 The 'Scream' franchise continues to use its familiar 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"? Although it may sound like I'm rolling my eyes at the concept of yet another 'Scream' movie following its old formula, I have to admit I really enjoyed this! Time will tell whether my opinion fades a little, as it did with 'Scream 4', but so far, I'd say this might be one of the best in the series.
Our four survivors from the last film, Sam (Melissa Barrera) and Tara (Jenna Ortega) Carpenter, along with the Meeks-Martin twins, Chad (Mason Gooding) and Mindy (Jasmin Savoy Brown), have moved to New York City for a new start, following the events of 'Scream 5.' Tara attends University with the twins, as do 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 following her experience, which touches on a certain dark secret Sam has, which wanders into spoiler territory. As per usual, the film opens with a killer wearing a Ghostface mask doing his thing, leading to a media circus where Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox) shows up, leaving us wondering exactly how to feel about her. Meanwhile, Detective Wayne Bailey (Dermot Mulroney) calls Sam in for questioning, since her ID happened to be found on the scene of this chapter's first brutal murder, along with what seems to be the mask from the previous year's attacks. Of course, it's not long before things start happening all over again, but this time, it takes place in the middle of the big city of Manhattan. While Sam is a little more vigilant about the situation she finds herself in, wanting to escape while the escaping is good, Tara is a little more insistent that the worst is probably over, she can take care of herself and doesn't want to throw away her education based on a few horrific 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 to keep us guessing about the killer's identity, but I have to admit this time they were a little easier for me to spot. This chapter also features the return of Kirby Reed (Hayden Panettiere), who we last saw in 'Scream 4.' She has since done pretty well for herself, becoming an FBI agent specializing in Ghostface attacks. We also have some dude, whom Sam is seeing, named Danny Brackett (Josh Segarra); the typical love interest, the lead doesn't know whether or not to trust. As a side note, they always do well with nods to horror names in these movies, and like with the surname "Carpenter," this is also a nod to Annie Brackett of 'Halloween' fame. Sadly for some, Sidney has no part in this story, but in some ways I appreciate the shift in focus. I'd hazard a guess that a lot of the film drew inspiration from the 'Friday the 13th' franchise, bringing the action to Manhattan (this time, the movie actually fully takes place there). Despite some of it being more of the same, there's definitely a modern feel to this chapter. Not only can fans appreciate a new level of brutality in the kills here, but it also delves into deeper themes like toxic horror fans, conspiracies, and legacy, both within the horror movies that carry this franchise and in Sam and Tara's real lives. The filmmakers here definitely turned the volume up with this instalment. Once again, a set of survival rules is established, but much of it is just a repeat or rewording of previous films. Still, there is more to it that makes it enjoyable, and it comes complete with an ending that places that wonderful, twisted cherry on top of the Scream horror sundae. 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 parodying. Some old school fans may be disappointed in the shift that 'Scream VI' takes, but for me, this was thoroughly enjoyable, and right behind 'Scream 2' as my favourite in the series. 4/5
0 Comments
 Just when we thought they were out of ideas for this franchise, 2022 gave us 'Scream' - and this time it's about the "Requel", which is exactly what this is, and honestly, the first time I've heard what is perhaps the most fitting term for it. In case you're wondering, from what I can gather, this movie defines the term as a bit of a reboot, but still a bit of a sequel. Often, these are the movies that use the original title, like 'Halloween' (2018), 'Candyman' (2021), or even 'Jumanji' (2017).
That said, a "requel" doesn't have to be named the same as the 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, leading to the most "meta" thing about this movie being the title itself. Usually, when a "requel" happens and it just uses the same title as the original film in the franchise, it would be irksome for me, but at the very least, in the case of 'Scream', the title lends itself to the film's overall plot and movie-making subject matter, which is something this series has been pretty great for. We open with the typical phone call and attack, this time on series newcomer, Tara Carpenter (Jenna Ortega), ultimately leaving 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 potential 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 dispense the film's rules this time (Never trust your love interest; the killer always has something to do with the past; and 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 returned to TV with a morning show of sorts. As for Sidney (Neve Campbell), she returns and finds herself getting dragged back in as well. While this all sounds like a whole lot more of the same, the film does play with certain elements, largely revolving around the generational gap. We find out a few family ties here, and not all of them are as pleasant as finding out that a couple of twins are Randy Meeks' niece and nephew. The film strikes a decent balance between decent and "meh". I feel 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. In fairness, we're supposed to focus on this new group, but fans wanna see Sid kick some ass again. To reiterate my thoughts on the series as a whole, I consider the first three an "original trilogy," 'Scream 4' bridges the generational gap, and the new generation starts here with "original trilogy" characters becoming, as I mentioned, "legacy" characters. 'Scream 4' really does manage to stand on its own, released not only eleven years after 'Scream 3' but eleven years before this chapter. In that way, it's kind of fun to have that generational gap between these films, as the films are able to adapt with newer, or at least more commonly used, technologies these days. It's funny to think that it all started with a house phone. I would probably consider this to be the most middle-ground I feel about a chapter in the 'Scream' series. There's something about it that doesn't feel quite right, but I can appreciate what they did with it. I also have to say that the big reveal of the killer(s) left me pretty lukewarm. However, a more fun reveal that lies elsewhere and provides a badass twist at the end makes up for it. While things might feel a bit off for me, I can appreciate that this is meant to expand to new audiences and not just fans, so any real problems I may have with it feel like nitpicks. It's not the best in the series, but it's no 'Scream 3'. 3/5  When I went to check this out in theatres, I didn't think it was gonna be that great. After all, I found 'Scream 3' to be a letdown, so how could a fourth instalment, around eleven years later, reliant on viewers' nostalgia 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 the surprise, given how long it took to be released. It also stood out as something no one was really asking for, but that was still pleasing to get.
We start this one off in real time, after the events of 'Scream 3', where the 'Stab' series in these films has reached the "out of control" point. Not only are they up to 'Stab 7' now, but 'Stab 5' evidently went so far as to introduce time travel into the plot, which I see as a nod to when horror icons find themselves in outer space, like Jason or the Leprechaun. Furthermore, the film opens with a movie-within-a-movie gag that, frankly, pokes fun at the 'Scream' franchise itself. It's really quite funny, but it eventually leads to the movie's first kill and yet another new, different Ghostface. I consider 'Scream 4' nowadays a stand-alone "bridge" movie between the first and the next generation (which brings in Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega). A new group of high school kids is brought in as potential victims for the "meat grinder," while our favourite characters remain 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, only to find that the killing has started all over again. This time, the big target seems to be Sidney's cousin, Jill (Emma Roberts), and to a lesser extent, her friends, Olivia (Marielle Jaffe) and Kirby (Hayden Panettiere). This time, the killer seems to want to direct his own reboot, so naturally, this chapter is more of a play 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 in the dialogue of these films. Originally arriving for a book signing, when the killing starts, evidence is found in the trunk of the car that 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, as in the first film, "everyone is a suspect". On that note, I liked that the film kept me guessing about who was committing the killings. The list of suspects is huge, and even includes the likes of a few 'Scream' mainstays. There are red herrings all over this movie, and I have to admit, I kind of appreciated that. On the other hand, however, to some degree, it still just feels like more of the same. Once again, there's a standard set of rules here, this time concerning the "reboot," and this time extended. Don't mess with the original; death scenes are more extreme (again); the "unexpected" is the new cliché; virgins can die now; new technology is used and integral to the plot; a good opening sequence is necessary; and 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 repeats, but what would a 'Scream' movie be without a list of rules? Going back to being pleasantly surprised when this came out, I should say that most of that pleasant surprise came from a little nostalgia, 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 I was champing at the bit for years leading up to it. When this came out, it just struck me as a potentially fun title I should check out, and "fun" was delivered successfully despite any flaws. To the film's credit, it sticks to what makes these films a good time by playing things a bit more "meta," but not going completely overboard, and it's a vast improvement over 'Scream 3.' 3/5  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  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 |
Take 5 Reviews
RSS Feed
