Greg Arce wrote this story in 2000 and released this film on to the world in 2001. SAW came about 4 years later. Did the writers of Saw, who lived in Melbourne in 2001 lift the Saw storyline from Den? I don't know. But, to say SAW is DEN is a bit of a stretch because, as much as I liked SAW, DEN is far too intelligent and dark of a film to be compared to SAW. If the writers stole the premise from DEN they dumbed it down with traps and heads being ripped in half.Greg Arce plays a character named DEN and he abducts 4 people, each related to the other in some common skeleton in the closet. He engages them in debate and conversation, all along with the premise that they control their fate and the fate of the others. This film is intense, intelligent, and dark. Each of the 4 are forced to consider their faith, their value on human life, and their religious views.Warning: If you Google this film for reviews, there are several out there that give away the ending. The end was shocking as Den reveals the reason for this little game, so if you don't want it ruined for you -- don't read too many reviews or articles The acting is solid and incredibly believable. The film is an emotional ride that you'll never forget. There really is not a lot of blood or gore. Greg relies on the script and the actors to hold the audience not a bunch of fancy traps and heads being ripped in half.This is a must see film. But, therein lies the problem, it's only available in Australia as a region 5, PAL disc. I bought mine on eBay and watched it on a region free universal DVD player.It is worth the hassle. This film is a masterpiece and should get US distribution even if its 7 years late coming.

To get it out of the way: "Saw" has its similarities. A psychologically scarred protagonist who kidnaps a bunch of people. There is some reason for the people he selected. Could it be that Saw plagiarised this film in that respect? Possibly. The general synopsis is rather similar between the two. Despite this, the similarities end rather soon after that (though there are some semantic likenesses such as being chained to walls and such) when you have a poorly acted film and even more poorly written script (which Saw does not suffer the same fate). To add injury to this insult, the cinematography is as psychotic as the central character. In some cases, have frantic camera work can be a plot device or push the story, but in Den, it's simply another distracting feature prompting more glances to your watch than are generally considered acceptable in an hour and a half period.Where Saw uses clever writing and plot twists that are realistic, and yet elusive, Den fails on these points miserably. It's plot is overly contrived and once the film reaches its climax, it soon after meets an anticlimax too soon and after some biblical facts being splashed about the screen, which were poorly investigated, the film ends.The characters were the strength of the film. The characters were all unique enough to hoard in actors willing to play them, and earned actress Dana J. Ryan a best horror actress award in an independent vote. The problem with the characters is that the film in its tenure took its cast through a frightful experience that taught them nothing and ultimately almost everybody had blood on their hands. The other issue with the characters was that their depth wasn't explored. Facts were shown about the characters. The revelation to the Doctor that his wife's pet name was known to Milton was an unrealistic reaction. It wasn't one of surprise, though nor was it one of inquisition. It was almost spoken atonally and without any meaning.The greatest flaw of the film was the writing, however the actors surrounding the words given were not nearly strong enough to make a bad script good. They even failed at making a bad script bearable.If you're interested in seeing films that bear similarities to Saw, see its sequels first and foremost. They're the greatest films of their "new horror" genre. Second to these I'd suggest is House of 9 featuring Dennis Hopper. But do yourself a favour and avoid Den in favour of this.Even see a Uwe Boll film before this.

With Saw receiving so much attention, it is only fair to note this film came first and adds an additional layer of realism, depth, and artistry that may only be produced on the independent scene. I cannot believe that this film has not made it onto video store shelves, especially in light of the fact that Saw was such a hit. Where this film shines is in its cast. The performances rank up their with traditional Hollywood fair and help to elevate the film above its humble independent origins. The film builds steadily and creepily towards its satisfying climax. While it does surround itself in a bit of controversy, the ending will surely get you talking and thinking. Not bad from a horror film. Check it out, you'll be thinking about this one for days.

I had the good fortune to catch a screening of this DV-shot feature at the 2002 Hollywood Underground Film Festival (at which it was named Best Feature Length Drama). Though I'm not certain I'd agree with the IMDb genre-listing of DEN as a horror film (guess it depends on what horrifies you), it most certainly lives up to the classification of a drama and a thriller. And it is creepy.The script is marvelously intriguing from the opening montage to the often snide tone of the intelligent dialogue, to the final frame. While that may seem hyperbolic, it is a fitting appraisal of a work which contemporarily explores the timeless impact of basic human nature upon personal and societal morality... and still manages to be engaging and entertaining. Equally important is that Greg Arce's cast is up to the challenge of the material from which there is no easy escape. Imagine Jean Paul Sartre's NO EXIT meets TAXI DRIVER and you might start to get the idea.The cinematography ranges from arty to voyeuristic to "no-nonsense-two- people-in-the-frame", yet weaves together well -- never making the viewer feel like they've left one film and entered another. Even some of the simplest shots of the opening montage can be interpreted to something much richer upon repeated screenings. Without giving any spoilers, I will say that the action of one or two shots (well into the feature) happened so quickly and/or in dim lighting that it left me a bit confused until I was discussing the scenes later with a friend. The shots may look fine when viewed on a monitor and the apparent lighting problem may just have been due to the projection system at the festival.Though the sound is not Hollywood-perfect (some of the sound edits are problematic as a main setting was inside an echo-y theatre and the echo sustain doesn't survive a cut here or there), in a work that is so dependent upon the dialogue, audio is certainly adequate. In fact, it's pretty darned good when compared to many hand-held DV features which plague the viewer with that "single-mic/reality-show-flat-sound".At a time when DV and the home computer have brought a tidal wave of do-it- yourself filmmaking with bold to boring stories realized in laudable to laughable production values, DEN is a fine example of what is achievable from a true auteur... far above the indie DV features which look/sound/feel like they were shot at a community theater gathering.I eagerly await the chance to see DEN at another festival in the future and hope that Mr. Arce's next works are as thoroughly engaging. 8/10