Scream 4 (1 Viewer)

[JayMacey]

Caught this at a midnight showing tonight. WOW! This isn't a groundbreaking horror film but it's an excellent addition to the franchise. LOVE LOVE LOVE the references to the other films throughout the movie. I really enjoyed this. Anyone else see it (or plan too?)

 

[BrettGallman]

I saw it last night and had a blast. So much fun--very much an improvement over part 3 and very close in quality to part 2.

 

[TravisR]

I enjoyed it quite a bit too. I didn't think it was as good as the first two (which I hold in very high regard) but it's still a gory, fun time and step up from Scream 3. There's alot of funny stuff, fun movie references and I loved that the movie critiqued the media and easy fame.


For my money, Scream 4 is Craven's best since Scream 2 and his most gory movie ever.

 

[Michael Elliott]

One thing shocked me about SCREAM 4. I showed up at the first showing and there were only two other people in there with me. I expected much more. The shocking thing was that by the time the credits came up I was only one left.


I'm sorry but I thought this film was a complete mess. Did it want to be a remake? Was it just a reboot? A sequel?


I think Williamson's screenplay tries to do way too much and it doesn't get anything done. The ending finally managed to pack some suspense but I thought just about every other scene didn't contain any suspense or tension. It's funny but the opening jab at torture porn films that are all gore and no suspense but then that's exactly what this movie turned out to be.

MILD SPOILERS (I'll do more later but I'm on my way out).


--The film didn't know if they wanted to stick with the old characters or the new ones. Major problem since the new characters were mostly bland, boring remakes of those in the original. It makes you realize how great the original cast members were.


--MAJOR SPOILER Emma Roberts = bad, bad, bad. Hated her performance here and when she's revealed as the killer I thought it was a great move and it worked UNTIL she started acting the part of a killer and then it had me laughing. It seems like she had a silver spoon up her ass and when she starts acting "tough" it was a complete joke.

--I did like the first ending. The "alternate" ending, as the characters joked, was pretty stupid but I thought it worked somewhat.


--I never thought I'd say this but I do think the violence crossed the line and was rather distasteful to the point where I had just had enough. Especially what happened to Sidney's character during the final showdown. Reminded me of the torture porn, which I thought Craven and Williamson were against. In fact, the gore in this was more than the previous three films, which took me by surprise. Perhaps the added gore was to go with the "reboot/remake" and to distance itself from just a "sequel".


Four straight flops for Craven so he and Argento need to vacation somewhere together.


I'd give it ** (out of 4). Certainly much better than SCREAM 3 but every "joke" in the screenplay about new films perfectly explains this one.

 

[TravisR]

^ Dear lord, you can't seriously be comparing the current Craven and current Argento. Craven needs to make like 10 more Curseds or My Soul To Takes to get anywhere near as bad as Argento has sunk.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

Did we really need another sequel to this? The next one should be SCRAM.

 

[BrettGallman]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Perregaux

Did we really need another sequel to this?

Yes. Two or three more of them please.

 

[Michael Elliott]

But if you go back to 1997 then I'd say Argento has had more "good" or "fair" movies. MOTHER OF TEARS, the 2 MOH episodes, THE CARD PLAYER and SLEEPLESS were all better than what Craven has done since SCREAM 2. Of course, Argento has made more films so it allows for more good and bad ones but Craven has clearly gone off and I think the lack of passion in his films is very telling. Even if we go back to 1990 how many good films has Craven done? He always does great with comeback movies (HILLS, NOES, SCREAM) but he usually follows these up with a string of very bad movies.

Originally Posted by TravisR

/forum/thread/310617/scream-4#post_3801143

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Michael Elliott

But if you go back to 1997 then I'd say Argento has had more "good" or "fair" movies. MOTHER OF TEARS, the 2 MOH episodes, THE CARD PLAYER and SLEEPLESS were all better than what Craven has done since SCREAM 2. Of course, Argento has made more films so it allows for more good and bad ones but Craven has clearly gone off and I think the lack of passion in his films is very telling. Even if we go back to 1990 how many good films has Craven done? He always does great with comeback movies (HILLS, NOES, SCREAM) but he usually follows these up with a string of very bad movies.



Quote:

For me, the only good work that Argento has done in the last 25 years is the Master Of Horror episodes (I haven't seen Giallo yet though). In that same time frame, Craven did New Nightmare, Scream, Scream 2 and Red Eye (I think it's underrated) and any of those are better than anything that Argento has done in the same time frame.


In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not the biggest fan of Argento. The only movies that I am a big fan of are Deep Red & Suspiria and I like The Bird With The Crystal Plumage & Opera but I don't even really like the rest of his 1970's and 80's work that many people consider classics.

 

[Patrick Sun]

The film starts of with a lot of meta-scenes about the Scream genre, using a fabricated slasher movie franchise "Stab" and its multitude of sequels to comment on cinematically going back to the well far too many times. Then it settles into the main story of having Scream survivor Sydney Prescott returning to her hometown for a book signing, and the Ghostface killings start all over again, along with the creepy phone calls and attacks on the victims.

I was actually pretty surprised by all the actresses in the opening meta-scenes. The onscreen pairing on Courtney Cox and David Arquette was a little on the awkward side. Neve Campbell reprises her role as Sydney. Alison Brie's PR agent character cracked me up for her desire to use the return of Ghostface to garner more book sales for Sydney. The script litters the film with red herring characters who could possibly be Ghostface.

The final act was actually pretty silly and nutty, and they could have even strung it out by a few more minutes to wring even more menace out of the scenes.

I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of B-.

 

[Chad R]

Meh.


That's probably the best way to describe my feelings. I mean, they make a big deal about poo-pooing the current state of the genre as if it's torture porn, but horror has pretty much moved on from that into the found footage craze. So not only does this movie seem late to the game for the slasher craze, it's late to the game for the other sub-genres it name checks. Even its larger theme of instant celebrity in the age of YouTube and social media has been played out in the media. All of that coupled with the fact that this is an eleven years later sequel makes the whole affair seem like it's two days late to the prom.


The scares are rather mechanical, as if Craven is too overconfident. Whereas the first two films gave you the impression that he was behind the camera saying, "I bet this will scare them." Now it feels like he's saying, "I know this will scare them." Problem is it doesn't.


Another clear issue is that characters actually say that a problem with horror is that the characters aren't developed, and then the film really fails to develop the characters. None of the new kids rise above caricatures, which are really only ciphers for the first film's characters (another thing the script chooses to literally say out loud). The returning characters are just the sum of who they were 15 years ago, i.e. the bumbling cop, the bitchy reporter, and the traumatized by tragedy girl. That's it? In ten years they haven't matured or grown at all? I mean if you're going to criticize others for something, like having flimsy characters, you better be damn careful to not be guilty of it as well. Simply saying you're aware of it doesn't excuse you from doing it.


And although the motives for the killers in all of the movies doesn't really sell that these people would butcher people, most of them friends, so ruthlessly, this one is just the weakest of all.


But most of all, this movie made me feel old. Really old.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Chad R


I do agree about wishing they had done more with the characters. I like a movie that gets to its point rather than going on and on for 2 and a half hours but this was a rare time where I wish the movie had some more scenes to get know, at least, the new characters better.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I'm just curious but are parts 5 and 6 already a go or was the studio pretty much waiting to see how this one did? It seems like the film got off to a good start on Friday but crashed and burned on Sat. and Sun.


Re: Character Development


SCREAM 4 does run nearly a lot shorter than the other three movies so this might explain why some of the development isn't there. I know some people are saying the film is "shining the light on current films that don't offer development" but I find this to be a rather weak argument. It really does seem like Williamson and Craven knew that the "new" characters were copies of the original so it was almost like we were suppose to take what we knew of the original characters and apply it to these new ones. I thought it was a tad bit lazy. We DID know the "old" characters so they didn't have to really give us too much detail on them, although I am curious where Dewey's limp went and why his wife is just now starting to hate the small town. It would have also been interesting to know what was going on the past eleven years but I'm guessing this stuff had to be left out since they weren't just going for a straight sequel.

I'll check the film out again when it's released to DVD but having thought about the film some more it seems I'm just getting more and more disappointed.

 

[TravisR]

^ My understanding is that everyone is contracted for a fifth and sixth movie but I saw Craven say that after doing My Soul To Take and Scream 4 back to back, he planned on taking some time off and living life so it doesn't sound like they planned on getting another Scream movie out in 2012. While I certainly enjoyed this one, I don't see any problem with letting the series go off into the sunset after this one either.


As for Dewey's limp and nerve damaged hand, it seemed like it got alot better between parts 2 and 3 so I guess it got even better between 3 and 4.

 

[Chad R]

Based on its lackluster box office, I can't see this series going on. I think this was the last. They should have quit at two.


I read another review that lamented that the film didn't do more with the "torture porn" angle. For the generation of kids in high school now, that IS their image of horror. They grew up on it. They embraced it up until recently. And that should have been dealt with in this one. They could have framed it as a joke even. Imagine, one of the kids wakes up in an elaborate trap that seems like it's going to rip them to shreds, but instead of being killed by it, Ghostface merely jumps out and stabs them instead. Would have easily fit into the false openings and have gone a much longer way in acknowledging the influence of "Saw" rather than just summarily dismissing it.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Chad R

I read another review that lamented that the film didn't do more with the "torture porn" angle.

I'm glad they didn't really take any shots at torture porn (I hate that term) movies because it would have been way too late to say something relevant or new about those movies. Outside of the Saw series, Hostel was the only really successful torture porn movie and that's already more than 5 years old so why take a shot at basically two movies that are already mostly forgotten and percieved as old by a large chunk of the audience?

 

[Chad R]

Originally Posted by TravisR



I'm glad they didn't really take any shots at torture porn (I hate that term) movies because it would have been way too late to say something relevant or new about those movies. Outside of the Saw series, Hostel was the only really successful torture porn movie and that's already more than 5 years old so why take a shot at basically two movies that are already mostly forgotten and percieved as old by a large chunk of the audience?

Problem is, though, the slasher film is even older and more forgotten. And Saw was a huge part of the genre for the last ten years. Scream 4 was more about Craven's and Williamson's sensibilities and not reactive to the audience of the last ten years. There's almost a sense that Williamson was saying "shame on you" for watching those movies instead of accepting that audiences moved on from the Scream films.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Thanks Travis. If the series does go on I think they're getting to the point where one of the "big 3" need to either die or turn out to be the killer. Knowing they're going to live isn't the best thing IMO. I'm not sure how people would react but I somewhat thought they might try to make Campbell the killer here.


I was lucky as I pretty much stayed away from EVERYTHING involving this movie after posting my original thoughts on it getting made. I didn't see a trailer, an interview, read a synopsis or anything else. Since watching the movie I've read around more and it seems that a lot of this screenplay was originally meant to be SCREAM 3 but of course we know what happened with Williamson. I do wonder if the "book/healing" was meant to be in part 3 and they changed it around to the (IMO) silly Hollywood stuff.

 

[TravisR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chad R


Problem is, though, the slasher film is even older and more forgotten.

I think that the gap between the heyday of the slasher movie and Scream's release is what made it a fun homage/playful mockery though. It would have been totally different if Scream had been made right on the heels of the slasher boom. If there was a movie in, say, 2020 that makes fun of torture porn, it might have the same vibe that Scream had. I think to make fun of torture porn today would just feel too late or, even worse, it would feel like one of those Wayans brothers parody movies.

Originally Posted by Michael Elliott

Thanks Travis. If the series does go on I think they're getting to the point where one of the "big 3" need to either die or turn out to be the killer. Knowing they're going to live isn't the best thing IMO. I'm not sure how people would react but I somewhat thought they might try to make Campbell the killer here.


I was lucky as I pretty much stayed away from EVERYTHING involving this movie after posting my original thoughts on it getting made. I didn't see a trailer, an interview, read a synopsis or anything else.

Maybe I'm a sucker but I was wondering if Gale was going to die when she got attacked in the barn.


I didn't read anything about the movie either but I watched the commercial that played during the Scream Awards on Spike months ago and I saw a trailer before Your Highness. I actually considered getting up and leaving the theater until the trailer ended but the only thing that the trailer really spoiled was Alison Brie's body getting tossed off the building onto the news van.

 

[Paul D G]

Originally Posted by Michael Elliott

Especially what happened to Sidney's character during the final showdown. Reminded me of the torture porn, which I thought Craven and Williamson were against.

I'm not sure what the above is referring to. I can't think of anything that happened to Sidney that ran along the lines of torture porn.


As a fan of horror I have to say I never really cared for the Scream franchise. I've seen them all (once) but found them too meta to be enjoyable ("this is when we have a party and a bunch of us gets killed of so let's have a party!"). And it drives me nuts when movies like this act like the only horror movies out there are Friday the 13th, Elm Street, and Texas Chainsaw (The only thing that annoys me more is when characters are so obviously named Craven, Voorhees, Romero, etc). I wish they'd refer to other horror films to clue moviegoers in to seek them out (ie REC, Martyrs, Eden Lake, etc). I was surprised to see a Wolf Creek poster in the classroom and now I wish I'd paid more attention in case there actually was a poster to something I haven't seen yet.