SAW 2

Has anybody seen this film its great

i didn't like Saw 2 and much as number 1.

Saw 1
Brilliant due to the story line, however this could have been improved by better graphics.

Saw 2
Fake at the begining, however acts of killing ver good indeed, but not enough to convince me.

Saw 1 was simply AWEESOME!!!!!!!!!!
original story line

SAW 2 is a sick and sadistic film, and worst of all its crap.

I sincerely believe that there is something seriously wrong with anyone who enjoys "Saw II". I'm talking seriously, deeply wrong.

"Saw II" was a direct commercial response to the success of the original. Of other films fitting that profile, Joe Berlinger's "Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows" comes to mind. Despite having been faced with time constrictions resulting from Artisan's immediate decision to capitalize on "Blair Witch" mania, Berlinger succeeded at making a flawed yet thougtful picture that dealt with perception and the idea of "video truth". Darren Lynn Bousman succeeded at making . . . . . a direct commercial response to the success of the original "Saw".

Again, not a film. A direct commercial response to the success of the original. In other words, a product.

I could call the umpteenth entry in the "Friday the 13th" franchise a "commercial response" and I would not be wrong. "Friday", however, lent itself to the possibility of sequels of varying quality. Try comparing the original "Friday the 13th" (a campy little slasher) to any of its sequels (mostly campy little slashers). Then examine, if you will, the cinematic non-progress found when comparing "Saw" (a creative accomplishment in the world of independent horror) to "Saw II" (an uncreative accomplishment in the world of studio-driven consumerism.)

In its awful twist (which villanizes a key character from the original), "Saw II" caters to those obnoxious individuals who attend films solely for the purpose of "guessing the ending". I sincerely hope that these individuals (who, incidentally, seemed to enjoy the film) were not able to "guess the ending", as it would mean that they possess the ability to conceive something as completely assinine and God-awful as the ending of "Saw II".

Let me put this lightly, kids. On an intellectual level, the Jigsaw Killer is Hannibal Lecter's servant's midget's bitch. This was established in the first "Saw", which widely avoided the backstory of Jigsaw like the plague. "Saw II" establishes such a backstory so that those of us unfortunate enough to have paid $8.50 in admission can exit the theater and engage in moral debates on the actions of Jigsaw, all the while basking in the glow of our collective genius.

"OMG "Saw II" makes us think!". No. No it does not.

"Saw II" is the filmic equivalent of the Republican Party in that it has succeeded in making a great number of hollow and unintelligent Americans feel as if they are incredibly smart and important, robbing them of their earnings in the process.

Sure, the traps in "Saw II" were clever. So clever, in fact, that when they release the "Saw II: Uncut" DVD (which well sell like hotcakes, no doubt) they should cut together a version comprised solely of the torture / trap scenes. The movie might then retain some hint of resemblance to the original.

"Saw II"s worst offense? The #1 reason why I will avoid my video store for the next month so that I won't have to look at any "Saw II" advertisements? Simply put, "Saw II" does the worst possible thing a sequel can do.

It ruins the original.
Just please, whatever you do, don't use it to make "Saw III".

Saw 2 was good
but I didnt like the end...the end were that man cuts of his back neck
It was hyped

Because in the first movie...everyone loved the fact the way doctor cuts off his leg. They tried to do something similar to saw 2. It just didn't feel right when the man cut of his skin, even the music that was played.

Saw 1 was better1.
When I watched it...it was great! When the man cut off his feet was super cool...my heart was just beating