Saw (2004) Review – The Birth of a Modern Horror Phenomenon
Saw: Quick Verdict
The Verdict: A masterclass in high-concept, low-budget filmmaking that successfully revitalised the horror genre for a new generation. Saw (2004) succeeds by prioritising a taut, mystery-driven narrative over the visceral gore that would eventually define its sequels. James Wan’s directorial debut is a lesson in ingenuity, using its claustrophobic single-room setting to cultivate a suffocating sense of desperation and dread. Tobin Bell is chillingly effective as Jigsaw, providing a philosophical weight to the character that elevates him far above the typical slasher villain. This 4 star effort is a visceral, clever, and highly influential piece of work that proved you don’t need a massive budget to create a global phenomenon. It remains a mandatory watch for any horror fan. It is a modern classic that still packs a punch.
Details: Director: James Wan | Cast: Cary Elwes, Leigh Whannell, Danny Glover, Tobin Bell | Runtime: 1h 43m | Release Date: 2004
Best for: Fans of high-concept psychological thrillers, escape-room scenarios, and those who appreciate a legendary narrative twist.
Worth noting: The film was famously shot in just 18 days on a shoestring budget, forcing the creators to use creative editing and limited locations.
Where to Watch: VOD, Amazon🛒
Rating: 4/5 Stars
(A gritty and ingenious psychological thriller that trades high-budget polish for relentless tension, a fascinating villain, and one of the best endings in horror history.)
Welcome to Knockout Horror. Today we are taking a look at James Wan’s surprise horror hit Saw from 2004.
Highlights
Modern classic horror
Saw is a psychological horror but it might be more correctly labelled as the first true torture porn horror film. It follows the story of a pair of men who wake up in a public bathroom together shackled to the walls. Unable to move, they soon realise that they are the latest participants in an escape game orchestrated by the evil serial killer Jigsaw. Obviously, most people know of this movie or one of its sequels. It’s fun to go back and revisit it though, to be reminded of how good it actually is.
“Saw is a psychological horror but it might be more correctly labelled as the first true torture porn horror film. Taking place almost entirely in one small bathroom, there is an escape room feeling to the film.”
Taking place almost entirely in one small bathroom, there is something of an “escape room” feeling to Saw. Our characters are completely unable to move and have no clue why they are there. We will learn all about that eventually but until then they are basically playing a game of “what the hell?”. They are offered an opportunity to escape but the sacrifices they have to make to do so are almost unfathomable.
Foregoing jump scares for tension that you could cut with a knife, Saw felt very different to many horror movies at the time. It unfolds like a mystery movie gradually feeding you new bits of information to work with. It’s never in a rush to get anywhere and follows a very keen and self-contained structure.
We occasionally learn a little more about our kidnapper through flashbacks. Sometimes a character remembers something that is pivotal to the plot. Other times they are offered a slight glimpse of hope as their chances of escaping increase. This is incredibly effective at creating emotional swings between hope and fear. You never know what piece of information will come next and what is in store for the characters.
Genuinely tense and engaging
Saw creates a palpable sense of tension from the very get go. Setting up the entire events in the bathroom with the viewer being firmly aware of Adam’s predicament. There is a real sense of desperation and that desperation only grows as we learn more about the game. The revelations are incredibly well paced and just when you think you know what will happen next, the rug is pulled out from underneath you.
The timeline really works to the movie’s advantage, as well. When a film jumps around, chronologically, it can do serious harm to a viewer’s ability to stay engaged. With Saw, however, it works in its favour. It is abundantly clear that there is more to know about the characters than what is immediately presented.
The way the movie bounces around and keeps feeding you information about both Jigsaw and Dr. Gordon helps to keep the viewer engaged. You are always wondering what you will learn next. The story never lags and you are never left scratching your ass waiting for something to happen.
An unforgettable villain
We have to talk about that villain, too. Jigsaw has become an absolutely iconic villain in horror movie history. He has coined a bunch of memorable quotes and some instantly recognisable imagery, it is no surprise at all that he became so popular. With this in mind, it is somewhat surprising that Saw was designed as a one and done horror movie.
The thing that set Jigsaw apart, however, is the fact that his approach is so unique. A frail, older, man suffering from terminal cancer, Jigsaw’s motivations are entirely different from those of typical horror movie killers. He is not a maniacal spree killer looking to wreak havoc on a small community.
“Jigsaw is a calculated villain aiming to force people to appreciate the life they have since his is being taken from him. It’s fascinating and entirely different from typical killers.”
Jigsaw is a calculated villain aiming to force people to appreciate the life they have since his is being taken from him. It’s fascinating.
The games are what separates this movie
Jigsaw doesn’t use weapons, of course. He uses games and those games are just as important as the story itself. The movie opens up with a character wearing a horrible, industrial looking helmet that threatens to tear her head apart if she doesn’t solve the puzzle. It serves to clue you in on exactly what to expect.
It is always fascinating to see how Jigsaw challenges his victims. Saw, being the first in the series and on a limited budget, features only a few references to previous games. Subsequent movies would attempt to up the ante and they would become more and more creative and gruesome with each installment. The lack of games here, however, means there is far more focus placed on the predicament of Adam and Dr. Gordon.
It feels different from the films that followed but, in a lot of ways, more compelling. Each little drip of story exposition is framed by more anxiety and more tension. There are some interesting techniques used to reflect the panic of the characters, too. Remember, this was a budget production, Wan had to get creative.
“James Wan’s debut is a fun and suspenseful horror highlighted by a fantastic performance from Tobin Bell. The continuous feeding of revelations leads up to an incredible twist.”
Shaking and spinning cameras highlight the anxiety the victims feel. Sped up shots are used to indicate desperation. Calm characters are framed with static shots whereas more highly strung characters are filmed in a handheld style. It’s all very creative and speaks to the abilities of the director. It’s all extremely innovative.
Some terrible acting
Holy shit, man!! Some of the acting in Saw is absolutely awful. Don’t get me wrong, Tobin Bell, as Jigsaw, is brilliant. An entirely understated performance that feels sinister and calculated. He is perfect for the role and his absence in later movies was sorely felt. Danny Glover is also on point as Detective Tapp.
Cary Elwes, however, as Doctor Gordon is shockingly bad. What is it with movie makers asking him to do American accents? He can’t do them, end of discussion. His accent slips repeatedly and his performance is so unbelievably wooden at times it is hard not to laugh. I always thought he was hamming it up in Liar Liar but I am now thinking that is Cary Elwes actually trying to act. I loved him in Robin Hood: Men in Tights but, for me, he is a dude with far more misses than hits. Saw might be his magnum opus of horse turd, however. He is dreadful.
For some reason, Leigh Whannel, one of the writers of Saw, figured he should play a major part. Well, as Adam, he is slightly better than Cary Elwes but Adam spending the entire movie talking to his own foot would have been an improvement on Cary Elwes. Whannel is not good! He does have a few moments that will make you chuckle but there are certain scenes that are painfully awkward.
The Good, The Bad & The Ugly
The Good
- Tobin Bell: Delivers a phenomenal and understated performance as Jigsaw, creating a villain with actual depth and unique motivations.
- Relentless Tension: The film masterfully builds a sense of desperation, keeping the audience guessing with a perfectly paced drip-feed of information.
- Innovative Direction: James Wan uses creative camera techniques to overcome budget constraints, mirroring the characters’ panic.
The Bad
- Terrible Acting: Cary Elwes provides a wooden performance, hampered by an inconsistent American accent that occasionally slips.
- Low-Budget Dialogue: Certain scenes suffer from cheesiness and melodrama that can pull the viewer out of the gritty atmosphere.
- B-Movie Feel: While charming, the production’s limited resources result in a distinct lack of polish in several sequences.
The Ugly: The Reverse Bear Trap. This iconic piece of machinery set the stage for Jigsaw’s brand of mechanical terror and remains a chilling visual.
Should You Watch Saw?
Yes. It is a 4 star film that remains one of the most significant horror entries of the past two decades. While the acting and dialogue are sometimes distracting, the sheer ingenuity of the plot and the legendary final twist make it essential viewing. If you can move past the sequels’ reputation for mindless gore, you will find a sophisticated psychological thriller that actually has something to say. It is a pivotal piece of horror history.
Our Scoring Philosophy: A Fair Fight
Horror is a genre that thrives thanks to indie film makers and low budget creators. At Knockout Horror, we firmly believe that every movie that we review deserves a fair fight. That's why we grade on a curve. Our star ratings are all about context, judging a film on what it achieves with the resources it has.
A 4-star rating for a scrappy indie horror made for $10,000 is a testament to its ingenuity and raw power. A 4-star rating for a $100 million blockbuster means it delivered on its epic promises. We don't compare them side-by-side; we celebrate success in every weight class, from the back-alley brawler to the heavyweight champion. Please keep this in mind when considering star ratings.
Support the Site Knockout Horror is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. Basically, if you click a link to rent or buy a movie, we may earn a tiny commission at no extra cost to you. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. This helps keep the lights on and the nightmares coming. Don't worry, we will never recommend a movie purely to generate clicks. If it's bad, we will tell you.
Disclaimer: Images, posters, and video stills used in this review are the property of their respective copyright holders. They are included here for the purposes of commentary, criticism, and review under fair use. Knockout Horror makes no claim of ownership and encourages readers to support the official release of all films discussed.
