You have to be logged in to comment! If you don't have an account register now for free! Your account allows you to post comments and reviews, upload videos and images, access or our forums, write personal blogs, and maintain your profile.
"Saw II does everything wrong that the first film did right. First of all, this film tells the story of a group of eight random people inside one of Jigsaw's "Fun houses", if you will, with a dangerous nerve gas slowly creeping into their systems. They only have 3 hours to find a way out, or they all die. Now, what made the first film great is that it built tension and suspense on the fact that everything was a mystery. The two men locked inside of a bathroom had no more of an idea of what was going on than the people watching the film. As the film went on, there was a little more information leaked, a little more progression with each minute that ticked by. And the fact that there were only two people instead of eight made it easier to know the characters, know why they were doing what they were doing, etc. Instead, Saw II is just basically Survivor with blood, guts, and gore.
The first film also didn't reveal much of the surrounding environments outside of the bathroom. That's what made it scary; you didn't know who or what was watching them, why they were in there, or even if there was any hope that they would get out. In Saw II, a police team actually captures jigsaw (Tobin Bell), and throughout the film, there are cuts to detective Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg), I'm guessing who was named after one of the characters from Boy Meets World coincidentally, actually talking to jigsaw. I know for a fact that Jigsaw was a whole helluva lot scarier when you had no idea who he was. Everything is just so silly when compared to the first film. It's like Leigh Whannel completely let his film go the way of "quick cash-in", and if he had a little more input on this film, I think it could have been much better.
Saw II does do some things right, such as the way people die and nailing the violence factor right on the head. There is plenty of gore in this film, and some of the twisted things the people have to do are pretty insane (seeing a girl crawl around in a pool of syringes is terrifying). But, the violence isn't handled well. Violence isn't something that is supposed to be there just to be there. It should have a purpose, but I believe the decision to include eight characters instead of two was just in order to have buckets of blood instead of just one severed foot, as in the first film.
BOTTOM LINE: Seeing a character cut off skin from the back of his own neck (for reasons I won't disclose), and place the chunk of flesh in his pocket finally did it for me. I was willing to let some things slide, but the film just can't escape silliness and, frankly, the art of being dumb." --MillaJ-Joe (SimpleAndClean@netzoola.com), imdb.com
This is most DEFINATELY my favortie movie EVER. It has such a good twist. This movie, the first time I saw it, I was so incredibly amazed by it I couldn't speak. There was the perfect amount of blood; not too much and not not enough. Once you see the end, you will be in awe of the entire movie.
this movie was an excellent sequel 2 the oeriginal. the story was good. i thad good gore and had a very good ending and had alot of plot twists. the bestr saw yet.
This movie has some of the most brutal scenes I have ever seen in any American movie ever, including the latter sequels in this series.
Not to mention FIVE—yes, count them, there are FIVE—plot twists in the last 30 minutes of the movie. I thought my brain was going to melt. Not to mention, I love the moral this movie has. I love the acting. I love the camera. Everything is just . . . well, truly punk. And with no movie made by Hollywood being punk anymore, this is one of the few movies that awed me.
