I don't believe it is outstanding or works anywhere near as well as the original, but I kind of love this movie. It's SO meta, though, and although I am a sucker for meta humor, it is sometimes too clever for its own good (especially the opening, in which the Stab scenes are well done, but when we actually enter Scream 4, there's no tension left and nothing subversive is done with the rest of the scene). That's Scream, though - highly clever and sometimes overdoing that - and there are worse things that a film can be than too clever.
Unlike 3, though, Scream 4 does work as a horror film, or at least a thriller. There's only one scene here that I found scary, but there is a great deal of suspense and unease. That one scary scene is Olivia's death, which is the most brutal to endure since Randy's (not that I'm saying the death itself packs the same punch), and it's because of the way Sidney and the others watch it, or rather the way Sidney sees it start and then runs to find help, but doesn't make it in time. That is an expertly crafted horror scene. Scream 4 is a great thriller all the way through, though, but it wouldn't be if it weren't a sequel. It's not a particularly well-crafted mystery, but none of them are. The reveal of Jill as the killer was a big surprise, but it made her unconvincing behavior (she was less believable than she thought she was) make sense. Before that, I thought Emma Roberts was just kind of stiff.
One of the things that makes Scream unique among horror franchises, and the thing that makes it most valuable as a series beyond its self-satisfied satirical bent, is that it's not really the villain that we're following from one installment to the next, that we want to and do see develop, it's the heroes. (Heroes, too, not even just a "final girl," but three core characters returning each time.) Sure, Ghostface is a fun, iconic villain, but it's just a costume, with a different person underneath it every movie, giving them all a mystery element. If you genuinely love the Scream movies, then what keeps you coming back is the trio of Sidney Prescott, Dewey Riley, and Gale Weathers (sorry, Gale Riley), and that's clearly what keeps Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson back. That's such a joy to see, because one of the things that is always criticized about contemporary horror films is the cynicism behind so many of them, particularly the "torture porn" subgenre: It's not about rooting for a hero to best a horrible villain, it's about how that horrible villain is going to win, and how elaborate and realistically gruesome the kills are. Yes, Scream is a series of slasher movies, so creative kills do matter, and there have been some great ones ('though not really in this movie), but what makes them as good as they are is how much we're made to care about Sidney, Dewey, and Gale.
As with Scream 2, this movie does not feel like it was made to cash in at all; this feels like a movie Kevin Williamson really wanted to write, and it feels like Kevin Williamson really wrote it. It feels like a proper Scream movie, unlike 3, which was a sort-of-convincing look-alike. It's already been said a ton, but I LOVE Sid in this movie so much. Her development throughout this series has been perfect - it is by far the best part of 3, and she makes a climax that is otherwise retconning the first to the point of insult into something awesome with her badassery. The way she deals with Ghostface here - no more fear, just pissed-off strength and action - is great to behold. Neve Campbell is so good here, from the warmth of her moments with Dewey to her continued cautious friendship with Gale to the kind of awkward way she carries herself around Jill and her mother; they are technically family, but really, they're not family, they're relatives, and this isn't home. Plus, Jill's friends refer to her as the Reaper or the Angel of Death, so that doesn't help. Williamson did a good job writing Halloween: H20 and taking the classic "final girl," Laurie Strode, and examining her 20 years later and turning her into an exhilaratingly strong figure. Williamson didn't write 3, but he and Craven combined have seen Sidney through 15 years and done a remarkable job with her. By comparison, Dewey and Gale have, of course, not had the same kind of growth, but I'm as happy with the way their characters have been treated. It's a pleasure to see Gale be Gale again in this film, because, although she certainly hadn't lost all of her personality, the Gale Weathers we saw last time 'round was pretty watered-down, paired with Parker Posey's character in subplot that was somewhat fun, but much too cute. She's a welcome return to form in 4, trying to team up with the new generation and their passion for media to catch the killer. There is decidedly less chemistry between her and Dewey, which is surely because the Arquettes were going through a break-up while shooting. Where Sidney has become wonderfully strong and Gale has grown just enough of a conscience that Sidney and Dewey can stand to be in the same room with her, Dewey...well, he's Dewey. What that means is that, during the climax, even though I knew what a modern-Barney Fife character he is, I was still mentally screaming, "COME THE **** ON, DEWEY, WHERE'S THE CAVALRY!?" At least he didn't get maimed this time.
This franchise has been important to me since childhood - Scream came out when I was 7, and my mom loves horror movies - so I came into Scream 4 desperately wanting our big three to survive. Ever since it was announced that there would be a fourth Scream film and that Kevin Williamson had plans for a fifth and sixth, I've naturally thought this one would begin with Sidney's death. Then once I knew what the plot was, I figured it would end with Sidney's death. That thought that Sidney, or at least one of the big three, would die this time, never left my mind, but when I entered the theater, I'd decided that my prediction was that none of them would, but in Scream 5 (which I thought more likely 3 days ago than I do now), one would. Also, I had seen the trailers, which featured that awesome clip of Gale exclaiming before a Ghostface hovering above her with a knife, "Go ahead - if you have the guts!" And then that scene came (minus that line, by the way, which I missed), but Gale was pretty clearly not dead. Sidney's close call did get me, though; as Jill told us, we expected it, to some level or another, and as the rest of that sequence unfolded, without Sidney bolting up and dispatching Jill, I was genuinely, deeply worried, shaking my head in what I thought was denial and repeatedly mouthing, "No." There was a bit of that when Jill attacked her in her hospital room, too, but as it acknowledged, that scene was so ridiculous that it couldn't be a credible place for Sidney to die. Devindra Hardawar, one of the hosts of The /Filmcast, suggested a different way for things to go: Jill actually killing Sidney, then the film ending after that scene, with Jill successfully framing Trevor and becoming the new Sidney, and the next movie picking up with her in college or something, and a Scream movie opening with viewers knowing who the killer was for the first time. That is a good idea, I have to say, it could have worked. I might be putting what I want to happen over what I think works dramatically here, but I was too happy with Sidney, Dewey, and Gale all surviving, and too happy with the movie's, "Don't **** with the original!" attitude, to want anything else. (And what a great line and moment that was - the biggest I've smiled in ages. Cheers!)
I agree that, unlike in 3, the new characters introduced were all interesting and/or likable, with Hayden Panettierre's Kirby the clear standout. Seeing her die was hard. Emma Roberts' Jill was actually very convincingly unhinged, going to such extreme and horrible measures to be famous, but not wanting to be famous for her killings, but for a faked survival; she wants to be famous for not doing anything, and that's the thing that makes 4 contemporary. The rundown is this: We're meant to think of Jill as the Sidney stand-in, Kirby the Tatum stand-in, Charlie the Randy stand-in (he certainly does), Robbie the Stu stand-in (I was expecting either he or Charlie to be a killer, and I was leaning toward Robbie because he had a slightly creepier look about him), and Trevor the Billy stand-in. Trevor is SUCH an obvious Billy stand-in that he's a clear red herring character and not much else; did anyone actually suspect him in a real way, and not just out of suspecting literally everyone? As it turns out, Charlie is more the Stu stand-in and Kirby is the Randy stand-in; Kirby is the most defined supporting character, and we like her, so it hurts when she dies. It felt like all of the younger cast members needed a little more screentime, and the same with Alison Brie as Rebecca; fun role, but I wanted more of it. However, that's a good problem to have.
I hoped Scream 4 would do better initially than it has been. There's a chance it could build, but that seems like a small chance (opening weekend counts for a lot more now than it did when the first, second, and third movies opened). I've heard it said that this film would have done better if it were instead a PG-13 remake - a straight remake, that is. Unfortunately, that's probably right. I'd like to think that Scream 4 makes a remake impossible with the way it acknowledges that it basically is one and satirizes remakes the way the first one did standard slasher flicks, the second did slasher sequels, and the third did trilogies. If the Kirby character can rattle off that list of remakes of classic horror and not even mention all of them, then Scream is not protected. (What would be even worse is if the series went the straight-to-video route. That I don't see happening, though.) For now, we have Screams 1-4, and 4 is really good, a pleasant surprise and a considerable improvement over the last.
My only disappointment is that "Red Right Hand" wasn't used at all; its become sort of a theme song, and its inclusion would have made it feel even more like a Scream movie.
SwordOfMorningSuper Moderator
