Saw II (2005) User Reviews

A taught thriller

[vmwrites · 8/10 · 28 October 2005]

Saw II follows on the heels of Saw, as another taught, tense thriller. The mark of a great thriller/shocker/horror movie is the number of twists and turns, and this is what identifies Saw II as one of the better members of its genre.

This is NOT a movie where people walk backwards into dark rooms. This is NOT a movie where people pull sheets off bodies. That's all too predictable for Saw II. In fact, there's virtually nowhere in this film, where you can say that you've got it figured out.

Few movies keep me on the edge of my seat. This was one of them. There was no one dozing off during this flick. And the number of folks who walked out to take/make cell phone calls was the lowest I've ever seen.

Like Saw, this sequel is more than a little bloody in some places, but that's to be understood. It was never promoted as a walk in the park. If you're in the mood for a thriller that will keep you on the edge of your seat, this is worth a try.

And this movie left more than a few folks in the audience waiting for another sequel.

Less original, but still worth a look.

[Ledout · 7/10 · 15 June 2006]

The original Saw was probably my most favorite recent "horror" movie, so naturally I was excited when the second one came out. I saw it its opening weekend in theaters, and **THIS WAS IN PREVIEWS, SO I Don't CONSIDER IT A SPOILER** I see a man strapped to a chair, with this "Man in the Iron Mask"-like thing on with all sorts of pretty nails poking toward his face. If you've seen the first one, you can expect what it does. A TV turns on, and there's the puppet thing, and that creepy voice. I'm like "Hell yes!" and it seemed like a great beginning, and it truly does have a great idea going for it, but unfortunately it seems like they got lost in the success of the original and the new bigger budget and lost something. It became the traditional horror movie, with your typical predictable characters, and the innovation and claustrophobic feel of the original was gone. It wasn't scary, but then again I didn't think the first one was to be honest, I think they're more of a mental experience than anything. The weird acid-trip like camera shake still occurs, though thankfully less frequently, and it is like a bigger budget Saw. Think Land of the Dead. Still a Romero movie, but it didn't feel like one as much. Same thing applies here. The ending is cool for most people, but I honestly saw it coming. It gets a bit muddled, and by the end of it you really don't remember much except the very beginning and end. It's fun, and it's an interesting piece of this new Saw series, but it just doesn't seem to live up to the original for me. You watch it yourself and give it a chance. I give it a 6 1/2.

The rare sequel that is intelligent AND in many ways better than its predecessor

[MovieAddict2016 · 8/10 · 9 April 2006]

I saw the original "Saw" when it came out in UK theaters back in 2004. I thought it was very good - thrilling, different and clever. The acting was pretty bad (especially the ending with Elwes' laughable facial contortions), but it was the jolt that horror sorely needed. It wasn't another slice-'em-dice'-em slasher flick - it was smarter.

When I read that they were almost instantly putting "Saw II" into production based on the success of the original - and that pretty much no one from the original film was returning except for Tobin Bell (who plays Jigsaw) - I had very small hopes. I even said on the message board for the film at one point that it was going to ruin the impact of the original.

Well, I was wrong. In many ways, "Saw II" is better than the original. The acting talents are far stronger -- Donnie Wahlberg (Marky Mark's brother) is so much better than Elwes was in the first film. Due credit to Elwes -- he's a fine actor usually, but in "Saw" he was embarrassing towards the end. Wahlberg is perfect for the film.

Another nice twist in the plot is that it isn't totally repetitive as the trailers would lead you to believe. It does something I've never seen before - the killer is arrested within the first twenty minutes AND unmasked. Tobin Bell is on-screen throughout the entire film in plain view, having discussions with Wahlberg.

The movie implements a lot of new twists such as the whole concept of "Rashomon"ing everything and going back and forth between different perspectives. The ending is brilliant because it's not just a throwaway shocker - it has a moral message that I never expected from this film.

The movie's interweaving plots and self-referential layers (such as a revisiting of the bathroom from the first movie) provide lots of fun and Jigsaw's game with the detective in the film is thought-provoking - this film is so much smarter and better than I ever expected and I was really blown away by the fact that we still have the capability of making good sequels to good movies that offer something fresh, rather than simply retreading material from the original.

horrible

[pirateonweekends · 4/10 · 5 November 2005]

OK, if you've already seen the first one, you will be absolutely disappointed. it in no way lives up to the first one at all. first of all, saw was great because it was two kids on a low budget writing a script. they had to make up for the lack of money with the plot and script. secondly, the plot was really good and thick and everyone was connected in some odd way. the ending had so many twists, it was just brilliant. OK, now for saw 2. they had more money, so they definitely used it. instead of the people being in one room, it was one huge house. having more money took away from the effect, and most definitely the script, the plot and the acting. the plot had an unbelievable amount of holes in it. the people were connected by one stupid little line and the ending was absolutely ridiculous. one of the characters is just a complete idiot and decides to just get mad about everything. so, when he finds out there are numbers on the back of people's necks, instead of just kindly asking them to turn around, he kills them! finally, someone points out that he has a number on the back of his head that he's going to need, so he can't kill everyone. first of all, he tries seeing it with his little knife, then he decides to just cut it off, as any logical person would do. then, the murderer, john some how came up with a lot of money between dr gordon and now. before hand, his technique was simple. the tools he used to murder people could be found at a yardsale. in this one, somehow he got surgical equipment, the brains to do surgery and about five places with 20 computers. at some point in time, the writers seemed to have decided that it didn't matter that he had cancer, he can still do all this stuff. however, when you see him, he's in pretty bad shape. OK, now for the ending. remember the changed druggy, amanda? well, apparently, after she was almost killed, she decided the entire idea was a good one. so, she comes to john as an apprentice and decides to take his place as jigsaw. john becomes her yoda and teaches her the way of murder. at the end of saw 1, john had the memorable line of "GAME OVER". it was so great because of his voice, his appearance, everything. at the end of saw 2, amanda comes in, looking like she just went shopping and got her hair done and put on make up, and in a very little girl voice says "game over". absolutely horrible.

great movie, don't listen to the detractors

[mister_samsa · 8/10 · 9 March 2006]

This was not the perfect movie, but it was also leagues better than most contemporary horror movies. I wanted to discuss the positives and negatives in my review but then also address common complaints from other reviews and forums.

The absolute best part of the movie (many of the detractors even give this credit) was a detailed look into Jigsaw's past and his twisted motivations. The traps were decent - I think too many people romanticized the traps of the first Saw when many of the new ones relied on the exact same cringe factor that made the first movie so effective. I feel that in order to appreciate Saw II, you really have to approach the subject in a similar matter to Jigsaw. Sure, the situations in the movie were not scary like "Hellraiser" scary. Instead, if you look at it more like a psychological experiment, the true dark genius of the movie comes out. What would happen if eight people awoke in a room, their lives in danger, and no certain way to save them? We see immediately all of these very distinct personalities working together or against each other. Despite best intentions, there's always going to be some violent ass like Xavier that ruins even the most well laid plans. Thus, even "capable" humans are brought down by the defects of those around them.

The drawbacks - there was no single scene that was comparable in terms of tension to the "Adam camera" scene from Saw. Also, at 93 minutes, I felt like some of the characters (Laura, Gus, Addison) never got a chance to be developed. It would have been great to have seen their traps explained or heard their back stories. However, this can be explained by reference to the plot. As a cohesive group, the hostages were a failure. Who knows how vividly the characters could have been described if they had opened Xavier's door or worked together better? But if they had been successful, more of them would have gotten the antidotes and there would have been less urgency all around. So it seems like some characters had to be sacrificed to keep the movie going.

I've noticed a lot of people expressing incredulity at some of the logic in the movie and it's been bothering me for two reasons. First of all, I know plenty of people who are willing to suspend disbelief for some stupid action flick, but not for a horror movie. This doesn't necessarily describe the exact people writing reviews - my point is only that horror should probably given more slack than other types of movies. Second of all, a lot of the "illogical" reactions are not all that crazy when you think about them.

For instance, why did Xavier cut the number off of his neck instead of asking politely? Lots of people found this unrealistic simply because they CLAIM that they wouldn't do that. Well, it made perfect sense for the character who had been established as a heartless egomaniac up until that point. Also, let's not forget that there's only 1 antidote in the safe. If you have ONLY 15 minutes to live and have reason to believe that others will screw you over if you cooperate, you'd do something drastic too.

Others claim that there's no way Amanda would go over to the "dark side" once having run through Jigsaw's gauntlet, herself. Again, this is not all that unbelievable. Psychologists have noted the phenomenon of Stockholm Syndrome, in which hostages come to identify with and even join their captors (Patty Hearst). Likewise, in abusive families, children who suffer psychological or physical abuse don't ALWAYS repeat this cycle, but they are much more likely to than the general population. I found Amanda the scariest part of the movie, not because Shawnee Smith can match the creepy gravitas of Tobin Bell (she can't), but the sheer notion of her transformation. Jigsaw, while not physically powerful has the ability to reproduce his twisted world view in formerly sane people, including the ones he's "tested." Shawnee is not capable of delivering the "game over" line like Tobin can, but the thought that the idea of Jigsaw won't die even when he's physically dead is truly one of the more disturbing aspects of the movie.

A few nice ideas dulled by a lot of stupidity

[Plumberduck · 6/10 · 4 November 2005]

I have the same main problem I had with Saw II that I had with the original (Shockingly enough, not the gaping plot holes). At the core, both movies are about the same thing: Elaborate puzzles that stupid people ignore so they can spend more time yelling at each other.

I really wanted to like Saw II, but I felt like I was being teased. I catch a whiff of interesting puzzle-solving, instead I have a lot of yelling.

It's a personal preference, I know. The movie I wanted to see was about people adapting to their situation and using their brains against that of an evil genius. Instead, I got the evil genius (Tobin Bell is great as Jigsaw, by the way, one of the parts of the film I really enjoyed) going to a lot of work for some people who, frankly, don't seem to appreciate it. The creators seemed to want to make a film about how people's lives are dictated by their unavoidable flaws (driven home by the ending, the last few twists, and the general character of the cop, all of which are the reason my rating is as high as it is), and how panic destroys people.

And the horror... isn't. I don't find blood scary. There are some *shocking* moments in this film, some cringe-inducing moments, but nothing actually scary. That really disappointed me, because Adam's capture in Saw I was one of the scarier scenes I've seen in a movie in a long time. There's nothing for people who actually want to be scared here, just grossed out.

Those Who Make Sequels Don't Deserve Life

[cmarston · 5/10 · 5 November 2005]

Let's start by saying what this movie did have, that will take a lot less time. Gore… check. Creepy puppet and various devices used to permanently dismantle people's craniums… check. Pasty cancer victim forcing the "unworthy" to develop some want to survive… check. Alright, now that that's done I can move on to other, more pressing issues.

I know that everybody, myself included, simply adored the twist ending to the first Saw. Finally learning that the "dead" guy who'd been lying in a pool of his own blood for the entire movie wasn't really dead and was in fact an ingenious, if not twisted as hell, cancer victim striving to show people the value of their meaningless lives was a treasured moment in horror movie history. I can't say much about its staying power in the minds of the general public I will always remember watching that body rise from the floor of that bathroom.

Of course the producers couldn't just reenact the twist from the first one, they had to take it a step farther, keep people guessing. So how do you top a twist as well developed and well executed as the one in Saw? If you take a hint from Saw II I guess the answer is to make the ending so ridiculously contrived that nobody would ever dream of guessing it for fear of feeling stupid even in their own mind. Though I'm sure the girl who played Amanda was thrilled to get her second major acting gig reviving the heroine-addict she so briefly portrayed in the first Saw, I didn't appreciate her reappearance quite so much. It was completely pointless to bring her back; she was useless in the first movie and even more useless in this one. When you get right down to it they used her presence as out: this way they could kill off our friend the cancer victim and still keep the series going. At least we can sleep easy knowing "Amanda" won't soon be out of work.

Unfortunately, the real sin in the writing here is that they simply took it too far. All they had to do was leave it with the SWAT team figuring out that the whole thing was staged and that the kid was really in a "safe" place. That would have been more than enough for me. Also, I could have done without Beverley Mitchell crying constantly, but they couldn't have cast the part better. A decade of complaining on 7th Heaven made her the perfect choice for the part.

The one redeemable quality of this film is the thing that made the first one: a truly original and inventive antagonist. This guy ranks up there with Hannibal and John Doe of Seven on my list of awesome villains. This is where the writers showed their true prowess. They managed to do what is rare these days: they created a powerfully psychopathic serial killer that had a defendable philosophy. "Those who don't value life don't deserve life." It sounds cruel, but there is some part in all of us that has to agree with the sentiment if not the deeds carried out in its name. It bothers me that he claims never to have killed anyone because it seems to me that putting people into a situation where they will almost certainly perish and offering them only a slim chance for survival is grounds for a murder charge. I know what he means, but that one statement is the only stupid thing that he says and he continues to say it despite the glaring error in it. That fact aside, this guy continues to impress me. He outsmarts everybody. The beauty in his strategy is that he tells everybody exactly what they need to know in order to walk out of their given situation entirely intact. He just banks on the fact that people never change and they, when put under immense stress, default to their baser instincts instead of taking a second to think the situation out rationally. The sad truth about humankind is that he will never be disappointed.

Overall I enjoyed the movie, but I had pretty low expectations to begin with. I expected exactly what I got: a solid villain and an hour and a half of gratuitous violence and blood. If you're looking for a great piece of cinematography you're going to be sorely upset with what you see; you'll probably be a little motion-sick by the end too. Bring your sense of humor and check your upchuck reflex at the door, especially if you are sensitive about the use of scalpels on eyeballs.

Awesome, gory, bloody, what you could expect of Saw II!

[xfear26 · 9/10 · 23 October 2005]

The tag line says it all: Oh yes, there will be blood!

I've had the chance/honor of seeing the sequel of a very anticipated movie this year at the world's premiere at the Montreal's Midnight Madness and I haven't been disappointed one bit. Off course, there was some magic that night, considering the fact that there were hundreds of horror fans expecting a gory sequel to the Saw installment and they got served! Without stating any spoilers, let me confirm that the movie is packed with bloody action and gore at its best. Those who liked the Jigsaw's strategy of allowing him the chance of survival to its victims by giving them a puzzle to solve, this time it goes even further. From the start until the end, you'll be given puzzling situation in which you wouldn't like to be part of at any time in your life. Near the end of the movie, the twisted game gets even more spicy...

I wasn't used to hear people applauding at the theater and it created some kind of psycho ambiance in the room that I kinda really enjoyed. The sadistic approach of the Jigsaw killer is still pretty impressive! Without telling you more, go watch it with some friends that will be able to tolerate blood in gallons and you'll be served! I give it a 9/10 for its originality, gory moments, interesting story and punch of action. It is rare to see a sequel that beats its predecessor but in this case, it does!

One of the best movies I have seen in a long time.

[stealthskr17 · 10/10 · 28 October 2005]

The first Saw really through me through some spins and caught me off guard for originality, Saw 2 is leagues above the first. Saw 2 runs with the same game based theme as the first, with clues for both the characters and the audience about what might happen next, but it takes the game to a completely different level. Just when things start to come together there is another twist to leave the viewer on the edge of their seat for what may come next. Without seeming to give everything away the movie was made to give it all away, but no one can catch all the clues because they have been pulled so deep into the movie. I highly recommend this one.

Too Gory for Popcorn

[stupidmunk · 8/10 · 28 October 2005]

This movie has just mad a quantum leap in horror films. after watching this movie i had the chills walking to my car, and lets say that i more than enjoy a scary movie. this movie kept me up for at least and hour after watching it. it was one of those movies were you cant let it out of your mind.

The movie had one of the best openings that i have seen in a long time. after a few minutes into the movie i had to put down my popcorn. i don't have a weak stomach and this movie got me to put down my popcorn, that is huge.

With a great blend of suspense, acting, and oh yes there was a lot of blood. this movie great deserves another watch, i would pay to see this movie a couple of times. not to mention one of the best twists i have seen in a movie. i would say 2nd best ending i have seen in a movie.(#1 was Fight Club). you definitely have to see this movie.

Wretched, but not in a good way

[analogeist83 · 3/10 · 22 February 2006]

Shame, shame, shame. I actually enjoyed the first Saw quite a bit, and had hopes that this installment would meet or surpass its predecessor in quality. Poor guess on my part. I am a huge fan of horror movies...I have been watching them since I was a child. This was no horror movie. It was a poorly put-together "psychological" thriller with some violence in it. Part of what made the first movie good was the anonymous evil-doer. Having Jigsaw out and front all the time just didn't do it for me. The movie tries to justify his motivations, but his diatribes into the human condition fall short of convincing me. Fear of the unknown is one of the strongest types of fear there is, and having the killer spell out all his intentions is really kind of a let down. Also, the twist just left me snoring. And another thing (whine whine whine) was that I just could not suspend my disbelief. So there is this terminal cancer patient who can barely walk, yet is able to put many large sturdy devices together. Sure, he has help, but look at all the gear setup, and you'll see what I'm getting at. Also, Jigsaw must be psychic. His big ransom is the son of the detective. So he sets up all these traps in order to reach a desired outcome. What if people dropped dead from the nerve gas early? What if one of the criminals flipped out and killed the boy early? Sure, he might have profiled them, but I had some of these same issues with Mindhunters. The kicker is that I just don't care about any of the characters in this movie. They're all jerks, and it doesn't pain me to see them die. The end. Don't see this movie, it is a waste of time.

Thank You for this Amazing Movie

[vacutainer69 · 10/10 · 28 October 2005]

I anxiously waited for this film to be released---eagerly anticipating every frame, and I was not disappointed when I "saw" the first screening this afternoon. From the opening scene thru the end? I found myself being transported into the big screen, taken for one of the wildest rides I have ever experienced, and deposited back into my seat knowing I had not wasted my money (nor the afternoon, for the matter). I was kept guessing until the end, and I was not let down with a "cliched and wrap it up" ending...I left wanting more. (Having seen CUBE...I don't see the "ripoff"...I see a very well thought out original script with a deeper story). The acting was very impressive and very believable. A special shout out to the team who came up with the set design and atmospheric lighting. I was moved and mentally manipulated by this film, and when I stepped out of the theater into the lobby and real life I had to take a minute to let my mind unwind before I went out the theater door.

It Will Blow You Away

[mattdenes · 10/10 · 28 October 2005]

Why is it that so many critics, movie-goers and film patrons see such bold and unique forms of film as nothing but bloody and un-needed garbage? Isn't it about time to enter the age of the modern horror film, and to realize that audiences these days have already seen it all when it comes to the horror movie, so one-of-a-kind ideas such as the SAW series should be seen as a much needed godsend to the film industry. They say that this is what is takes to scare people these days: untrue. Take the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre for instance, upon close examination, one can notice that it is essentially a bloodless film. So what is it about such movies that scare us? Well, it's the idea, the cinematography, and the boldness to plant such a terrifying seed into the world of movies. It isn't a man sawing his foot off or a man being set on fire that scares audiences, it's the fact that it has NEVER...EVER been done before on the big screen that engulfs the audience into a trance-like cloak of fear over a movie. The people who conjure these ideas for movies are not on the mindset to create something for the SOLE PURPOSE of making someone cringe and fray, they want to be their own level, nay, rank of movies for others to, essentially, build off of. Are SAW and SAW II the last of their kind? By no means, if anything they are merely predecessors of the film noir that is going to eventually rise into the R-rated spectrum. Forgive me for not stressing on the movie's actual content, but I feel it is the very ideas behind SAW that make us have to see it for ourselves. And I highly recommend those of you skeptical about it to do so. Will you be frightened? Yes. Will you see things never before shined onto the screen? Yes. And will you leave the darkness of the theater in a sense that you have witnessed movie history unfold before your eyes? YES.

Saw II is everything Saw 1 should have been .. and more!

[trueenemy · 9/10 · 28 October 2005]

I just got back from the midnight screening of the film and I must say -- It was an OK movie.

Most of all the cool "deaths" were already shown in either clips or on television... but the main highlight of the movie was the conversation between Eric Mathews and Jigsaw himself. You find out a lot more about him then what you think. You find out what makes him tick. Of course, it's not as Gory as what people are telling you, it's just a marketing scam.. However, there IS much more blood then Saw 1.

The ending... Grabs you by the hair and kicks you square in the nuts!.

And you know when they said they'd revisit some "old friends?" oh yes.. they do :) Darren Bousman definitely has a film career on his hands and I hope he goes far with it because the man has talent.

I can clearly see SAW becoming the next "Horror" franchise.

overrated on IMDb

[ruomujiang · 1/10 · 25 February 2006]

This is my first post on IMDb. The reason I am devoting my first post to such a crappy movie is the 7/10 rating here fooled me into renting this DVD and now I want my money and time back. The biggest issue of this film is its lackluster plot. It's just painfully dumb comparing to similar film like "Cube" , which was shot ~ 10 yrs ago (are films getting better today ?). In "Cube", you also got people waking up inside some closed cell and they need to solve some puzzle to find their way out. But in SAW II, there isn't really any puzzle to solve. For the most part of the movie, you just watch the characters running around and getting killed. There is no intelligence involved in this movie. BTW, the characters are poisoned, this greatly compromises their mobility and thus makes it a lot harder for them to move from A to B, which in turn lengthens the film a lot. Also the traps are pretty lame. Another issue is that the characters are so stereotypical (loud and rowdy). The moment they are first introduced, I know they will start killing each other before long. Overall the movie deserves 1/10 and I wish I could give it -10^10 just to counter balance all the positive ratings this film doesn't deserve. Seriously, if you think this movie is good, you should watch "Cube" and think about the improvement filmmakers have achieved over 10 yrs. Also you should watch "Cabin Fever" coz it's an equally crappy movie and crappy movies have a lot in common.

Awesome Movie!

[djvanderlooven · 10/10 · 28 October 2005]

I loved this movie for many reasons. The acting was so much better then in the first one, and the plot twists are good as well. Kept me on the edge of my seat and the gore is at its best. When watching the movie, it is very fun to try to guess what is going to happen at the end. Make sure that you listen to the killer(John) very closely, as you know from the first, it is very important to do this. I can't stress enough how much better the acting and over-all story of this movie is, I don't want to give away to much, but be prepared for an awesome show. If you liked Saw, you will LOVE Saw 2, if you hated it or didn't see it, good chance you will still love it. It is worth the ticket to get in, and then some. In fact, I'll go see it again tomorrow.

The only thing scary is that people liked this movie

[TheGuestzor · 1/10 · 28 January 2006]

When I had seen the first movie I already had mixed feelings about it, part of me liked it mostly because of the ending and an other part of me thought it could have been better because of the lack of suspense. (Every "game" except the one with the two guys are being told which made it less interesting) Anyway, I still bought the DVD since the whole idea was quite interesting. So before I went to Saw II I had high hopes, also because IMDb rated it a 7.

Damn I was wrong, as the first movie lacked in suspense, this movie has totally no suspense. It's like watching a plant grow for 1,5 hours. It's just a waste of time.

You will not care who dies, who lives and why you are being forced to watch this movie. You just want to go home, sleep and pretend this never happened. The whole movie has to many twists, that make no sense. Characters that do stuff that makes no sense. O and the movie actually things the audience is retarded.

Because if you have played one of his games before you know exactly where the main clue is behind some brick wall. Sure, every one would know that. :/

And the common link between all those people was pretty obvious but still the movie makers decided to tell it to the audience 50 minutes after everyone knew it already. Not to mention that it added totally no value to the movie because the guy finding it out had already decided to kill everyone.

The thing that is likable in this movie is the voice on the tape. I mean that's really cool. But they needed to rape that as well at the end by letting us know the girl will be the one taking over his work. Even letting her end the movie as the first one, but with one difference; in this movie it totally sucked.

I gave this movie a 1 because it has an unfair rating of 7.

Entertaining despite its differences...

[Sperethiel · 7/10 · 23 October 2005]

Last night we were part of the lucky few(750 peoples) who got to see the world premiere to the public of Saw II. Without going too much into the details, for this kind of movie can be ruined quite easily by revealing to much, I can say that it was a good sequel albeit not as strong as the first one. I could compare quite easily having seen the first one the night before.

First of all the character development, one of the greatest strength in the first one, is quasi inexistent in the sequel. This of course could be explain by the fact that having 8 characters locked together instead of only 2 gives less room for each one of them. Even if I liked the concept of having a bunch of people trapped, there could have been a way to remove some character and give a little more room to the background of the more important ones. This actually lead to a feeling of watching a more americanized version of saw. You actually loses a part of the psychology that was also very strong in the first one. This loss i could say is partly due to the fact that you again haver very little to base yourself on the background of the characters.

Despite all of this it was entertaining. Most of the jigsaw's game of the sequel still have the same flavor as those in the original and the plot line in itself is still very good as you get to understand a little more behind the games of jigsaw. I recommend for all of you to watch it once its out in theater but don't go expecting the same feeling you had when watching Saw, you'll be disappointed.

Why is the movie is underrated

[zhyarTheChosen · 7/10 · 8 March 2020]

I really don't get it I know me too I loved it too but this only is good tooo

Its Very Violent and Gory,but Not as Scary,

[lesleyharris30 · 6/10 · 22 July 2013]

Saw 2 is a better than average movie with a promising storyline that just didn't turn out as good as it seemed.I did enjoy the dialog between Donnie Wahlberg and Tobin Bell,but the scenes with everyone stuck in the booty trapped room set up by Jigsaw was terrible,the dialog and acting was very mediocre and it mostly relied on gore.It is definitely more gory than the first Saw,a bit too gory for me,the way everyone is killed is just disgusting and graphic.The movie also wasn't as frightening as the first Saw and the story didn't have a build up as exciting as the original.I also didn't like how we didn't get to see much of the Jigsaw puppet and the direction isn't as dark (the director is different) as the first.Saw 2 is very gruesome,but its not very scary,if your a fan of the first you should still check it out,mainly because of Donnie Wahlberg and Tobin Bells impressive performances and a very unexpected twist,but you will be overall disappointed.

The Jigsaw Killer has kidnapped the son of cop Eric Matthews.Jigsaw gets Eric to talk to him while his son and many others try to survive.

Good sequel with lots of thrills, horror and suspenseful

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 22 January 2008]

A few unfortunates people(Glenn Plummer,Enmanuel Vaugier,Beverly Mitchell,Erik Knudsen, among others) trapped into closed building and they must encounter a way out before inhale a lethal nerve gas. But they must also avoid the deadly traps Jigsaw(Tobin Bell) has set on the way. Meanwhile, a policemen(Donnie Wahlberg,Dina Meyer) and SWAT track down from him. Jigsaw, who is on the brink of death , has become obsessed for revenge and has prepared twisted traps. The group must race against the clock of Jigsaw's on ticket heart affected by cancer.

This second sequel from original by James Wan, packs grisly terror, tension, suspense and lots of blood and gore . The film takes accent as suspense as well as terror with creepy use of images- shock and slick edition. Provides an imaginative and well-knit screenplay plenty of twists and surprises . Sinister and mysterious atmosphere , well made by cameraman David Armstrong and eerie musical score adequate for mystery and tension by Charlie Clousier. The movie is again starred by Tobin Bell, he's a secondary actor working from the 80s in TV series(Walker Texas Rager, Stargate SG1, Alias, 24) and occasionally for cinema(Goodfellas, The firm, Ruby, Black mask 2), achieving success with Jigsaw character. The motion picture is well directed by Darren Lynn Bousman. It's followed by Saw III by same director and with Dina Meyer, Shawnee Smith and Costas Mandylor; Saw IV again with Donnie Wahlberg, Dina Meyer and in pre-production, Saw V directed by David Hacklin with Costas Mandylor.

Are You Nutts?!?! This film is absolutely awful

[douslug · 1/10 · 15 March 2006]

Horrible acting for the start, shitty overestimated screenplay, and cheap directing. Jesus! Even the sets are like taken from "The Bold And The Beautiful" and the lightening only makes you sure that what you're looking on is nothing but cardboard. This film has all the sins of the first "Saw", and adds few by its own. I hope that parts 3-8 will be available only on video cassettes. Or maybe I will be happy person, and the series will end on part 6 for example! My God I watched it in fast forward and even then it was boring!...And above all - it was predictable. Even the unpredicted turns of the story, were predictable, because from the first minute YOU KNOW, that it HAS TO end reversal, and unexpectedly :).

If this is not enough for You, let me say that there are lots of logical mistakes in directing, and cinematography. For example - in the scene when one of the characters has to enter the big metal oven to obtain some idiotic syringes, the whole gang already know that they have to be careful when they touch everything. Even so, NO ONE from the group notices bizarre roll and rope attached to the oven door. When finally inside the oven, guy named Obi pulls a rope on which hangs a syringe - Surprisingly - the oven door close behind him(!). Jesus! I don't have to mention, that you know it's gonna happen from the beginning of the scene, and the roll and rope are only funny reminding.

It's not worth saying so much - I have already told enough.

Summing up - if you want to see the most overestimated film of the year - this is choice for You.

Amazing!!!Nothing But

[seantheman · 10/10 · 27 October 2005]

For me SAW was the best film of 2004 by far. It was unique and unlike any other horror or thriller before it. So being such a unique and amazing film i was very sceptical about going to see the sequel. "How can it be as good as the first ??, its just going to ruin itself trying??" They were the questions i was asking myself along with all my friends who also loved the first one. If you find that you've asked yourself these too, then don't worry :D It IS the BEST Film of 2005 for me so far. I'm writing this now after coming home from a staff screening, and i haven't been so excited after a film since .....probably ever.

The story is fantastic, and probably actually better than the first one. It also has more of those sick devices from Jigsaw. But , even better, it has more of those plot twists that keep you gripped till the end.

Remember the feeling when the supposed dead body stood up in the room, well, multiply that by 10 and thats how you feel at the end of SAW2

I can't recommend this highly enough for anybody, especially those who are a fan of the original, put all your fears aside of it being terrible.Take it from a huge SAW fan, you WONT be disappointed

Movie shouldn't have made it past the first 10 minutes.

[SmartAlx · 1/10 · 30 October 2005]

Nothing past the first 10 minutes of this movie should have happened. I'll sum it up quickly so you can get on with your life.

A bunch of people are in a house. They are locked in and the same deadly nerve agent that was used in the Japanese subways is poisoning them. The doors are elaborate and cannot be used as an exit. But the windows are WEAKLY boarded up. They have plenty of tools to either go through the windows, or if those are barred, to punch through the wall. It doesn't take superhuman strength to break through plaster and bricks. It just takes a brain. They had 2 hours to punch through the wall and get to a hospital.

Do that and the movie ends.

And that is just an example of what all "victims" suffer in this series. They follow the rules given by this merely condescending and quite stupid villain. The victims NEVER think outside the box. They never search for traps. A trap might find them though. They know it's a trap, but they do the obvious thing anyway, knowing that it will kill them. How stupid do Bousman and Whannell think we are??? The victims NEVER think. For ONCE I would like someone to anticipate the tripwire and freaking STEP OVER IT!!!!!!!! AND STILL GET KILLED!!!! A good horror/suspense movie doesn't demand that they escape. It just demands intelligently thought out writing. You people who give this movie good ratings standards are way too low.