From what I SAW, undeserving of hype.

Rating: 4/10 (28 October 2006)

Now there's three "Saws" with a fourth on the way...I don't really see why. I just saw the first saw, and I can imagine why a small company like LGF wants to make as many saws as they can, they make lots of money. However, this film is not very good. In fact, I consider it quite ungood, though not abysmal. Here are a few reasons in LIST form: LOL!
Firstly, the acting WAS fairly abysmal...A sub-par performance by Cary Elwes...not even up to par with his performances in "The Crush", "Twister", or even "The Cat Returns", which were respectable performances. When he truly hams it up, you'll know where, and his voice will change completely. I will say as little as possible about the other guy, the Leigh kid, who doesn't belong in a high school play let alone a friggin motion picture. I understand he's the director's buddy or whatever but he's not an actor...I've seen actors; actors ACT. He's more of a bartender. Keanu Reeves should school' dis young-in on this fine art.
Secondly, the cinematography was full and i mean CHOCK full of fancy-pants camera-shaking'n'baking, spinning', flashing, bass booms, camera shutter sounds, hand-held, reversed WHOOSHES, more flashes, and all that other silly camera stuff all these new silly movies that are trying to be scary are chock full of. It's all a bunch of fluff, like an guitarist with three dozen pedals at his feet to do all the work for him; meant to convince the unsuspecting cinema-goer that he's watching something of substance or artiness, when that's far from the case. Just hold the cameras still for a sec and think b4 you shoot.
Thirdly, The movie tries to be non-linear, with layered story lines, jumping to and from the past at odd times, making half of everyone's lines preludes for silly montages, flashing by random scenes summarizing the film at 30 frames a second, forced foreshadowing - revealing you "surprises" a Labrador retriever figured out as soon as the blatant hints were first dropped...It's all VERY clever, but it all adds up to a big muddled mess.
Last and most upsetting: I read on the rating label "STRONG GRISLY VIOLENCE (SGV)"....hmmm. The first half of the movie is nearly friggin DEVOID of that SGV altogether (I thought horror movies are supposed to have lots of SGV! Is SGV in the first half not artsy enough??) I'm not totally desensitized to blood and gore, but an average episode of DEADWOOD had more gore than this movie, and that's just sad and inexcusable when the label promises SGV. From the way it was edited, the director/cameraman/editor seemed to be getting queasy while I just sat there saying: "Okay, we're an hour and a half into the movie, WHERE'S THE FRIGGIN SGV?!" I'm sorry, but if your movie is called SAW, and if advocate groups are going to protest it for its violence or whatever, it should CONTAIN violence, not just unmaimed people describing it.
Pant...pant...sorry, Don't mean to be longwinded...I just forgot; it's stupid to use all caps to represent yelling. I just hope saw 2 or 3 are better than this. 'Cause from what i SAW they'd better RETOOL (LOL) their whole friggin operation...