It’s 2025 and I’ve just watched the 2004 movie for the first time – these are my honest thoughts

There are many films whose reputation and legacy far exceed their initial impact. These are films that influenced so many other films that they no longer seemed new or exciting because they were imitated to death, and their original brilliance has since become a formula in itself. Such is the reputation of “Saw,” one of many examples of small, independent horror films that premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and changed the genre forever (see also: “The Blair Witch Project” moves from A production nightmare for an indie film legend). Despite being a huge horror fan, I never watched any of the “Saw” movies when I was growing up in the 2000s, since they were known for being so-called “torture porn.”

Remember, the 1900s were dominated by pulp horror films that focused on depictions of brutal violence, mutilation, extreme gore, and often torture – with films like Eli Roth’s “Hostel” and the “Saw” feature being among the most prominent examples of this subgenre. These films spoke to the senseless violence of the post-9/11 decade by mirroring what audiences were already seeing on the news daily.

It’s easy to see why Saw, directed by James Wan and written by Leigh Whannell (who also stars in the film), was a massive hit at the time. Not only did it play with the idea of ​​senseless, extreme violence, but it was extremely cheaply produced and not even subtly inspired by David Fincher’s “Se7en,” right down to its twisty ending and great cast. With its non-linear narrative, engaging central mystery, and fantastic kills featuring Rube Goldberg-style deaths reminiscent of the “Final Destination” franchise, Saw is a winning combination.

However, given its torture porn reputation, I’ve stayed pretty far away from any of the “Saw” movies – until now.

The thing about “Saw” is that the original 2004 film feels very different from the rest of the series, with a somewhat gritty look that was clearly inspired by “Se7en” and also dictated by the film’s low budget. This boldness and the use of one location (mostly) makes the first “Saw” rely too much on Whannell’s script and Wan’s deft eye to give the film a lot of character. The bulk of the story revolves around Adam (Whannell) and Lawrence (Cary Elwes), the Jigsaw Killer’s latest victims, as they wake up in a rundown bathroom with orders to do what they can to survive (while Lawrence is specifically ordered to kill Adam as well). There are several clues scattered around the room meant to aid in their survival.

If you, like me, have avoided watching this movie because of its reputation as a torture porn movie (as well as the movie that… Fincher believes the legacy of “Se7en” has been damaged), let me assure you: “Saw” is nowhere near as bloody as its reputation (and its sequels) might have you believe. Instead, it’s a very effective horror thriller that relies more on the mystery than the kills, where the kills themselves exist to serve the story rather than be the main attraction. Deaths are often implied and unfold off-screen, creating a powerful idea in your head without showing it. More than anything else, “Saw” is an economically constructed film that creates a fully realized world that feels much larger than what we’re shown, along with death traps that are astonishingly and carefully planned (based on what we see of them). It’s no wonder the film was a hit at Sundance before taking the horror film fan community by storm.

Granted, when watching “Saw” in the year 2025, it’s hard not to see serial killer Jigsaw’s tools and plans as nothing more than an escape room with lots of bloody dangers, but that’s also part of the fun. This in itself makes “Saw” immediately stand out from other slasher films, even to this day. Sure, Jigsaw’s motives are flimsy at best, but his methods provide a unique experience. It offers its victims sound and legitimate—if horribly painful—ways to survive, and the result is a thought-provoking film that leaves you wondering what you would do in this situation. Will you actually follow Jigsaw’s instructions, collect various clues, and survive?

As the “Saw” series quickly lost plot and became more focused on upping the ante with gore and ridiculous traps, this is a case where going back to the beginning of the property only serves to highlight just how great and original the first installment was. With its low price tag and zero expectations, “Saw” is a compelling, somewhat bleak horror film that makes up for its lack of expensive visuals with suffocating tension, an exciting time bomb of setting, and a brilliant screenplay. Yes, the killings are extremely violent, and it’s easy to see how they gave rise to the subgenre of torture porn, but again, they’re not the focus of the film. Instead, it’s the last-minute surprise ending that just doesn’t make it so Best movie: “Saw.” But also a great horror movie overall. Regardless of the film’s legacy and everything else Whannell and Wan have done in the intervening years, the original “Saw” remains excellent and worthy of a first viewing two decades later.