So many flaws it is surprising that the film is still enjoyable (!SPOILERS FOR SCREAM 1&2!)

Rating: 6/10 (20 April 2000)

What'd I expect? I mean, Scream was absolutely outstanding. It combined suspense, fun and originality in a never-before-seen way. To come up with a sequel that is better than Scream is a mission: impossible. I was aware and prepared that Scream 2 wouldn't beat the original. But still I was fairly disappointed. Scream 2 had almost none of the cleverness and wit that made its predecessor so originally entertaining. In addition, it changed the characteristics of some of the persons from the first one which was very confusing.
The story was basically a repetition of the first Scream (which isn't that tragic) but with less twists and surprises in it. In Scream we had the time to get to know all the important characters including the killers but it still wasn't easy to guess the killer right. In the end there was this unique experience: "Oh, of course it was them, why didn't I realize this earlier?!". When I watched the film again I had to admit that everything perfectly fit. Scream 2 totally failed in this point. The reason why it was almost impossible to figure out who the killers were, is that they had nearly no screentime until the very end. It could as well have been Norman Bates or Santa Claus. It is very easy to hide the killers by not showing them at all.
But nonetheless, Scream 2 had some pretty cool scenes. The opening scene in the movie-theatre at a sneak preview of "Stab" (a movie based on the events at Woodsboro in Scream) was excellent. Like in the original Scream it was very cruel, sadistic and maybe even more inventive. It didn't have the same impact one me though. This scene left me hoping for more. Another exciting scene includes Randy, Dewey and Gale Weathers standing on the lawn of the college. They get a call from the killer who is able to see them. They run around trying to find him/her even attacking some students. But then, in my opinion, Williamson made a big mistake by killing Randy. His death in the very same scene deeply disturbed me. Not because it was too cruel or anything like that. There was just something wrong with it, I thought he was the wrong person to get killed and that he should be among the survivors. They'd rather have killed Sidney Prescott, that would have surprised everybody and made this series unique! (Remember Randy: "I'd let the geek kill the girl.")
One more good scene that comes to my mind was the one in the sound studio which was very thrilling. Dewey is trying to call Gale through the soundproof pane when the killer is attacking him from behind. That was very clever. But again I have a small complaint: What does it need to kill Dewey? A nuclear bomb? Normally the lunatics are the ones that are (almost) immortal but no matter how much he gets stabbed, he doesn't die!
There are some very illogical scenes too, for instance when Sidney first runs away from the car, then decides to go back to see who the killer is. And the two agents that are supposed to protect Sidney: Were they on the drugs? My grandmother moves faster than these two did, and believe me, my grandmother is not that young anymore!
The irony that made Scream so amusing is reduced to a minimum in this sequel. The discussion about sequels was nice to watch but other than that...almost nothing. Why did they eliminate one of the most important elements? Instead we see all sorts of persons having all sorts of psychological problems. Sidney is still suffering from what happened to her at Woodsboro. Her boyfriend is not that happy either because his relationship to Sidney is starting to fall apart. Dewey has become a complete ghost. That kind of naive touch that he used to have made him the most enjoyable person in the first film. And Gale Weathers now feels alone and abandoned (*sniff*). Even the dead people are not happy. It seems as if all the persons have been replaced by emotionless robots. Especially Dewey has lost all his charm. The whole film is more like a psychological drama than a teen-horror slasher and that is not what I was hoping for.
If Craven had deleted some scenes, the movie wouldn't be that boring either. Some elements are weird, some are boring and others are weird and boring at the same time. Sidney belongs to a theatre group. I guess it was supposed to make Sidney look more like a real person but in fact it just slows down the film. And I didn't quite understand the point of Sidney's boyfriend being "abducted" by some freaked teens. I think it was only used to explain why he appeared in the final scene.
Let's face it: Stu and Billy were not that agile. But in Scream 2 the killer simply runs into every single obstacle. I wasn't quite sure if he wasn't even blind. I found myself laughing at him several times, especially when he followed Cici (Sarah Michelle Gellar) and stumbled over the couch etc..
But despite of all these flaws mentioned above the film still could have been far above average. But they decided to shoot one of the most pointless and boring endings in movie history. Mickey was quite a good psycho but Debbie Salt aka the mother of Billy was about as frightening as a banana. Laurie Metcalf tried to pull off some kind of Mrs. Voorhees-thing but she is so implausible that it gets ridiculous. Scream 2 turned out to be one of the only films in horror history to end with a shoot-out, not very scary either...
Don't get me wrong. Scream 2 is still one of the best films in this newly discovered genre (teen slasher). It's just way worse than the original. It is illogical and boring at places. But overall it is still enjoyable and provides decent entertainment (except for the ending).
My rating: 6/10