 In some ways, I consider the 'Scream' franchise divided into two or three parts, with 'Scream 3' rounding out what I'd consider the original trilogy, while everything after it can be categorized as relatively late follow-up, following in the footsteps of something like 'Indiana Jones' or 'Die Hard' with their fourth instalments coming into play very late, and mostly built on some nostalgia. It's another series where one could drop it after "Part 3" and be perfectly fine in not continuing the story with those later releases.
Much like most third films in a series, however, 'Scream 3' is probably the weakest, but it's hard to deny that it does a decent job of following through with the meta formula that these movies have established. In some ways, I can see a lot of the "bad" here being purposeful in the film's attempt to poke fun at a third instalment being almost always weak, but if things aren't well executed, it can make the movie just plain bad. Just because something gets done on purpose doesn't mean it turns out particularly good. 'Scream 3' picks up just a couple of years after 'Scream 2'. The movie's backdrop is a studio lot, and the set pieces of 'Stab 3', a film based on events we haven't seen, and one can assume the unseen 'Stab 2' was based on the events of 'Scream 2'. I suppose the point here is somewhat clever, as it shows how a studio will make things up as they go along, as long as those box-office numbers keep coming in. So, I can at least give the film some credit for portraying something like studio interference in such a way. Since the events of 'Scream 2', Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) now lives a secluded and locked-down life, working as a crisis counsellor for abused women. Eventually, she gets a call from someone posing as her deceased mother, which, to make a long story short, leads her to Hollywood, where some murders have started within the cast and crew of 'Stab 3'. Here, the old "Scream Team", including Sidney, Dewey Riley (David Arquette) and Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox), reunite to solve this familiar murder mystery, and find out who the new Ghostface Killer is. As per usual, there's a whole new set of rules brought to us by Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy), having to do with them facing the concluding chapter of a trilogy. The killer is now superhuman and won't die easily; no one is safe from death, and the past will come back to haunt the lead character. From there, it's standard fare for one of these movies. However, it definitely leans towards the sillier aspects of these movies, much like 'Scream 2' did, but with a much weaker execution, damn near going overboard with things like a Jay & Silent Bob (Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith, respectively) cameo, which, while fun, feels perhaps a little forced. Even though I love me some Jay & Silent Bob, and appreciate the commentary on studio interference in movie-making (especially with money-grabbing trilogy chapters), that's also its downfall. It IS the third time we've seen this kind of thing in a few short years, so it's fair to say it was getting a touch old by this point. This was also the peak of the teen horror genre of the late 90s-early 00s, so I think by this point, especially with other non-'Scream' titles grabbing our interest, the 'Scream' thing was starting to get just a little stale, if not the whole concept of teen horror, which was often highly predictable. Speaking personally, this chapter's slowly falling into the "guilty pleasure" category because, while it has a few clever elements, the overall execution feels almost laughable. I'd swear, they made the characters extra stupid for this one. All of it leads to a disappointing reveal that almost feels cheap. I think if they could have been more clever, or even risky with who the killer was in this one, I'd have gotten more out of it. I can't classify it as something awful, but I have to admit that I probably find it to be the weakest entry into the whole series, even if I do see it in that "guilty pleasure" light nowadays. 2/5
0 Comments
 The more I watch 'Scream 2', the more I tend to consider it the chapter of the franchise I hold closest to my heart. This movie is the first sequel to a film that, while being a legitimate slasher horror, is also a parody of the whole genre. 'Scream 2' does a good job of carrying through that parody and, again, while still a solid slasher, brings in a solid bunch of stereotypes about sequels, which, in turn, makes this chapter dip in quality a little, but that dip is also, oddly, part of the film's charm.
Since the events of the first film, a movie called 'Stab' has been released based on them. Attending a sneak preview of the film are a couple of college seniors - Maureen (Jada Pinkett Smith) and Phil (Omar Epps), who double up on the first film's intro with Drew Barrymore's famous face. Remembering that this is a sequel-parody about sequels, moments like this are what make the movie fun. It doesn't stop there, either. There are many sequel tropes throughout the film, along with little "two" nods, like the two Ghostfaces at the urinals in the accompanying photo. Following a tragic incident at the aforementioned 'Stab' screening, another media circus once again descends upon Sidney Prescott's (Neve Campbell) school, this time Windsor College in Ohio, far from California, where the original film was set, which may be a Wes Craven nod to the town of 'Springwood, CA' being retconned to 'Springwood, OH' in 'Freddy's Dead. But I digress. Among these reporters are the not-so-likeable Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox), making her return, and newcomer Debbie Salt (Laurie Metcalf), who seemingly aspires to be another reporter as tenacious as Gale. Meanwhile, Sidney lives her college life close to her new best friend, Hallie (Elise Neal), now using Caller ID to screen incoming calls (relatively new tech in 1997). Sidney also has a new boyfriend named Derek (Jerry O'Connell), and still hangs out with movie master Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy). Interrupting an otherwise happy existence, however, are the theatre incident, taking place at a screening of a movie about something she went through, and the release of the still heavily suspected Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber), who has been deemed "innocent" of Sidney's mother's murder. Officer Dewey (David Arquette) also returns, trying to pin down who Ghostface is this time while protecting Sidney and her friends, aided by Randy's movie knowledge and Gale's tenacity. Specific rules for the situation are established again, now including a higher body count and more elaborate kills. And while the third rule is never really revealed, one could assume it's "never assume the killer is dead," thanks to this particular teaser. The rules are always a fun addition to each film, as they lend themselves to the film's parody, which gives viewers something to look for. While the "copycat" aspect of the Ghostface killer is a constant throughout these films, what I truly appreciate here more than the rest is that the film, like many sequels, actually goes complete copycat, right down to the murder victims' names. Adding to that cheesy sequel charm is some fairly brutal acting from a few tertiary characters, and a fair share of stupid decisions when, if done by Sidney, she'll be fine. However, if done by anyone else, they're screwed, reinforcing Sidney's "Final Girl" status. With all the stereotypes, one may classify this as a guilty pleasure, but to me, this chapter did the best job of being self-aware. That self-awareness makes this a thoroughly fun watch for me. Things like some of the 'Stab' movie casting, which includes Tori Spelling as Sidney (predicted by Sid in the first film), Heather Graham as Cassie Becker (originally Drew Barrymore) and Luke Wilson as Billy Loomis, show that even a master of horror like Wes Craven isn't taking this entirely seriously, and can poke fun at some of what his craft has become. Call me crazy, but I enjoy this chapter just as much as I did the first one, even if it is more on the guilty pleasure side of things. 4/5  I'm going to keep this relatively spoiler-free, but it doesn't help that one of the things that made this movie so good means I have to spoil the opening entirely. However, seeing as this is now a 30-year-old film and widely considered a horror classic, that's one thing I can let slide with this review. If you still haven't seen it, though, and care enough, you might as well scroll down to my rating to avoid any potential spoilers. Otherwise, read on, because being the slasher classic that it is, there's much to discuss.
Casey Becker (Drew Barrymore) sets things up by being the very first on-screen victim of the franchise. What was so great about this was the fact that at the time, we were all pretty damn sure Barrymore was going to be the "final girl" of this movie. As luck would have it, that was the original intention with her top-billing, but Barrymore, herself, chose to play Casey instead, as a means to pull the rug out from underneath the audience, and it worked. It's one of the best examples of a movie that makes one realize quickly that no one is necessarily safe, which is something I personally admire in horror. This murder sets into motion a police investigation and media circus invasion of Woodsboro High School, somewhere in California, where we meet Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), who simply has too much to deal with throughout the film, including the first anniversary of her mother's violent murder at the alleged hands of Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber). On top of it, her boyfriend, Billy (Skeet Ulrich), wishes she could move on from her trauma for the sake of their relationship. Meanwhile, a tenacious reporter named Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox), author of a book about Sidney's mother's murder, sees Cotton as innocent. With everything going on, however, Sidney relies on her small friend group, which includes the eccentric Stuart (Matthew Lillard), Sidney's best friend, Tatum (Rose McGowan) and the movie-loving, movie-rule-establishing Randy (Jamie Kennedy), who tends to plays an integral part in these movies, giving characters (and the audience) hints, regarding what to expect in whatever volume of the film we're watching. Here, the rules to follow are about surviving a standard horror movie. The bare basics include things like "Don't do drugs!", "Don't have sex!", and never, ever say "I'll be right back!", because you won't be. As events unfold (including the disappearance of Sidney's father) and murder suspects seem to surround the small town of Woodsboro, investigations continue, and we follow along with the somewhat bumbling Deputy Dewey (David Arquette). Gale ends up using him at first to try to get the inside scoop on things, but eventually, sparks fly, just like they did in real life at one time. But going back to Sidney, she soon finds herself in a bit of a whirlwind situation and becomes the main target of these attacks before long. Now she must try to survive while perhaps breaking a few of Randy's "rules." At the time, it was fascinating to see a film break new ground by offering something of a farcical horror movie without being a comedy. To make it even better, horror legend Wes Craven sits in the director's seat, having fun with a film that quite literally pokes fun at his craft. Soon enough, it would kick off Craven's second significant horror creation, and it would be a massive accomplishment in the resurrection of the slasher horror genre. It also cleared a path for "teen horror," which often featured similar casting of "heartthrob" types and was rated PG-13 a little more often than R, but gave new fans of the genre a decent place to start. Since it has been parodied so many times, the original 'Scream' may have lost some of its lustre by now. It's definitely "trapped" in the 90s, so it may be difficult for a newcomer to take it seriously; the clearest example being that cell phones at the time were not the everyday items we take for granted today. However, I still say that its overall execution is still a little something to be admired. It was interesting to see slashers resurrected through self-aware stereotypes. In many ways, even though 'Scream' is a farce on slasher horrors, it's also something of a love letter to the genre, and I still hold this movie in high regard. 4/5  The 'Scream' franchise continues, switching to Roman numerals, using its general formula. One by one, we've now done "horror movie", "horror sequel", "horror trilogy", "horror reboot" and "horror requel". What's left, you ask? Well, what else but a "horror franchise"? And though it sounds like I'm sort of rolling my eyes at the concept of yet another 'Scream' movie, following its old formula, I have to admit that I actually really enjoyed this! Time will tell if my opinion fades a bit over time like it did with 'Scream 4', but so far, I'd say this is one of the best.
Our four survivors from the last film, Sam and Tara Carpenter (Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega, respectively) along with the Meeks-Martin twins, Chad and Mindy (Mason Gooding and Jasmin Savoy Brown, respectively) have moved to New York City for a new start. Tara attends University with the twins, and newcomers Quinn Bailey (Liana Liberato), Mindy's Girlfriend Anika Kayoko (Devyn Nekoda) and Chad's roommate, Ethan Landry (Jack Champion). Meanwhile, Sam attends regular therapy sessions after what happened in the last film, which involves a certain dark side to Sam. The events at the end of 'Scream' ('22) have also launched a lot of online conspiracy against Sam, claiming her to be the mastermind behind the latest Woodsboro murders. I kind of have to admire how they threw in the concept of misinformation online and how it might just affect some real victims out there. Anyway, a killer wearing a Ghostface mask does his thing in the beginning as usual, leading to a media circus as usual, and Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox) shows up again as usual. Meanwhile, Detective Wayne Bailey (Dermot Mulroney) calls Sam in for questioning, since her ID happened to be found on the scene, along with the mask from the last year's attacks. Of course, it's not long before things start happening all over again; this time in the middle of the big city. But while Sam is a little more alert and smart about things, wanting to escape while the escaping is good, Tara is a little more insistent that she can take care of herself and doesn't want to throw away her education based on a few days of their lives. So there's some rivalry here, but it's also a good way of showing us different personalities coping with such an intense situation. Once again, the film throws in more than a couple of red herrings for us as well, but I have to admit that this time they were a little easier for me to call. Added to the cast here, among others, is the return of Kirby Reed (Hayden Panettiere), who we last saw in 'Scream 4' as a high school student. She has since done pretty well for herself, too, as she has become an FBI agent, specializing in Ghostface attacks... so where she was for the last film, who knows? We also have some dude Sam is seeing named Danny Brackett (they always do good with nods to horror names in these movies- this one from 'Halloween') who plays the regular love interest the lead doesn't know whether or not to trust. However, for the first time, Sidney Prescott does not return to the franchise, thus ultimately passing the torch to Sam and Tara. I hazard a guess that a lot of the film took inspiration from the 'Friday the 13th' franchise. This includes the number in the sequel name changing from numeric to Roman, and bringing things to the big city of Manhattan (except this time the movie actually fully took place in Manhattan). I also had to appreciate the brutality of the kills here which caught me off guard. When the movie opens, it does a good job at capturing the viewer's interest, and it involves one of these horrible kills. That sounds bad to the average viewer, but for a horror fan seeing the sixth installment of something, we need the volume turned up a bit. Remember, we're here to face and live out our greatest fears in the safety of a movie theater, or our own home. As usual, I'll break down the rules, this time of a franchise; 1 - Everything is bigger than last time, including budget, cast, and body count; 2 - Expect the opposite of what happened last time; 3 - No one is safe, including "legacy" characters; and 4 - Main characters become expendable so the franchise can continue... which could basically just be the same as rule #3, but I didn't write the script. This is where I can point out that some things are feeling repetitive with this "rules" thing. Otherwise, I see this in almost the same way I saw 'Scream 2'. It's almost more of a comedy than a horror, as it seems to embrace itself as being exactly what it's farcing. Again, 'Friday the 13th Part VI' did exactly the same kind of thing (farcing itself), and with that idea in mind, I can't help but see this as the fun horror ride it's supposed to be. 4/5  Just when we thought they were out of ideas for this franchise, 2022 gives us 'Scream' - and this time it's about the "Requel", which is exactly what this is, and honestly the first time I've heard the most fitting term for it. In case you're wondering, from what I can gather this movie defines the term as a movie that acts as a bit of a reboot, but still a bit of a sequel. Often, these are the movies that call themselves by the original title, like 'Halloween' (2018), 'Candyman' (2021) or even 'Jumanji' (2017).
That said, a requel doesn't have to have the same name as an original. The new 'Star Wars' trilogy, 'Ghostbusters: Afterlife' and 'Tron: Legacy' are all examples of the same idea, and it all seems to ultimately boil down to a matter of nostalgia. So really, the most "meta" thing about this movie is, interestingly enough, the title itself. I'd consider that rather clever, but it doesn't come without irritation, considering the titles have flown so perfectly from 'Scream' to 'Scream 4'. Then this comes along and calls itself 'Scream' just to mess with us, yet makes fun of the idea of a title like this within the film, so you can't be mad at it. But, moving on. The film opens with the typical phone call and attack. This time, this victim is high schooler Tara Carpenter (Jenna Ortega). However, the attack ultimately fails and leaves her hospitalized. Tara's friend, Wes Hicks (Dylan Minnette) notifies her estranged sister, Sam (Melissa Barrera) about the attack which sends her running back to her hometown of Woodsboro. There, she reunites with this feature's teenage team of could-be victims, Wes, Amber Freeman (Mikey Madison), and twin brother and sister, Chad and Mindy Meeks-Martin (Mason Gooding and Jasmin Savoy Brown, respectively), whose uncle was everyone's favourite movie expert in the original, Randy (Jamie Kennedy). With a whole new threat looming over Woodsboro coinciding with the 25th anniversary of the original murders, Sam and her boyfriend, Richie (Jack Quaid) begin to seek help from the experts; namely, Dewey Riley (David Arquette) who is the one to dispense this film's rules this time; #1 - Never trust your love interest; #2 - The killer always has something to do with the past; and #3 - The first victim always has a circle of friends that the killer is part of. Dewey has also since been divorced from Gale (Courteney Cox), who has gotten back on TV with a morning show of sorts. As for our literal "Scream" Queen, Sidney (Neve Campbell), she's notified about the murders as well and eventually gets dragged back into things. While this all sounds like a whole lot more of the same, the film does play with certain things, largely having to do with the gap between generations. We find out a few family ties here, and not all of them are as pleasant as finding out a couple of twins are Randy Meeks' niece and nephew. But for every element of good in this, there's some kind of element of "lame". For me, at this point, Sidney ought to be a regular "Ripley", but if I'm honest, there's not a whole lot going on with our "legacy" characters here, and things feel a little phoned in. I suppose in fairness, we're supposed to focus on this new group. But I was ready to see Sid kick some ass in this. To reiterate my thoughts on the series as a whole, I consider the first three and last three to be sort of self-contained trilogies. But really, the only reason 'Scream 4' starts the second trilogy has to do with things taking place several years later, where our mains have become, as I mentioned before, "legacy" characters, and there's a whole new generation of victims-to-be. Interestingly enough, however, 'Scream 4' really does kind of stand on its own, being released not only eleven years after 'Scream 3', but eleven years before this one. So while I say "beginning of a new era", it's really more of a bridge movie, making this one the real beginning of a new era - evidently, one marked with Roman Numerals this time with the release of 'Scream VI'. Of the series, I would probably consider this to be the most middle-ground I've felt about a chapter. There's something about it that doesn't feel quite right, but I can appreciate what they did with it. I have to also say that the big reveal of the killer(s) also left me pretty lukewarm. BUT, there's actually a more fun reveal here that lies elsewhere and does provide a pretty badass twist to the end. This one's actually a pretty fitting tribute to the legendary Wes Craven (as "for Wes" comes up at the end), but if I'm honest, there was a part of me when this came out that felt a tad board with these movies. After all, it has been six movies in the span of 26-ish years. How much more could they do? Are they gonna go full 'Jason Takes Manhattan' and unleash Ghostface into the big city or something??... 3/5  When I went to go check this out in theaters, it wasn't something I thought was gonna be that great. After all, I found 'Scream 3' to be a letdown, so how could a fourth installment, around eleven years later possibly be any good? Well, truth be told, I was pleasantly surprised at the time. But I think most of what made it good was that it was an unexpected surprise, considering the time it took to be released. It also stood out as something no one was really asking for, but were still pleased to get.
We start this one off in real-time, after the events of 'Scream 3'. The 'Stab' series within these films have reached the "out of control" point. They are not only up to 'Stab 7' but evidently, 'Stab 5' went as far as to introduce time travel to the plot. I see this as a bit of a nod to the moments when horror icons find themselves in outer space, like Jason or the Leprechaun. Furthermore, the film opens with this movie within a movie gag that frankly pokes fun at the 'Scream' franchise, itself. It's really quite humorously done, but it does eventually lead to the movie's first kill, and yet another Ghostface (or "Ghostfaces", as tends to be the case). I tend to consider 'Scream 4' to be the beginning of the next generation, so to speak. This is where we bring in the new high school kids to be the potential victims, while still having our favourite characters take part in the story as the older, wiser generation. Surviving the events of the original films are Sidney (Neve Campbell), who has just published her own book on surviving the Woodsboro murders, Dewey (David Arquette), who's now the sheriff of Woodsboro and Gale (Courteney Cox), who is now married to Dewey and has since given up reporting. Sidney returns to Woodsboro on the 16th anniversary of the original 'Scream' killings, and of course, to no one's surprise, finds that the killing has started all over again. This time, the big target seems to be Sidney's cousin, Jill (Emma Roberts), and her friends, Olivia and Kirby (Marielle Jaffe and Hayden Panettiere, respectively). This time, the killer seems to want to direct his own reboot, so this one is more of a farce on reboots. It even comes complete with funny little nods to Craven's own films being unnecessarily rebooted, like 'Elm Street', 'The Hills Have Eyes' and 'Last House on the Left'. One has to admire the little details put into the dialogue in these films. When the killing starts, evidence is found in the trunk Sid and her publicist, Rebecca (Alison Brie) arrived in. They are then made to stay in town by Dewey, himself until the killer is caught because pretty much "everyone is a suspect". On that note, I appreciated that the film really kept you guessing as to who was doing the killings. Is it Jill's ex-boyfriend, Trevor (Nico Tortorella) who is leaving threatening messages?; is it Dewey's new, somewhat creepy deputy, Judy (Marley Shelton)?; is it one or both of the film-obsessed geeks, Robbie and/or Charlie (Erik Knudsen and Rory Culkin, respectively)? Or could it possibly even be an original "cast member" (Sidney, Dewey or Gale?) There are red herrings all over this movie, and I have to admit, I kind of appreciated that. A lot of this does, however, still just feel like more of the same. Once again, there's a standard set of rules here, this time concerning the "reboot". But for once, there are more than three. 1, don't mess with the original; 2, death scenes are more extreme (similar to 'Scream 2'); 3, "unexpected" is the new cliché; 4, virgins can die now; 5, new technology is used and integral to the plot; 6, an opening sequence is necessary; and last but not least, 7, in order to survive these days, you pretty much have to be gay. I'm not entirely sure why they needed so many this time around, or why some of them are essentially repeats (like rule #2) or seemingly unnecessary (like rule #6). Going back to what I said about being pleasantly surprised when this came out, I should say that most of that pleasant surprise came from getting a little nostalgia from it as well as not really knowing it was something I wanted to see until after it was done. This wasn't like 'Freddy vs Jason' where audiences were waiting impatiently for about the same amount of time. When this came out, it was more like "Oh neat, this could be fun." And indeed, "fun" was what I got from this. It was a good long-time-coming sequel that seemed to understand what it was, and gave us just enough nostalgia while being something new and bringing Ghostface back for more thrills and kills for a whole new generation. 3/5 |
RSS Feed