“Scream” spawned two sequels, further changing the landscape of slasher films, and managing to follow the same formula as every other film franchise to precede it.
“Scream 4,” set 10 years after the final “Scream” sequel, revisits the original location of the first movie, sleepy Woodsboro. Coincidentally, the heroine, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) of the trilogy is back in town, along with her two cronies, the reporter and the sheriff (Courtney Cox and David Arquette). They quickly have to solve another series of murders, before the new Ghostface killer can add them to his list.
The Story
Josh Phillips: I remember the impact of the original “Scream,” and I have to say I was pleased for the revitalization of the genre. The smirking irreverent love it showed for a genre that had grown stale after multiple sequels of masked, mute or mutilated killers was refreshing and took the overused supernatural element out of the equation, making the business of murdering people more realistic.
Brandon Cone: Despite a dislike for movies that make me jump, the “Scream” films have a special place in my heart because this series started while I was in my teens. It felt like “my series,” unlike “Nightmare on Elm Street,” “Halloween” and “Friday the 13th,” which came before my time.
JP: Unfortunately, this sequel attempted to recreate the same tone by using the same now-tired conventions it helped to create, with the same actors and characters. It came off as tired, but above all, it presented itself as nothing more than a rant against social networking sites, cell phones, the Internet, the media and even the same style of movie it helped to rejuvenate. Like a bratty child, really.
BC: It almost seems like there is a resentment toward the popularity of the original trilogy from all involved with the film, and I can definitely see why it would be there. What have any of them really done since “Scream 3?”
JP: The dialogue is full of the forced wit that all movie dialogue uses now, thanks to the franchise’s original screenwriter Kevin Williamson and others, such as Joss Whedon and Diablo Cody. But, really, it’s in essence the same dialogue from 15 years ago, with some not-so-subtle stabs at those films that have supplanted the series, as in “Saw” and any of the U.S. remakes of Asian horror films. Seen it, done it, got the headache to prove it.
BC: For a movie that was meant to rejuvenate not only a series, but a genre, it falls pretty flat. I’m sure there will probably be another “Scream” someday, whether we like it or not.
The Players
JP: Mr. Cone and I were trying to remember any films Campbell has done post-“Scream”, but we couldn’t think of much, other than “Wild Things.” Sad that she had to revisit this franchise, and sadder that it was so unoriginal. She’s still annoying, to add insult to injury.
BC: I don’t want to give anything away, but the one thing Josh and I wanted to see in this film just didn’t come to fruitition. That, too, left a bad taste in our mouths.
JP: Cox and Arquette, still on the jag about their failed marriage and drug-addled shenanigans, are tired imitations of their earlier characters. They were just going through the motions, I swear. Like a bored married couple.
BC: It was interesting to see the path the filmmakers have taken Dewey and Gale, but there wasn’t any true character growth. They were still just witless calves for the slaughter.
JP: I can give kudos to young Emma Roberts, for her performance in the last quarter of the movie, but not much else. Hayden Panettiere is dull and aggravating, along with another of the Culkin brood, who desperately needs a haircut and some exposure to sunlight.
BC: For being the “young stars” of the movie, these three were mostly underwhelming.
JP: The kid playing Jill’s ex-boyfriend, some unfamous kid I’ve never heard of, was about as interesting as an IRS audit. He did have a painful and impressive death, though. There were a number of appearances by some familiar faces, with character names that should ring a bell to lovers of the horror/slasher genres.
BC: There were a number of familiar faces in this flick, but that just helped with the “Whodunnit?” aspect. None of these actors get much time on the screen, though.
The Look
JP: I have complained before about the use of CGI blood in recent movies, but the blood they used here was almost worse, either too dark or fake-looking to convince me. I’m no expert in gushing blood, but the red stuff here was just not right. But, at least it wasn’t spraying everywhere, with the exception of one scene. And no one was dismembered or horrendously mutilated, like that crap in the “Saw” franchise. I just can’t fathom why anyone enjoys that kind of thing. “Torture-porn” indeed.
BC: That’s a line from “Scream 4,” by the way. You know, one of those barbs throw at other franchises. Josh doesn’t usually say things like that on his own.
JP: No explosions or other call for high-falutin’ special effects. And rightly so, as there is no place for that kind of thing in proper slasher films. And thankfully, Wes Craven was dead-set against shooting this in that current studio-favorite, 3-D. I am against gimmicks, and despite the claims to the contrary, Hollywood’s addiction to this technology is nothing more than that.
BC: This might also be a good time to point out that for a movie that was supposed to be “horror,” it wasn’t scary. This biggest jump I had in the whole thing was a car speeding by. Seriously. Ask Josh.
JP: In short, I found this movie predictable, derivative of a genre it recreated, and a sad testament to the fact, as Mr. Cone put it, Wes Craven has lost his touch. Let’s hope the paltry box-office results for this turkey will put a big hunting knife in any further attempts to carry on this series.
http://marshfieldmail.com/entertainment/at_the_movies/scream-butchers-its-genre/article_d28467b7-721a-5bf8-aa99-f3b807a43237.html
No comments:
Post a Comment