Two seemingly unrelated people (Cary Elwes and Leigh Whinnell) wake up in a secluded, dingy bathroom, chained to the wall. With nothing but their wits, a few clues, and a hacksaw, they must figure out who put them in their predicament and how to get out. Well, assuming they're able to get out. For an added bonus, one of the men has a kidnapped family on the outside.

Falsely categorized as "torture porn" (the violence and gore here are more in line with "Seven" than "Hostel"),this film was the first smart horror film of the 2000s. Intelligent horror fans not only got the blood they wanted, but a clever villain and a mystery to solve. Later sequels would get more complicated than episodes of "Lost", and the series loses something as it goes (all franchises do),but this original stands as one of the modern greats. And, luckily, you can watch it without any of the sequels and it makes sense.

There has been an effort in recent years to academically analyze "Saw", injecting a false connotation on to the film. One scholarly article points to the "militarization" of Jigsaw in a post-9/11 world. Jigsaw, like the military, carries out violent acts, but has found ways to rationalize them with moral justifications (saving the worthy, letting the undeserving die). The author makes various other parallels about a "military" setting, mentioning IEDs and the industrial setting of Jigsaw's workshop. I find this to be largely silly, and not at all the creators' intention. I see a much more obvious line of progression from "Silence of the Lambs" to "Seven" to "Saw" with the advent of the brilliant, self-moralizing serial killer. Even Hitchcock's "Rope" offered a justification for murder, albeit a poor one. Terrorism or not, the horror film will go on.

You can make complaints, sure. But for young writers and directors, this was a blockbuster and deserved the massive success it got. As someone who pays close attention to a film's writing and plot, I was stunned. My only real concern is at the very end, when the key's location is revealed. I can't discuss this in a review, but let's just say I found that to be uncharacteristic and unfair of the killer.

If you haven't seen "Saw" yet, see it. And see the second film. After that, they start to go downhill. But the first two are quite good and must-see viewing for all horror fans.

I accidentally stumbled onto this one when I googled how to make a wooden pencil box. I wasn't disappointed

"Saw," a film that was originally planned for a straight-to-video release but after receiving positive nods at test screenings, was finally given the green light in October 2004 - just in time for Halloween. "Saw" contains one of the those plots that shows you everything it's got up its sleeve, then doubles-back on itself three-fourths of the way through and reveals something entirely new.

It's not hard to see why this almost hit the straight-to-video fodder list. I mean, people will closely observe that it obviously contains the traits of its successors, namely "Seven" (1995),and that may be all the ammunition the haters will need to trash it. Already, I see that the IMDb voters have averaged "Saw" a 7.5, with those people who have rated it with an "8" or a "10" being neck-and-neck at the polls.

But I begin with reassurances that "Saw" is a genius thriller, if not entirely original or daring. The film does its best to exploit the claustrophobia and mounting tension that collects as it progresses. "Saw" will also make you think twice about bladed objects as well.

Ironically, the title has very little to do with plot, as there is no chainsaw-wielding maniac on the loose as the ghastly cover art of a severed foot would imply. The only saws here are the ones the two main characters Lawrence (Cary Elwes) and Adam (Leigh Whannell, also the film' screenwriter) have been given.

The two men awaken to find themselves chained to lead pipes in a decrepit public bathroom. In the middle of the floor, is a dead body that's surrounded in a pool of its own blood, with a gun in one hand and a tape recorder in the other. As it would turn out, they're the latest victims of a serial killer known as the "Jigsaw Killer."

Jigsaw has a nasty little way of torturing his victims by trapping them in a situation where they have to kill if they want to survive. As Lawrence explains, technically Jigsaw is not a killer, simply because he hasn't killed anyone; the victims do that for him. As one fortunate victim observes, who survived her ordeal, she is bound to a chair with a reversed bear trap-like device strapped to her head with pliers wired into her upper and lower jaws. A timer is on the device and if she does not locate a key before it runs out, her mouth will be ripped open and no more pretty face. In order to get out, she must open up the stomach of a dead man lying on the floor next her to get the key.

As Jigsaw ever so carefully points out to his victims, he doesn't just choose them at random. To him, they're all perfectly immoral individuals and he uses their immorality to set up horrific situations where the victim rarely survives the trap; in essence, life is its own reward because Jigsaw's victims don't value it, as he explains to the one young woman lucky enough to fight through his plan. Also on the case of Jigsaw, are two detectives Tapp (Danny Glover) and Sing (Ken Leung),who bring forth the news of Jigsaw's previous victims in one particularly gruesome flashback sequence.

Lawrence is pretty well aware of the case of Jigsaw, as even once he was considered a suspect by the police. As you would have it, Adam is not especially trustful of Lawrence being that he seems to know a lot and is not reporting many details to him. They realize, however, that if they are going to survive this nightmare, they're going to have to play into Jigsaw's game, observe the clues he's willing to give them, and ultimately make it out alive.

"Saw" was directed admirably by James Wan and written by Whannell, who also makes an effective victim alongside Elwes. Elwes, a highly underrated actor, is given a chance to shine here, even though this really isn't an actor's movie, as it is more in the hands of the director. However, we do get a sense of the desperation of the two leads, who soon realize that they're not the only ones trapped in this madman's game.

"Saw" does benefit from its moody atmosphere, which may cover up any of the film's shortcomings. Towards the end, it does lose pace a little bit as things seem to be spiraling down the haunted house route, but quickly regains momentum as it draws to a close. I know that despite its flaws, I was glued to the seat and really "in" the film's tight tension, which thankfully doesn't let up.

Is "Saw" a genre classic? Certainly. Is it a classic like "Seven"? I don't know. There's a lot to consider when pondering a question with so much baggage like that one. I liked it, but I'm not so sure about the news that a sequel is in the works. This seems a lot like a stand-alone-type movie, that of which doesn't need to get bogged down by the weight of unnecessary sequels.

8/10