Before that I thought it might have been fun, for my so grown-up self to man-up and see something frightening. My grade school friends were all big into dinosaurs then (and so was everyone else, after the movie's success), and why be left out? So I did what any adult kid would do, I yelled and screamed and whined and moaned to my mom to see "Jurassic Park" because so was everyone else! If you were 7 and had mom like mine you would know motherly resilience. It took a few months, but we saw it.
And I missed a lot of it. I redeemed my courage through home video. That also took a while, but after sitting through the movie many times, through shutting my eyes, or fast-forwarding, or pausing, or muting the sound, or turning off the TV or walking out of the room, I could say with some squeaky bravado that I had seen all of the movie and can remember everything, every detail and specie of dinosaur, to tell my friends. But of course they knew all about it. They were braver than me. After mastering the first T-Rex attack scene with storm and torrential rain and mud and bloody, frightened children, my friends could anticipate every scream and every beat. They could remember what color Grant's shirt was and what timeframe he lost his hat...
Thinking back on my childhood and my relationship with scary movies, I for sure didn't see "Scream" in theaters (I did see "Final Destination," but that's a different animal, of horror movies that stink). I was older, 10, but not much braver. I had to sit through it, with some more friends, countless times, before I could say I had seen the scariest horror flick ever released at the time.
Because today, close to 15 years after, seeing it again I knew every turn and every twist I couldn't jump even if I hiccuped.
I was ready to think "What was I scared of?!" Then, I watched "Scream 2," released less than a year later, and found before I hit "play" I didn't remember much about it. This time, I can tell you I jumped more than once. Not much for "Scream" #3, though, which was more by-the-books. (READ MY THOUGHTS FOR THE FIRST THREE "SCREAMS" BELOW)
So I can tell you...
"Scream 4" (2011) ☆☆☆
"Scream 4" made me jump, not often, but it's still a good time. Not really scary, but cool and clever enough. It doesn't top "Scream," or even "Scream 2," but it sure kicks the crud out of "Scream 3..."
We're back in the 'burbs, a Northern Californian made-up small town, Woodsboro, where now it's become what Myrtle Beach was to "Jaws," the city is en-mass a celebrity. And on the main stage, Sidney Presscot, the long-standing surviver, returns home on tour after writing a self-help book declaring herself never again a victim. Well, she's about to, as the brutal slayings soon happen once more, right on bloody cue.
Everything happens down to the plot, just like the first "Scream." That's the point, anyway, as now the killer, or killers, mimic their slayings on the first original horror flick, "Stab," which itself is based on the events of the first film. A movie within a movie with a successful horror movie franchise! With that plot, we have the same old crop of teens: Emma Roberts as Jill, taking the place of Sidney. Her pal Kirby (Hayden Panettiere of "Heros") fitting as the role of the party girl buddy. Rory Culkin ("Signs") and Erik Knudson as horror movie-geeks Charlie and Robbie, splitting Jamie Kennedy's comic character. Nico Tortorella is in as the quiet, solemn boyfriend to Jill (killing the inner menace from Skeet Ulrich as Billy), who, easily, is tagged as a suspect. They are new (new new) characters also. Adam Brody ("The OC"), Anthony Anderson (of "Scary Movie" films, ha!) and Marley Shelton as deputy cops, and Mary McDowell as Jill's hurt mommy. There are also cameos (makes since, in a scary movie) that include Anna Paquin and Kristin Bell. Because they are cameos, you can guess what happens to them...
Some die. Some don't. All are suspects. They aren't that many, as with all the films, so it's easy to narrow it done. You might guess who it is (I did), but you can guess anyone. Really, you have, like, everyone I mentioned above, and maybe a few others. How hard could it be to hone in the killer?
Maybe that's what I didn't like so much about "Scream 4," and even the two preceding the first. Could the whodunit's be more complex, and better immersed. Yeah, it's a horror movie, simpler is better. But I like a good mystery. I would have liked to have been surprised on that level, because really all we have is the usual fright formula by Craven, and the knowing wit by Williamson, and it all played pretty well by the old, and young, cast. It's funny, "Scream 4" is all about poking fun at the formula, mixed with real shocks, but the shocks were anticipated, because of that formula, and the jokes and knocks weren't all clever either when it enters the same rein as the first three films. Again, I don't care that I could have predicted everything (which I near did), but why not be smarter, to be surprised by the shocks, humured more by the pans. I was shocked a little, I did smile some. Overall, I had a good time, because really Craven knows this franchise, and so does Williamson, and they up the punch. More blood, more surprises, more one-liners. They know the right balance. Everyone had as much a time as I had in that regard. Still, it wasn't surprising enough.
Actually, that's about all I have to say, only I might have rated "Scream 4" lower, but I feel I'm partial to the series. Besides, I gave "Scream" the same...
"Scream" (1996) ☆☆☆
I could remember and anticipate everything now, at 24, but it sure scared the crap out of me at 10. Even in the present, in 2011, the movie is still the definitive horror movie concept, the rehash of horror movie cliche into a straight horror movie scenario: of a serial killer, or serial killers, terrorizing teens in quiet, safe suburbia. Nothing new there, but instead now the killer taunts and plays. He calls them in a cool, cynical masked electronic voice (iconically voiced, for all four films, by Roger Jackson), friendly chatting these girls up before turning menacingly into the host of a deadly game. A horror shocker that's meant to scare as it is to make you laugh, because these characters talk and pan about horror plots and they too are in a scary movie! I couldn't help but smile when it's mentioned big-breasted girls who can't act run up the stairs, and in "Scream" they actually do that! There are such other conventions about-faced and mimicked in the same horror fashion. All the exposition! They won't shut-up!
A gory slasher picture with some pretty good shocks, a terrific suspense opening (with the taboo of killing off a star so early), a creepy new madman get-up (the costume for "Ghostface"), cemented into this nutter, or nutters, making sadistic calls about horror movie trivia before jumping out, chasing and stabbing their victims to death. I also like, with "Halloween," "Nightmare on Elm Street" and others, that this takes place in the 'burbs. I think that's why these types of teen-slasher movies work. The gentility of the suburbs turned into hell. That last half of "Scream," in that large suburban house, as soon as everyone is either left the party or is missing and dead, and where soon the big bloody stab-out begins, worked so well.
Three stars is me saying "Scream" can still scare now, is still darn clever, and hasn't lost it's fright or punch. I might have rated it higher, had it still scared me. This is coming from a guy once upon a time kept the light on.
"Scream 2" (1997) ☆☆☆
I liked "Scream 2" as well, and since I couldn't remember much about it I jolted once or twice. The movie pushed the killer-in-the-closet/on-the-loose high jinks further, stretching the believability, but it never spoiled it for me. Just as good as #1, with another scene opener that equaled in suspense and originality, again killing off a well-known actress, even as, this time around, it was anticipated.
And what I liked more about this sequel, "Scream 2" was more personable: a sweet little scene with Derek (Jerry O'Connell) dancing atop dining hall tables to "I Think I Love You" for Sidney. And a couple of good scary moments involving a theater rehearsal dance and Randy on phone with Ghostface, out in the open in daylight, as Dewey and Gail search for the madman, were nifty fright set-pieces. And the latter had a good shocker. Even having a lesser known Liev Schrieber back in the game, really good here as quiet, but attention-hungry Cotton Weary, was something I didn't expect to see. Well, you need interesting suspects, right?
What I liked less? Why couldn't we go back to Woodsboro?
"Scream 3" (2000) ☆☆ 1/2
The third film was over-written, and for some of the cast over-acted, and it really pushed the plausibly. I couldn't buy a lot of what the killer was doing, and even the mystery this time around, with Ghostface's identity, became too far-fetched for me in this installment. Maybe because series writer Kevin Williamson was replaced by Ehren Kruger (of this summers other third installment, "Transformers: Dark of the Moon."), who didn't have the same wit and dialogue.
"Scream 3" was weaker, maybe too thought-out and plot-heavy, and the scares were either smaller or sillier. What probably killed it for me: Why Hollywood? I still prefer Woodsboro. Woodsboro is simpler.
"Scream 3" was weaker, maybe too thought-out and plot-heavy, and the scares were either smaller or sillier. What probably killed it for me: Why Hollywood? I still prefer Woodsboro. Woodsboro is simpler.
It's still kind-of fun. See it with you friends. It's a good enough time.
No comments:
Post a Comment