REVIEW: SCREAM 4

Really good review without giving away the meaty details. Must have been a hard review in that sense.

Its funny I kind of shrug at Scream. Way back when the original came out I thought it was gonna suck until I sat down and watched it impressed by the beginning and bored in the middle finally there was the ending and it worked. Surprising as it was I went in to the second film pumped to see what they would come up with next.

Scream 2 disappointed in a big way. It seemed like very little was of consequence and boy did the 3rd film turn out to be even worse. Its forgettable how bad the 3rd film was.

So after all this time the dent that is Scream seems so small and quaint that this 4th film seems almost tiny to my eyes. Its got window dressing (the new hot young stars and the old ones) and worn Craven and Williamson but does it have ideas?

Sure seems like you hit that right where it lived. There is nothing wrong with a double in baseball but when its your 4th attempt a homerun would certainly help. Scream 4 is a cash out.

Sold out seems to be too harsh because I think they thought they had something but its sad that something fresh has nothing to do with Scream 4 or so it seems. I won't be paying to see this in the theater.

I'm not going to see this. Who's the killer(s)?

(This is for anyone who's seen it, by the way, not poor threatened-with-bodily-harm Josh).

I saw it. The killer is Wes Craven for continuing to make movies.

I KNEW it!

I wonder if there's anyone else on the planet who likes Scream 3 more than Scream 2.

No? Just me? That's cool.

You should get a doctor's advice for that, Patrick. Have him prescribe you an ointment or something.

On the subject now, I may be able to handle someting on the level of 2. Any lower than that and I'll wait to rent it.

SCREAM 2 has dizzying highs, terrible lows and creamy middles. SCREAM 3 is DOA, what with the early offing of Schreiber. You're a mad man, Ripoll!

I think it's because the main characters of Scream 3 were Gale and Dewey, who have always been my favorites (Dewey especially). I don't think Sidney is an interesting or even decent character, at all, and Scream 2 is kind of boring as a result. Scream 2 also suffers from the killer's motivations and identities being dumb and out of nowhere. Sure, the killer and Scream 3 was equally impossible to predict, but he had something to do with the main thrust of the story, which is the Laura Palmer-esque secret life of Maureen Prescott, which I always thought was kind of fun. Also, you have Parker Posey realizing that she's in a Scooby-Doo movie and acting really silly, which is delightful. It fails as a horror movie, but I kind of think they all do. I like the whodunnit angle more than anything.

Also, the dream sequence in Scream 3 is probably the creepiest part of the whole series (Billy and Stu's tender kitchen scene aside):

CREEPY. (Click to animate)

I don't think the set pieces have ever been very strong in the series (though by 3 you'd think they do SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE OLD CHASE-STAB), though I will certainly admit that Scream 2's cold open is a lot better than Scream 3's.

I'm still excited about seeing this on Friday because, as this post may have proved, I'm kind of an idiot.

Hey Nick, I know you can't tell us, but if the killer is either Dewey, Gale or Sidney write the word RHINOCEROS.

Pretty sure Gale gets offed.

It'd be great if they made Anthony Anderson the killer.

But had Emma Roberts do all the in-costume Ghostface stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll 

I wonder if there's anyone else on the planet who likes Scream 3 more than Scream 2.

 

No? Just me? That's cool.

Me as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll 

I wonder if there's anyone else on the planet who likes Scream 3 more than Scream 2.

 

No? Just me? That's cool.

Me!  Me!

The medication doesn't work.

I'm infected. Scream 3 isn't great, or even particularly good, but I hate Scream 2. It's such a boring, nothing movie. That said, I've not revisited either of the sequels since seeing them in the theater, and I haven't seen the original in over ten years.

Also, Scream 3 has Heather Matarazzo in it, and I kind of developed a weird thing for her off of it. I can't be the only one.

Typhoid Mary up in this bitch.

If nothing else SCREAM 2 has Randy's death scene, which is a legit holy-shit-where-the-fuck-did-that-come-from moment. I can't think of anything like that in SCREAM 3.

I'm sorry, I hate to be "that guy" and I hope to never say something like this again, but this time I can't resist. It's "fare" not "fair".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

If nothing else SCREAM 2 has Randy's death scene, which is a legit holy-shit-where-the-fuck-did-that-come-from moment. I can't think of anything like that in SCREAM 3.

Totally called it the first time I saw it. It lingers on him too long for it to end any other way. 

EDIT: Also, the shock of scene is undercut by Craven's totally bizarre decision to have three white...break-dancers is the only way I know how to describe them? awkwardly twisting and dancing by the van. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naisu Baddi 

I'm sorry, I hate to be "that guy" and I hope to never say something like this again, but this time I can't resist. It's "fare" not "fair".

Oops. Thanks!

If SCREAM 4 is Craven and Williamson's statement on reboots, considering how the film ends, I find it admirable that the general message is that reboots suck.  I also find it admirable that they made a film that's so watered-down and bland, almost as if they knew they were making a reboot and emulated them.  I'd like to give them that benefit, anyway.  It's possible they just made a crappy movie without any larger statement behind it.

Also, you don't get to refer to yourself as "meta."  That's not how meta works.

I think you're allowed to refer to yourself as meta when none of the adult characters know what it means.  It's making fun of the teens for thinking they're clever.

Eh, because I enjoyed the first two Scream movies so much back in the day I feel I should give this a chance. We'll see if I regret that.

They should have made Sydney the killer in Scream 3.  She went a bit nuts at the end of 2 and it would have been perfect.  I would guess they might make her the killer now.  Is there a spoiler anywhere since I won't be going to see it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

I'm not going to see this. Who's the killer(s)?

 

(This is for anyone who's seen it, by the way, not poor threatened-with-bodily-harm Josh).

This is exactly where I'm at.  I don't feel like taking the journey.  I'll just wait for the destination to be spoiled tomorrow in the post-release thread.
 

Quick impressions having seen the film last night:

- The script is funny and fairly clever but there are way too many characters with too little development. I get the feeling that the script was a tad butchered and that the film was hacked to pieces in the editing room. So many characters get only one or two scenes and the film is paced awkwardly. It could have used another ten to fifteen minutes to flesh out some relationships.

- The acting from the newcomers ranges from good (Hayden Panitierre (spelling?) and Emma Roberts, Rory Culkin) to outright abysmal (Emma Roberts' douchey charisma-vacuum boyfriend).

- The 'whodunnit' aspect of the story is actually very good. The killer/s reveal is actually the best since the first 'Scream'. It actually matters, for a change.

- The kills are gory, but lack of the cat and mouse suspense of the setpiece murders in Scream 1 or 2. There is nothing to equal Drew Barrymore or Sarah Michelle Gellar's deaths or the 'unconscious killer in the police car' scene.

- Gale and Dewey had very little to do and pretty much felt shoe-horned into the story.

Overall I really liked it and I think it sits just below Scream 2 in terms of quality. Scream 4 actually has a superior plot / premise to the second one, not to mention a superior climax, but it isn't as well made or suspenseful. It was just a really good, fun time in a theatre. I laughed, I jumped, I gasped and I came out of the film smiling. Sometimes that's enough.
 

Fuckin' great, that's how.  Awesome reveal, and

So essentially this seems to be a spit in the eye of the klutzes standing on the shoulders of horror giants to make a quick buck off of anodyne remakes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

So essentially this seems to be a spit in the eye of the klutzes standing on the shoulders of horror giants to make a quick buck off of anodyne remakes.

 It wants to be, but it's executed so poorly that it just ends up becoming what it beholds.

Wait, crucial question: is "Red Right Hand" used at any point?

Surprisingly not terrible. Started off in a wobbly fashion and some really dubious acting but got progressively better. The reveal was a good one.

It might be interesting if at the very end of the series, they do the Scream version of a New Nightmare with everyone playing themselves in a meta fashion. Maybe even have the killer be Wes Craven because he's so frustrated that he's been stuck making these films ("I made a film with Meryl Streep! Meryl Streeeeeepppp!), even though in real life he's been quite happy making this genre of films for decades.

Unlike a number of my friends, I find it very hard to get mad at a film like this, probably because I assume it's going to be terrible from the get-go. I think the thing that sinks it is that there's at least one death that's completely boring to watch, and the original cast has no character development and seem grafted on to the film, while also not dying or killing. Ultimately, I didn't mind watching this, butin the same I've watched a lot of fourth films recently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

Wait, crucial question: is "Red Right Hand" used at any point?

NO! I couldn't believe it. Or I just didn't catch it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damon Houx 

 

Ultimately, I didn't mind watching this, butin the same I've watched a lot of fourth films recently.

Indeed. What I keep telling my friends is that they won't be bored. It's entertaining. Just not good.

Though I still contend that when objectively compared with the fourth installments of most horror franchises, SCREAM 4 comes out looking pretty good.

This shit is more Scary Movie than Scream.  I mean come on.  Sydney and the killers have been imbued with some fucking retard strength.  Only way to explain like anything they do in this movie.

Anyone else disappointed that the killers didn't end up being the zombified corpses of Billy and Stu? I mean, if there are "new rules" and everything, let's go for it.

Everything at the end in the hospital was a last minute reshoot, right?

I would go on and on about how pointless these scenes are and how they undermine everything the movie was building toward...but I won't.

(I could also expound upon how cool it would have been if they ended the film with a throwback to Friday the 13th Part 4...but I won't.)

I liked it just fine. Better than any of the previous sequels. It's fun, entertaining and ultimately disposable, but as Josh says as a 4th installment of a horror franchise I think it rates well. Worth a matinee.

Nothing too unpredictable, but I enjoyed the movie. Especially liked the main Ghostface motivation (though the part deserved a better actor- that big post reveal speech suffered a bit because of the casting choice) and the possibly Jerry O'Connell in Piranha inspired kill scene gags ("Fuck Bruce Willis" and "I'm gay! If that helps?" went over really well with the surprisingly large audience at my morning showing). Also fun to see how the horror movie references were much geekier this time round compared to the first movie. I'd say this is the best of the sequels.

Easily the best of the sequels. The third act almost redeems it (that lengthy scene after the killer's reveal was really really great) but Craven does not know how to find that Scream tone. He mostly just tries to drown his incompetence in the horrible score (Gail has writer's block? CUE THE STRING SECTION) and the tone is so wildly inconsistent, it kind of dulls the effect of both the humor and the kills. I thought Anthony Anderson and Alison Brie did really well with the small roles they were given, but Hayden Panettiere is probably the MVP. The original cast is mostly wasted.

If they went with the Sunset Blvd ending that was being hinted at, it'd be so great. I can't believe they didn't have the balls to even kill Gail or Dewey.

I'm gonna be one of the guys that loved this one.  Especially all the shots it takes at the other horror movies out there.  Sure, there are too many characters, the kills are kinda silly at times (but I dig the use of practical effects), and the acting isn't always up to par, but this is definitely one of the better sequels. Of course, I liked the second one quite a bit as well.

Oooh I was bored to tears watching this, I know the winking and nudging is part of the franchise but it just felt like a nowhere-near-as-relevent Scream 1.

Having said that, "Don't fuck with the original!" (perhaps the biggest wink/nudge of the film) damn near turned it all around for me.

I really wish the young cast had been star studded. It's always nice see a Culkin and Hayden Panattretefiierr was really terrific but I kind of wish some of today's teen idols had filled out the other roles. I think it would have helped bring the franchise full circle.

And now if I may fan wank....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lepedidus 

Everything at the end in the hospital was a last minute reshoot, right?

No.  There were two days of reshoots, and they consisted of changes to the opening (the 'real' part) and Alison Brie in the parking garage.

I found all that Meta Reboot Commentary pointless and annoying.

The audiences here in Singapore loved the "Boo! Look behind you" scares. The reveal of the killer was a surprise as well. I was initially betting on Marley Shelton and good old President Roslin.

After sitting with it for a day or so I can't believe how mad I am about the hospital finale. They had a chance at a gutsy game-changing ending that could have set up a truly unique kind of sequel and they BLEW IT.

I wish I was getting worked up over a good movie.

Definitely second best of the series, but that feels like (is) faint praise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lepedidus 

After sitting with it for a day or so I can't believe how mad I am about the hospital finale. They had a chance at a gutsy game-changing ending that could have set up a truly unique kind of sequel and they BLEW IT.

 

I wish I was getting worked up over a good movie.

 

Definitely second best of the series, but that feels like (is) faint praise.

Would I be correct in thinking that if they'd just ended the film with (that particular character) being wheeled away on an ambulance gurney and cut the whole part with the hospital would be along the lines of what you were thinking? Basically having it so they got away with it and Neve Campbell's character dead?