Review of Scream 2 (1997) by Edward B — 13 Apr 2011

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.