User Score
6.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 259 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 44 out of 259

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Mar 18, 2012
    4
    Saw II is bigger, bloodier, but not better than its predecessor. Sure, Jigsaw's "games" are more extravagant and brutal, but the film lacks the clever plotting and tension of the original Saw. John Kramer (Tobin Bell) still makes a fantastic horror movie villain - he's charismatic, threatening and utterly deranged, and its great to get under the skin of the character a little in thisSaw II is bigger, bloodier, but not better than its predecessor. Sure, Jigsaw's "games" are more extravagant and brutal, but the film lacks the clever plotting and tension of the original Saw. John Kramer (Tobin Bell) still makes a fantastic horror movie villain - he's charismatic, threatening and utterly deranged, and its great to get under the skin of the character a little in this installment (no matter how unpalatable it might be) and understand what makes him tick. Donnie Wahlberg's Detective Eric Matthews makes a good enough protagonist, and the explosive extended dialogue scene between him and Kramer is the most compelling in the film. The rest of the cast are a bit underwhelming, and simply serve as lambs to the slaughter for the purpose of entertainment. I can't really deny that the film has moments that serve a certain deranged craving for schadenfreude found in all human beings, but the film as a whole loses a great deal of its energy and motivation after the first couple of these torture-porn-serving set-pieces. It just doesn't engage quite as the first film did, and only works on a single level. The film's big twist is also rather underwhelming when compared to the shock of the first film's - this time round, you see it coming a mile off. Still, Saw II is diverting, and makes for a decent enough Friday night gore-fest, just don't expect anything more. Expand
  2. Sep 18, 2011
    4
    "Saw 2" is baked with mindless flesh and blood, grinded a barely-acceptable plot twist, and mixed with terrible character depth unlike its prequel. Consider to pass this terrible movie, for you WILL gross out.
  3. Nov 22, 2010
    3
    This film is not in any way thinking outside of the box. It's just very cliché.
    Now that doesn't have to be the killing blow to a film, there are plentiful of good films that are pretty cliché.
    However, this film is not only cliché, but have a storyline which a 14 year-old could come up with. I feel genuinely embarrassing that a grown up person comes
    This film is not in any way thinking outside of the box. It's just very cliché.
    Now that doesn't have to be the killing blow to a film, there are plentiful of good films that are pretty cliché.
    However, this film is not only cliché, but have a storyline which a 14 year-old could come up with. I feel genuinely embarrassing that a grown up person comes up with something this shallow, and dare call it good film. It simply isn't a good film from a storyline perspective.

    As regard to character development, there is nearly none. It really goes to show what the real purpose is.
    The real purpose is as simple as a outlet for sadistic and primitive urges. Not that there's something wrong with that. But trying to market it as anything else than what it is, is just wrong.

    If you like blood, unrealistic scenes(in a film that tries to be realistic) and no story to speak about whatsoever, then this is a film for you.
    Expand
  4. Feb 1, 2015
    3
    Haven't even seen 30 minutes of it and I don't plan to. This film looks like complete crap. It's been made to make money due to the success of the first Saw which is probably my favourite film ever. This film sucks bollocks, and I haven't even seen most of it. I just know. Don't bother watching this crap.
  5. Apr 25, 2015
    4
    Silly, gratuitous, and nonsensical as they are, the Saw movies may have something to them after all. Much like The Three, the serial-killer film scripted by "Donald Kaufman" in Adaptation, they're written in full knowledge of all their bone-collecting, skin-stitching, Seven Deadly Sins-reckoning predecessors, yet the psychology has been completely stripped away, leaving only the gimmicksSilly, gratuitous, and nonsensical as they are, the Saw movies may have something to them after all. Much like The Three, the serial-killer film scripted by "Donald Kaufman" in Adaptation, they're written in full knowledge of all their bone-collecting, skin-stitching, Seven Deadly Sins-reckoning predecessors, yet the psychology has been completely stripped away, leaving only the gimmicks behind. To some extent, the Saw franchise may be the B-movie answer to classier fare like The Silence Of The Lambs and Se7en—both Saw and the new Saw II reveal their heady moral and thematic agendas as pseudo-sophisticated window dressing for the grisly contraptions they actually are. Stripped down to the barest genre essentials, Saw is a spring-loaded killing machine, packed with sadistic little deathtraps and ludicrous macabre twists, and its quickie sequel offers more of the same, which should again appease viewers who enjoy being jerked around.

    In a novel reversal on the original, evil puppetmaster Tobin Bell (nicknamed "Jigsaw" because he cuts puzzle pieces out of his victims' skin) pulls back the curtain and spends the entire movie in plain sight, but he still holds all the cards. Though not quite as tortured as Danny Glover's madman-in-the-attic in Saw, cop Donnie Wahlberg has reason for stress when he discovers that Bell has abducted his son (along with about half a dozen others), and is holding them in a booby-trapped house. Through security monitors mounted in every room, Wahlberg and his team can only watch helplessly as the hostages struggle to free themselves within the two hours before their bodies implode from the nerve gas being pumped through the vents. But Bell relishes his role as dungeonmaster, so he offers a way out in the form of a game: If the hostages can figure out the combination to the safe in the middle of the room, they'll find the antidote inside.

    As in Saw, the solutions are often just as bad as the problem: Sure, you can unlock that spiked steel trap mounted on your head, but first you have to find the key, which is planted behind your eye socket. (Here's a scalpel. Enjoy.) Bell claims he never kills anybody and that his victims are masters of their own fate, but that's a little like a schoolyard bully grabbing a weakling's arm and doing the "stop hitting yourself" routine. Co-writer Leigh Whannell, the sole creative holdover from the original, knows well enough not to mess with success, and he perpetuates Saw's sick, arbitrary formula without fail. The good news for moviegoers is that there's a way to enjoy Saw II: Simply grab the scalpel from under the chair, carve a hole in your forehead, and remove your frontal lobe.
    Expand
Metascore
40

Mixed or average reviews - based on 28 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 28
  2. Negative: 10 out of 28
  1. Reviewed by: Michael Phillips
    25
    It's not a film, it's an excuse to show victims bleeding at the mouth, or getting shot in the eye, or plucking out their own eyeballs. Most gruesome of all, the sequel oozes dialogue that is best described as "functional."
  2. 30
    What's worth noting is how much greater deliberation was given to the marketing than the screenplay of this cursory dud, rushed to theaters exactly a year after its amusing predecessor.
  3. 70
    For the most part the film succeeds in producing a frightening Halloween weekend experience.