Saw 2

Wow. While I enjoyed the first Saw, let me say this sequel was an utter disgrace. If its title were an anagram, as in my heading, it would be more honest. This movie was an exercise in shock video, not a horror film. Believe me, there is a difference. It looks like today's audiences have forgotten, or, judging by some poster's ages, never gotten the chance to experience, what a true horror film is.

Some reviews which gave this high ratings said they did so because it had "more movement", was "more gory and bloody" and "leaves it open for the next installment." Well, none of those suggests a superior piece of cinema. The script was poor, editing was spastic, and the characters were absent. Even in this age of sequels, need we be reminded a 90 minute film is not an episode? This is a clumsily slapped together torture fest which is missing the mystery, the characterization, and the human element of the first. Horror needs pacing, buildup, and subtlety. Apparently, bloodshed, arguing, and a tacked on twist ending which made little sense scare people nowadays. And I haven't even delved into plot yet!

In short, Saw II takes the could-be mystery and shines a light on it, takes the entities and blurs them, takes the audience and leads us by the hand to a ridiculous ending. Save your time and money, and watch some old horror on DVD instead.

When detective Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg) is called to a crime scene of a victim of Jigsaw (Tobin Bell), he finds a lead to the place where he is hidden. Once there, he realizes that Jigsaw trapped his son Daniel Matthews (Erik Knudsen) with three women and four men in a shelter, and they are inhaling a lethal nerve gas. If they do not use an antidote within two hours, they will die. Eric follows with increasing desperation the death of each member of the group in monitors, while trying to convince Jigsaw to release his son.

"Saw II" is a scary, gore and disturbing movie certainly not recommended for audiences with problem with psychological and visual violence. The story is excellent, and the expected twists in the end are unpredictable and well tied up. This movie recalled me the atmosphere of "The Silence of the Lambs" and Tobin Bell performs a stunning sadistic and cold blood killer. His explanations how the knowledge of death changes everything is very logical, therefore frightening. The camera, the cinematography and the soundtrack contribute with the morbid atmosphere of this film. My vote is seven.

Title (brazil): "Jogos Mortais II" ("Mortal Games II")

I have no idea what my title means, except that it sounded clever in my head. Hmm.

I'll assume that you've already seen the original Saw and you're wondering if this is a worthy successor. In a word: yeah. But it's a very different approach. While the first Saw was brilliantly minimalistic, the story being staged almost entirely in one room, this second installment takes us out of the box. Gone is the claustrophobic feeling of confusion and good ole existentialistic "who am I" from the original, and instead we get more of a mystery as seen from the outside, as our hero Eric (Donnie Wahlberg) tries to crack the case before it's too late.

Sure, the same elements existed in the first film, with 2 concurrent plots of victim & detective. But the draw of the first was to figure out why all these things are happening. Here the mystery is revealed in the first few minutes, the killer is apprehended, and what follows is a sort of chess game between investigator Eric and perp Jigsaw with the clock ticking to save the intended victims. It's actually a clever approach similar to the rather AWESOME film "Exorcist III" (1990) which is composed of dark dialogues between the detective and the lunatic, and this dramatic approach was repeated a year later in the more popular "Silence of the Lambs" (1991). But in this domain, in order for it to work, the film must be slow, almost painfully slow, thick and heavy.

Saw II attempts to balance the heavy, psychological "Lambs" approach with good old fashioned slashes & gore. It succeeds, I feel. But I still can't help but wonder how it would've been if the filmmakers had gone full tilt "Lambs" on us. Instead the dialogues between Eric & Jigsaw seem a bit short, rushed and not fully explored.

The result is a film which is certainly entertaining, but I don't think it will ever be considered a psychological classic like the other two I mentioned, or like "Seven"--films that are much slower in pace, with far fewer gallons of blood spilled but with oceans of drama.

I know this may sound like a negative review, but that's only because I'm comparing Saw II to the heavyweights. If instead we take Saw II at face value, a straightforward horror flick, it certainly delivers. There's the added bonus of having two nice twists at the end. In terms of sheer entertainment value, Saw II cuts a real log.

I should really quit trying to come up with witty puns.

Sequels rarely live up to the originals. And in the horror genre that's even rarer. I reckon that 'Saw' (part I) will always be better, due to its originality and shock value, but its (first) successor does its best to expand on the mythology and give the audience something more. In short... it's definitely worth a watch if you enjoyed the original.

The first outing could be summed up best by 'two men wake up in a serial killer's lair and try to figure out how to escape.' However, there was far more to the story than just that and the amount of different twists and turns really struck a chord with audiences (that and the amount of 'body horror' that was involved.

'Part II' ups the ante in every sense. There are more victims in the killer's latest 'lair,' more gore, more traps, more police officers trying to figure out where these hapless people are, perhaps most importantly, more of the killer himself (who was surprisingly not in the first installment very much). In fact... out of all the characters in the film, it's the killer 'Jigsaw' (Tobin Bell) who steals every scene.

As with the first film, there's more to the story than just a bunch of people trying to escape from some fiendishly fatal death-traps. 'Saw II' does its best to keep the surprises coming and, like the first, you'll only have one chance to watch it without knowing all the plot twists that will be heading your way.



So, if you liked the original then you should enjoy this one, too. In fact it's almost like these two films could have been written together and filmed back to back. After this one I only stayed with the franchise for a couple more films as the quality really does go downhill after this one. For me the 'Saw' franchise was a two-picture deal.

Having been taunted by twisted killer Jigsaw, Detective Eric Matthews cracks the clue that leads him directly to the hide-out where they capture the man himself. However Jigsaw directs Matthews' attention to a bank of monitors that show a group of people stuck in a locked house – one of whom is Matthews young son. The people in the house are breathing in a deadly nerve gas which will kill them in two hours, but they have the ability to solve puzzles to get out before then. While they try to solve the deadly puzzles, Matthews tries to break Jigsaw to find out where the house is.

When Saw was a big success in the cinemas it was only a matter of time before a sequel was produced that tried to repeat the success all over again and duly this does feel like a film that has been produced to cash in. Of course this is not to say that it isn't any good but suffice to say that it doesn't quite match up the energy and tension of the first film. It does still produce the goods as a teenage style horror movie, with moments that made me cringe and look away all doing just enough to keep the film moving. Problem was more with the plot, which was never going to be as cool as the first film mainly because it couldn't be as simple and sharp. Instead we have a baggier and more contrived set up that doesn't work as well. The stuff with Matthews and Jigsaw doesn't really connect that well to the action in the house and, although part of the twist was reasonably clever, it did rather feel like it was more about setting up more sequels than producing a big impacting finish.

The cast are mixed but limited by the material. Bell is good but, considering he is the heart of the story, he doesn't get much to do and is not as good a presence as he needed to be within the narrative (although the producers clearly feel the series doesn't need him so who am I to speak?). Wahlberg is cut off from the action and although he shouts well, he cannot develop the character that was needed in order to explain the plot and make the ending. The rest of the cast are so much filler and generally they run, shout, scream and die as required without doing much to make themselves stand out; basically when the most famous face is "the guy from Speed" then you know you are in trouble.

Overall then this is an OK Hollywood horror movie that has a nice mean streak running through it from start to finish. The story is a bit weak and doesn't have the impact of the original, a problem not helped by the lack of good characters. Fans of the original will probably still like it but it is hard to ignore that this is much lesser product than the first film.