The first instalment in the Saw series was a resounding success on many levels, making over $100 million from a budget of less than $2 million and opening the floodgates for visceral, ultra-violent, low-budget horror movies. James Wans claustrophobic film is set almost entirely in a subterranean chamber where two men wake up tied to pipes with a third lying dead between them. The twist was brilliant, even if some of the acting wasnt, but hey, this is horror and hammy acting is traditional. Another unfortunate horror tradition is to milk every last ounce out of a successful film, and Saw fell victim to Hollywoods franchise mania. The problem with Saw II was that they lost the believability of the original. Waking up tied to a pipe next to a dead man in strange room is somewhat far-fetched, granted, but it isnt beyond the realms of imagination, whereas a Home Alone style fun-house filled with torturous gadgets and gizmos goes beyond those realms considerably. Instead of making what was essentially an exaggerated, almost slapstick version of the first movie with Jigsaws little game involving more people this time, the film makers could have explored the antagonists life around the time his failed suicide attempt turned him into a psychotic killer, ending with him donning the mask for the first time and helping us to understand how he got so messed up. It was established in the first film by Dr Gordon that he and fellow captive Adam were not Jigsaws first victims, and a grittier, less over-the-top look at his previous murders would have been preferable to countless blood-spattered rehashes. The character always came across as some kind of omnipresent puppet master - it would have been to cool to have seen him getting his hands dirty slasher-movie style. We did eventually learn his backstory, but along with a lot of annoying forward momentum too.
