Oh, you'll scream again... but this time you'll be screaming, "I want my money back"

Rating: 4/10 (21 July 2009)

The original Scream was quite clever in how it lambasted the clichés inherent in the horror genre while simultaneously turning those clichés upside down and delivering some fresh elements. But devoting multiple scenes to detailed discussion about how sequels are naturally inferior in a film that does nothing to assert the falsity of that argument? Not so clever.
Scream 2 is flawed on so many fronts, it's hard to know which ones to devote parts of my 1,000 word limitation to. I suppose it's best to start at the beginning, which in this film is devoted to a poorly executed and ultimately pointless exposition scene that makes no sense in the grand scheme of the film. Added to that is the lengthy diatribe Jada Pinkett Smith and Omar Epps spar on that bemoans the lack of realistic African-American characters in horror films, which is delivered by characters that stringently adhere to the silliest and most annoying African-American stereotypes prevalent in cinema. Come to think of it, all of the characters of color in this film seem to embrace those same stereotypes, so in that context, the entire logic behind their spirited debate is more offensive than witty.
We also spend a great deal of time with Jamie Kennedy's returning horror buff Randy, who continues his nauseating analysis of the flaws in the horror genre, specifically his afore-mentioned philosophy on the tendency of sequels to regurgitate the more successful elements of their original animus with diminishing returns. This bit worked very well in the first Scream, which flaunted its own breaking of this mold, thus relegating Randy's soapbox testimonials to the realm of satire. But there is no satire to be found here, just a series of unfunny scenes that manage the seemingly impossibly feat of making Jamie Kennedy more annoying than we knew he was going in, and pad out an already too-long two-hour running time in the process.
Two sequences in particular dare the listener to stick with the film, which ultimately doesn't prove to be a wise decision when this entire mess plays out. Firstly, Jerry O'Connell's lunchroom serenade is such a sappy and idiotic number, any likability his character generates immediately evaporates. Watching the masses of students witnessing his stunt not only joining in the performance, but cheering wildly when he concludes the song and corners Sidney for a cringe-worthy PDA, makes us wonder which genre the film-makers are lampooning here. Hadn't these guys heard of "deleted scenes" before? Ditto for Sidney's meaningful discussion with her drama teacher about how artists channel their emotions into pathos in their performances, and the lengthy false-alarm scare that follows.
And, despite Jamie Kennedy's claim that sequels utilize more elaborate kills, nothing in this film comes close to matching Drew Barrymore's shocking exit from the first Scream, Rose MacGowan's ride on the garage door, or the grand guignol finale of the piece. In fact, the film is so tepid in this regard, we're left wondering why they bothered pointing out that they weren't supposed to be.
The wry humor has become a gimmick here, and though this film does indeed attempt to resurrect the strongest elements from the first Scream, this time out the horror is so banal that the humor dilutes the few true scares to be had. It's a shame too, since the unexpected cameos and humorous dramatizations of scenes from the first film are indeed refreshing and truly funny. But, the film-makers don't find the same balance they did before, so we're left wishing that they either toned down the humor or went the full-blown comedy route. This is far too lite to be a true horror film, but Ghosty's penchant for stabbing someone every 10 minutes will likely dissuade anyone from considering this a pure comedy.
The twist ending that we know is coming is dicey at best, and it was foolhardy of the film-makers to believe that casting incidental characters as our killers would have the same impact as the conclusion of the original. Like most of the elements in this film, we have to suspend our disbelief here so fully that we're never able to become engrossed in the mystery or suspense, what little there is.
And what super powers do our resilient returning characters have that allows one to be shot in the stomach and another to be eviscerated from behind, yet somehow survive their wounds without incident? The former even resurfaces in the final reel, walks off under their own power, and explains, "I'm okay, the bullet just bounced off my ribcage"(?!). I'm not sure if this film takes place in an alternate universe future where medical science has advanced beyond our wildest dreams, but if this were the case, surely our killers should have been a bit harder to dispatch than the non-climax here would have us believe.
When you consider how disjointed and auto-piloted this film is, it's easy to imagine that the film-makers knew they were working on a trilogy, and were reluctant to use what few surprises they still had left until the final film (this is even more foolhardy now, when we know a fourth Scream entry is forthcoming). While they certainly ensured that Scream 3 wouldn't have a hard time out-doing its predecessor, they also effectively buried any chance of this being a classic SERIES of films, rather than one of the one-hit wonders frequently referenced throughout.