Scream 2 has a scene where a bunch of film students discuss why sequels suck. They offer a few examples of good sequels, some logical (Aliens, Godfather 2), some not (Terminator 2). Is Scream 2 better than the original?

When I was watching the first half of the movie, I thought it would be. The humor is improved, the setting of a college campus is more visually appealing than the houses in the first movie, and I enjoyed the concept of a movie within a movie as well as the paparazzi preying on a member of the press. Towards the end, things change. The movie has a VERY long, drawn out climax, which takes over 30 minutes to complete when it should have taken 15. If I were directing Scream 2, the protection agents would not be in the movie, one of the murder scenes would have been edited out, and the climax would be edited more quickly. The slow pace kills the movie. On the other hand, the ending neatly ties up any loose ends.

It’s definitely funnier than the original, and I enjoyed the risks it took with killing off one of the returning characters from the first movie. The ending ends up weakening Scream 2 in such a major way that I can’t help but give it a lower score. It’s a decent sequel, but not good enough.

I give Scream 2 **1/2 out of ****.

I don't know what Mat is taking about, when he says that saying Terminator 2 was better than the original. T2 kicked way more ass than the first one. Plus, it just doesn't feel right to root against Arnold, unless, of course, you're watching one of his more recent poor career choices.

Scream 2 is just as good as the first one. I don't know what Mat's problem is. First he says the Scream was too quick. Then he complains that Scream 2 is too long. What do you want from them Mat? Is nothing ever good enough for Mister "movie expert". I thought the pace was good. It also wasn't a complete clone of the first one, like most horror sequels seem to be.

**** out of ****