User Reviews (492)

Add a Review

  • 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
  • Scream 2 is flawless but enjoyable sequel it is not better than the first one but much way better than part 4. Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson does return for this sequel but still I enjoy the third one much way more. The second sequel was good little different mixed with action and humor, but it wasn't that scary to me. It is really a step down from the first film. I have a lot of problems with this film.

    The bad: The writer Kevin Williamson copied the first film why would they copy the first film? I don't get it. The film looks like the same as the first movie, first the name of the town was Windsor like in the first movie Woodsboro: Then the victims were killed whit the same names and surnames the same emo from the first killer. Than was a copy killer on the loose and than they were like two killers just one wants to get away, the other wants to get caught. Deputy Sheriff David Arquette as Dewey Riley did do nothing in this movie and he was useless in this film! He was complaining, yelling and did do nothing, he was slashed but yet again he survived, how did he survive? or why is he in this movie is yet beyond me. Kevin Williamson wrote his character dull and awful. Marco Beltrami copied and stole the theme music score from Hans Zimmer music score for Broken Arrow (1996) John Woo film. The humor I didn't like in here and I didn't like they were talking about Stab fictional movie in this film that was based on Scream film. Jada Pinkett Smith was in the beginning in this film and she was terrible. Most of the characters in this film are awful.

    The good: I love the ghostface killer in this movie and he doesn't use so much scary movies questions like in the first movie, he simply kills fast his victims. I love Neve Campbell as Sidney Prescott she was lovely, such a sole survivor, such a bad-ass even more sexy than in the first film. Her ass was sexy, man o man she was hot! I fall in love with her, I did enjoy her performance as Sidney. I enjoy Courteney Cox as Gale Weathers this time she had a different hair cut but she was still good in her performance as a nosy tabloid reporter. The most hero I enjoy in this movie is Liev Schreiber as Cotton Weary he is awesome!!! A true real hero he is excellent! I really did enjoy the plot twist and his character. Sarah Michelle Gellar as Casey "Cici" Cooper is in here she is really good and Timothy Olyphant as Mickey from Live Free or Die Hard is in here! The cast work really well.

    8/10 It is a good slasher horror movie and a good sequel to the first one I still watch this films, I like this film and the trilogy. I like the song "She Said by Collective Soul excellent song. My third favorite film in the series but still a good one, doesn't deserve the hate.
  • After the Scream phenomenon, it was only natural that a sequel was in the works. While most slasher sequels tend to be a let down and not live up to their first by having a ridiculous premise or not having the needed characters, Scream 2 is entirely different. This sequel was excellent, and lived up to the first Scream perfectly, when I did not think it would on first viewing. I mean, I was expecting it to be good, but not as good as it was. It's premise was wonderful, and the characters are amazing, because it has all the characters, that aren't already victims, from the first and more that are just as fun. All in all, it was a joyous outcome.

    Scream 2 is not afraid to kill off whoever it wants to, like the one before and after it, even though that one does not have as many fans as the first two. It has some new twists, and the execution style is just as professional and cunning as the first. It keeps you totally entertained and the performances are just as fun. While of course it is not as good as the original, it is pretty close, I must say, and that of course is an accomplishment in itself.

    After the events of Woodsboro, California, Sidney and Randy soon realize that a killer is on the loose again, this time at the college they are attending in Ohio. Dewey arrives on the campus to once again protect Sidney, and she and Dewey have an unwelcome reunion with Gale. How pleasant, we have all our old friends back, and the cast pulls out all the stops with their characters like they did in the first. It's still gritty and bloody, and it's also loaded with lots of nice material matter. I do not understand why it is not as appreciated as it is, regarding the rating mostly. Scream fans and horror lovers were all pleased with this movie when it came out, so I have heard, and I was as well.
  • 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.
  • I really enjoyed SCREAM because I thought it was a very original horror movie. I liked SCREAM 2 for the same reason. The story line is pretty much the same as in SCREAM, but I thought the acting, characters, and death scenes were all better.

    Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) has gone off to college to become and actress. Now that she has left her past behind her, she is doing better. She has a new best friend/roommate named Hallie (Elise Neal), a new boyfriend and a new life. But when somebody starts killing people in the same style of the killer, Sidney finds out that her past has come back to haunt her. Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber), old prime suspect proven innocent of the murder of Sidney's mom from SCREAM, returns to try and get publicity for his part in all of this. Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy) returns as the movie expert and Dewey Riley (David Arquette) and Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) return to try and protect Sidney.

    The plot is pretty much the same as SCREAM, but instead of poking fun of horror movies, they poke fun at sequels. When the college students argue about whether sequels can be better than the original, it's priceless.

    The acting is even better in this movie than in SCREAM. Neve Campbell does her usual teriffic job. David Arquette and Courtney Cox are even better in SCREAM 2 than they are in SCREAM. Sarah Michelle Gellar and Jada Pinkett are the equivilant of Drew Barrymore in SCREAM. They both do fair jobs, especially Sarah. Liev Schreiber and Jamie Kennedy do great jobs, and Roger L. Jackson returns at the bitchin' phone voice. (By the way, in a movie full of the biggest teenage stars of today, Joshua Jackson has a good cameo.)

    The character development is even better in SCREAM. You will, once again, find yourself screaming at the characters to run and get away. Sidney and Gale are just as cool as they were in the first one. Dewey and Randy are both extremely better characters in this one than in SCREAM. In SCREAM, Randy was annoying and an almost pointless character. In SCREAM 2, he's my favorite. The addition of Cotton Weary in this movie is suberb.

    I thought SCREAM 2 was better than SCREAM. Most people will think it is just as good or almost as good as SCREAM. If you didn't like SCREAM, don't bother watching SCREAM 2. But if you, like me, enjoyed SCREAM, this is a must-see.
  • 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.

    Ha! There goes my "useful comment" rating!

    Not many movies beat their originals, especially in the horror genre. However, Scream 2 proved them wrong.

    Sidney has gone to college and moved on with her life after the events of Scream. However, the murders and famous "ghostface killer" have followed too.

    Sidney, Dewey, Gale, Randy, and Cotton all return from the first film. But we also get an interesting new group of people: Hallie, Derek, Mickey, Cici, and Debbie the reporter, who is actually more annoying than Gale.

    We also have a higher body count, more gore, more interesting kills, and a much better ending (in my opinion).

    I recommend this to fans of the original movie. 8/10.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Scream (1996) was a wittily postmodern recasting of slasher films of the early 1980s like Halloween (1978) and Friday the 13th (1980) and their endless horde of imitators. On one level Scream was filled with all the shocks and thrills expected of it. Yet there was another whole level to it which at the same time was consciously crafting a film that was slyly mocking and parodying its own genre and cliches. Characters stopped in the middle of the flight from the slasher to hold discussions about what characters in slasher films did in the situation and which type of character was supposed to survive according to the slasher movie formula. And following Scream's success, what more natural to follow it up with than a Scream 2, which gleefully launches into satirizing the pandemic of sequels that followed most slasher films in the mid-1980s.

    The plot follows on from the first; Sidney Prescott and fellow survivor Randy Meeks are attending a film and theatre school, while Gale Weathers is releasing a film based on the events of the first film (which hilariously parodies the first films opening) called Stab. However, at Stab's opening, two people are found dead, after being killed by a man in a Munch mask. Now Sidney is caught up in her very own sequel.

    The film has a fabulous opening that perfectly encapsulates the joyful sense of meta-fictional play that screenwriter Kevin Williamson delights in - while watching a film based on the events of the first film (wherein the opening of the first film is replayed but amusingly satirized - one scene rather funnily digs at directors that like to quote the Psycho (1960) shower sequence) a copycat killing takes place in the theatre where the victim's death throes are just taken to be part of the promotional gimmick for the film. Here the constant blurring of the lines between what is happening and `the artificial' is dazzling. And this naturally segues into a typically Williamson-esque debate on whether someone is trying to 'create' a sequel to the events of the first film, whether some sequels are better than their originals - you know it's a real genre fan writing when someone argues the merits of House II: The Second Story (1987) over House (1986) - and whether the media influences violence.

    But unfortunately for Scream 2 the film that ends up on screen sadly fails to meet the criteria it itself establishes for worthwhile sequels. Williamson's script is far too burdened down and overweighed by the necessity of trying to turn the survivors from the first film and most of the cast members into potential suspects and as a result the jokey genre interplay that essentially made the first film gets lost. There is the odd moment - the script even parodies its own catchphrase from the first film: `What's your favourite scary movie?' the stalker asks Jamie Kennedy. `Showgirls - now that was a truly scary movie.' And the ending wherein the slasher explains their motivation - that they want to be caught so they can demonstrate the case for movies influencing violence in real life - is positively ingenious. But such an ending is ruined by Williamson placing so many successive twist revelations on top of that that the moment topples over into the farcically absurd.

    Indeed, the film contains genuine tension; the vague reconstruction of Casey Becker's demise is very scary, and a scene where Sidney and her friend are trapped in a police car with an unconscious killer is exceptional.

    However, Scream 2 tries too hard to be clever and witty, instead of just getting on with it.

    Verdict - While Scream 2 is quite scary, and has some hugely inventive sequences, it gets too caught up with parody and clever-clever remarks. ***
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The savage murders appear to be piling up just when Sydney Prescott begins to pull the knots in her life loose again and move on. Along with the survivors of the first Scream, David Arrquette, Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and Jamie Kennedy show an amazing performance in this Hip-thriller and sequle to "Scream" Also with another new hip cast such as Jerry O'Connel, Eleas Neal, Timothy Olyphant, Jada Pinkett, Omar Epps, and last but not least Sarah Michelle Gellar!

    The murders take place in a copycat mode of names of the victims from the first "Scream" Such as Maurreen Evans = Maurreen Prescott, Phil Stevens > Steven Orath. and Cici "Casey" Cooper = Casey Becker! The sly killer then goes after the survivors of the first Scream then but plans don't go as they'll have to see that all for yourself in "Scream 2"
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Watching horror movies is one thing, but surviving them is another and Scream 2 sets the bar higher, and to be honest it should have ended here. Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson take it to high gear this time around. It's a lot less subtle and more in your face, which is a nice change of pace compared to the first film, cause you cannot do what you did in the first movie.

    Like the first film, it's hilarious with the self-aware characters and the jokes that come with it, but it still takes the kills very seriously. Craven and Williamson keeps the guessing game going and it still makes us wonder who the damn killer is.

    The main players, Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courteney Cox, and Jamie Kennedy are back. What makes this Scream special is that the cast is likable, perhaps in my own opinion a little more likable than the original. The last two don't have any characters that are as likable as first Scream and this sequel. All the cast are great. Jerry O'Connell, Timothy Olyphant, Elise Neal, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Liev Schreiber, etc. They all come to play and bring their A-game.

    You also feel for most of the cast. The script has fun making Derek, played by Jerry O'Connell a potential suspect. The film show's Sidney's rightful paranoia, like the little moments where Derek offers her a seat and she sits next to Timothy Olyphant's character Mickey. You can't help but maybe feel a little sorry for him, but yet ponder if he is behind all the killings. Williamson does a great job juggling all these characters.

    What I respect about Scream 2 is that it doesn't play it safe at all. It takes risks and makes no apologies. They kill off, who is arguably the most popular character in the series Randy Meeks. It takes balls to do that, but I'm glad they did. I love Randy, but his death just made Scream 2 that much more unpredictable and immediately the stakes are much higher. They didn't play it safe. Props to Kevin Williamson and Wes Craven. Some may ponder that Sidney and Randy were destined to be together, and probably should have died in the third film while they end up as a couple, but even if that may have been cool, killing him off in this sequel makes everything unpredictable and makes a bigger shocking impact.

    Speaking of impact, the killer reveals are quite a surprise. Mickey(Olyphant) was expected, but Craven and Williamson do a nice homage to Laurie Metcalf's Mrs. Loomis, Billy's mother. Breaking a rule of a serial killer typically being a male, as well as tributing other female killers in cinema, particularly Mrs. Voorhees from the Friday the 13th franchise.

    The first Scream is game changer, but in the second film, it solidified Sidney Prescott being poison. If you're friends with Sidney you die, like poor Randy Meeks. You would think all the main players are safe, but they're not, at one point you even think Dewey is toast. You just don't feel safe for anyone else, and what I love is that it spoofs itself, cause Randy's argument is that sequels, especially sequels to horror films are garbage, ironically making Scream 2 being one of the few horror sequels that is considered to be worthy compared many atrocious horror sequels that killed the genre. It's meta, even before people knew what meta was.

  • I have always loved scream and believe that it is one of the greatest movies i will watch for a while.

    Scream 2 is another death in the beginning and guess throughout, while others have died there are more people around Sidney this time which leaves even more suspects for Sid and us to suspect and wonder just how save she really is.

    I found the acting on this one to be well above average and i can't really fault anyone's acting and i have to admit that i really do like Sarah Michelle gellar and i found her to be an amazing little actress in this one as well.

    The plot hasn't run thin even though there isn't the largest revelations in the world, there certainly is a few twists which result in one hell of a movie somehow linking itself to the first scream ever so well without just delving into the roots to make a stupid cop-out sequel just for money.

    The death scenes aren't the largest amount of blood you will ever see but it does have more than the first one so you have been warned, of course this film tries to pull on heart strings so depending on who you take a liking to you might just find yourself upset with the result of your favourite cause i know i was.

    Overall, this film is a great sequel that can't be ignored so ignore the low star rating, watch it yourself and i'm sure you'll find yourself pleasantly surprised that you have.
  • The Plot line = 2 years after the horrific events in Woodsbrough Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) attempts to try and move on with her life by attending college along with fellow survivor Randy (Jamie Kennedy) but yet again there's another killer whose after Sidney's blood, after two college students are murdered while attending the premiere of "Stab" which is based on the events of the first movie and after that Sidney starts experiencing deja vu when the killer starts stalking her and taunting and as the body count begins to get higher and higher Sidney realises she's next can she survive again or will she end up dead.

    Scream 2 is everything a sequel should be more gore and a higher body count and plus yet again a long list of suspects. To be honest this was one the sequels I was looking forward too and gladly it didn't disappoint me. It still managed to keep the intensity and humour the first one did, the first Scream was like a tribute to 80's slashers and was quite frankly much better than them all and Scream 2 is a tribute to the 80's college slashers and again better than all of them put together.

    The characters themselves really made the movie as well the ones who came back are the lovely level headed Sidney (Neve Campbell) back, my fave Randy (Jamie Kennedy) the horror movie film buff who sadly doesn't get enough screen time, Dewey (David Arguette) the lovable silly policeman and the bitchy but sexy Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox) who all come back but will they survive this time. We also get a host of new characters such as Dereck (Jerry O' Connell) Sidney's new boyfriend and possible suspect remember the first one could history be repeating itself, Mickey (Timothy Olyphant) the freaky Tarantino film student, Hallie (Elise Neal) Sidney's roommate and new best friend, Cotton Weary (Liev Shreiber) who appeared briefly in part one who got accused of killing Sidney's mother but was wrongly accused and could may well be out for revenge and lets not forget fellow scream queen Buffy er no sorry I meant Sarah Michelle Gellar looking gorgeous as ever in her few short lived minutes as one of the victims.

    The kills in this movie are cool, the suspense is there We also get lots of cameos (you spot them), a great phone conversation between Randy (Kennedy) and the killer and even a few nods Friday The 13th's way. But overall, this sequel rocks.

    The acting Neve Campbell is brill as always, David Arquette is lovable, Jamie Kennedy didn't get enough screen time, Courteney Cox is even sexier and bitchier in this one and gets yet another slap from Sidney. Jerry O' Connell did fine although a bit dull but still likable, Timothy Olyphant has great hair and has fun, Elise Neal was OK but not very interesting, Liev Shreiber to be honest I found that there was really no need to fetch his character back because he didn't bring anything new or exciting to the movie, Sarah Michelle Gellar is stunning as always, Laurie Metcalf truly shines although not until towards the end, Jada Pinkett well I was surprised to see her in this but does fine as one of the first victims and Omar Epps is cool but gets killed way too fast.

    All in all Craven does well again, injecting the suspense scenes with lots of tension, the film is definitely a worthy follow up and well and truly has it's moments and also I loved the cheesy twist ending.
  • Yes, it's true that original movies, like part 1 of any movie or series is claimed to be the "best", just because it kicked off everything.

    Well if that's so true? Then howcome Austin Powers The Spy Who Shagged Me, was 10 times better then the first part and made more money? I can't speak about this movie, on the the money part. Is it better then part 1, much much better. Non-stop action and killing. Story was good and had twists. The first 1, was more like an 80's slasher flick. It really didn't have much of a moral, it did have you wanting to ask more questions.

    This movie did have a huge cast of names, that a big now. Omar Epps, Jada Pinkett Smith, just to name a few. But sorry to dissappoint, but Elise Neal stole some of the movie, from Neve Campbell. She was much prettier and had personality, not "dim-wittedness".

    If someone would like non-stop action horror with a good story and the least amount of "yawns" and slow-downs in a movie, watch this. It's much better then the original. Piece of advice, never ever ever watch Scream 3, absolute garbage, boring and has no story, even if it was paid to have one. Thank You for reading, just accessing my hypothesis.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I was a huge fan of the scream series( i first watched scream when i was 9!) and i have to say that this is the best by far. I like both of the other movies, but with 'SCR3AM' i found that it was more funny than scary (Especially Sarahs Death, why would you hide between scream costumes!) and with the first scream, i know its a classic but lets face it, it isn't very scary any more, like Halloween and nightmare on elm street. What i found so scary about this movie is that you can never guess who is going to be killed next, for example, who thought that out of the main movie, Sarah Michelle Geller would die first? I thought that she would be one of the final ones to die, if not one of the survivors. The ending also really surprised me, i thought that the killer(s) would be the sorority sisters, or Hallie ( i thought it would be girls!) my favourite scene had to be either CiCi's death scene, or the scene where gale is chased (and where Dewey appears to be killed) i think that this movie is definitely one of the best i have seen, and i recommend it even if you haven't seen any of the other scream movies! 10/10
  • Scream 2 is the sequel to the 1996 box-officer sleeper hit where somebody is emulating Sidney Prescott's killer and going after people left and right.

    It's been a year since the Woodsboro incident with Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) in college where she thinks her problems have gone away while starting a new life...

    Think again.

    After reporter Gail Weathers (Courtney Cox) gained rights for her book to become a hit where she hears about a killer attacking college kids in the same community where Sydney lives, she goes to the school with reporters wanting a piece of the dish before reuniting with the original victims from Sydney, Dewey (David Arquette) and Randy (Jamie Kennedy). She brings a surprise, Cotton Weary (Liev Schriber), as a way for him and Sydney to reunite for an interview that Gail promises the innocent victim (Cotton).

    Students are being killed left and right just as time is running out for Sydney and the others to find out who the killer is and why.

    "Scream 2" follows the movie patterns that most movie sequels follow: 1.) The body count is always bigger; 2.) The death scenes are much more elaborate; and three? You're going to figure it out for yourself.

    The film itself is not as creepy unlike the original but much more lighthearted besides the fact that the death scenes are gruesome. It was really great to see how Wes Craven can make a sequel of a franchise without having to ruin the fun or making it less weaker to the film's original counterpart.
  • I thought Scream 2 wasn't really a bad movie, but It did remind of the original (and better) Scream a little bit too much, making it VERY predictable, plus I definitely think they should have killed off a lot more key characters.

    But the overall setting is good, the acting is 'okey' and the murders are definitely the highlight of this film, few and far apart, but the kills were more graphic and gory then the first! You get all your stabbings, head stabbings, head impalings, slashed throat and bullet wounds.Nice job! This one might just also have one of the coolest and suspenseful chase scenes EVER involving the character of Gale.

    Watch it for the gore, but don't expect a slasher classic like the first.
  • Immediately after the hype surrounding Scream (1996) and the start of a new horror genre it was clear that part 2 was on it's way as soon as possible. Again directed by Wes Craven it should be another hit.

    Not that it was that bad but some scene's took too long (espescially towards the end) and the plot like in the original one wasn't anywhere to spot. But it is still worth picking up but not that gory as the original one. What was nice is that all characters were back with their original thespians and that did add something towards the belief in the story.

    Another success it became and the franchise was started. For me it's still okay but not a masterpiece like the 1996 flick. If you look to other flicks that came out picking in on the Scream success then this is a better one then the others.

    Gore 1/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 3/5 Story 2,5/5 Comedy 0/5
  • preppy-325 October 2015
    This is a rarity--a sequel that doesn't suck! This takes place a few years after "Scream". Sidney (Neve Campbell) is in college still recovering from virtually all her friends being killed years before. Then a movie called "Stab" opens that is a fictional account of what happened. Then the murders start happening again centered around Sidney. GREAT sequel with a wonderful script, mostly great acting and plenty of action. The body count has been upped, the killings are more brutal and bloody and this film is very scary. There is humor of course but it takes a back seat to horror. Well-directed by Wes Craven too.

    There's only two problems. One is David Arquette. He's TERRIBLE in his role. He appears drugged out. The second is the killer seems to magically teleport himself to where his victims are. This happens at least three times in the course of the film! Still, if you're a horror film like me, you learn how to totally suspend your disbelief and go with it. A fast, funny and bloody sequel. Avoid "Scream 3" at all costs.
  • ekseer7 October 2014
    I loved that the sequel stayed true to the first movie, just added more gore and more blood! The storyline wasn't as good as with the first movie, but then again nothing can top that, but it was still very amusing and fun to watch. It was still suspenseful, and had that horror movie element to it that made the first scream so good. The acting, just got better, Neve, Courteney, and David play their roles exquisitely, and i can't imagine other actors in the roles of Sidney, Gale, and Dewey. All in all, if you liked the first one, and love horror/slasher movies, you wont regret watching this installment in the series!
  • "Scream 2" is the second movie of the Scream series and in this one we are two years after the events of the first movie and a new psychopath wears the Ghostface costume and a new series of murders begin.

    I liked this movie because I believe that "Scream 2" is a really nice sequel but a little bit lower than the first one. I believe that this movie was a little bit lower than the first one because in this movie we are more prepared about what are we going to watch and one more thing was that the number of suspects reduced really quickly and we are prepared for who is the serial killer.

    Although I have to say that I recommend this movie because "Scream 2" is a really good horror sequel.
  • In one early scene, Randy claims that sequels are inherently inferior. The characters then list several examples of sequels that have matched and possibly surpassed the original. And Scream 2 ranks among them.

    Scream 1 was great. I gave it a wonderful review. But somehow, Scream 2 managed to do it all better. The suspense is greater, the kills gorier, the laughs funnier, and cast better.

    With Scream 1 having been made into a movie within the movie, Sydney and the other survivors are all trying to move on with her and Randy in college finding new friends and loves. They're reunited when the killings begin again as someone sets out to make a sequel. A new setting means new rules with some twists and turns along the way.

    Just as before, we have no idea who the killer(s) is until the final act. We get the same kind of false leads and misdirect, such as people being gone at Ghostface's appearances and wearing the same boots as the killer. Once the identity(ies) is revealed, it's great to go back and see how the person(s) manipulated events without the mask. SPOILER Mickey's motivation works well within the movie. Ms. Loomis' also works well, but I don't like that they never really built her up. She comes out of nowhere with little basis before the finale. END SPOILER

    The cast are all wonderful. Neve Campbell shows a great progression in her character, and of the four movies this is the one I think she's sexiest in. Cox, Arquette, and Kennedy all return as wonderful as before. O'Connell, Gellar, Schreiber, and Neal are great in new, or at least expanded, roles. None of them are merely copies from the first movie. Though it's Kennedy and Olyphant steal every scene they're in, much like Randy and Stu did in the first. Their dialog together is great, especially as they keep referring to various sequels. At least none of them look quite as "evil" as Billy did.

    Of course, being a horror movie it's the scares that are really matters. The suspense is built up much better than the first. The scene where Sydney must escape the cop car is probably the most suspenseful in the entire series, maybe in the genre. The movie also plays on the fact that audiences know the standards set by the original.

    Scream 2 is definitely on par with the original, and in my opinion the best of the series. This is definitely a must-see for fans of the original and of horror. There's really nothing to disappoint here. It may share the same general story as the original, but like Terminator 2 it adds enough to be its own experience.
An error has occured. Please try again.