SCREAM 2 (1997)
Starring: Neve Campbell (Sidney Prescott), Courteney Cox (Gale Weathers), David Arquette (Dewey Riley), Jamie Kennedy (Randy Meeks), Sarah Michelle Gellar (Cici Cooper), Jerry O'Connell (Derek), Liev Schreiber (Cotton Weary), Elise Neal (Hallie), Jada Pinkett (Maureen), Laurie Metcalf (Debbie Salt), Duane Martin (Joel), Timothy Olyphant (Mickey), Omar Epps (Paul Stevens)
Directed by: Wes Craven, Written by: Kevin Williamson
Rated R by the MPAA for blood and gore, strong language, and some sexual references
Reviewed by Doug Skiles
"It's a scream, baby!" Or is it?
Alright, let's talk horror flicks. Or, more specifically, horror sequels. They suck. You, I, or anybody could write a cheesy 1980s-style horror sequel. Just remember all the key ingredients: an attractive group of horny teenagers to kill off, an unstoppable murderer, and lots of scenes where things pop out unexpectedly while accompanied by loud noises (referred to as "jump scenes" by those in the know).
Now let's talk SCREAM. It came out almost exactly one year ago, to a less-than-stellar opening weekend gross. But word of mouth spread, and in the end SCREAM made more than 100 million dollars here in the US of A. It's still praised by many overzealous teens and gen-xers as being one of the great films of our (or any) time. This basically functions to make it one of the most overrated movies of all time. It was pretty fun for what it was, which is a shocker since most horror flicks *aren't* nowadays, and the opening scene was honestly chilling (something most movies can't pull off). The comedic aspect of the film was what made it most entertaining, as it worked much better than the majority of the horror angle. It even had some great characters (Jamie Kennedy's film geek "Randy Meeks" will always be treasured). But it also had a few *major* flaws. The main character, Sidney Prescott (played by Neve Campbell) was probably the worst character in the movie. She pulled a lot of stupid stunts like having sex with a guy and then, afterwards, telling him that she still suspected he was the killer. Oh, so she didn't care about her feelings that he could be a mass murderer, she was just out to get laid? Aside from her bad traits, she basically *had* no personality, leaving us a female lead who was essentially an obnoxious and annoying little bitch/slut. Another problem with the movie was the KEVIN WILLIAMSON CURSE (TM), or KWC. This is the problem with pretty much all films that are thus far written by Kevin Williamson which makes it so that likable characters are often killed off and the most easy-to-hate ones (like Sidney) tend to make it to the finale. When that happens, you just stop caring. How can the supposedly tense ending be tense at all when you want the main character to just get what she deserves anyway? The KWC (tm) is apparent in various forms in SCREAM, his original treatment for HALLOWEEN 7, and now, in SCREAM 2 (I'm told by a number of sources that he did it again in I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER, and once again damaged the movie by it, but since I haven't seen that movie yet, I can't be certain). It really makes you wonder what kind of friends this guy has that he feels the need to make the heros of his stories obnoxious human beings and then kills off all the nice ones. Anyway, despite all this, SCREAM was still fairly fun, especially in its references to other horror films and its attempts to do away with their old cliches, and it did leave enough of the likable people alive in the end to make it finally all add up to being about a *** film. Nothing overly special, but definitely something worth seeing.
Okay, now, let's talk SCREAM 2. Basically, you're getting more of the same here. The story is that the survivors of the first film come together along with their friends when a copycat killer appear in Sidney's college town. This happens just as "Stab," the movie based on the book that Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) wrote about the first movie's killings, premieres (providing us with some cute in-jokes for those who saw the first one - Tori Spelling, anyone?) Overall, the comedy is actually stronger than it was in the original for about the first half of the film, but the horror (at least what there was of it) is actually somewhat lessened. There's no scene that compares to the opening of the last one that just sets your nerves on edge. In fact, characters in this movie don't simply mock horror cliches, some of them perpetuate them! For example, hasn't anyone been taught *not* to run up the stairs when you could run out the door? Didn't Sidney point out how foolish this is in the first film? Still, there are scenes that have more tension than their closest counterparts in the original had.
Now I'll be straight for a minute here. I read the script for SCREAM 2 a month or two ago, and I must admit, it was mostly pretty strong. It would've been downright excellent if not for a few things - an extreme case of the KWC (tm) and an ending which was so positively horrid that it came close to ruining the entire rest of the story. Now, in light of the movie, let's deal with these problems. This flick's been changed quite a bit. The ending is different, and I do believe it's better. But it's still not great. It's way too "Scooby-Doo." You just wait for the killer(s) to say "And I would've gotten away with it too, if not for you meddling kids!" or something to that effect. Anyway, because the ending is different, many scenes earlier in the film had to be altered, and some of the more dramatic ones seem less tense than they were in the script. However, if you want to view these scenes in light of *only* the movie itself, which is probably the smart way to go, then these two or maybe three scenes still do have tension and are still moderately strong in that sense. Okay folks. Now let's deal with the KWC...
I'm getting worried about Williamson. He comes close to making SCREAM and SCREAM 2 into being almost *great* movies, but this KWC (tm) causes severe damage. It really kills him. It's what sucks him down from making "films" or "movies" to making "flicks." Somebody's got to teach this guy to have some common sense. SCREAM 2 has got the worst case of KWC (tm) that I could've imagined. He manages to kill off the one character who was probably *THE* most likable one in the movie, a character who could've stuck with the viewers and loved for years to come if not for this act of pure idiocy. What purpose does it serve? I supposed you might be able to argue that it makes the later tense scenes more effective, giving the viewer a feeling of "well if they killed that person off, anyone could be next!" But that just doesn't cut it. The audience on opening night where I saw it here in St. Louis didn't exactly feel the tension. The reaction was primarily a large collection of profanity from the primarily late teens/early 20s group. Shouts like "What is THAT s---?!", "F--- YOU, CRAVEN!!!" and yes, even "Williamson will BURN for that sick s---, THE LITTLE F----R!!!" were rather common. Well, at least you can say that Williamson *did* get an emotional reaction from his audience. But, for God's sake man, do you think that *now* you'll learn that people don't want to see their favorite character bite it?
Well once this character died, the humor in the movie just about died with him/her. Comedic moments got kind of rare without his/her jokes and insights. There were occasional ones, but just not as many and certainly not as good as you got from him/her. The greatest moment of humor after that came when the killer(s) was/were revealed. Can you say cheesy? When the audience saw who was responsible for our little trip into flick-land, the initial response was widespread laughter. I've checked on the reaction at other showings in other theaters, and it was pretty much the same. At my own showing, shouts once again came out of the crowd, like "I don't even know who the F--- THAT IS!!!" and "It's SCOOBY-F---ING-DOO!!!" Yes, I feel that the choice for who the killer(s) was/were was a pretty goofy one. And yet, it was certainly better than the choice(s) in the original script, by quite a lot. And of course, this final scene is also not exactly tense, since we don't care much about these characters.
Overall, I think that the ending and the KWC (tm), along with the loss in comedic quality as a result of that KWC act, knocks this film down to a level below the original. Neither is an excellent film in any sense - these are glorified B movies people, pure and simple. But the first was probably the more fun. At least Sidney doesn't do anything as bad in this movie as what she did in the first movie, but the thing is, she just plain *doesn't do much* anyway. We don't get that much of an insight into her character. The closest we get is seeing that she tries to remain strong despite what's going on again around her (ultimately, she basically fails). Sidney does get one of the (unintentionally) funnier scenes though, when her college acting coach (she's a drama major it seems) tells her what a good actress she is, prompting Neve Campbell to do a bit of... questionable acting which the professor actually approves of. This was another scene that got a good amount of laughs at the showing I attended on opening night.
Overall, I guess SCREAM 2 will be enjoyed by those who liked the original. It's moderately close to the first one in quality, despite its glaring flaws. In a world where horror movies and particularly horror sequels suck, this is certainly above most sequels in the genre. Still, the comedy aspects of both these movies is stronger than its horror angle. Perhaps the third and (hopefully) final installment can emphasize the humor more? And maybe Kevin Williamson can prove to us that he's not a hack by fighting off his curse. In the end, SCREAM 2 is fun for those who attend who like these kinds of movies, like the original, or just attend a crowded screening with people who aren't afraid to voice their opinions. If you didn't care for the first one or can't see it with many people... well, you're probably better off checking out the latest exploits of Ellen Ripley or James Bond to get your sequel fix.
Oh, my new rating system (which hopefully will work) just rates a movie based on its overall quality (expectations no longer factor in). It's purely star based, with four stars most likely being the higest (I might make it go to five someday if I change my mind) and zero beings the lowest. That being said, I give SCREAM 2...
RATING: **1/2
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews