Benutzerrezensionen

The funny thing with 'Scream 2' is that it's not as entertaining and good as 'Scream' but with bad movies like 'I Know What You Did Last Summer' and 'Urban Legend' it's kind of a relieve. Probably the difference here is that Wes Craven is a director who knows what he is doing.

Neve Campbell as Sidney, Courteney Cox as Gale Weathers, David Arquette as Deputy Dewey and Jamie Kennedy as Randy return for this sequel. New possible subjects or suspects are Cici (Sarah Michelle Gellar), Hallie (Elise Neal), Sidney's new boyfriend Derek (Jerry O'Connell), former suspect Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber) who was in prison for a year, Mickey (Timothy Olyphant) and reporter Debbie Salt (Laurie Metcalf) who is a big fan of Gale.

The movie opens in a theater. The movie 'Stab' is showing for the first time and this movie is based on the book 'The Woodsboro Murders' by Gale Weathers. In 'Scream' Sidney predicted that Tori Spelling would probably play her if they would ever make a movie about those events and in 'Scream 2' we learn she was right. It is one of the many funny little things. Jada Pinkett Smith and Omar Epps are killed during the showing and of course the movie is blamed.

From here it is like 'Scream'. The guessing can begin. Again it is a lot of fun, again the movie knows that it must not get too serious, again I was entertained by what I saw. 'Scream' was original and therefore better, more entertaining and more surprising in the way the subject was handled. Still, with all the inside jokes and references this is a lot of fun and a lot better than almost every other movie in the genre.

Wes Craven is back again at the helm of Scream 2, his followup to the mega-successful Scream. As sequels go, one could do a lot worse than this film. Sure, it has a pretty silly story trying desperately to cling to the original source material, but it never ever takes the story too terribly serious. How does Craven do this? He laces the film with all kinds of film references and humour directly tied to the film industry and actors involved. Several mentions of "Friends" cast members abound whilst having Courtney Cox return in her signature role as Gail Weathers. Craven also brings back the rules to horror films - now horror sequels; these rules are right on mark too(wish we had heard the most important!). In fact my favourite scene in the whole movie is in a classroom where students debate the inferior sequel to the superior original. Excellent examples are given to support one argument that sequels are better: Aliens and Terminator 2, and of course, The Godfather 2. Naturally this small cross section seems great when none of the hundreds of truly bad sequels are mentioned. Purposely I am sure! Is Scream 2 better than Scream? No way. It doesn't have nearly as much punch to it. The opening scene this time takes place in a movie theater, but it is not as powerful as the opening scene with Drew Barrymore in the original. The story is really something unto itself as well...but any kind of examination of plot other than a cursory one would give too much away. Not that that would be any great pity. I did like the acting in this one more. Arquette returns as Dewey affecting some kind of limp and pinched nerve in hand. He does a fairly nice job. Cox is lovely as ever and also is good in her role. Campbell is OK, as is the rest of the cast with Jamie Kennedy again standing out as nerdy movie maven Randy Weeks and, in particular, Liev Screiber doing a wonderful job as Cotton Weary(the man who had been accused of killing Sidney's mama). This sequel has more blood, more deaths, and more jokes. Like the original, I too enjoyed this film for its entertainment value if nothing else.

This second "Scream" isn't nearly as original as the first which was a great and suspenseful take on slasher films. This one has the high school victim in the first film - Sidney - now in college studying film. For 99% of the people who major in this, a slow descent into obscurity and realizing that your life will be spent as an admin or working retail, not as a great director, should be revenge enough for anybody. But obviously our killer(s?) is/are not that patient.

The beginning is tight, at the opening of a film called "stab", patterned after the murders in "Scream", and you just know who the first two victims are going to be, although Craven's direction and the score make it a suspenseful when and where. The ending is good too, and it is different enough from the ending of the first Scream that you do wonder who is up to what, just like in the first. There are some tells though. There are some particularly - at that time - famous players in the film doing bit parts. Why? I'd say, watch and find out. Fortunately, this film was made 22 years ago so you are probably not going to know who was famous then and who is now because of subsequent events unless you are over 50.

The worst part is the middle. It is tedious. You've just got some predictable chases and cat-and-mouse games going on, and you feel like it is just there to fill time between the suspenseful beginning and end. Probably worth your time if you run across it, and probably you are not going to enjoy it if you haven't seen the original Scream first.

Much discussion is made in the film regarding sequels, outlining a standard set of patterns that are common in horror classics. "Body count is always bigger". "Death scenes are much more elaborate". "Never, under any circumstances, assume the killer is dead". For all the irony and meta dialogue that Williamson slaps onto his screenplay, Craven just doesn't deliver fully. Whether that be a loosely designed curveball to keep viewers on edge, or sheer lack of ingenuity, well that's up for debate. Alas, as good as this sequel is, it never truly exhumed the natural intelligence of its predecessor. Two years after the Woodsboro killings, a copycat killer using the same guise as "Ghostface" terrorises Sidney's new college.

Satirising several clichés found in film sequels is a pivotal element to Williamson's screenplay. Massive discussions over infamous sequels bettering the original, outlining the tendencies found within them and comedically teasing 'Empire Strikes Back' as a planned sequel therefore being discarded from the argument. Relatable to an absurd degree. The type of conversations I have every single day. So, once again, the dialogue was punchy, extremely meta and gives the characters plenty of personality. The cast was something else too. A young Sarah Michelle Gellar and Timothy Olyphant in the same film? It's poetic! Amusingly, I screamed twice in excitement. Playful performances with an adequate amount of returning characters, raising the suspicion level to glorious heights. Craven keeps the tone light throughout, despite being a glorified slasher, retaining the refreshing aura that made the original unique. Naturally, it's not groundbreaking the second time round, but a watchable sequel nonetheless.

There are, however, issues. Beltrami's score was obnoxiously overbearing, with a late inclusion of both Elfman and Zimmer. Various character themes drowned out the dialogue, particularly Dewey's, and relinquished any genuine investment towards them. The narrative shifts between Sidney Prescott and Gale "You Just Got Weathered" Weathers made it difficult to distinguish who the main character was and inadvertently eliminated most of the suspects from the list. Quicker than usual. The constant shifts between them, whilst balanced, threw the pacing off considerably with the second act containing zero kills. The death sequences themselves, minus the introductory scene which was excellent, were hardly memorable despite Craven trying to set up more extravagant kills. The third act and final reveal were incredibly messy (probably to do with the famous leak that happened), with seemingly most of the budget going towards that Cassandra play. Oh, and the death of a certain character did not sit well with me (and fans clearly...).

Still, even with my reservations, it's a decent sequel that could've been flattened by a lack of imagination. But Craven pulls through, only just. Scream 3 will definitely need to scream harder...

I might be living under a rock, and not willing to dig in too deep, but I feel like Scream started as a joke and became a cult classic. Scream 2 takes it to the next level by adding self-awareness to the plot.

You can't take the Scream franchise too seriously. These movies are a mix of a movie that tries to be serious and a movie that tries to be funny. In the end, Scream 2 is sort of neither of those options.

The plot is alright, but, as characters quote, Scream 2 is Scream 1 with more killing, more violence. In the end, we feel we go full circle with Sidney's life.

By the way, Neve Campbell, although a fine actress, I don't know --- I can't stand her glaze over everything when she is afraid.

Other than that, not a good classic to recommend. Watch only if you are a die-hard movie fan.

I liked the film and it had some good scenes but ultimately didn't live up to the first film that set a bar. Had some good characters particularly Gail Weathers and Randy, it was kind of 90s goofy when you rewatch it but I liked it non the less.

Just a sequel. Watchable but not memorable. Again there is a lot of 'fake' blood. Poor dialogue. Almost no plot except for some serial killer running around some college. Watch it if your are bored, or curious after watching the first movie.

Scream 2 opens with another good terrifying opening sequence take place in the movie theater, and after that Scream 2 wasn't a horrible movie, it has it's moments, but for the most part underwhelming, the story wasn't as engaging as the previous one, it didn't have to be 2 hours, there is more cheesy moment, though it did kept me guessing throughout the film until the very last, once it reveal i ain't gonna lie to you even though i did not see it coming, it's not really that shocking and i don't think it deliveredly continue that well, but at least i still can't guess it and i'm still into it for that, that's probably the most positive thing about Scream 2, Neve Campbell and the rest of the returning cast was ok, not really buying David Arquette that much in this one though he's not terrible, again it still have it's moment, a moment where they get me scared more than the previous one, there isn't much of a stupidness in it, overall like i mention in the beginning, it wasn't horrible, it has it's moment, but for the most part Scream 2 is just an underwhelming sequel.

I'm convinced the biggest problem with Scream 2 is that it is a Scream movie. Don't get me wrong, it would never work without having the connection to the original film. There are so many plot points tied to that movie, and the entire meta commentary of the movie is about horror movie sequels. However, it simply can't measure up to the brilliance of that story. There are good moments in this story, though, and it still works as a murder mystery which is my favorite element of the Scream films. They aren't traditional slasher stories, but they are straight up whodunits. Even though I had seen the movie once in the theater, I didn't remember it well on this rewatch, so the ending still had some surprises. It was a little cheesy and the performances in the climax were over-the-top to an extreme, but at least I could enjoy the twist again.

The story in this one doesn't move as smoothly as it did in the first film, and I can feel some of the clunky parts. Also, one of my favorite aspects of Scream is how they genuinely cast suspicion on multiple people and they all feel like real possibilities until they wind up dead. But in Scream 2 the red herrings are fairly obvious and never strike me as actual suspects. I'll also mention that I can't stand the fact that one of the returning characters winds up dead. Pretty much any other person that returned could have gone and I would have tolerated it, but I liked that one person and what they added to the films. The kills in this movie are a tad underwhelming, particularly since they implied the kills needed to be more elaborate and bloody. All of this sounds like I was really down on Scream 2, but I actually enjoyed it to some degree and find it better than most other slasher films. It just can't meet the standard set by its predecessor, no matter how hard it tries.

This movie was good but I don't think it was as good as the first one. The creepy atmosphere is lost in this one. Though the acting is pretty good and there are some pretty intense moments.

This movie follows Sidney Prescott two years after the she escapes the murderous boyfriend in the first one. Someone has dawned the ghost face costume and is trying to copycat the killers murders. Sidney is once again the main target of the ghost face fury.

This movie was not bad at all. It just was not scary at all compared to the first one. I also found I did not care about the characters as much so when They dies it made no difference.

Two years after the first movie. Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox) has written a book about the murders and it's been popularized in the movie Stab. A new Ghostface rises up to start killing again at a showing of Stab. Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber) is out of prison with the help of Gale. Gale is too happy to soak up all the publicity. Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) and Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy) are students at Windsor College. Derek (Jerry O'Connell) is Sidney's new boyfriend. Dewey Riley (David Arquette) comes out to protect Sidney. There is a whole new cast of characters ready for the killing and ready to be suspects.

Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson have return to the self-referencing franchise. Being a sequel, there are a lot of referencing to sequels and what that usually entails. It gives the franchise a new reason to continue. The returning cast is a capable crew. I do have a minor problem with the new additions. They all end up as either cannon fodder or the killers. It would be much more surprising if one of the new people survives.

I had a more or less similar experience compared to the original. The second part did not ruin the legacy of its predecessor, like most of the sequels often do. It rather capitalized on the popularity and appeal of the first film and expanded the world further.

At least these newer additions (the characters and the plot) did not come across as superficial; somehow they seemed organic and came to be substantive on the whole.

Having said that, I still consider the first entry to be marginally better, mainly because it was technically more fluent from a screenplay point of view.

Every buildup, leading up to each kill, possessed more palpable tension and carried a certain sense of dread and intimidation.

As a sequel, Scream 2 feels a little rushed, or maybe like the filmmakers weren't quite as passionate this time around. I imagine you'd feel the burnout, having to make another movie in a series just one year after the first, so I think it's a good sign that Scream 3 was a 2001 release (though based on my limited knowledge of the series, that one's apparently not as good as the first two).

The meta-commentary continues, and I feel like it would've been decent for its time... though today, it's nothing amazing. Plenty of talk about sequels, movie violence relating to real-world violence, and events repeating. It gets the job done, and it's kind of fun, though not amazing. At least it's a mostly entertaining watch, albeit slightly overlong at two hours.

And at the end of the day, Scream 2 is still better than 90% of slasher movies out there. Any slasher movie that's at least decent is arguably worth celebrating.

Scream 2 (1997) slashes its way back into the horror scene with a gleeful and self-aware vengeance. The acting is a blood-soaked ballet of suspense, with Neve Campbell reprising her role as the ultimate survivor, and the supporting cast delivering thrills and chills in spades. The film editing is a well-crafted maze of scares, keeping the audience on the edge of their seats. The strength lies in its ability to cleverly deconstruct the conventions of its genre while still delivering genuine frights. The weakness might be a touch of predictability inherent in the genre, but it's a forgivable sin considering the film's commitment to keeping us guessing. The music is a haunting crescendo that punctuates the tension, and the cinematography captures the visceral fear lurking around every corner. With a 7/10 rating, Scream 2 is a slashing good time that not only pays homage to the slasher classics but also carves its own place in the pantheon of horror cinema.

The funny thing with 'Scream 2' is that it's not as entertaining and good as 'Scream' but with bad movies like 'I Know What You Did Last Summer' and 'Urban Legend' it's kind of a relieve. Probably the difference here is that Wes Craven is a director who knows what he is doing.

Neve Campbell as Sidney, Courteney Cox as Gale Weathers, David Arquette as Deputy Dewey and Jamie Kennedy as Randy return for this sequel. New possible subjects or suspects are Cici (Sarah Michelle Gellar), Hallie (Elise Neal), Sidney's new boyfriend Derek (Jerry O'Connell), former suspect Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber) who was in prison for a year, Mickey (Timothy Olyphant) and reporter Debbie Salt (Laurie Metcalf) who is a big fan of Gale.

The movie opens in a theater. The movie 'Stab' is showing for the first time and this movie is based on the book 'The Woodsboro Murders' by Gale Weathers. In 'Scream' Sidney predicted that Tori Spelling would probably play her if they would ever make a movie about those events and in 'Scream 2' we learn she was right. It is one of the many funny little things. Jada Pinkett Smith and Omar Epps are killed during the showing and of course the movie is blamed.

From here it is like 'Scream'. The guessing can begin. Again it is a lot of fun, again the movie knows that it must not get too serious, again I was entertained by what I saw. 'Scream' was original and therefore better, more entertaining and more surprising in the way the subject was handled. Still, with all the inside jokes and references this is a lot of fun and a lot better than almost every other movie in the genre.

Scream 2 is a solid sequel to the original. It's the movie that really embraces the Scream brand and creates the fan base for the entire franchise to come. The story line is overall consistent and fully makes sense with some cool connections to the first. There's also some nice Easter eggs throughout that give you hints at what will happen and those are fun to see. The acting and some of the scenes are purposely bad which provides entertainment at times but also is annoying at other times. This movie is definitely worth the watch and is on par with the rest of the Scream movies to come. IMDb stop the character minimum.

Not the best Scream movie, but not the worst. I think we all should give it a chance, a real chance. It might not be ,,cinema,, but it s still an iconic franchise that inspired the upcoming horror- comedy movies and not only.

There were many references about the first movie used in the sequel of Scream and I was pretty impressed by them, so when they did or said something that some people would call it ,, a clishé,, , it did in fact have a meaning behind it. Anyway, Scream 2 is not as good as the first movie from the franchise. One thing that I found it pretty surprising it s that I felt like in this movie we didn t get the chance to see Ghostface that much and also, in fact, he didn t have that many victims. And I think that was the biggest flaw about this sequel. I have bigger hopes for the third part though.

Scream 2 (1997) is still directed by Wes Craven and is a good sequel, just not better than the first. The movie does what the first movie did, but I thought the first Scream (1996) felt more unique when they did it and this movie, like Ghostface in the movie, felt like a copy.

Ghostface is a good killer and is just cool seeing when he calls someone on the phone or when he attacks someone. But he is still a regular person, so he stumbles at times and can be taken down by the victim which can be funny.

Neve Campbell as Sidney is still a great main character, along with Courteney Cox as Gale Weathers and David Arquette as Dewey. There are of course characters in the movie you are not supposed to like and the certain way it connects to the first movie was good.

There are references to horror movies with sequels, they talk about certain rules in horror movie sequels and on how to survive. It does not get annoying because they do it subtly in their conversations along with them saying that sequels are not usually as good as the original.

Scream 2 (1997) is a fine sequel to the classic horror movie that people will watch and like. Even if you are not a fan of this sequel you will like the characters, the killer, and the self-awareness in the movie about horror movie sequels.

Scream 2 is definitely a lot of people's highlights for the scream franchise as it features a somewhat interesting new set of teenage characters loveable adults from the original and a compelling story similar to the original.

What makes Scream 2 just so much more interesting than the original is its beauty in keeping the viewer thinking. Its amazing work at sound queues and cinematography leads you to think things that may or may not be true. It's the classic trick on the viewer that causes you into thinking something is what it isn't and Scream 2 executes this perfectly. I really didn't expect what happened next most of the time and that's what's done amazingly.

Though the movie is amazing at being a horror film it also feels like something else. The movie gets to a point where the horror aspect of it is completely gone and simply guns and action are the only way they proceed within the story.

Although the characters were joking about the sequels always needing more violent and interesting deaths Scream 2 didn't shout unique. Most of the slasher aspects in the film are stock standard compared to most slashers.

Overall Scream 2 is a decent sequel and deserves praise for doing the franchise justice though it doesn't hold up to the original perfectly.