Sign up to add this to your collection
|
Sign up to add this to your favorites
|
|
63%
Overall Rating
|
|
Ranked #963
...out of 20,704 movies
|
Sign up to check in!
|
Two years after the terrifying events that occurred in Woodsboro, Sidney is now attending Windsor College in Cincinnati, and Gale Weathers' best selling book on Sidney's life has now been made into a major motion picture. When two college students are killed in a theatre while watching the new film 'Stab', Sidney knows deep down that history is repeating itself.
--TMDb
|
|
Review by Tristan
Added: September 28, 2007
The Rules of the Sequel:
Number One: The body count is always bigger.
Number Two: The death scenes are always much more elaborate; more blood, more gore.
Number Three: If you want your sequel to become a franchise, never, ever--
I know, it's incomplete. Blame Craven, not me. But two out of three ain't bad.
After the success of the first movie, it would only make sense to have a sequel. Especially with the rich characters this series has. After the end of the first one, who didn't want to see more of Dewey, Sidney and Gale? Just like the first one, I used to watch this movie to death. First one was done? Pop this in the VCR for another 2 hours of slasher mayhem. As a rule sequels are always worse than their predecessor, save a few exceptions. A conversation which oddly enough, but not really, takes place in this movie. While it doesn't live up to the original, this movie did a mighty fine job of advancing the story, and not just recreating part one. This is the sign of a damn good sequel, and all fanboyism aside, this is a damn good sequel.
Picking up two years after the first film, our movie opens with a young black couple going to the premiere of Stab, a movie based on the events of the Woodsboro Massacre. Movie-inside-a-movie movies are always fun. While at the theatre, the couple are brutally murdered by a man in a mask. Unfortunately, everybody in the theatre is wearing the mask, so our friends get little help from the audience, as they all think it's a publicity stunt. For you kids at home, you'll be happy to know that there's a new killer on the loose, donning your favourite Ghost Face mask.
Sidney (Campbell), now in college, is trying to get over the events of two years prior. Sure, her boyfriend killed her mother, then tried to kill her, but damned if that's going to stop the girl from getting an education. She's found a new boyfriend in Derek (Jerry O'Connell), a goofy but sincere frat boy, who seems to be everything that Sidney needs. The main thing, of course, is not being a homicidal maniac. Reunited with Sidney are Gale Weathers (Cox), Dewey Riley (Arquette) and Randy Meeks (Kennedy), the only survivors from Woodsboro. Now that the murders have started up again, Sidney is plagued with phone calls and threats, and is understandably upset. But when attempts are made on her life, and her friends start getting murdered, she finds herself once again at the mercy of the killer.
One of the best things about this movie, is its ability to mock slasher films and the common elements in each one, but still be a slasher itself. Considering Williamson's clever writing style, all the "cliches" really come off as parodies. This isn't to say that the movie is funny, but it's nice to get a laugh out of all the little nods to the genre classics. Just like the first one, Craven and Williamson knew exactly what to do to mix horror, comedy, and even a little drama into one pot, and pour out another smart movie.
Much like the first one, the acting was fantastic. Cox, Arquette, and Campbell all did a great job the second time around, and the same can be said for newcomer Timothy Olyphant, who played a friend of Randy's from Film Theory class. I have to say though, that the best part of this whole movie was Liev Schreiber as the once accused, now exonerated Cotton Weary. He has always been one of my favourite actors, and it was great to see him get so much screen time. No matter how dead pan and serious his delivery is, I always find myself laughing at his subtle sarcasm and vicious remarks.
So how do I feel about the sequel to one of my favourite horror movies? I feel pretty good about it. It used the same formula as the first one, with the same director, writer, actors, and crew. All these elements combined make for a very effective movie that kept me as entertained as the first one.
9/10
|
|
#1:
bluemeanie
- added September 29, 2007 at 1:16am
Not a bad sequel at all. Wes Craven did a great
job of amping up the cynicism and the parody, but
still provided some genuine jumps and scares.
Could never buy Laurie Metcalf as a killer, but
that's a mute point. "Scream 2" rocked. 8/10.
|
|
#2:
Chad
- added April 27, 2010 at 1:17pm
The third rule to surviving a sequel is cut from
the movie, but is shown in the trailer. "And
#3. Never, ever under any circumstance assume that
the killer is dead."
Good movie,
stands right alongside the original. The twist
was a little goofy, but then, the twist in the
first was a bit silly as well. Still, I
thoroughly enjoyed it. 9/10.
|
|
Rate Movie? 
