Scream 2

Scream 2 Photos

View All Photos (18)

Cast & Crew

David Arquette
Dwight "Dewey" Riley

Neve Campbell
Sidney Prescott

Courteney Cox
Gale Weathers

Sarah Michelle Gellar
Casey "Cici" Cooper

Jamie Kennedy
Randy Meeks

Laurie Metcalf
Debbie Salt

Elise Neal
Hallie McDaniel

Jerry O'Connell
Derek Feldman

Timothy Olyphant
Mickey Altieri

Jada Pinkett Smith
Maureen Evans

Liev Schreiber
Cotton Weary

Lewis Arquette
Chief Lewis Hartley

Duane Martin
Joel Jones

Omar Epps
Phil Stevens

David Warner
Gus Gold

Wes Craven
Director

Kevin Williamson
Writer

Kevin Williamson
Writer

Cathy Konrad
Producer

Marianne Maddalena
Producer

Daniel Lupi
Co-Producer

Nicholas Mastandrea
Associate Producer

Daniel K. Arredondo
Associate Producer

Julie Plec
Associate Producer

Chadbyrne R. Dickens
Associate Producer

Bob Weinstein
Executive Producer

Kevin Williamson
Executive Producer

Cary Granat
Co-Executive Producer

Richard Potter
Co-Executive Producer

Andrew Rona
Co-Executive Producer

Marco Beltrami
Original Music

Show all Cast & Crew

Audience Reviews for Scream 2

• Sep 06, 2015

  You know, this film was surprisingly ahead of its time with the whole 'violence in media' theme and its, supposed, effects on the youth of America. Ahead of it's time by, say, one year and a half ahead of its time. This was released just two weeks before the start of 1998. The Columbine massacre took place in April 1999. While there may have been conversations about violence in the medial prior to this, it really became more of a national debate with the Columbine massacre, with everyone coming out of the woodwork to blame films, music, series, etc. Ironically enough that 'violence in media' debate caused Scream 3 to be considerably toned down in violence and to be moved away from a small town and school setting in order to avoid criticism and controversy. Never mind the fact that the entire debate is bullshit. The original Scream itself is actually based on a series of murders. Leatherface, from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, was inspired by Ed Gein's horrific acts. As was Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs. A huge percentage of art reflects real life and blaming films is the biggest scapegoat. People, mostly right-wing conservatives, seem to conveniently forget the ease with which people can access firearms in this day and age as perhaps being more relevant to the actual discussion, since firearms were used during Columbine and not VHS copies of Scream 1 or 2. But this isn't the forum with which to discuss this very complicated topic, I just thought it was actually kind of eerie how they incorporated those themes into the sequel and how it actually affected the next entry in this same franchise. With that said, and I simply cannot understand their reasoning, but some people actually thought this was better than the original film. Though, I mean, I can see how it was improved in some parts, it wasn't as meta as the first film, therefore making it more of a straightforward slasher than a film that felt the need to constantly impress with its intelligence. But I can also see how people thought it was only a slight step below the original. The fact that it is more of a straightforward slasher was both a negative and a positive in my view. It just doesn't feel as fresh as the original did, even 20 years after the fact. And parts of it just become like every slasher you have ever seen in your existence. While it does point out some horror cliches and subvert them, it felt like a distant cousin to the original film as opposed to an actual sequel. I mean the characters are the same and the film is a logical continuation of the first film's events, but thematically it didn't feel the same. It's weird because part of what I liked and disliked about the first film seems to be almost missing from the sequel, and that is the self-referential dialogue. Don't get me wrong, it is there, but it's just comes across more like an afterthought rather than a selling point of the film. That's just me. Part of that may simply be the fact that there was a quick turnaround for this film. This was released just under a year after the original Scream, so that means that the film would've happened to have already, at least, been in the pre-production stage by this point. There was also internet leaks that forced certain changes to the script, pages for some scenes would only be finished the day of their filming and some of the scenes lacked details, so Craven was forced to develop them as the scene was taking place. This film sounds like an obvious rush job due to the massive success of the original film, even though Neve Campbell was contracted to be in sequels even after the first Scream was finished filming. While the film does do a good job at introducing new characters and new settings, including a compelling mystery, parts of the film just feel incomplete, I don't know why. There's also some characters that disappear without ever being seen again and there's one particular character that's important to the narrative that disappears at a certain point only to appear again at the end. That's what leads me to believe that it was rushed, because this character that I'm referring to is actually one of the villains of the film, and I would've wanted him/her to be a more important part of the proceedings until the reveal. The reveal doesn't feel cheap, it actually makes sense, but the fact that the character was MIA for a big part of the middle-to-last part of the film takes away some of the effectiveness the reveal might've had. That's just me. Another thing is that this is a considerably less gory and violent film than the original. The first two deaths of the original Scream are more violent and gory than all of the kills in the sequels. Seriously. Not that that's a problem, but it felt really tame in comparison to the first film. And it's not like Scream was Evil Dead 2 in terms of gore either. Again, much like I did with my previous review, it's not like I didn't enjoy this film. It was another fun slasher with some self-referential parody of horror cliches. It's more of a mixed bag, even though I gave both the original and sequel the same score, but it's got its good and bad. The good just slightly, very slightly, edges out the negatives in the film. It's on Netflix, so I'd recommend you watch it on that. Pretty good slasher right here.
  Jesse O Super Reviewer
• Apr 06, 2015

  Almost better than the first.....almost. This time the twisty ending is far twistier than the first and it's so enjoyable its almost criminal. An edgier follow-up to its predeccesor, Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox and Jamie Kennedy are far more hard-faced and serious than they were in the first film. The murders are more elaborate, however they don't hit quite as hard as they did in the first film. By the time Scream 2 ends, we understand really that Neve Campbell can't die, similar to Jamie Lee Curtis and Sigourney Weaver, and that takes the horror out of it a tad. Still fantastic to watch though.
  Harry W Super Reviewer
• Oct 25, 2012

  Not NEARLY as good as the original, but funny and scary enough to be a worthy sequel.
  Jason 123 D Super Reviewer
• Mar 06, 2012

  Scream 2 delivers another thriller that's a lot of fun. This time a copycat killer is reprising the Ghostface killings on the campus of Sidney's new college. The cast has a good mixture of returning stars, such as Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courteney Cox, and Jamie Kennedy, and new stars, like Sarah Michelle Gellar, Timothy Olyphant, and Rebecca Gayheart. It's hard for a sequel to repeat the same scares as the original, and the kills in this film don't quite measure up to those of the original. However, it does a fair job at creating a fresh new story while remaining true to the series formula. Additionally, the film offers some interesting satire on horror movie sequels. So while Scream 2 isn't as thrilling and well-crafted as the original, it's still an enjoyable slasher with some good scares.
  Dann M Super Reviewer

Movie & TV guides