Let's watch people get killed! It's deep, man!

Rating: 3/10 (12 August 2006)

(r#51)
What's that you say? Scary? Grisly? Thought-provoking? A psychological thriller? A gory masterpiece? Are you on drugs? It's a really sad state of affairs when most new horror films are so awful that a barely-above-average trash flick like "Saw" gets praised because... um... why was this movie popular again? Oh right, because it's "Saw"! You know, the new horror movie that's sooo indie and sooo controversial and so totally thought-provoking! Snore.
I was so massively disappointed by this movie I don't even know where to begin. This is truly a movie that only the people who put Star Wars III on the top 250 could call great. It makes me want to slit my wrists. Just kidding, I'm not a stupid emo like the Chemical Romance-listening wanna-be "dark" punks who probably liked this movie.
Let's start with the so-called controversial aspect of "Saw". This was hyped as the grisliest, most disgusting, disturbing thriller since "Se7en". It's not - at it's best, "Saw" is a bad copy of Se7en. It blatantly tries to copy Fincher's cinematography and style but it has none of his directorial skills. It also lacks Morgan Freeman, Brad Pitt and Kevin Spacey. Instead we have some unknown guy and the man whose last major role was as the dorky stepdad in Liar Liar. Oh, I'm sorry. This is after all so totally indie and stuff and I guess they couldn't afford big stars. Well was it too hard to find a cast that could actually act? Cary Elwes whines like a baby throughout most of the film and the dude who plays Adam might be this generation's Ben Affleck. He's so awful at showing emotion he'd do much better as a street mime.
Anyway, where was I? Oh, right. The gore. There's none. Let me read that to you again: THERE IS NO GORE IN SAW. There are five seconds of guts coming out of a stoner's belly. And that's it. That's the "grisly and disturbing violence" that Saw has to offer. Maybe the director's cut is grislier, who knows? Otherwise I suggest you watch Braindead. I mean, Quentin Tarantino's CSI episode had more gore than this. And your average episode of Teletubbies is infinitely scarier.
Saw is a pretentious and pointless exercise in death and cynicism. The ending makes absolutely no sense at all - what the hell is the point of spending 16 hours on the floor of a dirty bathroom? Even if you ignore the fact that it would be impossible for anyone to lie perfectly still for that long, there is no logical reason for the killer to do this. But who cares, right? It was totally thought-provoking and mind-blowing and unbelievable and amazing and stuff, dude!
There is some implied violence but it's told in a series of extreme quick cuts that show us nothing that's remotely scary. People (oh, I'm sorry, I meant "ppl") on this website are already hailing this as a modern masterpiece and a return to form for horror movies. You know what a conversation about Saw 20 years from now will be like, fanboys? It will go something like this:
"Hey, remember that movie Saw where those two guys where trapped in a bathroom and had to cut their own feet off? With Danny Glover?"
"Uh... no."
"Oh... OK."
This is fad at its most faddiest, folks. Don't fall for it. Don't watch it. There is no point. It's not gross enough to shock you. It's not well acted or filmed enough to be engaging. No matter what the fans tell you, there's nothing there. There is no point in Jigsaw's actions. I guess I better quit now - the fans of Saw don't have the patience to finish a review this long. Stick with the "THIS MOVIE IS AWESOME!!" five sentence opuses. I dare any intelligent person, who has seen scarier horror films than Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, to enjoy this.
"Hey, man, this review sucks, let's go watch Saw III!"
"Yeah! I heard there's a guy in it who has to choose between shoving a rusty nail through his eyelid or dying from a kerosene explosion!"
"AWESOME!"