I thought it was alright. given the same choice again I’d wait to rent it.
of course there were too many/underdeveloped characters; they needed meat for slaughtering. still, shit, they could’ve put SOME effort into it. seems like the only one in the house that had any personality had too much of it: the macho guy was a complete caricature, and annoyed me right from the start, bellowing and tromping around like a damn gorilla. not a believable character to me, at all. by the end, the killer was the only one I cared a thing about. the detective? nah. as far as I’m concerned, in movie logic, he got what he deserved. the guy straight up told him the rules and he acted like a spoiled child, throwing shit and pushing him around. if a very methodical serial killer tells you what you need to do to see your child again, fucking DO it, dumbass.
as for the setting, who cares? it’s a movie. the guy is twisted and apparently has money. he can set up a carnival of horrors in his backyard if he wants. it’s all about the particular type of desolation he wants his victims to feel.
all in all, decent, if very flawed. not a horrible way to spend 2 hours, but there are certainly better.
Saw it, enjoyed it. The only thing I didn’t understand was;
[SPOILER]Why the hell did they put that blonde girl in there? As far as I can tell all she did was get falsely arrested. The others, at least, seemed to still be continuing in their “bad” ways.
Also, I am pretty sure the guy got his protege to buy everything for him, and that he dies at the end having known that his protegé has succeeded in her first task.
And TJDude, IIRC he says cellmate. Although it would be more cruel to have it be her boyfriend, she doesn’t seem to show any recogntion of him.
Iamthewalrus I started noticing about halfway through the movie that they never coughed up blood. It kinda revealed a bit, but not too much.
And also, remember, the police do not know of the existence of the bathroom in the first movie. Everyone who was in there (bar jigsaw) died. You can’t exactly trace the calls from the mobile phone they originated from after the fact.[/SPOILER]
it wasn’t so much a punishment for them as a trap for the detective guy. jigsaw didn’t really care about “testing” them; his main objective was to throw a bunch of people together who’d been arrested on false evidence by what’s-his-name, I guess just to make him go nuts worrying about his kid when he figured out the connection. as such, seemed to me the detective was the focus of the game, not the individuals in the house.
But that just doesn’t fit in with jigsaw. Although,
he did use that nurse dude in the first movie, and he obviously valued human life. I think that was a major plot hole, that they fixed up in the sequel.
And;
I read on IMDB that the blonde chick (Laura?) was a klepto, although I am not sure what the basis for that was. I think the gist was, good people set up by police-man, good people turn “bad” (person caught for possession start doing drugs, perhaps Laura was set-up for stealing). Police man needs to be “tested” as well as the people.
Although, it’s probably entirely possible that I am giving them too much credit Remember, the plot for this story wasn’t written by the guy who did Saw I, but by someone else, and then adapted to be a sequel.
Question: Do we really find out…(I’ll put it in a spoiler just in case)
…what happened to Dr. Gordon from the first movie at the end of Saw II (you know, Cary Elwes, who sawed his leg off)? I don’t think so - the two bodies in the bathroom belong to the other guy (Adam?) and the nurse guy, don’t they? While I presume Elwes’s character died from blood loss, you don’t really know, do you? I thought his fate was still left open.
Remember, the plot for this story wasn’t written by the guy who did Saw I, but by someone else, and then adapted to be a sequel.