REVIEW: SCREAM 4 - Page 2

Yes.

I was always disappointed that Sidney didn't die in Act I of SCREAM 2. That would have felt like a proper sequel to me, in the proud tradition of FRIDAY THE 13TH 2, MANIAC COP 2, NIGHTMARE ON ELM ST 4, etc.

I would have thought that at least one of the principle actors would have it in their contract that they had to die. Neve Campbell especially strikes me as someone who's not into this series all that much.

Also, this one featured one of my favorite things, which is when the characters in a bad movie are watching a good movie and you wish you could be watching that instead. I kept wanting the camera to linger on Shaun of the Dead on TV.

Also glad this features one of my favorite Scream tropes, which is "friends that are completely and utterly insensitive to the fact that their friend was nearly murdered". "Um, I'm not sure I'm in the mood to watch Stab 7." "Come on, it'll be fun!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll 

Also, this one featured one of my favorite things, which is when the characters in a bad movie are watching a good movie and you wish you could be watching that instead. I kept wanting the camera to linger on Shaun of the Dead on TV.

 

It too featured one of MY favorite things -- when I wish that the "stupid" fictional film/show/product with-in a film/show/product were in fact real, because it seems cooler. I found myself wishing that STAB was a real series. I call this situation The Jooky Paradox.

Overall, second-best of the series but really missing the boat on a great possible ending. One of the killers seemed kind of tacked-on to me but the other one made up for it. I would have almost preferred that one of the two "OBVIOUSLY INSANE" characters had been the second killer, just to change things up.

Cue cutesy scene where said obvious killer waxes poetic about how Saw fans have known the killer for several films.


ETA: I maintain that the only way to end this franchise is with a "Clue" ending, but I'm not sure if a fifth movie is worth it.

I'm still a bit confused about what they were planning to do with the recordings of the murders.  Who was going to put them online?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lepedidus 

Yes.

I had an additional thought. In this alternate scenario, Scream 5 is the POV of this character who got away with it, doing the talk show/book circuit and so on when it turns out Neve Campbell's character's body has disappeared or something like that and this character is finding themselves being stalked in a bit of a "I know what you did last summer" scenario. Cue mysterious deaths and the question, is it Sidney or not? Well, it'd be different for the series at least.

The movie is a bowl of lukewarm snot, but I bring something that I think we can all agree on:

Dear bleeding Christ on a cross, what happened to Mary McDonnell?

Yeah, when I looked on IMDB and saw it was her and saw her current main photo there....jesus.  She used to be hot.

She looks a couple years older than she did in BSG, where she was romanced by Edward James Olmos. How else is she supposed to look?

This movie kind of stinks. I think the ending is pretty good and pulls it out of hell, even if they really should have killed someone from the returning cast. Seriously, does anyone actually like Sydney Prescott or care what happens with her? But up until the last fifteen minutes or so, I was really irritated by how bad this was. It seemed old and winded, like it was straining heavily to manage the meager task of recreating half a dozen scenes from the previous movies. Also, there where way too many terrible sequences, like Dewey busting in on the book signing and freaking everyone out because they were looking for a cell phone.

I was really impressed by Hayden Panettiere though. Although she might just have looked like Olivier because everyone else was beyond terrible. This was a bad group of actors, and I'd like to single out Culkin for being particularly awful. All he had to do was deliver a performance as good as Jamie Kennedy managed, and it proved way outside his abilities. Just zero charisma, zero intelligence, and zero wit. He's supposed to lead a huge movie nerd club and also snag one of the hot chicks, and I couldn't stop thinking of the creepy guy from the last Parks and Rec episode.

Alison Brie gets a pass, despite not being all that good, because she's like if Michelle Trachtenberg had talent and was someone I ever wanted to see on screen. She might be just a step too old to play high school, but I still wish she'd had the Emma Roberts role.

I don't think I'll be seeing another Scream in theaters. They're done here.

Um, yes, considering how much both audiences I saw it with freaked when she took that final knife to the gut in the house and the (can I get away with the word thunderous?) applause when Dewey said she was still alive.  Sidney's the best mainstream horror heroine out there; she's Nancy Thompson without the shitty actress.

Just checking. But were the audiences surprised by "the reveal" of who the Killer was?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

Um, yes, considering how much both audiences I saw it with freaked when she took that final knife to the gut in the house and the (can I get away with the word thunderous?) applause when Dewey said she was still alive.  Sidney's the best mainstream horror heroine out there; she's Nancy Thompson without the shitty actress.

 

No way, they were all being ironic. Every single one of them. It's just that after four movies I don't think I could come up with a descriptive adjective that applies to her...maybe 'humorless'. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd 

She looks a couple years older than she did in BSG, where she was romanced by Edward James Olmos. How else is she supposed to look?

 

 

 

 

Never saw that show, so was working off memories of her in, I guess, Donnie Darko? Or whatever was the last thing I saw her in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd 

No way, they were all being ironic. Every single one of them. It's just that after four movies I don't think I could come up with a descriptive adjective that applies to her...maybe 'humorless'. 

I also think "fucking stupid" describes her as well.  Not to sound like an asshole, but after all the attacks she has escaped...why the fuck wouldn't she buy a gun?  If someone is chasing you with a knife, you don't have to outrun them if you can put a bullet in their chest.

And speaking of guns, Dewey's shooting ability in the barn was atrocious.  That might have gotten the biggest laugh from me.  Was he sick the day they went to the gun range at the Woodsboro Police Academy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Kane 

I also think "fucking stupid" describes her as well.  Not to sound like an asshole, but after all the attacks she has escaped...why the fuck wouldn't she buy a gun?  If someone is chasing you with a knife, you don't have to outrun them if you can put a bullet in their chest.

 

Well, in her defense, the last killer she faced was quite fond of bullet proof vests.  AND (Why am I adding this?  I don't know!  Lazy Sunday!) she used guns quite well in Scream 3.  AND in Scream 4 she was only in town for the book tour, so maybe she has a gun but didn't bring it along because she's not a nut-job right-winger.  AND--

Anyone else feel like Campbell, Cox and Arquette were playing the body-snatcher versions of Sydney, Gail and Dewey?

If it wasn't for the fact that it was the same three actors returning, I'd have sworn these were three different characters.

Devin's 5 Ways SCREAM 4 Could Have Been Even Slightly Relevant To The 21st Century

http://t.co/kHzeXO2

I think the motive is only relevant in the 21st century.

He argues that killing Sidney in the opening works, but I disagree.  Where's the shock value in that?  Scream is at a point where you know whoever pops up in the opening is a goner.  Open on Sidney and you know she'll be dead before the title card.  If you're going to kill a lead, better to do it halfway through and be really shocking (i.e. what they should have done with Gale in 4).

If they killed Sydney in the opening it would have made me want to go.  This just sounds like crap.  Thanks for all the updates and saving me time.

Personally, I would have killed Sidney in the opening of #3.  Make the film around finding out who killed her (Dewey, Gail and whomever else do the investigating), with Ghostface trying to eliminate those who are getting close to learning the truth. 

/fanficSCREAM3

But again, there's no shock value in that.  When Liev Schreiber was the first on-screen character in Scream 3, did anyone think he'd be alive after the title card?  If you're going to kill a lead character, do it after the opening.  More shocking that way.

Enjoyed watching it, but the bite really has never returned since the first. And I always thought they kind of messed up by killing Randy. He had a pretty great death, but he was the heart of the series. The creators always mistakenly thought it was Dewey, I think. So here we have Hayden Panettiere delivering Randy's lines. And, like Ripoll wrote above, she's the best part of the flick. Anyway, entertaining - but it would have been nice to see them play it unsafe. Unlike a lot of folks, I really like Craven. He always seems to want to inject brains into his mayhem. You can feel his excitement and interest during that opening. But that's about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Matchstick 

Enjoyed watching it, but the bite really has never returned since the first. And I always thought they kind of messed up by killing Randy. He had a pretty great death, but he was the heart of the series. The creators always mistakenly thought it was Dewey, I think.

I agree whole heartedly with this. The series kind of lost me when they killed Randy. He may not have been the protagonist, but he was indeed the soul of series up until his death.

Dewey > Randy.

Randy's fun, but I don't think he was the heart of anything -- certainly not in the original.  Maybe in Scream 2, where he's pretty greatly being set up as an "Ohmygoddidtheyjustreallydothat?" sort of kill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

But again, there's no shock value in that.  When Liev Schreiber was the first on-screen character in Scream 3, did anyone think he'd be alive after the title card?  If you're going to kill a lead character, do it after the opening.  More shocking that way.

 

You could have the shock in there because the audience is going to think "no way they kill ______ here in the opening scene."  I see what you are saying, but I think you can use the "it's a lead character, they are safe" mentality from the audience to your advantage there.

I agree with the Randy thing 100%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

Dewey > Randy.

 

Randy's fun, but I don't think he was the heart of anything -- certainly not in the original.  Maybe in Scream 2, where he's pretty greatly being set up as an "Ohmygoddidtheyjustreallydothat?" sort of kill.

This. You kill off Dewey, you lose the audience especially with how Arquette played him in Scream 2 as a wounded, lost puppy.

That said, I do remember fans freaking out that they offed Randy.

So kill Gale. Randy was the series' Greek chorus.

Weren't Gale and Dewey supposed to have a kid in this originally?

Not to harp on the Randy thing too much, but they brought him back for three (video) and four (like-named Kirby). And, if you think about it, he was the last kill that kind of meant something to the series. Cotton, who is also a character I miss, always had an expiration date. It's like they messed up, learned their lesson to not kill any of the mains...thereby daming themselves in the process. It's all in the thesis I'm writing.

Matchstick is a sage. They've been frantically trying to find ways of keeping that Randy character going ever since he got sliced and diced.

So what happened to Detective Dreamy Patrick Dempsey?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

So what happened to Detective Dreamy Patrick Dempsey?

Having a couple of cold ones with fellow sequel-survivor-but-no-show-in-the-next-one Joel; Gale's camera-man from Scream 2.

It's true, there hasn't been a character death since Randy that I gave a shit about. That was an important character, in his way. He kind of presaged the rise of nerd cultural, and it was notable that he was one of the only survivors in the first one. Since they're apparently never killing the returning cast again, it's too bad he didn't make it. But then, his death scene is awesome and I used to really like Dewey too, while I find him just really dull now.

I sort of laugh at people saying Kirby is Randy Mark 2.  What do they have in common other than liking movies?  Their personalities are completely different from each other.  If anyone is Randy in Scream 4, it's Charlie -- sad-sack film geek who spouts off all the rules and has a crush on a girl he doesn't think he has a chance with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd 

She looks a couple years older than she did in BSG, where she was romanced by Edward James Olmos. How else is she supposed to look?

 

This movie kind of stinks. I think the ending is pretty good and pulls it out of hell, even if they really should have killed someone from the returning cast. Seriously, does anyone actually like Sydney Prescott or care what happens with her? But up until the last fifteen minutes or so, I was really irritated by how bad this was. It seemed old and winded, like it was straining heavily to manage the meager task of recreating half a dozen scenes from the previous movies. Also, there where way too many terrible sequences, like Dewey busting in on the book signing and freaking everyone out because they were looking for a cell phone.

 

I was really impressed by Hayden Panettiere though. Although she might just have looked like Olivier because everyone else was beyond terrible. This was a bad group of actors, and I'd like to single out Culkin for being particularly awful. All he had to do was deliver a performance as good as Jamie Kennedy managed, and it proved way outside his abilities. Just zero charisma, zero intelligence, and zero wit. He's supposed to lead a huge movie nerd club and also snag one of the hot chicks, and I couldn't stop thinking of the creepy guy from the last Parks and Rec episode.

 

Alison Brie gets a pass, despite not being all that good, because she's like if Michelle Trachtenberg had talent and was someone I ever wanted to see on screen. She might be just a step too old to play high school, but I still wish she'd had the Emma Roberts role.

 

I don't think I'll be seeing another Scream in theaters. They're done here.

I agree with everything here.

I haven't seen this movie, but I read the plot synopsis, and figured out who the killer was.  Because they used the idea that I said should have been used in Scream 3--

EDIT: Ok, fixed the spoiler thing.  Had to switch to IE to do it.

This is my idea for Scream 5. Have the copy cat killer been in a different town. This would be a new cast. This way you wouldn't be so sure who is going to live or die. It would be more of a riff on reboots and remakes since it would have a new cast and setting. It could also be the Scream series Halloween 3 or Friday the 13th 5. The sequel that doesn't fit in with what came before it, or after it. This is something the characters could comment on. If its a hit then Scream 6 would be back to the survivors of the original movies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

But again, there's no shock value in that.  When Liev Schreiber was the first on-screen character in Scream 3, did anyone think he'd be alive after the title card?  If you're going to kill a lead character, do it after the opening.  More shocking that way.

 

My wife and I were talking about this exact same problem. The opening kill was shocking with Barrymore the first time around, but now the audience is savy to Scream's own set of rules. My idea is why don't they throw in some sort of different shock? Let the opening scene play out like the audience expects it will, but then as Ghost face is killing  the guy/girl reveal them to be Dewy and Gale's teenage daughter/son. Would have certainly given us a bit of an extra jolt in the opening minutes and made the characters of Dewey and Gale a lot more important to the overall plot...or at least given them more to do.

I think it's a solid and fun fourth part. At times it made me scream how they could actually put some of it on the big screen like that, but there's also much to enjoy. Craven directing like it's 2001, good kills and a really strong ending. I gotta go with Shape and say this has one of the best killers of the series. If you've seen 3 and didn't think that was a complete waste of time, money and talent, you should give this a spin.

Going into spoilers, I'll give my two cents of what I would have done differently:

About a fifth. I was actually surprised that it's such a closed chapter, I was expecting loose ends for the already planned sequels. Very difficult. There's obviously lots of room, and room to go in a completely different or even unrelated direction, but I don't know how to continue from that.

Is a fifth movie likely to happen now though? Although in general I couldn't care less about box office stuff, this is one of the few times where I'm a bit curious about the possibility of even more sequels. I mean proper sequels, not the ones with cheap actors that go straight to video. Personally I would be fine with it if this was the end, just wondering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disciple_72 

Is a fifth movie likely to happen now though? Although in general I couldn't care less about box office stuff, this is one of the few times where I'm a bit curious about the possibility of even more sequels. I mean proper sequels, not the ones with cheap actors that go straight to video. Personally I would be fine with it if this was the end, just wondering.

They could ... I guess if they did what Saw 7 did perhaps, which was promise something new and rejig it in some fashion (the Saw series also promised it was The End). 

Well, whatever Saw did, it did produce a big uptick in worldwide gross after the relative underperformance of Part 6. (Of course all the Saw films have been very profitable because the budgets are so low, an increasing rarity these days.)

Scream could do some radical reworking of Part 5 and come up with something really different, sell the changes well (and also maybe look at shaving up to $10 million from the budget. If even the most expensive Saw film was $20 million and that was the 3D one, there's no good reason they couldn't do Scream 5 for $30 million if they try hard enough is there?).

Do all these things successfully and they might be able to squeeze one more profitable sequel out of it. As for Scream 4, it should be profitable (even if not greatly so) after worldwide gross, DVD, VOD, TV and all the other revenue streams hopefully.

As a detractor, I can say that I would have appreciated any thematic ideas they wanted to explore if the movie had been either fun, funny, or scary, or ideally all three. The problems weren't the ideas, it was the execution, not just of those ideas, but the regular teenage horror movie stuff even 2 & 3 managed competently. 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I liked even 3 more than this one.

I stand by what I wrote earlier that Scream is good, but not as good as the first one. Probably not as good as the second either. This is how I think the movie would have ended.

So do you guys think the failing of this will be ironically leading to a reboot? Or will they go dtv?

I think any continuation with Campbell, Cox, Arquette, Craven und Krueger is off by now.

I think the franchise is done, at least for a good long while.