Rish Outfield's reviews
When the wheel of fortune landed me a free viewing of Urban Legends 2, I chuckled and made my plan of attack with relish. I hate Urban Legend. It was one of the first things to come between tyranist and me. Once, we were the best of friends, joyously going about our lives in tandem, and plotting out a course that would make the journey of life ever more fulfilling, ever more fun. Our houses were going to be parallel. Our careers would be too. Our kids were going to play together. Our wives were going to bathe together. But then came Urban Legend, that . . . that . . . that crapfest. And now, he and I hardly speak anymore. We haven't seen each other in ages. And his eldest son, the one he named Rish? Well, he disappeared quite mysteriously, I'm told. And in his place is another child about the same size, that looks just the same, only not named after me.
So, when the sequel was announced, I wasn't about to see it (especially since I knew tyranist would be there, attending every showing at every theater in the country), I certainly didn't plan to be there opening day. But as it sort of fell in my lap, I figured it was time to gain my revenge.
You can understand that I felt like a spy going into this movie. Everyone else there had paid for their ticket, and had probably looked forward to the film for weeks, maybe all their lives. They were in the demographic (ranging from about twelve to twenty one), a lot of black folk, and I thought I'd be the only one who wasn't scared and/or having a great time. It was refreshing to see that everyone else found it a bad movie too.
And yes, as it began, it sucked. It sucked more than Hoover's greatest invention. Like The Dead Hate the Living!, this horror movie about making a horror movie thought it was pretty darn cute and clever, and it was so wrong. While I considered the first film to be a major ripoff of I Know What You Did Last Summer, this one doesn't go that route. It rips off Scream and Scream 2 (with a couple of scenes so clearly ripped off, that they seem to be alternate versions of Wes Craven's film).
But as the film went on, I found my hands weren't clenched in fists anymore and my rage was dissipating. I found myself almost hoping the movie wouldn't suck, so maybe tyranist and I could somehow patch things up, and go back to the way things used to be (and I'd get my godson's name back in the process). Instead of laughing and relishing it, I winced when a line of dialogue was weak or when a Fake Scare didn't work. When the film improved, I found a tiny, long-dormant part of myself hoping it would continue to do so, and I'd be able to enjoy it despite my reservations. Of course, everything backslid soon after.
The plot: At a hip film school next to a river somewhere, Amy decides to make her thesis film about "a killer that murders his victims based on urban legends." Well, as she makes her movie, students start dropping all around her and Amy has to stay alive to unravel the mystery.
Little things: The subplot about the twins just did not work. The guy had all the same marks on his face as his brother did. Were we NOT meant to notice this? Otherwise, why not cover them up? The police were as dumb here as they have ever been in a movie, even disregarding evidence not covered by the script's enormous plotholes. The D.P. character had provided his own camera, so when he died, didn't that mean they didn't have a camera anymore? Apparently not. I went to film school and I can't imagine any film school being like the one in this movie. All the students have to make a thesis film? Where does the money for that come from? And all students at this university are making horror films? I'd like to live in a world like that. I'm sure there are rivers of cherry soda there and trees of cotton candy.
Not-so-little things: Anybody who complained about the identity of the killer in Scream 2 or 3 will change their tune when the killer is revealed in this one. It just comes out of nowhere and we actually need the person to stop and explain their whole life story as well as their motive for the murders. Some of the characters seemed to be introduced just to be killed (maybe Dario Argento has more fans than just me) and there were just too darn many of them, which is evident when there's a whole truckload of survivors at the end of the flick. The urban legend angle seemed as tacked on as the Christmas angles in the later Silent Night, Deadly Night films, and is pretty much abandoned halfway through. Again, the killer wears the least scary outfit possible--this time, a fencer's mask--oooooooooh.
A couple of things did work: It had a nice look. I liked the setpiece of the old mine ride, and found it scarier than anything in the rest of the film. There were enough red herrings and shady motivations to make it difficult to predict the killer (which came back and bit us right next to the rectum when he/she was finally revealed). The direction wasn't awful (except the irritating scene with all the strobe lights and hand-held camera shots). Ottman is/was apparently an editor of some repute (having done The Usual Suspects), so he'll probably still find lots of work. The music was kind of nice, also by Ottman. Overall, the acting wasn't terrible. The female lead (Jennifer Morrison) was as cute as a ladybug, and looked something of a cross between Elizabeth Shue (back in her Karate Kid days) and Jennifer Jason Leigh (back in her Fast Times days). She was the highlight of the flick for me. Joey Lawrence appeared (calling himself Joseph, which only emphasizes why we should still call him Joey) in a useless, unappealing performance. The rest of the cast seemed pretty bland as well (the first installment at least had a familiar face or three). There was a lesbian in this one! But instead of the glamourous kind, she was just like everybody else. How refreshing (said with no emotion or sincerity). And Loretta Devine returns from the first picture, but demonstrates (even though I've liked her in other things), she has two styles of line delivery: loud and louder.
Folks, in retrospect, I think there were a couple of items of merit in the first Urban Legend that were absent here (not a lot, though). I think attitude has a lot to do with this stuff, as this was probably a worse film and it bothered me less. In this one's favour, I didn't want to physically hunt down and kill the lead myself. The ending, while not exactly my cup of tea, was a surprise. And you know, there's not really anything stopping them from making a third film. And more power to them, there are lots of urban legends out there. I just hope they stop before they get to "The Vacationers and the Toothbrushes."
Best Scare: Wow, this is a toughie. Can I get back to you?
I'd Recommend It To: People who thought the first movie was good. I'll even admit to them that Urban Legend 2 turned out to not be a crapfest after all, but merely a crudfest. Congratulations, Sony.
Posted: September 26th, 2000

The tyranist's thoughts
Perhaps surpisingly, since I thoroughly enjoyed the first movie, I didn't see this one for almost a year and a half after it released. I had wanted to pick the two of them up on DVD and screen them back to back just for fun. In the end I settled for this mixed in with a couple others just because I figured I'd never get around to that double bill (especially if I tried to get Rish in on it). Now I figured that Rish should love this one because his loathing of the first one centered around Alicia Roanne Witt and a role she had played when she was 8. Apparently not the case, though.
For me, I found this refreshing and interesting, but not quite good. There were many aspects of the movie that I enjoyed including feeling nostalgia for when Rish was in film school and nobody lived anywhere else. The cast is fine, not great, but adequate. I will have to agree with Rish on the Joey Lawrence thing, though. He was useless and appeared to be more of an afterthought than anything else.
The real weakness of the movie is the plot. It has potential and a few really good points, but in the end they chose to self-destruct rather than try to come up with something good. Where I was hoping for something chilling in the end, they opted for confusion. It just fell apart. Although, I do have to give them credit for putting a red herring in the trailer.
One of the things that made the movie really worth watching, was the subtle homages to Alfred Hitchcock. Scattered throughout the movie are images reminiscent of the master's films, none so blatant as to rip him off, but all of them interesting.
I'd like to see a third entry in the series, just because there isn't enough reasonably budgeted horror out there. Perhaps they can do a little better though.
Posted: October 15th, 2001