1997 – Jiggy's Horror Corner

The Shining (1997)

Directed by Mick Garris [Other horror films: Critters 2 (1988), Psycho IV: The Beginning (1990), Sleepwalkers (1992), The Nightmare Begins Again (1993), The Stand (1994), Quicksilver Highway (1997), Riding the Bullet (2004), Desperation (2006), Bag of Bones (2011), Nightmare Cinema (2018, segments ‘The Projectionist’ & ‘Dead’)]

Ah, the smell of fresh anger in the air.

I’ve never cared for the 1980 rendition of the classic Stephen King novel. Sure, it’s one of the most well-known and highly-rated movies in the genre, but I never felt strongly about it. I don’t hate it, but if I were told I had to pick 500 horror movies to bring with me to a desert island, I’m not remotely joking when I say that Kubrick’s The Shining wouldn’t make the list.

This 1997 television mini-series perhaps would, though. Spread over three episodes (each one about an hour and a half, coming in at a total runtime of four hours and 32 minutes), The Shining is a story that takes it’s time to breath. It takes its time to work through the story, and touches on many of the elements that make the book a solid read.

I’m not going to harp on the 1980 movie – much like The Haunting, this isn’t a remake of the 1980 film, but another adaptation (and one that actually had the involvement of Mr. King). Comparing the two adaptations is pointless, and even a tad mean-spirted, and not something I have any interest in doing.

I also want to add that at the time I first saw the 1980 film, I had not read the novel. In fact, I’d seen the movie multiple times before I read the book, and the one time I’ve seen this mini-series was also before I read the book. And you know what? Even before reading the novel, I preferred this mini-series. It’s a better adaptation of the source material, no doubt, but the bigger point is that I have more fun with it, point blank.

Given that this is a mini-series that lasts over four hours, The Shining takes its time setting the characters and ideas up. Much of the action doesn’t really start until the second and third episodes, but I think that works out fine. Plenty of other Stephen King-based mini-series (Storm of the Century, The Stand) had similar routes, and I appreciate that they didn’t try to cram too much in, and didn’t rush things.

I thought Steven Weber (Crawlspace, Farm House, Desperation) did great in his role, as did Rebecca De Mornay (The Murders in the Rue Morgue, Mother’s Day). Surprisingly, even Courtland Mead did well, and I don’t generally care for child actors. My favorite performance might be that of Melvin Van Peebles (Jaws: The Revenge), though – not only is his portrayal of Hallorann great, but he comes across as so likable.

Other small performances did well too – Wil Horneff (Ghost in the Machine) often had an ethereal feel to him, and it worked well, along with Pat Hingle (Sweet, Sweet Rachel, Not of This World), despite just having two scenes of note, also making a good impression. Stanley Anderson had some good portions toward the end, and we even randomly got Shawnee Smith (The Blob, I Saw What You Did, Saw) popping up as a waitress. In fact, I was so surprised to see her that I didn’t immediately realize who it was – it was only as the credits ran that I realized, and then rewound the film to confirm.

It’s true that not everything’s amazing. Some of the CGI can look a bit off, such as those topiary animals. The first sequence, with Jack, wasn’t bad, because it was subtle, but once we actually see them on the prowl, the effects are questionable. Portions of the wasp nest sequence had the same feel. Hell, early on, we even see a boom mic in a window’s reflection, which is something I was surprised to see make it through.

None of that really impacts the mini-series much, though. The heavy focus on Jack’s alcoholism and his slowly deteriorating mindstate is far more important to me than the CGI flaws here and there. I’m just happy that there’s a version of this story that I actually enjoy, because – and this may surprise some – I’m not even a big fan of the novel. After watching this one again, though, perhaps I’m in due for a re-read.

I know that it’s an unpopular opinion, but it’s how I truly feel. I thoroughly enjoy this adaptation of the story more than the 1980 movie, and if you’re someone who just wants to see a solid mini-series, then I think this is well-worth checking out.

8/10

I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997)

Directed by Jim Gillespie [Other horror films: D-Tox (2002), Venom (2005)]

Among the many slashers to crop up once Scream re-ignited the subgenre, I Know What You Did Last Summer is among the best. It’s nowhere as good as Scream, but it is a very solid movie, partially due to a combination of the story and the setting.

I’m a sucker for oceans. I’ve never personally seen an ocean, at least in living memory, so I was always fascinated by coastal communities, especially small coastal communities. And since I Know What You Did Last Summer primarily takes place in a tiny coastal community in North Carolina, it had me from hello.

Of course, most people know the plot of this one – four teenagers cause an accidental manslaughter, and once they get rid of the evidence, they make a pact to never bring it up again. Alas, a year later, at the anniversary of the incident, a killer wearing a long, black slicker and wielding a hook, hunts them down.

We know the plot, which is fun enough, but what I didn’t know is that it’s partially based on a novel by Lois Duncan, titled, believe it or not, I Know What You Did Last Summer. It’s a thriller written for young adults as opposed to a slasher (and in fact, Duncan wasn’t happy with the slasher approach to the story the film took), but the main plot is all there, which is somewhat fascinating.

I’ve always loved the design of the fisherman here. The long, black slicker, sticking up so it hides their face, that black hat, that hook – I won’t say it’s a better look than Ghostface, but it is among one of my favorite looks among slasher antagonists, and he wields a hook almost as beautifully as Candyman (albeit with less gore). The setting is great, as we see plenty of water, boats, crabs, fishing nets, as is the atmosphere, and much like the killer’s design, I’ve always loved it.

Though it’s not a gory movie, I Know What You Did Last Summer does have some very solid scenes, the tension perhaps making up for lack of blood. I think the sequence in which Sarah Michelle Gellar’s character is chased is the best, especially the attack behind the tires, just feet away from a bustling parade. That was just fantastically shot. A sequence that has the fisherman creeping into Gellar’s house, causing her to wake up the following morning with a message on her mirror, was quality also. There’s also the finale on the boat – with bodies packed in ice and hooks flying everywhere, worth seeing if nautical nonsense is something you’d wish.

Jennifer Love Hewitt was pretty decent as the more likable character of assholes. To be fair, I don’t think any of the four kids are particularly sympathetic, but Hewitt’s was occasionally the most moral. Freddie Prinze Jr., Sarah Michelle Gellar, and Ryan Phillippe all had their moments, Gellar perhaps being the strongest. Anne Heche (who I know from both Volcano and the Psycho remake) had some good scenes, and I entirely forget Johnny Galecki was in this, which means I haven’t seen this film since I started The Big Bang Theory, which shows exactly how long it’s been.

And it has been years since I’ve seen this, which is one of the reasons I was quite excited to revisit it. Unlike other post-Scream slashers that disappointed me upon rewatches (such as Urban Legend and Valentine), I Know What You Did Last Summer held up pretty well. It’s even better than another of my personal favorites, being Cherry Falls, and is overall a fun and memorable film with a good mystery and well-designed killer.

8/10

The Eighteenth Angel (1997)

Directed by William Bindley [Other horror films: N/A]

In the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, religiously-themed horror films were all the rage, as the Millennium was upon us, and religious people are scared of even numbers, and as such, films such as Stigmata, End of Days, Lost Souls, The Ninth Gate, The Calling, and Bless the Child were borne into the world. Few of these are good, and while The Eighteenth Angel isn’t without merits, it still struggles to really stand out.

I will admit it was sort of funny seeing Christopher McDonald take the lead here. While McDonald has done a little horror in the past (1990’s Playroom), I know him almost solely from one of my favorite comedies, being Happy Gilmore (Shooter McGavin), but despite being unable to take him seriously at first, he did a really good job. Playing his daughter was Rachael Leigh Cook, and while her agency was limited toward the last third of the film, she had a strong start.

Not too many others here are all that memorable. Stanley Tucci has a few good scenes, most of those coming in the last thirty minutes or so. Wendy Crewson (Skullduggery of all places) didn’t have much to do past the first five minutes, but she was okay. Maximilian Schnell (Vampires) was a bit generic, but I guess John Crowther’s flowing hair was nice.

Actually, the story here was decent. It dealt with an Etruscian cult who, while buying into the framework of Christianity, instead dedicated their works to Satan, and by binding science and religion, hoped to fulfill some prophecy from the Etruscian Book of the Dead by using genetics, modeling, horses, and beauty. Yeah, being prophecy, not much is clear, but hey, that’s religion for you.

As it was, the conclusion to this film isn’t one that I’d personally call satisfactory, but I will give it points for being a bit different than I’d have expected. It was sort of ridiculous in some ways, but still, it was different.

To the film’s credit, there were some amusing kills in the film. One character is attacked and maimed by a bunch of cats, and another befalls a painful-looking spike-thingy. Even another is almost strangled by a pair of horses, which was a scene that was probably a lot more amusing to me than it should have been, given the emotional punch it did almost pack.

While The Eighteenth Angel did take a little bit to really become something I’d consider engaging, I will also say that the finale as a whole was pretty thrilling. I still think the film’s a bit below average, but The Eighteenth Angel did pick up nicely, and despite not personally caring for the final scenes, at least it picked up the pace.

Overall, when it comes to end-of-the-century horror, The Eighteenth Angel isn’t terrible. I don’t think there’s enough here for it to be good, but if you’re looking for some religiously-themed horror that is perhaps a bit more obscure, and one that has some occasionally decent scenes of cats attacking people, this may be a movie to look into.

6/10

M.D.C. – Maschera di cera (1997)

Directed by Sergio Stivaletti [Other horror films: I tre volti del terrore (2004), Rabbia furiosa (2018), The Profane Exhibit (2018, segment ‘Tophet Quorom’)]

This late 1990’s Italian movie, commonly known as Wax Mask, was a movie I’ve been looking forward to watching ever since I first heard about it. Part of it was because a giallo from that time period would be interesting to begin with, but a bigger draw was simply the fact that I’ve seen very few Italian horror movies from the 1990’s, and virtually none from the late 1990’s (though let’s be honest, aside from Argeto’s 1998 Phantom of the Opera, are there any Italian horror films from the late 1990’s?), and so I was intrigued.

After seeing it, though, more than anything, I thought it was failed potential and a little bit of a mess.

Certainly there were some behind-the-scenes factors that led to such a product. Lucio Fulci was intended to direct this, but he died shortly before filming, so it was given over to Sergio Stivaletti (who had done a lot of special effects works for Italian horror, but hadn’t directed up to that point). Even before then, I’ve heard it said that Argento (who pitched the idea to Fulci to begin with) and Fulci had different visions of the movie, so even if Fulci had directed it, it may not have been much better (especially given that great plots aren’t really Fulci’s strong point).

No matter what happened leading up to the movie, though, the final product is what we have to judge, and though it’s gotten decent reception, and I personally wanted to enjoy it far more than I did, I found it quite underwhelming.

Without a doubt, there were some really strong points here – heck, even re-imaging Mystery of the Wax Museum/House of Wax in an Italian giallo setting was laudable. The gore and special effects throughout are fantastic (and the idea that the figures are still alive behind the wax somewhat terrifying). Well, mostly fantastic – when the museum is on fire at the end, it looks pretty damn amateur. The opening was pretty strong. There were even some fine character-driven moments, and elements of the ending were welcome, at least in the context of the story.

Even at an hour and 40 minutes, though, I felt Wax Mask was missing something, that spark that makes it a fully enjoyable watch. Not that it wasn’t competent enough to get something out of, but the ending, for instance, left something to be desired, along with the whole backstory behind the killer. Also, and it may not come as a big surprise that I took issue with this, the whole metal skeleton thing just felt too fantastic and almost gaudy, especially from a movie I was thinking would be in the purely realistic realm.

Performances here are a mixed bag. I do sort of like both Robert Hossein and Umberto Balli. Aldo Massasso I definitely enjoyed, as his character was one of the few characters that actually seemed like an all-around solid guy. Romina Mondello I’m more torn on – at times, she felt like a throwback to the period of horror where women were portrayed more weakly, and I don’t know if I really felt satisfied with her. Riccardo Serventi Longhi was never great either, though I wonder if the horrible dubbing job has more to do with my perception of his performance than his actual performance. Either way, that was hideous dubbing.

Wax Mask was an okay movie, but something just didn’t fully jibe with me, and while I never had a horrible time with it, it never got to the point where I was really engaged and into the film. Having seen it only once, it’s possible that I’ll grow to appreciate this more with future viewings, but for the time, I found it below average, though clearly possessing the potential to do more.

6/10

Bloodletting (1997)

Directed by Matthew Jason Walsh [Other horror films: The Witching (1993), I’ve Killed Before (1995)]

Filmed in Ohio, this rather low-budget horror-comedy, revolving around a serial killer and a young woman who wants to learn how to kill, is pretty terrible. I mean, it’s bad, from dialogue to story. I’ll be damned if it’s not a hell of a lot of fun, though, and while certainly below average, I’ll admit that I did dig this one.

If there’s one main complaint, it’s that the film didn’t need to be almost an hour-and-a-half. They could have shown some restraint and kept it around 70 minutes or so – there were definitely a few sequences that could have been trimmed a bit. I also wasn’t that fond of the ending (or more specifically, one of the twists, as it was), but I mean, for the most part, this movie is what you’d expect going in.

The dialogue is hilariously awful. I think that James L. Edwards, who plays the serial killer, has some of the best lines, and his hammy over-acting is just a pleasure to watch, but certainly Nina Angeloff (“A threesome?! Far-fucking out!”) and Ariauna Albright get plenty of terrible dialogue too.

By no means is this a dig at them as actors or actresses or at the movie’s script – it was clear that Bloodletting knew exactly what it was aiming for, and personally, as a fan of low-budget horror, I had a blast for a large amount of the time, and much of that is directly related to that lovable, horrible dialogue.

I don’t know James L. Edwards or Ariauna Albright from anything else (though the pair of them have been in quite the variety of lower-budget horror in the 90’s and 2000’s), but I thought they worked well together in this film as a bit of a messed up couple. Edwards, like I said, was my favorite performance of the film, but Albright did a great job too, and she was attractive to boot. The only other performance that I suspect I’ll remember was Nina Angeloff’s, who’s exaggerated southern accent (her character’s name was Bobbie Jo) was just heaven.

Sometimes the movie did focus a bit too much on the blossoming relationship, as it was, between the main characters as opposed to random kills. The kills we got weren’t great, to be sure, but the special effects were definitely okay for the budget, plus a – wait, maybe I shouldn’t spoil it. Let’s just say that maybe, if you’re lucky, a baby meets a terrible end via shotgun.

Yeah, that happened, and it was awesome, as it’s a taboo that few horror films seem to stoop to. Call me an edgelord all you want, but I was #ThereForIt.

Anyhow, Bloodletting was a lot more fun than I ever expected. I do wish it was a bit shorter, but beggars can’t be choosers, else wise winners become the losers. At least that’s what Gandhi said.

6.5/10

The Night Flier (1997)

Directed by Mark Pavia [Other horror films: Fender Bender (2016)]

I have a bit of a history with this movie, which I’ll get into in detail shortly, but for now, I’ll suffice it by saying that I think The Night Flier is a deeply underrated film, and it’s probably one of the creepiest and best vampire films of the 1990’s, and one of my personal favorite vampire movies of all time (even beating out Fright Night).

Before I go onto the aspects of the film, though, that make this so, let me tell you a story of a young boy named Michael. And for those who don’t know, Michael is my actual name.

Back when I was a kid, my family briefly lived in a small village in New York (the village being Penn Yenn, though that’s neither here nor there as far as the story goes). It was a decently nice house, with both a cellar and an attic, and it seemed large. From the foot of the stairs, you could crouch down and see the television screen clearly, which I did a few times.

And one of the times I did this, my parents were watching The Night Flier (which, if you don’t know, is based off a short story by none other than Stephen King). My parents owned this on VHS, were up late watching it, and I happened to catch some snippets of it.

And it fucking terrified me.

I don’t know all of what I saw when I was a kid. Did I get to the ending and see the vampire in full? I don’t really know. I remember a few scenes I saw (such as the woman getting a perm and watching her husband being killed with a faraway look on her face), but whatever I saw frightened me, so much so that, after my family moved to Indiana, I actually threw the VHS tape down into the basement of the new house, destroying it (which I obviously deeply regret to this day, not only because it’s embarrassing to admit, but because this movie doesn’t have many cheap releases).

So in short, I have a bit of a history with this movie. And sure, that nostalgic value does add a little something to my love of this film, but I like to think that even if I didn’t have experience with this movie while I was a kid, I’d still love it.

First off, that music is amazing. It’s very somber, almost peacefully so, and it lends the film a very dark feel that I think the atmosphere delivers on. This movie has a few funny lines, but there’s very little camp here (which isn’t something that can be said about many King adaptations from the 1990’s), and the atmosphere as a whole is stark and bleak, which of course works well with the conclusion of the film (a conclusion I rather adore).

There’s only four cast members that really matter, being Miguel Ferrer, Julie Entwisle, Dan Monahan, and Michael H. Moss. Ferrer (who had previously been in the mini-series The Stand) did great as the do-anything-for-a-story character, and he was a dick through-and-through, and also, because of that, often entertaining. Entwisle (who was only in a single other film, and married Mark Pavia, the director of this movie) was great as the young, optimistic journalist that gets her spirits crushed entirely. You can’t help but root for her in some form.

Many people can do sleazy, and Monahan (who hasn’t done much in the movie industry past this) does a great job with an upbeat, slimy guy. He plays Ferrer off Entwisle, Entwisle off Ferrer, and doesn’t care as long as he gets that story. He’s also hella entertaining to watch. And though Moss, who plays the killer named ‘The Night Flier’ (which is such a cool name), doesn’t appear until the end, he most definitely leaves his mark.

I also can’t get enough of how The Night Flier was structured narratively. Many of the kills are seen via flashback when Ferrer’s character is interviewing someone, which really helps with the idea that as we’re learning about the gruesome and mysterious crimes as the audience, Ferrer’s character is hearing it for the first time also. There’s even a few dreamy sequences, the most notable one being in the spectacular finale, but another one appears during one of the many flashbacks.

Some of my love for this movie is no doubt nostalgia, but I’ve seen it multiple times in the last few years, and I think it’s a legitimately good movie on it’s own merits, nostalgia be damned. A fantastic film, and one of the most underrated horror films in the history of the whole genre.

But that’s just the humble opinion of a small boy who was frightened by this movie.

10/10

Anaconda (1997)

Directed by Luis Llosa [Other horror films: N/A]

I saw Anaconda once before, but I can’t pretend I know exactly how long it’s been. I’d estimate somewhere between ten to 15 years. All I know is that while I knew the plot outline, none of this really rang any bells. And I have to say, in another ten years, I can imagine the same plight falling upon me, as Anaconda doesn’t strike me as being that memorable a film.

Certainly the cast was decently strong. I couldn’t stand Jon Voight here, personally, as it just seemed so obvious from the get-go that he wasn’t exactly trustworthy (and the fact that another individual got stung by a wasp underwater apparently didn’t make anyone any more suspicious of him somehow). I didn’t care for his character, and I just don’t think it worked with the movie (not that the movie works that well on it’s own).

Otherwise, though, the cast is strong. I don’t really know Jennifer Lopez (I recognize the name because it’s a recognizable name, I’m guessing), but I’ve literally not seen her in anything else. She does decent here, but she doesn’t blow me away. A bit better, believe it or not, is Ice Cube, though he’s still not great. I think my favorite performance here was that of Jonathan Hyde, and it’s probably not even because he was exceptionally good, but more due to the fact that I know him from films such as Titanic and Jumanji. I enjoy his character here, no doubt, but I can’t pretend he’s all that important for most of the movie.

Not that it really matters. I was surprised in some ways by just how blah a lot of this movie was. I mean, hell, even the snake looked a lot worse than I ever would have thought it would. Plenty of giant snake films followed this one, such as King Cobra and Python, and I gotta be honest with you guys, I think both of those films had more heart. Sure, the snake here looks better than either of those two films, but this movie had Jennifer Lopez and Jon Voight in it – if the snake didn’t look better, then what the hell are they doing?

Much of the story didn’t really interest me, and while I did like pieces of the setting and some of the musical score throughout the film, more often than not I just wish it were a lot more fun (which is a problem that, as low budget as it was, Python had no problem delivering on). Oh, and Jon Voight’s character winked after being regurgitated by a snake, so that happened. Just an unremarkable experience, and ultimately a shame.

5/10

The Ugly (1997)

Directed by Scott Reynolds [Other horror films: N/A]

Honestly, The Ugly is a pretty simple movie, which the lower budget does well with. Certainly not a classic or anything so grand, this New Zealand film still has enough going for it to be consistently enjoyable.

First off, the budget here is a bit on the lower side, evidenced by both the somewhat terrible set (though I think it works to a point in-universe) and the small cast. They didn’t really need a large cast, though, and I definitely think what they had worked out well.

The idea behind the movie (a psychologist learning about the life of an insane serial killer) wasn’t anything too special, but the film was somewhat innovative in its stylistic flashbacks. Some good lighting, some interesting black blood, things just jelled here. I wish that the ending had been a bit more reasonable, as it sort of reminded me of Frailty, but whateves, it’s cool.

There’s plenty of solid cast members here, from Jennifer Ward-Lealand (who plays one of the most unlikable mothers in cinema) to Rebecca Hobbs and Roy Ward (that guy just struck me as utterly random throughout the film). My two favorites here, though, are the main serial killer, played wonderfully by Paolo Rotondo and a childhood friend of his, played by young (at the time, she was around 13) Beth Allen. Both brought a lot to the film, and I especially enjoyed Allen’s scenes early on. Her adult counterpart (Vanessa Byrnes) didn’t do near as much for me, alas.

Much of the film might come across as a typical origin story of any run-of-the-mill serial killer, but I thought it packed a pretty emotional punch here and there. Like I said, it’s more the stylistic nature of some of the sequences more than anything that make it memorable, but there are some decent kills and suspenseful scenes throughout.

I didn’t really think that much of The Ugly when I first saw it years back, but it’s aged nicely, and though I don’t think it’d make my ‘Best of the 90’s,’ it’s certainly a slice of foreign horror that might be worth experiencing once.

7/10

This is one of the films covered on Fight Evil’s podcast. Listen below as Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I cover this one.

Alien: Resurrection (1997)

Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet [Other horror films: N/A]

I didn’t think the third Alien was anywhere near as good as Alien or Aliens, but it was still serviceable. Alien Resurrection, though, strikes me as somewhat a disgrace.

There’s a lot of faces and names here I know, which makes it even more disappointing. I’ve never been a big fan of Ron Perlman, so it didn’t surprise me I wouldn’t take to his character, but with Brad Dourif, Raymond Cruz, and Winona Ryder, they couldn’t have come up with a better movie?

Winona Ryder was pretty solid here, and her character is probably one of the more interesting ones. Dourif doesn’t appear that much, but I definitely thought he should have been smart enough to realize that the blood of the aliens are acidic. And Raymond Cruz? It took me a few scenes to realize it was him, and I didn’t really know until after he finds out about an android, in which he excitedly speaks about it, in the exact same way Tuco would in Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. Seeing a younger Cruz here was fun, and I hope he had more appearances in the genre.

The story here is somewhat pitiful. After the events of the third movie, I would have been happy with Ripley never coming back. I liked her story arc there, and the fact they just bring her back by making a clone of her (that has super strength, agility, and other positive clone attributes) really, really rubbed me the wrong way. And the ultra alien queen? Yeah, no, count me out.

Honestly, there’s not a lot about the story I did like aside from the characters involved. The last act in particular was really difficult to care about, despite Dourif’s character popping back up. It just felt so off, and that’s really what can be said for the movie. The third one was more generic than anything, but this one is just bad.

If there are two scenes worth watching, I’d recommend the underwater sequence, which was decently suspenseful, and the scene in which they run into previous attempts to clone Ripley, which was quite a grotesque and troubling sequence. Otherwise, I don’t really think Alien Resurrection has much to offer. I know it has it’s fans, but I’m not one of them.

5/10

Scream 2 (1997)

Directed by Wes Craven [Other horror films: The Last House on the Left (1972), The Hills Have Eyes (1977), Stranger in Our House (1978), Deadly Blessing (1981), Swamp Thing (1982), Invitation to Hell (1984), The Hills Have Eyes Part II (1984), A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), Chiller (1985), Deadly Friend (1986), The Serpent and the Rainbow (1988), Shocker (1989), The People Under the Stairs (1991), New Nightmare (1994), Vampire in Brooklyn (1995), Scream (1996), Scream 3 (2000), Cursed (2005), My Soul to Take (2010), Scream 4 (2011)]

I think most people agree that this sequel isn’t anywhere near as good as the first movie, and I concur. I thought Scream 2 started out well, began to move a bit more toward a generic direction, but then bounced back up again toward the last hour. I think there’s some things to really like here, but ultimately, I feel the movie definitely hovers around average.

We have plenty of returning characters, such as Sidney (Neve Campbell), Randy (Jamie Kennedy), Dewey (David Arquette), Gale (Courtney Cox), and Cotton (Liev Schreiber), in a very much expanded role, so we have a great feel of continuity. I do wish that Dewey’s sister, who was killed in the first movie, was mentioned more than once here, but it seems she’s mostly forgotten, which is a shame.

Campbell, of course, does a great job, and Kennedy too did really well, especially during the rather tense phone-call scene. Dewey and Gale were decent, and I did like a rather brutal attack on Dewey near the end, but I’ve never loved Gale’s character, even with her being a bit more understanding. As for Cotton’s return, it makes sense in the context of the story, and I like how the film ends, with Sidney giving him more limelight. Also, on a small note, I liked seeing Omar Epps (most well-known for his long-lasting role on House) in the opening.

The fun thing about Scream 2 is the large amount of potential killers. Up to a point, who couldn’t think that Randy was involved, or Hallie (Elise Neal)? I suspect most people think that Dewey’s in the clear, but Gale, or her camera-man, Joel (Duane Martin), who disappeared at a rather convenient time? Even the drama professor Gus Gold (David Warner of The Omen and Nightwing fame) seemed suspicious, which is where a lot of the fun comes from. Who’s the killer, or are there multiple killers? Let the guessing begin.

As it turns out, I wasn’t overly satisfied with the answer to that question come the end. I understand the thought process behind the killer’s actions, but I just don’t think it’s nearly as memorable as the first movie’s finale was, not by a long-shot, which isn’t really surprising, but it was somewhat disappointing. On a side-note, when the killer first revealed her/himself, I entirely forgot who the character was, which made it lack some punch.

The opening of this film, which takes place during a showing of the movie Stab (which is based off the events of the first Scream) cements this series as one with a particularly meta feeling, from the argument in film class about sequels and their comparison with the originals to the argument that the violence in movies causes people to commit violence in real life (‘The Christian Coalition will pay for my legal fees’). Scream 2 has a great meta feeling going for it, and of course, even one of the characters sprouts off an impressive list of slashers while taunting the killer, such as The House on Sorority Row, The Dorm That Dripped Blood, Splatter University, Graduation Day, and Final Exam. I always love a character that knows his slashers.

Some great sequences are in the film, from the fun opening to the great killing in the middle of the movie, not to mention the tense car scene near the end, nor the enjoyable Ghostface chasing Gale and Dewey in the college. These scenes may not quite be able to match the glory of the first movie, but that scene with Randy might stand up pretty well.

I don’t think Scream 2 is as good as the first, nor is it even that close. You have a few silly scenes, such as that guy singing to Sidney while standing on the lunch tables, but overall, I do think Scream 2 is decent. It’s been so long since I’ve last seen it, by the way, that I actually forgot who the killer ultimately was, so it did make a film a bit more fun as a rewatch than usual. If you enjoyed the first Scream, I think you’d probably enjoy this, but it’s just not near as good.

7/10