I've always credited Scream as giving birth to the slasher movie - particularly the teen varietal - in the very same way Clueless gave new birth to teen romantic comedies. While I was actually attending high school there was nary a good movie about high school students released -- whether they were desperate to fall in love or clawing their way through poorly lit hallways in a vain attempt to escape a murderer. In the world of horror -- what we had left was the deep sequels of 80s franchises, adult thrillers crossing their fingers and hoping to high heaven to be half as frightening as Silence of the Lambs and, of course, the disastrous Crow series. Like those films or not -- they shot their lead and if nothing else, it kind of put a kink in the plan.
Then came the Wes Craven/Kevin Williamson powerhouse Scream -- an excellent piece of work. Audiences cheered their heads off each time the phone rang. Drew Barrymore's opening sequence has become nothing short of iconic. Neve Campbell, Skeet Ulrich, Rose McGowan, Matthew Lillard, Jamie Kennedy, David Arquette, Courtney Cox. Each character immediately assumed the iconic roles Williamson and Craven were riffing on. "I'm gonna gut you like a fish!" "Liver alone" "And let's face it, your mom was no Sharon Stone." These are gems. Gems! The audience experience of Scream was superb.
Scream 2 didn't strike me the way it those just a bit younger than me -- maybe because I thought the entire premise of the second killer was absolutely moronic. Maybe because I had been an intern at Miramax/Dimension that summer and accidentally saw who the killer was and consequently the entire viewing experience was "pre-destroyed" for me. Never the less, it stuck to its guns as a franchise, connected the second murder wave to the first, and included such star cast members as Jerry O'Connell, Timothy Olyphant, Joshua Jackson, Jada Pink Smith, Omar Epps, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Rebecca Gayheart, Heather Graham, Portia de Rossi. You didn't have to explain to me that these people were famous nor did you have to go through much to get me hooked on the locale -- a college campus, pledge week. It all seemed to gel -- with the exception of Casey's acting career in some overly done Greek tragedy. As sequels go, I thought it was fine. Most thought it was better.
It was Scream 3 that had me back in. Could be the fact that the entire plot focused on a mix between Roger Corman and Roman Polanski -- could be my raging crush on Scott Foley. But once again, there was a clear connection to the initial killings and the only self-reflexive question of this ongoing franchise was clear: "Who's doing it this time? What does it have to do with the murder of Sydney's mother?" The Hollywood set up worked. They killed major cast members, they threw in Parker Posey and somehow this Ehren Kruger penned screenplay jived with its predecessors.
So here we are at 4. The number that vainly attempted to relaunch the Halloween series and was certainly better than the "silver shamrocking" Halloween 3. But does the "we're back to the beginning" -- "it's Williamson and Craven reteamed" hype actually pay off? The frankest answer I can give is "No."
I very much wanted Scream 4 to be an excellent movie -- so yes, I had high expectations and deliberately attended a midnight showing at a theater where I knew the crowd would be interactive -- yelling things like "take off your heels and run, bitch!" That's what I like to hear. But in the end the twist simply wasn't one and as much as many of the kills were cool -- didn't everyone just get stabbed? Wasn't the point -- since entering sequel land -- that sometimes running from the guy with the knife gets you killed in and of itself. You ran into a spike, a nail-bed, off the roof, or tried to wriggle your way through the wrong garage door. You didn't simply get corned by the knife-man and then wait for the violins to do the rest.
Scream 4 hit a particularly weird moment here -- fifteen years after the original. Who's the audience? Yes, the films are designed to have a murderer and a youthful set of victims who suspect one another but in the end are more help in solving the case than law enforcement -- except, of course, Dewey. We followed high school to college, to young hollywood -- and then we took a ten year break. So who the heck should the cast be now? In the revisionist remake world oft referenced by the film -- it seems we're back to a high school again and working our way forward. No point in making a Scream about a bunch of people in their 30s and 40s -- and at this point most of the original characters have been -- well -- stabbed. So it makes sense.
But who the heck is this cast? I know every single teen star out there and I realize using a Culkin, Emma Roberts, and Hayden Panettiere is a good start. But who the heck is everyone else? They're not WB or "All new CW" stars. They're certainly not the stand-out stars of ABC Family or MTV. Thus the film was already dinged and dented. Are we supposed to simply overlook these teens because everyone else in the film is so much more famous? Or are we supposed to feel old, overlook the significant characters who have been staples of the franchise for fifteen years and three films? The film doesn't seem to know either. The plot is split. The motives are unfocused and while there may be some great kills and a couple of good liners like "I'm going to slice your eyelids in half so you have to watch while I kick your face in" -- it just isn't there.
Could it be that the films Williamson is referencing simply don't jive with Scream? Could it be that they didn't go the whole way and that this fourth installment wasn't even close to the Saw or Hostel style horrors the cast can't get over? It's obviously both of these things. And that they may have already played their best cards -- your Dad is why my Mom left -- you killed my son -- I'm your half brother. The motivation here simply doesn't work and doesn't warrant another run at the windmill.
Thank heavens "Vampire Diaries" is kicking some butt.
- Matthew J. McCue
No comments:
Post a Comment