...2, the "Back For More" movie.

Rating: 5/10 (25 October 2005)

...And the audience was desperate for a sequel! Yep, the inevitable was near, so near it was a only a single year after the original "Scream" that we saw a continuation of the Wes Craven movie that spawned a huge following. This film did nothing more than take the first film to a new and alleged stereotypical setting that would be ground zero for another slasher story. I can say, however, that this film was, in event, actually better than its procedure. I guess most sequels sometimes feel more intriguing than the originals, but only to an extent. The feeling is usually only a left-over sentiment from the original winning a fans heart. In "Scream 2", there is both, a sentiment, and excitement that runs along the entire film. Better yet, the first film may as well not even exist, seeing as Kevin Williamson made quite sure that any pre-requisite films need not apply this time around. You hear so much about the first one, why even bother watching? All you get is twice the gore, twice the cheese, and all that goofy Williamson dialog, fit with cheap so-called innovation.
This time, we have a new movie opening up appropriately titled 'Stab'. A hot'n'happening college couple are out on a date to inspect it, or rather, he is, she should be back in the dorm studying. At any rate, trouble ensues when the culture-oriented colleagues become the hot topic of the following morning news.Yes, a second killer is here, and Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) cannot help but feel that somehow, it is all her fault. If this is incorrect, than Campbell gives off the wrong signals all throughout the film. Anyway, the public media creates a frenzy at a nice little college where Campbell and Kennedy from the first, now reside. Guess who else in back...Gale Weathers! Yes, the convenient 'Stab' franchise is based on none other, than the "Scream" original caper itself! How Very! (or not!). David Arguette also comes back as the laid-back, humble cop Dewey. We get to see more of Kennedys' rambling about supposed pop- culture sequels such as "Aliens" . We also receive information about slasher movies located at a college campus. We learn of "House On Sorority Row", "The Dorm that Dripped Blood", even a little bit about "Showgirls". How fun! In any case, blood baths return, as well as more predictability and that 'lingo' issue Williamson had with the first one.
Arquette, Campbell, and Cox are well on target, keeping their characters up to par with the original formality they began with. Kennedys "Randy" is more intellectual, and given the treatment of a saint...and for what? All he does is sit side and give his own commentary about sequels and trilogies. How original...right! Perhaps if he was not such a film geek before... Other cast members are fun to watch. Jerry O'Connel, Timothy Olephant, and Rebecca Gayheart are nice and steady. A real joker about this, is the disgustingly goofy way that Sarah Michelle Gellar has a bit part as a typical sorority girl on campus. Please...it was enough in "I Know What You Did Last Summer" also written by Williamson, but I remember finding out she was in this after "Summer" and thinking it was pretty ridiculous. There is, however, a performance that stands out major from the rest of the cast, and the award for best actor/actress in this installment goes to Laurie Metcalf, for a great comeback into film, as well as all the little manifestations she creates.
The writing is slightly better than the original, and obviously so, as the first one was the starting point for all this madness and violence. The issue of extreme language and convenient movie knowledge still present, only this time, we have a full classroom of film studies, where everyone is just like Kennedys' "Randy". Williamson is too enthralled to slow the pace, and thusly the story is quick and sharp, if sometimes repetitive and lacking. I suppose it is likely that Williamson reached a certain status of narcissism with the success of the first film. It is all too fake by the end. Some of the dialog is just as hammy as Thanksgiving dinner. Albeit entertaining.
Wes Craven gives his usual storytelling in genius fashion, but the impact on pop-culture is still all to shocking to believe. We still have the same direction as the first, with no real end of the tunnel. New back stories and twists may come off as new direction for the story,but for the most part, it just says the same old thing over and over again. Maybe by "Scream 3"...