Scary Movie 2

I might have to do some checking up on this, but I'm pretty sure that seven writers is a record high for a non-anthology film. And just what is this cinematic treat scripted with so many pens? It's probably really good, right? I mean, with seven writers, it would have to be extremely good…or very, very bad. Unfortunately, it is the latter, and the movie is `Scary Movie 2.' This sequel of the funny teen-horror spoof `Scary Movie' has none of the subtleties, parodies, or even big laughs the original film did. Instead, it digresses to overtly sexual and gross-out humor which doesn't even work on a gut level. I feel sorry for every person associated with this project.

The story line is actually a little more involved for `Scary Movie 2,' as if you needed a plot to set up the horrendous `laugh scenes,' which are fewer and far between this time. Classic camp actor Tim Curry is Professor Oldman, a college teacher who recruits a group of students to spend the night in a haunted house so he can conduct some sort of experiment (though we never really understand what that experiment is all about). Of course, this group contains most of the kids from the first `Scary Movie,' including innocent Cindy (Anna Faris), loud-mouthed Brenda (Regina Hall), marijuana-obsessed Shorty (Marlon Wayans), and sexually questionable Ray (Shawn Wayans). New this time is straight-arrow Clark (Christopher Masterson). The house is inhabited by the twisted butler Hanson (Chris Elliot) and even a ghost (`Night Court's' Richard Moll). The kids slowly discover the mysteries and secrets of the house, and make every bodily function, sexually oriented, inappropriate joke along the way.

There are those who complain about this style of humor in general, and therefor will not see this movie. However, sometimes it works, such as in the original `Scary Movie,' `American Pie,' and even at the far end of the scale, `There's Something About Mary.' There, the gross out is permissible because there are characters we mildly care about, or there are other types of humor going on as well.

However, `Scary Movie 2' is the prime example of where gross out humor can go wrong. Instead of playing up some of the humorous character stereotypes, or mixing in some creative horror movie parodies with the gross-out humor, `Scary Movie 2' relies solely on it. It seems to me that many scenes in the film were robbed of their comic potential so our seven scriptwriters could fit more vomit, feces, and other unmentionable bodily concoctions into the film.

There are a few laughs that harked back to `Scary Movie,' and those scenes always feature one of the two Wayans brother's characters. Even though they had five other folks working with them, its clear that this is their project. Maybe those other five scriptwriters fought back and added in the gross-out stuff.

As for performances, the same can be said. Both Wayans seem to have more comedic experience than their fellow teen-age counterparts. Faris is better than she was in the first `Scary Movie,' but nowhere near as funny. Plus, she still looks and sounds just a little too odd for me. Curry hasn't had a good role since the mid 80's, and its sad that this is the caliber of film he works in. There are other famous cameos including James Woods as a priest and former Conan O'Brien sidekick Andy Richter as his assistant, but one must wonder what they are doing slumming around in this film. After watching Woods in his worst performance to date, it frightened me to realize that Marlon Brando was originally cast in the role. There would be no saving his career had he gone through with this.

If you have any desire to be thoroughly disgusted, or like your humor from the bottom of the barrel (and I mean bottom!) then check out `Scary Movie 2.' Otherwise, go on living your life with the knowledge than unlike myself, you managed to escape this waste of a sequel.

Why do a lot of people who really enjoyed the first movie hate this installment? I can understand why some critics would, or people that just thought the first was okay, however, I enjoyed both the previous film before this and this film itself, thinking this film is really funny and enjoyable. It was great fun and total entertainment to watch, and I have watched it quite a few times.

The comedy might have been a little too over-the-top and repitive at times, as it seemed like this one tried really hard to please the audience when the first one just went with the flow, but that is really how a lot of comedies are like, even more so now than then, so I do not see how this one is any different. Anna Faris pulls off Cindy Campbell's character wonderfully, again, and nobody could have done it better than her. All the other familiar characters, as well as the new ones, are excellently portrayed and likable, in a sense, and the movie has a high replay value, for me at least. This movie was not a disappoint to me either, because I thought it lived up to Scary Movie perfectly.

There were a lot of funny parts in this film, such as the opening song, the Charlie's Angels spoof scene, the scene were buddy gives back Cindy's book, and the Cindy singing in the car scene. If you have seen the film, you know what I am talking about and hopefully enjoyed those scenes as well. If you hated this film, please try to watch it again, and you'll see just how good it really was, hopefully.

A proper laugh riot all the way from beginning to end. Plenty of stuff to miss and catch on a second or third watch. Tim Curry is a delight as always, as is Veronica Cartwright. Even James Woods manages to be watchable.

The production of this film was fast due to the success of the first part. And although this may mean compromising the final quality, I was satisfied with the film. The reason is simple; He goes to well-known sources to present hilarious situations based on the grotesque. That's the main feature of the movie and it's where it gets its best laughs. There is a well-chosen cast and the characters are hardly similar to an ordinary human being and therein lies the freedom to generate unusual and exaggerated situations. The film works and is even better than the first by being simpler and simply aiming to make you laugh. The objective of the film is fulfilled and more than achieved.

It was good when I was a kid. But it aged like moldy cheese.

2.5/5 + 1 for the golden days of cheap early 2000s comedy.