Scream 4. The reviews are in and they are mixed.
Bill Gibron of filmcritic.com writes
“In one of those weird ironies that only a writer would appreciate, a random keystroke (or in this case, an inopportune "shift") gives the title of Wes Craven's latest attempt at recapturing past glories, Scream 4, the far more appropriate printout -- Scream $. In reality, it's hard to tell if this new installment is a mere cash grab, or the result of some manner of delusion. What's clear is that expectations, along with time, have taken their toll on the franchise, leaving horror fans wary of the need for another go round. Of course, director Wes Craven and original series scribe Kevin Williamson don't help matters much. It takes them over an hour to get to a real point. And once they make it, it's back to the standard red herring/denouement round-up.”
While at screenjabber.com Simon Thompson says
“Wes saves the genre again, and his own cinematic soul, with Scream 4. Scream was a game-changer, Scream 2 was a worthy if flawed sequel, and Scream 3 barely but only just did the job (it lacked balls and brains). However, Scream 4 is the money shot. Now, I am highly restricted with regards to what I am allowed to reveal as far as plot and characters go but I can tell you this – you won’t be disappointed by Scre4m – although that’s not to say it is totally perfect. The trademark touches are here as you would hope and expect. Arquette and Cox are back, as is Campbell, and even though it has been 11 years since the last movie, they slip back into these characters so slickly that it was like only yesterday. It is genuinely great to see them back on screen all together.”
Kwenton Bellette at twitchfilm.com says
“Scream 4 is one of the most self-reflective meta-winks I have ever seen. The tongue is stabbing right out of the cheek here, never mind 'in' it. The film starts hilariously but predictably with two nubile teens as air headed victims, or does it? See, the film is self-aware of the past tropes of familiar horror and it utilizes exposes and abuses them in hilarious and unpredictable ways. Scream 4 is a mirror exposing the ugly face of by-the-numbers horror and slasher flick conventions and iterations of them. In particular how Saw 4 is 'torture-porn shit' and that 'they' are sick to death of 'little Asian ghost girls'. This over-analysis of the genre works well and sits somewhere between comedy and parody in terms of what it is trying to express.”
Then we get to Nick Schager at slantmagazine.com who states
“As befitting a third sequel that plays by the "rules" of remakes, Scream 4 proves doubly redundant and uninspired. Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson's return to the wink-wink horror well opens with an exaggerated movie-within-a-movie-within-a-movie-within-a-movie gag that bluntly speaks to the tiredness of such "self-aware postmodern meta shit." Yet for all its self-referentiality, the most telling aspect of this latest film is its conspicuous refusal to address the bottom-line cash-grab motivations of most slasher-saga follow-ups, which its pointless tale—arriving 11 years after Scream 3, and with its three headliners absent from the big screen for much of that time—most certainly and depressingly exhibits.”
What this one seems to come down to is a love or hate relationship. I missed opening weekend (birthday party complete with BBQ and a day at the park on one of our first really nice days since Central California got 200% plus of our normal rain this winter). However, based on the mixed reviews I believe I will have to rethink my idea of waiting for DVD on this one. I loved the original Scream (
Scream [Blu-ray]
) and found the atmosphere of watching it in a crowded theater to be much, much fun. Hoping that this is the last film (a dead horse can only be beaten for so long…except in Hollywood) I think the theater experience would be a nice bookend to the series. I may have to talk the girlfriend out of any other plans for next Friday and shot for Scream 4 before the crowds die down.
Below link will open in a new window