Scream 2

Scream was great.  It mocked horror cliches, but also paid tribute to them; the script was sassy and clever; the villain had a fairly unique gimmick, but was still anonymous enough --- with an easily removed costume and small weapon --- for there to be a legitimate whodunnit mystery.  All in all, it is a fun watch.  Inevitably, a sequel was greenlit and filmed as soon as possible.  Scream 2 came out less than a year after the original film, and expectations were high.  How high?  The female cast were featured in a Rolling Stone cover article:

With these choices, it is obvious that Tori Spelling should be on the magazine cover.  Whaaaa...?!?

I don't really follow what exactly is supposed to be going on in that picture --- are they happily cleaning up after a triple homicide? --- but it does help prove one thing: when it comes to sequels, dumb things happen.

In an unusual bit of theatrical time-keeping, the events of Scream 2 takes place two years after Scream, even though the actual films were released less than a year apart.  Sidney (Neve Campbell) is now in college and has a group of friends that have not tried to murder her (yet), just a reminder that college is way more fun than high school.  Unfortunately for Sidney, heartless bitch/reporter Gail Weathers (Courteney Cox) wrote a book about the murders that took place in Scream and the book was turned into a movie called Stab that is just premiering.  That means Sidney gets a lot of prank phone calls from people mimicking the killers.  Thankfully, Sidney learned from her mistakes in the last film and nips that annoying subplot in the bud.

At the premiere of Stab --- the clips of which are pretty amusing --- the theater gives away promotional Ghostface costumes.  That seems like a pretty good idea for about ten minutes, until one of the many people dressed as Ghostface commits a double homicide in the theater.

Worst.  Glory hole.  Ever.

Of course, since this is a horror sequel, that is only the beginning.  Apparently, the killer is obsessed with the murders in Scream, which in turn makes the killing of Sidney a top priority.  That also puts targets on the backs of all her friends, too. 

Two out of three expendables characters in this scene realize it

With all that in mind, it occurs to Sidney and her friends that it is very likely that the killer has infiltrated their clique.  But which one of them is the killer question mark/exclamation mark/question mark.

The acting in Scream 2 is all things to all people, if that means that it's a crap shoot.  I actually thought Neve Campbell improved slightly in her return to the role of Sidney.  It is difficult being a likable horror protagonist, but Campbell was able to portray a fairly intelligent and tough woman convincingly.  Again.  Of the returning characters, Courteney Cox saw the most positive change.  This time, she actually shows human emotions and I wasn't necessarily hoping she would die.  She also had the biggest character makeover of the group, so she didn't look quite as trashy in this film.  Jamie Kennedy reprised his role as the movie-obsessed nerdling and shocked me again by being decently entertaining.  If you cut the scene where he does mediocre impressions, I would even say that I liked him in this movie.  David Arquette was okay, too, although I don't quite understand why the filmmakers chose to give him an exaggerated limp and Bob Dole hand.  I guess it was a red herring, and they did give a line of dialogue to explain it, but Arquette isn't a good enough acgor to play disabled and not have it be hilarious.

"Everybody knows you never go full retard"

Of the newbies, Jerry O'Connell and Timothy Olyphant had the most screen time.  O'Connell was a little vacant, but it fit his character.  Olyphant does not play a lawman of any sort, and if you know his filmography at all, you know that is not a good sign.  He gets to overact, which is fun enough to watch, but it wasn't anything special.  Liev Schreiber didn't have any lines in Scream, so his character felt new in the sequel.  Schreiber wasn't great.  His character is tough to like, and Schreiber was charmless in a complex part.  Elise Neal was inoffensive, but her character was extremely bland.  Sarah Michelle Gellar and Jada Pinkett Smith were both okay as dual screaming victims.  Gellar's character was a little stupid, but not too annoying.  Pinkett Smith was extremely obnoxious, combining knowitallism with being a person who talks throughout the movie in the theater.

I'm offended by stereotypes, too, Jada

Omar Epps didn't come off much better, with his main characteristics being insensitivity and cheapness, but he did have a hilariously stupid death scene, and that counts for something.  Laurie Metcalf was annoying as the suspiciously high-profile actor playing a relatively minor character, in grand Scooby-Doo tradition.  Rebecca Gayheart and Portia de Rossi were stereotypical sorority girls, although de Rossi's eyebrows did provide some of the film's biggest scares.  In fact, all of the sorority girls were horrifically dull, with only Sarah Michelle Gellar achieving anything beyond "generically bitchy."

My favorites are "judging bitch" (back, right) and "smarmy bitch" (far right)

There are also some entertaining cameos.  Pre-Dawson's Creek Joshua Jackson had a few solid lines in film class, and casting David Warner in a minor role was a nice nod to classic horror movies.  But the most entertaining cameos belonged to the movie-within-a-movie, Stab.  Heather Graham stretched her skills by playing a brainless blonde bimbo, and (following up on a gag in the first film) Tori Spelling played the movie version of Sidney.  Both were chuckle-worthy, but Luke Wilson was hilarious in the two lines he had, doing a surprisingly good job mocking Skeet Ulrich in Scream.

Wes Craven returned to Scream 2 as director and writer Kevin Williamson also returned.  With the creative forces behind the original film, as well as the surviving cast, all the pieces were in place to make Scream 2 a great sequel.  That didn't quite happen, though.  Craven did a solid job juggling a gigantic cast, and I thought the returning cast all acted better in this sequel...ignoring Arquette's limping.  Thanks to the advent of Caller ID, though, the best part of Ghostface's routine --- the phone calls --- largely lost its effect.  That meant that we had a silent killer that was missing his calling card. 

Yes, that was bad.  I'm sorry.  You may resume.

Sure, there were a few phone calls, but most of them were blatant I-want-you-to-know-I'm-watching-you ploys, with only Gellar's scene actually involving tension or scares.  Williamson's script, which was the driving force of Scream definitely feels less impressive in Scream 2.  I realize that the script had to be written quickly, but this just feels lazy.  There is less wittiness this time, and what smarts it has are largely recycled.  Did you like the characters asking each other who the killer is, using traditional horror movie logic?  Did you like the sassy female explaining how stupid horror movies are?  Did you like the killer with an incredibly flimsy motive?  Good, because Scream 2 gives you an extra helping of them.

Oh, you liked the phone scenes?  Well...sorry about that.

The kills aren't very much fun, either.  The sheer idiocy of Omar Epps' death --- the combination of stabbing through a stall and Omar having his face pressed right up to it AND doing the stabbing blind --- doesn't even compare to the boombox-toting hip hop dance troupe inadvertently covering up a murder on the quad.  That was jaw-droppingly stupid.  The script has all sorts of holes and terrible plot devices that stick out, scene after scene.  My least favorite scene was the car scene.  Craven does what he can to milk it of every ounce of suspense, but it's so horribly contrived that I just got mad and started rooting for the killer.  Almost as bad is the "everyone with a cell phone must be tackled" scene, where the potential murder victims conveniently forget that the person they're looking for should have some sort of voice-altering device, along with a phone, in their hands.  Ugh.  And then there's the "subtle" clue that tips you off as to the identity of one of the killers.  Oh!  And the second killer?  Yeah, I get the motivation, but if killer #2 is supposed to have killed more than one person in this movie, I'm calling bullshit.  There are a few moments of amusing self-awareness, like the Stab clips and some of Randy's scenes, that feel smart and clever, but they are sadly rare.  This script and plot, as a whole, kind of suck.  They're not godawful, because horror fans know you can do much much much worse, but this was extremely disappointing, coming from the team that made the original so much fun.

The original Scream had some violence and gore, but the light tone kept it from feeling too explicit.  Scream 2 doesn't really amp either up much.  I would say there is a similar amount of gore (with the quad murder being the most gruesome) and only a few more kills.  The set pieces for these scenes weren't that great, with the stage being the best of the bunch; I guess that makes the soundproofed room the worst, because they treated it like a maze instead of an auditory game of cat and mouse.

Look at Ghostface, Courteney.  He's as afraid of you as you are of him.

I suppose that there is enough violence to keep audiences interested, with ten kills overall, but something is missing.  Part of the problem is that some of the kills --- specifically the policemen --- seemed far too easy.  Another is that some of the showcased kills feel a little cheap.  I get it, serial killers don't have to be gentlemen, but at least three characters died while not looking at their killer.  I probably wouldn't care about that if the kills were more memorable or if the script kept things funny, but that's what happens to horror movies when the plot leaves you bored: you start thinking.  And that is rarely good for horror films.

"You know that thing where I frequently show off a movie camera?  You probably shouldn't think too hard about that."

I don't know.  I feel like I'm being too harsh on Scream 2.  I didn't hate the movie.  I was just expecting it to be a lot better.  That was frustrating, because there are a few genuinely good moments in this movie, and I'm glad that the more obvious suspects weren't the killers.  This is a mostly competent horror movie, I have to admit.  I just didn't enjoy it much.

Salt

Yes, indeed, "who is Salt?"  With a question like that, you might expect Salt to be a movie of mistaken identities, or perhaps something involving multiple personalities or amnesia (a la Bourne).  Those expectations will not be met by this film.

Evelyn Salt (Angelina Jolie) is happily married to a decent-looking (and I'm being generous to August Diehl here) spider-scientist.

No, I meant a scientist that studies spiders, not the other way around.

A few years back, before they were married, Evelyn was captured in North Korea and accused of espionage.  Somehow, her hubby-to-be persuaded the powers that be to release her, and they got married in one of the least mutually attractive film marriages of all time.  Still bloodied and bruised from her interrogation, Evelyn tells her man that she is really a CIA agent, and that he will never be safe as her husband.  Fast-forward a few years, and the completely healed Evelyn Salt is back to work with the CIA, along with her superior officer, Ted Winter (Liev Schreiber).  The pair are called in to check out the validity of a supposed Russian spy that is looking to defect and, I assume, wants to live in America to drink Coca-Cola and wear blue jeans.  This defector, Vasilly Orlov (Daniel Olbrychski), tells Salt, Winter, and a room full of agents that are monitoring for heart rate and fact-checking details, about Day X.  This is a long-term plan by a former Soviet spy master where he planted child assassins into America, with the intent of using them (after they grew up) as sleeper agents to one day destroy the United States.  In fact, a sleeper agent is supposed to assassinate the Russian president tomorrow.  That agent's name is...Evelyn Salt.  Wha...?!?

After such a heinous accusation, the obvious next step is to quarantine Salt, to at least make sure she isn't a Russian sleeper assassin, right?  That's what agent Peabody (Chiwetel Ejiofor) tries to do.  However, he makes the mistake of letting her call her bug-loving hubby first --- and he's not answering the phone!  Oh no!  The next thing you know, Salt is beating the living hell out of her fellow CIA agents and pulling some serious Mission: Impossible stunts to escape and learn her husband's fate.  But...if she's just interested in finding her husband safe and sound, why is she preparing to assassinate the Russian president at the same time?  Just who is this Salt, anyway?

If you are looking for a highly intelligent spy caper, or at least something that could have been adapted from a book, Salt is not the movie for you.

NOT the inspiration for the movie, but an excellent read.

On the other hand, if you are in the mood for an absolutely ridiculous action movie, this might be right up your alley.

What keeps this film from being a serious spy movie?  The acting, for starters.  Angelina Jolie is fine as the title character, but her role is meant to leave the audience guessing, so she plays it pretty stone-faced.  She performs her stunts very well, though, which balances that out a bit.  The only part of her performance that I didn't care for was her running scenes; I've seen people run fast, but there is no way Angelina Jolie was running fast enough to break a nine-minute-mile, much less outrun half a dozen athletic government agents that are not wearing a sexy skirt.  Liev Schreiber was similarly unemotional, but adequate in his part.  I'm not sure if I am just indifferent to the man, or if I still hold a grudge for his part in X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

Yeah, that's how I felt when I watched that movie, too.

I actively disliked the normally likable Chiwetel Ejiofor, if only because his character bobbed between Batman-level anticipation of Salt's moves and idiotic mistakes, like leaving her alone in an unlocked room.  The rest of the cast was not particularly noteworthy, but I would like to one bit part.  Andre Braugher, one of the great speaking voices in modern movies, had about 15-20 minutes of screen time and only two lines; has nobody seen how good he was in Homicide: Life on the Streets?  Somebody give the man a decent role!

Phillip Noyce is no stranger to directing silly action movies.  After all, he gave us The Saint and my all-time favorite blind samurai movie, Blind Fury.

Don't judge a book by its cover, but it's probably okay to judge movies by their posters.

Noyce does a very good job with the action scenes, which make up a large part of the movie.  I don't know if I completely buy a non-super-powered Jolie beating up hallways full of armed government agents, but Noyce made it look plausible, at least.  The direction falters when any emotion is supposed to be shown.  Every emotion is muted; I would be shocked if I was working with someone who was accused of being a sleeper agent, but everyone in this movie kind of takes it with a grain of, um, sand.  I understand that some scenes are meant to be misleading (this is a spy movie, dumb or not), but there is no emotional payoff to any of this.  It doesn't have to be huge (look at the Bourne series, for instance), but this movie needed more than the script supplies.

I keep mentioning that this is a silly or dumb action movie, but I haven't really gone into detail so far.  I just wanted to get the boring critiques out of the way first.  The moment when I realized that this was not going to be a realistic or gritty movie was when Angelina Jolie's character (who looks very much like her) marries August Diehl (who looks very much like Peter Doherty).  That alone set off warning lights in my brain.  The next bit of silliness involves the defecting Russian who escapes CIA headquarters because he was hiding a retractable knife in his boot.  How did that get past the already-established-in-the-film high security protocols?  Whatever.  The important thing is that the audience understands why Salt is running from the CIA.  At the 30 minute mark, the answer is...because she doesn't want to be caught.  At the 45 minute mark, that reason hasn't changed.  In fact, it isn't until the climax (or, if you're clever, the hour mark) that you know for sure why she has done anything that she has done in the movie.  And it's not like there is any suspense surrounding her motivations; it's just part of the story that the plot has conveniently left out.  There are a few other laughable moments --- Jolie disguised as a busty Ralph Maccio (my wife's description) and a military computer that uploads with the speed of dial-up --- but it was the complete lack of suspense surrounding Salt's inexplicable actions that really bothered me.

This is a very solid action flick, though.  Jolie looks good and tough in all of her stunts (except her distance running), and some of her stunts are pretty damn cool.  I liked that, for a little while anyway, the government agents (who you just know are outmatched) actually keep up with Salt for a while; her first getaway is a car chase where the CIA are right behind her, despite a series of stunts that would have been the climax in most other chase scenes.  Jolie was convincing in the rest of the fight scenes, too, beating up and exploding a few dozens godless Russians here and there.  Some of the action scenes were surprisingly inventive, too.  It's too bad we never actually see any sort of planning stages for these attacks, because I think that would have added an extra layer of awesome to a story that needed a little more of that key ingredient.

There is something to be said for the film's pace, though.  The story is definitely the weak point, but it is smart enough to have chase scene after chase scene until the movie is over.  I will give Jolie and the other actors credit for never winking at the camera, either.  Yes, this is a ludicrous action movie.  But it is an Action movie, with a capital "A."

Of course, that's more of a "is it a good movie?" sort of rating.  If I'm in the mood to laugh at the stupid plot and just bask in the gratuitous chases, I give this a Lefty Gold rating of