Scream 3, dir. Wes Craven (2000)

STEVE says:
And we end our Scream-athon with a resounding thud.

Scream 3 is not good; it knows this, and doesn't try to hide it. What it does, instead, is try to distract you from that fact with ridiculous cameos by Carrie Fisher and Jay and Silent Bob, more pop culture references than the first two movies combined, and a general comedic feeling that doesn't balance well with the tenser moments. Fortunately for them, unfortunately for us, the tense moments are few and far between, and tend not to throw off the comedy. The problem is, the comedy isn't that funny in the first place.

I lay this all at the feet of Ehren Kruger, one of the worst screenwriters since Edward D. Wood, Jr. Thanks, Ehren, for ruining a perfectly good trilogy.

1.5/5

NIKKI says:
I'd forgotten just how terrible this movie was. Something made me remember it as silly but good fun. Turns out, it's really just silly. And a disappointing wrap-up for the trilogy.

I think the badness here has much to do with Kevin Williamson stepping aside as writer. As much as I found myself not enjoying Part 2, at least it felt like Scream film. This one feel so unlike a Scream film that sometimes I found myself shocked to see the stars of the original film even in it. It feels like a rip-off, like an attempt to replicate the original films. And perhaps that's what the third-in-series movies do, but this one goes to great lengths to let us know it's not a "third" movie, but the end of a trilogy -- something with rules all its own.

Again, the eventual killer/s are revealed and its all just so standard. "Your mother was my mother, too!" How ridiculous. The killer should have been Randy, or something. We needed to be jolted in this movie -- really have the tables turn on us, as Randy suggests should happen in a movie like this one. Instead, we retread the end of the first film, only with new characters as the boring culprits. BORING.

And the voice-alterer was just the stupidest thing ever.

1.5/5

Scream 2, dir. Wes Craven (1997)

STEVE says:
There are things about Scream 2 that I liked, and there are things that just didn't work at all.

The good bits are the returning characters, Sidney, Dewey, Randy and Gale Weathers. They're not unlikable, and we care about their fate - unlike the characters in most other slasher movies these days.

The pop culture references are still there, but not in the same in-your-face kind of way they were in the first film. We've done that already, Scream 2 seems to say, we don't need to push it.

And even the bits that didn't work out didn't detract from the film. The opening scene, for example, doesn't work. I've never been to a premiere where the point of the evening is not to watch the movie, but to run up and down the aisles screaming like idiots. But I have limited life experience, so I'll let that one pass. The idea that the killer is somehow trying to replay the murders from the first film by killing off characters with similar names in the same order is pointed out, then dropped. There's no point to this, but it's also insane. What are the odds that the killer would find a Maureen and a corresponding Stephen (or in this case a surname, Stephens) who happen to be dating, and who happen to have gone to the premiere of Stab, the movie about the events from the first film? Slim to fucking none, is what. And that his third victim, Casey, happens to be the "sober sister" on the night of a sorority party, hence the only one home alone to be killed is equally as ludicrous.

But I say again, these things don't necessarily detract from the film. Okay, the killer thing doesn't quite work. In Scream we were told pretty much from the word Go that Billy Loomis was the killer, and this point is reiterated several times throughout the film, no matter how much evidence is presented against. When he turns out to be the killer, we're surprised, but we're also kicking ourselves for not seeing it sooner. Watching Scream with the knowledge that Billy and his pal Stu are in on it together, you can see that they don't really ever try to hide it. The scene in the video store where they're both intimidating Randy gives it away - if you know what you're looking for.

But in Scream 2, the killers are just kind of thrown at you in the end. Olyphant's Mickey is introduced early on, listed as a suspect, then dismissed because his being a suspect also makes Randy a suspect. So we just move on, and only see Mickey maybe two or three more times for probably as many minutes before the big reveal. There's no development at all. The same is true of his partner, Mrs. Loomis. She's seen as a reporter throughout the movie, then - Surprise! She's not who we told you she was.

Unlike the first movie, there was no chance of piecing this one together, and that's kind of cheating so it loses points on that score. But I still think it's fun, and that's it's a logical extension of the events from the first, so for me it balances out.

3/5


NIKKI says:
Wow, I thought I liked this movie way more than I apparently do. Watching this time, the first time in quite a few years, I found myself, more and more, picking out just what I dislike about it, from the stupid opening bit in movie theatre with Jada Pinkett, to the unsatisfying ending.

Between viewings, it just all went to crap, I guess.

Basically, where the first film riffed on horror films, this one has a go at their sequels. I now find the sequel-humour really quite twee. In a sequel, Randy tells us, there's more blood, a higher body count, and everyone is, once again, a suspect. Only that's not how I read most sequels. Usually, the cast is all different, the blood and body counts are similar, because sequels are usually replicas just with slightly altered settings and personalities. Wasn't the second Friday still set at the Lake? Wasn't the second Nightmare still about the knife-guy invading people's dreams? I don't know, but the po-mo hilarity of the first movie just does not translate because you just know it wasn't the filmmakers' intent to make a sub-par movie, which, this being a sequel, it has no choice but to be. It was like, let's riff on sequels and then... not.

Sadly, this one is just poorly written all together. The eventual killer is barely in the thing, and his partner sticks out as a suspect from way early on simply because, at the time, she (like everyone else here) was a famous TV star, only NOT a TV star likely to show up in a film like this for nothing. So, the conclusions led to here are all very ho-hum. The stand-out feature in this one is Jerry O'Connell as the boyfriend. I almost wish he was the killer in the end, instead his niceness and humour add up to nothing as he's laid to waste like some other characters we actually liked (Randy, for instance).

So, no. Does not live up either to it's predecessor, or to my original feelings. It did give the world Timothy Olyphant, and for that we are grateful.

2.5/5

Scream, dir. Wes Craven (1995)

STEVE says:
After the abysmal effort last night, we decided to just go back and watch Scream. While you could argue that there's nothing particularly original about Scream itself, as far as the material goes, the originality of the presentation cannot be faulted.

It's an example of pop culture catching up with itself, but it's as much of a slasher movie in its own right as it is an homage to those that came before it. (Specifically Halloween, which is referenced everywhere in this movie.) What bothers me about it is the way many of those pop culture references are handled.

A conversation between Drew Barrymore's Casey and the killer (though she doesn't yet know it) goes like this:

Killer: What's your favorite scary movie.
Casey: Um... Halloween. You know, the one with the guy in the white mask who walks around and stalks babysitters?
Killer: Yeah.
Casey: What's yours?
Killer: Guess.
Casey: Um... Nightmare on Elm Street.
Killer: Is that the one where the guy had knives for fingers?
Casey: Yeah, Freddy Krueger.
Killer: Freddy, that's right.

So you're already making a movie for fans of horror movies - I think it's safe to assume that your target audience doesn't need an explanation as to who two of the biggest horror heroes are, especially if your whole movie is predicated on the horror movie as pop culture. A bit sloppy, that.

I still find Scream extremely enjoyable - even nearly 13 years on. And, Kevin Williamson's sometimes-too-clever dialog aside, it proves that these things are better left to professionals.

4/5

NIKKI says:
Somehow, we wound up spending the day watching the Scream movies. It was good for us, I think, to be reminded that there are good teen-horror flicks out there, and that at one point in time, someone cared to get things right. Weird that that person was Kevin Williamson, but all praise to him for his insight and intelligence regarding the horror genre. Now, the poor guy gets blamed for the lame ducks that followed him, self-referencing all over the place, and basically trying to copy good horror movies and failing miserably. I don't blame him, though. He wasn't to know. But then, he did have something to do with I Know What You Did Last Summer, so maybe he is to blame? And maybe that's why we don't see him much anymore. He's hiding his shame.

I still like Scream a lot, all these years later. Can you believe 13 years have passed? That's 13 years of horrible copycats. It's still fresh, it's characters are still cool and likable in the right way. It's scares are still scary, and it's horror still effective. It doesn't take the self-referencing too far (even with Fonzie's combing of the hair), and when it does self-reference, it does it to good effect.

I also really like the style of this one. It has a real individual mood to it, with its big crane shots, and the "Red Right Hand" musical motif. Craven has come along way himself, since Shocker and the like. It's like he went to technique school prior to shooting this. So, that adds to the fun.

All round, a good experience.

4/5