First things first, spoiler alert, don't get a grump on if you read this and haven't seen all the films, namely Scream 1-4.
What better way to start the Halloween scarefest than with the horror movie franchise that kick started my love of horror movies. With the recent release of Scream 4 there seems to have been a bit of hate flying around for the series, and while I'm not going to argue that the latter movies are as good as the first, they're certainly not the worst of the genre.
Scream was my first, (acquired through a friends big sister, smuggled into a sleepover in a Disney film case, and caused quite a few tears from the girls too scared to watch it before it had even left said case, wimps) so will always be one of my favourites. It was also the perfect starting point for a fledgling horror film fan because it referenced so many other genre defining films. Because of Scream I went on to watch Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th and a number of other (some rather dodgy) horror movies.
Knowing all that's come since, it's easy to forget the impact of the first film. The opening sequence alone is probably one of the best horror openings of all time; Drew Barrymore, arguably the most famous cast member at the time of release, killed off before the title sequence. While some may argue that this was hardly a new tactic, at least Janet Leigh got to see out half of the movie before the shower scene in Psycho, whereas this was merely a fleeting cameo.
And while it is now a fairly common staple of the modern horror movie, the genre awareness of the main characters was virtually unheard of at the time. It was a smart movie, without seeming overly smug, like so many that have followed. What's more, it was funny, as wrong as it is, I always laugh my way through that final kitchen scene because some of the lines thrown about are just genius (my particular favourite being when Sydney confirms to Stu that she really did call the police: 'my mom and dad are gonna be so mad at me').
Which brings me nicely round to my other favourite aspect of the film, two killers. I may be wrong, but as far as I'm aware this was the first time this had been done in a slasher. Not only did you have the nice bit of misdirection with Billy set up as the killer from the start, then seemingly killed, but when he reveals himself you have the double reveal of Stu being a killer too. Great plot device as it means your killer can literally be in two places at once.
Admittedly Scream 2 leaves a lot to be desired and is probably my least favourite of the four. However, it does deserve special mention for Timothy Olyphant alone, my nomination for most underrated and underused actor in Hollywood. As well as for having one of the most sensible characters in horror movie history in Joel, Gail's cameraman who makes the very good decision to leave town. The scene in the crashed car is also probably one of the most suspenseful moment in the series too.
Scream 3 just barely gets in there above 2 because of the comedy, but for me this is also a flaw as I just don't really find it that scary (that is except for the Sydney's mom dream sequences, they are freaky, don't know why, but I just don't like them!). But there are a few things that bother me about this installment, firstly Gail's fringe (wtf?), and secondly when Randy refers to the trilogy rule of revealing something we knew to be true being false, what exactly was he referring to in the Godfather trilogy?
However watching it back today I'm struck by the irony of the plot of the fictional Stab 3: Return to Woodsboro movie and the newest film in the franchise, which could also be given the same subtitle. I like to think this is a subtle in joke, but who knows maybe it's just coincidence. A lot of people seemed disappointed with Scream 4, but I personally liked it. It was almost back on form with the opening sequence, the movie within a movie idea was nicely done, but the final 'real' opening seemed to fall flat. Like I said, not perfect, but by far its biggest crime is the failure to include Red Right Hand in the soundtrack somewhere. It was like the unofficial theme tune of the franchise, to not have it in there just feels wrong.
Speaking of which, when did David Arquette's voice get so deep?
A lot of the criticism for Scream 4 came from its set up as the 'new generation' who were then promptly all killed off, revealing the real message of the film: 'Don't fuck with the original.' This wasn't a problem for me, I liked the irony of having the girl set up as the new leading lady attempting to butcher the original cast, much in the same way that the new wave of horror remakes has done to the memory of their predecessors. What was truly scary about this installment, however, was Jill's justification for the killings, the fact that most people will do anything for fame seems all too real at the moment.
The latter films don't live up to the original, but how could they when it is a modern horror classic. What they aren't, however, is anywhere near as bad as most horror sequels. The fact that they have retained the original cast for all three sequels is an achievement in itself, and it'll be intriguing to see if the rumoured fifth film does go ahead which of them will be killed off as Wes Craven has hinted at. Either way, I'm sure I'll still enjoy it, maybe I'm biased, but Scream will always be one of my favourite horror movie series (unless they do a film with time travel, then I'll disown it).
Knowing all that's come since, it's easy to forget the impact of the first film. The opening sequence alone is probably one of the best horror openings of all time; Drew Barrymore, arguably the most famous cast member at the time of release, killed off before the title sequence. While some may argue that this was hardly a new tactic, at least Janet Leigh got to see out half of the movie before the shower scene in Psycho, whereas this was merely a fleeting cameo.
And while it is now a fairly common staple of the modern horror movie, the genre awareness of the main characters was virtually unheard of at the time. It was a smart movie, without seeming overly smug, like so many that have followed. What's more, it was funny, as wrong as it is, I always laugh my way through that final kitchen scene because some of the lines thrown about are just genius (my particular favourite being when Sydney confirms to Stu that she really did call the police: 'my mom and dad are gonna be so mad at me').
Which brings me nicely round to my other favourite aspect of the film, two killers. I may be wrong, but as far as I'm aware this was the first time this had been done in a slasher. Not only did you have the nice bit of misdirection with Billy set up as the killer from the start, then seemingly killed, but when he reveals himself you have the double reveal of Stu being a killer too. Great plot device as it means your killer can literally be in two places at once.
Admittedly Scream 2 leaves a lot to be desired and is probably my least favourite of the four. However, it does deserve special mention for Timothy Olyphant alone, my nomination for most underrated and underused actor in Hollywood. As well as for having one of the most sensible characters in horror movie history in Joel, Gail's cameraman who makes the very good decision to leave town. The scene in the crashed car is also probably one of the most suspenseful moment in the series too.
Scream 3 just barely gets in there above 2 because of the comedy, but for me this is also a flaw as I just don't really find it that scary (that is except for the Sydney's mom dream sequences, they are freaky, don't know why, but I just don't like them!). But there are a few things that bother me about this installment, firstly Gail's fringe (wtf?), and secondly when Randy refers to the trilogy rule of revealing something we knew to be true being false, what exactly was he referring to in the Godfather trilogy?
However watching it back today I'm struck by the irony of the plot of the fictional Stab 3: Return to Woodsboro movie and the newest film in the franchise, which could also be given the same subtitle. I like to think this is a subtle in joke, but who knows maybe it's just coincidence. A lot of people seemed disappointed with Scream 4, but I personally liked it. It was almost back on form with the opening sequence, the movie within a movie idea was nicely done, but the final 'real' opening seemed to fall flat. Like I said, not perfect, but by far its biggest crime is the failure to include Red Right Hand in the soundtrack somewhere. It was like the unofficial theme tune of the franchise, to not have it in there just feels wrong.
Speaking of which, when did David Arquette's voice get so deep?
A lot of the criticism for Scream 4 came from its set up as the 'new generation' who were then promptly all killed off, revealing the real message of the film: 'Don't fuck with the original.' This wasn't a problem for me, I liked the irony of having the girl set up as the new leading lady attempting to butcher the original cast, much in the same way that the new wave of horror remakes has done to the memory of their predecessors. What was truly scary about this installment, however, was Jill's justification for the killings, the fact that most people will do anything for fame seems all too real at the moment.
The latter films don't live up to the original, but how could they when it is a modern horror classic. What they aren't, however, is anywhere near as bad as most horror sequels. The fact that they have retained the original cast for all three sequels is an achievement in itself, and it'll be intriguing to see if the rumoured fifth film does go ahead which of them will be killed off as Wes Craven has hinted at. Either way, I'm sure I'll still enjoy it, maybe I'm biased, but Scream will always be one of my favourite horror movie series (unless they do a film with time travel, then I'll disown it).
No comments:
Post a Comment