"Yes, there will be blood..."

Rating: 5/10 (15 December 2005)

James Wan is gone, and the studio needed a sequel for what was being regarded, incorrectly I think, as a new type of cult horror. Leigh Whannel stayed, and the studio decided to turn a man's interesting screenplay into "Saw II".
The film doesn't begin where it ended up, but it didn't have to. Later on, you could say it really has a lot to do with its predecessor, because manipulating plot lines connections can be created. Most people don't care if something actually makes sense, but I do; and there's nothing in this film we could have understood without the multiple flashbacks the movie presents to help us.
"Saw" was original and in a way its sequel is original too; but not as risky as the first part, that wasn't even that risky. If the writers give us something to make our minds work, why do they provide us all the hints to resolve their madness? Maybe because they know it's impossible for us to figure it out! And then what are we watching? In terms of directing, the same thing Wan did last year. A lot of loud sounds, quick shots, constant camera changes, the wanted problems and confusions with time; and if I hadn't seen the name of Darren Lynn Bousman (that's the director), I would have thought it was Wan again. But then maybe it's a comfort, because Wan did it differently.
I said when I wrote about "Saw" that it had accomplished something that wasn't all "blood and death". He had the courage of putting no more than two persons in a room for over an hour. But when the number of persons increases, the complexity decreases. In "Saw II" we get around eight persons (I don't even remember) in the same environment that, according to Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) have something in common; and to get out of there they have to play a game.
There's no complexity because it becomes the typical lock-up script ("Cube"); with different types of stereotyped characters, suspicions, distrusts, anger andYes, killing everywhere. A lot of blood all around in a lot of varied ways, that betray Wan's vision of a subtle and well constructed film. There was no need of most of the things included in this sequel, and the intentions don't work either. The blood didn't even make me squeeze. Does that mean that I'm brave? No, it doesn't; it means that the elements were out of place.
Miraculously, at least one thing felt right. I'm talking about Tobin Bell and his expansive portrayal of which is, while not presented as it, the main character of this films. His commitment goes way beyond what's written in the screenplay and the duality of his interpretation remains to be the strongest connection of this film with the other one, which is saying a lot.
I forgot to mention lots of things; some actors, some plot lines, some surprises, I don't know. But I know this: "Saw" was a regular film; "Saw II" is worseIt's bad.