Scream 2 (1997) - Horror, Mystery

Hohum Score



Two years after the first series of murders, as Sydney acclimates to college life, someone donning the Ghostface costume begins a new string of killings.

IMDB: 6.2
Director: Wes Craven
Stars: Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox
Length: 120 Minutes
PG Rating: R
Reviews: 79 out of 493 found boring (16.02%)

One-line Reviews (318)

In the sequel to the hugely popular Scream comes an equally enjoyable horror flick that presents mystery and intrigue right up until the well choreographed if slightly exaggerated climax.

But all that aside, this is still an entertaining film.

There are suspenseful and tense scenes in this, as well, and, as the sequel rules dictate(and as is said out loud within the film), this is bigger than the first.

The story-line is good and I really enjoyed it.

The characters were dull and the premise was really bad!!

And certainly the ending isn't nearly as sharp, surprising, or suspenseful as in Part 1.

In my opinion this sequel to the entertaining original is even better.

"Scream 2" has many funny moments as well for suspenseful moments.

For 99% of the people who major in this, a slow descent into obscurity and realizing that your life will be spent as an admin or working retail, not as a great director, should be revenge enough for anybody.

I didn't quite like Scream 2 as much as the original, but it's still just a fun and intriguing.

Scream 2 is brain-less, point-less, horror-less, and plot-less.

The characters know every horror movie cliché and instead of making the usual mistakes, they come up with ways to do their own mistakes.

3)more entertaining.

That kind of naive touch that he used to have made him the most enjoyable person in the first film.

Sarah Michelle Gellar is my favorite actor, though, in the movie and she took on a role similar to that of Drew Barrymorre in the previous film, engaging, suspenseful and memorable.

The end of the first was better than this but the end will have you on the edge of your seat also.

anyway on to the movie it was alright watchable for sure and fairly entertaining but it kinda slow paced worth a watch **1/2 out of 5

A thrilling sequel .

and i think maybe a bit more entertaining overall.

scream 2 is far more entertaining than scream.

Laughable waste of time .

If you want a real one, then waste your time on something else.

It was definately more entertaining than the first.

There are tons of twists and turns that kept me on the edge of my seat.

It's a self-indulgent piece of crap, with its lame film-buff in-jokes and sad attempts to be original and funny by satirizing sequels, films in general, and even itself.

If Craven had deleted some scenes, the movie wouldn't be that boring either.

Unlike The Others in It's Series, It Delivers Chills and Thrills, and Really Keeps you on the Edge of Your Seat, Which is what I Want From a Horror Movie.

The scares in this movie are all cheap and predictable.


I thought it was boring.

I never really saw what the big deal behind the first one was, and this weak sequel us a waste of the actors time.

The script is well written but does tend to be very similar to other films of its genre, such as 'I know what you did last summer', and its use of teen style language may appeal to some viewers, but others may find it tedious.

" Well, no - but only because the twist is so unpredictable that it's stupid.

It dragged on way too long and the bad guys were not interesting.

Reveng, talk about dull.

Unfortunately it goes off the rails during a well-written but ludicrously over-acted finale that irrevocably damages the movie's momentum, but getting there, it's a strong, unpredictable and entertaining classic in its own right.

This on is the most intense one in the Scream series.

Flawles but yet enjoyable horror slasher sequel flick .

Highly Entertaining Sequel .

There seems to be too much going on in Scream 2 and most of it is pretty boring.

Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courteney Cox and Jamie Kennedy return in this exciting horror/thriller/comedy, in which they are daunted by memories past of 2 young psychopaths out for revenge and ended up taking the lives of a big portion of their friends and family.

I found myself laughing out loud when Sidney decides to run to a dark and empty theatre calling out "is there anybody there?

Not to mention, very predictable.

The body count is a little higher in this movie and of course everything is a little drawn out,as sequels tend to do.

It is illogical and boring at places.

And the movie does slow down a little in the middle.

The screams end with a non-predictable climax.

As with the original, Scream 2 is an intense shocker, full of suspense, humor, and talent.

The downfall of both the movies is that they are both very predictable and had me and my friends shouting at the characters, for example, somebody gets a weird phone call in the middle of the night when there's loads of murders going on, so they go outside and look around (giving the killer time to get inside the house) and then they go back in and lock all the doors so they are trapped.

It's a shame too, since the unexpected cameos and humorous dramatizations of scenes from the first film are indeed refreshing and truly funny.

This one dragged on.

" The killer is also more predictable, especially for people who saw the orginal.

So I tried thinking logically (a mistake, naturally) as to who this boring killer may be; I decided half-way through the film that it must be the black cameraman.

This one may be not as original as the first one, but it still is funny, exciting, surprising (you never know who is/are the killer(s)) and well acted.

This is just borderline good, kinda dull.


But dispite a few things it's still a funny, thrilling sequel and it does fit as a trilogy

I'm sure Craven did this to be unpredictable and shock audiences by depicting the death of a character they cared about.

The survivors from Scream are back, and their familiarity helps bolster the sometimes slow, plodding scenes.

Despite some really good ideas and a few moments of admirable suspense (the escape from the crashed car, for example), "Scream 2" is a repetitive and forgettable film.

Another exciting scene includes Randy, Dewey and Gale Weathers standing on the lawn of the college.

The original SCREAM was borderline between a good and average movie, but re-doing it over again got repititous and boring.

It is tedious.

the weakness in two is everything after it's intense opening.

The sequel to movie that started all of those bland teen movies.

It is really exciting and very scary from time to time.

Scream 2 was not that bad, but I enjoyed it.

This movie had some intense scenes, such as the car scene were the killer is knocked out and Sid and her roommate have to climb over him.

Albeit entertaining.

The script was well done but was slightly more predictable this time.

There's a dragged-out climax, where when we think the killer's dead, she comes back to life and gets shot in the head.

It is an incredibly slow-moving, boring modern slasher with glitzy characters and camerawork.

The ending was suspenseful, as was the scene with Ci-Ci (played by the gorgeous Sarah Michelle Gellar) in her house.

ugh..predictable from the start, the only "fun" i had was seeing how/where the characters were in their lives.

First off, it's too predictable.

The death scenes are a bit more gorier but very predictable.

Entertaining it is, Oscar nominating material it isn't.

Something i don't always like in the script is that the killer always seems to fall down or seems to be clumsy, which is something i don't like because i think it becomes stupid and predictable.

While the later films in the "Scream" franchise and the abominable "22 Jump Street" fail at the sequel self-awareness, "Scream 2" succeeds creating an enjoying, scary, and entertaining second installment to a franchise.

My God, that was the most contrived ending I have ever had to endure (almost).

During the whole movie you keep guessing and then during the end of the movie, the movie gets so complicated and confusing that it made me dizzy.

Also, the movie is bogged down by rather pointless scenes, a somewhat slow pace, and a disappointing final confrontation.

Nowadays this concept is beyond overused and is now becoming a tiresome and dreary old form of comedy/horror.

Too predictable .

I really think with (a lot) more polishing Scream 2 could have a competent, enjoyable romp, but as is, it's only occasionally entertaining.


Still I would concidder it WAY to humourus and uninteresting, I mean, there is absolutly no suspense through out the movie.

This One Had A Boring Ending.

In my opinion, while "Scream" was unpredictable, this film is definitely more surprising in terms of the whodunit premise.

Overall though, while not as good as the original, Scream 2 is still far more entertaining than many movies that came out in the same period and is far from a bad way to spend two hours.

In addition, it changed the characteristics of some of the persons from the first one which was very confusing.

The sequel has made a pretty scary intense film, and the sequel has surpassed the original first film.

The finale was tedious and did not surprise me.

Sidney(Neve Campbell) and Gale(Courteney Cox) are tiresome and uninteresting.

So that's all, and i really appreciate Scream so much because it was very entertaining.

Great characters and suspenseful action .

The killer is predictable, and once again, a repeat of the original.

What I got was a good discussion about sequels, appearances by Randy and Dewey(the only characters I liked in Scream) and a pointless slasher with an even weaker story than the first one.

Still a wonderful cast and a good "Keep You On The Edge Of Your Seat, Biting Your Nails" type of movie!!!

Instead, Scream 2 simply sells itself with more gore and throws in the most predictable killer.

DIRECTING: Wes makes a suspenseful, bloody movie here.

This movie is a waste of time!

Overall, I like this movie, and it is very enjoyable.

It isn't necessary, seeing as how the same characters (mainly Sidney) have gone through the same type of ordeal twice, which is just on the edge of plausibility.

Amazingly well done, highly entertaining and a classic in the genre of horror.

SCREAM 2 is longer and more exciting than the first.

Still, the blood and gore , and witty screen writing, direction and performances are still enough to make this movie enjoyable.

Still, it's entertaining enough to warrant a 6/10.

After an enjoyable experience of watching "Scream", I decided to rent the sequel, so I could say "yeah, I've seen em' all".

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.

")One more good scene that comes to my mind was the one in the sound studio which was very thrilling.

hoping against hope that one of the characters picks up a gun before the end when it's basically pointless.

But overall it is still enjoyable and provides decent entertainment (except for the ending).

Worst movie ever .

The amusingly pretentious references to Greek theatre add to the spirit of play and do give force to the film's best scene, when Gail watches Dewey (as Oedipus) being attacked.

The worst movie ever.

The plot was boring.

A pointless addition .

another thing that was boring about this movie is that it was so predictable from beginning to end i don't know why i wasted my time on this.

What isn't impressive is the killer's motive, which is an absolute travesty and a complete joke as to its inclusion, it just reeks of trying to be relevant to the times and offers nothing but ridicule, but otherwise this is a solid and utterly enjoyable entry.

the one thing about the movie yes it was a little slow at times, i watched it the other day and saw a few scenes they could have done without, take ten minutes out of the film and it's almost as good as the original.

" Entertaining sequel.

The conclusion is purposefully overwrought, and stands as the only noticeable flaw in an otherwise surprisingly enjoyable sequel.

If you would like to enjoy the first one as it is and not even bother with two more, than don't waste your time.

but it is enjoyable to watch.

The film as a whole was unimaginative and predictable.

suspenseful, scary and very enjoyable .

I can't spoil too much, but the closing (another long and drawn out scene) had me rolling my eyes.

Director Wes Craven and writer Kevin Williamson re-teamed for this unneeded but entertaining sequel.

"Scream 2" isn't as good as the original because it's a little slow-moving at times which wasn't the case with the first film.

fairly entertaining sequel .

Scream 2 is way, way funnier, much, much gorier and very, very exciting.

What a waste of money .

Funny, exciting, quite scary, with good twists.

There were at least half-a-dozen scenes which were predictable from the moment they began; it was always obvious who'd get killed and who'd escape, and sometimes even how.

A dragged-out, suspenseful start where Drew Barrymore gets killed.

fairly entertaining sequel is no where near as good as the first and i was so glad when that annoying girl got killed at the start thank god.

Some elements are weird, some are boring and others are weird and boring at the same time.

It was just predictable.

It's furiously entertaining, wickedly creative and simultaneously humorous and horrifying.

Though like all predictable villains, a long extended monologue always seemed to be the order of the day.

Sound confusing?

I mean I was guessing, but there were so many to guess from it got boring.

You've just got some predictable chases and cat-and-mouse games going on, and you feel like it is just there to fill time between the suspenseful beginning and end.

All these movies are predictable; you know who is gonna get it & when.

but it knows how to be an extremely entertaining horror movie without being that scary.

The trapped in the car scene no matter how suspensful , it is contrived and very stupid .

It was very intense - I was VERY into it - and it was so clever how it was the complete opposite of Scream's opening scene (Casey was alone in a house, while Maureen and Phil were in a crowded theater/bathroom).

It's just a boring teenage flick!

A rare sequel that is as good as the 1st because it is even more intense and even smarter.

I have seen this movie and to tell you the truth the first one was alright but this one the 2nd movie was boring.

Craven and his gang of "creators" are so concerned with misleading and confusing the viewer as to who the killer may be, that they totally ignore the need for logic, or at least a decent amount of credibility ("decent" being very little, since this is the slasher genre - the worst horror sub-genre; its ugliest offspring, so-to-speak).

Like mentioned in the summary, this movie needed a re-write (and a more intriguing killer too).

Thankfully, it still puts your expectations through the loops and keeps you on the edge of your seat with some nail-biting suspense and gruesome blood-shed.

I Enjoyed it Anyway.

This movie was simply long and boring, not to mention, a waste of my time.

Watch it if your are bored, or curious after watching the first movie.

I think Neve Campbell's stage dance is one of the film's best moments, it works on so many levels, menace and confusion, it is very nicely done, similar to those great moments in the opening sequences at the cinema too, we as an audience are allowed to see what's going on in the midst of the noise and distraction.

The most exciting part of the movie would probably be the end credits with the song "I think I love you" playing by Less Than Jake.

I know a lot of people who saw "Scream 2" and its larger focus on meta back in the day as the film just being "confusing" or "sillier" or "weird.

Great Entertaining Film.

Still that said Scream 2 is a very enjoyable horror film, and just so long as you don't go in expecting it to be all the original was you should have a pretty good time here.

When compared to the first "Scream" movie it isn't nearly as good but when judged on its own, it's a quite good and enjoyable genre movie.

Everyone looks better, another sexy cast returns and it is most enjoyable!

Neve seems bored, Kennedy's oddly reserved as Randy and David Arquette is back sporting a limp which he concentrates on more than his acting.

First of all , I have a question for all the fans of " Scream " series : why do you like this boring , unoriginal - as - hell ,less - than - mediocre pile of donkey dung ?

I love Randy, but his death just made Scream 2 that much more unpredictable and immediately the stakes are much higher.

Both urinals are occupied, so he goes into an empty stall.

the entire movie was a parody of both horror and itself, lining up and chopong down cliche` after cliche`, then came scream 2.

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.

i also think scream 2 is one of the most entertaining horror movies ever.

Besides that, it was altogether enjoyable, for me certainly more than the first.

While lacking the unique feel of the original, this movie picks up the ball and runs with it, crafting an entertaining film from the still fresh approach used in the original.

SCREAM 2 is witty, clever, and self-indulgent (as to be expected) and it's a bit of fun watching the original cast members go through their paces once again.

Kevin Williamson wrote the first, then the second, then the third - each encompasing a different hart of the overall teen-horror-slasher cliche`.

Craven really loses himself here, as it is virtually cliche after cliche, jump-scare after jump-scare.

It was still suspenseful, and had that horror movie element to it that made the first scream so good.

The undeniable best sequence in this film – as well as in all three "Scream" films, for that matter – involves the geeky horror connoisseur character Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy) fanatically venting about his favorite, albeit cliché-laden genre.

It was twice as scary and entertaining.

It was entertaining, spooky, and had enough twists and turns to keep nearly anyone's interest.

Lacks the screams but still a highly enjoyable thriller .

The movie is just lame, boring, and the killer is obvious too soon, and it's obvious what is going to happen next in the movie.

Jerry O'Conell bored the hell out of me.

Starting at this point, the film becomes far more exciting: all bets are off, as the death of the franchise's most beloved supporting character kicks off a whirlwind building to an epic chase in a theater which comprises roughly the second half of the film.

You can't go past this movie, it is too cool, too funny, too thrilling and too scary!

He/she was just dull, repetitive, and annoying as hell!

It's that he is predictable.

I expected more murders than the last movie, but it was still very exciting and enjoyable.

Directed by Wes Craven (The Hills Have Eyes, The Last House on the Left, Shocker) made an truly enjoyable sequel to "Scream" that is even more entertaining and funnier than the original.

But they decided to shoot one of the most pointless and boring endings in movie history.

Although the script is as fresh with its characters and dialogue, some scenes in the movie are very predictable.

6/10 SUSPENSE: Really I only found the end and the car scene to be truly suspenseful.

), but it still has enough clever twists, amusing dialogue and suspenseful set pieces to make it enjoyable.

Sadly however every film has an end and with this comes a shocking realization and exciting final battle.

then this is the most exciting thriller there's been in years.

It's definitely more scary and riveting, and it keeps you on the edge of your seat.

Contrived, implausible .

But still it's worth watching.

At some points it drags on a little but for the most part it proves to be very entertaining.

This one might just also have one of the coolest and suspenseful chase scenes EVER involving the character of Gale.

But it still a strong, entertaining knowing horror film.

As hard as it is to make a good sequel, incredibly Wes Craven manages to surpass the original and manages to truly SCARE us without being repetitive, redundant, predictable or boring.

Though, I loved the creativity, dialogue and theme to the opening, it was just plain way too drawn out and pointless to the remainder of the movie.

The thrills are there, but of course suffering from the all too predictable outcomes.

The following year, Craven continued the story of the masked killer with this entertaining sequel that continues the story.

Directed by Wes Craven like the original who also has a small blink & you'll miss him cameo I thought Scream 2 was good solid entertaining fun & a worthy sequel.

Although Scream 2 has its flaws and may not be as entertaining as the original, I found it to be just as scary, funny, enjoyable, clever, and even as original as the first Scream.

However, if what you expect is an entertaining film with a few shocks and its fair share of laughs, then you will enjoy Scream 2.

Telling you anymore than I already have will spoil the movie, which is full of surprises and stunning twists.

Everybody's reaction is to think that there's going to be tons of different and exciting killing scenes to occur throughout the film.

It's the least entertaining of the trilogy (see my rave reviews of the other two), though still fun if you're a fan.

The fact that you don't need to pay attention to this movie (it's geared toward the brainless), along with the "scaryness" of it, make it a great first date movie, otherwise it's a waste of money.

The first one had many dull moments, like the ending (too much talking).

I'd even go so far as to say that this movie is superior to its predecessor, and that judgement lies with the character development and its comical treatment of the subject matter, while also being as cunning and inventive as "Scream," keeping us at bay until the unexpected resolution.

The film is darker than its predesessor and lacks a bit of the magic which made "Scream" such a fun, thrilling and original film.

Unlike the opening scene of the first SCREAM, nothing in this movie was as disturbing, which made it more entertaining.

Even the bitchy ones were rendered entertaining.

It certainly has its faults and doesnt live up to the original in many ways, but its still an entertaining ride.

Gale has taken on new heights and is still fully enjoyable.

The twist (that is to say, who "Ghostface" actually turned out to be) was genuinely unexpected, even more so than the first, and echoes some classic twists from earlier films in the genre that inspired "Scream" itself.

While its not as good as the original, "Scream 2" is for the most part a very entertaining horror-comedy.

Wes Craven delivers the goods once again with Kevin Williamson's witty and enjoyable script.

So I really have no choice, and will prefer it to a movie that just bored me to the point where I had to shut it off well before the end.

Above all, the film is too predictable and too stupid to be scary, and that's not a good thing for a horror film.

It`s cool, fun, thrilling and full of action.

I don't want to sound too harsh; I enjoyed this feature, it has a lot of creativity to it and it's worth watching.

More suspenseful 9.

Containing some of the most engaging scenes of terror seen in a Slasher film (well, a who done it/Slasher film).

The characters were more drawn out and the killers were a lot more creative.

Scream 2 again stars engaging Neve Campbell as eternal victim Sydney Prescott.

he relied on the horror cliche's and tropes he spent the entire last film lampooning.

However I found it to be even better than its predecessor, which also was not a scary, but an entertaining movie though.

Blatantly attempting to resurrect the glory imposed on the first outing, it manages to remain immensely predictable for the majority before hitting you with an exquisite twist at the end.

I have seven words to describe "Scream 2" an edge of your seat movie, THRILLING.

The only problem I had is the problem I had with the first one, and indeed, most Wes Craven films except the first NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET; the climax is way too long.

She's a great actress and worth watching.

Like "Scream," the sequel also makes everyone out to be a possible suspect through their actions and their words, which keeps the suspense unbearable in wanting to know who the killer is.

Too cliché.

They are as bland as the returning ones with a few exceptions.

If Tenebre's final fifteen minutes were breathtaking then the final fifteen minutes of Scream 2(1997) were horendous.

Why does Neve Campbell run to the empty concert hall, where no one is.

This was a film that ostracized all of the banal efforts from the last decade and justified the horror film once again.

They did more with the characters, they didn't hit rewind with the story, they let the events from the first film actually effect the story, and made a suspenseful, scary movie all at the same time.

So many flaws it is surprising that the film is still enjoyable (!

SCREAM 2 begins with a great self-parodying sequence and then degenerates into repetitive situations.

Though the acting is pretty good and there are some pretty intense moments.

A hilarious and intense piece of media savvy gold.

Fans of the first will be certainly be disappointed with this film's lackluster script and contrived ending.

Scream 2 is an incredible sequel, a smart, thrilling and self-aware horror sequel that effectively plays with the generic conventions of horror sequels.

The infamous phone voice was dull this time around, not scary or interesting as it was in the first one.

When you consider how disjointed and auto-piloted this film is, it's easy to imagine that the film-makers knew they were working on a trilogy, and were reluctant to use what few surprises they still had left until the final film (this is even more foolhardy now, when we know a fourth Scream entry is forthcoming).

The third was a watered down, boring, insainly silly, would-be character piece that was a forced and pathetic attempt to link the trilogy together.

Williamson is too enthralled to slow the pace, and thusly the story is quick and sharp, if sometimes repetitive and lacking.

Where the film is overlong, it proves itself to be an ultimately entertaining and clever retread of the first.

This load of shat was boring, predictable and not at all funny, although it tried to be.

This hipper, more suspenseful sequel to "Scream" has Neve Campbell and Jamie Kennedy in an Ohio college (movie was actually shot in Georgia) when more killings begin after the release of "Stab," a horror movie based on the brutal serial killings depicted in the first movie.

The Scream franchise has never been particularly subtle, ranging from the thinly veiled allusions to Columbine in Scream 3, the aforementioned scenes in both the original and the sequel, and the rant about the increasingly contrived additions to the Stab franchise (time travel is a major plot point of Stab 5) which implies the pointlessness of any Scream film past Scream 3.

The film is still good, delivers great performances, diabolical, and thrilling.

This movie is just much more suspenseful than the first one!

This movie will keep you laughing and has some pretty intense scenes.

In conclusion, to all you horror film lovers that have not seen this very clever and hip horror sequel you'll love which will leave you feeling good, I highly recommend it!

Worth watching!

There was nothing scary in this flick, and what's with all those pointless bad jokes?

in fact this sequel is enjoyably entertaining it's only the climated showdown at the end that's a little disappointing .

But the heaviest criticism is not that he is a commercial director, or that he works with lousy scripts, or that the plot is laughable, or that he is self-indulgent...

I went and saw it and left the theater in disgust.

So, all in all, the movie was very good despite its weak ending and its sometimes predictable storyline.

But sometimes Scream 2 does fall into the cliché trap like a cop having a chance to kill Ghostface or the characters splitting up when Ghostface is around.

Guessing who the killer was in the first "Scream" worked because it was kind of unexpected.

But I really liked how this makes references to the first "Scream" movie, it's the most intriguing part of this movie.

This is a great (bloody) movie That really makes you sit on the edge of your seat.

Courteney Cox reprises her role as reporter Gale Weathers, who turned out to be an unexpected hero in "Scream" and returns to gain more fame, capitalizing on the murders taking place at Sidney's school.

The entire film is shot in a dull, predictable fashion and at times it almost looks (cinematographically, anyway) random.

Still "Scream 2" was very funny and it was suspenseful.


Scream 2 is a very worthy and enjoyable companion piece to the first film, very much so.

The ending in particular was contrived and ridiculous; it's almost as if the producers grabbed the first person they saw to pinpoint as the killer.

Scream was one of the most influential films in the slasher genre, with it's innovative storytelling, twists, and suspenseful moments.

The wry humor has become a gimmick here, and though this film does indeed attempt to resurrect the strongest elements from the first Scream, this time out the horror is so banal that the humor dilutes the few true scares to be had.

If you think good plot and character build up are sine qua non for a horror movie, it could be the worst movie of your life.

In my opinion Craven's films were neither suspenseful or horrifying, except for how bad they were.

It's a gripping flick that concentrates as much on the entertaining and humorous side of the movie as on the mystery and horror factor.

The film was to predictable and lacked vision and plot.

The car scene is quite intense and scary indeed.

While the first film maintained an intense, suspenseful plot while subtly making comical remarks about the genre, Scream 2 fails to meet any of those aspects.

The film is totally enjoyable.

Same Characters; New exciting story (goes along with old story); New, Fun Characters; New, mysterious location.

Bad- too many unnecessary characters, though strangely many of them are not killed or even attacked, and most of them do not do much, the twists are too unpredictable to work well, and it is maybe too short.

The scene where Sydney must escape the cop car is probably the most suspenseful in the entire series, maybe in the genre.

As the body count rises the pressure becomes unbearable.

When we finally discover who has killed all those people and the reasons for all this murders we realize how pointless was the whole movie and that the writer was really out of ideas when writing the script.

This film lacked originality and to be honest was a complete bore.

It isn't quite as good, but it is worth watching.

The scenes are gripping as each one takes you on a trip through terror lane, using each important character as your tour guide for the intense adventure.

The second part also focuses more on some of the stronger characters of the first part such as the intriguing and wrongfully suspected Cotton Weary, the journalist Gale Weathers that shows some unknown emotional sides beyond her facades of a seemingly egoist personality and the police deputy Dewey Riley that turns out to be much more clever and courageous than it seemed in the first part where he got completely dumped.

Often entertaining, albeit in a predictable way, it does provide a few key moments.

At times the chase scenes with the killer got kind of boring, in my opinion.

I enjoyed it, just not as much as the first film.

It was similar to the first Scream in TOO many ways which made it predictable and not too suspenseful.

it's more thrilling and suspenseful.

No plot, lots of blood (slight spoiler) .

GhostFace is more dull, repetitive, and annoying, and the movie had more plot holes than swiss cheese (I'll regret ever using that bad insult)!

It doesn't seem fresh, has a thin storyline, contrived characters, plays like a rehash, and concludes with an ending that seems patched on and is completely unsatisfying.

That alone made it worth watching.

Timothy Olyphant is downright bland as Mickey, compared to the over-the-top Matthew Lillard.

The sequel had some really creepy moment and one of favourite scene in this movie as got to be the car crash scene, it was never ranking and scary and creepy at the same time, no matter how many I have seen that scene, I am always on the edge of my seat and still had humour in this movie just like the first scream movie, it is really funny how that make fun of sequels as this is a sequel too.

Some may ponder that Sidney and Randy were destined to be together, and probably should have died in the third film while they end up as a couple, but even if that may have been cool, killing him off in this sequel makes everything unpredictable and makes a bigger shocking impact.

the thing about this movie that really ticked me of is that they had so much pointless characters that i actually didn't care who was ghost face next victim.

'Scream' was original and therefore better, more entertaining and more surprising in the way the subject was handled.

The first "Scream" was a complete classic, original, funny, unpredictable.

This movie had a lot of scary and suspenseful moments, the best being when Sidney is rehearsing the play she's in and with all of the effects and extras dancing around on stage with fake weapons and creepy masks, she either sees or imagines the killer running around on stage trying to get her.

Just as entertaining as the first.

Other than that, I enjoyed it very much.

There are a few good surprises (the murder in the van), a really suspenseful scene that outdoes anything from the previous film (the cop car), and most importantly a respect for the previous film.

And, of course, Wes Craven is able to produce extremely intense, suspenseful death scenes, complimented nicely by another one of Marco Beltrami's magnificent scores.

I still found it clever, witty and exciting.

I suppose it's best to start at the beginning, which in this film is devoted to a poorly executed and ultimately pointless exposition scene that makes no sense in the grand scheme of the film.

Kevin Williamson wrote his character dull and awful.