How do you make a sequel to a horror film whose whole plot was made of in-jokes and film references? Easy: make the follow-up even more in-jokey and self-referential than its predecessor. This formula actually seems to work for Scream 2, at least in the first two acts.

The prologue is arguably a masterclass in self-irony: an African-American couple (Omar Epps and Jada Pinkett Smith) go to a movie theater where a new horror film, called Stab, is screening. This flick is based on Gale Weathers' (Courtney Cox) book The Woodsboro Murders, which recounts the events of the first Scream. As the movie begins, Smith's character complains about Stab being a film "with no black people in it" (just like Scream was),and, predictably, this leads to the two African-Americans being brutally murdered as the film-within-a-film's prologue (with Heather Graham replacing Drew Barrymore) is shown on the screen, so that the fictional and real deaths occur almost simultaneously. From there on, things take the usual turn: the media go crazy about the killings and once again Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is in the spotlight, as she and her friend Randy (Jamie Kennedy) must protect themselves from the new foe, who is apparently mimicking what happened in the past (an obvious reference to the first film's "Movies don't create psychos" line).

The main charm of the original Scream was its ability to almost seamlessly combine clever in-jokes and a believable plot. This time around, the in-jokes are the best thing in the movie, while the story, particularly in the overblown conclusion, suffers from merely repeating key scenes from the first film. Now, this might be a satire on the lack of originality in most horror sequels, and it would work if the characters were developed correctly. Sadly, such a thing doesn't happen, with Sidney being reduced to the usual girl who keeps running and screaming (fitting, huh?) and everyone else (including Liev Schreiber, who gets more screen-time in the sequel) playing stereotypes, with the exception of David Arquette, very likable as the nice cop again trying to solve the case, and Kennedy, who has a great time stating the rules to follow in a sequel.

Ironically, the movie's funniest scene has a bunch of film students discussing follow-ups that are better than the originals. And while few could have anything bad to say about Aliens, Terminator 2 or The Godfather: Part II, it must be said that Scream 2, while fun and watchable, most certainly doesn't have the same sharpness that made its predecessor an above-average horror film.

Wes Craven was quick to jump on the bandwagon he had created with his surprise hit SCREAM, delivering us a sequel barely months after the first. As expected, it's not as good as the original film, and in fact doesn't come close. This time around the emphasis is on comedy rather than horror. 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. But this is just not enough.

Courtney Cox and Neve Campbell both seem to be competing for thinnest female performer and they look a lot like zombies here. David Arquette offers up some suspect comic value with his limp (he was stabbed in the back in the first film) but the star of the show is Jamie Kennedy, who returns as geek Randy from the first film. Kennedy is the brightest star of them all and the best scene comes where he is being terrorised by the murderer in the park. Also appearing are Sarah Michelle Gellar in a typical pretty-faced role, and Jerry O'Connell who is good value as Campbell's boyfriend.

The gore this time consists of stabbing and shooting, there's a lot of blood but no real imagination to the killings (apart from the first death where a man is stabbed in the side of the head through a toilet cubicle wall). Also, again as expected, there are a lot of protracted stalk and slash sequences towards the end of the film, before the clichéd and disappointing finale which could have been a lot better - and more original - than it was. It's a fun film to watch but it's a sequel that covers no new ground and is merely a continuation of the first film. We could have done without it, because honestly speaking this came too fast after the first one and followed the same formula too closely to be as effective. And as for SCREAM 3...

The original Scream was a classic, so this sequel had a lot to live up to. And it was a worthy sequel on the most part. Though it didn't entirely succeed, the story is less fresh and less original, it is not as efficiently paced and the killer's reveal was predictable. However, the production values are of high quality, the music is still haunting and the sound still unsettling, there are still the funny lines, the genuine scares, the credible direction from Wes Craven and the return of the iconic GhostFace. The acting is still good too. So overall, a worthy sequel, just not quite the instant classic the first was. 7/10 Bethany Cox