Scream 4!!!!! - Part 4

[kickass]

I loved the first Saw

 

[Xtroid]

Scream 4 was okay. It wasn't completely banal... If they are planning to make a new trilogy, then I don't understand the ending.

The movie should have ended as

Spoiler

Jill is taken to the hospital. And then in Scream 5, she becomes the victim for a new Ghostface.

Oh and Brian De Palma should just direct the next one. DePalma would slay it. That's what the franchise needs - new blood. I'm sure he would have more fun with the film, playing with the camera and the killings...

 

[Doctor Jones]

The first was good. I don't care about the rest.

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

Thought it was alright.

Felt bored at times, especially with the excellent intro that set the bar high for entertainment.

The new characters were dull, even the original cast couldn't spark up anything. I would have liked more focus on Adam Brody and Anthony Anderson, they felt underused.

It was fun seeing the cast back with Ghostface murdering again. But the fun for me stopped there.

 

[Spider-Fan]

The first Saw was good, but I agree, they got fairly stale after that. Those films became torture porn after a while and quite predictable.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Today was my second viewing of Scream 4 and I loved it just as much as I did on friday.

 

[kickass]

Good.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ Yes, very good, lol.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

Apparently did a million or so dollars on Monday. Don't know how that is for weekday numbers.

 

[The Dark Defender]

The first Saw was good, but I agree, they got fairly stale after that. Those films became torture porn after a while and quite predictable.

Hardly.

A man having to burn the possessions of his dead son to save the life of someone he demonized in his mind while seeing him humanized in front of him in SAW III, or a man that spent years getting people killed because he viewed matters of life and death as more a business than anything else finding out how wrong he was when the lives are stake right in front of him in SAW VI has more substance than anything in SAW; the first was one of the most shallow installments of the series with its build up to a guy getting up off the floor just for the sake of a vapid twist. Being less violent doesn't mean you have more substance. SAW is also probably the most poorly acted film in the series.

The worst SAW sequels characterize their leads better than this film does any of the new characters.
SAW as a series is one of the worst examples for the generic, thoughtless "the first was good but the rest sucked" argument, and the equally generic and thoughtless "horror movies are nothing but blood and guts" argument.

Speaking of themes, that's another thing that bugged me about Scream 4. The central theme of this series from the beginning is how people use scapegoats to rationalize peoples horrible actions, the motive of every previous killer has hit home that theme. In this movie, that idea really isn't there at all.

If I'm looking at the destruction of things that I love, I can look to Scream 3 and more so 4 before even the worst SAW has had to offer.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I'm a HUGE horror fan, but I could never grasp onto Saw, Hostel, or Final Destination. was never a huge fan of those 3 franchises.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Hardly.

A man having to burn the possessions of his dead son to save the life of someone he demonized in his mind while seeing him humanized in front of him in SAW III, or a man that spent years getting people killed because he viewed matters of life and death as more a business than anything else finding out how wrong he was when the lives are stake right in front of him in SAW VI has more substance than anything in SAW; the first was one of the most shallow installments of the series with its build up to a guy getting up off the floor just for the sake of a vapid twist. Being less violent doesn't mean you have more substance. SAW is also probably the most poorly acted film in the series.

Having seen 5 of them, I disagree. I felt Saw had the most original twist, I got sucked into the doctor's story more than any storyline added in the sequels, and Saw IV and V were just outlandishly complicated and complex and relied on too many coincidences/choices. III was prob my 2nd favoritwe of that series, but even there, I feel like Jigsaw did things contradictory to his nature as established before hand.

The worst SAW sequels characterize their leads better than this film does any of the new characters.
SAW as a series is one of the worst examples for the generic, thoughtless "the first was good but the rest sucked" argument, and the equally generic and thoughtless "horror movies are nothing but blood and guts" argument.

Saw II and III were okay, but I hated IV and V. Those I hated so much, I didn't bother with VI or 3D.

Speaking of themes, that's another thing that bugged me about Scream 4. The central theme of this series from the beginning is how people use scapegoats to rationalize peoples horrible actions, the motive of every previous killer has hit home that theme. In this movie, that idea really isn't there at all.

If I'm looking at the destruction of things that I love, I can look to Scream 3 and more so 4 before even the worst SAW has had to offer.

They're different genres, and I know Saw has their fanbase, but the latter Saw films I saw were mostly torture porn to me. Yes, Scream 3 isn't very good and was outlandish, but I feel the same way about Saw IV and V. We'll just have to agree to disagree here.

 

[kickass]

The worst Scream film is still 10x better than the worst Saw film. After the 3rd Saw, they were holy **** bad. Especially that last one. Talk about having an awful villain. Awful in every regard.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

I'm a HUGE horror fan, but I could never grasp onto Saw, Hostel, or Final Destination. was never a huge fan of those 3 franchises.

I liked the first and second Final Destination. But they kinda killed the franchise when they killed off Clear in the second one for me.

 

[The Dark Defender]

" I felt Saw had the most original twist."

I wasn't commenting on its originality, I was commenting on how shallow it was. John laying around on the bathroom floor the whole time meant nothing, it changed nothing. Even if they'd known he were there, it would not have helped them. It's an irrelevant twist just for the sake of a twist whether it's original or not.

SAW II ends on a guy being locked away because of spending years destroying the lives of others to improve his own and not knowing how to solve any of his problems other than violence, SAW III ends with a man losing his family because he had no self control and it was a danger to not only himself but those closest to him, SAW VI ends with a man being put in the same situation he'd made a living putting others in and having to experience it from the opposite perspective...any of this is far more meaningful than "hey look! He was on the floor the whole time!"

Two of the three major tests in SAW III don't even involve human bloodshed, they're a man having to face his demons and see people that he'd been viewing as monsters presented before him as flawed people that made a terrible mistake and having his bitterness turned to sympathy...that isn't 'torture porn' (one of the most overused and falsely generalized phrases in cinema today, btw), it's psychological and emotional horror with a thematic point to make.

Hate on SAW all you want, but it's never turned into a blatant comedy with lots of blood. Scream has.
I think Scream is too good for what this franchise was lowered to with this film. This is either a really good installment of the Scary Movie franchise or a really bad installment of the Scream franchise, and I say this is a huge fan of Scream and SAW as long as they've existed.

"The worst Scream film is still 10x better than the worst Saw film. After the 3rd Saw, they were holy **** bad. Especially that last one. Talk about having an awful villain. Awful in every regard."

Hoffman is a top notch heel that's had a great arc ever since part V.

 

[Spider-Fan]

" I felt Saw had the most original twist."

I wasn't commenting on its originality, I was commenting on how shallow it was. John laying around on the bathroom floor the whole time meant nothing, it changed nothing. Even if they'd known he were there, it would not have helped them. It's an irrelevant twist just for the sake of a twist whether it's original or not.

The first Saw had a mysterious who is doing this and why element, so him rising from the floor is not meaningless. Jigsaw didn't have a physical body by this point, like he did in the sequels.

SAW II ends on a guy being locked away because of spending years destroying the lives of others to improve his own and not knowing how to solve any of his problems other than violence, SAW III ends with a man losing his family because he had no self control and it was a danger to not only himself but those closest to him, SAW VI ends with a man being put in the same situation he'd made a living putting others in and having to experience it from the opposite perspective...any of this is far more meaningful than "hey look! He was on the floor the whole time!"

Didn't see VI. But, I'm going to move on to my comments on 3 in the next point.

Two of the three major tests in SAW III don't even involve human bloodshed, they're a man having to face his demons and see people that he'd been viewing as monsters presented before him as flawed people that made a terrible mistake and having his bitterness turned to sympathy...that isn't 'torture porn' (one of the most overused and falsely generalized phrases in cinema today, btw), it's psychological and emotional horror with a thematic point to make.

In Saw III, he gave those flawed people no means of escape themselves, and that is very un-Jigsaw if you ask me. That's one of my problems with it. He has this elaborate game for one guy, and he is their only means of escape. These people couldn't get out themselves. Jigsaw offers people a chance to save themselves. This is my problem with Saw III. It's out of character.

Hate on SAW all you want, but it's never turned into a blatant comedy with lots of blood. Scream has.
I think Scream is too good for what this franchise was lowered to with this film. This is either a really good installment of the Scary Movie franchise or a really bad installment of the Scream franchise, and I say this is a huge fan of Scream and SAW as long as they've existed.

I disagree on this being a poor installment in the Scream series. Did it use many of the same conflicts? No, but it was Scream for a new generation of horror. Things were different. It worked in that way, and I enjoyed it. Saw never went to comedy because it never had comedic elements. Scream always did.

 

[The Shape]

The worst Scream film is still 10x better than the worst Saw film. After the 3rd Saw, they were holy **** bad. Especially that last one. Talk about having an awful villain. Awful in every regard.

Agreed, and to compare the two series based on "character development" or substance is completely absurd.

The first Saw was bold, fresh, and original. It actually had a message and a mind-blowing twist. It's small budget really worked well for it at the time, but the series quickly became a joke. I'm sorry, the Saw sequels were churned out like butter once a year for the 6 years that followed, only serving to turn a quick buck. Saw's impact on the horror genre ended with the first film. After that, the plots and themes only became more convoluted and absurd.

The Scream series, on the other hand, is a self-aware spoof of the horror genre. Yeah, the characters are expendable and stupid...ON PURPOSE. The films are well-thought out, well-produced, clever, and fun. Even Scream 3, the weakest entry, is infinitely more watch-able and enjoyable than any saw sequel.

(Side-note: Closest I came to walking out of a movie was Saw 5 when I repeatedly saw a boom mic enter the top of the frame. If that wasn't bad enough, the rest of the film was so absurd and awful that people were screaming things like "WHAT THE ****?" and "THAT'S ******ED".)

 

[bullets]

I'm a HUGE horror fan, but I could never grasp onto Saw, Hostel, or Final Destination. was never a huge fan of those 3 franchises.

I really liked the first final destination but none of the sequels. I liked Hostel the first time I saw it but probably wouldn't watch it again, it was ok. I turned off the second before it ended. Saw I find very entertaining because it's partly a serial killer/ crime film . .I'm not really a fan of gore though.

 

[The Dark Defender]

"The first Saw had a mysterious who is doing this and why element, so him rising from the floor is not meaningless. Jigsaw didn't have a physical body by this point, like he did in the sequels."

Of course who Jigsaw was is important, him laying around on the floor the whole time, not so much. The only really good thing about the ending actually was the killer being the cancer patient, I could care less about the fact that he layed on the bathroom floor the entire time...just for the hell of it when him being there really changed nothing.

In Saw III, he gave those flawed people no means of escape themselves, and that is very un-Jigsaw if you ask me."

No it isn't, he did the same thing in the first film with Amanda's cell mate. The games are tailored to the transgressions of the victims, the whole point of Jeff's tests was him seeing the humanity in the people that he hated so much that the hatred was destroying him and those around him.

"Saw's impact on the horror genre ended with the first film. After that, the plots and themes only became more convoluted and absurd."

Despite many specific examples of how the themes were MORE present in the sequels in quite a few cases, the first film was more concerned with its irrelevant twist just for the sake of a twist than it was with its themes.
There films may have been pumped out fast, but that doesn't change the fact that the fans were interested in where the story was going to go and what was going to happen next with the characters, not with the next innovative way of seeing limbs get pulled off. It's people that hate the films that focus on the gore, not the people that like them.

Scream was never a spoof until now. They were actual horror films with a satirical element, this film flips that around and goes primarily for laughs with the horror element shoved to the background to where it's barely visible.

 

[Spider-Fan]

"The first Saw had a mysterious who is doing this and why element, so him rising from the floor is not meaningless. Jigsaw didn't have a physical body by this point, like he did in the sequels."

Of course who Jigsaw was is important, him laying around on the floor the whole time, not so much. The only really good thing about the ending actually was the killer being the cancer patient, I could care less about the fact that he layed on the bathroom floor the entire time...just for the hell of it when him being there really changed nothing.

It was how he chose to observe the contest. I don't see a problem with it.

In Saw III, he gave those flawed people no means of escape themselves, and that is very un-Jigsaw if you ask me."

No it isn't, he did the same thing in the first film with Amanda's cell mate. The games are tailored to the transgressions of the victims, the whole point of Jeff's tests was him seeing the humanity in the people that he hated so much that the hatred was destroying him and those around him.

Difference between his other tests and this one is he essentially murdered these people. Jigsaw let's people have chances to save themselves and walk away. Their survival depended upon another person freeing them. That to me crosses his line of what is or isn't murder, and I feel out of character. I don't care what the test was supposed to expose, the method was not Jigsaw-esque.

Also, this is not a Saw thread. We should all get back to Scream, not discuss the merits of Saw sequels or plot points.

 

[Nightmare]

I loved it, a lot better than i thought It would be. I felt entertained through out the film. I really loved Hayden (Kirby) and Emma Roberts (Jill).

 

[The Shape]

"Saw's impact on the horror genre ended with the first film. After that, the plots and themes only became more convoluted and absurd."

Despite many specific examples of how the themes were MORE present in the sequels in quite a few cases, the first film was more concerned with its irrelevant twist just for the sake of a twist than it was with its themes.

Specific example don't matter, so stop putting down the first Saw film because you love the others so much more. The IDEA and EXECUTION of the first Saw is what sets it apart from the others. Doesn't matter if the twist is shallow, or if the plot doesn't involve a man that has to burn his son's crap or whatever. It was ****ing COOL. The rest of the Saw series is merely an absurdly convoluted expansion of that original idea. After Saw 3, the series lost any and all artistic credibility. I mean, none of the sequels even screened for critics. Even the studio knows they suck and that the last thing they needed was critics publishing articles on how much they suck.


Really no point in arguing or comparing the two series in this thread, so let's cut it out. We know you can defend the Saw sequels to death, but you really don't need to.

 

[The Dark Defender]

"Difference between his other tests and this one is he essentially murdered these people. Jigsaw let's people have chances to save themselves and walk away. Their survival depended upon another person freeing them. That to me crosses his line of what is or isn't murder, and I feel out of character. I don't care what the test was supposed to expose, the method was not Jigsaw-esque."

Obviously Jigsaw IS a murderer and always has been whether he realizes in his insane extremist mind or not.

That example I gave from the first film was a test where someone literally HAD to die, it couldn't end without Amanda or her cell mate dying, Jeff's tests atleast left open the possiblity of him saving the person and noone getting killed.

And the problem I have with it is that as I said, it changes nothing. It's there...just to be there. It isn't a bad twist, but it's hardly one of the strongest moments of the series as most make it out to be. Several of the sequels had far more meaningful endings and yet most can't stop carrying on about how shallow they supposedly are in comparison.

 

[The Dark Defender]

Specific example don't matter, so stop putting down the first Saw film because you love the others so much more. The IDEA and EXECUTION of the first Saw is what sets it apart from the others. Doesn't matter if the twist is shallow, or if the plot doesn't involve a man that has to burn his son's crap or whatever. It was ****ing COOL. The rest of the Saw series is merely an absurdly convoluted expansion of that original idea. After Saw 3, the series lost any and all artistic credibility. I mean, none of the sequels even screened for critics. Even the studio knows they suck and that the last thing they needed was critics publishing articles on how much they suck.


Really no point in arguing or comparing the two series in this thread, so let's cut it out. We know you can defend the Saw sequels to death, but you really don't need to.

Exactly, the examples I'm giving are examples of why the IDEA and EXECUTION is not absurd and convulted and has more subtance than they're still good, but inferior predecessor.

You're simply throughtlessly shrugging the examples off and resorting to the hollow "torture porn" argument.

I couldn't care less what critics think, they hate horror films in general anyway.

 

[The Dark Defender]

Oh, and scroll back a bit and you'll realize I was not the one that brought SAW up, the reason I strongly defend the sequels is because I'm hard pressed to enter a thread about ANY horror film or franchise without reading a plethora of what I consider to beabsolutely ridiculous, shortsighted bashing of what I consider to be great films, in most cases better films than the films that they're being slammed into comparison to.