Honestly, we needed another “Scream” movie. Since the original was released back in 1996 (OMG!), we have had dozens upon dozens of horror movies thrust at us. Many of them had clear skinned teenage stars and were given PG-13 ratings which after awhile indicated that the horror was of a much defanged quality. This is not to mention “Saw” and all its endless barrage of sequels, each one more logistically impossible than the last. Horror went at times from being laughingly lame to hardcore bloody, but they could never top what Asian or Japanese movies achieved. However you look at it, we needed Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson more than ever to give us their take on the evolving rules of a horror movie.
But how much has really changed? In the 80’s, we had “Friday The 13th” and its endless number of sequels, and there are other series that deal with this same dilemma out of greed. Each generation has its ongoing horror franchise along with the occasional “remake” or “reboot.” When you look at movies from decade to decade, you begin to realize that the more things change, the more they stay the same. That’s even the case with “Scream 4” which while having a strong level of suspense, also has a weariness about it. In the process of dealing with a new generation of horror and its rabid fans, it feels more and more like the ones that came before it.
So the whole gang is back along with Wes Craven, and that includes screenwriter Kevin Williamson (sorely missed on “Scream 3”) and composer Marco Beltrami. Neve Campbell returns as Sidney Prescott who arrives back in her hometown of Woodsboro to promote her new self-help book, and she is reunited with her friends Dewey (David Arquette) who is now the Sheriff in this town, and Gayle (Courtney Cox) who has long since gotten married to him and retired from tabloid journalism. And then of course, the Ghostface killings start up again. You’d think the killer might be more imaginative and use another mask, but horror sequels are not heavy on originality, are they?
This time though, the focus of the killer’s rage appears to be on
With “Scream 4,” the chief thing to expect is to expect the unexpected, just like with any Peter Gabriel album that comes out. I do have to hand it to Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson though because even after a decade, they still leave us guessing throughout who’s the real culprit (or if there is more than one) and of what will happen next. The movie moves along fairly swiftly to where you really have no time to examine the logistics of all that is going on. I imagine you could punch a few holes in the plot, but only after you have seen it. I also got a huge kick out of the beginning which plays on the reality of what we are seeing on top of the monotony of a franchise that like Michael Meyers just won’t die.
But it’s also the inescapable problem with this sequel; we have gotten so used to expecting the unexpected to where while there is tension, the whole thing is not as scary as it used to be. I kept waiting for “Scream 4” to get seriously scary, but it never really happened. Even the moments designed to make us jump up out of our seats aren’t as effective as they were previously. The first “Scream” was more than just a simple satire of the horror genre, but a movie going experience that was more intense than we expected it to be at the time. This one could have been more so in retrospect.
It is nice to see Neve Campbell, David Arquette, and Courtney Cox back as the infamous characters they portrayed in the preceding trilogy. I kind of expected Neve to be this Ellen Ripley/Paul Kersey character by now, so used to seeing people and those closest to her get killed off in brutal fashion that she now desires to bring her own brand of vigilante justice to whatever nemesis chooses to cross the
Of all the veterans, Courtney Cox shines the most as we watch her character emerge from another desperate housewife to someone who is desperate overcome an unwelcome writer’s block. Seeing Gayle Weathers get back to her bitchy self is fun to watch. In the other movies you hated her for it, but knowing Gayle for this long makes you long for its inevitable return. As a result, it gives this sequel much of its bite.
In regards to the newcomers, they are more or less designed to be types, and part of me wished they existed a bit beyond that. Emma Roberts is fun to watch as Jill Roberts, but she gets the show stolen from her by “Heroes” star Hayden Panettiere whose character of Kirby is part tease, part sharp retort, and part movie geek more than she would openly admit. She’s got a lot of sass about her that reminds me of some of the girls I couldn’t stand from high school, and of the heart underneath them which I never noticed as much as I should have.
It’s also nice to see Rory Culkin here, having made a strong impression in movies like “You Can Count On Me,” “Mean Creek,” and “Signs.” As Charlie Walker, he represents the chief movie geek that Jamie Kennedy was in the first two “Scream” movies. Charlie is not exactly a geek nor is he exactly one of the cool guys. In the end, he’s kind of in between that like most people I know. Rory is truly one of the perfect actors to play someone very knowledgeable about movies in general, and he gives this film some of its more satirical moments.
When all is said and done though, I still came out of “Scream 4” feeling a little weary. I didn’t dislike it, and it did keep me interested throughout to where I wasn’t looking at my watch to see how much time was left before the movie was over. Really, it could have been a lot worse than it was. But in the process of creating a new formula for horror movies, it ends up getting caught in the clichés of them all. Also, I felt it could have gotten much more satirical in examining the endless films that came out in the wake of its success. This franchise was incredibly influential, and we continue to realize this with the passing years.
After all this talk, I still am open to seeing a “Scream 5.” Whatever problems this particular sequel has, I believe and hope they can be compensated for in the future. And like I said, we always need movies like “Scream” because the horror genre will constantly be its own worst enemy even with its unending successes. As it was described before, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
* * ½ out of * * * *
