Scream 2 [MA]

For Sidney Prescott, life has just begun to get back on track after the Woodsboro murders; she’s in college, has a smart and sane boyfriend, and has even gotten used the immature prank callers trying to give her a scare. But then a movie comes out based on her true story and when two students are killed during the advance screening, it soon becomes apparent that there’s a Ghostface copycat on the loose. But, what began as random murders is soon revealed to have some connection to Sidney and Woodsboro and it becomes apparent that someone is out to finish what Billy Loomis started. 

Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson reunite for a second instalment of metafiction and horror with Scream 2, a sequel that makes fun of itself as a sequel and thus, has this arguably protective cloak against criticism because even if you argue that it’s not as good as the first one, which I am about to do, the metafictive element that is more heavily employed here can absolve the movie of many indiscretions simply by arguing that it has been deliberately written that way. The question of course becomes whether this protective cloak of metafiction works to create a similar viewing experience to the original and only those who watch the film can answer that. 

First, let’s discuss the pros. By no means is this a bad sequel and it definitely does not cheapen or take anything away from the original or the franchise. Williamson’s quick and clever metafictive wit is still present and works to great effect. Indeed, the film draws attention to itself as a sequel, but does not actually follow through with the clichéd and expected defining features of a sequel. Randy himself, still heavily into movies even after the first flick, openly discusses the calling cards of a sequel: chiefly a higher body count and an increase in the creativity and gore factor of the murders, however the film nicely doesn’t adhere to these clichés. Truthfully the body count is higher, literally by one corpse if my counting serves me correctly, but the gore factor is not upped in any way and the creativity less so. There are no garage doors with cat flaps, no sadistic games of movie trivia, and no gutting and hanging from trees or goalposts; just flat out stabbby stab stab. 

The story is pretty good although, the killer’s motive at the end whilst being “good and old fashioned” can be argued and work as a bit of an unstable plot point. I personally think it said more about the fragility of the character, which didn’t quite sit right. Aside from that there are some nice red herrings, misdirected leads, and a twist that I really didn’t see coming. 

At the same time as being a slasher story, it’s a story about redemption and character growth, making it a slasher flick of many levels. Cotton’s character from the first makes a reappearance and his story, whilst being a little clumsily handled and the character a little unstable, is really kind of nice namely because it brings such a minor character into limelight and focuses a lot on them and the repercussions of the first film on them. Gale’s character receives a bit of a wake up call and it’s nice to see her character develop and transform, especially the greedy, grubbing side of her. 

Quickly going back to the humour of the movie, there are a great many jokes that make their way into the mix that nicely tie the two movies together, namely the appearance of Tori Spelling as Sidney in the movie of the Woodsboro murders. Other recognisable faces make their way onto two screens with Heather Graham as Drew Barrymore’s character and Luke Wilson as Billy Loomis. 

I have sort of already covered most of the cons in the pros section, but we’ll do a quick overview. Whilst I did like most of the metafictive comedy that was blended into the script, some of it did come across as being obvious and sometimes a little ham-fisted. This is noticed probably most poignantly during the movie discussion scenes where heated discussions take place on the nature of sequels, which then bleeds into other, more dramatic scenes. 

Randy’s character is exactly the same, which is kind of sad because I think a growth of character for him would have been interesting to watch, but he proves to be a one-trick pony, playing that trick of movie trivia and analysis over and over again. 

By the time we get to the reveal of the killer, there is some idea as to who it is and whilst there is a twist that I didn’t see coming, it doesn’t work to up the ante in favour of horror and suspense, if anything the more the killer reveals of themselves just highlights how weak a person they are and how their motive is pretty mediocre and just ugh. More detail into the history might have helped to heighten the fear factor, but as it stands I was a little disappointed with the killer. 

Sidney is just as annoying as she was in the first movie so I suppose we can’t really count that as a con because it is to be expected. There really is only so much of that girl one can take, though the way she fights back against the killer is always something that I marvel at. 

Starring Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, Elsie Neal, Live Schreiber, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Joshua Jackson, Timothy Olyphant, Jamie Kennedy, Jerry O’Connell, Duane Martin, Larue Metcalf, David Arquette, Omar Epps, and Jada Pinkett Smith, Scream 2 contains all the metafictive humour of the first movie, but a little less of the initial fun. Maybe it’s because the setting has gotten bigger, being set on a college campus away from Woodsboro, but that initial intimacy of the small town serial slasher does get taken away a little in this. So, I lied when I said this movie takes nothing away from the first. 

Filled with murder, blood, romance, drama, suspense, and comedy, Scream 2 works well as a sequel that ironically doesn’t deliver the expected ‘delights’ of a sequel but, of course, it’s not as good as the first one.