Home
| Search
| Now Playing
| News
| My Movies
| Games
| Boards
| Help
| US Movie Showtimes
| Top 250
| Register
| Recommendations
| Widgets
Box Office
| Index
| Trailers
| Jobs
|
IMDbPro.com - Free Trial
| IMDb Resume
Copyright © 1990-2008
IMDb.com, Inc.
Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you.
An 
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
Own the rights?
Buy it at AmazonMore at IMDb Pro Discuss in Boards Add to My Movies Update Data
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotesOverview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditstv scheduleAwards & Reviews
user commentsexternal reviewsnewsgroup reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guiderecommendationsmessage boardPlot & Quotes
plot summaryplot synopsisplot keywordsAmazon.com summarymemorable quotesFun Stuff
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQOther Info
merchandising linksbox office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specslaserdisc detailsDVD detailsliterature listingsNewsDeskPromotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo galleryExternal Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clipsIMDb user comments for
Scream 2 (1997) More at IMDb Pro »
26 out of 29 people found the following comment useful :-
Even better the second time around., 13 April 2003
Author: Scott LeBrun from Winnipeg, Canada
Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is a university student a few years after the events of the original movie. As could be expected, a movie titled "Stab", based on the events of the original film, is being released. Also, as could be expected, a copycat killer is on the loose, savagely killing everybody in sight, intent on creating a "real-life" sequel of sorts.
I like "Scream 2" even better than the first movie. I think it gave me even more for my money. More killings, more bloodshed...and more chase/suspense scenes. It goes on pretty long for a horror/thriller (those kinds of films generally aren't much longer than an hour and a half, while this one runs about two hours long) but it provides good entertainment throughout. The gimmick is that now the film-makers are attempting to poke fun at horror movie *sequels*, where the rules tend to change a little bit.
Best of all, the movie has one smart African-American character who's actually smarter than most of the panic-stricken white folk in the film. You don't see that too often in horror movies.
And one spectacular death scene for one extremely unfortunate police detective. OUCH!
Some folks may think that this is formula-driven stuff itself that has already become derivative. But at least for me, it's still exciting to watch.
Nine out of ten; sometimes sequels really *do* deliver the goods.
20 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
A pretty good sequel, 10 June 2005
Author: jellyneckr
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.
26 out of 35 people found the following comment useful :-
Pretty good sequel, 13 December 2003
Author: rbverhoef (rbverhoef@hotmail.com) from The Hague, Netherlands
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.
10 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Someone has taken their love of sequels one step too far!, 8 September 2002
Author: TheRedStripe (Garbeck @ webtv.net) from United States
*** This comment 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
16 out of 25 people found the following comment useful :-
Good Enough!, 21 February 2001
Author: famousgir1 from London/England
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.
7 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Still fun, but less clever than the original, 14 April 2007
Author: Max_cinefilo89 from Italy
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.
7 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
A scream... but not scary., 10 March 2004
Author: Peter (blairwitch3000@hotmail.com) from Fife, Scotland
*** This comment 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. ***
3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Wonderful sequel that is a perfect bedfellow for the first film., 4 March 2008
Author: LieutenantJohnChard from United Kingdom
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 to the first film, 8/10.
10 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
Film Planted Firmly in Cheek, 15 January 2005
Author: BaronBl00d (baronbl00d@aol.com) from NC
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.
2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Decent Sequel, 24 May 2008
Author: Dragoneyed363 from United States
Scream 2 was not better than the first of course, but it still managed to give a high level of entertainment, and everything was played out very well.All the acting was of course great, and the way they were able to make this film after the finish the first had was cunning and cool.Kevin Williamson was an excellent writer as well as Wes Craven being an excellent director.Neve Campbell gave a wonderful lead performance, and so did Courtney Cox and David Arquette.If you're a big fan of the first, you have obviously already seen this movie, but if you haven't you TOTALLY need to, because it is a great sequel to a great movie, that delivers an awesome aspect of true horror.
Add another comment
Related Links