"The movie, directed by James Wan, has been a minor hit in England. But its ratio of nastiness to suspense writing is too high. This film's highest priority is the blood and the sawing of leg bones; as for teasing the viewer's brain, that's lower on the list." --Desson Thomson, Washington Post, on Saw 1.

"Saw enthralls with realistic terrors, but can be too effective for its own good. Its tale of a madman who manipulates victims into killing each other is excruciatingly potent, its hellish extremes more oppressive than entertaining." --Bruce Westbrook, Houston Chronicle, on Saw 1.

The general idea here is that Saw (a rated R horror film) is a bad movie because it displays common elements of a rated R horror film. Most of the reviews I have seen consist of the plot outline (which they grudgingly admit is solid) and then a complaint that the movie is too gross.

Well, suck it the fuck up, pussies. Seriously. There's no better way to put it. If you'd rather be reviewing Barney and Friends or Oprah, maybe you should start writing for the newspaper of Dr. Phil. A half-hearted attempt is made at justifying the bad review by saying that Dr. Gordon's character was overacted, which may be true, but surely does not make a movie bad. If acting was the most important element of a movie, we wouldn't see movies like Titanic or Star Wars or anything with Stallone in it being some of the top-grossing (and critically acclaimed) movies. Not saying it's not important, but damn; at what point do you factor in the almost perfectly contrived plot? The 'think about it' concepts? The fact that quite simply, the movie was entertaining?

The critics got another chance at correcting those mistakes come Saw II. Uh-oh.

"Saw II - better-acted than its predecessor, which isn't saying much - is so gratuitously, sadistically violent, and to such little end, that it finally falls over dead on the far side of obscene." --John Anderson, Newsday, on Saw II.

Here we go again; a justification for poor filmography based on the Boo-Hoo theory. Of course, it gets even worse. "Finding new and more excruciatingly gruesome ways of killing and maiming people is the major objective of "Saw II," which picks up the story with a murder, the MO of which resembles that of the now-famous and elusive Jigsaw." --Anderson

Seems like Anderson sure hit the nail on the head with that insightful comment, huh? That would ignore the essentially perfectly layered plot and the fact that the objective of the movie was practically layed out in plain English. Now, I would understand if this guy's name was Ruis Garcia, but it's not. It's John Anderson. He knows English. If you want to give a movie a 'point,' how about the one it has outlined for you? How about:
1. How far are you willing to go to survive?
2. Has the human race lost the survival instinct?
3. How much of a role does death have on life?

Nah. Those questions couldn't possibly be the 'point' of the movie. "If you were to know the exact moment of your death, it would shatter your world," Jigsaw says. You're telling me that doesn't get you thinking when you hear that? Ruis Garcia would be thinking after hearing that, and he doesn't even know English. That guy's fucking Mexican.

There are plenty of other fantastic lines that make a person think throughout the movie. But you might miss them if you're covering your eyes because of some blood. That's not to say that you should see this movie if you can't take some gruesome stuff, becuase it is gruesome. But if you're seeing a horror film, what is the difference in seeing something happen and not seeing something happen? Obviously it's disgusting, but whether it is displayed on screen or not should essentially be meaningless. If the action is not shown, it is still implied for you to visualize, and if it is shown, well, it's a movie and you know it. Then again, if you are terrified by it, you have probably experienced a full suspension of disbelief, which is a total plus in a movie. That one might not have gotten across to the critics as well.