Scream 2 is slightly better than the first scream, I did enjoy the first movie, but I enjoyed this one more. Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox are still just as good as they were in the first movie, their characters haven't changed all that much. You know they say that sequels to movies, especially to scary movies, are usually pretty horrible, but that's just not the case with this film, you get the feeling that they actually tried and put some effort into this one and didn't just phone in another cheesy slasher romp. Some of the scares are the traditional jump scares and usuals that everyone is used to, but they are still pretty fresh and they work. The acting is good and I enjoyed the performances. The gore factor isn't as much present as it was in the first one, but it's still very much there, so just be aware that that's there, in case you're someone who gets squeamish easily or just hates seeing blood. The plot is what you would expect, but with a few twists and turns that you probably won't see coming, at least I didn't, but maybe you're more attentive than I am lol. I personally really enjoyed those plot twists, I thought they were clever and well done. The writing is pretty average for this kind of film, it's similar to the first. Oh and you also get to see some of Sarah Michelle Gellar, she racked up the horror in '97 (I know what you did last summer). 8/10.

The long awaited follow up sequel delivers in strides by place Sidney and fellow survivor Randy in college thinking the terror was over. Now they must deal with a new set of ghostfacers determined to finish what the last started.Keeping true to its roots, the film parodies the horror sequels that flowed out during the 80s and set up a new batch of rules in this stylish genre.A few changes however is that Gale has been reduced back to her original obnoxious self who cares more for game and fortune then her ex boyfriend Dewey. Why reset the great chemistry between them? Randy's still a virgin and they make jokes around that. Retread shows a lack of creativity and running out of ideas.Anyway, the film makes an interesting link by all the victims having the initials of the victims staring in the first. A few issues rose to the surface using this format. Since this is the case why can't Dewey stop any of the murders? All they have to do is get a registry and find any students fitting the description and set a trap. Major plot hole.The scenes I felt worked the best tensions was the play where they are rehearsing Cassandra. The mood is set with the music, flashing lights and the masks all nearly identical except for our beloved killer. It even works on a personal level since Cassandra could see the tragedy that would befall and was powerless to stop it like our hero.The other was when Sidney and her roommate has to sneak out if the police car before the killer awakes. I was sweaty bullets hoping and praying they would make it.What I found disappointing is by the end it feels like it was making fun of the first film and getting caught up in the big reveal of the killer's identity that it didn't take enough time to development it. In some instances it felt to me like a big stretch or impossible.I still found it clever, witty and exciting. Just not as good as the first.

The slasher sequel takes on the horror tropes of sequels and revisits the plight of Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) who is now in college. Many of the survivors return including Randy (Jamie Kennedy), Dewey Riley (David Arquette), and reporter turned best-selling author Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) and a new killer is on the loose targeting students connected to Sydney. New characters are added to the victim or suspect list including Hallie (Elise Neal), Cici (Sara Michelle Gellar), Mickey (Timothy Olyphant), and Sydney's boyfriend Derek (Jerry O'Connell). A movie was made within the movie making this sequel even extra meta. There is even more horror movie talk as the bodies start to pile up starting with a couple in a movie theater, Phil (Omar Epps) and Maureen (Jada Pinkett Smith). The sequel does not hold back on the gore with plenty of killing as director Wes Craven both chides and embraces an audience that continuously shows up to view these brutal murders.The mystery is even more complex as potential suspects appear including Debbie Salt (Laurie Metcalf) cameraman Joel (Duane Martin), and the exonerated former suspect of Sydney's mom's murder Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber). The movie pays homage to the original while at the same time referencing plenty of other horror movies sequels as inspiration while also taking on the challenge of making a sequel that is better than the original.Check out more of this review and others at swilliky.com

It's odd how some films in retrospect were clearly ahead of their time. While the original "Scream" is undeniably a classic of both its time and the horror genre as a whole, it's hard not to notice that its stellar first sequel "Scream 2" doesn't command nearly the same level of respect with audiences despite garnering similar critical acclaim. And I do think that in a way, it's because "Scream 2" was ahead of its time.How so? It championed and furthered many elements introduced in the original, and fully realizes the potential of some of the elements introduced by its predecessor. Most notable- "Scream 2" is one of the most delightfully "meta" mainstream films I've seen… but it was released about a decade before the whole "meta" concept became a "thing" that audiences recognized. While today, you can throw a rock and hit something that could be construed (or misconstrued) as "meta"… not so much back in the 90's. I know a lot of people who saw "Scream 2" and its larger focus on meta back in the day as the film just being "confusing" or "sillier" or "weird." Yes, the first film had a lot of meta elements, but it wasn't until this sequel that director Wes Craven and writer Kevin Williamson really went to town and had fun with it. And I think that it went right over a lot of audience's heads when it came out. But especially looking back now, it's easier to see just why this second go is almost as good as the original, and how this stronger focus on self-aware meta storytelling was a great direction to go. Hell, I think it could be argued it even exceeds the original in some ways.The film's opening perfectly establishes this hyper-meta tonality when we start at a public screening of "Stab"- a movie- within-the-movie, based loosely on the events of the original film. It's at this premier that a new "Ghostface" emerges, and takes out a couple film-goers in an opening kill that in my opinion matches the shocking iconic start of the original. Sidney Prescott is now attending college with friend and fellow- survivor Randy, and upon hearing of the new murders, they immediately become suspicious and go on-guard. After being re- united with Dewey and Gale and helping introduce the audience to the newcomer characters, it becomes another fight-for-survival as the new "Ghostface" targets our returning heroes, seemingly in an attempt to make a "real-life sequel" to the events of the original film.Like the original, the heart of this follow-up is writer Kevin Williamson's wonderful screenplay. As mentioned above, Williamson dives into full-blown "meta" territory here, raising the stakes, the laughs and the scares to new level, but always grounded in a self-aware fashion. He also makes the wise choice of giving the returning characters just enough moments of serious character development without bogging down the fast-pacing or feeling out of place. It's one of the most solid scripts for a horror sequel I think has ever been written. And if one pays attention, you can even see Williamson subtly planting the seeds for future sequels and where it may take the story, though done with a sense of class that doesn't just make it feel like sequel-baiting. (It's just a shame the Williamson-less "Scream 3" didn't pay off on these concepts…) I do believe that on the whole, the writing for this film is cleverer and wittier than the original.Craven of course returns, and just as in the original, his classy sense of visual storytelling and direction helps convey the themes, ideas and of course the gags and scares in expert fashion. With the film going as self-aware as it did, I think that in less capable hands, it could have ventured into cartoonish territory. Thankfully, Craven and his confidence in the material keep it from going there, so it's still a blast of fun and has a good sense of tonal continuity with the original.This film also solidifies that the series cast is just wonderful. Neve Campbell is a revelation in this film and brings more life and pathos to her character. Other returning players such as Jamie Kennedy are a ton of fun. Courtney Cox and David Arquette once again steal the show. And newcomers like Jerry O'Connell and Sarah Michelle Gellar fit right in. The best new addition, however, is definitely Liev Schreiber as Cotton Weary, the man Sidney originally suspected of killing her mother before learning this wasn't the case in the original film. Schreiber is a blast as a sort-of sniveling man who is trying to cash-in on his media infamy by forcing Sidney into interviews with him for the news in a hope to gain a bit of fame. It's a very fun part, and Schreiber plays it very well.However, unlike the original... there are some flaws. And they're what's keeping this just shy of getting a perfect 10. And those flaws almost entirely pertain to the script, as despite the level of cleverness and wit displayed by Williamson's writing, it's got some issues. Most notably that it seems Williamson painted himself into a corner more than once, leading to a few awkward scenes where instead of creatively subverting audience expectations like he did in the original... he relied on the horror cliche's and tropes he spent the entire last film lampooning. (A scene inside of a car involving a knocked-out "Ghostface" is a prime example.)These moments are just too contrary to the other, much better written scenes to ignore, so I have to knock off a point.However, despite these problems, "Scream 2" is another winner. It's furiously entertaining, wickedly creative and simultaneously humorous and horrifying.A near-perfect 9 out of 10, and a fine example of a sequel-done- right!