Rating: * 1/2 out of ****
Opening to acclaim throughout a number of film festivals, Saw became the low-budget horror flick that came out of nowhere and took everyone by surprise. But hype has its backlash, and in my case, I can't say I came out of this film particularly impressed. There are elements in the film worth appreciating, but aside from a few tricky plot twists, it accomplishes nothing that other films haven't done before with more skill and freshness.
Getting straight to the point, Saw opens with young photographer Adam (Leigh Whannell) awakening in a bathtub, disoriented and confused towards his whereabouts. As it turns out, he's in a large, dank, grime-filled bathroom, chained to the pipes. He's got a chained companion on the other side of the room, Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes), and in between them lies the body of a dead man.
Through a series of clues, Gordon deduces they're dealing with the "Jigsaw," a serial killer who finds elaborate methods of forcing his victims to perform a series of grueling tasks, and if they fail, the penalty is death. A message left behind by tape informs Gordon of his task; he must kill Adam in eight hours or his own wife and child will be murdered.
It's a good premise, but it's obvious the filmmakers aren't going to make a feature-length production set entirely within a bathroom. Unsurprisingly, it's the scenes set outside the bathroom that the movie first shows signs of faltering. Problem number one is that the sets appear rather low-grade, no surprise given the budgetary constraints. Problem number two is that the movie still wants to keep its villain's identity a surprise. In fact, I wasn't swayed at all upon the initial revelation of the killer, especially when this "surprise" is still juxtaposed alongside scenes set in the past where the filmmakers' still keep the killer's face hidden.
Such twists and turns grow tiresome, all the more so when it's obvious that the killer always (and I mean ALWAYS) has a trick up his sleeve, making the final shock quite obvious moments before its underwhelming unveiling. Hey, I like my serial killer flicks to feature a smart villain as much as the next guy, but it's just plain annoying for them to be all-out omniscient.
The scenes set within the bathroom are initially effective. The acting between Elwes and Whannell is convincing enough, with Whannell showing hints of genuine charisma that could serve him well in the future. But all this takes a flabbergasting nose-dive in the last half-hour, beginning with the cigarette scene. It was by this point I wondered if director James Wan was winking at us because prior to this the film was serious in its intent to scare.
I can't help but admit that this far into the picture, I started laughing and couldn't stop. I was willing to suspend my disbelief at a lot of the plot, even at the fact that five hours could suddenly pass and catch up on the protagonists (surely, at least one of them would keep better track of the time?), but that the killer would know that at least one of the two men would look inside his wallet and find the right picture and message, and to be aware of how desperate one of them is for a smoke in even such a dank environment and have a back-up plan to test the possible contingency that could result; well, I have to say, it felt like a parody of all the "smart" serial killer flicks we've seen before, and the acting only goes further to serve that belief.
Decent at first, Elwes goes off the deep end in the movie's climax. One has to question how someone would truly respond in such a situation, so I'm not going to criticize his acting in that respect. I just can't deny that my immediate response was pure hilarity; Elwes is not a very good actor, but he's competent enough for me to believe he was perfectly aware of how silly he looked and overplayed it for all it was worth. Considering the absence of suspense, I think the laughs go a step or two in making up for it.
Also, without giving too much away, there must have been other ways for a certain character to resolve his predicament (like seeking help) if the danger that's posed upon him is slow-acting enough for an incredibly elaborate plan to unfold over the course of many hours. The danger is, in fact, so slow-acting that after all those hours, this man (who should not be a very skilled fighter or marksman) is still capable of engaging and holding his own in shootouts, chases, and fistfights with a crazed and determined ex-cop.
Director Wan has potential, but he needs to lay off on camera tricks and realize quick cuts and sped-up camera-work serve as distractions and do little to build genuine scares or suspense. In fact, I was surprised by how easy it was for me to sit through this film. At no moment did I ever feel a sense of dreadful anticipation like I do with the best (or even solidly competent) of the genre. Much of the reason for that has to do with the flashback structure, we're clearly aware of who's alive or who isn't considering we know who's telling the story.
It doesn't help that each twist spirals the movie further into a hole it can't dig itself out of, the final strike coming in the last moments with a preposterous surprise revelation. We barely saw this guy prior to this scene, so why make a big deal out of this surprise by going through a pointless flashback? This is one case where an otherwise middling movie is destroyed by a terrible ending.
Opening to acclaim throughout a number of film festivals, Saw became the low-budget horror flick that came out of nowhere and took everyone by surprise. But hype has its backlash, and in my case, I can't say I came out of this film particularly impressed. There are elements in the film worth appreciating, but aside from a few tricky plot twists, it accomplishes nothing that other films haven't done before with more skill and freshness.
Getting straight to the point, Saw opens with young photographer Adam (Leigh Whannell) awakening in a bathtub, disoriented and confused towards his whereabouts. As it turns out, he's in a large, dank, grime-filled bathroom, chained to the pipes. He's got a chained companion on the other side of the room, Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes), and in between them lies the body of a dead man.
Through a series of clues, Gordon deduces they're dealing with the "Jigsaw," a serial killer who finds elaborate methods of forcing his victims to perform a series of grueling tasks, and if they fail, the penalty is death. A message left behind by tape informs Gordon of his task; he must kill Adam in eight hours or his own wife and child will be murdered.
It's a good premise, but it's obvious the filmmakers aren't going to make a feature-length production set entirely within a bathroom. Unsurprisingly, it's the scenes set outside the bathroom that the movie first shows signs of faltering. Problem number one is that the sets appear rather low-grade, no surprise given the budgetary constraints. Problem number two is that the movie still wants to keep its villain's identity a surprise. In fact, I wasn't swayed at all upon the initial revelation of the killer, especially when this "surprise" is still juxtaposed alongside scenes set in the past where the filmmakers' still keep the killer's face hidden.
Such twists and turns grow tiresome, all the more so when it's obvious that the killer always (and I mean ALWAYS) has a trick up his sleeve, making the final shock quite obvious moments before its underwhelming unveiling. Hey, I like my serial killer flicks to feature a smart villain as much as the next guy, but it's just plain annoying for them to be all-out omniscient.
The scenes set within the bathroom are initially effective. The acting between Elwes and Whannell is convincing enough, with Whannell showing hints of genuine charisma that could serve him well in the future. But all this takes a flabbergasting nose-dive in the last half-hour, beginning with the cigarette scene. It was by this point I wondered if director James Wan was winking at us because prior to this the film was serious in its intent to scare.
I can't help but admit that this far into the picture, I started laughing and couldn't stop. I was willing to suspend my disbelief at a lot of the plot, even at the fact that five hours could suddenly pass and catch up on the protagonists (surely, at least one of them would keep better track of the time?), but that the killer would know that at least one of the two men would look inside his wallet and find the right picture and message, and to be aware of how desperate one of them is for a smoke in even such a dank environment and have a back-up plan to test the possible contingency that could result; well, I have to say, it felt like a parody of all the "smart" serial killer flicks we've seen before, and the acting only goes further to serve that belief.
Decent at first, Elwes goes off the deep end in the movie's climax. One has to question how someone would truly respond in such a situation, so I'm not going to criticize his acting in that respect. I just can't deny that my immediate response was pure hilarity; Elwes is not a very good actor, but he's competent enough for me to believe he was perfectly aware of how silly he looked and overplayed it for all it was worth. Considering the absence of suspense, I think the laughs go a step or two in making up for it.
Also, without giving too much away, there must have been other ways for a certain character to resolve his predicament (like seeking help) if the danger that's posed upon him is slow-acting enough for an incredibly elaborate plan to unfold over the course of many hours. The danger is, in fact, so slow-acting that after all those hours, this man (who should not be a very skilled fighter or marksman) is still capable of engaging and holding his own in shootouts, chases, and fistfights with a crazed and determined ex-cop.
Director Wan has potential, but he needs to lay off on camera tricks and realize quick cuts and sped-up camera-work serve as distractions and do little to build genuine scares or suspense. In fact, I was surprised by how easy it was for me to sit through this film. At no moment did I ever feel a sense of dreadful anticipation like I do with the best (or even solidly competent) of the genre. Much of the reason for that has to do with the flashback structure, we're clearly aware of who's alive or who isn't considering we know who's telling the story.
It doesn't help that each twist spirals the movie further into a hole it can't dig itself out of, the final strike coming in the last moments with a preposterous surprise revelation. We barely saw this guy prior to this scene, so why make a big deal out of this surprise by going through a pointless flashback? This is one case where an otherwise middling movie is destroyed by a terrible ending.