Scream 2 (1997)

 "How do you know that my dim-witted inexperience isn't merely a subtle form of manipulation, used to lower people's expectations, thereby enhancing my ability to effectively manoeuvre within any given situation?"

SPOILERS, in case it needs saying when discussing a slasher that is also a sort of whodunit.

I suppose this film isn't quite as good as its predecessor. But when a sequel is this good, who cares? And, naturally, the film is sufficiently self-aware as to tackle this very subject in the film class discussion scene. Sequels to slashers abound: indeed, one might say that they infest. So it's a joy to see all the knowing references to the specific tropes of slasher sequels.

The plot may be less original than the, er, original, but the narrative is dripping with witty commentary on how the plot is going to unfold. We have a much-maligned red herring in Derek, and a reveal that is a nod to Mrs Vorhees in Friday the 13th.

Yet we also have a cast that shines, and genuine chemistry between Gail and Dewey. The set pieces- the one with Sarah Michelle Gellar as Cici especially- are magnificently done, as one might expect from Wes Craven.

Most of all, though, we have a witty and highly literate script that, at one point, riffs heavily on Aeschylus' Agamemnon. We also get a reminder of how deeply unsettling and weird those American sorority and fraternity things are. Can't they just, like, lower their drinking age to something less insanely puritanical and have their students just drink in bars on campus as happens in every other country?

As sequels go, this may not be an Aliens, or a Godfather: Part II. But it's bloody good, and makes Scream a proper franchise.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)

"We’re gonna make you invulnerable. But first we’re gonna destroy you.”

Well, this film is ok, I suppose- it certainly looks good, and the montage at the start of “Jimmy” and Victor fighting in various wars is brilliant, but somehow it doesn’t quite catch fire and was ever so mildly disappointing.

Interesting start, though; we learn far more about Logan’s past than I’m sure the comics ever told us. He was a child in 1845, living in what we can loosely call Canadian frontier territory, and his name is James Logan- and the psychopathic Victor Creed (Sabretooth) is indeed his older brother- and they look out for each other, in war after war, for 130 years, until Vietnam, and Colonel William Stryker.

Stryker is, of course, a younger iteration of the baddie from X-Men 2, portrayed superbly by Danny Huston, and hires the brothers as part of a slightly rubbish gang of mutant agents, including a criminally wasted Deadpool, portrayed by Ryan Reynolds but certainly not in continuity with his later solo outing, a far better film than this one. Oh, and one of these mutants, for some reason, is portrayed by a surprisingly decent Will.i.am.

But Logan leaves, in final disgust at Victor’s bloodlust, and six years pass in which he settles down as a lumberjack in the native Rockies with the lovely Kayla Silverfox- until Victor arrives, and kills the woman he loves. The person who was taking him has gone, and he wants revenge against the brother with whom he spent thirteen decades.

And so we come to the pivotal scene, where he survives the agonies of having adamantium bonded to his skeleton. Only with his healing factor can this not kill him, and he seems to barely survive. This is an important scene, and it’s done well.

Except... from this point the film drags, and lots of random elements are included. Nice as it is to see Gambit and the Blob (in a particularly toe-curling scene), they are irrelevant distractions from the newly christened Wolverine and his revenge against Victor Creed, Stryker and their bizarre and vaguely purposed little Island of Dr Moreau full of kidnapped mutants- including, for no good reason, a young Scott Summers.

The last half hour is a mess, with even the revelation of Kayla’s duplicity lacking real emotional heft, although there is real pathos in someone so old and full of tears having his memory cruelly erased. And yet... the film is well shot, and would have worked well if better edited. Was there a clash between the director and the studio?

I’d like to see a director’s cut, but the film we have is unfortunately a bit of a mess, in spite of its good points.