CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › Scream (1996)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scream (1996) - Page 2

post #51 of 62
9/1/08 at 7:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall View Post
What surprised me the most was that I actually gave a shit about the characters. Drew Barrymore's Casey was probably the first ever character I felt sorry for in a slasher film. Usually these films just assemble an array of victims and wait for you to take joy in their butchery, but Barrymore makes you care for her character and the effect is utterly horrifying when she finally gets killed.

Same thing with the ancillary characters who all have these cute little moments which actually make you kind of like them. They're all potential victims, but for once I'm actually wanting some of them to live.
For a film that is supposedly deconstruction/satire of the slasher genre, it succeeds in making the previously ingrained conventions seem well thought out and fresh. I always kind of felt that through Craven's hubris in the horror genre, and thinking he was going to pick it apart, he accidentally made a good slasher flick.
Reply
post #52 of 62
9/1/08 at 7:50pm
What amazes me is that it took over a decade for an American film to pick up the ball with ironic slasher films. I Know What You Did Last Summer,Urban Legends et al pretty much destroyed the Slasher genre moments after it had been revitalised.

I do think the rise in Ironic slasher films helped non-ironic horror films like Final Destination get a larger audience. The films gained a kind of anarchic edge by being so gleefully destructive and unintelligent.
Reply
post #53 of 62
9/2/08 at 1:46pm
Scream - Always thought it was a decent movie, with a cast that I still love (Lillard and Ulrich doing a great job especially). It was fresh and unique with an ending that I didn't expect. Its rare to see something like it come out, and its a shame that the films that came after it have only discredited the genre.

Feast - I had a lot of fun with this one, although it isn't something that you can sit down and take seriously. I don't think the filmmakers wanted it taken seriously anyhow.

Troll 2 - Saw it before I knew it was becoming a cult phenomenon (it came with the original Troll in a DVD set), and couldn't eat anything green for a week. This was followed by subjecting anyone I could to the horribleness of the film. Ah...good memories...
Reply
post #54 of 62
11/13/10 at 6:46am
Just rewatched this for the first time in a MANY years. Not being a connoisseur of slasher films, I found this to work about as well as it did when I first saw it.

Also, Henry Winkler as INTENSE principal!

Matthew Lilliard is as obnoxious as I remember!
Reply
post #55 of 62
11/13/10 at 4:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
Also, Henry Winkler as INTENSE principal!
I've still never forgiven the film for not making a Fonzi joke during the scene where he's combing his hair in the mirror.

SCREAM is an excellently done film. Have never understood the backlash against it.
Reply
post #56 of 62
11/13/10 at 5:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Miller View Post
I've still never forgiven the film for not making a Fonzi joke during the scene where he's combing his hair in the mirror.

SCREAM is an excellently done film. Have never understood the backlash against it.
Most of it has to do with fans of the more exploitative slasher fare of the 80's. Scream and its brood really toned down the sex and violence quotient and broadened the appeal. Fans, male fans in particular, did not appreciate that. Think of that what you will.

As much as I prefer the aesthetic of the 78-87 period, I still managed to keep an appreciation for the first film. The only thing I hold against it is introducing the term "scary movie" into popular culture, and having it become a byword for "horror film". That really bugged me at the time.
Reply
post #57 of 62
11/13/10 at 11:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post
Most of it has to do with fans of the more exploitative slasher fare of the 80's. Scream and its brood really toned down the sex and violence quotient and broadened the appeal. Fans, male fans in particular, did not appreciate that. Think of that what you will.

As much as I prefer the aesthetic of the 78-87 period, I still managed to keep an appreciation for the first film. The only thing I hold against it is introducing the term "scary movie" into popular culture, and having it become a byword for "horror film". That really bugged me at the time.
Yeah. Seems like a lot of people consider SCREAM the catalyst for the PG-13 era of horror, which I suppose it was - as that's when studios suddenly took a more invested interest in the genre.

It's all subjective, of course, but I'd say to people who dislike SCREAM because of reduced gore and tits that they merely like an aspect of the horror genre and not necessarily the genre itself.

And I couldn't agree more about "scary movie."
Reply
post #58 of 62
11/14/10 at 1:04am
Scream gets blamed for a lot of the lack of good 90s horror, but I think Silence of the Lambs is a big reason horror got so derailed right at the start of the decade. They took all that grisly 80s shit and folded it into a respectable police procedural. Then Seven kinda sealed the deal.
Reply
post #59 of 62
11/14/10 at 2:32am
One super-nitpicky thing that always bugged me about Scream - the placement of the title. It comes at the very beginning of the movie, prior to the Casey opening. There's nothing wrong with that, but it always seemed like it should have come right after.

I mean, that whole sequence ends by cutting to black for several seconds amidst the mother's screaming. Just seems like that would be a prime place to throw in the title. I dunno.

Having watched all three of them recently, I still really like Scream and the ridiculousness of Scream 2(love the Elfman scored stage nonsense). Scream 3 is still an Ehren Krugerfied mess, though.
Reply
post #60 of 62
11/14/10 at 6:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Miller View Post
Yeah. Seems like a lot of people consider SCREAM the catalyst for the PG-13 era of horror, which I suppose it was - as that's when studios suddenly took a more invested interest in the genre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
Scream gets blamed for a lot of the lack of good 90s horror, but I think Silence of the Lambs is a big reason horror got so derailed right at the start of the decade. They took all that grisly 80s shit and folded it into a respectable police procedural. Then Seven kinda sealed the deal.
I'd say The Sixth Sense really ushered in the PG-13 horror thing(the Ring,etc) more than the Scream ripoffs. I agree with Phil about Silence and Seven killing off 80's horror.

Scream is still pretty fun, the opening scene is amazing.
Reply
post #61 of 62
11/14/10 at 11:38am
Man I loved this movie when it came out. Havent seen it for a long time...I wonder if it hold up well.
Reply
post #62 of 62
11/14/10 at 10:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
Scream gets blamed for a lot of the lack of good 90s horror, but I think Silence of the Lambs is a big reason horror got so derailed right at the start of the decade. They took all that grisly 80s shit and folded it into a respectable police procedural. Then Seven kinda sealed the deal.
Yeah, those two probably had a lot to do with turning everything mainstream into "thrillers" for a while. But SCREAM definitely led the PG-13/soft R charge (though incidentally I do see where Nexus is coming from, in that the "supernatural thrillers" of the late 90s/early 00s picked up both those torches and ran with them for a few years). Of course, neither of those things has to do with quality directly, but set certain a tone (or tones) that wasn't as conducive to good horror.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Creature Corner Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › Scream (1996)