Back in 1996, the horror genre was gored in its side when director Wes Craven (horror director elite) and writer Kevin Williamson (winner of the Best Use of a Thesaurus Award) unleashed the film “Scream” onto the newly minted “intelligent” teens of the time. With television shows and Quentin Tarantino working to raise our vocabulary and screen smarts, “Scream” was exactly what we needed – a film that spoke to us as if we were peers and not morons looking for a cheap thrill. While not incredibly scary, “Scream” achieved its overall goal and helped horror revaluate itself.
Fast-forward through one decent sequel, another one that sucked (and, to a certain point, I won’t even acknowledge – just like “Superman 3” and “Nightmare on Elm Street 2” never happened) and now to 2011 where we find the dynamic duo of dissection back for another “Stab” at the horror genre with “Scream 4.”
But does anyone really care?
Set 10 years after Billy and Stu donned the mask and terrorized Woodsboro, a book signing tour brings our “not-going-to-be-a-victim-anymore” Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) back home where, surprise, surprise, ole Ghost Face just happens to be back up to his old tricks. No need to really go into more detail – you should know the rest – teens get introduced, teens die in elaborate ways, killer has a knife, people get stabbed, yadda, yadda, yadda. You get the picture. Same old, same old, right? Well yes and no.
Nostalgia is everywhere in the film and for this filmgoer, it felt wonderful. Hearing Dewey’s (David Arquette – now Sheriff Dewey) theme music again, listening to Gail’s (Courtney Cox) bitchy attitude and seeing Sidney’s dumb innocence brought me back to my high school days and helped make everything, this time around, fun. I mean, it’s ridiculous to think that horrible things keep happening to these people, but man, even after all these years, it’s so easy to connect with the three main characters and root for them to survive through even more. At the same time, hidden gems of scenery and dialogue refer back to the past films keeping everything seem relevant with the events feeling like they are happening in a real-world environment. At the same time, just like the first two films, the dialogue is razor sharp, witty and for the most part very entertaining. Hell, even the characters bring reference to the multiple occurrences of Ghost Face along with the ridiculous sequels of the “Stab” movies and make fun of it.
Unfortunately, if you’re looking for scares, you’re looking in the wrong place. Filled with knee jerk, quick jumps, this film never really finds its inner thriller and thus, you’re never really scared. Disturbed is probably a better word to describe it because, come on let’s face it, Kristen Bell says it perfectly when she states, “There is something very scary about a guy with a knife that just … snaps.” At the same time, I don’t know about you, but there is this icky tingly feeling I get when I see someone get shivved by a giant knife. Call me a little crazy, but that kind of creeps me out … a lot. Speaking of, where the hell do get a knife like that? It’s stinking huge.
Yet, the lack of scares is not the problem. Sure, I wish the film could have given more chills, but the problem this time is that it’s just too smart for it’s own good. Where as the first film helped make horror highly intelligent, this time around it’s as if the horror scholars of the University of Northern Murder are lecturing you to and by the midway point, it gets kind of old. Sure, the characters are a little more evolved and having them mock the genre is fun, but at a certain point, you just have to let the story happen without over explaining everything. There is even a point when the highly secretive villain (he, she, it, they – you’ll just have to see it) actually begins monologuing like a stereotypical James Bond baddie. Seriously? Films like “Inception” have proved that moviegoers are just as smart as the people making the films. Sure, a majority of us pay and go see crap, but we are smart. Promise. If a film is going to go that smart route, it’s insulting to then stop, reach out and hold the audience’s hand as if we are bunch of brain dead losers. Sorry, but in the end, that makes the filmmakers the losers.
Along with all of that, refilling the cast with too many characters weighs the potential of this film way down. To a certain point, the notable young actors and actresses that make cameos are quite impressive and getting them to do some of the things they do is fun, but as the film moves on, you just don’t seem to care about anyone save the original trio. At the same time … remember that comment about smart? Yeah well, it’s kind of silly to make the characters smart and then have them do all the stupid things they are making fun of. Really? Are you going to get out of your car after the killer makes his move? Seriously? Are you sure that you want to make fixing the wind chime you’re outdoor project of the night when the serial murder is stalking hotties in the darkness? Dude, are you really going to get drunk and then go wandering around right after you told the audience that in horror 101, that was a no no? Come on.
Overall, just like the original “Scream” film, “Scream 4” achieves what it set out to do – make an entertaining horror film. By keeping some of oldie but goodie concepts and characters from the beginning and infusing new social norms, it almost becomes something special. But, too many characters, too much attention to making the identity a secret and too much talking down to the audience keep this one from becoming a horror classic. Is it entertaining? Hell yes. Is it scary? Hell no. The demographic will eat it up and watch it in droves, but for the horror elite, “Scream 4” is just another victim on the cutting room floor.
3 out 5 Busts of Henry Winkler’s Principal Himbry from “Scream”
I
