Saw

An atmospheric slaughter movie that I found surprising thanks to some of the twists. Great ideas put into practice well. Wan certainly knows his stuff. It was pleasant to see many well-known and quality actors alongside some unknown ones. But it isn’t so brutal and doesn’t make you jump, so don’t be afraid. ;) (01/02/2013)

This basic premise was without the slightest clue of what I was getting into, and without the knowledge that I would see it countless times in future installments, it was really perfect back then. Despair, the unknown, and people in a strongly oppressive environment and situation still function today. It's a shame that with Jigsaw came the tormented cliché of "I'm aiming at you, but I'll wait until you take the weapon from me", because without it, Wan would have aimed really high. What the script loses here, it gains with the point. It may be problematic, full of holes, and perhaps even impossible, but it can't be taken away from it that it is truly unforgettable. The new Se7en may not have come then, but with a decade of hindsight and the presence of unbalanced sequels, the first Saw has matured into very favorable colors. 70% (03/02/2006)

I didn't need the epileptic camera none-sense and the metallic soundtrack, but I admit that Saw is a good horror film, certainly above average by current standards. But I only realized this because of the great, great, great ending - until then I thought I was watching a rip-off of Seven, in which the characters occasionally do horribly stupid things (blinding illumination, by lightning, for example). (11/01/2013)

This saw has really sharp teeth, though a bit rusty in places. Among the good things we can count the thick oppressive atmosphere, several excellent suspenseful scenes and one awesome jump-scare. On the other hand, there is the unconvincing performance of Cary Elwes as Dr. Gordon, a bit of the traditional clichés (the pratfalls or the pointless hesitation before blowing someone away) and the final twist. In itself, it is very, very surprising and shocking, but it is too much "for effect" and in hindsight it digs big holes in the logic of the plot. Still, I won't go below four stars, a film that can happily be described as a heavy punch for the average audience (a friend told me how he experienced a stampede to leave the cinema during a screening in Ireland) doesn't deserve it. (08/01/2005)

There are quite a few things that didn’t come together, the acting isn't the best, but given the filmmakers' enthusiasm, the budget, the ideas (viewing a room through a camera flash), and most importantly, the brilliant and formally bombastic ending, it deserves a buck. Too bad the sequels just ruin the name of this awesome thriller. (28/03/2005)