The Halloween season is just behind us. During October, I always take the time to explore different movies in the horror genre and rewatch some of my favorites.
One horror movie I always return to rewatch is James Wan’s 2004 hit, “Saw.” With the 20th anniversary of the film this past week, I thought it would be a good time to reflect on this unique horror film and its complicated franchise.
For those unaware, the “Saw” franchise follows various groups of characters who are captured by a serial killer dubbed Jigsaw. These victims, typically established as morally gray characters, are put into twisted life-and-death scenarios to be taught a lesson and learn to appreciate the gift of life.
After the success of Wan’s first and only directorial contribution to the series, the creative reins were handed off to various other directors within the entertainment company Lionsgate and production company Twisted Pictures. The franchise currently has 10 films in its series. An untitled 11th film had its release date delayed recently to release Sept. 2025.
While I respect Wan for wanting to delve into other aspects of the horror genre by branching out to other works, such as the “Conjuring” and “Insidious” series, I miss the small scale and sense of simplicity the original “Saw” film had.
The main issue with most of the franchise is the apparent, ever-growing sense that each “Saw” film has to one-up its predecessor, in some way.
The main mystery of “Saw” was the explanation behind the traps and the identity of Jigsaw. The film offers a clever plot twist to the ladder that still left me shocked on rewatch. Unfortunately, with an unexpected ending so brilliant, the various sequels tend to reuse the idea of a third-act twist that recontextualizes the entire plot within the last 10 minutes of their runtimes.
One of the first things people familiar with the franchise think of is the many iconic traps featured throughout the 10 movies. While some are well thought-out and iconic, I believe many newer films have become too reliant on said traps and forget how character-focused the original was.
The first film’s location could be considered to be more of an escape room rather than a trap. Two men, doctor Lawrence Gordon and photographer Adam Stanheight, were chained up in a dilapidated bathroom underground and were forced to work together to find items to piece together a way to get out. As the runtime continues and the story develops, we get a sense of who the characters are, get a feel for their situation and eventually root for their escape.
The over-the-top nature of the sequels is apparent immediately. For example, in “Saw II,” several victims of Jigsaw are forced to navigate through an entire house of traps. With eight characters and a 93-minute-long runtime, the movie has several easily predictable character deaths.
While the series offers an extensive variety of performances, some great, others laughably bad, I don’t think any can hold a candle to the iconic performances from Cary Elwes as Lawrence and Leigh Whannell as Adam. Their acting presents a raw display that can hook almost any viewer. The pure range and the display of fear, visceral anger and devastation from the two is in a league of its own.
Other people share a sentiment that this franchise had a sharp decline in quality after the original, which I agree with. Ratings on popular review sites such as Letterboxd and IMDb display lower scores for each installment as the series progresses, with the majority of users noting the repetitive nature of each sequel.
Overall, I still hold the original film in high regard. “Saw” has done so much for the horror genre and is a great showcase of excellent performances and cinematography. While I don’t consider all of the sequels bad movies, they stray further and further away from the original concept and can never hit the highs of the first film in my eyes.
Although the 11th installment has been pushed from Sep. 2024 to 2025, I hope it can at least bring a fresh take on the “Saw” formula.