There are many movies whose reputation and legacy have far surpassed their initial impact. These are films that have influenced so many others that they no longer feel new or exciting because they’ve been imitated to death, their original brilliance having since become a formula unto itself. Such is the reputation of “Saw,” one of many examples of small, independent horror movies premiering at the Sundance Film Festival and forever changing the genre (see also: “The Blair Witch Project” going from a production nightmare to an indie film legend). Despite being a big horror fan, though, I never watched any of the “Saw” movies when I was growing up in the 2000s since they were known for being, well, so-called “torture porn.”
Recall that the ’00s was dominated by splatter horror movies that emphasized depictions of cruel violence, mutilation, extreme gore, and often torture — with movies like Eli Roth’s “Hostel” and the “Saw” property being amongst the highest-profile examples of this sub-genre. These films spoke to the senseless violence of the post-9/11 decade by reflecting back what audiences were already seeing on the news on a daily basis.
It’s easy to see why “Saw,” as directed by James Wan and written by Leigh Whannell (who also stars in the film), was a monumental hit then. Not only did it play with that very idea of senseless, extreme violence, but it was also extremely cheap to make and not-so-subtly inspired by David Fincher’s “Se7en,” down to its twist ending and fantastic cast. With its nonlinear narrative, engaging central mystery, and cool kills featuring Rube Goldberg-style death contraptions that bring to mind the “Final Destination” franchise, “Saw” makes for a winning combination.
Still, given its torture porn reputation, I stayed very far away from any of the “Saw” movies — until now.
Read more: All 13 Halloween Movies, Ranked From Worst To Best
It’s easy to see why Saw became a smash hit
Lawrence holding a saw in Saw – Lions Gate Films
The thing about “Saw” is that the original 2004 film feels and looks very different from the rest of the franchise, with a rather gritty, grungy look that’s clearly inspired by “Se7en” and also dictated by the movie’s low-budget. That grittiness and the use of a (mostly) single location make it so the first “Saw” has to rely a lot more on Whannell’s script and Wan’s clever eye to make a little feel like a lot. The bulk of the story is about Adam (Whannell) and Lawrence (Cary Elwes), the latest victims of the Jigsaw Killer, as they awaken in a dilapidated bathroom with orders to do what they can to survive (while Lawrence is specifically told to also kill Adam). Scattered throughout the room are several clues meant to aid in their survival.
If, like me, you’d avoided watching this movie because of its reputation for being torture porn (as well as a film that Fincher believes hurt the legacy of “Se7en”), then let me be assure you: “Saw” is nowhere near as gory as its reputation (and sequels) would have you believe. Rather, it’s a very effective horror-thriller that relies more on mystery than kills, with the kills themselves existing to service the story rather than being the main attraction. The deaths are also mostly implied and unfold off-screen, creating a powerful idea in your head without showing it. More than anything, “Saw” is an economically-constructed movie that creates a fully-realized world that feels much larger than what we’re shown, along with death traps that are spectacularly and meticulously planned (based on what we see of them). It’s no wonder the film hit it big at Sundance before taking the horror movie-loving community by storm.
Saw is still an effective horror movie two decades later
Lawrence looking at a dead body in a torture bathroom in Saw – Lions Gate Films
Admittedly, watching “Saw” in 2025, it’s hard not to see the serial killer Jigsaw’s contraptions and plans as just an escape room with much bloodier stakes, but that’s also part of the fun. This itself makes “Saw” immediately stand out from other serial killer movies, even to this day. Sure, Jigsaw’s motives are flimsy at best, but his methods make for a unique experience. He offers his victims legitimately sound — albeit gruesomely painful — ways to survive, and the result is a thought-provoking film that leaves you wondering what you’d do in this situation. Would you actually follow Jigsaw’s instructions, gather the various clues, and survive?
Because the “Saw” franchise quickly lost the plot and became more about raising the bar for gore and ridiculous traps, this is a case where going back to the start of the property only serves to highlight how great and original its first installment was. With its low price tag and non-existent expectations, “Saw” makes for a compelling and rather bleak horror movie that makes up for its lack of expensive visuals with suffocating tension, a thrilling ticking time bomb of a setup, and a brilliant script. Yes, the kills are quite violent, and it’s easy to see how they gave rise to the torture porn sub-genre, but again, they’re not the focus of the film. Instead, it’s the last-minute twist ending that makes it not only the best “Saw” movie but also a fantastic horror movie in general. Seeing aside the film’s legacy and everything else Whannell and Wan have gone on to make in the intervening years, the original “Saw” remains stellar and a worthy first-watch two decades later.
If you’re looking for the easiest way to keep up with all the major movie and TV news, why not sign up to our free newsletter?
Read the original article on SlashFilm.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.yahoo.com ’
