[old news]
I finally broke down and rented Saw I and Saw II. I avoided them for the longest time on the sheer fact that horror movies blow. It's a shame someone didn't tell me that it wasn't a horror movie at all. Not once did I jump. At all. That isn't the point.

Saw I:

Amazing. I'm going to review this from the 3 perspectives I use when reviewing movies.

Literary:
The movie begins by presenting the conflict in true short-story style. No time is wasted on telling you who the characters are or building the setting through a voice over. The movie doesn't remind you that you're watching a movie, it just shows you a story. It doesn't explain anything to the reader/watcher, but instead, shows us. The movie, from beginning to end, entertains.

Editor/Director:
Beautiful. The artistic use of the camera pulls the movie into an artistic realm all it's own. This movie's plot could have been lackluster and a waste of time, but the amazing cinematography would remain. I applaud the work the director put into this piece. My only gripe is with the flashback scenes, showing us what had already happened as if to remind us where we currently are. This is anapretiated, as it could pull some movie-goers out of the story, and into the theatre.
I can also respect a couple of low-budget film makers who deliver the amazing experience that this movie is.

Consumer:
While the movie didn't frighten me, it really pulled me around. It made me think of compassion for another human being's life. It made me consider the emotions and thoughts of fictional characters. I shared fears and hopes with the characters, instead of following my own personal interests.

Saw II:

Literary:
Take a potentially amazing plot and ruin it with cliche horror characters, plot holes, useless allusions to the former movie, and pop culture. This was the same reharvested horror bull**** that wood-land is known for. I knew the end of the movie as soon as the antagonist and protagonist started talking, and Amanda showed her face. It all fell into place long before it should have. I felt similarly about Saw I, but my realizations weren't all at once for that movie.

Editor/Director:
Very good cinematography. All shots were well produced and really surprised me, considering the shoddy story and horrifying characters/actors. I really wish the original Saw I staff would have produced this movie, rather than a gigantic production team with no story in mind, but the intentions of building creepy traps and body-wounds. This made the movie horribly disapointing.

Consumer:
I could have seen any other horror movie and got the same experience. It's a shame when the original had a stage already set for an amazing sequel. I really hope the inevitable Saw III admits defeate in Saw II and reinvents the legacy of Jigsaw.
[/old news]

OLD NEWS

Saw II > Saw I

hahahaha, no way man.... HOW can you say that!?

He's SAJN_Master

Both movies sucked. The acting was bad, and I didn't care about the characters at all. The biggest mystery about Saw II was why the people didn't kill that big guy right away. Very early on it was obvious he would be a problem. Throwing the kick in the needles should have been the end of it, not the beginning. And what the hell was up with that other chick sticking her hands into that thing?! How could anyone fall for such an obvious trap... twice?!

Basically.

Saw I was MUCH better.

Saw is ****.

i never saw the second one, didnt really rate the first one too much.

Saw II had better acting, a better story, and overall better/more twists and turns that kept you on your seat. Saw can't even compare to Saw II.

Ugh, that was the main reason I didn't really like Saw all that much. The "Hey look how hip we are"-camera style. It was really annoying and added NOTHING to the shots.

The story was ok and most of the film was defenitely better than most other horror movies. But I still think it's waaaay overrated. I haven't seen the sequel.

Never watched Saw 2, I thought Saw was pretty mediocre and sequels are almost always worse.

[QUOTE=Victor Van Dort]Saw II had better acting, a better story, and overall better/more twists and turns that kept you on your seat. Saw can't even compare to Saw II.[/QUOTE]
Except for the more precdictable story, the cliche characters, and the worse acting part, yeah.

Yoshi is funny. It's funny because he's telling a lie.

Yep, he sure is SAJN_Master.

I liked Saw a little bit more because it was just two people in the situation. It was a him or me situation. I didn;t really get that desperation from the second.

Harr.

I haven't got round to seeing them - I saw Hostel the other week, and I thought that took aaaages to get going.

Saw's not like that at all.

Ah, fairy nuff

I watched part of the first one and liked it, but I never saw the ending. It wasn't really good enough to warrant me going and buying it or renting it so it didn't really matter.

i havent seen either of them, thus my opinion matters not.

However, disregarding that, i bet they both blow.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

[QUOTE=Victor Van Dort]Yoshi is funny. It's funny because he's telling a lie.[/QUOTE]
Yes. Because we all know that anyone who says a movie sucks that you like, is obviously lying. God forbid they have an opinion other than yours.

I never bothered with Saw. It looked stupid from all the trailers. It's not even my type of movie.

Saw was like an extended version of CSI, with more gore and less crime solving.

I didn't like it.

Like Se7en told from the eyes of the victims.

-I loved the first one. Tolerated the second one. I felt the "Safe Place" twist in the second one was jsut painful, but I got a good laugh out of remembering the whole "just sit here and talk to me" thing, because, hey, he was telling the truth. Hah.