
Another year, another Saw movie – but am I the only one who’s bloody sick of all the carnage?
I’m a gorehound and a blood-soaked horror fan, raised on Day Of The Dead and the gorier excesses of mainstream Hollywood. I giggle at unfortunate and splattery on-screen deaths as though they were pratfalls. I’m a big lover of cinema’s ability to make the horrible comical and vice versa, and I love to catch horror movies in the theatre, no matter how unpromising.
In fact, I like to be disappointed by crap horrors when I go to the pictures. It’s more fun than enjoying a film, getting on your high horse and dissecting the latest no-hope schlocker with haughty disbelief.
I’m just the kind of guy the Saw movies are pitched at: problem is, I can’t stand them. I caught the first instalment in the cinema back in 2004 in just that spirit of down-the-nose entertainment, hoping for a decent bit of splatter and some hammy dialogue from Danny Glover, but came out with my face in wrinkles of disgust.
I wasn’t shocked by the gore, which was in fact rather tame, nor was I perturbed by the movie’s nihilism. I just thought it was shit.
The would-be twisty plot reeked of smartarse, the ‘mobile phone ad’ direction (spinny camera, sped up action, spinny camera again) was nauseatingly tedious, and the attempts at creating new horror icons (actually the doll-on-a-trike trundling into the room was one of the few laughs the movie packed in) were pathetically contrived and over-wrought.
He’s a serial killer who wears a pig mask AND has a spooky living doll AND cuts jigsaw pieces out of people AND has cancer AND he’s punishing people who waste their lives AND the cops are running out of time AND it’s a game?
“Sorry chaps,” I thought, “conceit overload. Stick with hockey masks.”
I was in no doubt that Saw was headed for the drain, what with Cary Ewles’ pathetically hammy turn, the waste of a good Glover and an ending that provided neither chills nor closure. How wrong I was.
Since then, Lions Gate have trundled out their box of torture instruments each Halloween, taunting me with their meta-marketing slogan ‘If It’s Halloween, It Must Be Saw’. That’s like saying ‘If It’s Christmas, You’re Getting Bummed’ on a billboard.
This year sees the franchise lubing up for a sixth time, and I’m already clenching in frigid anticipation. The series is of course aimed at males between 14 and 24, so I’m already too old to ‘get the point’. It’s ‘gorno’ and ‘torture porn’, the leader of a no-wave movement, and all that stuff. However it’s just no good.
Horror movies, in the American tradition, don’t franchise themselves well: generally, even the scariest shocker will descend into yawnsome patterns and self-parody by movie three, and inevitably go into space in chapter four, hoping for signs of box office life out there. Saw, however, is still in rude health and reigns as the most successful scream-series in history, thanks to a genuine ability on behalf of its writers to save tidbits of info ‘for next time’ and the general ugliness of the torture scenes.
How come we can’t see a smarter horror franchise take flight?
Wouldn’t a series with the visual flair of Italian Giallo movies, the hardcore brutality of new French shockers like Inside and Martyrs and the smarts of an independent writer and producer be much better? And genuinely scary?
Then again, that’s speaking as someone who’s too old to enjoy the ‘giant mousetrap on the head’ scenarios which are Saw’s stock in gory trade. Maybe Saw is just fine, and I and the other people with taste are the real maniacs. Except we don’t have a puppet.