IMDb > Scream 2 (1997) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Scream 2
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Scream 2 More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 48:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 472 reviews in total 

39 out of 44 people found the following review useful:

A pretty good sequel

Author: Christopher Smith
10 June 2005

In addition to becoming the first major box office hit for Dimension Films, 1996's SCREAM also became the horror film that would set the tone for the other horror films of the late 1990s. It was a phenomenal achievement in the horror genre so of coarse a sequel was just around the corner. The most common rule with movies is that sequels are terrible and while that is normally always true, that isn't the case with SCREAM 2. It should be noted that SCREAM 2 came out just a year after the original SCREAM. Most often when sequels come out a year after their predecessor, they turn out to be pretty bad (CHILD'S PLAY 3 for example). SCREAM 2, while not as good as SCREAM, manages to be an effective and well made sequel that surprisingly is just as clever as the first one and it contains the same kind of great dialogue the first one had as well. It helps that SCREAM 2 has most of the same cast members as the first one too. I think it's safe to say that SCREAM 2 was one of the better sequels of the 1990s. I'm giving it 7/10. Recommended for fans of horror.

Was the above review useful to you?

29 out of 34 people found the following review useful:

Incredibly surpassing sequel

9/10
Author: Dragoneyed363 from United States
24 May 2008

After the Scream phenomenon, it was only natural that a sequel was in the works. While most slasher sequels tend to be a let down and not live up to their first by having a ridiculous premise or not having the needed characters, Scream 2 is entirely different. This sequel was excellent, and lived up to the first Scream perfectly, when I did not think it would on first viewing. I mean, I was expecting it to be good, but not as good as it was. It's premise was wonderful, and the characters are amazing, because it has all the characters, that aren't already victims, from the first and more that are just as fun. All in all, it was a joyous outcome.

Scream 2 is not afraid to kill off whoever it wants to, like the one before and after it, even though that one does not have as many fans as the first two. It has some new twists, and the execution style is just as professional and cunning as the first. It keeps you totally entertained and the performances are just as fun. While of course it is not as good as the original, it is pretty close, I must say, and that of course is an accomplishment in itself.

After the events of Woodsboro, California, Sidney and Randy soon realize that a killer is on the loose again, this time at the college they are attending in Ohio. Dewey arrives on the campus to once again protect Sidney, and she and Dewey have an unwelcome reunion with Gale. How pleasant, we have all our old friends back, and the cast pulls out all the stops with their characters like they did in the first. It's still gritty and bloody, and it's also loaded with lots of nice material matter. I do not understand why it is not as appreciated as it is, regarding the rating mostly. Scream fans and horror lovers were all pleased with this movie when it came out, so I have heard, and I was as well.

Was the above review useful to you?

24 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

Wonderful sequel that is the perfect bedfellow for the first film.

8/10
Author: JohnRouseMerriottChard from United Kingdom
4 March 2008

I'm just not buying into the bad rating for this film, in 1996 Wes Craven's Scream reinvigorated an ailing genre and got fans back into the horror groove. The love for that film, I feel, tends to skew opinions of the second instalment in what became the Scream trilogy, Scream 2 seams perfectly from its starting point to up the daring ante, and plonk tongue even further into its cheek.

Sidney Prescott has moved on from the horrendous murders in Woodsboro and is in college getting on with her life, but the peace and hope for a bright future is quickly shattered because the Scream killer is back for more carnage.....

The films opening perfectly sets out the tone for the entire picture, we see a cinema full of fake knife wielding youths dressed as the Scream killer, the film they are watching is Stab, the story of the Woodsboro murders. It's a wry commentary moment from Wes Craven, but in truth it's just one of many he makes in the film, the in joke about sequels never gets tired, and the boo jump scare moments are all there to enjoy. Red Herrings come and go, and all the great characters who survived the first film are back again. Dewey & Gale get fleshed out a bit more, and one time caged innocent {and chief suspect} Cotton Weary is now a major character just begging us to find out if he's hero or villain.

This is a sharply scripted piece of work, it knows its aims and delivers what it sets out to do, it benefits from a brilliant sound mix to emphasise the mayhem, and Craven is something of a master in racking up the tension. Laugh and be scared is the order of the day, so sit back and enjoy a film that to me proves that not all sequels suck. Oh the ending does not disappoint at all I have to say.

Scream 2 is a very worthy and enjoyable companion piece to the first film, very much so. 8/10

Was the above review useful to you?

38 out of 55 people found the following review useful:

Pretty good sequel

6/10
Author: rbverhoef (rbverhoef@hotmail.com) from The Hague, Netherlands
13 December 2003

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

33 out of 50 people found the following review useful:

Better than the original

8/10
Author: Bozo
11 March 2008

Dare me to say it? ...THIS MOVIE WAS BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL!

Ha! There goes my "useful comment" rating!

Not many movies beat their originals, especially in the horror genre. However, Scream 2 proved them wrong.

Sidney has gone to college and moved on with her life after the events of Scream. However, the murders and famous "ghostface killer" have followed too.

Sidney, Dewey, Gale, Randy, and Cotton all return from the first film. But we also get an interesting new group of people: Hallie, Derek, Mickey, Cici, and Debbie the reporter, who is actually more annoying than Gale.

We also have a higher body count, more gore, more interesting kills, and a much better ending (in my opinion).

I recommend this to fans of the original movie. 8/10.

Was the above review useful to you?

31 out of 47 people found the following review useful:

Good Enough!

Author: famousgir1 from London/England
21 February 2001

Well, i did prefer the first Scream BUT that's not to say Scream 2 wasn't good. Yet again it had good performances and the killers in the film turned out to be quite suprising. It was a good sequel anyway. 10/10 Might i just add that Wes Craven is a BRILLIANT director and Kevin Williamson is indeed a great writer.

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 28 people found the following review useful:

A great sequel even better than the remarkable original

10/10
Author: sgtking from United States
30 May 2008

In 1996 the slasher film had been given a shot of life in the arm with Wes Craven's 'Scream.' It was a monster hit at the box office and with critics and moviegoers. Less than a year later the inevitable sequel was released and instead of being just another inferior sequel it too was a big success and got much praise. Some sequels just take what made the first one work and give lesser results, but this one delivers and some people, including me, find it even better than the first one.

Pros: Like the original, this sequel has an exciting and terrifying opening sequence. Good performances from the cast. Writing and dialogue just as sharp as in the first one. The pace is fast as lightening. Lots of brutal kills and bloodshed. Plenty good, wicked humor. Many twists and turns. A good score and soundtrack. More cool references and in-jokes.

Cons: You really have to suspend your disbelief at times.

Final thoughts: It's now become a tradition, so to speak, to sequelize a popular movie. 'Scream,' the 1996 blockbuster hit and re-invention of the slasher genre, is such a film and unlike some other horror films, a sequel was very much a good move. In fact, this sequel is even better than the first; a rarity.

My rating: 5/5

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Someone has taken their love of sequels one step too far!

Author: TheRedStripe (Garbeck @ webtv.net) from United States
8 September 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

THE PLOT: It's been a few years since the bloodbath in Woodsboro and Sidney Prescott is attending school at Windsor College. But just when it seems like she is getting her life back the murders start again and it seems like the killer has Sidney in their sights.

However, the killers following a specific pattern and it's up to Gale Weathers and former Deputy Dewey to figure out what it is or they're next!

THE ACTING: Great acting like in the original "Scream". Neve Campbell continues her emotional role as the victim, "Sidney Prescott", with perfect stride. Courtney Cox and David Arquette stand out once again as "Gale" and "Dwight Riley". Credit should also be given to Sarah Michelle Gellar for her small role.

THE BLOOD: Not as much as the first but it's certainly used to the fullest advantage.

THE BODY COUNT: 10

THE RATING: This was a good horror movie. It was definitely scarier than the first but there were some things I didn't like about it. Sidneys boyfriend (played by Jerry O'Connel) was incredibly annoying so I was glad to see him die. Also they should have put more character development into the supporting cast.

Overall a great slasher flick...8/10

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

Still fun, but less clever than the original

7/10
Author: Max_cinefilo89 from Italy
14 April 2007

How do you make a sequel to a horror film whose whole plot was made of in-jokes and film references? Easy: make the follow-up even more in-jokey and self-referential than its predecessor. This formula actually seems to work for Scream 2, at least in the first two acts.

The prologue is arguably a masterclass in self-irony: an African-American couple (Omar Epps and Jada Pinkett Smith) go to a movie theater where a new horror film, called Stab, is screening. This flick is based on Gale Weathers' (Courtney Cox) book The Woodsboro Murders, which recounts the events of the first Scream. As the movie begins, Smith's character complains about Stab being a film "with no black people in it" (just like Scream was), and, predictably, this leads to the two African-Americans being brutally murdered as the film-within-a-film's prologue (with Heather Graham replacing Drew Barrymore) is shown on the screen, so that the fictional and real deaths occur almost simultaneously. From there on, things take the usual turn: the media go crazy about the killings and once again Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is in the spotlight, as she and her friend Randy (Jamie Kennedy) must protect themselves from the new foe, who is apparently mimicking what happened in the past (an obvious reference to the first film's "Movies don't create psychos" line).

The main charm of the original Scream was its ability to almost seamlessly combine clever in-jokes and a believable plot. This time around, the in-jokes are the best thing in the movie, while the story, particularly in the overblown conclusion, suffers from merely repeating key scenes from the first film. Now, this might be a satire on the lack of originality in most horror sequels, and it would work if the characters were developed correctly. Sadly, such a thing doesn't happen, with Sidney being reduced to the usual girl who keeps running and screaming (fitting, huh?) and everyone else (including Liev Schreiber, who gets more screen-time in the sequel) playing stereotypes, with the exception of David Arquette, very likable as the nice cop again trying to solve the case, and Kennedy, who has a great time stating the rules to follow in a sequel.

Ironically, the movie's funniest scene has a bunch of film students discussing follow-ups that are better than the originals. And while few could have anything bad to say about Aliens, Terminator 2 or The Godfather: Part II, it must be said that Scream 2, while fun and watchable, most certainly doesn't have the same sharpness that made its predecessor an above-average horror film.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

A scream... but not scary.

Author: Peter (blairwitch3000@hotmail.com) from Fife, Scotland
10 March 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Scream (1996) was a wittily postmodern recasting of slasher films of the early 1980s like Halloween (1978) and Friday the 13th (1980) and their endless horde of imitators. On one level Scream was filled with all the shocks and thrills expected of it. Yet there was another whole level to it which at the same time was consciously crafting a film that was slyly mocking and parodying its own genre and cliches. Characters stopped in the middle of the flight from the slasher to hold discussions about what characters in slasher films did in the situation and which type of character was supposed to survive according to the slasher movie formula. And following Scream's success, what more natural to follow it up with than a Scream 2, which gleefully launches into satirizing the pandemic of sequels that followed most slasher films in the mid-1980s.

The plot follows on from the first; Sidney Prescott and fellow survivor Randy Meeks are attending a film and theatre school, while Gale Weathers is releasing a film based on the events of the first film (which hilariously parodies the first films opening) called Stab. However, at Stab's opening, two people are found dead, after being killed by a man in a Munch mask. Now Sidney is caught up in her very own sequel.

The film has a fabulous opening that perfectly encapsulates the joyful sense of meta-fictional play that screenwriter Kevin Williamson delights in - while watching a film based on the events of the first film (wherein the opening of the first film is replayed but amusingly satirized - one scene rather funnily digs at directors that like to quote the Psycho (1960) shower sequence) a copycat killing takes place in the theatre where the victim's death throes are just taken to be part of the promotional gimmick for the film. Here the constant blurring of the lines between what is happening and `the artificial' is dazzling. And this naturally segues into a typically Williamson-esque debate on whether someone is trying to 'create' a sequel to the events of the first film, whether some sequels are better than their originals - you know it's a real genre fan writing when someone argues the merits of House II: The Second Story (1987) over House (1986) - and whether the media influences violence.

But unfortunately for Scream 2 the film that ends up on screen sadly fails to meet the criteria it itself establishes for worthwhile sequels. Williamson's script is far too burdened down and overweighed by the necessity of trying to turn the survivors from the first film and most of the cast members into potential suspects and as a result the jokey genre interplay that essentially made the first film gets lost. There is the odd moment - the script even parodies its own catchphrase from the first film: `What's your favourite scary movie?' the stalker asks Jamie Kennedy. `Showgirls - now that was a truly scary movie.' And the ending wherein the slasher explains their motivation - that they want to be caught so they can demonstrate the case for movies influencing violence in real life - is positively ingenious. But such an ending is ruined by Williamson placing so many successive twist revelations on top of that that the moment topples over into the farcically absurd.

Indeed, the film contains genuine tension; the vague reconstruction of Casey Becker's demise is very scary, and a scene where Sidney and her friend are trapped in a police car with an unconscious killer is exceptional.

However, Scream 2 tries too hard to be clever and witty, instead of just getting on with it.

Verdict - While Scream 2 is quite scary, and has some hugely inventive sequences, it gets too caught up with parody and clever-clever remarks. ***

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 48:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history