Scream 4 - Review

So if you've read my previous reviews about the Scream franchise, you've figured out that I don't care much for this series. The first was mediocre, the second sucked, and the third REALLY sucked. When I heard they were reviving this series for a fourth entry, as you can imagine my reaction wasn't very enthusiastic. One thing I've come to realize about Scream is this... the original was a big hit at the time and is generally considered an intriguing piece of 90s nostalgia. Even though the general public ate it up, the response from horror purists (like myself) was actually somewhat mixed. Not to mention, a common critique of the original I keep hearing was that it was decent for the time but doesn't hold up that well today. So how much of a demand was there really for another Scream??? I guess no more than most horror sequels, but that rarely stops them from being made. Nonetheless, lets take a look and see if Scream 4 (or Scre4m) actually accomplishes what the previous three missed...

Scream 4 takes place a decade after Scream 3. Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) returns to Woodsboro to promote her new book detailing how she overcame her experiences with the Ghostface killers. Gale and Dewey (David Arquette and Courtney Cox) are back and now married, albeit with a few marital hiccups. Dewey is the town sheriff and Gale is having difficulty adjusting to the small town life. Coinciding with Sidney's return, a Ghostface killer starts threatening her alongside a new group of unsuspecting teens. Only now, its a new generation along with a new set of rules.

I do have to give Scream 4 some credit for a couple of things. First off, they actually managed to rope the original cast in for this movie (the surviving characters at least). Neve Campbell, David Arquette, and Courtney Cox are all back for another go-around (or paycheck). Plus, most of the new teen cast members actually look like teenagers this time. Like the previous movies, the performances are still pretty hit and miss, but this movie's cast is definitely better than the sequels. Arquette and Cox are still basically going through the motions, but they look slightly more interested than they did in Scream 3 at least. Campbell continues to do the whole scared victim routine she's done in the previous three, not much has changed here. Nothing special about her but nothing inherently awful either.

Hayden Panettiere actually holds her own pretty well as one of the new teens in this one. Granted she's one of the actors that doesn't totally pass as a teen, but her performance is definitely one of the better of the bunch. Emma Roberts isn't too bad either as Sidney's niece Jill. There's also Erik Knudsen as the new Jamie Kennedy-eque film geek type. His character gets a little grating at times, but he has some good moments and looked like he was having fun with the role.

Speaking of grating, there are plenty of actors here that don't fail to annoy. Marley Shelton as a Woodsboro Deputy was probably the most annoying character this time around. Alison Brie plays Sidney's publisher, whose character was so pointless and annoying that the only joy I got out of watching her was seeing her get killed. Also, like the previous three, there are a few celebrity cameos Anna Paquin and Kristen Bell appear in the movie's opening scene playing out a sort of humorous "reference within a reference." Can't really complain about their acting too much, but the scene was not nearly as creative as it could have been. I guess like the first movie, the acting is a mixed bag. Nothing great but still somewhat better than the average teen slasher.

One of my most common complaints about the Scream movies was that they got so caught up satirizing the horror genre that they neglected to deliver any real suspense. I even mentioned that if they were to up the blood and gore factor that I probably would have at least enjoyed them on a guilty pleasure level. Well, I have to admit, Scream 4 actually does improve on this front. Don't get me wrong, it's still mainly a series of teens being chased up staircases and, with one or two exceptions, most of the kills usually didn't amount to much more than generic knife impalings. Still, Craven definitely didn't skimp on the blood this time and it had a higher body count than any of the previous movies. It's not an extreme blood bath or anything like that but there should be enough to satisfy your inner blood hound.

While there was some improvement on the gore front, the other story elements are hardly any better. Despite a couple semi-clever insights into the horror genre and pop culture, Scream still isn't nearly as smart as it thinks it is. The focus of Scream 4's satire is mainly on reboots or remakes of horror franchises. To fit that scheme, Scream 4 is basically a retread of the original with a higher body count and a few new twists here and there. It pokes fun at how redundant it is by making some kind of crack at itself. Its a weak gimmick to say the least, and how the filmmakers think by just giving an occasional wink to the audience makes it even less credible. Sure, you might be in on the joke, but that doesn't justify recycling the same story. To make matters worse, the screenwriter, Kevin Williamson, is still clearly stuck in the 90s. The dialogue is basically cheesy 90s lingo with a few Facebook or twitter references. So now, not only does it sound stupid, but also dated as hell. Oh sure, the reboot concept makes sense and it occasionally throws in some midly amusing quips about the 21st century and our internet-obsessed culture. Nevertheless, most of Scream 4 is little more than weak pop culture jokes and average suspense.

Okay, I'll admit that I didn't hate Scream 4. I can't say I liked it either, but this was the only one out of all the Scream movies that I actually came close to liking. Still, I have two reasons that I can't bring myself to give this movie a recommendation. First of all, there is a far better horror film still playing in theatres right now called Insidious. I wrote a review for it a few weeks back, read up on it if you need any other incentive to see it. The second and more important reason refers to what the Scream series ultimately represents... a dead end. The series has done virtually nothing to benefit the horror genre. All they did was inspired an onslaught of weak and un-inventive teen slasher comedies to capitalize off of Scream's popularity... do we really want to see another I Know What You Did Last Summer?? Filmmakers wouldn't try anything new or creative for years to come, and the horror genre was practically void of imagination for far too long. The Scream franchise isn't necessarily the worst of the genre, but its impact on it may be the worst.

Overall, Scream 4 is better than the previous movies but my feelings for this series hasn't change one bit. If you absolutely must see Scream 4, I'd wait to rent it on DVD. Otherwise you can skip it.

My Score: 2.5 out of 5!

Scream 3 - Review

Alright, we're halfway through the Scream movies. Typically I generally prefer to review a movie as a whole give my final critique at the end, but for those who just want the nutshell review up-front, I'll provide it for this movie. How I feel about Scream 3... I HATE THIS MOVIE!!! I HATE THIS MOVIE!!! I HATE THIS MOVIE!!! I HATE THIS MOVIE!!! I HATE THIS MOVIE!!! I HATE THIS MOVIE!!! I HATE THIS MOVIE!!! I HATE THIS MOVIE!!! I HATE THIS MOVIE!!! I HATE THIS MOVIE!!! Now for the full review...

Scream 3 takes place a few years after Scream 2. Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) moves to an isolated house in the middle of the woods trying to live a quiet life, Gale and Dewey (Courtney Cox and David Arquette) are broken up once again, and the third entry of the Stab horror movies has gone into production (the movies based on the events of the previous two films). The horror begins again after cast members of Stab 3 begin getting murdered by a new Ghostface Killer and Sidney starts receiving threatening calls again. Geez, doesn't this plot sound familiar???

Okay, I will say this, complaining that horror movies have repetitive plots is basically preaching to the choir, but most of the time, slasher series have no qualms or doubts about how inherently cheesy they are. The Scream series, on the other hand, rides on this constant notion that that it's far smarter than it really is, but really just bases it's premise on a lame gimmick that, while modestly clever at first, is looking seriously tired now. The main problem with this one, however, is that it abandons the little credibility the first two had by becoming EXACTLY what it's predecessors were spoofing in the first place! Scream 3 only thinks that's its a clever insight into film trilogies when in reality, it's nothing more than a generic slasher movie... and a bad one at that! The characters are annoying, the plot is a re-tread of it's predecessors, the kills are uninspired, and the story is as dull and predictable as they get.

Scream 3 aims to be the concluding movie of the Scream trilogy. Just like the first laid out the rules for a horror film and the second offered motifs into the rules for a sequel, Scream 3 includes references to trilogies. As per the movie's description, the concluding third act should be an over-the-top, no holds barred, big and epic climax. So... why didn't they follow the rules they set out? Scream 3 almost totally abandons the big or epic trilogy concept by substantially cutting down on the blood. There are no memorable kills and there's just barely enough blood to nudge it's way into R-Rating territory. So now it's not just stupid, but it's also boring as hell!

The acting is just atrocious for the most part. Neve Campbell actually kind of grew into her part a little. Even though she doesn't have much range, she actually exhibits more charisma than anyone else. Unfortunately, they pretty much ignore her until the third act, preferring to chill out with its supporting cast until then. Cox and Arquette are the focus for most of this but both phone in bland and underwhelming performances while they go through the motions of the stupid tacked on love-story subplot once again. Parker Posey tags along as an up-and-coming actress named Jennifer. The Scream series has seen plenty of annoying characters, but none as incredibly cringe-inducing as Posey. I don't think I have ever wanted to see a character get killed as much as I did her.

When you get right down to it, Scream 3's biggest problem is that nobody looks interested. Wes Craven might have well have been on creative auto-pilot when he directed this. The guy knows horror, I don't think anyone will deny that. And even though I didn't particularly like the first Scream, I could appreciate that passion for the genre that it displayed. But here, Craven doesn't care, the cast doesn't care, and the script is uninspired. Its clear that this movie was nothing more than a paycheck for those involved and a cash-in for the studio. The only thing I actually found somewhat amusing were a couple chuckles I got from a few cameos of Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith (as Jay and Silent Bob) and a short appearance from Carrie Fisher. Still, even they couldn't save this piece of crap.

In conclusion, its a dumb movie with a lame story, predictable ending, hammy performances, and no suspense. Let me reiterate what I wrote at the beginning of this review... I FUCKING HATE THIS MOVIE!!! Don't bother watching it... even for curiosity's sake.

My Score: Half Star out of 5!

Scream 2 - Review

Since I started this blog, I've only done one series review. About a year ago, I reviewed each film in the Back To The Future trilogy. I originally had planned to do something of a "series of series reviews" starting with BTTF. I even had started writing some reviews for some of my favorite franchises, but for one reason or another, I never finished them. Don't really know why, just never got around to it. Ironically the Scream franchise was never on my mind, but seeing as how I posted a review for the first movie a few weeks back and that the fourth movie comes out this weekend, why not write reviews for all four movies?

The first Scream became this pop culture phenomenon when it was released in 1996. So to no one's surprise, a sequel was quickly greenlit. One year later, Scream 2 was released with almost all of the original cast (at least the characters that survived) and Wes Craven directing again. Just like the first, critics and fans loved it... most even saying it was better than the original. As I mentioned before, I was never that fond of the first movie, but seeing as the general consensus was that the sequel was superior made me willing to give it a chance. So I rented the movie and... how does that saying go? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." So I guess I'm a least partly to blame... but I'm not going let Scream off the hook that easily.

Scream 2 picks up a few years after the first movie. Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is now in college while having difficulty putting her past behind her. Reporter Gail Weathers (Courtney Cox) wrote a book about the Woodsboro murders which was just adapted into a movie called Stab. At the Woodsboro premiere of Stab, two individuals are murdered (played by Niobe from The Matrix movies and Dr. Foreman from House) by a new Ghostface starting a new murderous rampage intent on finishing what the first killer started.

Remember that memorable opening from the first Scream (the only great scene in that movie)... the one with Drew Barrymore. Yeah, Scream 2 doesn't have anything like that. Instead, you have one of the stupidest, drawn out, and most over-the-top openings I've seen. The acting is hammy, the setting is lame, and the execution (pun intended this time) is ridiculous. I only mention this incredibly lame scene because its probably the best part of the movie... yeah, this movie sucks.

Scream 2 tries to keep the same theme as the first, the "self-aware send-up of the slasher genre." This time, though, the characters acknowledge that they're living out a real-life sequel, and the that game rules are a bit different. The killer will finish off the survivors from the previous movie, loose ends from the original are taken care of, and that sequels are inherently bloodier and more graphic. Unfortunately, it kind of cops out on what it promises. Sure, there's a bit of decent gore and some of the previous characters get the ax, but ultimately it feels like a pale rehash of the original. It has all of the problems from the first, only this time its even worse.

Scream 2's biggest problem is the lack of any real suspense or cleverness. None of the insights into horror movie sequels are particularly interesting or engaging, and the characters are still annoying as hell. I mentioned the over-the-top opening because its really the only somewhat memorable scene, not because its good, but because of its in-your-face stupidness. Everything else in the movie is bland or unmemorable. The gore and suspense is quite noticeably toned down from the merely-adequate amount of the first movie, despite the fact that Jamie Kennedy's character even mentions that sequels to horror movies are supposed to be more violent.

By the time you get to the incredibly disappointing finale, I was just bored out of my mind. You know some of the things I like about slasher movies... the promise of creative kills, over-the-top gore, and insane finales. Filmmakers get really creative with their death scenes, especially by the end... but not here. The finale results in a face slapping predictable twist, a lame monologue about horror movies, and a half-assed shoot-out. Why use a gun??? This is a SLASHER movie! Come on Wes Craven! You created Freddy Krueger! Couldn't you have thought of a more clever ending??? Such a wasted opportunity.

So yeah, Scream 2... it sucks. Aside from the Final Destination series, I can't think of a more overrated horror franchise. Even though I didn't like the first, I'll admit it had some good merits and I can somewhat understand why so many people liked it. Scream 2, on the other hand, is just awful! Why this movie was praised by critics, I have no idea! Awful movie! Don't watch it!

My Score: 1 out of 5!

Scream - Review

Do you remember when Scream first came out back in 1996? It was a big deal movie, a self-aware teen slasher flick... half parody and half legitimate horror film. Plus, it was directed by genre legend Wes Craven, the filmmaker behind hits including The Hills Have Eyes and A Nightmare On Elm Street. Critics loved it, fans ate it up, and the film spawned two sequels (soon to be one more) and a stream of similar teen slasher comedies. I was very young at the time of its release (9 or 10), so I didn't see it until my teen years. But by that time, I became a horror fanatic, and was really looking forward to watching this movie... and then the disappointment began. Scream is easily one of the most overrated movies I've ever seen!

The movies takes place in the small town of Woodsboro, California, which is currently being plagued by a series of murders. The killer is an unknown individual simply known as Ghostface. He wears a common Halloween costume and stalks his victims before he murders them. His main gimmick though... he's a scary movie buff. Before he goes in for the kill, he calls his victims and asks them "What's your favorite scary movie?" Ghostface's main sights, however, are set on the young Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell)... a high school senior whose mother was murdered one year earlier. So now, there's a killer on the loose, few clues are left behind, and everybody is a suspect...

I will admit, the concept behind Scream is actually pretty clever... a slasher flick that makes fun of other slasher flicks. I normally love intentional send-ups, and I do enjoy horror movies, so this seemed like a great concept. Not to mention, the idea behind the killer is kind of intriguing too. Not so much the "What's your favorite scary movie?" concept (so gimmicky), but the idea of him wearing the common Ghostface costume makes his identity truly ambiguous. Plus, I have to give Scream credit for giving recognition to the classic slasher flicks that inspired it. The way it lists the cliches and pokes fun at them has its moments, and Scream definitely had a hand in defining the modern perception of the slasher genre. Unfortunately, Scream ultimately kills its decent ideas (no pun intended) with poor execution (again, no pun intended).

Here's the thing the bugs me about Scream, nothing feels particularly authentic. That's not uncommon for a horror movie, especially those that are spoofing the genre. Scream, however, goes for realism and favors believability. Ultimately, it fails to pull that off. The characters aren't believable, the script feels contrived, and the dialogue is laughably bad. Plus, aside from the famous opening scene, nothing is particularly memorable about it.

The actors... they're pretty miscast. You have Neve Campbell, Drew Barrymore, Mathew Lillard, Jamie Kennedy and others all playing high school students. First problem... NONE OF THEM LOOK LIKE TEENAGERS!!! Again, not particularly uncommon for the genre, but when you're going for realism, it kills the effect. On top of that, most of their deliveries are totally over-the-top. No performance is believable enough to work with the concept. Granted some aren't horrible, on average slightly better than the typical slasher. But still, they don't really work. You also have Courtney Cox, David Arquette, and even The Fonz... erm, Henry Winkler in various supporting roles. Granted, their acting is slightly more enjoyable than the so-called "teens" but their characters just aren't engaging enough to justify the lack of enjoyment from the others. It doesn't help that the dialogue in this movie is just painful. Not one word sounds natural, and every line spoken feels unbelievably forced. I get that its a satire, but having a character constantly making glib comments on how the movie's events resemble a horror cliche just gets annoying. What a waste of a promising concept!

Of course, for any slasher flick, the main question is usually how well it delivers on the horror front. Well, I will say that the opening is pretty enjoyable. Its easy to see why it was referenced and parodied many times throughout the 90s. In the scene, Drew Barrymore's character gets a call from the killer while she is at home by herself. I won't spoil it, but I will say that it was a pretty enjoyable and creepy scene... and does set up the movie quite well. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie goes downhill. Aside from a couple of adequately memorable kills, Craven went for a more semi-minimalist approach. Its adequately bloody, but the lack of any extreme gore that could have made up for the weak story is sorely missed. Again, the failed approach at realism just didn't work for this kind of movie.

So yeah, Scream is easily one of the most overrated movies I've ever seen! It had some good ideas for the time, but it doesn't deliver on what it promises. Its a mediocre horror film and a mediocre satire, nothing more than that.

My Score: 2 out of 5!