Preston Tylk is an ordinary guy living in Seattle. When he discovers that his wife, Emily, whom he adores, is having an affair, he is devastated. Storming out of the house, he returns later only to find her brutally murdered.
The daughter is now living with her aunty and her husband, while mommy is awaiting the death penalty by lethal injection. During the execution she manages to escape, but is shortly shot in a standoff outside the execution room. So, we move into the story one year later where we learn that instead of the death penalty, mommy is a guinea pig for a device that's implanted in her arm that stops her aggressive temptation. Now she's living in a halfway house and she learns that her sister has got a restraining order against her staying away from her daughter. Naturally that doesn't stop mommy. But it's not running smoothly as anyone who she gets in a confrontation with, ends up being killed and so mommy becomes the number one suspect.
After just sitting through the first flick, I wasn't holding my breath that this was going to be better. Actually I was expecting worse. When I decided to watch the sequel back-to-back with original, I was thinking I might as well get it out of my way now then later. Wow, it was better (though there's no big emphasis on that). Just like the first it's pretty much a shoestring indie flick, though it went a 'little' bigger for this occasion with their impressive opening well kinda. This time around the story seems to focus more around mommy then that of her daughter. Even the structure has changed with the film taking a more American style Gillao approach and adding a mystery vibe with a lot effective red herrings continuously coming and going. Where we only see glimpses of the killer in high heels and that of back view. But what really came to mind though, were the first two 'Scream' flicks. Due to the success of those films it follows the same sort of pattern. In certain aspects it rips-off 'Scream 2' is the self-knowing attitude and wit and also that of a book 'Mommy's murders' written about the murders in the first film. Hey, it might be highly derivative but it had fun with itself, which made it all the more involving and entertaining. Some cunning humour was a welcome change too. I'm just so glad that it didn't become a carbon copy of the original film.
The plot is a bit of fun and cleverly played out. The films climax is rather ingenious, but doesn't stop it from being trashy and rather silly overall. I tell you it's not no easy to pick up on the killer. I thought I had it figured with a sound motive, but I was caught short. The outcome is really out-there that you considered it something quite far-fetched. Along the way it likes to mock itself and that of the media. That goes for a segment involving a Jerry Springer send-up. The story isn't perfect as at the beginning it has some unconvincing character reactions and developments. Also the moralistic drama element about family that the film starts off with gladly vanishes further along into the story. There was just too much of that throughout the first flick.
The performances are rather expressionless. Patty McCormick returns as mommy, but seems to be little more steely than hammy. I thought it worked out the better that way with her sharp comments. Others to return are Rachel Lemieux as Jessica Ann who seems to get less time, though she wasn't as convincing this time and Brinke Stevens as Beth gets very little to do, but be mostly grumpy. Jason Miller doesn't return as Lt. March, but his replaced. Paul Peterson as the author and husband of Beth plays Paul Conway and Gary Sandy plays the cop Sgt. Anderson, who thinks that mommy will never change. The dialog we hear is rather stiff and damn they like to waffle on at times, but mostly it was more then bearable because of the ironic wit.
The production is what you expect from a cheaply produced film. It's shot very much like the first and does come across like someone's home movie. The editing is sharper and it doesn't seem to drag as much. Bravo! Decent lighting! Well actually most of the flick was during daylight but when it was dark we could clearly see what's happening. I'm grateful for that. The setting too had a hypnotic pull over you, especially the sequence involving the final showdown. There just seemed to be a bit more oomph to the pacing and there's some mildly sustained tension and lively moments. Maybe I'm being generous, but I thought it was well done for what they had to work with. This time the deaths are a bit unpleasant and have little more blood involved, but they are far from graphic. Some of the kills were rather clumsily staged, though. One of them mimics Hitchcock's well-known shower scene from 'Psycho' with a twist to how the victim gets it. Overall, this film is a vast improvement over its predecessor, but doesn't actually mean the film is good. I say it's a harmless who-done-it that adds in a small twinkle of fun.
Simply, it didn't have trouble keeping my full attention like the original did.
"Don't you know the sequel is never as good as the original". Oh no, this one is way bet-ttter!
5 of 5 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?