Post by Fickle81 on Nov 3, 2005 14:13:57 GMT -5
Sure,theres definatly blood...but is it good?
Surprisingly yes. I'll be honest,I was against the idea for this sequel since it was first announced...and it would have only been a year since the previous movie...I thought I smelled the distinct aroma of Child's Play 3. This is further complicated because I felt the original ended the overall story beautifully...yes even dispite the fact of him using somebody who wasn't in his target criteria as a pawn. I didn't see where they could further go with the story...thankfully,I was proven wrong on all counts.
Lets just get the flaws out of the way first
-Xavier is a dumbass...no further comment nessasary. He was kinda a needed dumbass,but he took it too overboard for me.
-Shouldn't the upper half of Obi's body be on fire like you assume his lower half would be? I mean,he was only inside a fucking oven that in which the inside was completely covered in fire at that point. And he was dressed on a lot of clothing layers,so it would be pretty each for him to completely catch on fire.
-I felt the movie's old school running time (hour and 20 minutes) was too short. Is it just me,or does not knowing when and how every character got kidnapped and awaken in Jigsaw's game playingfield detrimental to the film? Maybe it had to be secret deu to the film's ending and its just me talking here...no wait a minute (as of writting revelation)...it STILL could have been done without ruining the ending. Yep,I still question this...
-They hidiously misused that kinetic editing for the cars on the road again?!
-Some are saying this is less kinetic than the original...I actually think its MORE...In fact,a little TOO kinetic. Most of the kinetic editing in the original was methodically used...here its done in odd places for seemingly the sake of it,and it gives off a bad vibe.
-The ending twist was good...too bad it was totally predictable. I saw that coming from about a mile away a little bit before the midway point,and sure enough...
Since the killer's identity was revealed in the end of the first film,thus killing the intrique that drove the first movie,the best way to handle it is to show him MORE in the sequel. The makers know this thankfully. Having Jigsaw become a REAL character is what really makes this a completely different animal from the first film. You learn more about his backstory and his philosophiess on life and why he does what he does.
Theres just something about the dark sludge mood,style,and atmosphere of these movies...its like Hollywood Argento thats slightly better written.
Eventhough I'm giving this the same score as the first,I DO think the first is better...take that however you want to. You might find the story better written,but now there are blatent flaws on another side of the spectrum. Yes theres slightly more gore than in the original if that even matters.
4/5
Surprisingly yes. I'll be honest,I was against the idea for this sequel since it was first announced...and it would have only been a year since the previous movie...I thought I smelled the distinct aroma of Child's Play 3. This is further complicated because I felt the original ended the overall story beautifully...yes even dispite the fact of him using somebody who wasn't in his target criteria as a pawn. I didn't see where they could further go with the story...thankfully,I was proven wrong on all counts.
Lets just get the flaws out of the way first
-Xavier is a dumbass...no further comment nessasary. He was kinda a needed dumbass,but he took it too overboard for me.
-Shouldn't the upper half of Obi's body be on fire like you assume his lower half would be? I mean,he was only inside a fucking oven that in which the inside was completely covered in fire at that point. And he was dressed on a lot of clothing layers,so it would be pretty each for him to completely catch on fire.
-I felt the movie's old school running time (hour and 20 minutes) was too short. Is it just me,or does not knowing when and how every character got kidnapped and awaken in Jigsaw's game playingfield detrimental to the film? Maybe it had to be secret deu to the film's ending and its just me talking here...no wait a minute (as of writting revelation)...it STILL could have been done without ruining the ending. Yep,I still question this...
-They hidiously misused that kinetic editing for the cars on the road again?!
-Some are saying this is less kinetic than the original...I actually think its MORE...In fact,a little TOO kinetic. Most of the kinetic editing in the original was methodically used...here its done in odd places for seemingly the sake of it,and it gives off a bad vibe.
-The ending twist was good...too bad it was totally predictable. I saw that coming from about a mile away a little bit before the midway point,and sure enough...
Since the killer's identity was revealed in the end of the first film,thus killing the intrique that drove the first movie,the best way to handle it is to show him MORE in the sequel. The makers know this thankfully. Having Jigsaw become a REAL character is what really makes this a completely different animal from the first film. You learn more about his backstory and his philosophiess on life and why he does what he does.
Theres just something about the dark sludge mood,style,and atmosphere of these movies...its like Hollywood Argento thats slightly better written.
Eventhough I'm giving this the same score as the first,I DO think the first is better...take that however you want to. You might find the story better written,but now there are blatent flaws on another side of the spectrum. Yes theres slightly more gore than in the original if that even matters.
4/5