Last year, a very indie horror film grossed out and entranced moviegoers to the tune of $18 million its opening weekend, which was last Halloween. The film, Saw, cost a mere $1.2 million to make. Two months after its opening weekend, it had grossed $55 million in the United States alone. The first film had such a good showing that the sequel was approved for production during the first film's opening weekend. Saw was about a serial killer named Jigsaw who, a cancer patient himself, felt that too many people didn't appreciate the lives they had. So he kidnapped them and put them into elaborate booby-traps in order to "test" how much they really wanted to live. If the victim solved Jigsaw's little puzzle, he went free. If not, he was horribly killed.

One key to the success of Saw, besides its gross-out factor, was its emphasis on psychology. Jigsaw, represented by a creepy puppet in the "instructional" videos he plays for his victims, was always one step ahead of his victim and the audience. Just as soon as we thought that the victim had circumvented Jigsaw's trap instead of legitimately solving the puzzle, we were horrified to learn that not only has Jigsaw anticipated this circumvention, but had taken countermeasures to punish the victim for cheating at what he calls his "game."

Saw II is a sequel that is just as much worth its salt as the first film. James Wan and Leigh Whannell co-created the concept and story for the first Saw, with Wan directing the feature film and the demo that was shown to Hollywood producers. The director has changed, but Whannell remains one of Saw II's co-writers, along with director Darren Lynn Bousman. This keeps the sequel in synch with the first -- in multiple ways, as it turns out.

As before, Jigsaw has kidnapped someone and placed him in a situation in which he must solve a puzzle or die horribly. This time, however, Jigsaw has kidnapped several people. Whereas the first film was a study in individual action under duress, Saw II is a study in group dynamics under duress. As you might predict, some members of the group want to work together so that they can all get out together. Others are staunchly opportunistic and individualistic and will work only to save themselves.

As before, there's quite a bit of psychology in the film. Just when you thought you had the film figured out, Bousman and Whannell throw you a curve ball. This is what M. Night Shyamalan used to be like, before he resorted to stealing other people's ideas and coming up with lame-ass "twists." Jigsaw, who plays a much larger role in the sequel, is a frail, middle-aged man dying of cancer. But that doesn't mean he still doesn't understand human beings, and particular human beings, especially.

But here's something new. The film engages in a debate about intellectualism vs. brute strength. Several characters in the film represent the intellect and try to work their way through Jigsaw's puzzles with their minds. Other characters represent brute force, trying to use physical power to find their way out of the puzzle. The movie comes out on the side of intellectualism, as all the characters who think that they can beat or bludgeon their way out of their predicament end up meeting horrific fates. Compared to Armageddon (or any film directed by the creatively-challenged Michael Bay), which typifies the anti-intellectualism of the time in which we live, Saw II is a very extreme warning to those who believe that complex situations can be solved by beating, hitting, forcing, or threatening.

Yes, it's more gruesome than the original, but that's not a bad thing. It has all of the thematic elements of the first, and then some. This is a very good sequel, especially given that the director has changed. Normally, a change in director means that the film's tone -- something that audience comes to expect to remain unchanged -- changes, also. Saw II has the same tone as the original, helped in part by the fact that the cinematographer is the same, which means that the sequel looks the same as the original.

It looks like Saw is a film franchise that will be around beyond these two films. And that's good, as long as the quality remains consistent. Although it makes you wonder what's wrong with Leigh Whannell that he can come up with such ingenious and disturbing methods of death for multiple films.