Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Seeking understanding regarding Saw 2. (Spoilers)

lindalove · 02-24-2006, 04:43 PM

Enjoyment of the Saw films appears, to me, to be based on how much a person can/will let themselves succumb to suspension of disbelief. In my case, that's quite a lot: it's just a film, and it's not a film pretending to be the next Citizen Kane, either. I choose to accept all the stupid plotting that goes on, because in the end, with a stretch it can make sense, and I enjoyed the stuff that happens anyway.

If you can't or won't buy into the type of plot the film has, you clearly won't enjoy it as much. Your post and innumerable others on the imdb forums are evidence for that.

I don't mean to sound like I'm having a go, it's just an observation that I think holds true.

Personally, I thought the second film was good for being set largely outside the 'trap house' (if you will), and the twist that everything had been recorded was a superb one, to me - I didn't see it coming, and it put everything in an entirely new light. Plus, it added the factor of 'what the hell is going on now then?'

Yes, the plot depends heavily on fortunate timing and coincidence - I can live with that. The film's fast pace towards the end helped to hide these for me, and gave the various twists even more impact. I particularly liked the idea of the son being held in the safe, not only because it meant that he'd been right under his dad's nose for the ENTIRE film, but also because I liked Jigsaw's line: "He's in a safe place."

With regards to the girl putting her hands straight into the wrist box, I'd say that was down to the gas in the house, plus exhaustion and the thought she probably had of, "Yes! Some needle stuff I need!" made her utterly blasé to the fact that it was a trap. The haphazard way she tried to grab at the syringe was testament to that, as was the sudden realisation that she couldn't get out of the box afterwards that woke her up to what she'd just done.

The guy with the key at the start... yeah, he was a dumbass.

The point is, Saw II's not trying to be a great film. It tries to be entertaining, scary, and sickening - not necessarily in a gory way (though the amount of vein claret can't be denied), but in a way that makes you curl up and go, "Oh, God, no..." - for instance the eye/key person at the start did that for me.

I'd essentially advise to avoid looking at it like the plot was designed to make perfect sense - it wasn't. It was designed to host a series of inventive and creepy deaths, along with an increasingly violent and fast ending (and personally, I liked it: if the massive bloke who was chasing everyone hadn't been any good it would have seriously damaged the final part of the film, but luckily his acting was credible to me), and a set of plot twists that make you go, "Oh, no way!", rather like the one about the key going down the bath in the first film.

02-24-2006, 04:43 PM	#6 (permalink)
lindalove Registered User	Enjoyment of the Saw films appears, to me, to be based on how much a person can/will let themselves succumb to suspension of disbelief. In my case, that's quite a lot: it's just a film, and it's not a film pretending to be the next Citizen Kane, either. I choose to accept all the stupid plotting that goes on, because in the end, with a stretch it can make sense, and I enjoyed the stuff that happens anyway. If you can't or won't buy into the type of plot the film has, you clearly won't enjoy it as much. Your post and innumerable others on the imdb forums are evidence for that. I don't mean to sound like I'm having a go, it's just an observation that I think holds true. Personally, I thought the second film was good for being set largely outside the 'trap house' (if you will), and the twist that everything had been recorded was a superb one, to me - I didn't see it coming, and it put everything in an entirely new light. Plus, it added the factor of 'what the hell is going on now then?' Yes, the plot depends heavily on fortunate timing and coincidence - I can live with that. The film's fast pace towards the end helped to hide these for me, and gave the various twists even more impact. I particularly liked the idea of the son being held in the safe, not only because it meant that he'd been right under his dad's nose for the ENTIRE film, but also because I liked Jigsaw's line: "He's in a safe place." With regards to the girl putting her hands straight into the wrist box, I'd say that was down to the gas in the house, plus exhaustion and the thought she probably had of, "Yes! Some needle stuff I need!" made her utterly blasé to the fact that it was a trap. The haphazard way she tried to grab at the syringe was testament to that, as was the sudden realisation that she couldn't get out of the box afterwards that woke her up to what she'd just done. The guy with the key at the start... yeah, he was a dumbass. The point is, Saw II's not trying to be a great film. It tries to be entertaining, scary, and sickening - not necessarily in a gory way (though the amount of vein claret can't be denied), but in a way that makes you curl up and go, "Oh, God, no..." - for instance the eye/key person at the start did that for me. I'd essentially advise to avoid looking at it like the plot was designed to make perfect sense - it wasn't. It was designed to host a series of inventive and creepy deaths, along with an increasingly violent and fast ending (and personally, I liked it: if the massive bloke who was chasing everyone hadn't been any good it would have seriously damaged the final part of the film, but luckily his acting was credible to me), and a set of plot twists that make you go, "Oh, no way!", rather like the one about the key going down the bath in the first film.