Scream 2

Much discussion is made in the film regarding sequels, outlining a standard set of patterns that are common in horror classics. "Body count is always bigger". "Death scenes are much more elaborate". "Never, under any circumstances, assume the killer is dead". For all the irony and meta dialogue that Williamson slaps onto his screenplay, Craven just doesn't deliver fully. Whether that be a loosely designed curveball to keep viewers on edge, or sheer lack of ingenuity, well that's up for debate. Alas, as good as this sequel is, it never truly exhumed the natural intelligence of its predecessor. Two years after the Woodsboro killings, a copycat killer using the same guise as "Ghostface" terrorises Sidney's new college.

Satirising several clichés found in film sequels is a pivotal element to Williamson's screenplay. Massive discussions over infamous sequels bettering the original, outlining the tendencies found within them and comedically teasing 'Empire Strikes Back' as a planned sequel therefore being discarded from the argument. Relatable to an absurd degree. The type of conversations I have every single day. So, once again, the dialogue was punchy, extremely meta and gives the characters plenty of personality. The cast was something else too. A young Sarah Michelle Gellar and Timothy Olyphant in the same film? It's poetic! Amusingly, I screamed twice in excitement. Playful performances with an adequate amount of returning characters, raising the suspicion level to glorious heights. Craven keeps the tone light throughout, despite being a glorified slasher, retaining the refreshing aura that made the original unique. Naturally, it's not groundbreaking the second time round, but a watchable sequel nonetheless.

There are, however, issues. Beltrami's score was obnoxiously overbearing, with a late inclusion of both Elfman and Zimmer. Various character themes drowned out the dialogue, particularly Dewey's, and relinquished any genuine investment towards them. The narrative shifts between Sidney Prescott and Gale "You Just Got Weathered" Weathers made it difficult to distinguish who the main character was and inadvertently eliminated most of the suspects from the list. Quicker than usual. The constant shifts between them, whilst balanced, threw the pacing off considerably with the second act containing zero kills. The death sequences themselves, minus the introductory scene which was excellent, were hardly memorable despite Craven trying to set up more extravagant kills. The third act and final reveal were incredibly messy (probably to do with the famous leak that happened), with seemingly most of the budget going towards that Cassandra play. Oh, and the death of a certain character did not sit well with me (and fans clearly...).

Still, even with my reservations, it's a decent sequel that could've been flattened by a lack of imagination. But Craven pulls through, only just. Scream 3 will definitely need to scream harder...

I'm just not buying into the bad rating for this film, in 1996 Wes Craven's Scream reinvigorated an ailing genre and got fans back into the horror groove. The love for that film, I feel, tends to skew opinions of the second instalment in what became the Scream foursome, Scream 2 seams perfectly from its starting point to up the daring ante, and plonk tongue even further into its cheek in the process.

Sidney Prescott has moved on from the horrendous murders in Woodsboro and is at college getting on with her life, but the peace and hope for a bright future is quickly shattered because the Scream killer is back for more carnage...

The film's opening perfectly sets out the tone for the entire picture, we see a cinema full of fake knife wielding youths dressed as the Scream killer, the film they are watching is Stab, the story of the Woodsboro murders. It's a wry commentary moment from Wes Craven, but in truth it's just one of many he makes in the film, the in jokes about sequels never gets tired, and the boo jump scare moments are all there to enjoy. Red Herrings come and go, and all the great characters who survived the first film are back again. Dewey & Gale get fleshed out a bit more, and one time caged innocent (and chief suspect) Cotton Weary is now a major character just begging us to find out if he's hero or villain.

This is a sharply scripted piece of work, it knows its aims and delivers what it sets out to do, it benefits from a brilliant sound mix to emphasise the mayhem, and Craven is something of a master in racking up the tension. To laugh and be scared is the order of the day, so sit back and enjoy a film that to me proves that not all sequels suck. Oh the ending does not disappoint at all either I have to say.

Scream 2 is a very worthy and enjoyable companion piece to the first film, very much so. 8/10

Well, i did prefer the first Scream BUT that's not to say Scream 2 wasn't good. Yet again it had good performances and the killers in the film turned out to be quite suprising. It was a good sequel anyway. 10/10 Might i just add that Wes Craven is a BRILLIANT director and Kevin Williamson is indeed a great writer.

People often talk about how poor sequels are in comparison to the originals, but with Scream that is far from the case, the original in my eyes is a classic, it helped redefine the Slasher movie, return it to the fore front of cinema for several years.

Scream 2 in some ways is as good as, if not better then the first, the script is a little tighter, it's not afraid to have a cheeky laugh at its own expense, the killings are perhaps bigger and bolder, and they find a way to shut Sarah Michelle Gellar up, who could ask for more?

Some of the cinematography is excellent, it's a very good looking film. I think Neve Campbell's stage dance is one of the film's best moments, it works on so many levels, menace and confusion, it is very nicely done, similar to those great moments in the opening sequences at the cinema too, we as an audience are allowed to see what's going on in the midst of the noise and distraction.

It loses points for making Dewey a complete and utter idiot, every time I watch this now I can only see his character from Scary movie, but there's little difference between the two. The killer(s) certainly comes as a surprise.

A very good Slasher movie sequel.

8/10.

'Scream 2' was the sequel to 'Scream', made only a year after its predecessor, it was clearly in high demand.

It was a good film overall, it certainly would not be added to the long list of sequels which didn't live up to their previous films - as it is discussed IN the film. Again, the references to movie cliché's and common movie stereotypes and rules is very interesting and can be really funny as you find yourself agreeing with the characters when they discuss films. Wes Craven created a very worthy sequel, the dialogue, as with the first one, was probably the strength of the film. Neve Campbell's role was pretty much the same with no huge development in her character but she performed well and kept her acting up to the same standard as in 'Scream'. The two recurring characters who really out-did themselves in this film were Courtney Cox and David Arquette, both their characters developed substantially in this film and both actors did so very well.

The script was well done but was slightly more predictable this time. When it came to who the killer eventually was, you had already worked out this because they had been absent for no apparent reason from the story for over half an hour. However, Craven did add some surprises and there were aspects of the story - both funny and scary - that you did not see coming. There was a lot more violence in this film and the body count is bigger as stated in the trailer, this film is definitely more horror than black comedy but there are some really great scenes featuring both.

Overall, 'Scream 2' is not as good as the first one but it is still definitely worth a watch. Don't watch this unless you have watched the first one because you will be lost within the opening minutes of the film.