Saw

Two seemingly unrelated people (Cary Elwes and Leigh Whinnell) wake up in a secluded, dingy bathroom, chained to the wall. With nothing but their wits, a few clues, and a hacksaw, they must figure out who put them in their predicament and how to get out. Well, assuming they're able to get out. For an added bonus, one of the men has a kidnapped family on the outside.

Falsely categorized as "torture porn" (the violence and gore here are more in line with "Seven" than "Hostel"), this film was the first smart horror film of the 2000s. Intelligent horror fans not only got the blood they wanted, but a clever villain and a mystery to solve. Later sequels would get more complicated than episodes of "Lost", and the series loses something as it goes (all franchises do), but this original stands as one of the modern greats. And, luckily, you can watch it without any of the sequels and it makes sense.

There has been an effort in recent years to academically analyze "Saw", injecting a false connotation on to the film. One scholarly article points to the "militarization" of Jigsaw in a post-9/11 world. Jigsaw, like the military, carries out violent acts, but has found ways to rationalize them with moral justifications (saving the worthy, letting the undeserving die). The author makes various other parallels about a "military" setting, mentioning IEDs and the industrial setting of Jigsaw's workshop. I find this to be largely silly, and not at all the creators' intention. I see a much more obvious line of progression from "Silence of the Lambs" to "Seven" to "Saw" with the advent of the brilliant, self-moralizing serial killer. Even Hitchcock's "Rope" offered a justification for murder, albeit a poor one. Terrorism or not, the horror film will go on.

You can make complaints, sure. But for young writers and directors, this was a blockbuster and deserved the massive success it got. As someone who pays close attention to a film's writing and plot, I was stunned. My only real concern is at the very end, when the key's location is revealed. I can't discuss this in a review, but let's just say I found that to be uncharacteristic and unfair of the killer.

If you haven't seen "Saw" yet, see it. And see the second film. After that, they start to go downhill. But the first two are quite good and must-see viewing for all horror fans.

One of the best movies I've watched. I didn't get any spoilers while watching this movie and the ending was devastating.

The tension was perfect and you are looking forward to the end.

Soundtrack is one of the best. I always watch it, even if the series gets worse as it goes.

When two men, wake up and find themselves chained to a bathroom pipe, with a dead body lying in between them, they soon realize that they are prisoners, in the secure lair of a serial killer, nicknamed 'Jigsaw'.

This film was, in my opinion, exciting, thrilling, and an overall entertaining film to watch. It delivered the necessary chills, to keep its audiences fully awake, and engaged. This was an enormous achievement for Aussie newcomers – James Wan, and Leigh Wannell. The two have created a well-deserved horror/thriller, without the necessary clichés.The film is not too scary that it becomes unwatchable, so the full potential of its enormity will not be missed. definitely two thumbs uo for me.

I was always terrified to watch this movie because I thought it would be over the top blood and gore. I finally found the nerve and was extremely surprised. Unlike other horror movies this one takes in the entire scene of the detectives trying to catch the murder while you're trying to figure out what is going on. Even though the movie keeps flashing back it helps take some intensity off of what's going on and adds a nice story to it. Instead of a meaningless film with blood and gore, this one had a well thought out storyline and a killer with rules. It reminded me a little of Silence of the lambs, they both have that edge that anything brutal and gory can happen any moment keeping up the intensity of the film. Don't get me wrong there is blood and gore in the film, but it's done in a tasteful way unlike some of the final destination movies.

Not since Se7en's John Doe has there been a serial killer with such a bizarre philosophy behind his actions (not that Jigsaw actually kills anyone; more on that later). Sure, in light of the increasingly deteriorating sequels it's hard to think of Saw as little more than a franchise- starter (something the writer and director never planned), but viewed on its own, astonishing merits, it's a good, nasty thriller, filled with solid scares and (especially compared to the follow-ups) quite well written.

According to the film's notorious back-story, it took only 28 days to shoot it. Not that strange, given most of the action takes place in just two locations: one is a bathroom where Adam (Leigh Whannell) and Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) fins themselves with their feet chained to the wall, with no recollection whatsoever of how the hell they got there; the other is the lair of the mysterious Jigsaw, a serial killer whom Detectives Sing (Ken Leung) and Trapp (Danny Glover) have been tracking down for weeks.

The two facts are linked in a most ingenious way: Jigsaw doesn't really kill anyone, but "plays a game" with his victims. In the case of Adam and Dr. Gordon, as the tape recorder found in a dead man's hand tells them, each of them has two hours to free himself and kill the other, or they will both die. Problem is, the only way to get rid of the chains is to saw your foot off. And so, while the two unfortunate cell-mates have to choose who gets to live (that's Jigsaw's perverse logic: he offers you a choice), the police close in on the elusive psycho, whose previous deeds and MO are shown in flashbacks.

Whereas the subsequent Saw films use the messy chronology just for the hell of it (though they do get away with some neat narrative tweaks thanks to it), the first installment takes advantage of its non-linear storytelling to increase the suspense and provide some valuable clues to how everything fits together. It is to James Wan and co-writer Whannell's eternal credit that they, like Se7en writer Andrew Kevin Walker, went beyond slasher clichés and came up with something more. Okay, so Saw's philosophical undertones aren't entirely original, but what the heck, they do manage to keep the audience interested in what's going on. In addition, adding a little more depth to the killer ensures that the movie's more gruesome parts (and there are a lot of them) don't come off as gratuitous bloodletting (for an example of the latter, look no further than the countless sequels to A Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday 13th).

Furthermore, the intelligence behind the film's structure might also have had a positive effect on the performances, given the acting is more convincing here than in most post-2000 shockers: Elwes and Whannell's desperation is conveyed with an intensity that's almost too painful to behold, Glover plays the aging cop role resisting the temptation to do a Lethal Weapon in-joke (you know, the "too old for this sh*t" gag) and when Jigsaw himself appears... well, it's the horror equivalent of Keyser Soze - chilling and impossible to forget (and, for once, not played by Kevin Spacey). Just like the movie.