You can believe a certain amount of the hype surrounding James Wan's shocker. It's gory, gruesome, garish and does succeed in plummeting the audience into some butt-clenching scenarios. There is also a semi-interesting narrative, as various character arcs dovetail. But Saw doesn't have the courage of its convictions. Finally, it's a damp squib of horror flick with a promising start.
The Jigsaw killer has evidently taken inspiration from Seven's John Doe. He's never directly 'murdered' anyone depending on how you define murder. Instead, he places people into a revolting situation: if you don't undertake the unthinkable you die. To escape a gory, grotesque fate, you must do something horrible. I could give you a detailed example of Jigsaw's plans, but I'll just throw these words at you: razor wire, slow-acting poisons, important items that have been force-fed and (my personal favourite in the best bit) jaw-breakers
Some may be enticed with the film's ballsy stance. I was, certainly. It's been a long while since cinema, whether it be mainstream or independent, has truly gone for abject horror that is not simply gore, but thematic. I'm talking about something revolting, something prepared to send the audience reeling. Something that rejects taste and intends to appal. I wanted to see a film like that. He he he he he There haven't been many really go-for-the-gut-and take-the-head-for-afters horror flicks since the '70s. Well, that's what I think, and I thought Saw could fill the void. I was wrong.
The first third of Saw is promising, to say the least. Jigsaws actions are introduced in a neat flashback technique, and the opening moments are the equivalent of kick to the head. The film forces you against the wall with a battery of editing, flash images, monstrous carnage and some terrifying moral implications. AND THEN IT BACKS OFF!!!
Saw becomes tiresome. The twists and turns aren't particularly surprising, not do they add to the film's impact, and slowly but surely, Wan trivialises the monstrosity of his set up, resorting to classic race-against-time plotting and an unimaginative ending. The film's cinematography and production design are fine at the start, but they fail to build on the urban Gothic themes, so what you see in the first act is about all the film has to offer stylistically. The characters are your stock types, and all credit to the actors for having real gumption: they look the part and manage to portray unthinkable suffering very well.
But ultimately Saw is not a film that'll haunt you, because it loses sight of its terrifying premise, failing to make it really possible to the audience. You won't come away thinking: 'that could happen to me'.
The films feels sealed inside a bubble, unable to escape into the auditorium, which is what films like The Living Dead Trilogy and Rabid (to name but a few) did. In short: maybe enough for a night out, but nothing to take home.
The Jigsaw killer has evidently taken inspiration from Seven's John Doe. He's never directly 'murdered' anyone depending on how you define murder. Instead, he places people into a revolting situation: if you don't undertake the unthinkable you die. To escape a gory, grotesque fate, you must do something horrible. I could give you a detailed example of Jigsaw's plans, but I'll just throw these words at you: razor wire, slow-acting poisons, important items that have been force-fed and (my personal favourite in the best bit) jaw-breakers
Some may be enticed with the film's ballsy stance. I was, certainly. It's been a long while since cinema, whether it be mainstream or independent, has truly gone for abject horror that is not simply gore, but thematic. I'm talking about something revolting, something prepared to send the audience reeling. Something that rejects taste and intends to appal. I wanted to see a film like that. He he he he he There haven't been many really go-for-the-gut-and take-the-head-for-afters horror flicks since the '70s. Well, that's what I think, and I thought Saw could fill the void. I was wrong.
The first third of Saw is promising, to say the least. Jigsaws actions are introduced in a neat flashback technique, and the opening moments are the equivalent of kick to the head. The film forces you against the wall with a battery of editing, flash images, monstrous carnage and some terrifying moral implications. AND THEN IT BACKS OFF!!!
Saw becomes tiresome. The twists and turns aren't particularly surprising, not do they add to the film's impact, and slowly but surely, Wan trivialises the monstrosity of his set up, resorting to classic race-against-time plotting and an unimaginative ending. The film's cinematography and production design are fine at the start, but they fail to build on the urban Gothic themes, so what you see in the first act is about all the film has to offer stylistically. The characters are your stock types, and all credit to the actors for having real gumption: they look the part and manage to portray unthinkable suffering very well.
But ultimately Saw is not a film that'll haunt you, because it loses sight of its terrifying premise, failing to make it really possible to the audience. You won't come away thinking: 'that could happen to me'.
The films feels sealed inside a bubble, unable to escape into the auditorium, which is what films like The Living Dead Trilogy and Rabid (to name but a few) did. In short: maybe enough for a night out, but nothing to take home.