saw" a genre classic? Certainly. Is it a classic like "Seven"? I don't know. There's a lot to consider when pondering a question with so much baggage like that one. I liked it, but I'm not so sure about the news that a sequel is in the works. This seems a lot like a stand-alone-type movie, that of which doesn't need to get bogged down by the weight of unnecessary sequels.

    8/10
  • skrstenansky13 October 2021
    This movie is a very good and one of the best thrillers and one of the most interesting and tense ones. Very unique story line and extremely tense and entertaining, it kept me guessing what is going on and how are things going to go. Very well done story and directing, good acting, great effects, and a great twist. Very well done and entertaining.
  • When two men, wake up and find themselves chained to a bathroom pipe, with a dead body lying in between them, they soon realize that they are prisoners, in the secure lair of a serial killer, nicknamed 'Jigsaw'.

    This film was, in my opinion, exciting, thrilling, and an overall entertaining film to watch. It delivered the necessary chills, to keep its audiences fully awake, and engaged. This was an enormous achievement for Aussie newcomers – James Wan, and Leigh Wannell. The two have created a well-deserved horror/thriller, without the necessary clichés.The film is not too scary that it becomes unwatchable, so the full potential of its enormity will not be missed. definitely two thumbs uo for me.
  • Finally saw all the 'Saw' films prior to seeing 'Jigsaw' (as part of my wanting to see as many 2017 films as possible this year, during a quieter and less intensive period). Heard a lot about the films, good and bad, but wanted to see them for myself to know what to expect.

    The films as an overall series are a very mixed bag. The first 'Saw' is very problematic but is one of the better films of the 'Saw' series. It is very easy to see why people will dislike it, and no it is not because of the full throttle horror-like elements that are not for the faint hearted. Some of the story is ridiculous with large lapses in logic, Danny Glover's character's actions will have one screaming in frustration at the television screen. Some of the script is tight, other parts are half-baked and silly and Elwes' character's back-story had some taut tension but that it had some melodramatic parts with frustrating character behaviour.

    Some of the acting is not good. Cary Elwes seems to be thinking like he's acting in a very over-heated melodrama that would have been out of date even in the period when they were in fashion. Danny Glover's performance is also a mess, with a mix of over-compensating and not looking interested. Even for the film's mood, some of the editing is chaotic.

    However, for a film that didn't have a high budget 'Saw' visually doesn't look too bad on the whole, effective even. There is a real sense of unsettling claustrophobia induced in the lighting, setting and photography. Music has its eeriness.

    Not everybody fares badly in the acting. Michael Emerson has an unnerving presence and Monica Potter and Leigh Whannell also do a decent job. Then there is Tobin Bell, not easy to forget him after this film. James Wan does more than competently in the director's chair, even with the inexperience.

    Despite its ridiculousness, the story is also edge-of-your-seat and highly atmospheric. There is genuine dread, some truly imaginative traps and kills and much of it throughout is disturbing and creepy. 'Saw' is notable in particular not just for the traps/kills but also for its bold twists, the character of Jigsaw (the modus operandi, impulse and justification setting him apart from most characters of his type) and an unforgettably shocking ending.

    Overall, very problematic but effective. 7/10 Bethany Cox
  • hfreinoso23 October 2018
    I love this movie man. I just love everything about it. Not only does this movie create an extremely tense atmosphere from start to end, it has plenty of gore and violence to bombard your eyes, not to mention that ENDING. Man I LOVE that ending. With unknown actors and they all did and incredible job acting in these types of situations. This film was, in my opinion, exciting, thrilling, and an overall entertaining film to watch. It delivered the necessary chills, to keep its audiences fully awake, and engaged. This was an enormous achievement for both James Wan, and Leigh Wannell. The two have created a well-deserved horror/thriller, without the necessary cliches. The film is incredible and it start from Saw 2,3,4,5,6, Final Chapter, Jigsaw, and now in 2020 Spiral. I don't care what anyone says Saw is the best of the series and the best horror movie ever. 10/10. Love it.
  • I have seen many horror movies in the cinema over the last twenty years. This is without doubt the scariest i have ever seen. This movie is so sick and twisted it makes Se7en look like a Disney movie. The cast are all fantastic. The twists and turns keep you on the edge of your seat. The serial killer in this makes Hannibal Lecter seem as scary as Dora The Explorer. It;s been a long time since anyone called a horror movie a instant classic. But this is truly a classic. This is one horror movie that is not mindless blood and guts, this is clever blood and guts. People called Open Water scary it wasn't. This will cause nightmares, If you like Horror prepare to see the best. 10 out of 10.
  • jlnuvi22 October 2005
    Warning: Spoilers
    The main problems of 'Saw' are related to the tremendous script mistakes that only a uncritical spectator will just obviate. The main question is what's is the purpose of the killer in his lying in the middle of the floor? The film tries to show that the killer's aim is to cause evil and destruction in his victims, he loves to play with the lives of other people and to feel control over their the fears and debilities. So why does he just pretend to be dead between the two main characters? A tremendous unlikelihood: can a man pretend to be dead for more than one or two hours without moving a single muscle or even without breathing in order not to be discovered by two men who are in the same room? It has not sense at all except to be the final (d)effect of the movie. The killer seems to have always the control along the plot and if it's lying like a dead body this can't be possible. Finally, it doesn't work. The right place for the killer should have been a darker and untouchable shadow behind the false shadow (the male nurse) but not the floor of the white room. The director shouldn't have showed the killer's face and maybe the site where he is hidden. Then, the film would be a quite good thriller. However, 'Saw' is just a fiasco. Hitchcock, please, come back.
An error has occured. Please try again.