Scream 2

In addition to becoming the first major box office hit for Dimension Films, 1996's SCREAM also became the horror film that would set the tone for the other horror films of the late 1990s. It was a phenomenal achievement in the horror genre so of coarse a sequel was just around the corner. The most common rule with movies is that sequels are terrible and while that is normally always true, that isn't the case with SCREAM 2. It should be noted that SCREAM 2 came out just a year after the original SCREAM. Most often when sequels come out a year after their predecessor, they turn out to be pretty bad (CHILD'S PLAY 3 for example). SCREAM 2, while not as good as SCREAM, manages to be an effective and well made sequel that surprisingly is just as clever as the first one and it contains the same kind of great dialogue the first one had as well. It helps that SCREAM 2 has most of the same cast members as the first one too. I think it's safe to say that SCREAM 2 was one of the better sequels of the 1990s. I'm giving it 7/10. Recommended for fans of horror.

How do you make a sequel to a horror film whose whole plot was made of in-jokes and film references? Easy: make the follow-up even more in-jokey and self-referential than its predecessor. This formula actually seems to work for Scream 2, at least in the first two acts.

The prologue is arguably a masterclass in self-irony: an African-American couple (Omar Epps and Jada Pinkett Smith) go to a movie theater where a new horror film, called Stab, is screening. This flick is based on Gale Weathers' (Courtney Cox) book The Woodsboro Murders, which recounts the events of the first Scream. As the movie begins, Smith's character complains about Stab being a film "with no black people in it" (just like Scream was), and, predictably, this leads to the two African-Americans being brutally murdered as the film-within-a-film's prologue (with Heather Graham replacing Drew Barrymore) is shown on the screen, so that the fictional and real deaths occur almost simultaneously. From there on, things take the usual turn: the media go crazy about the killings and once again Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is in the spotlight, as she and her friend Randy (Jamie Kennedy) must protect themselves from the new foe, who is apparently mimicking what happened in the past (an obvious reference to the first film's "Movies don't create psychos" line).

The main charm of the original Scream was its ability to almost seamlessly combine clever in-jokes and a believable plot. This time around, the in-jokes are the best thing in the movie, while the story, particularly in the overblown conclusion, suffers from merely repeating key scenes from the first film. Now, this might be a satire on the lack of originality in most horror sequels, and it would work if the characters were developed correctly. Sadly, such a thing doesn't happen, with Sidney being reduced to the usual girl who keeps running and screaming (fitting, huh?) and everyone else (including Liev Schreiber, who gets more screen-time in the sequel) playing stereotypes, with the exception of David Arquette, very likable as the nice cop again trying to solve the case, and Kennedy, who has a great time stating the rules to follow in a sequel.

Ironically, the movie's funniest scene has a bunch of film students discussing follow-ups that are better than the originals. And while few could have anything bad to say about Aliens, Terminator 2 or The Godfather: Part II, it must be said that Scream 2, while fun and watchable, most certainly doesn't have the same sharpness that made its predecessor an above-average horror film.

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.

The funny thing with 'Scream 2' is that it's not as entertaining and good as 'Scream' but with bad movies like 'I Know What You Did Last Summer' and 'Urban Legend' it's kind of a relieve. Probably the difference here is that Wes Craven is a director who knows what he is doing.

Neve Campbell as Sidney, Courteney Cox as Gale Weathers, David Arquette as Deputy Dewey and Jamie Kennedy as Randy return for this sequel. New possible subjects or suspects are Cici (Sarah Michelle Gellar), Hallie (Elise Neal), Sidney's new boyfriend Derek (Jerry O'Connell), former suspect Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber) who was in prison for a year, Mickey (Timothy Olyphant) and reporter Debbie Salt (Laurie Metcalf) who is a big fan of Gale.

The movie opens in a theater. The movie 'Stab' is showing for the first time and this movie is based on the book 'The Woodsboro Murders' by Gale Weathers. In 'Scream' Sidney predicted that Tori Spelling would probably play her if they would ever make a movie about those events and in 'Scream 2' we learn she was right. It is one of the many funny little things. Jada Pinkett Smith and Omar Epps are killed during the showing and of course the movie is blamed.

From here it is like 'Scream'. The guessing can begin. Again it is a lot of fun, again the movie knows that it must not get too serious, again I was entertained by what I saw. 'Scream' was original and therefore better, more entertaining and more surprising in the way the subject was handled. Still, with all the inside jokes and references this is a lot of fun and a lot better than almost every other movie in the genre.

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...