Showing posts with label scream. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scream. Show all posts

Scream 7 Spoilers!

MARCH 5, 2026

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: MY OWN THOUGHTS!

As I did for the last one, I thought I would write a second "review" of sorts for Scream 7 where I go in detail about my issues with the film's third act, since (also like S6) I think the film is really good until the reveals start coming in, at which point the movie nosedives. I don't think it's AS crippling as the last one, because the reveal there was not only weak but also once again revealed the characters to be idiots (as I mentioned in my traditional review: the fact that it was Richie's entire family means that Sam, Kirby, AND Gale all managed to somehow remain ignorant of their existence, despite dating, investigating, and writing about him, respectively), and this one is merely just weak. But considering this was Kevin Williamson's grand return to the series, I can't help but feel more disappointed that the screenwriter's big unmasking was the least surprising in this entire franchise.

Spoilers begin... NOW!

OK, so if you're still here you either know or simply don't care that the mastermind was Jessica (Anna Camp), with Marco (Ethan Embry) as her muscle/right-hand man. They also had another guy helping them earlier whose name I already forgot, but seeing a Ghostface killed 40 minutes in was a great surprise (as was the reveal of who was driving the van that hit him) and his anonymity was part of the point, so there's nothing to complain about there. But in Camp and Embry's case, I can't imagine there's a person alive who would be surprised to see their faces under the masks, given that they are both recognizable actors who were playing absolute nothing roles. Especially Embry, whose sole purpose (and *only* scene prior) is to show up and try to convince Sid (read: the audience) that Stu is still alive, a concept I never believed for a second.

Camp at least has a little more to do, as Sid's neighbor/BFF who Williamson and Guy Busick thankfully bothered to give I think three scenes sprinkled into the narrative. But they make the same dumb mistake that they did in 6, which is to have Camp shoehorn in some backstory about their past that is too extraneous to buy as traditional character development, and merely points a big arrow at their head reading "KILLER!" As soon as she says something about having an abusive ex (just as Quinn randomly dropped the fact that she had a dead brother), we know that's going to be crucial information, and it's a shame to recall that Williamson used to be so much better at this. When Billy mentioned his mother leaving in the original, it never once came off as a clue - it played exactly as it was meant to; a clunky attempt at sympathizing with Sid re: her own mother's death, with few being being tipped off that there was any more to it.

And really, they could have fixed it easily by simply having Jessica say that she first "met" Sid when the latter was posing as Laura for her crisis hotline stint in Scream 3. Even if it wasn't the same guy, we (sadly) know how many women tend to leave one abusive partner only to end up with another (the one she refers to here is also the father of her teen son, so unless she stuck with him for a decade or so, the time wouldn't work), so it still could have played as a "how they met" thing without raising any alarms. Bonus: it would have made Jessica's grand plan a little tragic on top of everything else. She's apparently upset that Sid gave up being a Final Girl (by sitting out of New York, a recurring theme in the movie) and wants Tatum (Sid's daughter) to take over as America's premiere survivor, which is kind of silly even for these things, but at least could have been a bit sad if Jessica had spent the past 25 years worshiping Sid for helping her with her own struggles only to be crushed by the latter's decision to live a normal life instead of continuing to fight Ghostfaces.

All that said, I can forgive the "why" if the "who" is at least satisfying. As stupid as the whole "Stu survived!" thing was to me, it would honestly be better to do a repeat killer than have two people we've barely met take off the masks, with their recognizable faces ("It's the Pitch Perfect girl!") doing the majority of the work for whoever in the audience might not have figured it out long before that. I didn't exactly take a stopwatch to the screening, but I'd bet $63.6m that no previous Ghostface has had less screentime than either of the main culprits here (again, the other guy was anonymous by design so I don't care about him). It just baffles me that no one involved thought to say "Hey, fans love going back and figuring out which killer performed which kill, and that can't happen here because neither killer had enough involvement with the story for their whereabouts to be determined at any given time." Again, Embry is in ONE SCENE! Who could possibly be satisfied with that reveal?

As for Stu, as I mentioned in my main review, Matthew Lillard is clearly having a good time reprising his role, and he hasn't lost any of that manic energy (if you've followed his later work, he's actually a solid and fairly subtle dramatic actor, so it's fun to see him go big again). It's a shame that pre-release casting news spoiled most of the other cameos from now-dead cast members (there was one they didn't, and it was a great little "Whoa!" moment for me), because it basically answered the movie's central mystery of "Is Stu really alive or is this AI?" right from the start. We know without a doubt that Dewey, Roman, etc. are dead (Stu is, I think, the only GF with the slightest chance of having survived) but thanks to pre-release publicity we also know they're going to be in it, and this isn't a supernatural series. So therefore, AI/deep-fake nonsense will be coming into play, and in turn Stu is clearly among the killer's pixelated creations. Without their casting known (David Arquette even has his name on the poster!), if Stu was the only returning "dead" person, the mystery could have actually worked to some degree. For a series that started as a commentary on horror films and their fans, it's weird that Scream 7 would actually work best if you watched it in a total vaccuum and (re: the two killers) without having seen any other movies besides the previous Screams, so that Embry and Camp wouldn't be any more recognizable to you than the handful of newcomer actors playing Tatum's friends.

Speaking of them, I will give the movie this much of a win over S6: at least the deaths are all of named characters. Yes, Ghostface is once again incapable of killing anyone we really like (Joel McHale, welcome to the "Somehow survived several brutal stabbings" club!), but I was surprised that literally ALL of Tatum's friends get killed off. The body count is a little lower than the last one, but I'll always take 5-6 named characters over a dozen randos. It's a little weird how they're spaced out though; after the surprisingly early death of Hannah (McKenna Grace's character) - which was far and away the best designed one, very Argento-y - no one dies for a bit and then he wipes out the rest of her friends in a matter of minutes right as the third act kicks into gear. Paying homage to The Burning, maybe? (On the subject of the body count: once we get the motive, we then realize the opening kill is pointless. Why would Sid care about that?)

Like I said in the main review, the movie mainly won me over thanks to the Sid and Gale stuff, but the more I think about the whole Ghostface plot, the sloppier it feels, so it might end up slipping back under 6 over time. I was happy to see a scarier and more stalker-y version of the guy again, but when it's all in service of such a weak killer plot, with absolutely ZERO tension to the mystery of who was behind it, I suspect that stuff won't be as fun on repeat viewings, especially when (again) there's no possible way to determine which one was responsible for this or that kill. The monster opening weekend practically guarantees another one, so I hope when that day comes that they really take their time to come up with a solid mystery again. Give us the red herrings! Give us a scene where one killer is trying to convince Sid (or whoever) that the other person is the killer! GIVE US A REASON TO REWATCH THE DAMN THING!!!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Scream 7 (2026)

FEBRUARY 25, 2026

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PRESS SCREENING)

As I am back to pretty much full time in the office as opposed to working from home, I no longer have the time to rewatch a franchise before a new entry. And let's face it, with a movie like Scream 7, I hardly NEEDED to refresh my mind - I've been there on opening weekend for every single entry, and watched them all multiple times since (even the ones I don't care for as much!). But I do at least usually rewatch the previous entry and, if time allows, one other random one just for the hell of it. So I sighed my way through VI again (that third act gets worse with every viewing, folks) and then, for my random one, I opted for Scream 3.

That may surprise those who know me, as I've never exactly been enamored by that one, but over the years I've come to like it a little more than I used to (in fact, Scream 4 now takes my bottom slot). However, the real reason I picked that one is because Kevin Williamson was returning to the series in full force for the first time since Scream 2, as his contributions to 3 and 4's screenplays were largely overwritten by Ehren Kruger and his presence on 5 and 6 were kind of ceremonial at best. So I had a feeling that, for him, this would be a sort of "true" Scream 3 - not that he'd be erasing the entries in between or anything, but sort of taking it back to basics and doing something along the lines of what he would have done had he been able to work on the original Scream 3 as much as he did with the first two. (The return of Matthew Lillard as Stu, which has been publicized to the point that his name is on the poster, also suggested this, since Williamson's original idea had a surviving Stu be the mastermind behind that film's plot. More on Lillard later.)

But even if I was way off, I'd still be grateful for my random selection, because there's a moment in Scream 3 I love that really kind of sets up what I enjoyed most about this entry, and I'm glad it was fresh in my mind. It's about halfway through the movie, when Sid finally arrives in Los Angeles and sees Dewey. After their big hug and hello, Sid takes a pause and says "...is she OK?", meaning Gale. It's a perfectly played moment; Sid and Gale are not exactly besties, and there's some deserved animosity toward the latter, but they had been through this crap together *twice* by that point, and at the end of the day, Gale did save her life, so she can't help but care about the woman even if she's probably hoping for another excuse to smack her in the face. This "frenemy" status is confirmed a scene later, when they meet and share an awkward hug. But since then, we hadn't gotten much of this dynamic; they don't interact much in 4, and in 5 their pairing is motivated more by their shared love of Dewey than any real affection for each other, and then of course in 6 Sid doesn't appear at all.

That unlikely bonding they now have drives a lot of their scenes together here, and while obviously people are coming for a fresh round of Ghostface attacks, for my old ass-who has watched these two characters grow along with me for three decades-I absolutely adored how their relationship is handled here. Gale doesn't enter the story until about 45 minutes in (and does so in absolutely spectacular, crowd-pleasing fashion), and doesn't have much to do in the climax, but she spends nearly every one of her scenes with Sid, and their long, strained history is at the forefront of nearly every one of those encounters. Gale, suffering extreme nerve damage from her near-fatal attack in 6, assumes that since this new Ghostface is after Sid and her daughter specifically that Sid will be proactive and joining her old pal for another crime solving adventure, and is dismayed that Sid just wants to run and keep her daughter safe. I won't run through every one of their conversations, but there's one that genuinely made me tear up, as it offered what may be the first time in this series that Sid actually felt sorry for Gale, and also realizing that despite her fame-seeking demeanor, the woman has done a hell of a lot more for her over the years than she has in return. It's lovely!

But then Ghostface calls again and ruins the whole thing.

OK that's being a bit harsh. But while I enjoyed the movie overall (more than the last one, at least after this one viewing), I can't help but feel that they have officially run out of ideas for the mystery plots. I thought 6's reveal was clunky and plot-hole ridden (still trying to understand how neither Sam, Gale, OR Kirby were totally in the dark about Richie's family), but at least the usual "I'm out for revenge for killing my kid!" thing makes sense. Here, not only is the identity of the killer almost laughably easy to pin (thankful that Dermot Mulroney had the decency to not even bother with an unmasking scene, since it was so obvious - when the killer takes their mask off here, it's as anticlimactic as any such moment has been in this entire franchise), but their motive is utter nonsense, to the extent that I turned to my friend and said "Wait, what?" I mean, to be fair, these people are lunatics, so I guess it kind of tracks that their motive will be equally insane, but it sure doesn't make for a very exciting reveal (also, once we know what their motive was... what exactly was the point of the opening scene?). And as I've noted more than once: nailing the final reel is absolutely crucial to these things, because that's what we're gonna leave on. It doesn't matter how good the first 90 minutes are (and they are, for the most part, quite good here), if it's all building to a wet fart, it's gonna be hard to justify further viewings. Think about the first time you rewatched the OG Scream and noticed that winking nod from Billy to Stu when the former showed up at the party (after killing Tatum) and how fun that was - there's nothing like that here. You'll know who it is as soon as they appear, leaving only the "Why?" to your imagination, and I'm guessing whatever you come up with will probably be more satisfying than what these writers did.

That said, I was charmed by the fact that (minor spoiler, maybe?) Sid's book plays a part in the big "Why I am doing this" speech. Again, Williamson hasn't exactly been a driving force behind the storytelling since the 2nd film, and I wouldn't have been surprised if he flat out ignored 3-6. But no, every single sequel has some kind of connection here, without any kind of retconning or erasing (for those who were fretting about how Sidney clearly had more than one child in 5 - it's explained: the younger girls are off at their paternal grandparents for the week, and we can just assume that the 17ish Tatum, who would have been 12 or 13 in 5's events, was just at school or something). But apart from Chad and Mindy's appearance (which is brief and largely pointless, though I maintain that Mason Gooding is so effortlessly charming that I will forgive the clunkiness just to spend a few minutes with him again), you could honestly pick up from 3, maybe even 2, and not really feel like you're missing out on anything, character-wise.

And actually, if you go from 2, you'll be spared the rest of the fans' agony that Sidney's cop husband Mark is not the same cop named Mark that was clearly set up as a love interest in 3. Scheduling/salary stuff prevented Patrick Dempsey from returning as planned, but since 5 and 6 both went out of their way to establish that Sid was married to "Mark" (as an easter egg for fans), they had to keep the name here. Why he had to still be a cop, I have no idea (Sid has a type?), but Joel McHale makes the most of it, especially in his flirty bedroom scene with Sid, which is basically the first/last time we see her smile in the entire movie. No reference to Dempsey's Mark is made, though given the numerous rather catty jokes about Sid not being in New York (a story decision also dictated by salary squabbles) I wouldn't be surprised if there was a petty line about ol' Detective Kincaid in the script at one point.

Mark 2.0 is also written out as a suspect extremely early, which is weird. Yes, we can expect more than one killer (only Scream 3 tried a solo venture, and given its generally low popularity among fans, I can't imagine them ever trying it again), but GF attacks him at around the 30 minute mark with no other witnesses, so if it was an intentional way to throw us off, it would be a big cheat (in 4, whenever Jill was "attacked," she was with Sid or Kirby at the time), only failing to get the kill due to his trademark clumsiness. Again, the mystery is totally bungled here, with a shocking lack of red herrings, most of whom are canceled out within moments of their introduction for one reason or another, but they could have at least let McHale be a reasonable suspect for a little while, and a few edits could have allowed it to be so.

Especially when the main suspect is... (big spoiler here for those who haven't paid attention to any casting news) Stu Macher. Again, Williamson toyed with the idea of making him the mastermind in 3, and ever since, fans have clung to the idea that he never actually died. They even bring this up in 6, and when Lillard was actually announced as returning in this one, my heart sank a little, because I found it to be an incredibly stupid idea. I know this series can be sloppy in retrospect as each new sequel tries to rewrite some old history (i.e. Gale writing books about people but apparently never looking at a family photo), but even by their standards, I cannot for one second believe that in the FIVE times that a new Ghostface has popped up in these peoples' lives since Stu got a TV dropped on him, no one ever said "Could it be Stu?" if he somehow survived and was merely locked up somewhere. And if he was in hiding all this time, what the hell was he waiting for, for 30 years? You'd think he'd want to at least help out his successors and make sure he got the death blow himself. I won't spoil the particulars of his appearance, but I will say it was actually rather fun to see him again (especially since we've gotten two revivals of Billy) and Lillard seemed to be having fun with his part, despite his brilliant quote about how he appreciates what it did for him but ultimately doesn't care about the character (he likened it to a plumber still caring about a toilet he fixed decades ago). I saw somewhere that people were upset that the series was going the supernatural route, but that's not the case. That said, even a straight up Jason-style undead zombie Stu would be better than what they came up with instead.

Luckily the chases/kills themselves are largely fantastic, and as a result this is certainly the scariest entry since 2. 6 has some good setpieces (the ladder, the convenience store) but they're held back by the film's obvious inability to bring themselves to kill any returning characters. They get around that here by leaving our four returning friends largely out of harm's way (Gale never directly interacts with Ghostface once, and he flat out tells Sid that he's not going to hurt her because he wants her to suffer from seeing her daughter die) and having him focus on the daughter (named Tatum) and her friends. There's a terrific, Argento-y kind of kill involving a harness, and a moment with a beer tap that would make Mr. Voorhees proud. He also stalks more than he has in recent entries, at one point even doing a Michael Myers-style "fading in and out of the light in the background" move, which delighted me. And as bungled as the mystery might be, at least I can say "Yeah, I can see that person doing the Ghostface stuff we saw earlier", which hasn't been the case for five of the last seven murderers (I like 5 a lot, but I don't know if anything in this franchise is as silly as specifically making it clear that it's tiny Mikey Madison lifting Dewey off the ground to kill him). Alas, the flipside is that when you go back and rewatch, there can never be much of a "OK, THIS kill had to be _____, because [other killer] was accounted for" type of puzzling it out, because the culprits were so peripheral to the story anyway it could conceivably be both of them for every single kill. Now, is this better or worse than scenes like the convenience store in 6, where all THREE killers were accounted for elsewhere? You tell me.

And yet all those issues just kept getting shrugged off, because I was getting the first real full on Sid movie since 2 (she was kind of jammed into 3 as much as possible due to having scheduling issues with her show, in 4 she splits her time with the new cast, in 5 she doesn't really enter the story until the third act, and she's not in 6 at all). Neve Campbell came back firing on all cylinders; someone noted that thanks to H20 this is the 2nd time Williamson has brought back the lead for a part 7, but unlike that movie, where Jamie Lee was just playing herself instead of Laurie Strode, Campbell really does feel like the older, wiser version of that normal girl we met 30 years ago. And in a nice contrast from the OTHER return of Jamie Lee (for the DGG Halloweens), she hasn't turned her daughter into a survival expert - in fact it's the opposite, and she's sheltered her so much that the girl doesn't have much of a fight in her at all. Tatum doesn't really know much about her mom's history (at first I thought she was living under a fake name or something and the girl had no idea; she actually does know a bit, but wants to hear it from her mother, not the Stab movies and Gale's books, and Sid just brushes off such prying attempts). Sid has yet another career (now she runs a coffee shop!), but she does mention she used to act, with a note of sadness that she gave it up after her time at Windsor - another nice example of how much of her life has been affected by this stuff, and it's made clear that she's not hiding or running from it, but merely wants to stop having so much of her life being dictated by it as well, which is exactly what running would do. That she eventually finally takes a second to acknowledge how much all this misery has taken a toll on Gale is just icing on the cake - it's a legitimately great arc to play out for the actress, and while Williamson's script (with Guy Busick) may be spotty when it comes to the Ghostface stuff, it certainly doesn't let Sid down even for a second, which more than makes up for her absence last time around.

Of course, as we all know, this was not even the original plan. Whether she would have even been in it at all, I don't know, but the 7th Scream film was going to focus once again on Sam and Tara Carpenter, played by Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega, but the former was fired from the film after tweeting in support of Palestine and the latter either quit over scheduling, salary, or in solidarity with her on-screen sister, depending on who you ask. This also led to the departure of Christopher Landon (who received death threats for Barrera's firing, even though he didn't do that himself or even agree with it), forcing Paramount and Spyglass to presumably back up an armored truck to Neve Campbell's house and let Williamson direct himself, something he's only done one other time (Teaching Mrs. Tingle, all the way back in 1999). Both of these moves can only be seen as "Let's make sure fans have something to be excited about to make up for our shitty business practices," and I have to wonder if, as one final punishment to the performers, Williamson was forbidden to even MENTION their two characters. So it's a cynically made movie, and I don't blame those who are boycotting or letting that cynicism (which isn't evident on-screen; if you don't read behind the scenes stuff you'd never know anything was amiss) inform their opinion on the film itself. But luckily, at least for me, while Campbell may have been enticed more by the big paycheck than a burning desire to play this character for a sixth time, it never once shows in the finished product. And Courteney Cox, who seemed a bit bored last time around in her limited role, seems to have some of her old spark again as a result of playing off her old pal instead of a bunch of kids she has no real connection to. A silver lining to a very dark, unfortunate, and frankly icky cloud.

So ultimately, it's another mixed bag like 6, though as of this writing I will give it the edge for the strong character work, the surprisingly graphic kills (holy shit, this film's obligatory "you gotta shoot them in the head" moment), and keeping it grounded after all the worry. Yes, it's a little weird that Sam and Tara aren't mentioned (another reason why Chad and Mindy's appearance felt so forced - the "core four" split up, I guess?) and the film occasionally feels like the very sort of slasher that the first film would have name checked (in fact, outside of the cold open, no horror movies - or the Stabs - are mentioned at all unless you count a marquee showing Texas Chainsaw Massacre). But the shift back to being suspenseful while downplaying attempts to be clever/meta was a relief for me, as I just wanted to get my slasher fix in a familiar setting. That it gave my girl Sid several layers to play AND some true bonding moments with Gale that we've been denied for quite some time now? Icing.

What say you?

P.S. Since it seems relevant for these things: 1 2 5 7 6 3 4.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Scream VI Issues (Spoilers, Obviously)

I'm blessed with having many friends who are also horror fans, and as we are all of a certain age, the first Scream is very important to us. For some it was the reason they got into horror in the first place, for others (like me) it was the thing that got us BACK into our favorite genre after Hollywood largely abandoned it in the first half of the '90s and (being pre-internet and, as kids, without much money to import stuff from Japan or the UK) we didn't have much to look forward to. That we "felt seen" by the film thanks to folks like Randy and (for the next generation) Kirby, fans tend to get a little more heated and protective of the series, albeit sometimes for different reasons. The rankings for this series are absolute chaos, which is kind of beautiful in its own way, but it also means it's increasingly hard for the filmmakers to deliver a film that satisfies even the hardcore fans, because what we want out of these things seems to be very different.

Anyway, because of all this, I found myself having repeated discussions about Scream VI over the past few days, and I got tired of repeating myself. So, for that and for the fact that my review had to be vague about many elements because I didn't want to spoil anything there, here are my specific criticisms/issues with the film's third act (which is honestly where all my concerns were; the first 75 minutes or whatever are largely fantastic). Spoilers, obviously! No indvidual warnings, if you read further it's all on you! Also, I spoil Sick, so if you haven't seen that yet you a. should and b. are warned about that, too.

OK, the big problem for me was the reveal, in that it not only sucked but also rendered a lot of the movie idiotic. Having Dermot Mulroney (who was kind of terrible throughout, I thought, though at least his phoniness makes sense in retrospect) say "Of course it's me!" felt like the writers trying to get ahead of the criticism that it was pretty lazy, and that rubbed me the wrong way. Sure, you can almost always guess at least one killer just based on process of elimination or basic slasher 101 rules, but here even the damn motive was clear all along, thanks to his and Quinn's vague mentions of a dead son (or brother, to Quinn), which is the sort of thing that anyone with even a passing understanding of how movies work could tell you was a dead giveaway. The film is a little over two hours long, and so you gotta figure they were trying to get it UNDER that mark however they could - they wouldn't mention this unseen, unnamed dead person twice unless there was a reason. That it was a copy of Scream 2's "avenging parent" motive was already weak enough (it was also identical to Sick, something Kevin Williamson seemingly should have noted to them in his executive producer status), but that it was all so obvious from well over an hour before made it kind of insulting on top of it.

Similarly, having Ethan also be in on it was a huge cheat, because he was the only other person around on the subway with Mindy. There was zero reason for him to do anything but simply get off the train at their stop, something the filmmakers didn't even have to show - once she was stabbed, they could have cut back to the "Kill box" stuff and let the nearly nonstop action/reveals of that scene distract us from not knowing Mindy's fate/wondering where Ethan was. Hell, they could have gone one step further and had Chad or Tara get a text "from Mindy" saying she was off the train and almost there, rather than show us exactly what did happen. But no, we have the killer plead with strangers to help, call 911, etc, while helping her off the train to ensure she had a better chance of survival. Even if you buy into their "we are going to frame Sam" plan, it didn't make any goddamn sense at all. The only reason the scene existed was to fool the viewer, which is always a cheap, insulting move. Even S4, as sloppy as it was at times, never had Jill be attacked by Ghostface unless someone else (Sid, Kirby) was there to witness it.

Then there's everyone being indestructible, which I can at least see their point with: no one wants these beloved characters to die. I get that, even if I don't fully agree with it. Personally, I feel we should get mad, and we should believe that anyone is in danger. That's what S2 did when it killed Randy, and S5 did when it killed Dewey - and guess what my two favorite sequels are? And no it's not because I got to watch these people die, but because they gave me that heightened sense of genuine suspense, the closest thing a sequel can get to the first film's "Holy crap Drew Barrymore is already dead?" feeling of unknown territory. In those instances, I wasn't quite sure what would happen; sure, maybe Sid would forever be OK, but Gale? But here, they fell right back into S3/S4 territory, where you spend time with people who are seemingly impervious to stab wounds, and then they pad the body count with anonymous victims. Say what you will about S2 (I've recently discovered it's among the least popular entries with younger fans, not sure why that is but to each their own!), but even the most random people in the movie: Phil and Maureen in the opening and the two bodyguards for Sid, have some basic identifying traits (Maureen is a biology student and likes Sandra Bullock! Officer Andrews is a gemini who may be gay!). But I defy anyone to name Gale's boyfriend without looking it up, and even he got more of a personality than the randos in the convenience store or Quinn's bathtub boyfriend. For all their talk about how this was the most violent and bloody one yet, to me it never registered that way at all, because I didn't care one iota about the majority of the film's victims. It has the series' highest body count at 13, but only three (3) of those people were actual characters: the film professor in the opening scene, Sam's shrink, and Anika (Mindy's girlfriend). The other ten were five anonymous people (three at the store, Gale's bf, Quinn's bf) and five Ghostfaces (two opening guys - one we never see - and Richie's family).

That's just kind of gross to me. I'd trade all five of those whoever people for one death that actually meant something. Gale doesn't even blink when her boyfriend dies (she even agrees with Ghostface's joke!), and likewise Anika's death didn't seem to bother Mindy all that much; she's still making jokes and whining about "missing the monologue" a day later. So when you add that sort of thing to the fact that Gale instantly went back on her word and wrote a book about Richie (without ever so much as finding a picture of him with his family, I guess - something Kirby the Ghostface obsessed FBI agent also couldn't bother to piece together), it feels really crass that death has no affect on people (maybe because they themselves are seemingly invincible so they see dying as a weakness?). I don't have a lot to defend about S3, but even there both Gale and Sid seem affected by Cotton's death; neither of them loved the guy, but they at least gave him a moment's reflection when they heard of his passing. If death doesn't mean anything to these people, why should it mean anything to us? It was never about a body count with these movies - hell it was kind of "off brand" even in S5 when Ghostface killed that security guard (offscreen), but at least there was some logic behind it, to further isolate Tara. If their plan was to frame Sam, why chase her and her sister into a populated store (one probably with cameras) and kill three people? Answer: so we could get something unique for the trailer. For all the praise about the film's setpieces (and they are well executed, the direction is not the issue here), I started getting the suspicion that they came up with al of these sequences first and then figured out a way to string them together without a lot of thought behind it.

Short of some dumb Roman-esque "I put them up to it" reveal in the next movie, there's not much we can do about the crappy motive here. But they can still salvage their inability to let anyone actually die from their injuries (Chad in particular had such a great "death" with the quiet "Go." to Tara) by at least acting like people who were nearly dead when they all return in Scream VII. Considering Dewey at least had his nerve damage/limp, Chad should be in a wheelchair or something. Have all of them afraid to go outside, keeping all sharp objects out of their houses, something, anything. Let's not forget Chad in particular was seemingly dead last time too (his own girlfriend even thought so) - did he really seem like a guy who was that damaged only a year ago? Gale has now been shot/stabbed in her lower chest three times and survived from it - assuming she's roughly the same age as the actress who plays her, how does that affect a person who is nearly 60? Make their survival mean something besides "they're still around for the next one because we love them", because that's not a real excuse. Otherwise it seems they've lost sight of what made the Scream movies special: they took place in the "real" world, where things didn't work like they did in the junky slasher movies we loved. Jason coming back over and over is the sort of thing these characters should be scoffing at - at this point they're not much different. And when you consider that every single Scream universe character who was alive at the end of Scream 5 is still alive at the end of Scream 6, they really need to do something to justify this movie's existence in the canon for the long run, because was otherwise it was just treading water.

It bums me out. There's so much to like in the film, but nearly all of it is in the first two acts. Whiffing the reveal and repeatedly walking back mortal wounds just all feel like a waste of time in the long run; empty calories as a movie. They were on point with the previous film, so I'm just curious what went amiss this time for them to bungle the mystery so badly (hell even Roman was a better villain), and if they got scared of killing anyone ever again after last time's petitions to redo the movie and keep Dewey alive (yes, the same toxic fans the movie was mocking got toxic). I had to laugh that there was so much handwringing about Sidney's absence when it turned out to be the least of the movie's issues. Her not being there was fine, and explained well! Why WOULD she travel across the country to deal with this when there was zero indication the killer had any interest in her? There shouldn't be more perma-safe characters than actual victims in these things, and having Sid show up would just mean yet another person that THREE GHOSTFACES couldn't manage to actually kill, though she'd probably get a few stabs in the stomach yet again for the trailer. If you're not going to kill someone, don't attack them with the intent to do so! Remember in S3 when they just knocked Dewey out rather than deal him another dozen stabs he'd survive from? That's the sort of approach they should start taking to these climaxes - unconscious, but not bleeding to death for 20 minutes while the killer monologues and then just walking it off. It's Scream, guys - not Scary Movie. At least try to make it dangerous again.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Scream VI (2023)

MARCH 7, 2023

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PRESS SCREENING)

At this point, it's safe to say Scream 2 will always be my favorite sequel in the series: it has the best setpieces out of all of them, a likeable supporting cast, Sid's best hair (look - my Neve Campbell crush was half the reason I saw the first movie to begin with, leave me alone!), and - considering they had to rewrite it after leaks - a solid reveal with the whole Debbie Salt/Mrs. Loomis* thing. And it's due to those other things that makes the reveal work as well as it did: if the film wasn't so exciting (the AV chase!) and if it didn't have a big cast of people they weren't afraid to just let live/not be red herrings (Joel the cameraman, David Warner, the sorority girls, etc), maybe we would have had time to notice that Sid never saw Debbie Salt, who she'd obviously recognize (Gale did, but Debbie played it off as someone who bugged her at one of her symposiums). It's something I thought of more than once during Scream VI, which apes that film fairly often, and ultimately to an unfortunately detrimental degree.

But I'll get into that later (there will be some vague spoilers at that point, and I will warn you in advance), and for now just focus on what works. For those who don't memorize my opinions on every movie, I'll remind you that I really liked Scream 5, feeling that it successfully pulled off what 2011's Scream 4 failed to do: let the core trio of Dewey, Gale, and Sid play second fiddle to a new cast of characters that could keep the franchise going. Throughout S4 it felt that no one could decide who to focus on, and seemingly ultimately landed on "neither", leaving the movie feeling rather aimless and clunky (why does Alison Brie's nothing character get the most extended death sequence?). 2022's revival did it right, leaving our old heroes out of it entirely for a good half hour or so, and organically weaving them into the story starting with Dewey (the only one still in town). That it had some solid commentary about entitled fans and franchises pulling "requels" to appease those fans was just icing on the cake.

And it killed Dewey, and yes, that was a good thing to my eyes. Did I *want* to see Dewey die? No, of course not, I loved him and it made me sad, and on the three times I've rewatched it I keep hoping somehow it'll play out differently. But he had to die, because A. Scream 4 botched the impact of Sid's dreaded "return to Woodsboro" and they needed something of that magnitude for her to come back there (a mere injury wouldn't do), and B. we had to believe - for the first time since Cotton died at the beginning of S3 - that our characters weren't safe. It's a slasher series with a shockingly high number of survivors at the end of each movie (Jason would NEVER!), but it can go on forever if they keep introducing new characters we love (and of the four newcomers who survived Scream 5, I loved three of them - sorry Sam) in each movie while occasionally saying goodbye to others. And that doesn't even necessarily mean killing them; by now everyone knows Neve isn't in this one due to some salary disputes**, but her absence is explained quickly (Gale says she's taken her family to somewhere safe) and honestly I feel that's how it should have been even if Neve wanted to do the movie for free. Any in-movie use of Sid would either be something no one on the planet would want to see (her death, after surviving so many others) or yet another person left standing at the end of this one.

Wait, I'm jumping to the third act again when I promised to get to what works! Sorry. OK, so: the opening is TERRIFIC, featuring a surprise we haven't seen in any other film so far and - my heart! - a tip of the hat to Jason Takes Manhattan, which I've been making jokes about ever since they announced that this one would be set in New York. And the change of scenery is nice; they don't use New York much at all (it was, like JTM, shot in Canada) which is disappointing considering how much of the marketing has been focused on "Ghostface in the Big Apple!", but still, a big city is a change of pace from the others, and while the beats keep cribbing from S2 they don't even have a single scene set on the school that Tara, Chad and Mindy are all attending together (with Sam moving there too as a good protective big sister). And they use the crowds to their advantage: there's a convenience store scene where Ghostface takes out a few customers while chasing Sam and Tara, the subway scene from the teaser trailer with all the other horror icons standing around (it's set on Halloween), and the aforementioned opening murder occurs within a few feet of busy foot traffic. So while it sadly lacks a single iconic New York visual (come on guys, even Jason got to prowl around Times Square on a way lower budget!) unless you count the subway (something many big cities have), it at least makes pretty good use out of the idea of a slasher in an urban environment.

And the character work is on point; Sam and Tara's relationship is still brittle but in a different way. Whereas before Tara resented Sam for leaving, now she's sick of her overbearing ways, and feeling Sam's inability to get past what happened is forcing her to dwell on it too ("I'm not going to let three days define my entire life!" she says at one point, and somewhere Laurie Strode feels attacked). The payoff to this thread is corny but well earned, and the fact that I'm discussing the character work in part 6 of a slasher series is pretty incredible on its own, regardless of well it's executed. And Chad and Mindy are as delightful as ever; Mindy's got a new girlfriend and gets to explain the rules of franchises (I'm not sure how it's any different than a sequel, but there are some good laughs in the scene) and Chad's realizing he's got feelings for Tara, which is much better than his weird "let me track your phone" stuff in the last one. As I've mentioned in other things, I hate the common trend of modern horror (slashers in particular, but anything with a group of friends is guilty) where they seem to hate each other and/or are betraying one another, so it's always nice to see people who genuinely care for each other, repeatedly putting themselves in harm's way to protect one another, etc. Early on, Chad is trying to find a date at a party when he's informed that some frat douche is trying to hook up with a drunken Tara, and the speed in which he forgets what he's doing and rushes to protect her is so damn sweet (this is before their romantice feelings start bubbling up, to be clear).

As for the legacy folk, Gale is in three or four scenes, which felt right. They already established she lived in New York now, so it's easy enough to work her into the story, but I was disappointed she ended up writing a book about Richie anyway, despite her promise (as for whether she ALSO wrote the promised book about Dewey, we aren't told, but I'm guessing not). That said, I admit it felt a little weird to see her without the others to play off, something they try to work in by having her at odds with Kirby (from S4, if you've forgotten), who might as well have been a different character anyway - she's now an FBI agent? I kept waiting for her to announce she was just posing as one and just wanted to meet other survivors or something, but nope: she's just an FBI agent now, I guess. She gets a cute little scene with Mindy where they share horror opinions, but otherwise it felt like they wrote her in to appease the her fans without having an actual use for her, to the extent that she doesn't even come off as a genuine red herring because she was shoehorned in so awkwardly. The new characters, unsurprisingly, don't get to leave much of an impact, but I did enjoy seeing Henry Czerny as Sam's shrink, and they wring every possible bit of tension out of the series' habit of murderous love interests with Sam's new boyfriend (Josh Segarra), who lives across them and, like Derek in Scream 2, will keep you guessing about his intentions until his last on-screen moment.

Oh and they thankfully don't lean on Stab too much. After three movies in a row where it played such a big focus, I was relieved that the meta-series' usage was confined to a few mentions and visuals (the posters, mostly) in that "shrine" thing that we've seen in the trailers. The killer's hook this time around is to leave behind Ghostface masks that were used by the previous killers, which had me thinking it was all some megafan's nonsense, but as is often the case in Scream movies, once someone points out a "pattern" with the killings, the concept is basically dropped. But that's fine, because more of that probably would have meant more Stab stuff, and While part of me is still curious about what exactly those later sequels entailed (I recently learned that, in the canon, Robert Rodriguez ended up coming back to direct Stab 3 after Roman Bridger obviously couldn't finish it - what the hell was that conversation like?), I'm happy to just let the whole Stab element be backgrounded like it was here and in Scream 2, where it just propelled the opening sequence and was otherwise ignored. In fact there's little mention of real movies, either; Kirby and Mindy's scene, a few lines in the opening (in which a character specifically trashes the Stabs, heh), and the random appearances of masks via the Halloween costumes are about the extent of it. Not an issue really, but it adds to the fact that the meta jokes and commentary are toned down here, as the focus is primarily on scares and suspense, which is another thing it borrows from the second film.

(OK, HERE COME THE LOW KEY SPOILERS!!! No identities or specific deaths will be directly mentioned, but I will get into 3rd act issues and you might be able to just figure them out by process of elimination or whatever, so just be warned!!!)

So I keep mentioning Scream 2, and that's unavoidable. During her rules scene, Mindy even notes that the killer or killers are following the original pattern (yup, there are TWO patterns this time!). First time was in Woodsboro, then it was at a college - and now THEY'RE in college after dealing with him in Woodsboro. And the pacing/structure is very similar to that film (it's also over two hours long, as S2 was), Sam sends her boyfriend off by saying it's for his protection but it's also because she's not sure he can trust him, there's an outdoor daylight scene where they try to lure Ghostface out on the phone (Mindy again notes the similarity here), etc. The finale, set in the shrine, even has the giant sun from Sid's play (the thing Derek was tied to) in the background the whole time again! And, alas (vague spoiler here!) the motive is even identical to one of the killers' in S2, which I'd prob just wave off if not for the fact that the killer's identity was pretty obvious from the getgo and the actor/actress portraying them is way over the top, as if they were acting for one of the Stab movies or even "Scary Movie 6" instead of the real deal. Plus, I mentioned how the "Debbie Salt" thing worked earlier? There's nothing like that here, despite the fact that at least three characters should have been able to make a connection between the new killer and the past event their motive is tied to.

Also (spoilers again, but still no specifics) at about 80 minutes into the movie a character is brutally attacked, and they survive. And before I could even decide if it was a good or a bad thing, another character is brutally attacked... and they also survive. And then in the finale, two (2) characters are attacked even more viciously than those others were... and they BOTH survive!!! Now, I'm not bloodthirsty, and I like these people - I'm not *wishing* for their deaths or anything. But that's what we sign up for when it comes to this kind of movie, the knowledge that not everyone is going to make it. And when you're offing five people who don't even have names (two barely seen boyfriends, three people in the convenience store) to make up for it, it starts to feel weightless, and far too safe. I was no longer concerned for anyone's survival in the last half hour of the movie, which when added to the weak reveal (which also involved a cheat but I can't even begin to explain that without spoiling something, names or not) made me rapidly lose my engagement with it. I was all in for the first hour and change, but as soon as Ghostface seemingly lost their ability to actually kill anyone, my interest deflated. Dewey's survival worked in S2 because it was like an olive branch after losing Randy, plus Gale's emotional reaction to it (dropping her reporter act in the process) helped sell the moment - here it's just a parade of people brushing off what seemed like fatal wounds. It'd be like if, after they wheeled out Dewey in S2, they were also like "Oh, Derek's gonna make it too!" and then Hailey and maybe even one of Sid's bodyguards came running up to let her know they were OK as well.

I mean, I could forgive one of those two things (the "safeness" and the weak reveal) if the other was delivering the goods, but both? Not so much. As I've said for years, better a movie starts off on the wrong foot and then recovers, rather than starts strong and then whiffs it at the finish line, which means as I sat there almost rolling my eyes at the reveal (and then literally doing so at the film's final "they survived!" copout) I was starting to forget all the great stuff that came earlier, walking out feeling slightly let down. I still liked the movie overall (this has been a very consistent franchise), but for a while I was like "this could be better than 5 if they stick the landing!" and then I ended up at "well, still better than 3 or 4," which I already know this team was capable of doing. And aping my favorite sequel just made it easier for its blemishes to stick out (kind of like how part of the reason I can't enjoy F13 New Blood is because they're clearly trying to emulate Final Chapter, my favorite). I'm sure when I watch it again I'll be a little more forgiving since I'll know beforehand, not to mention knowing that the marketing was largely misleading (Ghostface's "You've never seen one like ME!" is not actually in the movie, but it's also woefully inaccurate, so that's probably for the best) but I'm just as sure that I won't be rewatching it as often as my favorite entries. But I swear, it has nothing to with Sid's absence! I didn't even miss her! Let her retire!!

Ranking: 1, 2, 5, 6, 3/4 (I keep flip flopping on those last two, so I'm just leaving it as a tie from now on). Also: the film is available in 3D, but it wasn't shot that way, and apart from the opening title I can't think of one moment that might have been fun to see with the image-dimming glasses on. I wouldn't bother unless you're a full on junkie for the format.

What say you?

* We find out her full name is Nancy Loomis in this one. Heh.

** Maybe too much of a deep cut but if Sid was somehow intrinsic to this story, JC Brandy would be the first person I'd call to replace her. It's even part 6 again! And no other series could pull off a meta joke like that and play it straight.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Scream (2022)

JANUARY 11, 2022

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PRESS SCREENING)

Despite, you know, everything, Scream (aka Scream 5, goddamn them for adding confusion!) is projected to make around 40 million dollars this weekend, which means it will outgross 2011's Scream 4's entire take in three days. One can attribute this revived enthusiasm to a variety of things: the new (and very diverse, correcting one of the few flaws of the original) cast bringing in a different set of fans, the polarizing Halloween Kills leaving slasher junkies wanting something a little more traditional, the fact that Scream 4 has found a bigger fanbase over the years (mainly from younger viewers who weren't able to see it in theaters)... but ultimately I think it boils down to one primary thing: it simply looks GOOD.

And it IS good! Really good, in fact! But - and not to shamelessly plug, I touched upon this in the newest issue of Fangoria, so apologies for repeating myself a bit here - the trailer's tone suggested that this, unlike the previous two entries, was returning to the suspense and scariness of the first film and its 1997 sequel, which until today was the only one I found to be a worthy successor. Whereas the first two films were horror movies with humor, the 3rd and 4th films were closer to comedies with some scary stuff thrown in; S4 tried to split the difference, but the tone was still a bit too light for my tastes, and there was no real sense of danger, to either our core trio of Sid, Gale, and Dewey, or the new kids who had their screentime (and thus, chance to flesh out their characters) handicapped by constantly having to step aside and let the original stars continue to be the main characters.

At this point I'll have to just warn you that there are some spoilers ahead. I will not say who the killer or killers is/are, or reveal any other surprise appearances or who dies, but I will be getting more into the film's story than the marketing has let on, because it's somewhat unavoidable. You are warned to proceed with caution, and if you want to stop now, I'll just leave you with my ranking: 1, 2, 5, 4, 3. That should more or less tell you how much you may or may not enjoy this one.

This film's all-new creative team (directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett of Ready or Not fame, writers Guy Busick and James Vanderbilt) bites the bullet and (finally!) sidelines the veteran cast members, wisely opting to focus exclusively on the new cast for like a half an hour (with the exception of Marley Shelton's Judy Hicks, who is now the sheriff but is primarily used as the mother of one of our new leads) before slowly working our old pals into the mix. Our new hero Samantha (Melissa Barrera) is a former Woodsboro resident whose sister (still living there) is attacked by Ghostface, so she returns to town and quickly realizes why someone with *that* costume might be targeting them. And so she turns to "the expert": Dewey Riley, who has retired and is no longer married to Gale, instead living in a trailer like Heath Ledger in the 3rd act of Brokeback Mountain, alone with his regrets.

Dewey in turn messages Gale and Sid, telling them that there's a new Ghostface and urging them not to come back, but as the body count starts to rise, they naturally don't listen to him. Thankfully, enough happens to make it clear that it would take some incredible 4D chess manuevering on Ghostface's part if their plan was to ruin Sidney's life, as it almost seems a surprise to them that she arrives on the scene when she does. Not that Sid is peripheral to the story (though I wasn't surprised to see Neve Campbell got the "and" billing, with her pals under "with"), but the killer's motive has to do with the whole Woodsboro history, not specifically Sid, so she is just part of the puzzle as opposed to the main focus. And even if the killer wasn't concerned with her at all, fans will absolutely adore her scenes, both in terms of where she is in her life now and how she has come to accept her seeming inability to keep Ghostface out of her life for good. It's clear the filmmakers have seen 2018's Halloween revival (indeed, it's directly mentioned in the film), but thankfully their interpretation of our girl isn't inspired by either of Jamie Lee Curtis' big returns to that franchise*; if anything it's closer to how Leia was used in the newest Star Wars films.

You might think that's an odd comparison, but it's an easy one to make since the movie cracks a joke about Rian Johnson "ruining" the Stab series by directing the 8th one, a not too subtle gag about how much whiny SW fans overreacted to his The Last Jedi (aka Episode 8). One of the new characters is Randy's niece Mindy (Jasmin Savoy Brown), who more or less fills in his duties as the one who knows how these things work, so it falls on her to clue her less astute pals into what they're dealing with. In a very well done scene with all the new kids plus Dewey, she's the one who explains that remakes are no longer in vogue and what people like now are "requels", in which new characters are blended with the older ones (it's here that she references Halloween, but the new Star Wars films are the better example). And yeah, that's kind of what Scream 4 was doing as well, but as those namechecked movies - which didn't exist yet - proved, we don't need to center everything around the older stars, and it can occasionally even work better without them. Without spoiling any particulars, a Scream 6 COULD have older characters back, but honestly, this film's efforts have demonstrated that they can be left out of it entirely and the film will still be appealing. I might not have been as excited for this film without their return (as they did a lot of heavy lifting to legitimize it as a real Scream movie when Wes Craven was obviously not involved and Kevin Williamson's participation was largely ceremonial), but if Paramount announces that Scream 6 will focus on the new survivors and leave the old guard out of it, I'd certainly be just as interested, if not more so.

And that's one place they succeeded where Scream 4 failed, at least for me. By constantly working the legacy characters into the story and once again having the killer blame Sidney for the misfortunes in their own life, the new cast in S4 never got a chance to come into their own, and then the script killed them all off anyway (except for maybe Kirby, whose fate is finally cleared up in this one), making it seem like two hour exercise in returning things to status quo. That's not how this one plays out; everything is from the POV of Sam or her sister Tara (Jenna Ortega), and by the end you will care as much about them and the others (Sam's boyfriend Richie, Tara's girlfriend Amber, Mindy and her brother Chad, Judy's son Wes, etc) as much as you did Randy, Tatum, etc. And, without giving away names or numbers, I think it's safe to say the script wisely leaves more than just one or two of them alive to see a Scream 6 if one should be commissioned.

But fear not, this isn't a tame film by any means. Craven probably spun in his grave if they were able to pass this film with minimal MPAA issues, as it is BRUTAL. Not torture-y, thankfully (Scream 4 was the time to tackle that aspect of horror, and they blew it), but Ghostface is more stab-happy than he's been since he killed Randy, as nearly every victim is stabbed multiple times, with copious amounts of blood and even the occasional prosthetic gag (someone gets it in - and back out of - their neck, it's gnarly as hell). One victim's pool of blood legit left me unsettled, though part of it was that they were one of the film's most endearing characters and I was sad to see them go. The body count may not be as high as some of the others, but the kills all matter, and the new team establishes a real sense of menace that allows the tension to keep rising in ways the previous two sequels lacked. At one point I legit feared for Sidney's life - that hasn't happened in 25 years (let's not forget early drafts of Scream 2 did leave her mortally wounded, so it's not like the idea is completely out of the question).

They're also hellbent on being suspenseful again, teasing out many kill scenes and utilizing our familiarity with horror to their advantage. There's a great sequence where a would-be victim - in a house where we know Ghostface is lurking - manages to find a way to open multiple doors and then close them, with our expectations (aided by Brian Tyler's score, which is quite good and a fine replacement for Marco Beltrami) deflated over and over as we expect the killer to suddenly be there when the door is closed. There are some really good moments involving everyone pointing fingers with others not knowing who to believe (shades of the bit in the original where Randy and Stu are both accusing the other), and while there aren't a lot of full on chase scenes, there is one good one involving a "Find Me" app that is not only a good sequence but also checks off the "use new technology" box that S4 sometimes over-relied on. There's nothing as scary as that opening from the original or as well crafted as the AV room chase in S2, but there is a clear intent to *aim* for those highs, and they occasionally get real close. I mean, I'm 42 years old in a few weeks - I can't expect to be jumping out of my chair like I did all those years ago when he appeared on the other side of the window with Casey. But by emphasizing suspense and not undercutting the horror moments with comedy as much as the previous sequels (hell, even 2 did this a bit), I barely noticed.

Fear not though, it still has some solid humor. Again, tonally it's very much in line with the first two films, but when they do go for a laugh, it actually works. An early victim scoffs at movies like Stab, saying she prefers "elevated horror" like The Witch and The Babadook, Sid and Gale's sort of jaded attitude about having to deal with another of these guys is hilarious (at one point they see someone crying for help, bleeding, and they stop to discuss whether or not it's a trap) and there is a gag about Dewey texting Gale that floored me. There are also some great easter eggs/jokes for hardcore fans; as a little nod to Williamson, a character watches Dawson's Creek in the hospital (and the particular episode they chose was... well, you'll see. But Josh Jackson wasn't the only Scream veteran to be on the show, I'll leave it at that!). And I advise you to listen very carefully to Gale's morning show monologue, as well as train your eye at the "related videos" when someone watches a review of Stab 8 on Youtube.

On that note, there's something in the film I found very smart in addition to satisfying a personal pet peeve: empty text message histories! The logic of filmmakers is that characters never have older messages on their screen when they are texting plot matters to other characters, because the audience will be distracted trying to read the other ones and the editor doesn't want to have the phone on screen that long. Which I get in a way, but it still drives me insane when I see someone text their boyfriend for what appears to be the first time in their life. Here, most of the screens do indeed have older, inconsequential messages above the one they're typing, BUT! there are two exceptions, which stand out in this film of otherwise loaded text screens and quickly tells us, without having to spell it out, that these are characters who are no longer on speaking terms. It's just a little thing, but it just goes to show how much thought they were putting into the film's reality, instead of the indifference that peppered the previous two entries.

As for the killer or killers, I obviously can't get into that too much; maybe by the time it comes to Blu-ray I can do a "Collins' Crypt" style piece somewhere with my thoughts (and I have plenty!). However, I will say that their motive was not only more interesting than "I just want to be famous", but also pretty spot on and even somewhat worrisome, circling back in a modern way to the "blame the movies" idea in a way that actually makes some interesting points about modern fandom. I do wish there could have been something more personal along with it to match Billy's second motive (the one that seemed to surprise even Stu), that Sid's mother is the reason his own mother left, but since the premise of the film is built around people with connections to the original crew (Randy's niece and nephew, the new owners of Stu's house, etc.) I suppose it might veer into silly territory if there was yet another link.

Ultimately, I have very few complaints. One is just a "me" thing - I pegged (a or the) killer pretty early on, which I attribute to just overdosing on these things; it's not a dealbreaker, but I wish I had turned out to be wrong just to remind me that I don't, in fact, know everything when it comes to slasher movies. Another is more valid: there's a third act attempt to have us suspecting a character who we had previously seen being menaced by Ghostface when they were otherwise alone, which might have worked somewhere in the *first* act, but by that point we knew the film was too smart/careful to try to pull that sort of nonsense on us, so I wish they had rethought their approach. It'd be like Ghostface-Stu stabbing Billy without Sid in the room to see it. And that aforementioned use of Stu's house is treated as a big reveal, complete with a "dun dun DUNNNNN" zoom out of the doorway to reveal the exterior, which cuts into the tension of the moment for something that viewers would have already realized anyway (the interior hasn't changed much!) or still won't really understand the significance.

But I mean, come on. Two of my three complaints are nerdy nonsense, which should tell you how much they got right in my eyes. My main disappointment had nothing to do with the movie, it was simply that Scream 4 exists. When Dewey calls Sid and tells her "it's happening again", marking her first appearance in the movie, you almost wish that you could imagine a. it's been 20 years since we last saw her and b. it's been even longer since she had been back in Woodsboro. Alas, Scream 4 already stole that "Sid finally returns home" thunder, so it's not quite as impactful (I liken it to how much better Terminator: Dark Fate might have fared as the "return of Arnold" (post-Salvation) if not for the awful/earlier Genisys) as it could have been if not for a film that otherwise gave her so little to do. This film doesn't erase S4, but, kind of like how Die Hard with a Vengeance seems more naturally progressing from the first film as opposed to Die Harder, perhaps the reason they didn't want to call the film Scream 5 is because what it really feels like at times is that they wanted to be a truer followup to Scream 3 (there's another easter egg involving Sid that backs up this theory; if you're hazy on the 3rd one, I'd advise a rewatch or, at the very least, a reading of the cast list). And if that was indeed their intent, for my money they succeeded admirably. I'm tough to please with these things, and all I really wanted was for it to be better than the last two movies, even if only by a little, but instead I walked out as happy as I did with Scream 2 all those years ago. I had doubts, but they truly nailed it.

What say you?

P.S. I cried at the final dedication to Craven. If you've purchased Collins' Crypt: Remastered and read the new piece in the Wes-centric chapter, you know that I've been feeling guilty wanting to see this movie when my man wasn't behind the camera, so seeing that made me feel better. And yes, they bring the old-school font back after Scream 4 had a different, blockier one! Also, for those curious, "Red Right Hand" also makes a return, though it's used rather oddly, seemingly playing on a car stereo during a kill scene.

*Because I am writing a piece on Scream 3 this week, I've been diving deeper into it than I ever have and I am only just now realizing how much of it was seemingly inspired by H20, which made Dimension a lot of money the year before Scream 3 went into production. Scream 3 used the same location, the "our heroine is living in Northern California under a new name" plot device, AND had an opening scene where someone is killed to get her whereabouts. For good measure, both films also were edited by Patrick Lussier and featured Creed songs over the credits, not to mention had less Kevin Williamson involvement than was originally planned. I bet a double feature would even yield more similarities.

PLEASE, GO ON...

DVD Review: Scream 4

OCTOBER 4, 2011

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

While I knew Scream 4 wouldn’t live up to either the quality or the financial success of the first two films, I wasn’t expecting it to outright tank either, barely matching its 40 million production budget (getting trounced by Insidious in the process). Talks of a 5th film continue, but I wouldn’t hold my breath, at least not with the core team returning; a DTV “Wes Craven Presents” film with a cameo from David Arquette is probably the best Scream fans can hope for unless sales for this DVD are astronomical. Is it worth the purchase?

Well, yes and no. As I explained in my original review, the film is an improvement over 3, and it’s great to see our trio again. But a second viewing has also revealed other problems, and even though the disc comes from Anchor Bay and not Weinstein’s own label, there isn’t a lot of behind the scenes info or dirt on the production’s well publicized problems (i.e. the rewrites; Ehren Kruger, who is likely to blame for every single one of the movie’s script issues due to the fact that he is a terrible, terrible writer, isn’t mentioned once), so those looking for a candid look at the film’s shooting/editing will be disappointed.

The main problem is that the movie never successfully blends its two main storylines. The new kids (Hayden Panettiere, Emma Roberts, Rory Culkin, etc) are actually pretty fun and likable for the most part (only weak link is the guy playing Roberts’ boyfriend), but they never get the time/chance to come into their own because the movie has to devote too much time toward bringing Sid, Dewey, and Gale back into the fold. Add in the other new characters: the pair of cops, Marley Shelton’s lovestruck deputy, Roberts’ mom (Mary McDonnell), Alison Brie’s bitchy assistant, etc – and you just have way too many characters for a film like this. As much as I hated the deaths of Randy and Cotton, it’s good that they’re no longer around or else the movie would be even MORE overstuffed. Plus, as it is a whodunit, they are forced to try to paint every character as a possible suspect until their demise, which again takes time away from really developing our real heroes. Excising 3-5 of these characters (the two cops and Olivia in particular) might have resulted in a lower body count, but a better film for sure.

The movie also suffers from the usual Dimension bullshit, such as the fact that Bob Weinstein clearly thinks we’re all idiots. A plot thread would have had the killer recreating the murders from the first film, right down to even having the 3rd victim die with a doggy door around her neck (a la Tatum), but Weinstein ordered it dropped because he didn’t think anyone would get it. Does he think that the audience for Scream 4 is going to be made up of newcomers that wouldn’t understand a fairly obvious reference to the first film? So this stuff is dropped, along with other scenes, resulting in several plot holes and a pace that never finds its groove.

Still, it’s a decent enough slasher, and again, much improved over the last entry. The humor is much more in line with what I’d expect from a Scream film, and even on a second time I found myself chuckling at some of the dialogue and references. Panetierre steals the film away from even Campbell and the others, playing a girl who looks like a typical best friend bimbo at first but is also as much of a horror nerd as Randy was, which was a nice play on expectations. The reveal of the killer is a reasonable surprise, though the logic of both their motive and their size with regards to Ghostface is best left un-thought about.

Anchor Bay has provided a standard set of bonus features, with the most interesting being the nearly half hours’ worth of deleted scenes, most of which deserved to be left in the film. Nearly all of them were apparently cut for time according to Craven (who provides optional commentary on all), except for those few aforementioned scenes that were taken out because we’re all too stupid to understand a reference to the previous film(s), according to big Bob. Another tells us that Sid’s dad has passed away, a minor question mark in the theatrical version, though it hardly seemed necessary to kill him off. We also get to see the original versions of two of the early death scenes, both of which are superior to the dragged out, less exciting theatrical versions. It’s funny that so many scenes were cut for time; had they not needlessly added 5 minutes to the runtime with these reshoots, maybe some of these other moments could have been left in. There is no extended version, unfortunately, but this being Anchor Bay I wouldn’t be surprised to see a “director’s cut” release of the movie next year.

The rest of the stuff isn’t particularly essential. The “making of” is largely generic interviews taken from the junket, the gag reel isn’t particularly funny (though it’s fun to see the actors getting scared by Ghostface popping out somewhere he isn’t supposed to be), and the video game promo (actually listed as a bonus!) is just a still image telling you how to access the game on your iPhone. That leaves the commentary, which might have been OK if Wes was alone and providing insight, but alas he is joined by Panettiere and Roberts, who mainly repeat their dialogue, giggle at the jokes, and discuss OMG, how hard it was to shoot this or that scene (oh, and everyone in the movie is “great”, in case you were wondering). Campbell also pops up for about 45 minutes’ worth of the track, phoning in from London, but she doesn’t have the movie in front of her, so Wes has to tell her what’s going on (“Neve, we’re at the scene where Marley gives David the lemon squares”) – needless to say, her brief comments are hardly necessary, and you probably wouldn’t even notice she was gone until Wes points out that she had left. Again, the rewrites, Kevin Williamson’s departure, etc are never mentioned, but apparently Matthew Lillard stopped by, which delighted one of the girls very much because she had a very big crush on him from the first Scream (I say “one of the girls” because I couldn’t tell them apart unless they were specifically discussing their own character).

Picture and audio quality are sufficient for a modern film, nothing blew me away but I didn’t have any issues either. I should note that even though the reliable Peter Deming came back to shoot the film (he shot the other films as well), this is hardly the best looking film in the series; frankly, it looks cheap. And I don’t know if it was intentional or not, but the halo-y lens flares around the numerous cop cars in the movie drove me up a wall, making every shot of them (and there are many) look like a cut-scene from a PS1 game.

Ultimately the biggest problem with the film was that it was too little, too late. After 11 years, they had plenty of material to work with both from a character standpoint (they never actually explain what Sidney has been DOING for the past decade) as well as a chance to send up the modern horror trends, but instead it just largely felt like another rushed sequel, with new technology and the current state of horror given little more than cursory references before returning to the same old shit. Hell, if you remove maybe a dozen lines of throwaway dialogue then there’s nothing about this movie that couldn’t have been done in 2002. Improving on 3 might be enough for one viewing, but they needed to do more than that to give the film the sort of longevity that the original has; now that this review is done I’ll probably never watch it again, though I’ll still pull out the first 2 from time to time. Hopefully they will let the series die, or at least drop Sidney from the proceedings for a while – there’s just no way in hell I will buy yet another killer with a voice box pulling off the murders of a dozen people just to get back at her for everything that’s gone wrong in their life. Frankly, she’s not all that interesting anymore.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Scream 4 (2011)

APRIL 11, 2011

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PREMIERE SCREENING)

I’ve become such a spoilerphobe as of late that I went ahead and turned off anonymous questions on Formspring in case anyone decided to ruin Scream 4 for me just to be a dick (I’ve since turned it back on! Troll away!). I’ve also avoided pretty much every news article and trailer that I could (I saw the first trailer, once, months ago), which resulted in me winding myself from laughing so hard at a particular joke that was actually in the trailer. I didn’t even know Adam Brody or Mary McDonnell were in the movie until they showed up. A far cry from where I was when Scream 2 came out, where I found/read the script beforehand and asked somebody who was coming out of the previous showing who the killer was and if Randy still died.

But again, this is due to my spoilerphobe nature – not a lack of interest. Indeed, it’s the most excited I’ve been for a sequel in ages, and I was really looking forward to seeing the three returning characters (Sid, Dewey, and Gale) again, and more importantly, seeing how Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson (filtered through Ehren Kruger yet again – of all the writers in Hollywood, WHY HIM?) tackled the horror genre all over again. Unlike when the other sequels came out, the horror genre is in a very different place than it was when the first Scream was released, and I was quite eager to see how these guys would tackle torture porn, found footage, Asian ghost girls, and of course, remake/reboots.

Well, except for the latter, they really don’t do much of anything about it. The extent of the “satirizing” of these sub-genres is seen in the trailer (literally, just that one line reference from the Randy-wannabe character). There’s a bit more to the found footage aspect, but it just amounts to a few variations on people seeing things on surveillance footage that the in-camera characters do not – which they already did in the first movie anyway. The Randy guy even puts his camera on backwards at one point, so it’s filming what’s behind him instead of what he sees, but they don’t even use this for a scare – Ghostface doesn’t appear until he realizes it’s backward and turns it around. So why even bother? Torture porn also could have been a good element – perhaps the new Ghostface would be into torturing his victims (with accompanying commentary), but for the most part it’s just the standard stabby-stab that he’s always done.

Remakes/reboots, however, are certainly addressed, and provide the bulk of the movie’s jokes and satire. There is a positively brilliant bit where a character rattles off every remake of the past 5-6 years (this is the joke I was referring to that’s presented in the trailer, though in the movie I am pretty sure it’s a longer list), and it’s just astonishingly funny when they’re all listed back to back like that. For an added dose of hilarity, I happened to be sitting next to Alex Aja, whose Piranha and Hills Have Eyes were among the movies that were name-checked. Since the man has no discernible sense of humor (he got offended last summer when I asked him if he enjoyed making something more “fun” for once with Piranha – he claimed it was a very serious and scary film), I found this quite amusing. They also mock the Stab series, which is now up to part 7 (part 5 apparently included time travel), and no longer has anything to do with Sidney – a small but effective joke on Dimension itself, who ran all of its franchises into the ground with similarly stupid decisions.

However, I couldn’t help but wonder – maybe Scream should have taken a page from Stab and started to ignore Sidney, and/or the other returning characters. If you think about the slasher franchises, they don’t often focus on the same hero characters over and over. If it’s a whodunit based series (as opposed to Halloween or Nightmare On Elm St, where you know who the killer is every time), I think it’s more successful when they do something like Urban Legend, where it’s a new cast of folks, with one minor character (the security guard lady) returning for continuity’s sake. Otherwise, maybe a survivor will come back for a second go around, but very rarely a 3rd and almost NEVER a fourth. The only other one that comes to mind is Jamie Lee Curtis in Halloween, but she was practically a non entity until the final 20 minutes of Halloween II, and killed off instantly in her fourth appearance (Resurrection). Plus, there she was always dealing with the same guy with the same motive, whereas all four Scream films have centered around Sidney being targeted by someone new, forcing the writers to come up with yet another reason someone would want to kill her.

I was also surprised/disappointed by how little the script addressed the changes in technology. Twitter and Facebook get name-checked, but not used in any meaningful way, and despite texting and more advanced cell phones, Ghostface still calls people and they still answer, same as always. There’s a certain “app” that comes into play, but that’s just scratching the surface of both the possibilities on a narrative level, as well as making a statement on the usual remake approach of utilizing the new toys at their disposal. Come on, a twitpic of his own carnage would have been awesome!

The rest of the review will have spoilers! Stop reading now if you don’t want anything else spoiled, I’ll just leave you with the fact that it’s a better movie than Scream 3, and quite a lot of fun thanks to some great lines and likable characters, but with a weak villain reveal and a severe lack of scares or suspense.

Last warning! SPOILERS ahead!

So without saying who the killer actually is, it once again comes down to someone blaming Sidney for everything that has gone wrong in their life. It worked for Billy, and perhaps it was a bit clunky but Billy’s mom made sense, but Roman in 3 was just silly, and this one comes closer to him than Mrs. Loomis in terms of “Oh come ON!”. And again, I won’t say who the killer is, but if you listen to their “woe is me” speech and think about where that person actually was in their life when Sidney was the center of attention (i.e. 10-15 years ago), it doesn’t even make sense. I was as happy as everyone else to see Sid/Neve coming back, but I think they have officially exhausted their ideas when it comes to finding reasons for people to want to kill her (in fact, it almost mirrors some of Mickey's motivations in S2).

They should have had someone with a beef against Gale and/or Dewey, in fact. Not only would it have spared us some déjà vu, but it would have been kind of amusing if Sid THOUGHT the killer was after her but turned out to be of little interest to him. It also would have given David Arquette and Courtney Cox more to do; they’re in the movie a lot (and have a few “in real life this is awkward” conversations about the importance of sticking together and what not) but their characters are just going through the same motions they did in the other sequels – Dewey is trying to solve the crimes before anyone gets hurt, Gale wants to further her career and acts like a total bitch to every other female character in the movie. I was also dismayed about Dewey and Sid’s relationship here; they were practically like brother and sister in the other sequels, but here it almost seems like they barely speak anymore, and they also share few scenes together. And Marco Beltrami, sir, with all due respect, you are no Hans Zimmer. As with S3, there is a pitiful attempt to recreate “Dewey’s Theme” from Scream 2 (which was just licensed Broken Arrow score) and again it’s just embarrassing; either borrow the music again or just do something else entirely.

They also don’t do as good of a job of keeping folks as viable suspects until the very last minute as they did in the first two films. One suspect in particular is shown miles away as Dewey takes a call from someone being attacked, and this person had no reason to be in the scene – all it does is cancel them out as a feasible choice. The two cops (Brody and Anthony Anderson) arrive on the scene one second after Ghostface runs off after a murder in the first act, and a whole bunch of characters are present at a news conference when Ghostface tosses a body off a roof nearby a few scenes later. And yes, it’s Scream so there are two killers, but if you go back and watch the first film, there’s only one instance where there would HAVE to be two killers in order to keep everyone as a suspect. It should be a surprise (especially after 3, which only had one killer), not a necessity in order to keep folks as possible killers. Also, apart from when Billy was stabbed, one Ghostface never attacked the other (outside of their costume), but here the killers are constantly menacing the other, so after awhile it gets to the point where there HAS to be two just because we’ve seen every character in the same shot as Ghostface! Kind of a cheat.

As for the new kids, they’re fine. The basic idea is that the events of the first Scream are being “rebooted” in real life, so the new batch of kids are all more or less in the same roles as the core group in the first movie. I actually quite liked Hayden Panettiere’s character, Kirby, who was sort of like Tatum but also a film nerd (she owns Suspiria!), and the two Randy guys weren’t nearly as annoying as I thought they might have been based on the trailer - if anything they were kind of charming, particularly in their later scenes. The less said about Trevor (the Billy stand-in), the better, and I’m not sure who Olivia was supposed to be, but she’s dead before making much of an impression anyway. That leaves Jill Roberts, Sid’s young cousin, played by Emma Roberts (not sure if this is another joke, since Emma is also a relative of a much more famous woman – if so it’s kind of mean). So now SHE’s the one with a boyfriend climbing through her window, dealing with sexual hang-ups, etc. It’s a strong idea in theory, but by dividing the time we spend with them and the time we spend with the original trio (with far too little crossover), they don’t get to have as much fun with it as they could have. Apparently the script was around 138 pages, which would make for nearly a 2:20 movie, but this final cut is just under 1:45, which makes it the shortest in the series despite having the biggest cast.

Another odd thing about that is that it drags at times. I could watch Alison Brie all day long, and it almost seemed like I would get my “wish” during her (spoiler, again!) kill scene, which just goes on far too long considering how simple it is (just her in a parking garage). There’s a “Stabathon” party that fails to capitalize on its isolation and obvious allusions to Stu’s party in the first film, and instead our heroes go from there to a smaller party for some carnage, and then a hospital for the actual climax – it’s clunky, to say the least (the hospital scene also stretches credulity even for a slasher movie - two characters detach their monitors and such but not a single orderly or nurse comes to check? Massive chaos is caused in a room and no one seems to hear it?). This is the only film in the series not edited by Patrick Lussier (who has gone on to directing his own films), and his presence is definitely missed. But ironically enough, it also feels rushed in other aspects, particularly in the details of what exactly Sid (or Dewey and Gale, for that matter) has been doing for the past ten years. At the end of 3 she was seemingly once again open to being part of the world, but here she seems almost like she has just come out of hiding again in order to promote her book (or did it just take her ten years to write it?).

I also missed KNB’s FX from the first two films. Gary Tunnicliffe’s work is fine, but CGI knife blades are lame, and there’s a lack of inventiveness to any of the kills or violence. The new Ghostface mask design is also lousy; the mouth is far too elongated – that poster with the jaw turning into a knife isn’t really much of a stretch from how it actually looks in the movie. There are other little things I missed or couldn’t understand why they changed; no “Red Right Hand”, different font for the credits/logo, etc. I mean, these things were tradition for the other films, and this one is very much a “let’s get it back to basics” affair, so why all the changes? On the other hand, unlike S3, they have definitely returned to the real-world approach of the first two – the movies they mention and watch are real movies, not Roger Corman-esque made up ones. Someone mentions the Saw series, the characters watch Shaun of the Dead (and say “We’re watching Shaun of the Dead”), etc. The only thing that’s not real is that they have the Stab movies instead of Scream, a somewhat confusing meta-concept that is lampooned to great effect in the opening scene.

And that’s the thing about this one – it’s possibly the funniest in the series. Maybe it’s just my own somewhat jaded attitude toward modern horror helping me along, but I found the jabs at remakes and reboots and such very funny, and the other references/jokes hit more often than missed for me. Ghostface’s sarcastic replies were a hoot, and some of the character-based jokes (mainly from Gale) got hearty chuckles from me as well. But fear not – the tone is very much in line with that of the first film; I was laughing a lot but I never felt like it was more of a comedy than a horror movie. Scream is always a blend of humor and horror (I was pleased to see that Ghostface is STILL a pretty clumsy and oft-floored killer); it’s just that the humor portion was made from stronger ingredients. The scare scenes here are fairly basic, and apart from a relatively quick bit in a barn with Gale, I never really felt any tension, and there are no really great set-pieces that I might want to revisit on their own. Even S3 had the great chase through the Sid’s House/Stab set, but here it’s all just the same old stuff: phone call, Ghostface proves he’s watching them, they look in a closet, Ghostface jumps out of a doorway behind them – lather, rinse, repeat. And if it’s just a joke about the repetitive nature of sequels (or of remakes redoing the same scares), then it’s not a successful one.

But overall, it’s fun. I wouldn’t have minded trading a few laughs for a few thrills, but I guess either way I’m reacting and being entertained as intended, which is more than I can say for S3 with its stupid Star Wars jokes and Jay and Silent Bob cameos. I was happy to see my old “friends” again, and even though it was shot in a different location, the town and populace felt very much in line with the one in the first film (there’s also an amazing sight gag of sorts that you have to be super quick to notice – keep your eye on the left side of the frame on the first interior school scene for a wonderfully cheesy tribute to a fallen former cast member). I would love to see what Kevin Williamson’s original script was like before it got Kruger-ed, but what remains doesn’t feel like a Frankensteined movie – apart from Brie’s extended/isolated sequence, it felt very fluid, and even though the trailer has some scenes that aren’t in the movie, I didn’t notice any obvious edits or jarring shifts in the narrative (though there is some mention of a missing cell phone that had no setup). Perhaps it’s not a movie worthy of an 11 year wait, but I think most fans, as I was, will just be happy to have a real sequel again, not a lazy wannabe like the 3rd film. Imperfect as it may be, this is very much a legitimate Scream film.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Movie & TV Show Preview Widget

Google