Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
I doubt it. We're getting Piranha 2 from the same studio, after all. I imagine we'll get a Scream 5, but Craven won't direct it, and Campbell, Arquette, and Cox will sit it out.
What I noticed about this entry is how calm Sydney is this time round. Its Old Home Week for her. She's got a fairly good idea on what to expect.
Ehh call me crazy but I enjoyed this. Although I never looked at the Scream series as anything but a horror/comedy that takes place in a heightened reality. I mean they really are funny so I don't mind when they go a little out there because quite honestly that is what I like about it. Also this one really pumped up the gore factor on this one. Funny that in the original they cut short the scene where the camera man gets it but in this one a guy gets stabbed in the fucking head. I dig these as a wacky comedy horror hybrid that wants to shock you with often times slightly implausible twists. So yeah I will watch a part 5, anything to keep Wes from My Soul to Take 2: A whole lotta Souls.
Its what I thought. It was garbage. If my memory is right though I still think its better than Part 3.
Craven and Williamson were handed the keys again and created a weak story with forgettable characters.
A shame.
Scream 4 was perfectly passable entertainment, but doesn’t justify its existence. That’s the problem with a sequel like this, returning so long after the fact with the original cast: it has to earn it.
I was a fan of the first two Screams back during their initial releases (Scream 2 was one of the many R-rated movies I snuck into back in 1997), although I avoided the third film until long after the fact. That movie turned me off with its incessant “cheating”: the use of the voice box that could mimic anyone’s voice without explanation, and the fakeout death of the killer (he’s found stabbed to death at one point, then shows up ten minutes later alive. Obviously, being a director, he faked his death with a prop knife, but some explanation would be nice). Still, give the movie props for not only having a thesis (trilogies) but executing and applying that thesis to the actual narrative.
As has already been discussed pretty thoroughly, this is a movie that fails in its execution both structurally and in terms of relevance. Once the reboot plot device is introduced hardly anything is done to apply the concept. We’re told repeatedly that the movie has to be more “extreme”, but the kills and situations of the kills seem old hat. As well, the streaming live of the killing not only doesn’t capitalize on the “found footage” genre effectively, it’s also trumped by the hidden cameras at the party in the first movie. All that does is prove how ahead-of-its-time Scream was and how this new movie is dated.
There’s some discussion, as well, during the meta-sequences at the beginning, of torture porn. Much like the bigger phones and perfunctory web cams, however, it goes nowhere (and feels unnatural; it’s not that these young woman couldn’t be intelligent, as one shouts her GPA at us, it’s that no one talks like that). An added degree of sadism to Ghost Face’s murders (the way the 2009 Friday the 13th felt more brutal ie. the burning bag, bear trap, and axe in the back scenes) would have not only played into the “extreme” nature of reboots, but also could have critiqued or at least commented on the sub-genre’s rise and influence since the last Scream movie.
This movie suffers from telling and not showing. Not only can’t it compete with its own genre, but even its own series. Scream 3 already dealt with (albeit clumsily) the family and mirroring device of legacies and mise en abyme, so this entry feels repetitive. Sidney already found closure and moved on with her life (her indifference to the door lingering open at the end of 3, a strong scene), so what’s more to be said? Dewey repeatedly proves incompetent without rising above, and Gale yet again struggles with the tension between compassion and professional glory. Been there.
As a result, the reboot aspect is in full effect as the new characters are far too pretty to be real human beings (something the original not only refuted but subverted with the Rose McGowan character being played so sexual, especially the famous image of her nipples poking through her sweater), and far too lacking in personality. I swear the character of Trevor not only screamed red herring with his very presence, but didn’t have one convincing line of dialogue. Horrible actor. Emma Roberts as Jill is the only new player to leave an impression, and that’s only once she’s gone villain.
What’s more to be said? Ghost Face’s voice is a perfect example of how far the series has fallen. Compare the sexy rasp of Roger Jackson in that opening scene with Drew Barrymore, and how he switches into menace suddenly and without provocation. Now compare that to the very first lines of the fourth movie, when even asking “who is this?” sounds like a death rattle. No one would talk to this guy for more than two seconds, so why do they stay on the line? Out of a perverse fascination, I guess, which is the very reason I rented this movie in the first place.
As a slasher it's relatively suspenseful and gory, but as a Scream film it suffers from the worst sin: lacking in wit.
No? Just me? That's cool.
Well, before I get to talking about this movie I'll say brief things about the first three, as I watched the first time for the first time in at least 5 years and the third one for the first time since I watched it theatrically back in 2000 and got pissed off with it.
The first one was SO a product of its time with it being LOUD and INTENSE and in your face; I'm more a fan of subtlety but despite some of the real overacting going on, it was still an entertaining movie.
The second had some real good moments (such as the moment in the car where it crashes with the killer in it) but it was also overlong and the ending... too much goes on there and it's not quite like the ending of the first.
The third... it had a lot of entertaining dialogue but it didn't seem like a Scream movie. I know, Columbine fucked things up so that's why it moved to Hollywood, but I've heard there were rewrites on the days they filmed, and boy does it show. As I quoted Bartleby below, that voice box thing was *such* a cheat and was just stupid in how implausible it was.
I wish there would have been more of that sort of originality.
Yeah, I definitely agree with that. While I didn't care for her haircut either, Hayden P. was a surprise in the movie. And cripes, that "Fuck Bruce Willis!" line was a real groaner. I know his name was brought up a few minutes before, but it was just stupid.
Scream 4 was perfectly passable entertainment, but doesn’t justify its existence. That’s the problem with a sequel like this, returning so long after the fact with the original cast: it has to earn it...
I agree with pretty much all of this. You said it better than I could. You can read the read in the post right above me, so that's why I didn't quote that giant block of text.
My impression on the movie was that while it had some real nice and cool moments, as a whole it just doesn't come together all that well. The opening was pretty neat, if a little goofy. The ending to a point was also entertaining. It's just that as said above, their commentary on found footage and torture porn movies was just lacking and not as pointed as I was hoping; I'm one who thinks that stuff is starting to get old hat so I would have dug that, but alas...
At least I was impressed with Emma Roberts; sure, I haven't seen any of her work before, but she was better than I was expecting. She ended up pulling off crazy rather well. Then again I guess I shouldn't be surprised by that given who her dad is...
Yeah, what ended up in the hospital was crap. To steal a joke I heard elsewhere, Sidney Prescott there ended up coming off as invincible as Steven Seagal! And from what I heard, Williamson's original idea was for Emma's character to get away with it and in the fifth SHE would get stalked. Now that would have been much better than what he ended up getting. I know everyone's going to be knocked over with a feather when they hear this, but it was our pals at the Weinstein Company who changed that planned ending.
So, while not bad at all for a 4th in a horror series, it should have been more than what we saw.
I finally caught up with this after deciding to skip it in theaters due to all the middling to negative reviews. I wish I hadn't. While nowhere near as good as the original, I had a ton of fun with this one and I think it is probably my favorite sequel of the series. As much as I enjoy Scream 2, it's a pretty damn flat film that is only elevated by its cast (the returnees still give a shit and most of the additions are good). As for Scream 3? I hadn't seen it in years, but I gave it a spin the night before I watched this. I liked it a lot more this time, but it is still a bad film. The dream sequences were a nice touch, though I wish they had made Sid even crazier in it when it came to hallucinating (or at least thinking she was). Still a bad movie though.
Anyway, this certainly has its faults....
- Dewey is still incompetent. I love the fact that he is now the Sheriff of Woodsboro, but I would have liked to see him portrayed as a goofier Charles Cyphers.................as opposed to still being in full-on Barney Fife mode most of the time.
- Gale serves almost no purpose. I like the direction they were taking with the character (though it would have made a bit more sense if they had a couple kids), but it was underwritten and Cox seemed completely disinterested. That and her new plastic surgery face freaks me out. I kept expecting her to show up on screen with a full-on Brazil face.
- Marley Shelton. I like the idea of a deputy who has a major crush on Dewey and is angling to steal him from his wife. Hell, they should have played that up more. I absolutely HATED Shelton in this though, despite liking her in other films.
- The fact that they killed almost every new character (with the exception of Shelton's deputy, who should have died).
- Sid should have died in the end and Gale DEFINITELY should have bought it.
- The ending. She should have gotten away with it. The fifth could have involved Dewey finding out the truth, as well as a new killer stalking the survivors of this one (including Emma Roberts)......making their own "fanfilm" sequel. Besides, how fun would it be for Dewey to have a crazed Loomis-esque exception for stopping Ghostface (no matter who is behind the mask) after all of the loved ones he has had butchered? Pretty fun, I imagine. Let Arquette cut loose for once.
What I liked....
- The killer(s) and the motivations.
- The high body count (15+ by my count).
- The face that they had the balls to kill off EVERY new character. Yeah, this is on both lists. I love and hate the notion.
- Sid taking the initiative and actively trying to beat the shit out of Ghostface.
- The "teleporting" slasher kill. One character (can't remember which at the moment) is running away from the killer. They turn to see Ghostface behind them and they turn back as they are running out the door..................only to be throat-slashed by the killer, who is now magically in front of them. I absolutely LOVE the idea of tagteam killing because it plays up the whole "unstoppable killer with vague supernatural abilities" that is a common element in slasher films. More kills like this could have been a lot of fun.
- Most of the new characters. The douchey boyfriend was irritating and Shelton was horrible, but I pretty much liked the rest.
Bottom line? I would actually go see Scream 5. They have re-earned my interest. Let's hope that WHEN it gets made, the quality is at least the same...............if not better. Just keep Ehren Kruger away please. He butchered the third entry and all accounts point to him doing uncredited rewrites here (he's listed as a producer, not a writer). Let Scream 5 be Williamson's vision from start to finish................which is something we actually haven't been given since the first one.
I'm guessing we actually will see a fifth one happen, by the way. The Weinsteins seem gung-ho about keeping this franchise going..........................especially since they really don't have any on-going series at this point. I think it is HIGHLY likely that we will see Scream 5 happen within the next three or four years. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if it is Craven's next film (after his yearlong break that he has started). That said, if it underperforms (or tanks), I doubt Williamson's "second trilogy" will be completed.
If this is the last entry, that's cool. At least it ends on a high note (in my opinion). That said, I would love to see a purer sequel that is just as vicious as the current entry. Let's just keep the creativity rolling, stop hiring Ehren Kruger, bump off one or two returning cast (preferably at least Gale), and stop fucking with Craven in the editing room.
So the Wikipedia page has Hayden's character listed as "left for dead" but mentions all the others as being goners. Did I miss something? Was it actually left in a way that she could be brought back? I kinda hope so, considering she was the best thing about the movie.
She seemed dead to me. Like really dead.
They missed the boat in Scream 3 by not making Sid the killer. It was set up a bit at the end of 2 with Sid looking to go a bit crazy at the end. Maybe not crazy, but emotionless.
Then if they want a reboot they needed to kill Sid off in the first scene ala Drew Barrymore. Would have totally fucked with the audience. Hell kill Sid in the middle of the movie would have been an even bigger shock.
There was no point to this movie. It was Saw torture porn but with knife kills. And atleast with Billy and Stu you could see how they could physcially do the kills/take the tumbles. But the nerd and Roberts kid couldn't do any of it.
Hope the series is dead.
No, it wouldn't have. Whoever pops up in that opening scene is a goner. It's why Cotton's death in 3 wasn't the least bit shocking.
No, it wouldn't have. Whoever pops up in that opening scene is a goner. It's why Cotton's death in 3 wasn't the least bit shocking.
Cotton isn't Sid. Killing off the franchise at any point in the film would be huge. If not the first real kill, then right after. There is no reason for Sid to have made it through this film alive.
Originally Posted by Anyawatchin Angel
And atleast with Billy and Stu you could see how they could physcially do the kills/take the tumbles. But the nerd and Roberts kid couldn't do any of it.
Agreed that Billy and Stu were the only killers that made any sense at all both physically and in motivation. All the Scream sequels had Scooby-Doo kind of reveals. The mother, the long lost brother and now the cousin? Pretty lame. I get that they're always trying to tie the killer back to Sydney but the motivations are so contrived for the sequels.
Agreed on both counts. While the first is quite possible, I suspect Craven will be back no matter what. It isn't like he has anything else to do............outside of producing remakes to all of his old movies.
If this franchise is going to survive, new blood is needed all around.
Agreed on both counts. While the first is quite possible, I suspect Craven will be back no matter what. It isn't like he has anything else to do............outside of producing remakes to all of his old movies.
If this franchise is going to survive, new blood is needed all around.
They missed the boat in Scream 3 by not making Sid the killer. It was set up a bit at the end of 2 with Sid looking to go a bit crazy at the end. Maybe not crazy, but emotionless.
Then if they want a reboot they needed to kill Sid off in the first scene ala Drew Barrymore. Would have totally fucked with the audience. Hell kill Sid in the middle of the movie would have been an even bigger shock.
There was no point to this movie. It was Saw torture porn but with knife kills. And atleast with Billy and Stu you could see how they could physcially do the kills/take the tumbles. But the nerd and Roberts kid couldn't do any of it.
Hope the series is dead.
Sid being the killer would be stupid, just as Laurie being the killer would it. It'd be every bit as dumb as 'long lost brother' or 'you were the first killer's mom!', and it'd retroactively hurt the others to boot. It's a plot twist for the sake of a plot twist.
If this franchise is going to survive, new blood is needed all around.
Does this franchise need to survive? Numbers point to no one caring enough to make that happen anyway. I certainly don't care about it, in fact, I kind of forgot there was a Scream 4 until just a few minutes ago.
Only Godzilla and Bond franchises need to go on forever.
Speak for yourself. I want to know Jigsaw's brilliant gotcha plan regarding Cary Elwes' great-grandchildren.
Does this franchise need to survive? Numbers point to no one caring enough to make that happen anyway. I certainly don't care about it, in fact, I kind of forgot there was a Scream 4 until just a few minutes ago.
Does it need to? No. Are Bob & Harvey going to push forward with a Scream 5 (and possibly 6)? Probably. If we are going to get more installments, I at least want good ones. I liked Scream 4. It was perfect, but for the most part it was fun. If they want to give themselves a shot at the franchise lasting beyond one entry though, they need to cut the budget down a bit and murder most of the "leading trio". Keep Dewey, kill the other two.
Sid being the killer would be stupid, just as Laurie being the killer would it. It'd be every bit as dumb as 'long lost brother' or 'you were the first killer's mom!', and it'd retroactively hurt the others to boot. It's a plot twist for the sake of a plot twist.
I want them to flush this turd. Watching actors from the CW reciting Ehren Kruger's hipper-than-thou lines about the rules that apply to fourth sequels sounds just excruciating. This latest movie proved Craven and co. no longer have the ability to make this stuff at all diverting anymore.
On the other hand, Scream 4 pretty much killed it all for me, so I guess they can just let 'er rip. I won't be watching any more of these. In fact, I believe if a fifth one does get made, I'll spoil it for myself immediately, removing any reason whatsoever to get tricked into it. If I were to make a worst of the year list, good old Scream 4 would certainly be highly ranked.
Scream 3 has the luckiest killer ever.
What are the odds that a traumatized recluse that twice nearly got gutted by knife wielding maniacs, freely turns up on the movie set of a flick about her horrible experiences? What are the odds you meet her there, alone, in an exact replica of her old house? Not even counting the odds that your years of becoming a director actually lead to the one in a houndred chance that you actually get to make a sequel in that specific franchise.
Imagine Sid would have just declined to visit the set.
The killer in Scream 3 is extremely lucky that Cotton Weary didn't hand his ass to him. Liev Schreiber is not a small dude.
Um, Jill's motivation was pretty great, whatever you thought of Scream 4.
Sid being the killer is the sort of twist a fanboy thinks up. "Wouldn't it be so awesome if...?"
No. Keep that shit in comic books. Just like Laurie Strode, psycho killer. There's always Halloween #3: The Devil's Eyes for you. From the same writer who linked Michael Myers' killing sprees to a specific constellation in order to explain why he shows up some years and not others.
This is as good a place as any to post this, but has anyone ever noticed that Randy doesn't finish #3 in his list of rules for a successful horror sequel in Scream 2?
In the trailer he states: "There are certain rules that one must abide by in order to create a successful sequel. Number one: the body count is always bigger. Number two: the death scenes are always much more elaborate - more blood, more gore - *carnage candy*. And number three: never, ever, under any circumstances, assume the killer is dead."
But in the movie itself he's cut off by Dewey mid-sentence. Was this indicative of the fact that Randy's rules were proved not applicable in the first movie (because Sydney, not being a virgin, still survives and several other rules are violated) and are therefore arbitrary?
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by thinking too much about the Scream movies.
Man...
I never really noticed that before, Bartleby. It would be interesting to find out whether the use of that alternate take was intentional or not.
In the end, however, all of Randy's rules are arbitrary. He bases them off his knowledge of Slasher films, but in the first Halloween Laurie smokes pot with Annie. In the first Friday the 13th lead Alice is strongly implied to be a former lover of Steve.
Randy's rules would read like someone that's only been told about Slasher films, but he's in on the irony because he's drinking a beer while talking about how drinking a beer will get you killed.
"And from what I heard, Williamson's original idea was for Emma's character to get away with it and in the fifth SHE would get stalked. Now that would have been much better than what he ended up getting. I know everyone's going to be knocked over with a feather when they hear this, but it was our pals at the Weinstein Company who changed that planned ending."
I was thinking this before I read this post, that they should have gone with an ending along these lines, where Emma Roberts got away with it. Furthermore, after having the (now) usual Ghost Face Killer voice which she would have laughed off ('Nice try creep, is that expected to scare me'?), then have "How about this?" in Neve Campbell's voice. Have Emma Roberts with appropriate terrified facial expression, the right musical cue and then the revelation that at some point Sydney Prescott's body vanished (or isn't in her coffin after exhumation) and you're set for a is she/isn't she dead and back for revenge scenario? (They really should have killed off Gale too as among other things, she was really redundant here - plus her face just looked really odd).
Now that is an idea. That'd be really interesting - who to root for? The killer that is now the stalked victim or the victim that becomes a killer herself? Also, it should open with Doofy coming home, seeing on the news that Gale was just found, BUTCHERED. He's shocked... and suddenly attacked by another Ghostface. But! Unlike the other opening kills he manages to actually shoot and unmask the fucker, who's just some guy. But who gets away.
So you'd be intrigued to see what happens to Jill, whether Sidney actually got crazy and stalks her now, and a third guy we have already seen but don't know shit about. And you got Cox off and Arquette in an interesting position.
Yeah, I was really hoping Jill would get away with it. I think the ending is what ends up defining the movie here and they, unfortunately, went with the dull, safe ending. Gale definitely should have died at the Stab-a-thon and having Sydney, I character I generally dislike, surviving just deflates the whole picture. It really sucks because the new cast was pretty great and the original trio is sitting there doing nothing but reminding you that for all its genre savvy talk, nothing is going to change here.
So unless they reveal that Kirby(seriously, Hayden Panettiere was pretty great in this) somehow survived or something and that Sydney will be nowhere near the next one, I doubt I would go for a Part 5.
Now that is an idea. That'd be really interesting - who to root for? The killer that is now the stalked victim or the victim that becomes a killer herself? Also, it should open with Doofy coming home, seeing on the news that Gale was just found, BUTCHERED. He's shocked... and suddenly attacked by another Ghostface. But! Unlike the other opening kills he manages to actually shoot and unmask the fucker, who's just some guy. But who gets away.
So you'd be intrigued to see what happens to Jill, whether Sidney actually got crazy and stalks her now, and a third guy we have already seen but don't know shit about. And you got Cox off and Arquette in an interesting position.
They certainly blew a big chance to take the series in a new direction by clearing the deck. It was supposed to be a new beginning, especially since it had been so long since the last movie but it really was more of the same, which was an unfortunate missed opportunity.
I'm guessing we actually will see a fifth one happen, by the way. The Weinsteins seem gung-ho about keeping this franchise going..........................especially since they really don't have any on-going series at this point. I think it is HIGHLY likely that we will see Scream 5 happen within the next three or four years. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if it is Craven's next film (after his yearlong break that he has started). That said, if it underperforms (or tanks), I doubt Williamson's "second trilogy" will be completed.
If this is the last entry, that's cool. At least it ends on a high note (in my opinion). That said, I would love to see a purer sequel that is just as vicious as the current entry. Let's just keep the creativity rolling, stop hiring Ehren Kruger, bump off one or two returning cast (preferably at least Gale), and stop fucking with Craven in the editing room.
They could always do the now time honoured tradition of back to back sequel filming, as well as really tightening the budget.
Sid being the killer would be stupid, just as Laurie being the killer would it. It'd be every bit as dumb as 'long lost brother' or 'you were the first killer's mom!', and it'd retroactively hurt the others to boot. It's a plot twist for the sake of a plot twist.
It can be done effectively but you have to spend time constructing the lead up. The Korean movie "Say Yes" ends with one of the most disturbing endings to a movie I've seen and all that is happening on screen is someone getting a lift and looking at the people in the car. It's everything that happened up to that makes it so disturbing.
Speak for yourself. I want to know Jigsaw's brilliant gotcha plan regarding Cary Elwes' great-grandchildren.
I'd prefer a Saw prequel where Jigsaw's great great great great, well you get the idea, grandfather lures victims into steam punk like traps.
I'll definitely echo the sentiments of the "wasted opportunity" crowd. Emma Roberts being the killer could have been an awesome twist if she'd actually gotten away with it. I think she did a great job bringing the nutty at the end but having her square off with Sidney was just the wrong angle to play. I've said in other threads that Neve Campbell's character is about two films past her freshness date. She seems out of place in this one and even when they tease her being murdered, I never believed that the movie had the balls to see it through until the end and that is why these Scream movies stopped working for me after the second one. Once I realized this flick didn't have the stomach to take out any of the three leads, it just felt pointless. I would have had Sid killed around the point where Hayden's character bit it. Have the final stand-off be between Hayden and Emma Roberts and gone out with the killer finally getting away with the murders.
