Scream 2 Reviews

A smash of a sequel concerning the same group of young people mysteriously stalked by a vicious killer. Full of scenes of self-referential-ism and possessing an acute self-awareness that makes it instantly charming, director Wes Craven knows how to spoof the same genre that made him famous to begin with. Neve Campbell is perfect as the lead, with nice, funny supporting turns from a well-rounded young cast. It trips up a little bit here and there on some things, but one could argue that his movie is a tad better than the first, a claim the movie itself humorously labels as near-impossible in most cases. I have to say I think I liked it just a bit more than the first, though.

As I'll probably end up stating elsewhere in the future, when a film is so meta, it becomes difficult to discern that against the actual content of the film. That is, whether it's intentional or not. Scream 2 picks up a couple of years after the original Scream, and it opens again with two random people who are murdered in the opening moments and have very little to do with the main plot. The problem I have with this sequel is that the killer(s), when you find out who they are, seem to be a bit hackneyed. I understand what they were going for, but is it meta or isn't it? I'm not quite sure. The one positive thing that I have to say about the movie is that Jamie Kennedy is finally killed off. I hate Jamie Kennedy so much and the series is much better without him. He always stands out like a sore thumb whenever he's in something and I can't wait until he's not on screen anymore. There's also quite a number of huge stars in this movie. Unsurprising really, as a lot of these people went on to make more horror movies and have careers on TV, as well. It's not quite as compelling or as good as the first one, but it's fun, and that's about all you can ask for in a sequel, I guess.

Randy: 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. 

"Someone has taken their love of sequels one step too far."

Scream 2 follows the same idea as the first. Let's make fun of horror films, while still paying homage to them. This one takes it shot at the horror sequel. Randy is there for awhile, like in the first, to help us along in understanding how everything is going to work. He makes sure we know the rules for sequel, as they are a little different.

The first scene of this movie is absolutely brilliant. We go to the premiere night of Stab, a movie based on the events of the Scream. We see the start of the movie, which very much resembles the start of Scream. Then a killer shows up that no one sees because everybody is dressed like the killer. He is camouflaged, and that obviously makes his business a little easier to accomplish.

Scream 2 follows pretty much the same plot as the first. This time, however, we are given a copy cat killer, and some new characters to replace all the dead from the first one. Other than those details, you should expect a lot of the same elements that the original had. This sequel is honestly almost as fun as the first. It was a damn near perfect sequel, right up to the end. Then the ending happened. It's not to say that I completely despised the ending, but after the greatness of the ending in the first film, this one left a lot to be desired.

The Scream franchise is one of the few horror franchises that I love all the way through. Wes Craven did a great job with all for, but the quality does go down after this one. Three and four, while still good, don't match up to one and two. 

This sequel to the popular Scream movie the previous year, is just about as much fun as the first. I really enjoyed it.

Surprisingly good sequel.

I love all of the Scream's! Fantastic, they're all as good as the first film! Really great film!

When I first saw this in the theater I hated it. I didn't like the ending, and I hated the fact that Randy died. He was such a good character, no need to kill him off. Skip forward many years later, and I gotta say the movie holds up,and plays better than before. I still don't like the whole mom thing, but the rest of the movie is pretty decent. Still hate that they killed Randy, but overall not a bad sequel.

Horror sequels are the type of films that I never look forward to, seeing as it is just filled with cliches and is really just a rehash of the original, but as for Scream 2, I could smile the entire way through with ease. Coming up with more originality to spoof the horror genre while still holding a strong story and terrifying thrills and scares, Scream 2 proves that horror really is dead, but can be still made original if you have the right ideas, and this film brings every possible great idea to the table and hits a home run. With a great and funny cast and likably corny script, this films rocks!

This is a fun, bloody, and entertaining sequel, but, like almost all sequels, it's not as good as the first. In fact, the film actually brings this up...so maybe the decline in quality was by design? Anyways, it's a good film, or decent enough, in that it advances the story, expands upon some things, and, in a couple of ways, does raise the stakes.

In fact, one crucial part of this film really has some balls, and the fact that I (an probably others) still have mixed feelings about it is a true sign that taking risks can be a great thing.

The writing is still fresh, and the performances fun. I liked the opening too, as it was well done, but it really makes me uncomfortable...but that's basically the point. The ending is a little weird, but it could have been worse. Fun stuff...give it a shot.

The funniest thing about Scream 2 is that within the first twenty minutes, a line is said by one of the characters, "sequels by definition alone are inferior films." This commences a debate about what sequels have proved to be better than their originals; films such as Aliens, Terminator 2, and The Godfather Part 2. When House 2: The Second Story is mentioned, the characters all throw their hands in the air, and one even says the horror genre has been completely ruined by sequels. Yet......we're watching a sequel. And a horror sequel at that. Does the film actually want us to hate it?
This is Scream 2, the follow up to a film that called itself on its formula and cliches. Of course the characters once again think they're in a sequel and thus have to abide by the rules of a sequel. The body count is higher. The death scenes are far more graphic and brutal, etc etc.
The screenplay offers the same irony upon irony that the original did. The question becomes, is the film better than the original? And my answer is no. I agree one hundred percent with the above mentioned line stated in the film. Sequels are cash cows first, films second. The only reason such a film is made is to duplicate what people liked about the first film, make it a little different, and package it in a way that will fill seats. Sometimes, like Aliens, The Godfather Part 2, and Terminator 2 achieve, a film manages to find a balance between maintaining what made the original so great and venturing off into its own territory. Scream 2 is not such a film. It acknowledges it's a sequel, a horror sequel to be precise, and follows the formula of a horror sequel. It's fun, don't get me wrong, but the irony of it is that the film criticizes sequels as second rate entertainment, and yet, doesn't aim to become anything higher than that. I'm saying the word "sequel" waay to much in this review.

This movie was cool, but the first was a masterpiece. They use the same formula, which was good, but maybe they used it too much. The point of the movie is cool, and that is, sequels usually suck.

I think I've always found this to be the crown jewel of the series. Not only does it clarify beyond a shadow of a doubt what the style of the series is and will be, but it's just movie trivia dynamite for film people. Not only are countless genre flicks mentioned, but they are re-constructed and picked apart. Scream 2 does some really original things that should definitely be remembered as ahead of its time. It actually analyzes the original within the movie and then there's the whole "Stab" film-within-a-film going on that's incredibly interesting to see unfold. In many ways it's an attempt at analyzing movies that are based on true events and the complete media frenzy they cause. Not only that, but it boils down what it takes for a sequel to be successful and what you can do within the parameters of Hollywood. Kevin Williamson's script is incredible here. It builds on all the ideas that were touched on in the original and digs deeper into the characters and fan reception of horror movies in general.

Wes Craven's "Scream 2" is a very fun sequel. While in retrospect it may seem like the initial story started with the ending and worked it's way back, lending to the story feeling a bit aimless, it's still well made up for. These films are first and foremost a lot of fun. "Scream 2" works on many levels (a teen slasher film, a horror comedy, a satisfying sequel) but it's best when it's blurring the lines and playing with it's cherished meta-narrative style. "Scream 2" takes the (groundbreaking for the genre) meta aspects of "Scream" and, well, doubles them. It manipulates both the audiences expectations (being a sequel and what that means), the characters (with the movie in a movie 'Stab') and ultimately the media and the critics (with a full on exploration of how children react to violence in cinema). This is clever stuff. "Scream 2" is a giddy teen horror film that is delivered in a thought provoking meta-narrative that translates to plenty of self reflective fun.

almost as good as the first until the horrible ending.

The returns have significantly diminished from the first Scream film, to be sure, but what complements and supports this otherwise sort of hokey horror film is how warped its treatment of the cliches has become. Honing its eye on a genre known for its predictability, the Scream series first plays along with cliches, then subverts them entirely, and by this point the line is so blurry that you're truly not sure who's a target and who's not. Between the anyone's-a-potential-corpse nature of the plot and some seriously excellent set pieces on Craven's part (including a stalking during a production of Cassandra that's almost too outrageous to be believed), the film's visceral excitement generally outstrips some of the totally lame plot points and its structural shakiness. It suffers from serious Third Act Exposition Syndrome, made even worse by some truly lame motives and head-slapping coincidences. A psycho website? Really? Despite all this, though, the film is still successful, if only because it gets you to suspend your disbelief just enough to buy into the ridiculous shit that's happening. It's a shame that Neve Campbell never really had the same success as Jamie Lee Curtis, because she's got the same earthy, likable appeal, and her highly visible The Craft/Scream/Scream 2/Wild Things run should have netted her a Hollywood career of considerable richness. Man, why does this form treat its women like shit?

A more tongue in Cheek Horror film than the first one, Scream 2 follows the events of the first film. This sequel is dull an uninspired and really, how far can you go to pay tribute to classics?? I mean Scream is really just a big homage to old school horror done for a teen audience, because it's hip to like horror now. Scream 2 follows very closely the formula of the first one, yet is somewhat of a bore and falls flat. Half decent, but it's one point short of getting a passing grade.

Don't ask me why I'm seeing Scream 2 for the first time in 2010, or why I'm watching it before the first Scream. I honestly have no idea.

Anyway, this was the edgy, hip slasher flick that everyone went nuts over years ago, and it still holds up pretty well today. It assumes that the audience isn't stupid and has seen this kind of movie tons of times before, and it manages to stay interesting amidst all the self-reference and sly winks. That's a pretty good combination.

Scream 2 attempts to give you a little reverse psychology with a scene talking about how sequels to movies are always really poor, well the reverse psychology didn?t work well in this case, because this truly was a poor sequel, not that hopes had ever been high for this.

Yes this is a typical teen slasher of the 90?s and that should be the way it is viewed with no expectations of great plot and acting, but David Arquette is truly cringe-worthy in this role.

My question now is do I tempt the third, knowing things cannot get worse? My obsession for finishing all sequels may just have to get the better of me and urge another whinge!

It had some good parts....but otherwise it was kind of slow

"Somebody has taken his love for sequels one step too far."

It has been two years since the tragic events at Woodsboro. Sidney Prescott and Randy Meeks are trying to get on with their lives...

REVIEW
Survivor Campbell is in college this time around and trying to move on with her life following the horrific nightmare that occurred while she was in high school. Unfortunately for her, a serial killer soon strikes her campus and begins to emulate the murders that occurred in the first film. Naturally everyone is a suspect except for Campbell, who once again seems to be the primary target of the killer's deadly game. Definitely not as original as the first film (how could it be?) but there are some genuinely scary moments, and enough slasher style violence to satisfy fans of the original. A pretty good sequel that's worth a look.