Review of Saw (2004) by James M — 08 Sep 2013

I'm surprised by the critical establishment's revulsion at movies like this, and also Hostel. Consider for instance Richard Roeper calling it "a glorified snuff film." Surely we didn't watch the same movie.

Saw is fairly ridiculous, to be sure, but its makers are not out to write literature. Is the Texas Chainsaw Massacre not sadistic? Or any horror movie for that matter that features a psychotic killer? Or Goodfellas, a great film that is positively dripping with nihilism and evil, a movie that made me feel icky after watching it.

As for blood, there is more of the red stuff in Scream, and there are few deaths here. American audiences love a good villain, which is what the Jigsaw killer is; how is he much different than Hannibal Lecter in the Silence of the Lambs, a critical favorite? Surely there is no grand statement in Jonathan Demme's movie; it's just an intense thrill ride made with great style and is well made.

Saw is not well made or made with great style. Still it was a fun movie, and I liked the twists. Some critics have said the twists were an insult to one's intelligence... how? They were corny in a fun way.

This is a popcorn movie, not the Republic of Plato. I didn't see the twists coming. Perhaps I'm a moron? But the message is clear: if you enjoyed Saw in any way, you ARE an idiot, equivalent to one of Shakespeare's groundlings.

But again, horror wouldn't be the special thing it is without the constant moralizing of critics.