Saw

Saw is nothing by very well and effectively filmed bloodbath. James Wan is definitely not a bad director, he is original, inventive, and dynamic, and for the most part, he manages to maintain an almost lethal pace throughout the entire film. The atmosphere and excellent screenplay save a lot, but I still can't help feeling that it is just cleverly written and effectively filmed ordinary nonsense. (16/02/2005)

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)

The overwhelming majority of films in this style don't even fall into the B-movie category; they're more like C-movies and have a woefully semi-amateurish character. Saw significantly stands out from these productions with its professionalism and is currently the actual pinnacle of the genre. It boasts a relatively sophisticated script, professional direction, editing, camera work, and acting performances that don't elicit disdainful smiles. Along with its horror atmosphere, strongly naturalistic shots, and effective ending, it creates a perfect cocktail to become a box office hit. On the other hand, the script isn't so well-developed that it can avoid inconsistencies and some clichés. The editing at times resembles music video production, and the flashbacks only serve to delay the story. Overall impression: 60%. Subsequent installments of this film lacked the originality of the original and were merely squeezing money from the pockets of viewers. (01/12/2007)

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)

This is a very powerful, intense, and somewhat petrifying movie that everyone should watch to get an idea of how to play games in adulthood, if no one wants to play with you anymore, and if you are tired of playing board games like Ludo. Of course, you clearly cannot say that about the other sequels, as they lack the form and concepts of the first movie. (17/02/2009)