Yeah, I saw it. That is to say I seen it.

Rating: 7/10 (3 October 2013)

Saw really should be exempt from most criticism as James Wan managed to pull of a helluva trick considering the innumerable restrictions and compromises that made the shoot very hard for the first-time feature director. Who'd ever believe that such a tiny movie would be the first to re-invent horror for the 21st century? Cary Elwes and Leigh Whannell play Doctor Gordon and hapless jerk Adam, a mis-matched duo who wake up in a disgusting bathroom chained to the piping at either end of the expansive room. A dead body lies between, blood and gore on the floor around it. Doctor Gordon suspects that it is the work of the infamous "Jigsaw" - a madman known for subjecting lowlifes to brutal tests to prove their desire to live.
A series of flashbacks follow which build a greater story around the plight of the two men, culminating in a climax that is still as unnerving now as it was nearly 10 years ago. Saw is a very clever film, but is let down by overly filtered cinematography, choppy editing that is full of stutter cuts, and a sound design that is bloated with far too many cheap stingers. The acting is a little weak at times too but considering the conditions, and the fact that there was no rehearsal at all so the footage you see is sometimes the first attempt by the actors to get it done means you can't judge it too harshly.
The production design tries to emulate David Fincher's Se7en but ends up looking like a cheap 70s porno. But the whole film was shot in one big building, so you just can't pick faults. Like I said, what Wan managed to pull off with the time and budget he was given is nothing short of remarkable. The sequels were given more money to crazy with, but the first Saw movie should be viewed as a different entity.
Love it or hate it, Saw is a major achievement for the fledgling writer/director pairing of Whannell and Wan.