Review: Scream 2

Ah, Scream 2. The first was successful, so of course there has to be a sequel – I mock, but I can relate, having written about the first film HERE – and it arrived roughly a year after the first, bringing the band back together (well, the band that hadn’t been killed off in the first film, at least). Which is to say, only a few people.

The first Scream film was a comment on the genre, saying, yes, we are in a horror movie, but we know the rules of horror movies. But it was also a very 90s movie because it was about The End of History.

In 1989, after the Fall of the Berlin Wall, Francis Fukuyama wrote an article by that title, and while its premise is very questionable, it has been interpreted in a number of ways he likely never meant. But at its heart was this idea that all the great challenges in human society were over. Communism had failed. Free market capitalism and Democracy had “won” and there were no more ideological battles to be fought. After the 20th Century which was defined by fascism and communism and great wars over ideas, all that was over.

This idea – that everything is new, the rules have changed, the old order has collapsed – ran through 1990s pop culture in explicit and implicit ways. There are obvious examples were this was part of the plot and discussed (Pierce Brosnan Bond movies, I’m looking at you!) but it can be seen in everything from Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven, a revisionist take on a classic western story made by one of the people synonymous with classic westerns, to Pretty Woman, a darker take on the traditional romantic comedy. Some of that change is expressed in different ways. Because of course some of the “this is all new and all different” films which are remaking/recycling are simply the result of generational and technological change (Jurassic Park and T2 making differently looking films, or each generation making a new Robin Hood/Peter Pan/whatever film).

But this is one of the impulses behind Scream. This is a horror movie but it’s not. It’s self-aware and reflective and it’s new! Of course, it wasn’t. It was a horror movie. And watched without the sound, it functions like most horror movies.

The problem with making a sequel to such a movie is that it’s a lose-lose situation. It isn’t new. It can’t be new. People are buying tickets to watch the same thing done a little differently. And how does one make a sequel to the idea that everything is new and different? Well, there’s a reason few good movies get sequels. Because by their nature, they are revisions of the first. So, same basic idea, it will keep you guessing who the killer is, lots of people will die.

The first Scream was about high school kids and this film is set in college. One of the appeals of the first film was that it did a pretty good job of capturing some of the feel of adolescence. This film did a less good job. It’s a much more surface take with some fun moments of dialogue but never as interesting. Much of the geeky self aware dialogue is about sequels.

I suppose what was most annoying was how every time the film made a point of diverging from expectations based on the first one, they almost felt this need to underline it. As if to say, we know what you expected. It’s annoying, but it also points to how the second film is looser than the first film. This seems common in sequels, where the first film has been written and rewritten with a very tightly plotted structure, where the second film is a lot looser, shaggier and more relaxed in different ways (see Ocean’s Twelve, Lethal Weapon II, Aliens, Temple of Doom….and almost all sequels, let’s be honest).

Having just ripped into the script, it must be said that the opening scene is chilling and precise and so well done. After introducing and reintroducing characters, and taking its time, there’s a lengthy scene in a sorority house as one characters is killed that is as well crafted as anything Wes Craven has made.

One of the film’s saving graces is the cast. Which is more impressive than the first film. From the opening scene featuring Omar Epps, Jada Pinckett Smith and Heather Graham, to Sarah Michelle Gellar, Elise Neal, Jerry O’Connell, Timothy Olyphant, Laurie Metcalf, and Portia de Rossi joining the returning actors from the first film. Plus Liev Schreiber’s cameo in the first film is expanded into a bigger role in this film. And David Warner has a small role as a theater professor/director, which I enjoyed.

Courtney Cox’s local newswoman Gale Weathers may have been almost a cliche in the first film, but in the second film, she is part of a much more conscious approach the film takes to the media and how it works and how we relate to it in really interesting ways. This is one of the major thematic concerns of the rest of the films, Fame and the media and what that means. And it’s interesting because of course today there are these serial killers losers who write manifestos and want to be famous, but this came out in 1997 and clearly the filmmakers had a feeling and understanding of this which was far beyond most of us. Because I see that and watching the film today and how Liev Schreiber’s character wants to be famous, how Cox’s character wants to be more important and more famous, and I think there’s something wrong with them.

I suppose that in that respect, I am like Neve Campbell’s Sydney, who simply wants to fade into the background and live an ordinary life and has no desire to be famous. For all the film’s flaws, I can’t help but see that final scene as this almost primal scream into the void that is the future. A future filled with social media influencers and YouTube stars and reality television. And saying, in the midst of death and insanity and all that is happening, I just want to live a quiet life. Of course the nature of this genre is that such a thing is never possible. But I suppose, it’s not really possible in life, either.