Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Saw II (2005)
7/10
Less original, but still worth a look.
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.
25 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Why?
14 June 2006
There was no need for this movie, plain and simple. The original, although hated by some, was something I found to be actually really entertaining, mainly because it was before Jim Carrey started to really lose his touch, and Cameron Diaz was, well, "Smoooooookin!" 'Nuff said. So why make a sequel/prequel thing? Honestly? Knowing that Jim Carrey wouldn't do it should've been clue enough that it didn't deserve to be created. But then they just make mistake after mistake. Jamie Kennedy. Why is this man still allowed to breathe? The writing and story: terrible. Why would I ever want to see a baby wearing the mask? Moreover why would I want to see it fly? Ever? HOW DID SOMEONE THINK THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA?! The acting is despicable, in fact nearly everything about this movie is. I'm trying to keep calm, or IMDb probably won't let me post this. Bottom line: don't watch this piece of trash. Pick up the original, see how good Cameron Diaz looked and how Jim Carrey used to have a career, and laugh. Don't waste even a second of your time on this.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Completely over-rated
13 June 2006
As a high school student, I had to deal with people quoting this movie constantly, with the "GOSH"es and the "VOTE FOR PEDRO" shirts, so I figured I'd pop the movie in the DVD player and check out what it was all about. The "funniest movie ever made" fell flat on its face. I laughed a total of twice, one where he tried to feed a llama camel thing a steak, and the other when he hurt himself trying to jump a ramp on his bike, and I think that was only because he got hurt. I can't give it a one, because it did make me laugh a couple times, but frankly what this movie comes down to is being a fad. Already people have forgotten it, and I think we're all better off that way. There truly isn't much redeeming quality in my mind to save this movie from never being seen again by me.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed