“What's your favorite scary movie?”
“SHOWGIRLS. Absolutely frightening.”
SCREAM 2
1997
more SCREAM 2 notes and spoilers by Cephas.
OK. You came to this page because you do not mind learning who th ekiller is and whatnot. But in case you came here by accident, click here to go back to the SCREAM 2 main review.
Ok..here goes:
There is obvious foreshadowing that this film will not be as good as the first. Randy says that all sequels are never as good as the first. This is apparant because 1-this film wasn’t and 2-Randy points out to th ekiller that what he is doing is not original at all and that he will only be known as the Copycat Killer of Woodsboro. He does this over the phone before he is killed. (Hey, I told you there were gonna be mega-spoilers on this page. I gave you a warning. You don’t like it? Go back now. You are forewarned (again) and I will be telling the killer later as well.) Anyway.where was I? Oh yeah. Randy is killed. I disliked this part a lot because I thought that Randy was a wonderful character I never saw in a film before and before this character can be fully developed into a major phenomenon in film, he is killed off. Dam. He seemed like a minor character at first in the first film. But he turned out to be a new type of character for film in the way that he knows how films are made and describes this to the audience by interacting with the other characters in the film while he does this. In the second film he tells Dewey that, “...sequels have to be bloodier, more elaborate deaths, more victims.” He also gives us all the real suspects in the film and Williamson uses Randy to throw us off the track in this scene. Brilliant move by Williamson. In fact, this is probably the best dialogue in the film as well as the only brilliant part in the film. The acting is mediocre but that only makes the scene better what with Dewey’s facial expresiions which just may end up as a movie classic scene.
Next up are what Randy was telling us about: “bloodier, more elaborate deaths, more victims.”
I counted 10 deaths in this film. The two college kids at the theatre in the beginning of the film. (2) The soroity girl in the lonely sorority house. (Which was realy cool btw I just wanted to scream out the song by Superfly when she died. You’ll know which song I mean when you see the film.) (3) randy. (4) the boyfriend, (5) the two killers (7) the two detectives, (9) the roommate (10). If I made a mistake here, let me know. I hate being wrong. Now, I forget how many died in the first but I think it was close to 10 or a couple more. If you remember please let me know and tell me who. I want to compare. Next is blood: Not as much in this film, I thought anyway. In fact, even the “elaborate deaths” were not as good as the first. My fave in the first film was when that girl was crushed in the garage door. That wasn’t too cool, it was three cool!
There is more I can say, but I want to get right to the end. Let’s talk Killer, shall we?
First our killer reveals himself and decribes in detail why he did what he did. In the first film we understand that no good killer tells his reasons. They just do it. We also learn in the first that when they DO explain themselves they lose. It happened in the first, guess what? It hapenes again. Th ekiller says his motive. Which was a lamer (is that a word?) excuse than the first. I can buy the first. But the second film’s motive was something from a morning talk show.
Then he reveals his partner who happens to be Sidney’s last boyfriend’s mother. See, she gets together with Derek (the killer) to kill off Sideny and friends who are responsible for her son’s death in the first film. If you remember, her last boyfriend WAS the killer and mastermind behind the first film. Mrs. Killer says all these irratinal things that do not fit in this film. In film, the killer HAS to be someone close to the story at some level. If you do not want them suspected somehow, then give them some kind of role that makes them closer to the story but give access to innocence. Don’t go around saying, “Yeah, she’s the mother we never showed in the first film and only hinted at in the first film and now we want her to be th emastermind in the second film by making her seem innocent as the bumbling news hound who is not really connected to the story at large other than by being the really annoying character who annoys ONE character in the whole film. Lame. (Note to Williamson: This was lame. At least the new cameraman would have seemed plausable since he was not given any real alibi for each murder and strangely appeared after Randy’s death. (Leave before Randy is killed, hide and then kill him, change out of costume, grab a box of donuts in waiting, find Dewey and Gail then act scarred and surprised when you se dead Randy in van. - Sidney’s roomamate would have made an excellent accomplice. She knows all about Sidney and declared that she was Sidney
‘s personal psychologist. She would have made for an excellent accomplice and mastermind. The deaths at the end were dumb too. The two killers’ deaths were not nearly as god as the first and in fact they seemed best written for a Shwartzenegger film than this one. And that last gun shot by Sidney was just out of character.
Geez..all these negatives and I still give it high regards on the last page. Go figure. It takes a realy bad film to make me despise it. Case in point: next month’s SPICE WORLD film. SPICE WORLD may be more scary than SHOWGIRLS!! I saw a preview for this film once and screamed out loud in fear! Y date was like, “What’s wrong?” I told her it was the Spice Girls’ film and then she understood and probably thoight I was being over melodrmamtic. I don’t think I was. Do you?
Visit the official SCREAM 2 web site:
The Official SCREAM 2 web site