Very bad sequel

Rating: 1/10 (6 August 2000)

Craven used to be known to make REAL horror movies. Sometimes they were experimentation horror films. But now he has fallen for Hollywood's love of cheap scares and loud, loud, loud soundtracks. This film only has one musical cue that isn't criminally loud noise. But it's music stolen from Hans Zimmer's Broken Arrow soundtrack. A soundtrack I love. This kind of made me annoyed the first, and only, time I saw this (well over 2 years ago).
The photography in this film is the worst I have ever seen. Almost everything that isn't in the immediate foreground is blurred and out-of-focus. Horror films offer so many opportunities for creativity in all areas of film production. But as this film is made to appeal to mass audiences the style has to be simple. Even terrible.
There is nothing worthwhile about this film and nothing to recommend. The part that I hate most seems to be what most people (for some reason) like the best. A class full of film students discusses if sequels are better than originals. That's it. You seethis IS a sequel, and they talk about sequels. Wow! So what?! That's the irony! And it's not worth a penny. I have never seen a more simpleminded and superficial so-called 'horror' film as bad as this. The fact that it thinks it's so cool just makes it worse. The true horror of this film is the horrifying ignorance to the audience.
Watch Urban Legend instead if you want to watch a Campus 'who's the killer?' flick. It's junk but it's better than this.