This is exactly how low budget should be done!

Rating: 7/10 (22 November 2005)

Note to all the 50+ year old critics who are still single and spend most of their time in arthouses praising the subtext of Oscar-contending foreign films: this movie isn't intended for you. You might want to keep that in mind the next time you insist on reviewing it just so you can lambaste the gullibility of its target audience.
That being said, I'm going to make this real simple for you readers. Are you actually part of Saw II's target audience? Did you enjoy the original? If so, then I don't see why you wouldn't enjoy this sequel. If not, then direct your time and money elsewhere. It's not a complicated process.
Let me make it even clearer: the opening scene involves a man with a trapjaw device hooked up to his face. He has a very short amount of time to get the key to unlock it before the device snaps shut and uses his skull as a pin cushion. The real kick to all this? The key is buried in his face, below his eye. But hey, he has a knife he can use to dig it out! I'm sure there's no need for me to point out that it's not a pretty scene. This is either your flavor of frappuccino or not.
Being a sequel, Saw II has no choice but to be looked upon with a skeptical eye. Sequels always start with that handicap. I enjoyed Saw (especially considering its LOW budget and less-than-stellar cast), so when a sequel was announced about 12.3 seconds after Saw made a profit on opening night, I had my doubts. The question had to be asked, is there a story to be told or just money to be made?
There's no doubt that there's money to be made here, but thankfully the story doesn't suffer just for the sake of making a healthy profit against yet another small budget ($4 million). The main element of Saw II's story that really gripped me is its intense unpredictability. A lot of that is due to the fact that you likely won't recognize most of the cast. That's fine with me. If you stick the 5'4" Tom Cruise in that room then there's no doubt that he's going to figure out all the puzzles and save the day. However, put such no-names as Lyriq Bent and Tim Burd in there and you know everybody's fair game!
The premise isn't much different than its predecessor - Jigsaw is one messed up individual who is dying of cancer, and he's putting people in nasty situations to find out what lengths they'd go to in order to survive. But what I like about the new group of victims is that they all have something in common. To make things a little more complicated, they also have a connection to Donnie Wahlberg. Are they disgruntled New Kids on the Block fans who still feel they're owed refunds? You'll have to watch to find out.
So is this sequel better than the original? It's hard to say. There are definitely areas that have been improved - the acting, for example. I'm not going to claim that the acting is across-the-boards fantastic, but overall it is better than the original. Nobody attempts the over-the-top act that Cary Elwes tap danced upon us. I particularly liked the interaction between Jigsaw (whom we see a LOT more of) and Donnie Wahlberg. Both guys put in fine performances.
But the main advantage that the original still owns over the sequel is its ending. I felt Saw's climax was possibly the most exciting, most intense 10-15 minutes of any movie of 2004. Saw II doesn't end on quite the same pace, but it still goes out with a pretty loud bang. The suspense, tension, and painful-to-watch gore moves along at a consistent clip, and by the time it all wraps up we're delivered a couple of clever twists and really cool tie-ins to the original. Just keep in mind that this ain't no riblet that needs a clean picking and you should be fine.
Just be forewarned that like needles on a chalkboard, there are some scenes that will make you tense up and feel the pain. All I'll say is when you see a big group of hypodermic needles appear on screen then go ahead and start preparing yourself. Get in your best squint-mode and be ready to squirm.