Saw II

The film has excellent gore and really makes you feel the pain. That's the end of the plus side, and all we have is a bunch of unsympathetic meat to the slaughter, which is perversely unbelievably moronic in every way and also can't even act. The first installment gets full marks for its quality contribution to the genre despite a ridiculous budget. The next installments will be nothing but calculating, reputation-raping, but the truth is that for all their filth I will watch them. Oh, and the sped-up editing sequence sux. (25/02/2006)

The first part is an easily forgettable mix of violence and directorial invention. The sequel is similar in that regard, but it also lacks originality and creativity compared to its predecessor. What remains are only brutal acts of murder in all possible and impossible ways, somewhat decent acting performances, and a surprising (which does not necessarily mean very good) conclusion. As a positive aspect, I consider the inclusion of the main villain into the story and the many new intricately designed traps. On the negative side, it follows the exact same narrative structure as the first part, which makes Saw 2 essentially a copy, unfortunately. Not really worth watching – simply once and that's it. (05/07/2006)

"Saw II" is a slight decline in quality compared to the first, almost brilliant film, but there's nothing that can be done about it. It relies heavily on trying to appear gritty, some characters are terribly stereotypical, the main detective is incredibly unpleasant, but the finale does show that the creators can still lead us astray brilliantly. The twist still works quite well here, and you are still somewhat excited about what's yet to come. (17/02/2014)

No matter how problematic the first part was, its originality couldn't be denied. The sequel, however, is about something else entirely. I wasn't interested in the contrived victim storyline at all this time, rather I was annoyed that it took away most of the attention from the trapped Jigsaw. His word games and precise cat-and-mouse game far surpass the events in the house, where people behave like lunatics, disregarding all warnings and diving headfirst into suspicious situations without any mention of elaborate traps. It's just a shame that, even though the twist can take your breath away, it takes away a lot of the momentum from the previous events. While tension and surprises shouldn't be forgotten, logic is completely disregarded. (10/02/2006)

It’s already noticeably lacking the element of surprise that James Wan successfully pulled off in the suspenseful and psychologically charged first film. Everything is much more focused on the traps themselves, the story is brisker and bolder, and it follows the fate of the people trapped in the deadly labyrinth much more closely. If we look at it as a film on its own, it's not bad at all; Bousman put the story on the back burner a bit to focus mainly on what horror viewers want to see the most, but he still managed to make a very decent B-movie that is not marred by a more detailed depiction of human suffering. However, if we take the series into account, it is clear that the second part, like all the following ones, was made exclusively for profit, that it hardly develops the story, and that the only thing it has in common with the first one is the character of the killer and his principles. It's quite a shame that from this point onwards the Saw phenomenon would become not much more than brutal entertainment for teenagers, and the great story and atmosphere of the first episode can only be sadly remembered. The second one works, it has quite a lot to offer and has the advantage that it follows its famous predecessor, but I’d rather to avoid further parts just in case. 65% (18/11/2012)