Scream 2 is by far the best Scream sequel (tbh I won't argue if you say scream 4) and is a very solid entry in the slasher genre. Wes Craven was having a lot of fun with this movie and plays with the pacing and suspense at his heart's desire. The violence is amped up and we get lot of great sequences including the stage scenes, the car, and the infamous film class scene. The script delivers yet again; and the college campus setting for a slasher just works so well for me. Solid acting from Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and Jamie Kennedy all returning for their roles. Also some familiar faces show up with lesser roles like Timothy Olyphant, Jerry O Connell, and Sarah Michelle Gellar! But at times this movie can feel more like a crime drama and I can't say it's as scary even with a more violent Ghostface. Although this movie lacks in terms of real scares, it still manages to be an above average slasher.
525 Reviews
Still fun, but less clever than the original
MaxBorg8914 April 2007
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.
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.
Pretty good sequel
rbverhoef13 December 2003
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.
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.
A pretty good sequel
jellyneckr10 June 2005
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.
A slasher sequel finally done right.
leoxatzian11 April 2019
If you thought that slasher movie sequels could be nothing more than an inferior continuation to the original and provide nothing new or innovative, "Scream 2" is here to prove you wrong. The entertaining characters, suspenseful directing and unique kind of meta humor that you loved from the original are back and combined with an exciting new plot, proving that even slasher movie sequels can be great as long as there's enough care and passion put into them.
A Worthy Sequel
rebecca-ry31 May 2012
'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.
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.
More of the same self-relative horror, enjoyably balances mock and slasher film goods
a_chinn30 December 2018
Director Wes Craven and writer Kevin Williamson re-teamed for this unneeded but entertaining sequel. Also returning is a majority of the original cast (Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, David Arquette, Jamie Kennedy, and Liev Schreiber), where the story picks up two years later with Campbell attending college when a new killer dons the Ghostface mask and stalks her and her college pals. As with the first film, everyone is a suspect and most importantly the film strikes a nice tonal balance of mocking slasher film conventions while also delivering the slasher film goods. Jamie Kennedy's video store clerk, now a film school student, at one point explains the rules for horror sequels, stating "there are certain rules that one must abide by in order to create a successful sequel. Number one: the body count is always bigger. Number two: the death scenes are always much more elaborate - more blood, more gore - *carnage candy*. And number three: never, ever, under any circumstances, assume the killer is dead." and "Scream 2" delivers on all three of these points. Besides meeting those sequel requirements, Craven is a master of suspense and shock and as with the first film, for a mainstream picture, he does deliver a shockingly rough horror film. Craven actually had to submit eight different cuts to the MPAA before getting an R-rating, so there's no mistaking that this film was from the same guy who made "The Last House on the Left" and "The Hills Have Eyes." The film is also immensely helped by a strong cast of new characters that include Jada Pinkett, Omar Epps, Sarah Michelle Gellar (interestingly playing a helpless blond character-type, the antithesis of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which she was playing at this same time), Timothy Olyphant, Jerry O'Connell, Laurie Metcalf, Rebecca Gayheart, an unrecognizable Portia de Rossi, and the great David Warner in a small role as a drama teacher. Best of all are the very funny cameos for the movie-within-a-movie "Stab," where Heather Graham plays the Drew Barrymore part form the first film and Tori Spelling & Luke Wilson play Campbell and Skeet Ulrich's parts (an inside joke from the first film where one of Campbell's friends asks her "If they make a movie about you, who's gonna play you?" and she answers, "With my luck, they'd cast Tori Spelling."). Look fast for a before-he-was-famous Adam Shankman as a Ghost Dancer and Selma Blair has an uncredited appearance (or is heard) as Gellar's friend on the phone. Also, the film was edited by Patrick Lussier, who'd later go on to direct the solid "My Bloody Valentine" remake, Nic Cage's "Drive Angry," and was co-writer on under appreciated Terminator sequel "Terminator Genisys." My main complaint about the film is that Williamson's script hasn't aged all that well, seeming at bit too clever for itself, reminding me in many ways of the endless Tarantino wannabes of this era, where pop culture references were lazy substitutes for good dialogue, interesting characters, or original stories. Still, while this sequel basically covers the same ground of the first film, it's a strong cast with a talented director making a big budget slasher film, which is not something horror fans are treated to very often. FUN FACT! Robert Rodriguez ("Desperado" "Sin City" "Machete") directed scenes of "Stab", the movie-within-a-movie.
Film Planted Firmly in Cheek
BaronBl00d15 January 2005
Wes Craven is back again at the helm of Scream 2, his followup to the mega-successful Scream. As sequels go, one could do a lot worse than this film. Sure, it has a pretty silly story trying desperately to cling to the original source material, but it never ever takes the story too terribly serious. How does Craven do this? He laces the film with all kinds of film references and humour directly tied to the film industry and actors involved. Several mentions of "Friends" cast members abound whilst having Courtney Cox return in her signature role as Gail Weathers. Craven also brings back the rules to horror films - now horror sequels; these rules are right on mark too(wish we had heard the most important!). In fact my favourite scene in the whole movie is in a classroom where students debate the inferior sequel to the superior original. Excellent examples are given to support one argument that sequels are better: Aliens and Terminator 2, and of course, The Godfather 2. Naturally this small cross section seems great when none of the hundreds of truly bad sequels are mentioned. Purposely I am sure! Is Scream 2 better than Scream? No way. It doesn't have nearly as much punch to it. The opening scene this time takes place in a movie theater, but it is not as powerful as the opening scene with Drew Barrymore in the original. The story is really something unto itself as well...but any kind of examination of plot other than a cursory one would give too much away. Not that that would be any great pity. I did like the acting in this one more. Arquette returns as Dewey affecting some kind of limp and pinched nerve in hand. He does a fairly nice job. Cox is lovely as ever and also is good in her role. Campbell is OK, as is the rest of the cast with Jamie Kennedy again standing out as nerdy movie maven Randy Weeks and, in particular, Liev Screiber doing a wonderful job as Cotton Weary(the man who had been accused of killing Sidney's mama). This sequel has more blood, more deaths, and more jokes. Like the original, I too enjoyed this film for its entertainment value if nothing else.
Convoluted and silly
jasonpauljones-6469027 February 2024
The first Scream was a genre boosting achievement because it did away with the laborious corny crap of the 80s and went for something different and fresh, with it's much needed creativity and cleverness and the result was a mostly entertaining horror.
Sadly, and I say sadly, because instead of building on its warmly accepted predecessor, Scream 2 goes back to the silly, unscary methods of the 80s and undoes all the good work done before it. Even though all the favourite characters are back, the awful dialogue and lame kills weigh the movie down terribly. Admittedly, matching or improving on the impressive original would have been a task, but Scream 2 looks like they just wanted to copy off the first and not even attempt to make anything worthy of a sequel.
I might be wrong in saying this, but it really looks like a very rushed production, for whatever reason, and seeing that this was released just one year after the first, this would indeed appear to be the case. Which kind of smells like a money hungry crew wanting to further cash in financially, ignoring any notion of honouring the first movie and doing it justice.
Sadly, and I say sadly, because instead of building on its warmly accepted predecessor, Scream 2 goes back to the silly, unscary methods of the 80s and undoes all the good work done before it. Even though all the favourite characters are back, the awful dialogue and lame kills weigh the movie down terribly. Admittedly, matching or improving on the impressive original would have been a task, but Scream 2 looks like they just wanted to copy off the first and not even attempt to make anything worthy of a sequel.
I might be wrong in saying this, but it really looks like a very rushed production, for whatever reason, and seeing that this was released just one year after the first, this would indeed appear to be the case. Which kind of smells like a money hungry crew wanting to further cash in financially, ignoring any notion of honouring the first movie and doing it justice.
suspenseful, scary and very enjoyable
ScreamForHelp11 November 2006
The horror flick "Scream" was amazing! very good cast and acting. When I saw "Scream 2", I couldn't believe my eyes! It was by far the best sequel I ever saw! Still very good cast, very good acting and everything. Sure, of course it wasn't as good as the original, but it was still awesome! It was pretty scary, too. Very good slasher flick sequel. Best sequel of any horror movie I've ever seen. Anyone that thought this was bad must hate the whole trilogy of "Scream! I love the whole entire trilogy! It was, to me the best trilogy of any horror movie franchise! Ghostface never dies!!! I love everything about the series of "Scream". I love the costume and mask and basic summary and concept of the whole series.
Good Enough!
famousgir121 February 2001
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.
Scream 2 yells for bigger, better and more elaborate kills but rarely receives them.
TheMovieDiorama9 May 2019
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...
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...
Scream Again
aherdofbeautifulwildponies16 February 2022
When Kevin Williamson, the screenwriter of Scream (1996) (and Scream 2, and Scream 4 (2011)), was working on the film's script, he conceived it as the first part of a trilogy. When Miramax purchased his script, they simultaneously signed a contract for two sequels. The work on Scream 2 began while Scream was still enjoying its highly successful theatrical run. Wes Craven returned as the director, Marco Beltrami, as the composer, and all of the surviving characters were to be played by the same actors as in the original movie.
In other words, in 1997, in Los Angeles, California and in Atlanta, Georgia you could observe an unusually perfect set of circumstances. Conditions for making a sequel just do not get more auspicious - so why isn't Scream 2 a better film?
The strong appeal of Scream was based on, among other factors, its skillful use of 'whodunnit' logic: we are deeply invested into finding out who the killer is, we care about the persons involved, we are trying our best to remember that anyone - save for 'final girl' Sidney Prescott - can be the culprit. With Scream 2, that approach only goes so far. We start on an uneven footing with the characters, some of whom are familiar (the principal cast of Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courteney Cox, and Jamie Kennedy) and 'safe', while the rest are newly-introduced and comparatively less important. Who'd done it? More like, 'Who cares?'
This is not to suggest that Scream 2 is without merit. Neve Campbell delivers a beautiful performance as the lead, and Liev Schreiber - now equipped with lines of dialogue! - provides the most interesting addition to the franchise. His character remains the source of ambiguity within the narrative and its otherwise clear-cut distribution of morals.
Scream 2 has also been graced by the fleeting presence of Luke Wilson (was he more or less famous than Skeet Ulrich at the time?), Tori Spelling (was her disastrous acting intentional, provided as further satire of slasher films?), Heather Graham (lovely, but no Drew Barrymore), yet-unknown Portia de Rossi, and Jada Pinkett Smith. The latter stars in the film's intro, which parallels Barrymore's involvement in the first Scream but, being narratively removed from the rest of the events, does not carry the same impact. The voiced commentary on the involvement of Black characters in horror movies remains a side note.
There is less consistency and madness, so a higher body count amounts to little but figures on a blackboard, in a dark lecture theatre, where the characters should find their doom. (They do not. That is disappointing.) Where Scream succeeds in being both a collection of references and an independent story, Scream 2 goes to show that self-awareness is a poor substitute for originality.
In other words, in 1997, in Los Angeles, California and in Atlanta, Georgia you could observe an unusually perfect set of circumstances. Conditions for making a sequel just do not get more auspicious - so why isn't Scream 2 a better film?
The strong appeal of Scream was based on, among other factors, its skillful use of 'whodunnit' logic: we are deeply invested into finding out who the killer is, we care about the persons involved, we are trying our best to remember that anyone - save for 'final girl' Sidney Prescott - can be the culprit. With Scream 2, that approach only goes so far. We start on an uneven footing with the characters, some of whom are familiar (the principal cast of Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courteney Cox, and Jamie Kennedy) and 'safe', while the rest are newly-introduced and comparatively less important. Who'd done it? More like, 'Who cares?'
This is not to suggest that Scream 2 is without merit. Neve Campbell delivers a beautiful performance as the lead, and Liev Schreiber - now equipped with lines of dialogue! - provides the most interesting addition to the franchise. His character remains the source of ambiguity within the narrative and its otherwise clear-cut distribution of morals.
Scream 2 has also been graced by the fleeting presence of Luke Wilson (was he more or less famous than Skeet Ulrich at the time?), Tori Spelling (was her disastrous acting intentional, provided as further satire of slasher films?), Heather Graham (lovely, but no Drew Barrymore), yet-unknown Portia de Rossi, and Jada Pinkett Smith. The latter stars in the film's intro, which parallels Barrymore's involvement in the first Scream but, being narratively removed from the rest of the events, does not carry the same impact. The voiced commentary on the involvement of Black characters in horror movies remains a side note.
There is less consistency and madness, so a higher body count amounts to little but figures on a blackboard, in a dark lecture theatre, where the characters should find their doom. (They do not. That is disappointing.) Where Scream succeeds in being both a collection of references and an independent story, Scream 2 goes to show that self-awareness is a poor substitute for originality.
Wonderful sequel that is the perfect bedfellow for the first film.
hitchcockthelegend4 March 2008
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
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
Cool, fast and scary, but a notch down from the first
mbworm6 October 2006
If you followed Wes Craven's "Scream" intently, there's no denying you'll be craving for more of the originality and unpredictability that made it such a hit. And although "Scream 2" is down a notch on that scale, it still hits the mark quite effectively and turns out as a fast, slick and brutal sequel that is high above your average slasher fare.
Sydney(Neve Campbell, a little better acting here) is the likable, sweet heroine from the first story, in which her boyfriend and a friend were terrorizing high school students because of Sydney's dark past, which is dwelled upon in all three "Scream" films. She has moved on to a remote Ohio college, where she is now studying to be an actress. Paranoid and traumatized, Sydney is thrown back into the nightmare when scary murders begin plaguing the peaceful campus. One by one, her friends begin to get picked off by the angry killer in the "ghost face" suit that has made these movies a landmark in horror history.
A bit clichéd and a bit less predictable, this "Scream" is still a worthy horror film and stands on its own, whereas most sequels fail miserably. David Arquette and Courteney Cox (from "Friends" and previous "Scream" fame) get thrown in the mix as well, reprising their hilarious roles and on screen romance as an ambitious cop and a bitchy reporter who survived but are stalked once more alongside Sydney.
Kevin Williamson and Wes Craven conjure up another awesome scarefest and the deaths are relentless and creative up to the satisfying conclusion. As aforementioned, it's all not as tense or dark as the first. But it gets points for taking on a more serious tone and keeping the murderer well shadowed until the surprising unveiling. Good acting from the supporting cast and all around good editing make Scream 2 a hit. Great bloody and humorous fun.
Unique and scary, 7 out of 10.
Sydney(Neve Campbell, a little better acting here) is the likable, sweet heroine from the first story, in which her boyfriend and a friend were terrorizing high school students because of Sydney's dark past, which is dwelled upon in all three "Scream" films. She has moved on to a remote Ohio college, where she is now studying to be an actress. Paranoid and traumatized, Sydney is thrown back into the nightmare when scary murders begin plaguing the peaceful campus. One by one, her friends begin to get picked off by the angry killer in the "ghost face" suit that has made these movies a landmark in horror history.
A bit clichéd and a bit less predictable, this "Scream" is still a worthy horror film and stands on its own, whereas most sequels fail miserably. David Arquette and Courteney Cox (from "Friends" and previous "Scream" fame) get thrown in the mix as well, reprising their hilarious roles and on screen romance as an ambitious cop and a bitchy reporter who survived but are stalked once more alongside Sydney.
Kevin Williamson and Wes Craven conjure up another awesome scarefest and the deaths are relentless and creative up to the satisfying conclusion. As aforementioned, it's all not as tense or dark as the first. But it gets points for taking on a more serious tone and keeping the murderer well shadowed until the surprising unveiling. Good acting from the supporting cast and all around good editing make Scream 2 a hit. Great bloody and humorous fun.
Unique and scary, 7 out of 10.
Not that original but still OK
AlsExGal4 February 2019
This second "Scream" isn't nearly as original as the first which was a great and suspenseful take on slasher films. This one has the high school victim in the first film - Sidney - now in college studying film. For 99% of the people who major in this, a slow descent into obscurity and realizing that your life will be spent as an admin or working retail, not as a great director, should be revenge enough for anybody. But obviously our killer(s?) is/are not that patient.
The beginning is tight, at the opening of a film called "stab", patterned after the murders in "Scream", and you just know who the first two victims are going to be, although Craven's direction and the score make it a suspenseful when and where. The ending is good too, and it is different enough from the ending of the first Scream that you do wonder who is up to what, just like in the first. There are some tells though. There are some particularly - at that time - famous players in the film doing bit parts. Why? I'd say, watch and find out. Fortunately, this film was made 22 years ago so you are probably not going to know who was famous then and who is now because of subsequent events unless you are over 50.
The worst part is the middle. It is tedious. You've just got some predictable chases and cat-and-mouse games going on, and you feel like it is just there to fill time between the suspenseful beginning and end. Probably worth your time if you run across it, and probably you are not going to enjoy it if you haven't seen the original Scream first.
The beginning is tight, at the opening of a film called "stab", patterned after the murders in "Scream", and you just know who the first two victims are going to be, although Craven's direction and the score make it a suspenseful when and where. The ending is good too, and it is different enough from the ending of the first Scream that you do wonder who is up to what, just like in the first. There are some tells though. There are some particularly - at that time - famous players in the film doing bit parts. Why? I'd say, watch and find out. Fortunately, this film was made 22 years ago so you are probably not going to know who was famous then and who is now because of subsequent events unless you are over 50.
The worst part is the middle. It is tedious. You've just got some predictable chases and cat-and-mouse games going on, and you feel like it is just there to fill time between the suspenseful beginning and end. Probably worth your time if you run across it, and probably you are not going to enjoy it if you haven't seen the original Scream first.
Very bad sequel
CuriosityKilledShawn6 August 2000
Craven used to be known to make REAL horror movies. Sometimes they were experimentation horror films. But now he has fallen for Hollywood's love of cheap scares and loud, loud, loud soundtracks. This film only has one musical cue that isn't criminally loud noise. But it's music stolen from Hans Zimmer's Broken Arrow soundtrack. A soundtrack I love. This kind of made me annoyed the first, and only, time I saw this (well over 2 years ago).
The photography in this film is the worst I have ever seen. Almost everything that isn't in the immediate foreground is blurred and out-of-focus. Horror films offer so many opportunities for creativity in all areas of film production. But as this film is made to appeal to mass audiences the style has to be simple. Even terrible.
There is nothing worthwhile about this film and nothing to recommend. The part that I hate most seems to be what most people (for some reason) like the best. A class full of film students discusses if sequels are better than originals. That's it. You see this IS a sequel, and they talk about sequels. Wow! So what?! That's the irony! And it's not worth a penny. I have never seen a more simpleminded and superficial so-called 'horror' film as bad as this. The fact that it thinks it's so cool just makes it worse. The true horror of this film is the horrifying ignorance to the audience.
Watch Urban Legend instead if you want to watch a Campus 'who's the killer?' flick. It's junk but it's better than this.
The photography in this film is the worst I have ever seen. Almost everything that isn't in the immediate foreground is blurred and out-of-focus. Horror films offer so many opportunities for creativity in all areas of film production. But as this film is made to appeal to mass audiences the style has to be simple. Even terrible.
There is nothing worthwhile about this film and nothing to recommend. The part that I hate most seems to be what most people (for some reason) like the best. A class full of film students discusses if sequels are better than originals. That's it. You see this IS a sequel, and they talk about sequels. Wow! So what?! That's the irony! And it's not worth a penny. I have never seen a more simpleminded and superficial so-called 'horror' film as bad as this. The fact that it thinks it's so cool just makes it worse. The true horror of this film is the horrifying ignorance to the audience.
Watch Urban Legend instead if you want to watch a Campus 'who's the killer?' flick. It's junk but it's better than this.
Not As Amazing As The First, But Still Good.
drownsoda909 June 2007
"Scream 2" picks up from where "Scream" left off, with Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), who is still dealing with memories of the murder spree that she survived in her hometown of Woodsboro during her senior year of high school. But Sidney is off to college now, and things are beginning to look up. She has a good best friend, Hallie (Elise Neal), and a love interest, Derek (Jerry O'Connell). But after a murder that occurred in a cinema (that was incidentally showing a movie based upon the murder spree that Sidney survived), the memories flood back, and another masked killer in the same attire begins to murder those around Sidney - but who is it behind the mask?
A follow-up to Wes Craven's 1996 horror hit, "Scream", this slasher sequel is a guaranteed good time. Kevin Williamson returns to write the script for this film as well, and crafts a fairly solid story to continue the series with. The opening of this movie (the cleverly-executed cinema murder) was fabulous, and is probably the most memorable thing about this movie. There is some tongue-in-cheek humor to be found as well, but nothing over the top - this film remains fairly serious despite it's poking at the horror genre rules, which is something the original did quite well. I have to give Mr. Craven and Mr. Williamson some credit for their clever handling of these films, because they really are well-done horror movies.
Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courteney Cox, and Jamie Kennedy return from the original, all giving good performances. Some new additions to the cast are Jerry O'Connell, Jada Pinkett Smith, and Sarah Michelle Gellar (who starred in "I Know What You Did Last Summer" the same year), to name a few. The acting is on-par for the most part, and I liked the casting. The atmosphere in this film is much different than the small-town feel the original had, which I personally preferred - then again, you can't have a movie like this take place in the same town for a second time. There are plenty of surprise moments as well (and some clichéd jump-scares), but the conclusion was probably the biggest surprise of all. I never saw it coming, and I don't think most people would because the writing was so well done.
Overall, "Scream 2" is a worthy sequel to a groundbreaking horror movie. Did I like it better than the first? No way, I prefer the original, but that doesn't mean it was bad at all. It was entertaining, spooky, and had enough twists and turns to keep nearly anyone's interest. "Scream" fans will be surely pleased with it. And as far as horror sequels go, this film ranks pretty high. 7/10.
A follow-up to Wes Craven's 1996 horror hit, "Scream", this slasher sequel is a guaranteed good time. Kevin Williamson returns to write the script for this film as well, and crafts a fairly solid story to continue the series with. The opening of this movie (the cleverly-executed cinema murder) was fabulous, and is probably the most memorable thing about this movie. There is some tongue-in-cheek humor to be found as well, but nothing over the top - this film remains fairly serious despite it's poking at the horror genre rules, which is something the original did quite well. I have to give Mr. Craven and Mr. Williamson some credit for their clever handling of these films, because they really are well-done horror movies.
Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courteney Cox, and Jamie Kennedy return from the original, all giving good performances. Some new additions to the cast are Jerry O'Connell, Jada Pinkett Smith, and Sarah Michelle Gellar (who starred in "I Know What You Did Last Summer" the same year), to name a few. The acting is on-par for the most part, and I liked the casting. The atmosphere in this film is much different than the small-town feel the original had, which I personally preferred - then again, you can't have a movie like this take place in the same town for a second time. There are plenty of surprise moments as well (and some clichéd jump-scares), but the conclusion was probably the biggest surprise of all. I never saw it coming, and I don't think most people would because the writing was so well done.
Overall, "Scream 2" is a worthy sequel to a groundbreaking horror movie. Did I like it better than the first? No way, I prefer the original, but that doesn't mean it was bad at all. It was entertaining, spooky, and had enough twists and turns to keep nearly anyone's interest. "Scream" fans will be surely pleased with it. And as far as horror sequels go, this film ranks pretty high. 7/10.
Clever follow-up to Wes Craven's horror franchise
Screen_Blitz14 September 2015
Wes Craven gained respect of horror fans with his 1996 hit slasher hit Scream, a film that reignited the slasher-horror genre with its originality and self-awareness. The following year, Craven continued the story of the masked killer with this entertaining sequel that continues the story. Neve Campbell reprises her role as Sidney Prescott who is now in college, and is dating a handsome heartthrob named Derek (played by Jerry O'Connell). Jamie Kennedy also reprises his role as Randy Meeks, the film-geek who's remained friends with Sidney after the events from the first movie. This film follows a copycat killer that is on the loose and taking the lives of others on college campus. Sidney must team up with her boyfriend Derek, and Randy, along with Gale and Dewey who also make their return from the first film, to survive against the killer's onslaught.
As this film is a sequel, there are quite a bit discussions between characters about sequels and what they are all about. Like this film, these characters are very self-aware of the strategies of surviving against a killer in a horror movie, and the script makes very clear. While this one may not level up the previous film, it still remains as original and thoughtful as the previous film came out to be. It still contains the scares, suspense, and bloodshed by the Ghostface killer, and the wittiness of writer Kevin Williamson's script. It also pays a good homage to classic low-budget slasher horror films from the 80s like Splatter University, Slaughter High, and and Graduation Day. Liev Schreiber makes an interesting appearance as Cotton Weary who was the accused suspect of Sidney's mom's murder in the last, and is released from prison after proved not guilty. Neve Campbell remains good as ever as Sidney, and the rest of the cast including Jamie Kennedy, David Arquette, Courtney Cox, Jerry O'Connell, Timothy Olyphant, and Elise Neal are great as well.
Could this movie have done better? Sure. But overall, this movie did not dissappoint me. This movie is one of the few horror movie sequels that manages to level relatively close with its original, and shows while Wes Craven is such an amazing horror director.
As this film is a sequel, there are quite a bit discussions between characters about sequels and what they are all about. Like this film, these characters are very self-aware of the strategies of surviving against a killer in a horror movie, and the script makes very clear. While this one may not level up the previous film, it still remains as original and thoughtful as the previous film came out to be. It still contains the scares, suspense, and bloodshed by the Ghostface killer, and the wittiness of writer Kevin Williamson's script. It also pays a good homage to classic low-budget slasher horror films from the 80s like Splatter University, Slaughter High, and and Graduation Day. Liev Schreiber makes an interesting appearance as Cotton Weary who was the accused suspect of Sidney's mom's murder in the last, and is released from prison after proved not guilty. Neve Campbell remains good as ever as Sidney, and the rest of the cast including Jamie Kennedy, David Arquette, Courtney Cox, Jerry O'Connell, Timothy Olyphant, and Elise Neal are great as well.
Could this movie have done better? Sure. But overall, this movie did not dissappoint me. This movie is one of the few horror movie sequels that manages to level relatively close with its original, and shows while Wes Craven is such an amazing horror director.
Who's the suspect now?
Darkside-Reviewer26 March 2019
Scream 2 is the worst of the franchise but still is by no means a bad movie its main problem is it follows the first movies story a little too much making it a little to predictable with its plot and making the who done it aspect of the movie easily guessed by a casual observer other than that the movie has a great cast who are at there best in every scene and we get some interesting kills with some decent gore I'd give this movie a watch but don't expect the best Scream movie going in.
A Classic's sequel
stamper18 June 2000
Well this in a way is a typical sequel and in a way it is not. You have all the original cast here which is I must say a must in a sequel. You really shouldn't do that kind of stuff they did in for instance Chucky or so, keep the cast if the names are the same, all else is bull and most of the audience won't like it. Also don't change a good formula!!!! (this goes out to them suckers who want to make Scream 4 without the original cast (or even dare to think about it)). If you want to do it do it with them or NOT and if you do, please Neve, Courteney, David and Wes only when the script is great, no ONLY when it RULES and do not do it for money when your career is in a dip like van Damme did with Universal Sodier 2. I mean look at lousy horror sequels: Hellraiser 2 and 4, Chucky 3, Nightmare on Elm Street 5 and A new Nightmare (sorry Wes).
This is I must admit not the second time I watched this one, for I was preparing to see Scream 3 really soon afterwards, so I wanted to see Scream 1 and Scream 2 before, so I could get back in to everything that happened. I already knew, of course, who the killer was and this review (as to the whodunnit) looks at the film as if I first saw it.
Another good thing here is that all the cast looks grown up, I mean between Scream and Scream 2 there is only one year, but you feel as if many years have gone by (just as the story suggests).
This one may be not as original as the first one, but it still is funny, exciting, surprising (you never know who is/are the killer(s)) and well acted. For the psycho killer(s) I must say he/she/they was/were great, you really believed he/she /they were totally flipped and you bought it. Neve Campbell really has grown in acting and is yet much more believable and so are David Arquette and Courteney Cox, whose characters are deepened out.
NOW I want to spend a few lines on the great Neve Campbell, I thought she will be great (as in a successful actress) when I saw The Craft, Scream, Scream 2, but I must revise this now, she chooses to stay and make low budget films, that are not so heavily supported by the studios and so tend to make little money. But I must say that it is a good choice as long as the movies are as good as Wild Things or Simba's Pride.
The best thing here though is the direction, Wes Craven made this one much more theatrical than the first one, and there are two scenes I LUV especially, the opening scene and the rehearsal scene. They are great and combine effects, music and events perfectly. Also there are some great spoofs. Now I bet you wonder why this does not get a 10, I presume, well I felt that some things should not have been done in the film, like that scene when Cox and Arquette go see some footage. Also I didn't like the new camera dude that much, played by Duane Martin, for I thought his 'frightened' character was too overdone. Also I found the ending not very good, it was mere average. The end of Scream was much and much better, so it come that this film does not get a 10.
Still: rent, watch and enjoy
8 out of 10
Note: this review has been amended to remove some sexist comments I included at the time. Apologies for any offence caused. I was young and stupid at the time, thinking I was being 'cool'.
This is I must admit not the second time I watched this one, for I was preparing to see Scream 3 really soon afterwards, so I wanted to see Scream 1 and Scream 2 before, so I could get back in to everything that happened. I already knew, of course, who the killer was and this review (as to the whodunnit) looks at the film as if I first saw it.
Another good thing here is that all the cast looks grown up, I mean between Scream and Scream 2 there is only one year, but you feel as if many years have gone by (just as the story suggests).
This one may be not as original as the first one, but it still is funny, exciting, surprising (you never know who is/are the killer(s)) and well acted. For the psycho killer(s) I must say he/she/they was/were great, you really believed he/she /they were totally flipped and you bought it. Neve Campbell really has grown in acting and is yet much more believable and so are David Arquette and Courteney Cox, whose characters are deepened out.
NOW I want to spend a few lines on the great Neve Campbell, I thought she will be great (as in a successful actress) when I saw The Craft, Scream, Scream 2, but I must revise this now, she chooses to stay and make low budget films, that are not so heavily supported by the studios and so tend to make little money. But I must say that it is a good choice as long as the movies are as good as Wild Things or Simba's Pride.
The best thing here though is the direction, Wes Craven made this one much more theatrical than the first one, and there are two scenes I LUV especially, the opening scene and the rehearsal scene. They are great and combine effects, music and events perfectly. Also there are some great spoofs. Now I bet you wonder why this does not get a 10, I presume, well I felt that some things should not have been done in the film, like that scene when Cox and Arquette go see some footage. Also I didn't like the new camera dude that much, played by Duane Martin, for I thought his 'frightened' character was too overdone. Also I found the ending not very good, it was mere average. The end of Scream was much and much better, so it come that this film does not get a 10.
Still: rent, watch and enjoy
8 out of 10
Note: this review has been amended to remove some sexist comments I included at the time. Apologies for any offence caused. I was young and stupid at the time, thinking I was being 'cool'.
Still the Best Scream Sequel
BloodyPredator210 February 2022
Scream 2 is the Best Sequel of the franchise the new one is weak and disappointing compared to this one. The Filmmakers made everything right with this one. Scream 2 has a good pacing a great Opening Scene in the Cinema (which is something new in a Horror-Teen Slasher) The Characters are well written and there is lot of suspense,and the soundtrack is terrific and the 90s Vibe is so cool and It give us the same thrills from the First one. Scream 2 is a very strong and satisfying sequel, sadly they never made a really good Scream Film after this one, part 3, 4 and 5 was just above-average to mediocre.
I miss the 90s.
I miss the 90s.
Good but not like the first
elliotjeory12 November 2020
I liked the film and it had some good scenes but ultimately didn't live up to the first film that set a bar. Had some good characters particularly Gail Weathers and Randy, it was kind of 90s goofy when you rewatch it but I liked it non the less.
Zzzzzzzzzzzz...
Mac-4026 September 1998
The saddest thing to see happen to a great movie is to see a lousy sequel. The first 'Scream' movie was great. I loved it mostly because the whole time I was watching it I was guessing who the killer was and when I found out, I was saying, 'See, I guessed it was him near the beginning!' But the sequel... I mean I was guessing, but there were so many to guess from it got boring. The number of suspects went down as the body count went up. And then when I found out who the killer was, it was someone that I didn't even care about. My friend said to me, 'Ha, you never guessed him!' How was I supposed to. But this sequel just didn't do what the first one did. It wasn't any fun to watch. It relied too much on dead bodies and 'boo' shots to be any good. 'Boo' shots are when the killer jumps out, says 'Boo' and runs away. I think Wes Craven should stop now before it's too late.
Self-aware cult classic is not that good in 2023
gabriel_sanchez27 March 2023
I might be living under a rock, and not willing to dig in too deep, but I feel like Scream started as a joke and became a cult classic. Scream 2 takes it to the next level by adding self-awareness to the plot.
You can't take the Scream franchise too seriously. These movies are a mix of a movie that tries to be serious and a movie that tries to be funny. In the end, Scream 2 is sort of neither of those options.
The plot is alright, but, as characters quote, Scream 2 is Scream 1 with more killing, more violence. In the end, we feel we go full circle with Sidney's life.
By the way, Neve Campbell, although a fine actress, I don't know --- I can't stand her glaze over everything when she is afraid.
Other than that, not a good classic to recommend. Watch only if you are a die-hard movie fan.
You can't take the Scream franchise too seriously. These movies are a mix of a movie that tries to be serious and a movie that tries to be funny. In the end, Scream 2 is sort of neither of those options.
The plot is alright, but, as characters quote, Scream 2 is Scream 1 with more killing, more violence. In the end, we feel we go full circle with Sidney's life.
By the way, Neve Campbell, although a fine actress, I don't know --- I can't stand her glaze over everything when she is afraid.
Other than that, not a good classic to recommend. Watch only if you are a die-hard movie fan.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
