H'ween Horrorthon: 'Scream 2' (20 Years Later)

"By definition alone, they're inferior films!"

—Jamie Kennedy as film-geek Randy Meeks

Hello, one and all.

I hesitated to do this entry on account of the fact that I would rather review original films only—not reboots, remakes, re-hashings, and, the worst cardinal sin of all, sequels. I do feel that the chronic repetition of a movie plot and its formula does very little to quell the initial joy that emanated from the first film and, readily, its "continuation" of the story is usually just a dull re-tread of the first film's original story.

Still, on the rarest of occasions, a movie sequel can rise to the occasion and supersede our expectations as an audience. Oddly enough, despite reviewing the film Scream 2 and adding it to my Horrorthon, it in no way improves upon the sharp, blunt scariness and meta-cleverness of the 1996 original film that preceded it. And yet, why am I reviewing it? Two reasons: one, it's been 20 years since it was released, qualifying it as an anniversary piece; and two, it knew that expectations would be high and plays on that. As Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy), the walking movie encyclopedia from the first movie, observes in a film class, "Sequels suck!"

I do agree. Sequels are generally content to regurgitate what we've already seen before for the sake of generating more box office dollars and the need to turn the original film into a potential franchise. Only a handful of movie franchises were worthy of continuing their storylines: James Bond 007, Star Trek, and even Harry Potter would be prime examples of HOW to do it right. The Matrix, Rocky, Star Wars (only a handful of films deserve recognition), and Alien (although widely debatable) were the many franchises that took a turn for the worse. Before I get ahead of myself, I want to reiterate that this is just my subjective opinion of these movies and their franchises. I only ask that no one reading this slips a horse's head inside my bed overnight as I sleep.

The 1997 Poster

Okay, brief sidetrack, there. Back to this particular film sequel. The movie opens cleverly enough; this time, it's a young college-age couple (Jada Pinkett-Smith and Omar Epps) going to a screening of Stab, a film based on the events of the 1996 movie. An interesting argument about the lack of ethnic diversity in horror films sets things in motion. It's pandemonium inside with everyone wearing Ghostface costumes and fake-stabbing everyone in sight. The movie begins and all seems like it'll be a good time at the movies. Events soon unfold to reveal that a real-life Ghostface is among the audience members and kills both of them.

The next day, our heroine Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), desperately trying to resume a normal life in college, is now once again the center of attention. Is there a copycat Ghostface killer set to strike again? Is the movie responsible for the murders in the theater? A lively debate in a classroom discusses both the murders and if the movie caused them and the inevitability of the events of the previous movie repeating themselves—hence, a real-life sequel.

Courtney Cox returning as intrepid (and proudly bitchy) reporter Gale Weathers, could also be responsible for the chaos as the book she wrote about the murders before is the basis of the new Stab movie. David Arquette is the semi-retired Deputy Dewey Reilly, who is the big brother of Sidney and Randy and is already dreading the inevitable crisis looming. Complicating matters is Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber), the freed suspect from the first movie, courting Sidney's forgiveness for a price. A slew of college kids (Jerry O' Connell, Elise Neal, Timothy Olyphant, Rebecca Gayheart, Portia De Rossi, Sarah Michelle Gellar, and Joshua Jackson) are either potential victims or suspects. There's also a pesky news reporter (Laurie Metcalf) who may be hiding something herself. In an ice cream shop, Randy and Dewey, while watching a movie clip of their life story, break down the rules of a horror sequel:

Bigger body count.

Extremely violent deaths.

It's NEVER the same person twice—it's always someone you LEAST expect.

In conclusion, I did enjoy this sequel and even liked that it added some social commentary into the "whodunit" plot. Some of the main topics, like the last one, was "does movie violence beget real-life violence?" and "are we really so desensitized as to glorify movie violence?" and of course, "are all sequels shit, or not?" Here's a test. If you were paying close attention to what I said about putting a headless horse into my bed, then you'll be able to allude to the one movie that had an Oscar-winning sequel.

The late Wes Craven was a maverick filmmaker in that he would often explore the correlation between movie violence and real-life violence. His 1994 meta-sequel, Wes Craven's New Nightmare, was an out-of-body exploration of his 1984 seminal classic, A Nightmare on Elm Street in the real world. His many horror films caused too much controversy regarding real-life acts of violence traced back to his films. For a director to explore such a topic boldly and ask if we are responsible for our own actions or are led on by what we see on television and in movies, was a pretty brazen step in understanding our art as it pertains to the human psyche.

Man! Talk about deep! But, sequels still do suck!

Next Up: Five med students induce their own deaths...in 1990!