A good sequel, but not to outshine the original (what sequel does?)

Rating: 9/10 (17 January 1999)

"Scream 2" is pretty good when compared to the original, which many sequels aren't, but like the man says, sequels are by definition inferior films, so at least this one wasn't THAT inferior. In this film, a series of copycat murders are happening around Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) and the new killer starts coming after her and the other Woodsboro survivors. One thing I missed while watching this was the occasional laugh from the first one. This one had a couple of good lines, but "Scream" was definitely funnier, making fun of its own kind of movie. The funniest part in either film still remains as the moment in "Scream" when the killer is coming up behind Randy (JAMIE Kennedy) as he watches "Halloween" and says "Jamie, look behind you!" (referring to Jamie Lee Curtis). The acting in this film is not quite as good as it was in the original, but wasn't bad. Dewey (David Arquette) had a couple of moments of overdoing it, but not too many. The main problem with the film was the 'who's the killer' mystery. There are more suspects to deal with, and the filmmakers seemed worried that if the killer's character is developed too much before revealing that they are the killer, then people will figure it out prematurely. As a result, when the killer is revealed, perhaps you didn't see it coming, but you aren't really shocked that this person could be a killer because you don't really know much of anything about them. One thing you start to learn during the movie is that just because someone was involved in the first ordeal, it doesn't mean that they aren't a possible suspect now, nor does it necessarily mean they aren't a potential victim. Depending on how suspicious you are of people, there are countless numbers of suspects in the film, and to a really on-guard person, just about anyone in the movie is a suspect, which makes it really hard to identify the killer. There was one thing I didn't like about the movie, and one character was murdered who I still think should have survived. I really can't see from here how they are planning to make "Scream 3" after this film seemed to burn the bridge to another sequel. It isn't necessary, seeing as how the same characters (mainly Sidney) have gone through the same type of ordeal twice, which is just on the edge of plausibility. Maybe it's just so they can call it a "trilogy", but it really wouldn't be, because there really is a difference between a trilogy and a film with two sequels. In general, one sequel is enough and maybe pushing it, and a second sequel is almost always too far. "Scream 2" is still scary, and may even be as scary as the first, although the opening scene of "Scream" is still the scariest of it all. This sequel doesn't make the same mistake many sequels to good films make, which is abandoning suspense altogether when it is too busy going all out with what it may have held back on in the first film, which in this case would have been as much gruesome death as possible. While it does have this extra gore (obviously it's going to -- this is a horror movie, after all) it still manages to have the same suspense that made the first one terrifying. If you loved the first film, you'll probably like this one too. This is still a good movie, but the first one, as always, was the best.