Saw Review: The Legacy It Has Spawned Is More Impressive Than the Film Itself

As a kid, the idea of watching Saw (as an admitted scaredy cat up until the tender age of 20) was stomach-turning. Someone cut his own leg off? There's torture? There's a grimy room with poop stains and handcuffs? I was not among the masses to go catch the influential flick in theaters. However, as one film soon kicked off an impressive extended universe, it was less about a fear of the horror attached to the franchise and more about a distinct disinterest in the gore associated with it. And despite the movie's lofty place in the modern horror genre, I was pleasantly surprised when watching the film for the first time that the final twist that reveals Jigsaw's identity was never spoiled for me. This twist saved the film for me, which, up until that point, was burdened with chaotic and headache-inducing editing and sound mixing, and muddied with an incomprehensible plot.

‘Saw’ Tries and Fails To Imitate Better Mysteries

More often than not, stories about serial killers lead to an eventual explanation for the killings. That ah-ha moment where a twisted past or some extreme tragedy puts the pieces together for you. Even if there's no piecing together of the puzzle pieces, you at least can formulate some sort of pattern. In particular, Seven — the movie Saw is clearly trying to emulate — places its victims in the slot of a sinner of one of the seven deadly sins. Each of John Doe's (Kevin Spacey) victims fits into one of those categories. His reason for killing people makes sense in his own twisted logic. If you are waiting for this level of reasoning with Jigsaw (Tobin Bell), you will be sorely disappointed. He kills people for arbitrary reasons, punishing them for things they can't control or petty crimes. He kills someone for being suicidal, he tries to kill someone else because they're a drug addict, and he attempts to kill Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) because he is unfaithful to his wife. I'm not saying infidelity is excusable, but surely a death sentence is taking things to a dramatic extreme?

While you might be able to reason that a cheater deserves some kind of punishment, none of his victims really make any cohesive sense. There's no logic to his choice of victim which lowers the stakes of the story. When you assume the villain is the maintenance man Zep (Michael Emerson), it is a predictable choice, but it is at least one that makes sense. Perhaps Gordon is particularly cruel or condescending to Zep, maybe he's just an asshole. But then we learn that Zep, himself, is just a victim, and worse, he's one who seemingly has done nothing wrong. He's just been poisoned by Jigsaw in this grand game and is trying to save his own life.

'Saw's Shock Twist Isn't Earned

The problem with the mystery at the center of Saw is that even though the twist is shocking, it isn't earned at all. There's no substance to the reveal. And once you're over the awe and done being impressed by the fact that the killer was in the room the whole time, the questions asked to fill the plot holes never get answered. You're forced to believe that two people locked in a room for hours didn't notice that the corpse in the room is breathing, or that he occasionally moves his hand to trigger an electrocute button. It's as silly as the idea of a woman being held captive with her daughter and not immediately shooting the person who captures them the minute she gets the gun. These are all moments where we are forced to handwave it away and say, "Movie logic!"

Jigsaw Isn't an Interesting Enough Killer

If Saw came out today in 2023 (yes, Saw X is in theaters now, but I mean the original film being released today), John Kramer would undeniably be labeled as an incel loser. While subsequent sequels might elaborate on the extensive mythology of the Jigsaw killer, the Jigsaw of the 2004 Saw just seems like a curmudgeon who likely livestreams his extensive laundry list of complaints about this failing world daily to an audience of 400 zealous and equally jobless individuals on Rumble. It doesn't feel like James Wan and Leigh Whannell care about the actual mystery at the heart of the story, more about the feelings the twist will induce or the shock of the twisted puzzles. As a person who has a morbid interest in true crime, Jigsaw is neither the most gruesome nor the most terrifying killer. On paper, he just seems like a bit of a loser.

He's not as vile as someone like Dahmer, or as scary as someone like the Zodiac, or as arrogant as someone like Manson. These monsters are frequently adapted in movies and television or revisited in true crime documentaries, and every time we are reminded of their story it is stomach-churning. Beyond his elaborate traps, there is no method to Jigsaw's madness, and he begins to look clownish when compared to actual villains of the real world. His righteous indignation feels painfully hollow. At the end of the movie, I'm left wondering, "So what?" The best thing Jigsaw did was exist so that other, better villains, could be built off of his blueprint in later entries of the franchise.

However, despite Kevin Greutert's awful editing that induces headache and lethargy rather than fear, the strength of Saw comes in at the way Wan ratchets up the tension between Gordon and Adam (Whannell). The slowly unfolding mystery that jumps back and forth in time fills in the story gaps, utilizing a nonlinear narrative effectively. As we learn about Jigsaw's crimes, it becomes clear that the situation that Gordon and Adam are in is very dire. It isn't a prank, it isn't some trick, and at the end of this, someone will die. The personal connections between Gordon and Jigsaw add an extra layer of intrigue that the film could have explored, but the story chooses to lean into shock value instead.

'Saw's Impact on the Horror Genre Can't Be Denied

Saw's impact on the genre and pop culture in general is unparalleled. The concept is somewhat genius on the surface. A serial killer punishes people by abducting them and locking them in a sick game that's been tailor-made to fit some perceived crime. But there's nothing terrifying about Saw, even if desperate amputation is still gross to watch, and the mystery simply isn't satisfying. I'm never at the edge of my seat wondering why Jigsaw is doing all this, because we barely get a glimpse into his psyche.

The fact is, the behind-the-scenes story of the production of the film is more impressive than the film itself. Made in 18 days and shot on a miniscule budget, it exemplifies horror films made on shoestring budgets that catapult to blockbuster success. Despite its faults, and there are many, it's hard to deny that Wan and Whannell stumbled onto a winning formula given the commercial success of the franchise.

Rating: D+

The Big Picture

The twist ending in Saw saves the film from its chaotic editing and confusing plot, providing a pleasant surprise for viewers.
Unlike other serial killer stories, Saw lacks a cohesive logic in its choice of victims, lowering the stakes and making the storyline less impactful.
While Saw may not feature an interesting or terrifying killer, it still had a significant impact on the horror genre and pop culture as a whole, thanks to its low-budget success and unique concept.