Overall Rating
  Awesome: 45.5%
Worth A Look: 17.44%
Average: 9.81%
Pretty Bad: 10.35%
Total Crap: 16.89%
15 reviews, 277 user ratings
|
|
| Saw |
by Tony Hansen
"SAW WAS AWESOME"
|
You see, guns don’t kill people – literal jawbreaking, head splitting helmets kill people. And with that I’ve decided that I can never become a movie serial killer. I just don’t have the creativity. Sure, crazy – I can do. Insane? Why not. But to put it all together in a package in which nutty goes side by side with an insane philosophy AND deadly artistic virtuosity, well, then I’m completely lost. Frankly, I believe the public school system is to blame (and my parents) for not helping me to develop a work ethic in which I could nurture my creative tendencies. They were lazy so that fictional people could live. Thankfully for the serial killer genre and for its fans, however, film makers James Wan and Leigh Whannell have had no such creative barriers. In "Saw", Wan and Whannell have constructed an imperfect film that just may be considered a classic.The Hollywood serial killer genre has become obvious and predictable. Even worse, it has become boring. For every Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs there’s a formulaic genre film starring Ashley Judd. For every Seven starring Morgan Freeman there are two Morgan Freeman genre films co-starring Ashley Judd, or someone that is utterly Judd-like. In fact, at times it seems that Judd has taken it upon herself to dilute an entire filmic age with her own patented brand of mediocrity. Where would the cinematic world be today if Judd never existed? We can only dream.
The problem with living within the Hollywood “Judd” system is that the serial killer film has become more about mystery than horror. “Who done it?” has replaced “No! No! What the fuck has he just done?” By playing “guess who?”, a dangerous game with today’s savvy audiences, film makers have no other option than to undercut, even if just to a small extent, the empathy that one must feel for the victims. As the victims become the objects rather than the subjects of the film, so do the audience’s voyeuristic identifications become slanted more towards the heroes rather than the victims. And where’s the horror in that?
Another approach that certain film makers have taken to the serial killer genre is to focus primarily on the mind of the killer. What’s going on in his/her head? It’s an approach that worked in a film like Seven but taken to its logical last step in a film like The Cell, where the audience goes literally inside the mind of the killer, the approach produces nothing but a pretentious mess of crap. The Cell is an awful, awful film primarily because it claims to give the audience everything that the film makers think the audience wants to see. But it doesn’t ring true, and it certainly doesn’t ring fun. Altogether, the film’s indulgences make for a boring, fraudulent film. Psychological style does not make psychological substance.
(Wait. Wasn’t I supposed to be reviewing a film?) Oh, yeah . . .
The great thing about Saw, and the thing that makes it truly subversive, is that it’s not about finding the identity of the killer, although it pretends to be, and it’s not about the complex psychology of the killer, although it pretends to be. Saw is about “the game.” It’s about the elaborate dance between killer and victim. It’s all about the puzzles of story mechanics. The audience, left without a hero, is placed squarely in the shoes of the victims. What would you do? What could you do? Can you out think this genius lunatic? These are the questions that Wan forces upon the viewer. The real chilling part of the film is that for the most part I couldn’t come up with answers. I’m really not sure what I would do in the situations in which his victims find themselves. Truly, the best horror films all make you feel trapped. They give you a sense of “there’s nothing more I can do.” Saw is about as claustrophobic a film as they come.
And it’s devilish. Oh, man, is it devilish. If you thought that the killer in Seven created gruesome scenarios for his victims, then you’ll surprised by the ingenuity of Saw’s “Jigsaw” killer. There was a time when I believed that the elaborate tortures designed by the lunatic villains of serial killer films had gone too far. In order to continue with titillating the viewer’s inner sicko, directors appeared to feel the need to take everything to the next level. The water torture cell found in The Cell, for example, almost seemed like a parody of more realistic situations. It didn’t look as if there was anywhere else for film makers to go. Surprisingly, Saw finds another level of morbidity. By adding an element of moral decision, Wan and Whannell construct situations in which their characters must choose their own gruesome fates and the fates of others. By opting for this approach the film makers have the opportunity to highlight not only the macabre but also the ugliness of human nature. How far would you go to survive?
Certainly, Saw isn’t a perfect film. Horribly miscast and saturated with stiff dialogue, Saw trounces forward always on the basis of its brilliant premises. Cary Elwes, for example, stars a hard as nails doctor trapped in a seemingly unescapable situation. He’s tough. He’s gruff. And there is no way that he’s capable of being played accurately by Elwes. Of course, Elwes is a character actor and he typically does a great job, but he isn’t a particularly versatile character actor. He’s good for the funny but he’s not necessarily good for roles of brooding strength. I don’t want my Elwes to try intimidation; I want him served to me wry. Irony is his strength.Regardless of the problems with Elwes and the stilted dialogue, "Saw" is a memorable movie experience. Why? Well, it’s the type of movie that teaches us how to treat each other, how to love. It’s a veritable text book on racial and sexual tolerance. It comments on the gay lifestyle and the biases that exist between men and women. Animals are sacred, "Saw" says, and children are our most valuable commodity. Actually, it says none of these things. It’s just fucking scary.
link directly to this review at http://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=8560&reviewer=421
originally posted: 03/19/04 11:24:40
![[printer]](/images/icon/printer.gif) printer-friendly format
|
OFFICIAL SELECTION: 2004 Sundance Film Festival. For more in the 2004 Sundance Film Festival series, click here.
OFFICIAL SELECTION: 2004 Toronto Film Festival. For more in the 2004 Toronto Film Festival series, click here.
OFFICIAL SELECTION: 2004 Boston Fantastic Film Festival. For more in the 2004 Boston Fantastic Film Festival series, click here.
Trilogy Starters: For more in the Trilogy Starters series, click here.
|
 |
USA
29-Oct-2004 (R)
DVD: 18-Oct-2005
UK
N/A
Australia
02-Dec-2004
|
|
Articles 
subscribe to this feed![[AllPosters.com]](/images/icon/ap.gif){kind=icon}
