Aging gracelessly.

Rating: Null/10 (7 March 1999)

The first time I saw this, I liked it better that the first "Scream" because it seemed like this one wasn't nudging you in the ribs the whole time trying to show you how scary it was. (It wasn't.) But after a recent reviewing, I realized that this over-caffeinated sequel suffers from exactly the same reasons the first one did.
1. Too much fat. i.e. Too many needless characters clogging up the screen only to provide fodder for the tired "guess who the killer is" routine., and so the marquee will be filled with recognizable names. I've complained for many a year about how these post-"Scream" films are packed with the latest teen actors who are only in this new horror market to beef up their resumes. "Scream 2" in particular has an over-abundence of inneffectual appearances, meaning way too much of the overrated Sarah Michelle Gellar, and not enough of the underrated Aphrodite of the silver screen Rebecca Gayheart. (She really is cute.)
2. The guessing game. Guessing who the killer was in the first "Scream" worked because it was kind of unexpected. Unfortunately it's a device that can only be used once effectively. Being a cinematic technique that relies primarily on suprise, it dosen't work if the audience is expecting one of the characters to be the killer. But since everyone who went to see this knew that one of Sidney's friends was the killer, and that the climax has to be bigger than the last, the "Guessing-Game" concept becomes a self-defeating one when you realize that since everyone is a suspect, logically it's impossible to suprise the audience no matter who ends up being the killer.
3. The "hip" factor. I suppose the constant mentions of other horror movies is intended to be a form of tribute. In the first "Scream" that worked to a certain extent because the characters FELL PREY to the cliches that they were making fun of. In this movie however, these references seem more like name-dropping. Here the characters argue (in a classroom scene so self-consciously forced it makes me cringe every time I see it) about whether sequels are lame. In the end, it's the MOVIE ITSELF that falls pray to this argument, not the characters. "Scream 2" doesn't just nudge, but practically SHOVES the viewer in a desperate attempt to show how "clever" it's being, almost giving it the attitude that it's above its subject matter.
Still, in spite of my rambling, this isn't a failiure. Neve Campbell is intelligent enough to make for a great heroine. You always want her to survive. That's the primary factor in this series' success. Also, there's a great opening sequence in a movie theatre that seems similar to the inspired chaos of Italian filmmaker Dario Argento.
Not bad, but I have a feeling this film, and any others in this series will eventually suffer the same fate of the sequels of other horror franchises "The Howling" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" in that they will just be forgotten.