REVIEW: DETENTION

What the fuck did I just watch.

I really need to see this. The BluRay's region free, right?

Much like the review, I started off hating the film. By the end of it, I was a fan. I need to watch it again myself, but it's definitely a movie that, if you managed to not hate it the first go around, should be good for multiple viewings.

Dare I say, I liked it better than The Cabin in the Woods.
 

I just got my copy of the Blu-ray and I liked it! I thought Josh Hutcherson and Dane Cook were both really pleasantly surprising in their roles. Special features were neat, too.

Well, I just absolutely fucking loved this.  Just finished it.  Great.  The Scott Pilgrim of slasher comedies.

Planet Starclaw had me laughing stupid hard.

I liked it, but it's not quite as awesome as it thinks it is.

While it featured some excellent use of references to other movies, at the end of the day that did get a little overwhelming. Their take on Freaky Friday was nicely twisted, but stuff like the Donnie Darko riff just felt a little Family Guy-esque. There was so much weirdness and insanity going on--intentional or otherwise--that it became hard to care. And the cast got annoying in parts, especially the heroine, who came off like Grumpy Alicia Silverstone. Also, insofar as I could make out the theme, it's about letting go of the past and trying to forge something new, which is rich coming from a movie made up almost entirely of pop culture references and 90s nostalgia.
 

I sound pretty hard on this, don't I? It was enjoyable, often hilarious, and has some brilliant sequences--the opening, the saga of the guy who's been in detention for 20 years--I just thought it was an amusing trifle that's being held up somewhat because it's obscure.

I'll be hard on it.  I found the movie to be completely grating, incoherent, and way, way too pleased with itself.  It's not just that the theme about not living in the past is rich coming from a movie that uses both hands, both feet and a specially-designed automated scooping mechanism to shovel references into its mouth for the preceding 90 minutes, it's that this is a fucking high school movie.  Is there any more inappropriate context in which to make that point?  Has anyone ever met a 15 year-old who was stuck reliving their glory days in 5th grade? 

Didn't hate it as much as Schwartz but yes, I definitely wasn't a fan. It had higher highs than SUCKER PUNCH, but I found it to have a similar ADD stream-of-consciousness thing that I'd expect from an unleashed music video director. And I'm actually quite impressed that you guys found a thematic throughline, because I struggled. Even that end speech played as more of a "clever" non-sequitur reference to Breakfast Club than anything deliberately meaningful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evi 

 I found it to have a similar ADD stream-of-consciousness thing that I'd expect from an unleashed music video director

This, hella hard.

Any positives this film contains is virtually ruined by Khan's music video aesthetic, dollying the camera every 10 seconds, etc...you could've easily had the same innovations and used an appropriate level of craft to support it.  As it is, the thing is made like a music video, and that aesthetic is meant for short, 5 minute bursts, not 90 minute films.  I remember seeing a Cribs episode about Joseph Khan and when he opened his closet, the thing was stuffed with dvds, there must've been a thousand or more.  All those movies and the guy didn't learn a god damn thing from them.

Seems to be the case that when it comes these kinds of movies: People either love it or hate these style of films.

I tend to find myself in the former, and I really do love Torque, so I'm probably going to check this out.

I'd argue that Kahn's aesthetic works perfectly for the story that he's telling here. It's an ADD film for/about an ADD generation, though it's reductive to sum up Kahn's style strictly as "ADD"; it's a mercurial film partly in service to making its statement about the generation Kahn's characters represent, and partly because it's Kahn's way of forcing audiences to be active participants in the story he's telling. (The way that Detention moves demands your strict attention, and even if you're tuned in, you might miss little bits and details sprinkled throughout.) That's not to say it's right, but I think there's more to what he does behind the camera than "he's a music video director". His style might be informed by that background, but he's employing it with purpose. 

What's wrong with high schoolers (at least, the characters in this film; I agree it'd be fucking ridiculous for an actual 15 year old to pine for their days in elementary school) being nostalgic for a time before their own? I think part of Detention's purpose is to display that nostalgia as being vacuous and unearned. Clapton might have "refined" music taste, but he has fuck-all to show for it, while Ione earns her popularity by being disingenuous. (I.e., she's popular in the past because she can predict the fucking future and therefore has a blueprint to popularity, therefore her popularity is just a false construct. She's popular in the present because of her mom and because she's surrounded by suckers who also think that 90s nostalgia is cool.) The film doesn't celebrate the superficiality its cast represents so much as it picks it all apart.

That doesn't prove that Kahn's aesthetic is one that should be universally embraced, but he's doing more with Detention than just making a 90 minute music video, I think. I definitely get that his MTV style isn't for everyone, but then again I think style is just a roadblock you can either let impede you or circumvent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by agracru 

What's wrong with high schoolers (at least, the characters in this film; I agree it'd be fucking ridiculous for an actual 15 year old to pine for their days in elementary school) being nostalgic for a time before their own? I think part of Detention's purpose is to display that nostalgia as being vacuous and unearned. Clapton might have "refined" music taste, but he has fuck-all to show for it, while Ione earns her popularity by being disingenuous. (I.e., she's popular in the past because she can predict the fucking future and therefore has a blueprint to popularity, therefore her popularity is just a false construct. She's popular in the present because of her mom and because she's surrounded by suckers who also think that 90s nostalgia is cool.) The film doesn't celebrate the superficiality its cast represents so much as it picks it all apart.

This is true. At the heart of the film, I feel the characters are trying to "invent" their own nostalgia, because they have none of their own, a point made clear by the bizarre Michael Jackson-Hanson mash-up with "Dirty Dancing" dance moves.

No point in this movie is made clear.

I think it's much more coherent than you give it credit for, but I also get the feeling that it's one of those "agree to disagree" pieces of cinema.

(Also not sure how I wound up with a blank post. Thank god for editing.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz 

No point in this movie is made clear.

Agreed. I remember reading an interview with Kahn - might have even been on CHUD - where he remarked that the film was written without character or thematic throughline but as a bunch of scenes he and his partner thought would be cool, and that they then reverse-engineered what the movie was actually about. Now I'm not saying that's it's an automatically lousy method of writing (for all I know Lawrence of Arabia was written the same way), but that's EXACTLY what Detention felt like to me as I watched it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by agracru 

 I think there's more to what he does behind the camera than "he's a music video director". 

Nope.  His style is virtually the same as McG's...and 80% of directors that come out that world.  If this were say...Rian Johnson adapting his style for a film like this, I could see the argument, but Kahn is doing nothing here he doesn't always do.  It's that music video aesthetic you see more and more in the film world as these guys invade Hollywood.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

 

Nope.  His style is virtually the same as McG's...and 80% of directors that come out that world. 

OK, now this is getting ridiculous. As I already said, I have problems with this movie, but it's much smarter and more original than anything fucking McG has ever come up with. Come on.

The McG connection actually occurred to me while I was watching it.  I was sitting there thinking, "this isn't a movie, it's just a bunch of scenes."  I'd had that thought in the theater exactly one other time, and it was when I was shanghai-ed into seeing Charlie's Angels 2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

 

Nope.  His style is virtually the same as McG's...and 80% of directors that come out that world.  If this were say...Rian Johnson adapting his style for a film like this, I could see the argument, but Kahn is doing nothing here he doesn't always do.  It's that music video aesthetic you see more and more in the film world as these guys invade Hollywood.

I'm not inclined to take this sort of argument seriously at all. Sorry, please try harder.

EDIT: Sorry, this sounds much snippier than I meant it to. 

We're talking about things Kahn "always" does? Guy's made two movies, and one was almost as a prank.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

We're talking about things Kahn "always" does? Guy's made two movies

And a bunch of videos...it all looks the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by whiskaz 

Much like the review, I started off hating the film. By the end of it, I was a fan.

And I was exactly the opposite.  I loved the opening, loved the credits sequence, and then the film slowly but surely started losing me.  Over-the-top enthusiasm doesn't necessarily make for a cohesive, interesting film.  By the end, I was totally bored with it.

I don't think I understand what people mean by the "music video aesthetic" and what about it is fundamentally antithetical to feature length moviemaking. I would love it if someone could render this complaint concrete enough so that someone who doesn't really pay attention to music videos could understand the objection.

Otherwise, I'd like to post a few observations on why I think the film does work. At its core, this is a teen movie, and one that is all about how being a teenager today feels. It is essentially a movie about the emotional turmoil of adolescence: the missing senses of self-worth, of purpose, the constant frustration with how stupid the world is, the distance of authority figures, etc. I really do not think that it is nostalgia for the 90s that the movie is working with; it may seem like nostalgia for those who were teenagers during the 90's, and thus were cognizant of them (and really nostalgia is really something that people have with the 80sm not so much the 90s in my opinion), but what I think is happening is that the kids in this film (and kids in general) are looking for a sense of history rather than a sense of nostalgia. I don't feel like going into detail, especially as this is not directly supported by the text of the movie (since its target audience is the teenagers for whom the ahistoricism of our times is as plain as hipsterism, so for them the 90's thing is not a theme, but a part of reality: it is the distant near past).

One clue that Kahn is completely earnest with this film is the opening scene. Taylor Fischer represents the kind of caricature of the teenager that I think killed the whole teen movie genre (have there been any significant teen movies since Not Another Teen Movie?), but more importantly, the kind of caricature that is insulting in its remove from the actual emotional life of teenagers. This is why she's immediately killed off in the first 5 minutes: Kahn is not interested in that kind of reductive judgment of teenagers' lives - he's interested in their true psychoemotional core, which I think he encapsulate nicely with Riley.

Riley herself is a wonderful character. If she doesn't captivate you, then your inner teenager is either dead or just very different from mine (can we give Kahn credit for giving us a strong female lead? I do). Kahn captures the teenage feelings of worthlessness and lack of confidence in the most literal way possible, but he does not judge her for them, does not patronize her by suggesting that she should either improve herself or be who she is. Kahn just lets her be, which is incredibly refreshing for a teen movie: there is no implied lesson that she should be learning. Riley is simultaneously strong while considered (even by herself) a loser: she does not meet expectations when judged publicly, but privately she is a tough fighter and surviver. Emotionally I think this is pretty spot on for this generation of young people, and it certainly resonates with what I remember feeling in high school: the struggle to change the world even though you're completely incapable to for reasons beyond your control is painted by Kahn as a kind of heroism, which he gladly rewards at the end with a tiny victory right before having the aliens attack.

I think the final monologue of the film is very easily misconstrued as a simple instruction to change the present, not the past. But I feel that there is a very particular relationship with the past that the movie criticizes, which is exactly the ironic/post-ironic relationship that Xander, in an obverse to Taylor Fischer, represents. The movie is a celebration of sincerity and a rejection of irony and parody, so for me the core theme is not so much whether kids should or should not look back to the past, but about how they should or should not look back to the past. Concretely, the only way to change the past is through irony, and one could argue that the movie's essential message is that that doesn't work, that one needs to march forward with the new rather than fixate on the old. Throughout the film Xander is actually incredibly creepy and unlikeable, and I'm willing to say it is because he is also a character from an ironic teen movie of old, a reduced, insulting caricature of what Kahn thinks today's teenagers are like. If anything, the movie is probably the most optimistic, joyous movie I have seen in a very long time (kids are doing quantum mechanics and are building time machines right under everyone's noses!)

Hopefully the above is more coherent than the amount some of you thought the movie was.

  I saw this last night and I had a blast with it. The best way to describe would be if Not Another Teen Movie had science fiction and horror elements and came way out of left field. I enjoyed how it mocked the Saw movies.

  Gord was a scene stealer. I loved his logic on why he only eats baby animals.

  "Who taught you how to make snuff porno? Lady GaGa?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlad 

I don't think I understand what people mean by the "music video aesthetic" and what about it is fundamentally antithetical to feature length moviemaking. I would love it if someone could render this complaint concrete enough so that someone who doesn't really pay attention to music videos could understand the objection.

 

 

Yeah, I've never really understood the "music video aesthetic" argument and always took it to be a knee-jerk reaction by some cinephiles against anything that doesn't look like "film."  It just seems like an incredibly snotty way of looking at things and is just as bad as someone sneering in their film review that a movie "looks like a video game."

I certainly get the intention of the phrase 'music video aesthetic' and Khan's style very much exudes that at its core.  It is that glossy, colorful, fast-cut, sleek/sexy delivery that immediately registers with cheap and easy tropes and iconography (Michael Baaaaay).  Of course, I also think that aesthetic can be very cinematic.  But it is born out of getting a lot of bang for the buck in the time constraints of ads and music videos.

I think the 'video game aesthetic' label comes more from these big blockbusters that have the aesthetic of music videos (super slick ads) that have a plot/story as simple as that of a video game.  And a lot of times, I think that's a very fair criticism of such movies.  I take it as just another instance of critics sneering at something they don't like by comparing it to a cartoon.  There is definitely a snootiness to it, but I don't think it's always unwarranted.

Khan definitely has an awareness and sense of craftsmanship of what he's doing with his chosen aesthetic for his two films, but I suppose in the end... he's still using that aesthetic and hasn't really shown he has much interest in doing it any other way.   But I think he's really good at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

 

Khan definitely has an awareness and sense of craftsmanship of what he's doing with his chosen aesthetic for his two films, but I suppose in the end... he's still using that aesthetic and hasn't really shown he has much interest in doing it any other way.   But I think he's really good at it.

That's exactly how I feel. It's his thing, and he's really, really good at it. Maybe as he makes more movies, he'll expand his boundaries, but I don't see what's wrong with making movies filtered through that lens so long as they're good. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by agracru 

 

That's exactly how I feel. It's his thing, and he's really, really good at it. Maybe as he makes more movies, he'll expand his boundaries, but I don't see what's wrong with making movies filtered through that lens so long as they're good. 

Just watched the movie: It's a goddamn piece of weird, fucking freaky, nonsensical art. 

Also, the black guy is the best character.

"I'm just really boring" is one of my favorite lines from the whole movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlad 

I don't think I understand what people mean by the "music video aesthetic" and what about it is fundamentally antithetical to feature length moviemaking.

There are plenty of music video directors who adapted their 'style' when transitioning to features because it's appropriate to do so.  Most of these guys were brilliant video makers and really made short films rather than the standard MTV nonsense  They already understood cinematic language so the transition was easier.  Spike Jonze, David Fincher, Mark Romanek, Michel Gondry, Jonathan Glazer, Anton Corbijn, Mark Pellington, Alex Proyas, etc.

Then there are guys like Brett Ratner, McG, Simon West, Dominic Sena, Kevin Bray, Michael Bay (who I give more of a pass), Joseph Kahn (though I'm willing to give him a pass), Hype Williams, etc.  The 'style' these guys employ in their feature work is virtually the same as what they used in their video work.  They're still selling a product to an audience with a short attention span (the majority of music video watchers)...using abrupt and frequent edits, flashy camera angles with little regard for spatial orientation or the effect a particular shot has, inappropriate pop/rock soundtracks, bad/inappropriate direction of actors etc.  This is my definition of the 'music video aesthetic'.  

The former list of directors use a level of craft that is in line with good visual storytelling...they use editing as a compression/decompression tool in terms of the relationship between time and story (ie, a 3 hour movie can seem like 90s minutes and vice versa depending on editing tempo...music video directors don't understand this, they simply cut everything at a frantic pace, with no regard for the whole of the film and how editing can affect audience perception of the events in that film)  The former list of directors don't steamroll over the audience with a nonsensical assault of visual information merely for the sake of it...they tell a story with the camera, meaning they use it in a certain way depending on what is happening in the scene subtextually...they understand that the camera is supposed to communicate the story in a way that the actors cannot.  Music video directors simply move the camera alot, because it is another way to sedate the ADD suffering audience, not because they are telling a story with it (for the most part)...or if they are, they are so incompetent, they don't understand the function of their own tool...or even more alarming, they know exactly what they're doing.  

I watched the first 15 minutes and then turned it off.  I waited a ferw days and continued watching the next 15 minutes.............then, I turned it off again.

Maybe I'm too old and too cynical (I'm 32) to enjoy this type of movie, but I thought what I saw was utter garbage.  I'm all for weird and quirky movies, but this one was really annoying.  I hated the characters, the silly cartoon editing, and everything else.  KAHHHHHN!

This movie is so far up its own ass that it comes out its mouth and goes back up its own ass again. This is exactly what you get when you tell the guy who made TORQUE that he is a misunderstood genius. So convinced of its own cleverness. This years SUCKER PUNCH. That means it isn't good. I fucking hated this bullshit. 

Thank you, Sebastian.  You said it better than I ever could. 

My eyes rolled back into my brian when I heard a character mention Torque in a self-deprecating way. 

I think he was trying to create an over-the-top and genre-mashing Scott Pilgrim.......He failed miserably.

Scott Pilgrim knows exactly what it's about from the first frame, and knows even the ancillary characters inside and out, which is a big part of what makes it so fun.  Detention knows what jokes it wants to tell and references it wants to make, and works backward to its story and characters (I'm removing the sarcastic quotation marks from those terms, but just barely) from there.  That might sound like six in one hand, but it makes all the difference in the world.

I've given SCOTT PILGRIM a fair share of guff, but it is not even in the same universe as this piece of shit. SCOTT PILGRIM at least has a good story to hang all the forced overkill craziness on. DETENTION has six or seven stories -- and none of them are good. Or funny. SUCKER PUNCH is really the only comparison as it is just a bunch of "kewl" shit the director wants to hammer into a story.

And don't get me started on all the fucking references. This thing operates with all the wit and grace of an entire season of FAMILY GUY condensed into 90 awful minutes.

Comparisons to CABIN IN THE WOODS are frankly absurd. CABIN is actually clever. This isn't.

I'm on the other side-I loved it.  Mixing genres at lightning speed with characters I like.  And Dane Cook didn't ruin it.  I can see hating it but I bought into his style and went with it.

Highlight was Shanley Caswell.  For a relative newcomer she carried the movie like a champ.  I hope she gets more work.

Commentary was interesting.  THey had everyone it it but the bully who dies.  Sounded like they hated him.  They skirted the issue saying he was serious and method about his work but his absence from the commentary is telling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

 

 

And don't get me started on all the fucking references. This thing operates with all the wit and grace of an entire season of FAMILY GUY condensed into 90 awful minutes.

 

 

Not to be "That Dick" but this line here informs me one of two things:

(not likely) You didn't really watch the movie

(most likely) You were too busy yelling at the kids to GET OFF YOUR LAWN to really pay attention to movie, since the constant spewing of pop-culture references is kind of the entire point of Detention

It's definitely the point.  Trouble is the point is banal and presented in a horribly grating fashion.

If "the constant spewing of pop-culture references is kind of the entire point of Detention" is true, then it helps prove our point that the movie is such a piece of shit.

I'm shocked the good people at CHUD praised this movie so much.  Such a disappointment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz 

It's definitely the point.  Trouble is the point is banal and presented in a horribly grating fashion.

That's because it was clearly made the point after they'd already come up with most of those ideas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxYumTime 

If "the constant spewing of pop-culture references is kind of the entire point of Detention" is true, then it helps prove our point that the movie is such a piece of shit.

 

I'm shocked the good people at CHUD praised this movie so much.  Such a disappointment.

Here's the thing though: The Family Guy reference doesn't necessarily work because its pop-culture references "are the joke;" I'm supposed to find it hilarious that Family Guy is touching on some "in the moment" reference. I don't believe that's the case with Detention. It's funny not because a character spits out 90s references, but rather because it's sad that a girl from our era thinks it's totally cool to mention film, celebrities, and music from nearly twenty years ago (so much so that she's popular because of it); and of course, the movie takes that to its most (un)logical extreme: Turns out, that character is actually the character's mom who somehow switched minds with her daughter, sending her back into her own time.  It's stupid, and makes no sense--but I kind of liked that.

One thing I found grating upon second watch (and I DO like the movie) is that the pop-culture spew-athon the movie engages in results in characters that almost ALL sound the same.  Like it's all from the voice of the writer/writers.  It's the same thing I found ultra-grating in GOD BLESS AMERICA.  And it's the same thing that Sorkin should often be taken to task for in his writing as well.  (this is all referring specifically to the dialogue and the character delineation that comes from it)

It's all the way that we'd like to be able to speak in real life but not necessarily in our movies (though I know lots of people enjoy it for that specific reason).

If being stupid and making no sense does not impede your enjoyment, more power to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Oreo 

Not to be "That Dick" but this line here informs me one of two things:

 

(not likely) You didn't really watch the movie

(most likely) You were too busy yelling at the kids to GET OFF YOUR LAWN to really pay attention to movie, since the constant spewing of pop-culture references is kind of the entire point of Detention

Oh, I got it alright. The comparison to FAMILY GUY was in reference to the rapid-style execution. DETENTION could have made its point and moved on instead of hammering it home in an artless, deadening fashion. Like FAMILY GUY.

And I don't have to tell today's kids to "Get off my lawn." Those coddled over-sensitive wussbags would never dare step foot on my lawn, or anyone's lawn for that matter. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxYumTime 

If "the constant spewing of pop-culture references is kind of the entire point of Detention" is true, then it helps prove our point that the movie is such a piece of shit.

This doesn't really even make any sense.

The only argument I can really buy into here against the film's quality is that Kahn isn't playing in the sandbox of traditional filmmaking techniques, and therefore his craft (and the film by extension) don't really measure up to accepted measures of filmmaking. But that's not really such a bad thing if you're open to filmmakers showing you something new. Arguably, nothing here is really new-- it's MTV-style filmmaking and music video aesthetics-- but Kahn is really, really, really good at operating within that mindset. And, again, I think that works for the film, given that the entire film is a reaction to the vapidity of contemporary pop culture and teenhood. These kids are mostly just shallow consumer parasites (and so it says something that I mostly liked them); the only really interesting person here is Sander, and even he just spends most of the movie trying to get girls to fuck him when he's not going back in time to set history on fire. Even Riley is kind of a tool.

But these characters are all kind of loathsome in their fashion (and again, I still liked them) because they're ridiculously one-sided, and that's the bigger point of the film. Detention is all about these characters learning to see outside themselves. Sander's fate, for example, ultimately comes down to the fact that he never learns that lesson. He's just obsessed with his own meaningless angsty ennui, and he ends up paying the price via bear fangs to the skull. But Riley and Clapton, among others, come to realize that there's more to life than just the shit that they think is important (and also that the shit they think is important really isn't all that fucking important).

I still get not liking the movie-- it's insanely stylized and super ADD, as I've mentioned before (and others have as well). It's scattered and all over the place. But I think writing it off the way it's being written off by some people here is just sort of ludicrous. Maybe it's a disaster of aesthetics and referentialism, but I still think that it's an interesting film regardless (though I obviously don't see it as a disaster because I keep on coming back here to defend it).

Indeed, I think some of you are willfully refusing to engage the ideas of this film. Which, yes, make sense, and yes, contain valid rewards. Each scene is loaded with concepts and ideas delivered (perhaps belligerently, to some of you - I get this) through the prism of modern pop sensibility.

You could write essays about any scene in this film. Frankly, I don't like how Kahn traps some of his concepts by covering them up with a few cheap gags or jokes, but the discombobulation of pop culture is what's at stake here. The narrative isn't literal, and shouldn't be treated as such since it's based around the ersatz way these characters digest pop culture.

When you see this space bear with a tech system based entirely in Iron Man (a "real movie" says the cop, who loathes the autocriticism of "Scream" that he unwittingly is participating in), that's coming from the mind of the characters. When two enemies channel Seagal and Swayze, that's their only way to frame a conflict with someone else, as their generation's exposure to pop culture greatly outweighs their experience with actual real conflict. Of course, there's an underlying sadness to this as well -- no one in this movie is headed for a particularly workable adult life, so engulfed by thispop culture world, which has melded with nostalgia due to the lack of actual "culture" that's resulted in the internet age -- isn't the film's most recent reference Hoobastank, dating everything as pre-Facebook (an eternity to these characters)? 

Just because a film has ideas it doesn't mean they're good ideas. I wanted to like this movie, hell I wanted to love it, but it made me hate it at every turn. Whatever it's selling, I don't want.

And before someone else pulls out the "you just didn't get it old man" card, I am the same age as Joseph the misunderstood visionary behind Torque Khan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

When you see this space bear with a tech system based entirely in Iron Man (a "real movie" says the cop, who loathes the autocriticism of "Scream" that he unwittingly is participating in), that's coming from the mind of the characters. When two enemies channel Seagal and Swayze, that's their only way to frame a conflict with someone else, as their generation's exposure to pop culture greatly outweighs their experience with actual real conflict. Of course, there's an underlying sadness to this as well -- no one in this movie is headed for a particularly workable adult life, so engulfed by thispop culture world, which has melded with nostalgia due to the lack of actual "culture" that's resulted in the internet age -- isn't the film's most recent reference Hoobastank, dating everything as pre-Facebook (an eternity to these characters)? 

You can frame this in all the first semester film theory extrapolation you want, in reality the scene is just a throwaway joke, and an unfunny one to boot.

And that's a shitty retort fueled by hyperbole and hate. Come on, now, that's not your actual response, is it?