There were alot of people in the House, alot were there for the same reason...finding all the tapes would have made the movie longer, boring and less realistic.

Re: Re: saw 2
 

Yeah, I agree. I can't believe the rest of you liked SAW 2. . .actually, the first SAW film is terribly overrated. I mean, I suppose it did have a sort of old-school, William Castle-esque charm (cheese, empty performances, silly gags and all), and the ending was kind of neat. . .

. . .but then comes SAW 2. I disliked this movie intensely. I almost didn't finish it, it was THAT BAD. MY GOD! Even Beverly Mitchell was a let-down--she had like. . .TEN words to say THE WHOLE film--all of her time on screen was devoted to covering her ears and gaping at the horror of it all.

The REAL horror is this movie. I'm sick of these ADD-inspired horror films--like, I know we're the MTV generation and all, but can we please bring back a sense of restraint and pacing, instead of these God-awful one-note orgies of fast editing and shock?

Horror movies today just don't stay with you like THE SHINING (its pace was ten times slower than either of the SAW films, and yet it's fifty-gagillion times scarier!) Look at Roman Polanski's REPULSION--SLOW!--but TERRIBLY scary!

I'm not trying to say that fast editing can't be scary, I'm just saying it's not working here. And it CERTAINLY doesn't help SAW 2--but then, what could?

I really enjoyed both movies, there about even.

both good. tie for me. better deaths in 2 though.

I liked Saw 2 but definatly like the 1st one better. It was more original and I liked trying to guess what was going on, and then being totally thrown off at the end was nice. The second one I already knew what was going to happen,and I wish we got to know more about the characters and their past.