By Michael Gleason

Saw, a horror movie released to capitalize on the Halloween season, chains two strangers down in a locked room, with a dead body in the middle. They are each given tools and one main objective: To kill the other and get out alive. As time goes on, they realize they have been placed there by a psychotic killer who puts people in intricately designed traps. Sounds vaguely Hitchcock-ian, doesn’t it?

Unfortunately, this film is anything but.

The movie starts out with a promising premise; it asks what its audience would do to save their own life. This is certainly an interesting moral conundrum. However, the movie fails at every level to address this question. Instead it meanders through unimportant side stories and clichéd flashbacks. These flashbacks effectively kill any sense of suspense that the film does build up, and completely throw off the flow of the movie. The movie, for long, long stretches, is more boring than anything else. This, of course, is not a good trait for a horror film, or any film for that matter.

Instead of trying for actual suspense, the film goes for the visceral thrill. This would actually be acceptable, as the movie is most clever when showing the other traps the killer has placed. In fact, the film would have been worthwhile if these were shown throughout the movie. This film could have been at least entertaining as a gorefest. Unfortunately, the film quits this path little more than a quarter of the way through and merely disintegrates into melodrama and chaos.

The movie is cut in the mode of most horror movies today: Dizzyingly and confusingly. The editor’s delusion was, if the movie made enough quick cuts, no one would notice the fact that the other aspects of the film were weak.

This film is so horrible at creating…well, horror…that it drew uproarious (and unintentional) laughter from the audience at several points. The mediocre (at best) acting does little to help this movie, and much to hurt it. For example, the last minutes of the movie contain acting so overwrought that one would think they were watching a soap opera-and a bad one at that. It’s not a good sign when a scene designed to elicit sympathy and sadness draws neither.

Of course, the acting can only be blamed for so much. The writing must take its share of the burden. When the audience has more medical knowledge than Doctor Gordon (Cary Elwes), the film is in trouble. When the film is forced to use clichéd characters (cop avenging a partner, cheating family man), the film is in trouble. When the entire audience yells simultaneously for a character to do something obvious, and the character does not do it, the film is in trouble. When the film relies on a surprise, nonsensical, ending, the film is in trouble. The movie reads like a practical do-not-do for the horror genre. All the modern sins of horror movies are touched upon in this film, and the result is failure.

The most frustrating thing about this movie is that it could have been done right. It could have been a carefully-crafted, clever thriller. It could have slowly built tension, instead of exhausting its best material in the first 15 minutes. It could have made a meaningful statement, instead of relying on a false and obvious moral.

This film is disappointing on so many levels that it is painful to watch. It drives a good idea completely into the ground with amateur writing and directing. Avoid Saw at any cost; it will simply drive one as crazy as the antagonist.

Final Grade: D-

´Saw´ begins as a film with an intersting premise that is full of potential, only to squash any promise it holds with badly placed flashbacks and amateur directing. (Image courtesy movies.yahoo.com)