rideside.net

I've been waiting a few days to post my critique of this one, but I'm not sure I've done myself any favors by reading up on it. "Saw" is scary and straight up entertaining. Now, the fright "Saw" creates is more of the Wes Craven monster jumping from the shadows style than Hitchcock's superior impending doom and paranoia, but there's enough of the later to pass. Still, some death scenes are rapidly edited with fast forward AND slo-mo, making it seem like "Se7en, part II" on speed.

Part of the reason I have grown to like Saw more in the past 72 hours is finding out and then recognizing it was done on a smaller budget, something like $5 million. Not low-budget, but certainly not Hollywood. With your "big" stars being Danny Glover and Cary Elwes the story needs to carry it, and it does. Written by first time director James Wan and unknown Leigh Whannell who stars as Adam opposite Elwes as Dr. Lawrence Gordon (his best serious role since Glory), the movie has dozens of plot holes, but they are all small. What I mean by this is that the main thrust of the story works quite well, so who cares if the sedatives aren't realistic, poisons don't work like that, and motovations are strained. The characters are smarter and better acted than 9 out of 10 other pictures trying to be "horror" films.

I suggest you don't read anything more about "Saw" until you see it. By yourself. In an empty theater. On a rainy Tuesday night. With nothing but a bucket of popcorn to protect you. It's a thriller.(B+)