not what I expected

Rating: 8/10 (4 November 2007)

I'm unlike most people, I think, in that I prefer not to read movie reviews until after I've seen the movie. There are exceptions, of course, but they are very rare. If I've enjoyed a movie my habit these days is to come online and look it up here, add it to MyMovies and almost always rate it (but not often comment). I will sometimes do this for movies I didn't like much, too, if there was any reason at all why I bothered to watch it after the point at which I decided it was junk (eg a favourite actor, or one really good character in a sea of dross).
And so it is that I have got this far without being acquainted with the premise/plot/characters of "Saw". I do like horror, preferably "intelligent" horror, although pulp slasher/vampire/zombie flicks are fine too (as long as they have *something* to recommend them; see above). I feel obliged to class "Saw" as horror even though I think it's a psychological thriller first and a horror vehicle second. There *were* moments where I was backed up into the corner of the sofa with my hand over my mouth, but it was a reaction to the degrees of realism rather than being grossed out by gore FX. I was actually expecting more gore. I like zombie movies so I feel pretty acclimatised to gore (realistic or not), but I had unexpected empathetic reactions to the emotions rather than a "repulse" reaction to gore.
Only a few movies in the fright genre have ever really bothered me, but the only one I've actually had to switch off unfinished was "Wolf Creek" - because it was *so damn good*, also because I was heavily freaked out by John Jarratt as a sociopath, having previously only seen him in neutral or positive contexts (particularly "Playschool" and "Better Homes and Gardens"). I was slightly worried that I would find "Saw" unwatchable in the same way, therefore I was greatly relieved to be favourably reminded of "Cube" (which I like very much).
I was a little irked by the various continuity errors, and I felt some aspects of the plot didn't get enough explanation (or enough visual clues), but I was very pleased with Michael Emerson as Zep Hindle, knowing I recognised the face but taking a while to come up with "Lost" (which I had to stop watching after the 2nd season because I was becoming unhealthily obsessed with it). I pegged Zep as the most likely suspect right from his first scene; it was gratifying to be wrong, and to have been so masterfully tricked. Emerson has a lingering resemblance to Brad Dourif (a great favourite), and this is a good thing, imo, if he doesn't mind doing a lot of these kinds of roles - the fringe loony, basically, or the corrupt official.
Normally I am annoyed when a movie ends in such a way that there is obvious scope for a sequel, but this time it seemed the *only* way to end it - given that Zep is not, after all, the monster behind the tortures. I am looking forward to seeing 2 and 3 in the next week before heading off to the cinema (which I rarely bother to do) for the fourth installment.