Change Your Image
uninv1sible
Reviews
Saw II (2005)
Not nearly as exciting as the first Saw.
If you go into Saw II expecting to relive the excitement that the first one brought on, it won't happen. I guess I went into the theater with the wrong attitude - and perhaps I expected too much. But Saw was a diamond in the rough of contemporary horror films.
The beauty of the original Saw was the opening sequence. Knowing as much as the characters in the movie know is what made it that much more frightening and intense. Where are these people? Why are they locked in a gritty bathroom stall? This technique is something that really set the tone for the rest of the film. Saw II has none of this.
Saw II opens with a gristly scene that is sure to get the audience going, and it seemed to work fairly well. Unfortunately, the dialogue and acting that follows throughout the rest of the film suffers greatly. Being eased into the father/son relationship was somewhat painful to watch, and a few people in the sold-out show laughed at some of the commends made on- screen by the father.
I was also annoyed at the writer's choice to keep 3/4 of the film within a house. I understand the fact that they have to take a step forward from the original, which I remind you was generally kept within a small room, but it just feels like they opted for the house to fit more victims into it - and therefore, to please the audience with more death. Why do sequels always have to involve MORE? I couldn't help but think that they only reason they do is to rake in the cash from the success of the first, and that's exactly what Saw II does.
I was also bothered by something else which other film buffs probably noticed as well. The three girls cater to a fairly wide range of men's taste. We have the slut wearing a thin shirt and no bra, with large doe-like eyes and a fairly well-fed ego. There's the cute and somehow sexy girlfriend who squeezes her breasts together for your viewing pleasure. And there's the messy-haired large-breasted drug addict from the previous film, showing off a bit of mid- drift and some chest bounce, again for the viewer's pleasure. For the girls, they throw in the "adorable" shy-but-not-incapable son, the rippling (if half-insane) Latino, and a black man who manages to avoid the common Hollywood curse of dying first. Obviously I picked up on the idea that they were desperately trying to connect the audience to these stars in more of a visual way than an acting way.
Anyway, without spoiling the ending, you'll either love it or hate it. I hated it. Either way, you'll come away from Saw II knowing that it satisfied your lust for blood and maybe some female (or male) eye candy, and that is really Saw II's only saving grace. I gave it a 6/10, and I gave the original Saw a 9/10.
A Sound of Thunder (2005)
Worst Film of the Decade
After hearing about how awful A Sound of Thunder was, I decided to see it in the theater just to have a good time and laugh at something horrible. I got what I was looking for.
-- Warning: Mild Spoilers Ahead -- One of the most laughable aspects of the movie was the excessive and quite possibly the worst green-screen use I've ever seen. Even for a movie that was supposed to be released in 2003, the special effects are ludicrous. Every scene that takes place outdoors in 2055 is green-screened in such a bad way that there's absolutely no way to cover it up. The cars look like they were designed by a 2 year old with a Lego set. The Allosaurus looks like it was pulled straight from a PlayStation 1 cut-scene movie, and the way it acts when things get screwy is hilarious. There is also no explanation of the solid water-like walkway, how in the hell the government would have ever passed a time travel device that could be so dangerous, how Dr. Lucas manages to avoid the plant that grabs his gun, how the buildings were destroyed, etc. Pop-corn flick all the way.
The only reason I have given this film a 2 instead of a 1 is because of the apelizards, and IMDb has a picture of one on the Photos page. Other than that, the creators of the movie give you one beastie for each area of earth: air, land, water, and plants. People die, of course, in a way that is pure Hollywood, and you'll understand what I mean if you see this piece of trash.
Overall, the movie was made to entertain, not to make you think. Yes, there is some easily forgettable dialog involving apparently deep scientific theories, but they only scratch the surface of interest, and they are quickly wrapped up and brushed away for "action" to keep the audience from thinking too much about the fact that time travel as we now know it is basically impossible. Throw in cheesy dialog, awful editing, gigantic plot holes, the worst CGI and green-screening in years, a hunk and some large-breasted women, futuristic Super Soakers, and you get the worst film of the decade.