Spoiler Free.
Written by: Kevin Williamson.
Studio: Dimension Films.
Distributed by: Dimension Films.
Run time: 111 Minutes.
Budget: $40 Million.
Regardless of what Randy 'The Ram' Robinson might think, the 90s were a great time for popular culture. Musically, artists with painfully obvious lyrics and hairstyles were replaced by a much more introspective folk, who used their musical talent to actually say something. Two years after Kurt Cobain shot himself in the head, Dimension Films released Scream, directed by horror legend Wes Craven. It was a different kind of horror movie, made for an audience already savvy with the genre. While it contained all the gory murders you might expect from a typical 80s slasher film, it also featured post-modern commentary on the horror genre itself. It was hard to say whether Scream was a parody, a satire, or a genuine horror movie; because it lived on the borderline of all three. If anything, it was unique; no one had seen a movie quite like it before.
Whilst the sequels were never as good as their predecessor, they did manage to build an elaborate mythology around the protagonist, Sidney Prescott and her mother; whose dark, unseen past caused Sidney a lot of trouble. This mythology was important, because if we didn't feel for Sidney, the Scream movies would be stuck in the realm of the 'joke', and wouldn't have been as compelling. The sequels did the job well; the third one was pretty crappy, but all three worked together to provide a rounded character in Sidney Prescott. Throughout the series she evolves from the hapless victim to the survivor, and finally to the fully autonomous bringer of doom herself. I'm sure there is a Gender Studies thesis to be written about the evolution of the female character in the Scream franchise, but for now it is enough to say that there was some real meaty character development in it; the kind that makes for compelling viewing. It had heart.
Before I get into what I believe Scream 4 gets wrong, I wanna talk about what it does right. Though the horror movie references are not really done with the same impact as the original-- which added such memes as 'The Rules for Surviving a Horror Movie' into the lexicon-- they are still there, and horror fans will appreciate them. Characters talk about how bad the Saw movies are and how reboots are destroying originality in the genre. It's vintage Kevin Williamson, and it's really quite funny. On top of all this is an awareness, on behalf of some of the characters, about the meta nature of the Scream franchise. This is evidenced by the existence of seven Stab movies within the Scream universe. I can't say any more without giving away the plot, but Williamson was definitely wearing his post-modern hat when he wrote it. He also gets up to some mischief by giving subtle hints as to what Scream 4 actually is; we never know until the end whether it's a sequel or a reboot.
I spoke a little bit before about how the Scream franchise had heart; well it really saddens me to say that it seems to be lacking in this instalment. I love this franchise a lot; I grew up watching it, and it's safe to say that it introduced me to the horror genre. So when I left the cinema feeling like something was missing, I was genuinely sad. I'm sure there are lots of internet reviewers that are going to shit on this film just because it's the trendy thing to do, but I really went into the movie expecting to write a glowing review. I wanted to like it, and I did, but not as much as I thought I might.
First off, the characters are largely under-developed. Gale Weathers suffers the most in this regard. Her character has always been the sharky journalist, willing to go to any lengths to get the story, but with a softness that contrasts nicely. I don't know what it was, but her two sides just didn't show up enough for me in Scream 4. I got the cut-throat journalist, but Courtney Cox just didn't sell it well enough. As for her soft side; well it didn't even cause a blip on the Geiger counter for me. Dewey fairs a bit better, though not by much. David Arquette nails his role as the cop/doofus, but we don't really get a sense of his competence or innate goodness like we did in the other movies. Sidney gets the best treatment of all because she is-- as the trailer confirms-- victim royalty. Neve Campbell brings a warmth to her role as Sidney Prescott, and the movie only enters three star territory because of her. You definitely get the sense of her loneliness; developed over years of relentless torment at the hands of Ghostface, but it would have been nice to see Sidney's character explored a little more. As for the new characters, they aren't really worth writing about.
Finally, the meta-textual theme just isn't established in Scream 4 as well as it is in the other instalments. Scream was about original horror movies, and used references to famous horror movies to frame the events of the film. Scream 2 dealt with sequels, specifically how sequels have a bad habit of sucking. This was fitting because it reflected the nervousness felt by the audience as to whether or not Scream 2 would suck. Scream 3 was about concluding chapters in trilogies and contained references to The Godfather Part III and The Return of the Jedi. Apparently Scream 4 was about rebooting a franchise, but I just don't think it pulls it off well enough. Maybe it's because the phenomenon of the reboot hasn't been around long enough to be relevant in the ironic way that Williamson may think it is.
It's not all bad though; don't think I completely hate it. Williamson and Craven have established a delightful, meta-textual universe, and it's one that I will keep on visiting for as long as they are willing to add to it.
Three and a half stars:
No comments:
Post a Comment