Scream 4

2011’s Scream 4, directed by Wes Craven.

Starring Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, David Arquette, Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere, Aimee Teegarden, Marley Shelton, Rory Culkin, Alison Brie, Adam Brody, Anthony Anderson, and Mary McDonnell.

What is it about?

Set back in the town of Woodsboro, California, it’s been a decade and a half since the events depicted in Scream. Promoting her new autobiographical book about her survival, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) arrives in town to find a new generation of high school kids influenced by both her experiences and the movies made based off of her story, the Stab franchise. Young cousin Jill (Emma Roberts), and best friend Kirby (Hayden Panettiere) do their best to avoid being victims to another version of the ghostface. They’ll have the help of promoted to Deputy, Dewey Riley (David Arquette) and his assistant Judy (Marley Shelton), along with his wife, writer Gail Weathers-Dewey (Courtney Cox). Will they be able to stop the pop culture inspired psychopath, or end up being ineligible for future sequels?

Why is it worth seeing?

Director Wes Craven returns in the fourth entry of the slasher pastiche franchise. The trusty trio of Neve Campbell’s heroine Sidney Prescott, David Arquette’s humble Dewey Riley, and Courtney Cox’s investigative Gail Weathers, are joined by a new generation of teenagers, in the sequel that no one asked for.

Writer Kevin Williamson photocopies his previous works, that of the self referential and too hip for thou vibes, and introduces a new generation to celebrate the irony of mocking irony. Featuring tropes such as live web casting murders, cheering the nihilism of how there are no rules anymore, and craving social media exposure over life itself- one is thankful we’ve made it this far in the franchise at all.  

After 4 movies, it’s tough to say where we’ve gone after all of this carnage - Campbell’s heroine has little to do but get angry at yet another killer messing with her mojo, and Cox’s journalist gladly tosses her half hearted attempt to become a writer and instead (again) plays detective with her husband- although Arquette is weightier in stature after 3 previous movies of being a schmuck. But with the veterans of the cast feeling past their primes, the kids forget to show up to take their places. As always, the kids bring their attitude, their entitlement, and their pop culture encyclopedias- but it gets harder and harder not to empathize with the killer, as the increasing body count means the credits come rolling faster.

Scream 4 exists in a strange place. Unlike Scream 2, it’s competently made, and it could be even more entertaining than Scream 3 (it definitely doesn’t have the heart), as it pounds away to it’s cynical conclusion. But it’s most salient fact seems to be that it was conceived as the opener to a trilogy that never happened. With the studio unhappy with making a measly $100 million on its $40 million budget, there would be more no further sequels, and none of them really topped the original (itself a good film but hardly a seminal classic).

Wes Craven was a horror pioneer, so it makes it all the more galling that this was his last movie before his death. Perhaps he meant it as 1 last (cough), stab towards the Hollywood establishment, that of its never ending sequels and lazy money grabs. But the Scream franchise’s biggest legacy might be the lack of impression it made on the genre. It was mocked itself by the hugely successful (and dreadful) Scary Movie franchise, but seemed to influence little of the horror genre, being eclipsed instead by so-called torture porn and found footage sub genres. Some people will do anything to leave their mark.

Rating:

3/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Scream 3

2000’s Scream 3, directed by Wes Craven.

Starring Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, David Arquette, Parkey Posey, Patrick Dempsey, Emily Watson, Scott Foley, Patrick Warburton, Melissa McCarthy, Lance Henrikson, Liev Schrieber, Carrie Fisher, and Jamie Kennedy.

What is it about?

Haunted by her dreams, perpetual victim Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) hides in anonymity in the hills of Los Angeles. While production of the horror sequel, Stab 3, continues, people on the movie set start to die. Convinced that he can find the killer, Dewey Riley (David Arquette) becomes a consultant on the film set, and journalist Gail Weathers (Courtney Cox) senses (another) story in the making. Together the 3 of them reunite to uncover yet again the person responsible for bringing back the Ghostface killer. Will Sidney continue her streak of being one of horror’s most resilient final girls?

Why is it worth seeing?

Director Wes Craven returns in the third entry of the slasher pastiche franchise. Reuniting with his trio of Neve Campbell’s heroine Sidney Prescott, David Arquette’s humble Dewey Riley, and Courtney Cox’s investigative Gail Weathers, they forego the writing of Kevin Williamson (who did the previous 2 movies) for scriptor Ehren Kruger. The results, while not quite matching the originality of the original, are superior to that of Scream 2.

By the third movie in the franchise, you probably have a decent idea of the ground covered in the Scream canon. Dripping with self awareness of both the genre AND the series’ effects on the horror genre, Scream 3 doubles down on the meta factor through its Los Angeles based film shoot setting. Having “actors” portray the characters (such as Parker Posey’s mimicry of Gail Weathers) side by side while trying to escape the advances of yet another ghostface killer in a Hollywood set made to look like the homes depicted in the original, enhances the irony that much further. With little left to do but to try to top its self references, the Russian Doll structure accompanies the now practically standard jump scare fake outs, red herrings, and rampant speculation as to whom this time is behind the (comically clumsy) killer.

While never straying from the formula described above, writer Ehren Kruger brings aboard a different sensibility to the screenplay. There’s a coherence, and momentum, so absent in the second film, that is most welcome- making for a smoother ride. However, the Cox and Arquette relationship remains baffling. For the third movie in a row, they display chemistry, and work through yet another estrangement from each other (these past 2 films), that again is never explained or commented upon. You’d think the 2 of them would have the sense to actually stick together, since they spend the whole movie playing detective to find the killer. Campbell on the other hand, whom just wants to get over her trauma and move on, continues to be tormented. As capable and exciting to watch as ever, the movie’s closing shot of Sidney is a tribute to the power of resilience.

With more ironic death, more thrilling chases, and enough self reference to make Hollywood blush, some new wrinkles are overshadowed by the series’ contractual obligation. At the time, it was thought that this would be the last entry in the series. But you know how hard it is to keep the incompetent imitators at bay.

Rating:

3/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Scream 2

1997’s Scream 2, directed by Wes Craven.

Starring Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, David Arquette, Liev Schreiber, Elise Neal, Timothy Olyphant, Laurie Metcalf, Jamie Kennedy, Jerry O’Connell, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Rebecca Gayheart, Portia de Rossi, Heather Graham, Luke Wilson, and Tori Spelling.

What is it about?

Set after the events of the Original, Scream 2 returns Neve Campbell’s Sidney Prescott as a college student, trying to blend into her campus’ social scene and enjoy her boyfriend (Jerry O’ Connell), old friend (Jamie Kennedy), and room mate (Elise Neal). With the release of the movie, Stab (based off of the events of Scream), a copycat killer begins to circulate through the campus, killing its students. Always hungry for a story, reporter Gail Weathers (Courtney Cox) returns for a scoop, Deputy Dewey (David Arquette) reunites with the gang to help catch the killer, and the exonerated Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber). Will Sidney be able to avoid the rule of sequels having bigger body counts?

Why is it worth seeing?

Scream 2 reunites horror director Wes Craven with teen horror writer Kevin Williamson. Seeking to duplicate their brand of self aware slasher pastiche that they introduced in the last feature, they bring back most of the surviving cast members, the ghostface killer (and hidden identity antagonist), and the 4^th wall breaking conversations that seek to implicate its audience members for enjoying the genre. Unfortunately, it forgets a large amount of thrills, and has challenges copying itself when it comes to competency.

In the film’s opening scene, we feel a question arising from the sight of a movie theatre packed full of zealous fans in ghostface masks and dress- how are these pathological weirdos any different from Star Wars fans camped out on sidewalks? It really highlights the issues inherent in making fun of the genre, while still celebrating it- and how great (or merely good) openers translate into formulaic mediocrity.

Clocking in at a mere 9 minutes longer than the original, Scream 2 feels hours longer. Initially it was a challenge to figure out why the film was so inert, with scenes that go nowhere and are largely absent of suspense. But then I learned at the time of production that Williamson’s script was leaked out to the internet, and as a result he and Craven had to create scenes on the fly. It makes sense. It’s just a bummer that at times it can’t even copy itself- instead resorting to using 1996’s Broken Arrow’s Han Zimmer composed score for a number of Arquette’s scenes. It’s a little baffling- instead of using perfectly competent Marco Beltrami to compose more original (and tonally matched) score, why is the antagonist theme of a forgettable movie played so many times for a character whom the movie can’t figure out if he’s a suspect or merely one of the heroes? By accident- it almost feels like Twin Peaks. Ditto for Arquette and Cox’s relationship, which the film seems to have forgotten their gains made in the previous film.

With the script needing to be changed on the fly, the antagonist equally suffers. The ghostface killer continues their bumbling ways, but when the mask comes off, I haven’t felt that underwhelmed and un-invested since Friday the 13^th pt 1. It’s a difficult slog, when you miss Skeet Ulrich and Matthew Lillard. It doesn’t help that Sidney fights her tormentor with curtains, paper mache blocks, and lightning follys- diminishing her stoicism. Really, the only character who gets the chance to grow is Jamie Kennedy’s poor unrequited love nerd- but that takes a backseat to cheap (not) thrills. You know what they say in show biz- the show must go on. Only 2 sequels to go.

Rating:

2.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Scream

1996’s Scream, directed by Wes Craven.

Starring Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courtney Cox, Skeet Ulrich, Matthew Lillard, Rose McGowan, Jamie Kennedy, Henry Winkler, Drew Barrymore, and Liev Schreiber.

 

What is it about?

Set in California during the 1990’s, high school student Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) and her father (Lawrence Hect) mourn the death of Sidney’s mother. With the 1 year anniversary of her passing approaching, their town is rocked by the appearance of a ghostface serial killer with encyclopedic knowledge of horror movies, whom stalks and kills teenagers. The killings attract the media, such as tabloid reporter Gail Weathers (Courtney Cox), who has her own theories on how Sidney’s mother died. With best friend Tatum Riley (Rose McGowan), her brother Deputy Dewey Riley (David Arquette), boyfriend Billy Loomis (Skeet Ulrich), and friends Stu Macher (Matthew Lillard) and Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy), Sidney will need to outwit the killer to survive. Will her ignorance of horror films be her undoing?

Why is it worth seeing?

At some point in the 90’s, horror films found themselves in a rather uninspiring place. With Blockbusters chocked full of direct to video slasher dreck, audiences began to check out as Hollywood churned out crap mostly worth forgetting. Horror auteur Wes Craven had a glimpse of some kind of new horror genre in 1994’s New Nightmare. It featured his iconic creation from Nightmare on Elm Street, Freddy Krueger, whom previously was only dealt with in his victim’s nightmares. Craven experimented with the self aware idea of his abomination existing in the “real world”, and the meta implications that would ensue. While New Nightmare was more ground breaking than successful, Craven would later team up with writer Kevin Williamson to create something here where the characters are not only self aware of the genre they’re starring in, but gleefully in on the joke.

To establish a formula, you need rules. Patterns. Routines. Scream’s characters don’t just inhabit them- they tell you about how they’re fulfilling them. After a virtuosic opening sequence, a sleek tribute to the slasher films of yesteryear, we meet our gang of protagonists. All of them spend time explaining to us the cliché of their various roles. You know the type- attractive happy-go-lucky teenagers (portrayed by adults well past voting age) who would rather leave behind good looking corpses, than just call the police or run out the front door. Beyond the clichéd characters, comes even the character who explains the rules to us- while Halloween plays in the background. Meta- it’s, y’know… for kids.

Craven, so experienced after creating such groundbreaking fare like Last House on the Left, The Hills Have Eyes, and the Nightmare franchise, creates something that is quite thrilling at times. It’s nice to see, underneath all the cleverness and jabs at the genre, that Craven crafts some kineticism as our heroes try to survive the cinephiles’ wrath. It’s just as well, since the movie’s ghostface antagonist (and those behind the mask) aren’t scary. They’re kind of clumsy, and motives are explainable, no matter the amount of middle class entitlement. But Scream knows that, that the lynchpins’ power of the genre’s classics derives from our lack of understanding, or unfamiliarity with their back story and motivations. It’s just too clever to care.

Any formidable “final girl” requires someone who is plucky and resilient. Neve Campbell is a fine choice, someone who portrays intelligence, stands out from the crowd for introverted reasons, and doesn’t take off her shirt when she’s in Wild Things.  She’s a great choice, and only 22 when filming this movie. Less can be said about the rest of the cast, with the exception of Courtney Cox and David Arquette. Their characters are ridiculous, barely archetypes- but they possess a chemistry that would surprise few people considering the 2 actors married each other shortly before the movie’s sequel.

With a groundbreaking director at the helm, a hot writer, and a capable protagonist, Scream has some thrills, and its charms are infused with some satire, and a whole lot of self awareness. It knows its influences as well as a grad student- but forgets the lesson. It's too clever by half quartered.

Rating:

3.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

The Ice Storm

1997’s The Ice Storm, directed by Ang Lee.

Starring Kevin Kline, Joan Allen, Sigourney Weaver, Henry Czerny, Tobey Maguire, Christina Ricci, Elijah Wood, Katie Holmes, David Krumholtz, Michael Cumpsty, and Adam Carver.

What is it about?

The Ice Storm is about 2 families in New Canaan, Connecticut during the 1970’s. There’s the Hood family, lead by father, Ben (Kevin Kline), and mother, Elena (Joan Allen), with son, Paul (Tobey Maguire), and Wendy (Christina Ricci).  And then there’s the Carver family, with father, Jim (Jamey Sheridan), and mother, Janey (Sigourney Weaver), with sons, Mikey (Elijah Wood) and Sandy (Adam Hann-Byrd). Unhappy husband/father Ben is cheating on Elena with Janey (who’s husband can’t be bothered to notice), while their son Paul attends a boarding school, and is trying to get Libbets (Katie Holmes) into bed with him, while daughter Wendy is fooling around with both of the Hood boys. With Thanksgiving upon them, will their families be able to avoid imploding from the consequences of the sexual revolution?

Why is it worth seeing?

The Ice Storm is an intimate family drama about a couple of dysfunctional families during the Nixon years in rural Connecticut. Written by James Schamus (based off of the book by Rick Moody), he presents an erratic society tangled up in the confusion of political turmoil and changing eras. While Watergate drones on, the glory days of free love and happier vibes crystallize behind them.

The children/young adults in Storm don’t really sound like their respective ages. Yes, they fumble through awkward sexuality and enjoy a bike ride through their natural wonderland, but they’re just as likely to rage about the lies of Vietnam, drug people to get what they want, or just blow up their toy sets with M80 firecrackers. They’re quite lacking in innocence.

The children’s behaviour really isn’t that surprising- the adults don’t fare much better. There’s the societal strain of practices such as “Key Parties”, where consenting adults swing with each other (sometimes wives bring her older children to the party to participate)- a defunct custom not recommended by marriage counsellors. But the adults also secretly cheat on each other, and the lies build up to destroy trust- when they lecture their children about misbehaving, it’s a miracle they even believe themselves in the moment. But maybe they don’t.

Perhaps the America of this time was just… so absent, whether literally or figuratively. One key scene explains this perfectly. After a character skips out on another to run an errand instead of sleeping with them, he kills time in his underwear, lingering around someone else’s home: golfing, looking through their medicine cabinet, rolling on the waterbed. What would you do if you were cheating on your partner, and were left to your own devices in your mistress’ home? No wonder 1 of the characters in the film expresses dismay at the idea of a man of the cloth considering participating in their lifestyle- some of us hope there’s someone out there to aspire to, that our morally compromised lifestyles don’t end where they start.

Brought together around a Thanksgiving setting with the languor firmly established, Taiwan director Ang Lee showcases his sensibilities for a wicked cast to skate through the cold realities of an evolving America. Accompanied by a sometimes somber score by Mychael Danna, Lee takes his time, juxtaposing his actor’s actions with the tranquility of the natural environment, adding other signature touches of gentleness that he is so renowned for bringing to the table. With first rate performances from his cast (except for the always dependably awkward Tobey Maguire) and featuring way ahead of its time comic book metaphors, The Ice Storm is a deeply personal work, that despite some heavy handed imagery, is possible to find shelter from no matter the severity of the tempest.

Rating:

4/5

Trailer: Click Here.

You've Got Mail

1998’s You’ve Got Mail, directed by Nora Ephron.

Starring Tom Hanks, Meg Ryan, Greg Kinnear, Parker Posey, Dave Chapelle, Steve Zahn, Heather Burns, Deborah Rush, Dabney Coleman, John Randolph, and Jean Stapleton.

What is it about?

You’ve Got Mail is a New York centred film about 2 business people: Meg Ryan’s Kathleen Kelly, who owns and works at a independent children’s bookstore, and Tom Hanks’ Joe Fox, who works for his family’s corporate gigantic chain of bookstores. Joe sets up a franchise down the street from Kathleen’s location, and the 2 of them become rivals. Unbeknownst to the 2 of them, they have been online, chatting to each other. Will Kathleen’s business be able to stay afloat in an era of chain stores, and will they discover that they’ve been romantically communicating to each other as they’ve competed in business?

Why is it worth seeing?

You’ve Got Mail is a 90’s Rom Com staple, a collection of heavy hitters put together to capitalize on their immense popularity at a time when the internet’s world of connectivity was taking off. At time, Mail was a monster hit- which obscures how it has dated so poorly and features one of the more unlikable characters in film history displaying so much cognitive dissonance.

Director/Producer/Co-Writer Nora Ephron sprung to fame with her more seminal works, When Harry Met Sally and Sleepless in Seattle. While romantic studio comedies have been a staple of Hollywood as long as it’s been, well, Hollywood, Ephron had a unique voice to a classical genre that resonated with people. Mail loses that unique voice, in favour of market testing- and one notable stomach churning exception.

Hanks’, who was riding one of Hollywood’s most historically prolific hot streaks at the time, stars here as a multi millionaire businessman who quotes The Godfather, while trying to be a nice guy online and having an aunt who is a quarter his age. But what the trailer never tells you is he is a precursor to a phenomenon that came to be known as, Catfishing. The term may not completely apply, as Hanks’ character doesn’t set out to be a deceptive creep at first. But as he efficiently wipes out his rival’s livelihood, he also keeps tabs on her with his online personality, while spying on her and trying to befriend her in the real world- you know, a creep masquerading as a nice guy. It’s spine tingling in its misguidedness. Given the movie’s genre, can you guess how it turns out? It’s tough to say if it’s more of a tragedy that a woman wrote the script (who was renowned for her views on realistic female voices), or that Meg Ryan’s limited appeal was celebrated for her character’s choices. Did this movie really make a quarter of a billion dollars for advertising itself as a Casablanca when its characters’ actions are closer to Vertigo?

Social mores out of the way, one can focus on the film’s craft. In terms of performances, Hanks, who as noted above was incendiary at the time, suffers from not having more kinetic directors such as Ron Howard, Robert Zemeckis, Jonathan Demme, and Steven Spielberg guide him, and his performance feels more like something from the period before he was a Academy Award nominee regular (think Turner and Hooch). Ryan, whom was also very popular for her cuteness appeal at the time, is perfectly fine. But as a couple- they have minimal chemistry, even as the plot machinations chug along. They just don’t seem to like each other. You feel more of it when Hanks’ Parker Posey partner (do you think he leaves her to get with Ryan?) and Ryan’s partner, Greg Kinnear (do you think she leaves him to get with Hanks?) meet, or even when Kinnear is flirting with a television interviewer. It’s never a good thing in a rom com for the protagonists to be the fourth most compelling relationship. I also found myself begging for less of the main actors, and more Dave Chapelle, whom is so great as Hanks’ co-worker/friend. A few years later, his career would appropriately explode when he got his own show. Perhaps the main actors’ lack of chemistry can be explained by John Lindley’s grubby 90’s cinematography- it’s pretty cruddy.

The internet and how it would come to be used was an extraordinary experiment back in the 1990’s. But scenes of characters typing through it (Social Network notwithstanding), are pretty boring. What a lot of movie professionals forget is that the computer is just a typewriter with more electricity- meaning just because people are using it, doesn’t mean it makes for much tension or interest. But the movie tested well with focus groups. And that’s the theme here. People lined up to watch a fantasy film marketed as a New York meet cute, and came away mostly oblivious to the predatory stalking by the 1990’s most popular actor. In a world of injustice, at least AOL got what it deserved.

Rating:

2.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.