Jimellow

I just rented and watched Saw 2 with my dad last night, and we both enjoyed the first. The second was pretty confusing, and there are a few questions I have in terms of it all making sense.

The most important one to us relates to the cops son being locked in the cabinet throughout the entire movie.

I gather that the happenings inside the house were recorded previously, but if that is the case, how does the druggie girl end up leading the son and muscular killer to the room from the first movie, all timed correctly so that the son's father (the cop) shows up in time to be stabbed and locked in the room alone?

Furthermore, Jigsaw led the cop to room where the first movie took place, and yet this place is also somehow connected to the house in which the second movie takes place? As they (druggie and son, pursued by knife bearing killer), ran there together at the movie's close.

The movie was interesting, even believable, until about the point where they discovered it was a recording and ended up in the same room that the first movie took place in.

How can the son be in two places at once? And how could Jigsaw be sure that the druggie girl would survive long enough to end up in the room with the cop, so that she could stab him and shut the door? Actually, what the hell happened to the son when he was led to the room with the girl, while running from the knife bearing man? He was there.. Then he ends up in a cabinet in Jigsaw's place.

My understanding (barely) is that the happenings in the house were filmed, and then the son was captured (again) and taken to Jigsaw's place where he was put in the cabinet.

The "live" footage started when the cop ends up in the Saw 1 room, and is stabbed by the girl, to have the door locked behind him.

I guess the son escaped with the girl to the Saw 1 room, killed the knife bearing thug, and then was captured by the girl and taken back to Jigsaws place, where he was kept while the "video footage" of the house occurences was shown to the cops.

If that is what happened (and I honestly have no idea), I consider that to be way too much of a stretch, and a ridiculous sequel to an original movie that was really superb in my eyes. The people in this movie were idiots. They knew that Jigsaw set traps, and yet they instinctively act like morons and get entangled in the various, and blantantly obvious, traps he sets throughout the house. Don't use the key on the door.. Not only will I use the key, but I'll look through the keyhole while doing it! ... The girl putting her hands up through the glass to get the syringe? Are you kidding me?

I actually enjoyed this movie at the beginning, even defended it when my dad started to claim it was getting ridiculous, but after looking back (and before understanding the plot), I have to say it was a pretty poor movie, unless I am totally missing some major plot lines and explanations.

If someone did understand the movie and could enlighten me, at least partially, that would be great. As it stands, I actually regret seeing the sequel because it was so stupid and mediocre compared to the standard the first set.

__________________
Desperation is no excuse for lowering one's standards.

fresnelly

I haven't seen it (ugh) and don't plan to, but I did read the synopsis at http://themoviespoiler.com/Spoilers/saw2.html. Maybe reading that will clear up your questions.

__________________
Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life

Jimellow

Thanks for the link.. Doesn't really answer my question, but I'll use two quotes from it to target the portions of the movie I am confused about:

Ok, so he is in the safe inside Jigsaw's place the whole time..

Then how is this possible:

I assume this is still included in the "previously video taped" footage (which must have included hundreds of cameras placed throughout the house and basement, not to mention an expert job of video editing, equipment included), and Daniel was taken back to Jigsaw's place after he killed Xavier.. But I find it hard to believe that the assumption that Daniel would survive long enough to be taken back to Jigsaw's place alive was made. Even if Daniel wasn't poisoned in the "filmed portion," he still was at a high risk of death due to both Xavier being a psycho asshole, and his father being the known cop that falsely convicted everyone else in the house.

Me typing all that out doesn't make it any more believable to me, if in fact that is what the director/writer intended the explanation to be. Suspension of disbelief only can be stretched so thin, and in this case the cord snapped well before the movie's close.

__________________
Desperation is no excuse for lowering one's standards.

FailedEagle

Ok, I'll do my best. The son was captured, I assume, after he left his fathers care at the beginning of the movie. There was a twenty-four hour period between that time and the time of the cops breaking into the . . . Steel manufacturing facility. During which the events on the tape took place. We know that there is a time period that passes, because he figures out thte Steel factory in his sleep. The next day they invade. By that time, everything was set up, and the kid was already in the safe with his oxygen mask on. As for the room, in the original, they never said where it was, so why couldn't it be in a sub-basement of somesort? I don't know, but I loved the movie.

__________________
Head over to Nonsense to sign up for the newest round Of the Trivial Racing Image Game. Hurry.

Reese

The movie wasn't as complicated as you're trying to make it. The son was never in two places at once. They just did not show the film in chronological order as they lead you to believe.

The people were put in the house up to three days before the cops raided jigsaw's building. I'm guessing they were in the house before the deathmask murder of the detective's informant because Jigsaw and Druggie wouldn't risk them noticing the steel company's logo and raiding the place before they were ready.

Also, It wasn't guaranteed that the druggie and the son would survive. Not even jigsaw could know who the crazy guy would throw in that pit of needles. There were some very "scripted" things that the druggie did to encourage different emotions and get escape from crazy dude. They probably had all their bases covered, if the son and druggie had died jigsaw would have had time to compensate and come up with a different game to play with the Detective.

I can't explain it any better :/

__________________
“It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick” - Dave Barry

lindalove

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.