 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
0 Comments
 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  While rediscovering the 'Scream' franchise, I've divided it into two long chapters in my head. 'Scream 3' is what rounds out the original trilogy, and whatever comes after that is the "next generation". It was interesting to note that I see 'Scream 2' in a very different light than I used to, taking it to be well-done, if perhaps a little convenient in its farce on the horror movie sequel. So, logically, 'Scream 3' would almost have to be better by definition, if it's farcing something as often failed as the concept of a trilogy, right?... right?
Well, diving right into it, 'Scream 3' picks just a couple of years after 'Scream 2'. The backdrop for the movie is a studio lot, and the set pieces of 'Stab 3'; a film based on things we haven't seen happen. Presumably, 'Stab 2' was based on the events of 'Scream 2', but we skipped right over that. I suppose the point here is actually somewhat clever, as it shows how a studio will just make things up as they go, as long as those box office numbers keep coming. So, I'll give it up to the film for portraying something like studio interference in such a way. But it's also hard to do the "sequel" farce a second time and still have it hold any water. Anyway, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) now lives a secluded and locked-down life, working as a crisis counsellor for abused women. Soon enough, an eerily familiar voice gives her a call; her deceased mother. To make a long story short, this eventually brings her to Hollywood where some murders have started within the cast and crew of 'Stab 3'. This eventually reunites the old "Scream Team", including Sidney, Dewey Riley (David Arquette) and Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) among others to "Scooby-Doo" this murder mystery, find out who the new Ghostface Killer is, or if it's two of them working together again, etc. As per usual, there's a whole new set of rules brought to us by Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy), having to do with them now being stuck in not just a horror movie, not just a sequel, but the concluding chapter of a trilogy. 1- the killer, at this point, is superhuman and won't die easily. 2 - anyone, including the main character, has a chance of dying. 3 - the past will come back in some way, shape or form. Everything we thought we knew is pretty much null and void now. And really, that's sort of my gripe with the way this movie eventually goes down. I won't spoil anything, but I'm just gonna say, Randy's pretty much right about that final point. This is sort of a weird one because for as much as it seems to be a pretty solid commentary about studio interference when it comes to movie-making (especially with money-grabbing trilogy chapters), that's also its downfall (as I sort of mentioned earlier). It IS the third time we've seen this kind of thing in a few short years, so it's fair to say that by this time it was getting a touch old. This was also the peak of the teen slasher genre of the late 90s-early 00s, so I think by this point, either other non-'Scream' titles were grabbing our interest, or we were just plain starting to get a little tired of the whole teen horror thing, if not the slasher thing altogether. A few names are added to the cast here, including Patrick Dempsey as Detective Mark Kincaid, Scott Foley as 'Stab 3' director, Roman Bridger, and Lance Henriksen as 'Stab 3' producer, John Milton. Then there's a cast of 'Stab 3' actors that includes, among others, Emily Mortimer as Angelina Tyler (playing Sidney), Parker Posey as Jennifer Jolie (playing Gale), Matt Keeslar as Tom Prinze (playing Dewey), Deon Richmond as Tyson Fox (playing a Randy equivalent) and Jenny McCarthy as Sarah Darling - a typical throwaway blonde we see in slasher horror movies. Even good old Patrick Warburton joins the cast as Jennifer's bodyguard, Steven Stone. So I will say that for a list of (some) recognizable faces this can be kind of fun. Hell, even Jay and Silent Bob pop up at one point (Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith, respectively). All in all, I think this grows on me a little tiny bit every time I watch it, but that's really just a personal thing. It's slowly falling into the "guilty pleasure" category because, while it has a few clever things about it, the overall execution is just sort of "meh" to the point where it's almost laughable. I'd swear, they made characters extra stupid for this one. All of it leads to a disappointing, almost "WTF" type of reveal as well, which 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 like I did with 'Scream 2'. But even though I might see this as a sort of guilty pleasure now, it's still not very well done and in many ways felt like the end of things back in the year 2000. Turns out, however, we were wrong! Three more to go! 2/5  'Scream 2' is an interesting example of a film I really enjoy for, perhaps, all the wrong reasons. Here we have a sequel to 'Scream' - a movie that, while being legitimate slasher horror, is also a sort of farce on the whole genre. With that in mind, generally speaking, sequels tend to be a little bit lower in quality than the classic original. 'Scream 2' also does take a dip in quality, but for me, that's actually part of its charm. I now consider this chapter of the series a guilty pleasure. For me, it's probably the most fun I have with any of them.
Taking place a little over a year after the first film's events, we see that since then, a film has been released based on those events entitled 'Stab'. Attending a sneak preview of the film are a couple of college seniors - Maureen (Jada Pinkett Smith) and Phil (Omar Epps), who eventually become the first two murders, thus first killing off a couple of big names, doubling up on the first film with Drew Barrymore's fate. Remembering that this is a sequel farce about sequels, it's things like this that make the film pretty good. It doesn't stop there, either. There is a lot of sequel tropes all throughout the film, along with little "two" nods, like the two Ghostfaces at the urinals in the accompanying photo. A media circus once again descends upon Sidney Prescott's (Neve Campbell) school, this time Windsor College in Ohio, far away from California where the original film took place. Fun fact, the 'Elm Street' series actually retconned the location of Springwood from California to Ohio, which is a fun little Wes Craven nod. But getting back on track, among these media reporters are Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox), returning as a not-so-likable and not-so-redeemed character, and newcomer, Debbie Salt (Laurie Metcalf), who seemingly aspires to be another Gale. Meanwhile, Sidney lives her college life close to her new best friend, Hallie (Elise Neal), and with the wonders of caller ID - something the first film actually helped really take off. Along with Sidney and Hallie are a new group of friends, which still includes the surviving Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy), Sid's new boyfriend, Derek (Jerry O'Connell) and Mickey (Timothy Olyphant in his break-out role). Along with the killing, Sidney's past comes back to "awkward" things up with the release of Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber), who was exonerated after he was found innocent of killing Sidney's mother. While Sidney deals with her mixed feelings about Cotton (for obvious reasons) and Derek (since her last boyfriend turned out to be a killer), officer Dewey (David Arquette) tries to pin down who the killer really is while trying to protect Sidney and her friends, doing so with the help of Randy's movie knowledge and Gale's tenacity. Just like last time, certain rules about the situation are established. This time around, the body count is higher, the kills are more elaborate, and never, ever... something. It's actually never revealed, but it's presumed that it's "never assume the killer is dead", thanks to this extended cut of the scene from the film's original teaser trailer. The "rules" seem to establish themselves as a sort of character for each of these films, and they're a big part of the fun of everything. They further lend themselves to the parody aspect of these films, as it sort of gives you something to look for. And speaking of the film's parody aspect, I really do feel like this is the one that really nails it, whether it be on purpose or by happy accident. While the "copycat" aspect of the Ghostface killer (not the Wu-Tang guy) is a constant throughout these films, this was the first time. But what I appreciate here more than the rest is that the film, like many sequels, actually goes full copycat, right down to the murder victims' names - the first two being Maureen Evans (Maureen being Sidney's Mom's name) and Phil Stevens (Steven Orth being the first on-screen victim of the series). 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, but if done by anyone else, they're screwed. This, of course, lends itself to us knowing Sidney will be our safe survivor girl. I might say that this chapter ultimately did the best job as far as what it's supposed to represent (save for maybe the first). A lot more fun comes out of this as we see 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, which is actually pretty humorous when it comes down to his performance. While there's a part of me that presumes a lot of the "bad" of this movie was done on purpose (as they openly discuss sequels being of less quality than their originals), I can't help but enjoy it 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 try to keep this relatively spoiler-free, but it doesn't help that one of the things that made this movie so good for its time means spoiling the opening entirely. But, seeing as this is now a 20+ year-old film, and widely considered a horror classic, I might as well just rip it off like a band-aid. IF you care, I would probably just scroll down to my rating and skip the rest. But with that said, I can only imagine you're here reading this because you're already a fan of the movie. So, let's get to it!
We meet high schooler Casey Becker (Drew Barrymore) who, to make a long story short, 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 our "survivor girl". 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. It's one of the best examples of a movie that has you quickly realise that no one is safe! This murder sets into motion a police investigation and media circus invasion of Woodsboro High School. In the middle of it all, our actual survivor girl of the franchise, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) deals with the one-year anniversary of her mother's violent murder at the alleged hands of Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber). She's also constatly pressured by her boyfriend, Billy (Skeet Ulrich) who wishes she could move on from her trauma so that their relationship can move forward. On top of everything else, she also has Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox) to deal with; a tenacious reporter who wrote a book about Sidney's mother's murder, claiming Cotton to be innocent, and spreading rumours and conspiracy theories about it. Also involved in a group of mutual friends are the eccentric Stuart (Matthew Lillard), Sidney's best friend, Tatum (Rose McGowan) and the movie-loving, movie-rule-establishing Randy (Jamie Kennedy), who always plays an important part in these movies, giving characters (and the audience) hints, regarding what to expect in whatever volume of the movie 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 wont be. As events unfold (including the disappearance of Sidney's father) and murder suspects seem to surround the small town of Woodsboro, California, 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 least until like, 2013). But going back to Sidney, she soon finds herself in a bit of a whirlwind situation, and appears to be the main target of these attacks before long. Will she be able to survive despite perhaps breaking one or two of Randy's "rules"? Well, we're up to six movies now, so I suppose the answer is obvious. This one is the bread and butter of the 'Scream' franchise - breaking new grounds by giving us a farcical horror movie without it being a comedy. To make it even better, horror legend Wes Craven sits in the director seat, having fun with a movie that quite literally pokes fun at his craft. Soon enough, it would be Craven's second big horror franchise (although he was far more involved with this one than 'Nightmare'), and would be a huge accomplishment in the resurrection of the slasher horror genre. Sadly this would clear a path for "teen horror", which involved a lot of similar casting of big names, usually "heartthrobs" of some sort, and were rated PG-13 a little more often than R. But the ideas and concepts behind 'Scream' keep it a classic. It's only a semi-serious horror movie that plays on horror tropes rather than simply use them. I think that since it has been farced so many times, the original 'Scream' may have lost its lustre just a little bit. It's definitely "trapped" in the 90s, so it may be difficult for a newcomer to take seriously. The most shining example being that cell phones at that time were more like a luxury than the everyday items we take for granted today. In some ways, this may be a product of its time, but its overall execution is still a little something to be admired. For its time it was quite clever, as by 1996, the slasher genre was old news. It was interesting to see the use of pop culture references throughout the film along with an Easter egg here and there. In many ways, even though 'Scream' is a farce on slasher horrors, it's also a love letter. 4/5 |
RSS Feed