Critics’ reviews

Scream 2 (1997)

9 reviews from 9 publications. Critics’ score 74: 7 positive, 2 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Scream 2

74
Positive
7
Mixed
2
Negative
0

Most critics like Scream 2, and several rate it close to the original. The praise clusters on Williamson’s script, found witty and film-literate, and on its running joke about the rules of sequels, media and violence. Craven’s set-pieces are widely credited with real jumps, and the cast is called consistently capable, with Campbell, Cox and Arquette singled out. Total Film goes furthest, calling it scarier, funnier and better written than the first film.

The reservations are mild. Several critics say it is predictably less inventive than the original, and Empire adds that the heroine fades into the background. Roger Ebert thinks the extra gore distracts from the cleverness and blunts the scares. The Los Angeles Times is coolest, finding the raised body count morbid despite the comic tone. Collider, writing much later, admires its handling of race and fandom but finds the third act chatty. The spread is narrow: no review is negative.

Total Film
1 May 1998
90*

The review calls Scream 2 scarier, funnier, better written and more exciting than the original, with endlessly surprising set-pieces and a non-stop mix of shocks and jumps. It restores knife-edged uncertainty to the slasher genre and delivers on the promise of the first film.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★★ · Josh Winning
80

The critic finds the sequel unexpectedly strong, intensifying the self-aware humour, death scenes and emotional connections while delivering some of the best horror sequences in the series.

Read the full review →
Variety
7 December 1997 · Leonard Klady
80*

Visceral, witty, and appropriately redundant, the sequel follows the rules of a successful follow-up while delivering a commercial recipe for strong returns. It aspires to more than slasher fare through its house-of-mirrors structure commenting on media, reality, and the genre itself, with a top-notch cast and smooth execution.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Kim Newman
75*

The critic praises Craven's skill at delivering scares and Williamson's witty, movie-literate dialogue while noting the film's self-referential parody of sequels. It offers great comic and terrifying moments but is hampered by being less original than the first and by the heroine fading into the background.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
12 December 1997 · Roger Ebert
70*

The sequel is about as good as the original, with a witty screenplay full of ironies about sequels, media, and violence. It is gorier than the first film, which distracts from the cleverness and fails to deliver real scares.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
12 December 1997 · NYT Critic’s Pick · Janet Maslin
70*

Scream 2 has staying power thanks to its tongue-in-cheek trickery and sharp satire that nearly escapes the horror genre. The film-within-a-film device and media-circus elements keep the fun-house quality alive while advancing the franchise.

Read the full review →
Time Out
10 September 2012 · NF
65*

The critic notes that as a sequel the film predictably lacks the original's inventiveness. It still delivers intelligent and frightening horror by focusing on the victims and varying the formula slightly.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
12 December 1997 · Kevin Thomas
60*

The sequel raises the body count and contrivance in an attempt to top the original but delivers a morbid effect despite its comic tone and ingenuity. The large cast is consistently capable, with strong turns from Campbell, Cox, and Arquette, and plenty of witty film references remain.

Read the full review →
Collider
12 December 2022 · B+ · Marco Vito Oddo
83

The critic praises Scream 2 as a strong sequel that explores meta themes about sequels, fandom, and representation while delivering thrills and mystery. They single out its handling of complex topics like race in horror and toxic fandom for praise, while noting the third act is chatty and the reveal less satisfying.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate