In theaters

SAW, directed by James Wan, written by Leigh Whannell, 100 minutes, rated R.

The new horror movie,, “Saw,,” is bad, but not in ways that make bad horror movies good. It comes from the appropriately named Twisted Pictures, and it’s one of the more depressing buckets of swill to pour out of Hollywood this year.

The film’s point isn’t to scare us – it only wants to disgust us. That taps into pop culture’s enduring fascination with the gross-out, which can be fun when done well, such as in the new “Dawn of the Dead” movie, “28 Days Later,” the “Evil Dead” series and other B-movie classics. But “Saw” fails to provide what the genre must have in order for it to work – characters worth rooting for and a seriocomic tone that’s infectious.

As directed by James Wan from a script by Leigh Whannell, the film’s two main characters – Lawrence (the horrible Cary Elwes) and Adam (Whannell) – are self-centered, unlikable types. You can’t invest yourself emotionally in them, so you have to wonder what the filmmakers were hoping would carry us through to the end. Just the graphic scenes of murder, humiliation, torture, degradation and amputation? Apparently.

The film opens with Lawrence, an oncologist, and Adam, a photographer, locked in the bowels of a filthy, abandoned public restroom. Each has one of his ankles shackled to a pipe. Between them on the blood-soaked floor is a man whose head has been partly blown off. In one of his hands is a tape recorder; in the other, a gun.

These elements – along with the discovery of a key, a bullet, two hacksaws, two recorded tapes and flashbacks that reveal how each man was abducted – come together to form a raw, violent movie that doesn’t value imagination or its audience.

Danny Glover and Ken Leung add little interest as the detectives working the case; Monica Potter somehow manages to be at once colorless and hysterical as Lawrence’s wife. The identity of the madman is revealed at the start, but then, inexplicably, the movie ignores the revelation and tries to build a mystery out of who he might be.

During the few times the film offers traditional suspense, it succeeds.

The scene in which Adam uses his camera’s flash to light his way through his dark apartment, where the madman might be lurking, is creepy and effective.

Also strong is a scene in which one of the madman’s victims struggles to remove an animal trap from her head. If it springs open, so will her skull.

Those scenes have such heat, “Saw” should have been filled with them.

Instead, it chose gore for the sake of gore, and cut its own throat.

Grade: D

On video and DVD

SHREK 2, directed by Andrew Adamson, Kelly Asbury and Conrad Vernon, written by J. David Stem, Joe Stillman and David Weiss, 105 minutes, rated PG.

The best scene in “Shrek 2” comes early and hits hard – it’s pure catnip.

In it, a new character to the mix, the sword-wielding Puss in Boots (voice of Antonio Banderas), is in the midst of blasting Shrek (Mike Myers) and Donkey (Eddie Murphy) with a devastating series of bon mots, when he suddenly coughs up a hairball the size of a standard poodle.

It’s the biggest laugh in a movie that initially feels aimless and stuck, coasting too long on its sea of goodwill before the characters finally connect, the laughs become more consistent and the story gels for a strong finish.

In the film, happy newlyweds Shrek and Fiona (Cameron Diaz) fall into a ruinous funk when Fiona insists they travel to see her parents in the Kingdom of Far Far Away. There, King Harold (John Cleese) and Queen Lillian (Julie Andrews) want to meet their daughter’s new husband and mark the occasion of their marriage with a grand ball.

Unfortunately for all involved, the king and queen have no clue that their daughter has married a flatulent green ogre and that she has become one herself. Instead, they think she married Prince Charming (Rupert Everett), the fey villain with the fantastic hair whose wicked mother, the meddling Fairy Godmother (Jennifer Saunders), is so determined to see Charming and Fiona marry, she’ll stop at nothing to have her way.

Since the movie’s strength isn’t in its ability to surprise, it’s best not to reveal more of the plot. It’s safe to say that problems ensue the moment Fairy Godmother raises her wand, formulates her potions, and digs in for the long haul.

What’s missing from “Shrek 2” is the wicked little mean streak that ignited the first film. “Shrek” was essentially 90 minutes of gleeful Disney-bashing, with DreamWorks’ animation chief, Jeffrey Katzenberg, finding every opportunity to humiliate his former boss, Disney’s Michael Eisner, and the company’s infamous group of fairy-tale has-beens. Lacking that edge, “Shrek 2” is softer and less colorful than it could have been, with the inside jokes kept to a minimum.

Grade: B

Christopher Smith is the Bangor Daily News film critic. His reviews appear Mondays and Fridays in Style, 5:30 p.m. Thursdays on WLBZ 2 Bangor and WCSH 6 Portland, and are archived at RottenTomatoes.com. He may be reached at BDNFilm1@aol.com.