Neve Campbell to Return for Scream 4
Source: Variety
Bob Weinstein has confirmed to Variety that Neve Campbell has signed to return as Sidney Prescott in Dimension Films' Scream 4, which will start production in April or May. It will be the first film of a new trilogy and Wes Craven is in talks to direct once again. Campbell is joining returning stars Courteney Cox and David Arquette.
Weinstein also said that Robert Rodriguez is writing Spy Kids 4, which he will direct in 3D. The movie will be made in partnership with Disney and will start shooting in March.
Dimension is also planning to make Halloween 3D for an October 2010 release and is remaking the cult classic Children of the Corn.
Weinstein cited plans to shoot new Hellraiser and Scanners films in 3D. Also on the slate are remakes of Short Circuit and An American Werewolf in London.
lol@Robert Rodriguez.
Weinstein will hire a bunch of WB-style actors to fill out the cast (incl. someone from Gossip Girl) and Neve Campbell will be the mom of one of these characters who will be killed in the first scene. Let's see how close I am.
I predict Sidney IS the killer.
Yup, thats the first thing i said to myself too...
Quote from: Stefen on September 26, 2009, 02:00:40 PM
I predict Sidney IS the killer.
I actually think that would be awesome if they did it correctly. Instead of trying to find a bullshit rationalization to how she could have been the killer all along, what could happen now is that her constant role as victim to this killer could convince her the only way she can take power in this relationship is to assume the role herself. Instead of allow someone else to come along and assume the role, she can be the tormentor. She can do all the things that the killer would do and take the position of power. Her years of harassment and trauma would be suitable for a psyche that would be attracted to killing other people.
The first Scream really is awesome if you're watching it for the first time. Scream 2 was one of those movies where I counted down the days until it opened.
NERD!
i didn't quite count the days down but ya it's unjustly labeled as a bad series. even to this day you can see how it was made by a master despite its trendy subject matter. i remember the first scene with drew being so intense. maybe it was my headspace but when she's chased down on the lawn and murdered i remember thinking that it was so dark and intense. later i found out that scene was actually cut down quite a bit because the mpaa couldn't handle it. i'd love to find a directors cut.
i really liked it when it came out, i think all the subsequent slasher flicks somehow ruined it, it re-invented the genre no doubt. i actually really like the third one too. guilty pleasure maybe, but parker pose makes me laugh in every scene she's in. imo the 2nd is the weakest.
though the article says the first in a new trilogy, i would imagine her being the killer by the end of the 6th one then, and if they built that up correctly they could tie her into the 4th and 5th. truth be known she should have been the killer in the 3rd one. biggest problem with the 2nd and 3rd ones were the fact that the killers and motives seemed tacked on. the reveal is what made the first movie cool, it was a good resolution to the build up, something that often isn't the case. sadly they never lived up to it.
The first is the best. I really wish I could watch it again for the first time. That ending. My goodness.
re: Scream talk late last year
I remember seeing Scream II opening night - I was still underage so we got our older legal friend to buy tics. There were crowds waiting out in the lobby, so it was a big deal even in rural East Tx. I was scared in that screening because it has the movie theatre scenes/kills and then some guy ran through our theatre in Scream get up.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fewpopwatch.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F04%2Fscream-4-poster_344.jpg&hash=ca26a5b94110648164ac580019876b0f04d8a2af)
Exclusive: New 'Scream 4' poster, plus an interview with director Wes Craven
Source: EW
It's been 10 years since his last appearance in Scream 3, but Ghostface is back for more, as is the original Scream team of director Wes Craven, screenwriter Kevin Williamson (The Vampire Diaries), and the acting trio of Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, and David Arquette. Dimension Films gave EW.com the first look at the final teaser poster for Scream 4, which will hit theaters April 15, 2011. Horror movie maestro Craven, who'll start shooting the new sequel this June, kindly set aside a few minutes to chat about the fourth entry in his memorably meta series.
ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: So how did Scream 4 come together?
WES CRAVEN: Bob Weinstein [the head of Dimension Films] felt that 10 years was enough of a wait. He felt it was time to give the original three films their due, so he called Kevin Williamson, who started coming up with ideas. For some years, Kevin had the notion of the general course of the next three movies. There was a point where Bob came to me and said, "We want to start showing you pages — do you want to do it?" And off we went.
Did you have any trepidation about revisiting the series so many years down the road?
No, I'm fascinated by what this movie is. I can't think of another film that has not only a true trilogy, where you're following a single central character over three pictures, but has the complexity to the story and other characters that also have continued along. And then 10 years later, to come back to those same characters and same actors, and continue that story in a way that's totally organic. It's kind of unprecedented.
Are Sidney (Campbell), Gale (Cox), and Dewey (Arquette) still going to be the central characters, or are they on the periphery this time?
It's a total integration of those three and new kids. The story of Sid, Gale, and Dewey is very much a part of the movie.
And Sid's still having problems with Ghostface?
There have been 10 years of no Ghostface, but there has been the movie-within-a-movie Stab. We have fun with the idea of endless sequels, or "sequelitis" as Kevin calls it in the script. Sid goes through these three horrendous things, and Stab was based on those horrible things. And then they've been taken by a studio and run into the ground in a series of sequels. She has been off by herself and living her own life, and she's even written a book that has gotten a lot of critical acclaim. She's kind of put her life back together in the course of these 10 years. But, certainly, there would be no Scream without Ghostface, so she has to confront him again, but now as a woman who has really come out the darkness of her past.
Can you tease what's happening with Dewey and Gale by this point?
I don't think Bob Weinstein would be very happy if I disclosed anything. We have been playing CIA with trying to keep everything secret, and we haven't put any pages out from the current version of the script, except for things we've already discarded. Our first experience with casting this time around, the sides [portions of the script used for auditions] that we used were put on the Internet the same afternoon. It was bad back when we made the other movies, too. On Scream 2, we had the first 40 pages of the script show up on the Internet the night they arrived from Kevin, and we had to do backflips to rewrite the opening.
Speaking of openings, are you at least going to continue with having a couple killed at the beginning of the film?
That's a strong possibility. [Laughs] Certainly, you will recognize what Bob calls the DNA of the film: a very complex murder mystery, a shocking action picture, wonderful humor based on character, and lots of surprises, as well as a movie that kind of copies itself. It's a pretty amazing script.
What is your opinion of where the horror genre has gone these past 10 years?
It feels like the end of an era of a certain type of film. There are series of films, a lot of sequels, and a lot of remakes, and part of the humor of Scream 4 is when characters comment on that. "Enough of Saw 25 and all!" [Laughs] A lot of films, directors, and studios are the butts of some of the jokes. In order to figure out what's happening around them, the characters have to figure out where the genre of horror is. So this is a look at horror after 10 years of a lot of sequels rather than original films coming up year after year. One film is successful, and then they make 25 of them. I think it's time for something new. I've done remakes of my own films, too, with The Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes, but we feel it's time for something new and different, and that's what this film is going to be.
But then is it ironic that this is the fourth film in a series?
Yeah, but I've never felt like these are sequels. This is a film about the progress of, at this point, three core characters, and how all of these events have changed their lives, and how the events in their lives have been reflected in the movies around them, which they might like or might really not like at all. I think that makes it really different.
As for the poster's tagline, "New decade, new rules," are the new rules going to specifically comment on what's happened these last 10 years with horror movies?
It's very much about the last 10 years, and where we are right now. "New decade, new rules" is very much the keynote of the film, that is, trying to figure out what sort of rules (the new Ghostface) is following. How do we fight this killer without a road map? We have to figure out where we are.
Are you returning to Santa Rosa, Calif., to shoot?
We're actually going to Michigan. We found a wonderful small town that looks very much like the town we had in Northern California. Frankly, the tax breaks in Michigan are enormous, so we'll be able to put a lot more movie on the screen.
But this Michigan town is still supposed to represent (the series' fictional town of) Woodsboro?
Yeah. I guess I just gave something away. [Laughs]
Can we count on Scream 4 remaining an R-rated movie with blood and guts and all that fun stuff?
I think that's safe to say. I've very excited about it. At this point in my career, Scream is one of the longest running stories I've told. It's fascinating to still have actors who are very much into continuing their roles and have great chemistry. Part of the reason these three characters are still alive is because they're so great. We haven't wanted to kill them.
And, should Scream 4 become a hit, you are signed on for Scream 5 and 6, right?
Yeah, I'm signed on for the duration.
Quote from: Wes Craven
pictures
Would you have preferred "flickershows"?
scorsese says pictures too, i think it's ok for old folks. i hate hearing young ppl talk like that. i kinda do the same when i'm talking about music, i like to say "tracks" instead of songs. but i don't give a shit about music and i don't know any real music buffs so it's ok.
about this film, i think it sounds GREAT. maybe i'm giving too much credit to wes craven but he's shown himself to really blow shit out of the water when you would expect something to really just be DEAD in the water.. for example his final Nightmare, Wes Craven's New Nightmare.. that's an underrated classic that flopped or whatever but predicted EVERYTHING that happened in the mid to late 90s after scream.
scream was slick and new and had great attitude. it's the best representation of humour and pop culture of that time. unfortunately because of its success there's probly some kid who's never seen it and only knows it from the 50 times he's seen Scary Movie. there's a huge difference in the attitude of those films.. Scary Movie is pathetic and mean, it's to humour what Hostel and Saw sequels are to tasteful visuals. it's crass garbage.
what excites me about what Craven is talking about is it's really a great idea if done right. i don't KNOW exactly how it's gonna be done right but it's a legitimate challenge to take on. what has horror become in the last 10 years? number one -- we must all realise of course Craven is saying HORROR but he really means MOVIES and pop culture sensibilities in general. one thing is identifying any new elements of the winning formula behind popular films (the idea behind sequels), but another and more important thing is to use them well and at the same time COMMENT on how they are being used.
any film that repeats what another has done must be striving to have the same formula. saw 2 is saw 1 is saw 5. so does it get the credit of illuminating what the winning formula is just because it tries to repeat it? not that i liked the original Saw or Hostel or any of that crass garbage shit, but you see here the ambition of Craven and how it's so much more than anyone else is trying. THE MISTAKE would be to look at post-scream films in a pre-scream way. they also can't really talk about SEQUELS cos they already did that in 2 and three. i think what Craven is talking about when he says "new decade new rules" is not just trying to show the new trends or simply reference them or to simply replicate them -- that would be just a remake/sequel/parody -- but identify the new rules FOR talking about what is going on.
the old rule came from a self-conscious seinfeldian background. they feel a bit insulated now when we think about it cos films in the 90s were still only concerned with replicating themselves. this was true of sequels, remakes, rip-offs parodies since The Godfather and Jaws.. but now it's something else. i think that's the first acknowledgement. we all know it's something else. something is not right with creative production. Pulp Fiction and Seinfeld gave way to original Scream. original Scream and the first 10 years of the Simpsons gave way to Being John Malkovich. the 90s make sense in lots of ways.. but this is not transferrable to a decade where everything is a sequel, a remake, a clone.
Scream 4 has to contend with the matrix and its sequels, the star wars prequels, the lord of the rings and now the hobbit films, harry potter, the vampire explosion, torture porn and eli roth.. the difference in substance between the 90s and the 00s is the difference between Pulp Fiction and Inglourious Basterds. if Scream 4 can even begin to approach a new era of substance (from within the belly of the beast itself) it will be great.
but something tells me it will not, cos they've been contracted to do 2 more if it's successful. :S
the weakest link is williamson. i wish he would jj abrams it and develop the story instead of penning the script itself. i think he's gotten worse over time. not to say his early stuff was bad, i just think he is better at story/plot then dialog. his current stuff watches like someone trying to be kevin williamson.
damn, you're right. i forgot about that guy.
whereas i could defend Wes Craven, Williamson came and went in the 90s and would have to majorly rediscover himself to be relevant again. he was a fresh voice with scream and dawson's creek but what has he done for me lately? craven has proved himself over two decades (80s and 90s) and in the last ten years his two major features have been forgettable but not overly offensive -- his small output makes it easier to contain the damage.
but williamson? what the hell are the vampire diaries? i don't wanna know.. and is he still writing like Diablo Cody 1.0? i don't wanna know..
ya i feel that, i've been a huge craven defender with friends in the past. his films are great. he and carpenter owned the 80s imo. love people under the stairs. first NOES is a masterpiece, and the first 90% of New Nightmare is amazing.
i've saw a couple episodes of vampire diaries with my ex-GF, it's really bad. It just doesn't take any character risks. It's prime time TV, and this is a feature. but last time craven and williamson teamed up it was that werewolf flick, and it was really bad cuz it played like TV... the dialog i mean.
We got Vampires Diaries on french tv and they translated it to the equivalent of : "Vampires, Werewolves, etc.''
which at first glance looks really stupid but really I'm sure it's the translator being disgusted at the series. it's almost "Vampires, werevoles... aww whatever''
is there any confirmation that Denise Richards is in this?
i saw Wild Things on TV the other day and was reading up on her and this came up a couple times, but with no 'legit' sources that i could find.
maybe people are mixing it up with a possible Scary Movie 4 (oh, wait, there already was one i think)?
not that it makes much difference.
Will Ashley Greene, Hayden Panettiere join 'Scream 4'? (exclusive)
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Dimension is taking the first steps to casting "Scream 4," which is heading toward a July start date.
Lake Bell is in negotiations to join the franchise, and offers are out to "Twilight" actress Ashley Greene, "Heroes" star Hayden Panettiere and Rory Culkin ("Twelve") for key starring roles.
"Scream 4" reunites Wes Craven with Kevin Williamson, who kicked off a horror- movie revival with his "Scream" script in 1996. The story brings back original cast members Neve Campbell, David Arquette and Courteney Cox, though the new flick is seen as a passing of the baton to a new generation of slasher victims, with Williamson already under contract to write a fifth installment.
If deals are concluded, Greene would play Campbell's cousin Jill, essentially the heroine of the movie, and Panettiere would play her best friend, a nerdy film geek. Culkin would play a potential love interest for Jill.
Bell is negotiating to play a police officer who knew Sidney (Campbell) from high school.
Casting is proceeding slowly because Craven and Dimension are not sending the script to agencies in order to protect its secrecy. With only character descriptions, actors are having a difficult time deciding whether certain roles are for them. Reps for the actors declined comment.
Craven, Williamson and Iya Labunka are producing the feature, which is slated for an April 15 release. Original producer Cathy Konrad is not aboard the production and is suing the Weinsteins, alleging that she was cut out of "Scream 4."
The film will shoot in incentive-rich Michigan. The original was shot in Santa Rosa, Calif.
Bell, repped by UTA and Joannie Burstein, most recently was onscreen in "It's Complicated." She voices a role in "Shrek Forever After," which bows today, and stars in the upcoming features "A Good Old Fashioned Orgy" and "Little Murder."
Quote from: Pas on April 30, 2010, 01:28:30 PM
"Vampires, Werewolves, etc.''
haha, I don't know why this made me laugh so much. Maybe it's because it's a really funny topical title or maybe it's because I'm easily amused while eating tortilla chips. Funny title.
Also, Hayden Panitittie would so fit in a Kevin Williamson movie 15 years ago. I bet she wishes they would remake Scream.
"Scream 4" catches Emma Roberts
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Emma Roberts has been cast as the new leading lady in "Scream 4," taking a role that was first offered to "Twilight" actress Ashley Greene.
Roberts will play the cousin of returning "Scream" star Neve Campbell, and essentially the heroine in the rebooted horror franchise.
Greene's deal was never completed, and -- as first reported by Entertainment Weekly -- in stepped Roberts. The 19-year-old daughter of Eric Roberts starred in the feature version of "Nancy Drew" and was last seen in New Line's ensemble romantic comedy "Valentine's Day."
Wes Craven is returning to the director's chair for "Scream 4," and Kevin Williamson is back writing the script. Shooting begins June in Michigan.
man these peanuts are salty
these pretzels are making me thirsty?
that's the one. ha ha ha.
I can't believe I said that.
lol. Marquee.
Panettiere and Culkin Confirmed for Scream 4
Source: ComingSoon
Dimension Films has confirmed that Hayden Panettiere ("Heroes") and Rory Culkin will star in Scream 4 as well.
They join original "Scream" cast members Neve Campbell, David Arquette, and Courteney Cox Arquette, as well as newcomer to the franchise, Emma Roberts.
To be directed by Wes Craven from a Kevin Williamson script, the anticipated follow-up starts shooting in June for a release in theaters on April 15, 2011.
Iya Labunka is producing along with Craven.
CALLED IT!
I'm watching the first Scream right now, which I think is the only really good one however dated or predictable its become and I just don't see how they're going to elaborate on this plot line again of someone trying to kill sydney. The only way they can get down to the core of anything is if they explain why her Mom got murdered and the story behind that. Theres no way they can introduce this story again like she's gotten past it and some new killer has come out of the woodwork to stalk her. It'd be better if people started fucking with her just playing around and she goes all psycho, finally. Thats the only course I'd be willing to see this thing take, which most likely means they'll try to flip it somehow.
Didn't Scream 3 explain why the mother was killed?
Well Billy said in the first one it was because she was fucking his Dad and made his Mom leave so that would cancel out my point,except before that he's talking about how its better if you don't know the motive so he would just come up with something like that. What did Scream 3 say?
Spoilers.
I haven't seen it since the theater, but I think the killer in the 3rd one is Neve's brother and he hired the killers in the first movie. My memory could be hazy though.
the killers in the 2nd and 3rd were the weakest parts of the sequels, honestly it should have been sydney in the 3rd installment.
"Scream 4" brings on more fresh blood
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Adam Brody, Marley Shelton and Erik Knudsen have joined the cast of "Scream 4," which began shooting this week in Michigan.
The film reunites director Wes Craven with Kevin Williamson, who kicked off a horror movie revival with his "Scream" script in 1996.
Original cast members Neve Campbell, David Arquette and Courteney Cox are also returning, though the plan is to pass the baton to a new generation of slasher victims, namely Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere, Rory Culkin and Nico Tortorella.
Brody will play a cop recently graduated from college who was raised on the "CSI" TV series.
Shelton will play a deputy who knew Campbell's character in high school. Lake Bell had been in negotiations for the role.
Knudsen will have a role similar to the one played by Jamie Kennedy in the first two installments, a character who is familiar with horror movie conventions and a provider of comic relief.
To preserve the identity of the killer, Craven and Williamson are operating under several layers of secrecy, including not sending the script to agencies. At a table read last week, the actors were told to stop reading at page 75 to prevent even those already cast in the film from knowing the climax.
Brody recently wrapped ensemble indie drama "The Oranges," which also stars Hugh Laurie and Leighton Meester. He stars with Katie Holmes, Anna Paquin and Elijah Wood in "The Romantics," a romantic comedy slated to open this fall.
Shelton was most recently seen in director Sebastian Gutierrez's ensemble comedy "Women in Trouble." Other credits include "Planet Terror" and "Sin City."
Toronto-born Knudsen appears in the August release "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World," Edgar Wright's adaptation of the Bryan Lee O'Malley graphic novel series, as well as "Beastly," a CBS Films fantasy romance.
I'm allowing myself to be mildly excited about this.
Errr, nevermind...
What The Hell is Happening to Scream 4? (//http://)
Because Fourth of July weekend wouldn't be complete without some fireworks, here comes the implosion that is Scream 4. Earlier today, Zap2it reported that Kevin Williamson had been taken off the horror sequel and replaced with Ehren Kruger, much to the consternation of the cast — and likely Williamson himself, since he wasn't a big fan of Kruger's Scream 3 script. And now, it looks like their source for this scoop has been unearthed: Could it be Kevin Williamson himself?
On June 29th, the embattled screenwriter tweeted the following: "So nice to sushi with you @cadlymack and get to know you." Harmless, until you realize that @cadlymack is Carina MacKenize, a writer for Zap2it and the author of the Scream 4 piece that was posted today (which quoted anonymous sources close to the production).
And then there's Wes Craven. In response to the posted Zap2it article, Craven took to his own Twitter page — Randy would be very proud of how post-millennial this all is — and wrote the missive you see above. He even went so far as to hashtag the thing, as if to remind all Scream 4 fans searching Twitter just how terribly things on set are going.
So, to recap: Williamson is squawking about his treatment on the film (and his apparent firing), Craven is distancing himself from the script, and the actors are complaining about how their parts of have been changed for the worse. Looks like Harvey Weinstein has Scream 4 right where he wants it.
you know what, this isn't bad news. the third film was the best written script of the series. any complaints would be directed at the treatment/story which was williamson anyway.
it's great cuz P and i were talking about this 2 pages ago, and it looks like it's happening.
is rachel mcadams new news or an imdb hoax? she's not listed on that 7/1 report, and she's a big name that would be.
alison brie is also in it now apparently.
It seems like they just sent to every actor in Hollywood under 35 a mass text that said "CONGRATULATIONS, YOU'RE IN SCREAM 4".
Anna Paquin, Kristen Bell in 'Scream 4'; script now at 140 pages
Source: THR
Hot news out of the horror world today: "True Blood" star Anna Paquin and Kristen Bell will make cameos in "Scream 4," now shooting in Michigan.
The Wes Craven has a top secret script but those in the know say the cameos are in similar nature to that of Drew Barrymore's in the original "Scream." The 1996 movie opened with an electrifying sequence of Barrymore forced to play a phone game with the killer. Jada Pinkett Smith and Omar Epps made cameos in "Scream 2."
I learned about the cameos a little while back but as asked to hold the reveal. I complied because I like being surprised when I go the movies. And that can be tough to do when you write about movies and plot details and character descriptions. I remember the first time I saw "Scream" and was like, "Hey, that's Drew Barrymore." Then I was like, "Holy smokes, they killed Drew Barrymore!" Apart from being well done, the opening was shocking because seeing a relatively big name get killed so early was not the norm and evoked Hitchcock's "Psycho." So I wanted to give people a chance to be surprised at "Scream 4."
Alas, that is not the case, as USA Today broke the news.
Anyway, here's more interesting news:
The script, according to insiders, is 140 pages long. The general rule of thumb is that one page equals one minute of screen time; 120 pages of already long by horror movie standards so expect some serious cutting (no pun intended) in the editing room.
Also, the movie was originally scheduled to have a 42-day shoot, with the last day occurring on Labor Day Weekend. Now, the actors have having their stays extended to the new wrap date, September 24.
Trailer here. (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810035905/video/22546290)
I can't wait
This looks so bad.
Quote from: socketlevel on October 25, 2010, 10:33:09 AM
This looks so bad.
This looks like a Scream movie.
Do you just not like Scream?
I'm excited.
Quote from: RegularKarate on October 25, 2010, 01:35:00 PM
Quote from: socketlevel on October 25, 2010, 10:33:09 AM
This looks so bad.
This looks like a Scream movie.
Do you just not like Scream?
I'm excited.
I loved scream when it came out.
I really enjoyed the opening scene of scream 2; was really intense and flipped the post modern aspects of the original to another level. The uncut opening scene of the original scream is the only rival in the series.
I thought Scream 3 was highly underrated. Parker Posie was amazing, adding such quirky comic relief to the film that when she died I cared less about the outcome. It's really a lesson how a small character can hijack a film.
It's a good trilogy with major shortcomings. Everything in the trailer for scream 4 shows all the aspects i didn't like about both previous sequels. For example, that kid with the camera on his head is stupid, i get the point, but it's been done and it's fucking retarded. The killer videotaping all the kills is also lame. Not a single character seems interesting, their seriousness comes across emo and pensive.
much better Scream 4 Trailer here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5TsZ6iyaH4)
Quote from: Reelist on January 26, 2011, 10:38:23 AM
much better a little worse Scream 4 Trailer here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5TsZ6iyaH4)
I'm still looking forward to it, but this one was a little TOO meta.
Is the main cast a lower mean age than the originals at that time or am I just older?
No Alison Brie either. :(
Quote from: Reelist on October 23, 2010, 12:29:52 AM
I can't wait
Judging by your avatar you must have seen it. What did you think?
I was strongly considering going to see it after work Friday just from general Scream nostalgia and the fact that I haven't been to the movies in a very long time, but I just didn't feel like it. Then it turned out that Scream 3 was on TV, so I watched that since I had never seen the entire film.
The 3 ladies I was most interested in seeing in the film:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3768367104/rg3681131008
Not sure I'm digging Marley's hair here, but look for the two closeups of Alison and Aimee in the set. Their eyes are so clear it's like they're staring into your soul...ever so sweetly...
from my blog (http://modage.tumblr.com/post/4616325643/scream-4-review):
I loved the original "Scream." I probably saw it at least a dozen times, maybe more, around the time of its release. It was a completely fresh, original and self-referential take on a modern slasher film that didn't sacrifice its scares even as it winked at the audience. It was an amazing balancing act by director Wes Craven and writer Kevin Williamson. Unfortunately it was an act that could not be repeated though many tried. Remember the "I Know What You Did Last Summer"s and "Urban Legend"s and "Teaching Mrs. Tingle"s and "Scary Movie"s and even the sequels to "Scream" itself? None came close and in the passing decade new horror trends have come and gone, "The Ring" brought in Japanese horror remakes, "Saw" brought in (for lack of a better term) torture porn, and recently "Paranormal Activity" has ushered in its own slew of imitators.
These passing fads are something that "Scream 4" attempts to address in a cute, meta opening featuring a half dozen cameos in about as many minutes. But once the real film kicks in I found myself squiring through most of its running time, not because of the violence, but because I felt bad for everyone involved. I was surprised to see Dimension soldiering on with the franchise and the trio of original cast members (Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, David Arquette) instead of just starting over a shiny new remake. That said, the mix of young newcomers and survivors from the original film never quite meshes. The new cast aren't given enough time to develop any personalities whatsoever and the original cast are also underserved. (Cox in particular looks like a million years have passed in between installments.) I kept hoping for them to be killed off just to release them from this tired franchise.
The killer(s) is/are completely preposterous but that's really the least of the film's problems. A huge cast is assembled likely because they had hoped to be involved with a film as good as the first one but those days are long gone. Only Alison Brie manages to walk away unscathed and super cute (though her fate in the film is not as kind). The main thing I thought during this film is how outdated it felt. 15 years ago "Scream" was like a revolution for horror movies, today it's as tired as the films it's supposedly skewering. It's crazy to think that only 12 years had passed between Craven's breakthrough "A Nightmare On Elm Street" in 1984 and more time has passed between the original "Scream" and current installment. I'd like to think Craven has another great horror film in him but it's time for him to move on from this series.
I saw this last night. I have to say I was mildly entertained, but still recognize how bad of a movie this is.
It's its own victim. It tries to make a statement on remakes and reboots, but doesn't come out on top. It just plays out like what it's trying to call out.
I guess it was better than Scream 3 (which I remember being completely awful), but it's still a hunk of garbage.
Allison Brie is usually good and she stunk in this. The only person who had real personality was the cheerleader from Heroes. Unfortunately, any potential for any kind of likeable characters was constantly drowned out by boring plot.
Quote from: modage on April 17, 2011, 04:37:02 PM
I found myself squiring through most of its running time
Now that you write for the Playlist, you just spend the whole movie banging fair maidens?
Yeah, I have to say I was disappointed. It works as a good installment in the series, but it doesn't do anything new for the slasher genre besides not being as gay as 'Saw' and all the remakes coming out lately. I guess that should be enough for me. I'm not Kevin Williamson or Wes Craven, but why the fuck do they have to make the Screams so formulaic? I swear, I've seen the exact same things happen in every single movie and cared less and less every single time, where's the ingenuity? That sort of seemed like the point in this one, I like what RK said:
Quote from: RegularKarate on April 18, 2011, 05:49:56 PM
It's its own victim. It tries to make a statement on remakes and reboots, but doesn't come out on top. It just plays out like what it's trying to call out.
And I don't mean to be sadistic, but I was just bored of seeing people get stabbed or shot all the time. Not that they should go all jigsaw with it, but why not try something new to blow all that shit out of the water? The first one was great at that. Also, Courtney Cox and David Arquette were pretty fucking pathetic, like shells of characters they once were. They held no emotional weight in the story, and Neve Campbell plays Sidney like she's oblivious about wtf happened to her 9 times previously.
Anyways, there's the guy with the Scream av bashing Scream 4. I gotta say I still like it, I'll probably check it out again later on this shitty d/l I got. Basically, it confirms the franchise is over. It doesn't scare audiences anymore, we've outsmarted them just like they were trying to do to us the whole time.
I just think the world needs to take a break from the slasher movie for 10 or so years, so some kid can come along and do it a new way and make us love it again.