'Scream 4' directed by Wes Craven.

Spoiler Free.

Produced by: Wes Craven, and Iya Labunka. Executive: Bob Weinstein, and Harvey Weinstein.

Written by: Kevin Williamson.

Starring: David Arquette, Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, Emma Roberts, and Hayden Panettiere.

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:

'Hobo with a Shotgun' by Jason Eisener.

Produced by: Rob Cotterill, Niv Fichman, Paul Gross, and Frank Siracusa.

Written by: John Davies.

Starring: Rutger Hauer, Brian Downey, and Gregory Smith.

Studio: Rhombus Media, Whizbang Films Inc., and Yer Dead Productions.

Distributed by: Alliance Films and Magnet Releasing.

Country: United States, and Canada.

Year: 2011.

Budget: $3 Million.

The story behind the development of this movie is actually pretty inspiring, so I shall attempt to tell a brief version of it before getting into the review. Back in 2007, a competition was launched to promote the release of the Robert Rodriguez/ Quentin Tarantino double-feature Grindhouse. Entrants were tasked with creating their own fake grindhouse film trailers, with the winner given the opportunity to have their trailer screened in front of Grindhouse. The winner turned out to be Jason Eisener with his two-minute trailer, Hobo with a Shotgun.

Eisener was quickly approached by producers to make a feature length version of his trailer. He was not a professional film-maker, and he shot the trailer with his friends on a budget of $150, which according to him was spent mostly on  “...videotape, pizza and smokes.” The film industry has always been the most exclusive of parties, and it’s good to see a regular guy get his name on the list.

As a person who has grown up on movies; who spent most of his pre-teen years enacting scenes from Predator, Commando and Aliens with G.I. Joe figurines, I won’t lie and say it wouldn’t be my ultimate dream job to be a movie director (or shit, even a screenplay writer). Accordingly, I’m somewhat enamoured with Hobo with a Shotgun. This is partly because Eisener is an underdog that managed to crack the industry, but also because Hobo with a Shotgun is a very daring film. There is also a lot to like about it. The whole philosophical aim of it seems to be to outdo every other grindhouse flick in terms of profanity, gore, sexuality, and general outrageousness.

Indeed, the people behind the dreadful final chapter of the Saw franchise, which I reviewed last week, could take a few notes from Eisener. These days, it’s not enough to only feature over-the-top violence for the sake of it. If you really want to tap into the irony of exploitation theatre, you have to deliver your violence in a creative way. Hobo with a Shotgun manages to accomplish this, leaving movies like Saw behind in the dust. One of the first notable sequences we see is a decapitation, followed by a bikini girl dancing sexily in the resulting blood fountain. It takes a special kind of mind to come up with something this sick. Whilst the grindhouse movies of the 70s and 80s were always subtle in their combination of sexuality and violence, Hobo with a Shotgun combines the two in a way that is satirically obvious. Needless to say, the scene is hard to stomach; but that is just the point. The film seems to be addressing the idea that grindhouse movies exist solely to deliver on our most primitive instincts.

The dialogue also abandons the nuance and subtlety found in other grindhouse movies. When the eponymous Hobo finally snaps and opens fire on a group of thieves, he yells “I’m going to sleep in your bloody carcases tonight!” A generic pun would have been enough to get the message across, but Hobo with a Shotgun abandons subtlety in order to deliver the ultimate grindhouse experience as an ironic commentary on the nature of exploitation theatre itself. With each card out so openly on the table (violence, offensive language, and sex), it’s possible to say that Hobo with a Shotgun is the perfect grindhouse movie. It leaves me to wonder where the genre can go from this point.  I don’t think a sequel to this movie would be as good, because I don’t know if there is much left to be said.

Although it may seem like I’m blowing a lot of literary hot air into Hobo, it would be unfair to give it five stars, or even four. Like a bucket of KFC chicken that seems like a good idea at the time, it only takes a little bit of Hobo with a Shotgun to make you feel sick. By the time the cyborg ninjas roll around (I’m not joking), I had reached my Hobo with a Shotgun saturation point and was waiting for it to end. This is the nature of the grindhouse movie; they can only ever reach the level of ironic appreciation. The violence can be as creative and as brutal as it likes, but it won’t make up for that sense of awe that comes with the truly great films.

Rutger Hauer is great as the lead in the first twenty or so minutes, but with scene after scene of gratuitous violence taking the spotlight, he might as well have been an unknown. This movie is going to be a contentious one for me. On the one hand, I appreciate what it has to add to the exploitation canon, but on the other hand I suspect that the point was made well enough in the trailer. I’m sure I will view it again later and totally change my mind on the final star score, but for now its...

Three and a half stars:

'Limitless' directed by Neil Burger.

Produced by: Leslie Dixon, Ryan Kavanaugh, and Scott Kroopf.

Written by: Leslie Dixon, and Alan Glynn (based on his book, ‘The Dark Fields’.)

Starring: Bradley Cooper, Abbie Cornish, and Robert De Niro.

Studio: Relativity Media.

Distributed by: Rogue.

Year of release: 2011.

Run time: 105 Minutes.

Budget: $27 Million.

Gross revenue: $69, 904, 000.

Before I went into this movie, I thought it was going to be one of those bogus sci-fi films produced solely to appeal to a mainstream audience. When it began, such dialogue as “You know how we only use twenty percent of our brains? Well this drug allows us to use one hundred percent!”*, only confirmed my suspicions. Of course we don’t only use twenty percent of our brains; we use one hundred percent, though at different times depending on what task we are doing. But this is Hollywood friends, and such clichés can create millionaires.

When such a line is uttered in a movie; one that appeals to the vague pseudo-scientific clichés that we are all used to hearing, you can instantly see how the creative process works in a desperate writer struggling to find that idea that is going to allow them to crack an industry coated with strong carbon to carbon bonds (my attempt at scientific humour). You can just imagine how it would have went down: Alan Glynn, a struggling writer who, after having just opened his seventh rejection letter and spending the rest of the afternoon in the foetal position on his floor, finally manages to pull his shit together and think to himself “I need a new idea. Something groovy and scientific that has never been done before. What are some of the facts about the human body that you always hear on television? How about: We only ever use twenty percent of our brains? What if someone invented a pill that could unlock the other eighty percent? What if you took that pill and were able to become a super genius?” Add a notebook computer, and copious amounts of coffee and you’re onto a winning idea.

Scientific accuracy aside, the idea that we are never able to reach our true potential is a fun idea to contemplate, and it certainly seems original enough. Although Limitless is indeed one of those dreaded mainstream science fiction movies that doesn’t adequately speculate on the implications of future technology, it’s pretty entertaining. Bradley Cooper nails it as the emotionally retarded Eddie, who discovers the pill through a friend and transforms from a loser with writer’s block, to a super-intelligent, over-confident, stock-broker who turns pennies into millions in the space of a working week.

There is certainly a skeleton philosophical speculation here. I don’t know about anyone else, but I detected a hint of allegory within Limitless. The mysterious pill not only allows people to realise their full potential for intelligence, it also manages to free you from the anxiety and self-doubt which the Diagnostic Manual of Mental Illness would class as depression. Bradley Cooper might as well be downing Zoloft or Prozac in this flick because, after being on a steady dose of the magic pill, he manages to get his confidence back. He gets his hair-cut, cleans up his apartment and acquires a slick new wardrobe. Brimming with self-confidence, he is free to seduce exotic women and live the high-life of American narcissism. The film does hint at the idea that requiring a pill to be happy might not be the best thing for the human soul, but the ending of Limitless seems to undo this. Nothing is really said about the magical drug; whether it is good or bad, or even neutral. I didn’t feel a sense of closure at the end of the movie, and it only led me to reconfirm that this is a popcorn movie, pure and simple.

Robert Deniro does his best work in a long time here, and I’ll always have a soft-spot for Abbie Cornish after Candy. There is also some interesting camera trickery here, which is used to create a perpetual city street in the style of those never ending paintings that pop up on the internet from time to time.

Something leads me to believe that the book that Limitless is based on might explore the themes in greater depth—as is usually the case with Hollywood adaptations. However, as a far as popcorn movies go, you could do a lot worse than Limitless. At the beginning of the movie there was a trailer for the highly anticipated The Green Lantern, and I’m telling you right now, you couldn’t pay me to sit through that one.

Three stars:

* Incidentally, does anyone else think of Wedding Crashers whenever they hear this little nugget of ‘info.’ Whenever someone tells me that we only use twenty percent of our brains, I always think of Owen Wilson telling Rachel McAdams “...I like to think we only use twenty percent of our hearts.”