Pânico 2

'Scream 2' was the sequel to 'Scream', made only a year after its predecessor, it was clearly in high demand.

It was a good film overall, it certainly would not be added to the long list of sequels which didn't live up to their previous films - as it is discussed IN the film. Again, the references to movie cliché's and common movie stereotypes and rules is very interesting and can be really funny as you find yourself agreeing with the characters when they discuss films. Wes Craven created a very worthy sequel, the dialogue, as with the first one, was probably the strength of the film. Neve Campbell's role was pretty much the same with no huge development in her character but she performed well and kept her acting up to the same standard as in 'Scream'. The two recurring characters who really out-did themselves in this film were Courtney Cox and David Arquette, both their characters developed substantially in this film and both actors did so very well.

The script was well done but was slightly more predictable this time. When it came to who the killer eventually was, you had already worked out this because they had been absent for no apparent reason from the story for over half an hour. However, Craven did add some surprises and there were aspects of the story - both funny and scary - that you did not see coming. There was a lot more violence in this film and the body count is bigger as stated in the trailer, this film is definitely more horror than black comedy but there are some really great scenes featuring both.

Overall, 'Scream 2' is not as good as the first one but it is still definitely worth a watch. Don't watch this unless you have watched the first one because you will be lost within the opening minutes of the film.

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.

If you thought that slasher movie sequels could be nothing more than an inferior continuation to the original and provide nothing new or innovative, "Scream 2" is here to prove you wrong. The entertaining characters, suspenseful directing and unique kind of meta humor that you loved from the original are back and combined with an exciting new plot, proving that even slasher movie sequels can be great as long as there's enough care and passion put into them.

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.

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.