An experiment, and a mostly successful one at that

Rating: 7/10 (23 December 2005)

This is without a hint of doubt the most sadistic film I've seen in quite some time... possibly in all of my life. Quite cynical, as well, if not beating the DC ending of The Butterfly Effect at that. Being an independent film that aims high(possibly too high?), it has to cut a few corners to make due... a chase is filmed with only two angles, to give a quick example. The plot is interesting, as is the way it develops(if not particularly original). The film opens with a 'bang'... not unlike Dawn of the Dead, which I saw the day before this. However, unlike aforementioned horror masterpiece, in this film, it's not particularly effective... I found myself not being terribly interested in it. That says a lot... when a film manages to lose you before it has actually begun. The main difference is that in aforementioned film, it creeps up on you, slowly drawing you into the terrifying world, creating atmosphere... here, it just throws you into the situation, as if pushed into a cell. I'm quite certain this was intentional, but it just shows director James Wan's (disturbing?)lack of faith in renowned cinematic values, such as build-up and mood. You can't create terror just by showing a situation, you have to build up to it. And you can't expect the mood to come from seeing a person in a room in any given situation... you have to create that. Create. Something Wan doesn't seem too good at(except for, of course, sadistic, cynical scenes and machines). The pacing is somewhat daft, the film loses momentum half-way through. The acting is half-decent, but that's easily explained... take one look at the Trivia page for the film: "The rehearsal takes were actual footage for the film". So, Wan not only disregards established values of film-making, he also underestimates the importance of solid acting, which has a grounding in thorough rehearsing? It's no secret to anyone who's ever acted that if you're unsure of your lines or how the person you act opposite will react to them, your performance is hurt by it. The special effects are solid. The cinematography is lazy, but usually works. Too few shots result in a dull pace for much of the film, and a sense of watching a movie, rather than experiencing it. The stylized tone is overdone at times, producing a noisy and visually assaulting final product. The characters are well-written and credible, and much of the psychology in the film is quite accurate, something which is definitely to Wan's credit, presumably Whannel's(Leigh, co-writer) too. Something not to their credit is that the film breaks quite a few of the rules it establishes. I realize that few movies manage to avoid this entirely, but this one just breaks too many to let it go. I can't point them out here, as they spoil important parts of the film... but I doubt anyone will miss them, even on the first viewing, even if they aren't looking. Then there's how the film seems to take place in our 'world', with a fair amount realism... but there are details that just don't work out for real, that are too cartoon-y. A blade pops out of a character's sleeve at one point. Yes. Seriously. Think Kroenen from Hellboy. Very cartoon-y. It was in that film, too, but that was a comic book movie. This (supposedly) isn't. The film relies heavily on twists, gaining almost all of the thrills from this. The biggest has to do with the identity of Jigsaw, and it's practically the easiest one to figure out, though I must admit I did not see the final twist coming, and there were some surprises, due to fairly good execution in that area by Wan. The twists, obviously, lose all effect on subsequent viewings(I've only seen it once, but I have no desire to do so again, plus, a friend who highly recommended I watch it watched alongside me, and didn't seem to enjoy his second viewing in the least). Yes, I know, I know... that was the main shortcoming of several, if not most, of Hitchcock's pictures as well... but he did keep people guessing and entertained throughout the films. Compare this to Psycho and you'll see that it's no contest. Wan may possess some talent, but he lacks experience. Come on, James... prove you've got more than a somewhat perverted mind, a partiality for sadism and a truckload of cynicism. Writing is fair, with somewhat dubious plot points, too many repetitions and dialog that is almost painfully bad at times. All in all, the film is a mostly successful experiment in film-making... but that's the problem, only 'mostly'. When you mess with values in film-making, you need something solid to keep it going... Memento had it. This film doesn't. The film is entirely based on the theme of fighting to survive, the self-preservation instinct, something I like to use a lot in my short films as well, but a theme even I realize you can't base a whole film on. You need more. Oh, and then there's the idea of nearly dying to start appreciating your life... again, kind of thin. The old "you don't know what you've got until it's gone" isn't enough to drive a whole feature. It should be noted that the film contains quite a lot of gore, very graphic stuff. Make sure you've got the stomach for it before watching(nowhere near as extreme as what is seen in Dawn of the Dead, though). Finally... what can I say? James came, he made Saw, and judging from the public reaction, he apparently conquered. But in today's world of movies, by today's quality standards... does that really say that much? I recommend this only to huge fans of horror-thrillers, and I urge most true fans of horror to think hard before even considering to watch it. Go back and re-watch one of the classics instead, says I. Not to watch more than once. 7/10