‘Scream 2’ a gorefest> Wes Craven’s sequel lives up to its predecessor

“Scream 2” — the sequel to last year’s hypersuccessful slasher-cult film “Scream” — isn’t your typical sequel.

Unlike so many other sequels, rushed into theaters before the original’s popularity has waned, “Scream 2” actually lives up to its predecessor.

The latest spawn of director Wes Craven and scriptwriter Kevin Williamson is set a year after the original. The survivors are now attending film school-theater at Windsor College in small-town Ohio, far away from the Woodsboro, Calif., setting of the original.

It opens with two Windsor College seniors, played by Omar Epps and Jada Pinkett, on a movie date to see a sneak preview of “Stab,” the movie based on the “real-life” Woodsboro murders.

Once inside the movie theater, the couple is greeted with Ghostface souvenirs and an audience full of Ghostface wannabes, wearing costumes and brandishing glow-in-the-dark, plastic knives — what turns out to be the perfect atmosphere for a copycat killer.

What happens next rivals the shocking opening scene of the original — the two are slaughtered, surrounded by screaming audience members enthusiastically cheering the on-screen killer and yelling “Stab!”

The next day, we are reunited with original cast members coping with the day-to-day occurrences associated with being the real-life stars of a horror movie phenomenon.

Sydney Prescott, once again played by Neve Campbell, is a theater student who has just received her first starring role as Cassandra, the historic Trojan prophetess who foretold misfortune. Randy Meeks, played by Jamie Kennedy, returns as the hysterical film student full of bright insights into the world of moviedom. Gale Weathers returns, played by Courteney Cox, the self-proclaimed “cheesy tabloid journalist” and author of “The Woodsboro Murders,” which has been made into the movie “Stab.” And, Deputy Dwight “Dewey” Riley from the Woodsboro Police, again played by David Arquette, has arrived on the Windsor campus not only to protect Sydney, but to finally put an end to the killing that started in the original.

What follows is a high-energy, suspenseful whodunit that, if taken as a commentary on today’s society, is downright bone chilling.

Scenes occasionally echo themes from the original “Scream” and characters still make various references to past horror films and “other” movies, such as “Top Gun” and “The Godfather.”

“Scream 2” is bloodier and gorier than the original, which film zealot Randy says is a must for the creation of any successful horror movie sequel. “Carnage candy,” he snickers to his film school classmates, “your core audience expects it.”

But Craven and Williamson have learned to balance the blood with, of all things, laughter. They’ve lightened the plot up a bit, almost to the effect that the last scene (an unexpected twist to the already gnarled plot) is comedic. Again, they have tackled the do-horror-movies-create-killers question, along with America’s more recent obsession with the justice system.

Throughout the two hours, Sydney proves to be a strong person, a survivor who can kick anybody’s butt. Deputy Dewey proves to be committed to solving the murders. Gale proves, eventually, that she is not heartless.

Liev Schreiber is back again as accused murderer Cotton Weary. And, holding their own, are the new cast members: Jerry O’Connell as Sydney’s boyfriend, Derek; Laurie Metcalf as a local reporter; Sarah Michelle Gellar as sorority sister Cici; and Timothy Olyphant as Mickey, a film student and friend.

The hip soundtrack, which showcases music by Tonic, The Dave Matthews Band, Sugar Ray, Collective Soul, Foo Fighters and Everclear, among others, is appropriately atmospheric.

The concept of a movie within a movie, as well as a play within a movie, is intriguing.

And, it may be a wrong guess, but I think the creators are looking into making “Scream” into a trilogy a la “Star Wars.” Leave it to Craven to break new ground in the horror realm.

I’m not saying “Scream 2” is without flaws.

As a fan of the original, I was a little disappointed when characters I really and truly liked ended up dead. At times, it seems the filmmakers were trying so hard to prove that movies are not the cause of the nation’s problems that the whole argument becomes a joke. I guess I just don’t believe in the “carnage candy” theory — though it did seem to ring true among the 20 to 25 male teen-agers surrounding me.

I know this movie may not go down in history as a “fine, cinematic masterpiece” (you know, like how all the critics marveled over the at-best pathetic “Boogie Nights”). But it sure gives us something to think about until that “fine, cinematic masterpiece” does flicker across the big screen. If ever.