"Sequels suck!"

Rating: 5/10 (29 September 2001)

Or so says one of the characters early on in Scream 2, which is followed by a short discussion about sequels that might just be better than the original. Is Scream 2 one of them? Definitely not. The first Scream film worked well because it played with the rules of the slasherflick (although it is far less original in this than you might think, as Wes Craven's own New Nightmare did pretty much the same thing) without subverting them and because it brought a much needed energy back into the genre. I don't think Scream is a true horror classic (I didn't think it was very scary), but it's still great fun. Scream 2 aimes for pretty much the same thing. It's another postmodern slasher where the characters know the rules of the genre and where the filmmakers play around with them.
Sometimes, it still works. The whole sequel-discussion will please anyone with a casual interest in film, the cameos by Heather Graham and Tori Spelling (as Neve Campbell's character in the movie-within-the-movie based on the events in Scream) are cleverly inserted into the film and there's even a hint the filmmakers are trying to confound the audience' expectations (one slashing is an example in particular). It's not as though Kevin Williamson's film-literate script is a complete waste of time. But apart from these clever flourishes, there's very little here. Sure, he throws in 'subtexts' like the media's obsession with violence and, more notably and bravely, the whole relationship between violence in media (and film in particular) and in real-life. But as it doesn't do a lot with its subtexts, so what you're left with is your usual barrage of killings and a whodunnit storyline. And a lot of it isn't nearly as sharp as Scream. The dialogue has its moments, but the character interplay is as shallow as possible and there's an awful scene where Neve Campbell has to dodge a real knife among fake ones in a stage play. It's the type of hugely theatrical scene that doesn't work at all in this type of film. Apart from that, the conclusion to the whole whodunnit isn't nearly as satisfying as Scream's.
What makes it worse is the rushed execution. Wes Craven is a gifted horror director and not a gifted stylist and Scream 2 brings out the worst in him. The entire film is shot in a dull, predictable fashion and at times it almost looks (cinematographically, anyway) random. Worse even is the handling of the typical horror film staples. The shocks are telegraphed early but don't work because of clumsy editing (the first 'shock' is a case in point). The gore level is very low (actually, apart from the sound effects there is nearly no real gore) and it doesn't have any atmosphere. Craven is talented, but here he's clearly rushed his work in order to release before the genre dies again.
And that's the whole film's problem, it feels too rushed. Which is also noticeable in the music, where they use part of the Broken Arrow soundtrack as Dewey's theme (or is this a VERY misguided popculture reference?). I really think with (a lot) more polishing Scream 2 could have a competent, enjoyable romp, but as is, it's only occasionally entertaining.
Rating: 5/10