Unambitious, but decent

Rating: Null/10 (19 March 2005)

I admit, I walked into this film with preconceived assumptions and ideas, and to my dismay I was right . . . again. Were it not for the fact that I've long since accepted the overly cliché nature of films (especially horror/action flicks), I probably would have found Saw abysmally disappointing and feel the need to bash it to pieces in this review. The overly ridiculous premise would not have set with me at all, and the inevitable plot turns would have elicited a yawn and a "been there, done that, what's new?" attitude. Note  that's not necessarily calling Saw bad, just lacking any real ambition which is a crime that describes the bulk of the film industry.
I anticipate faux-originality, and I fully expect Saw to take the wrong path in trying to keep the audience on guard--throwing more shadows, more masks, more sheets (whatever) than any other genre film before all so it can keep the mysterious Jigsaw killer hidden longer instead of, I dunno, taking a genuinely different approach to get the suspense. A game of "Let's guess the killer" that tries so hard to outdo the film that came before it. Who will be the first to direct a film that consists of nothing but unmasking scenes only to find there's nothing there? I wonder . . .
My biggest complaint about the film is the jerky sped up sections for more intense moments; it felt like even the director didn't want to sit through a large section of his own film and hit the fast forward button. Granted, the unnatural speed and rhythm could set up tension; however, instead the effect fails miserably, it even comes across as music-video silly, effectively killing any potential suspense and we get a neat/annoying visual gimmick.
My second complaint deals with the writing behind Danny Glover's character, who exists in the movie for the sole sake of revealing the next step of the plot and letting the killer get away (usually at some personal cost) at pre-destined points in time as outlined by the handbook for generic scriptwriting. No fault of the actor; the writers just did not bother trying to cover up this formula driven character and his virtually worthless existence in the film.
And lastly, the murder-mystery/action film clichés that managed to take a firm grip in this film and never fully let go. Congratulations in advance for figuring out that the killer, when cornered, is not actually caught--when the gun is pointed at the bad guy, he's not shot when he should be shot and some distraction comes up so he regains the gun, and add in about 20 minutes worth of these back to back.
Really, the clichés shouldn't bother me as much as they do; I have no idea how many films I've let slip by without commenting on their cliché factor. I guess it's because by most other accounts, Saw is pretty good. It has some worthwhile production values, good actors, a few slick camera moves here and there, and a nice score. Maybe these elements bothered me because part of me sincerely hopes that one day I'll be able to walk into a film like this completely wrong in my preconceived assumptions and find myself impressed that the creators did, indeed, have real ambition, and do something genuinely different.
Saw, unfortunately, while a decent horror experience, was not that film.