Contrived, implausible

Rating: Null/10 (8 October 2001)

In the sequel to "Scream," screenwriter Kevin Williamson appears to have been so preoccupied with dropping clever film references and staging "cool" murder scenes that he forgot to add logic into the mix. Rather than discuss all the implausibilities in the movie, I'll just use the first murder as an example.
SPOILERS
"Scream 2" opens at a screening of "Stab," the hugely successful movie based on the events of the first film. Here's my first problem with the premise: While I can buy the idea of there being a movie-within-the-movie based on the supposed "real-life" murders of the first film, I cannot believe that it would be marketed with such gimmicks as glow-in-the-dark knives and costumes based on the killer's. Would any studio market a film about Columbine by selling tie-in trenchcoats and toy guns? At screenings of "Summer of Sam," were audiences cheering at the re-creations of real-life murders? (Actually, considering the number of sick and/or tactless people out there, I probably shouldn't have asked that last question.)
The first victim (who, we later learn, was deliberately targeted and not chosen randomly) enters a men's room. Both urinals are occupied, so he goes into an empty stall. He hears some bizarre whispering in the next stall, and puts his ear to the divider to hear better. Suddenly, the killer plunges a knife through the divider and into his head.
1. Since the killer was obviously already in the stall before the victim entered, how did the killer know his victim was coming into the restroom? (Keep in mind, the killer had this guy specifically targeted, and wasn't simply waiting for whoever happened to come into the stall.)
2. How did the killer know that both urinals would still be in use when the victim entered, forcing the victim into the stall?
3. How did the killer know somebody else wouldn't take the stall first?
4. Okay, I can accept the killer "knowing" that the victim would put his ear to the wall to listen in (human nature being what it is)...but how did he know the exact point on the wall where his victim's head was? Why didn't the knife emerge, say, in front of the victim's face, or an inch above his head?
5. Since the killer seems to have counted on both urinals being occupied when the victim entered, how could he be sure that everyone else would leave while the victim was still in the stall?
And that's only the first murder...sadly, the rest of the movie is no more plausible.