Scream 4!!!!! - Part 4

[The Shape]

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.

Never once did I mention or consider mentioning torture porn. I'm merely speaking on the quality of the films, and this is coming from someone who loved the first and enjoyed the second. As a die-hard fan of the series, YOU may consider the original film to be inferior, because you came to love and adore the characters and plots of the sequels, but that doesn't mean it really is.

Scream 4, and the entire series, is on another level, both creatively and financially.

 

[DACrowe]

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.

I get that the Saw films try to all be Charles Dickens-esque parables of the old miser learning life lessons....through 2 hours of graphic, gratuitous torture.

It just seems like a pretext to me to see people mutilate themselves or one another for 90-120 minutes with a twist at the end to make it seem insightful. But Seven or Silence of the Lambs they are not.

What the first Saw had over the sequels was originality. It was an original concept. Jigsaw was a creepy serial killer with murky self-righteous motives, not an anti-hero for the audience to cheer on. The build up to the foot cutting was the movie. It was all about building suspense, tension and psychological pressure on the main characters until they snap. When he finally does it, we don't even see it. The cutting is off-screen, 127 Hours is more graphic.

I saw Saw II and was disappointed it turned into a slasher movie with graphic torture. I then witnessed Saw III and not only did it seem to take the plot as far as it could go, but it was nothing but watching human suffering. A naked woman freeze to death, a guy slowly twisted apart, Dina Meyer having her insides graphically ripped apart. I got it was supposedly about pushing a man to overcome grief and understanding the lessons of forgiveness....but Spider-Man 3 dealt with the same idea that doesn't make it deep or profound. It was an excuse to spend nearly two hours of watching a snuff film of graphic human pain. I have refused to watch any of the other entries after that film.

 

[DACrowe]

" 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.

Ah, but while Scream is the only scary one and neither Scream 3 or Scream 4 are that intense, all but the third film were well made. At the end of the day they're first and foremost primarily deconstructions of the genre at all levels. Even the worst of them, Scream 3 in too-comedic a way still does a very clever job of tearing the industry that produces them apart. The fourth film is very current and topical. And it does this while being witty, well-made, well written and without me feeling like a terrible human being for watching something so pointlessly awful. The enjoyment that comes out of the Scream films is from wit, mystery, suspense and humor. Scream 3 at least had the last one. The only enjoyment to be found in the Saw sequels is to watch people physically torture themselves or other human beings.

The Scream series in a nutshell.

Scream is about teenagers who grew up watching Hollywood horror/slasher movies as part of their pop culture DNA and how that has effected them or how some (Billy and Stu) use it for other means.

Scream 2 is a deconstruction of sequels and how in what was once a cinematic product generally unique to the genre is so much about reproducing itself and trying to recreate the same thing in a different way (it opens with two random characters dying as they watch a recreation of the opening of the first film that is inspired the sequel they're living in).

Scream 3 is the logical progression of moving from the teens who grew up and are affected by horror/slasher movies to a very cynical look at the industry that churns them out. Lots of inside Hollywood humor (swinging '60s orgies, Roman sharing the name of Coppola's frustrated son filmmaker, Carrie Fisher popping up as a wise guru on the secrets of old Hollywood as she's the daughter of Hollywood royalty in real life, etc.) about the blood thirsty industry that produces these splatter films.

Scream 4 returns to a new generation that has grown up on new horror movies that literally are remakes of older ones and a comment on that unique growth to this particular genre and how it reflects the celebrity-obssesion of the Facebook generation.

It is not as if the Scream films are lacking for themes or substance. However, that doesn't make Scream 3 good, in my opinion.

 

[ImWithTeamConan]

Ah, but while Scream is the only scary one and neither Scream 3 or Scream 4 are that intense, all but the third film were well made. At the end of the day they're first and foremost primarily deconstructions of the genre at all levels. Even the worst of them, Scream 3 in too-comedic a way still does a very clever job of tearing the industry that produces them apart. The fourth film is very current and topical. And it does this while being witty, well-made, well written and without me feeling like a terrible human being for watching something so pointlessly awful. The enjoyment that comes out of the Scream films is from wit, mystery, suspense and humor. Scream 3 at least had the last one. The only enjoyment to be found in the Saw sequels is to watch people physically torture themselves or other human beings.

The Scream series in a nutshell.

Scream is about teenagers who grew up watching Hollywood horror/slasher movies as part of their pop culture DNA and how that has effected them or how some (Billy and Stu) use it for other means.

Scream 2 is a deconstruction of sequels and how in what was once a cinematic product generally unique to the genre is so much about reproducing itself and trying to recreate the same thing in a different way (it opens with two random characters dying as they watch a recreation of the opening of the first film that is inspired the sequel they're living in).

Scream 3 is the logical progression of moving from the teens who grew up and are affected by horror/slasher movies to a very cynical look at the industry that churns them out. Lots of inside Hollywood humor (swinging '60s orgies, Roman sharing the name of Coppola's frustrated son filmmaker, Carrie Fisher popping up as a wise guru on the secrets of old Hollywood, etc.) about the blood thirsty industry that produces these splatter films.

Scream 4 returns to a new generation that has grown up on new horror movies that literally are remakes of older ones and a comment on that unique growth to this particular genre and how it reflects the celebrity-obssesion of the Facebook generation.

It is not as if the Scream films are lacking for themes or substance. However, that doesn't make Scream 3 good, in my opinion.

Ironically I watched the original trilogy today and I pretty much agree with your take here.

Thoughts after rewatching the first three again: in the second one I really thought the cameraman was the killer, about halfway in I think you're meant to think it's him (or Mickey cause he kinda disappears halfway in, Billy's mom is the one I never even saw coming).

Really disappointed in the third one, the theme and concept were great, the execution was horrible. Really missed Randy's presence, the video wasn't enough.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

I also agree with the assessment of the Scream saga in a nutshell.

 

[kickass]

Fantastic overview, DACrowe!!!

 

[kickass]

It's because of the Scream films we're even disecting and comparing other horror franchises against each other. This makes me swell with so much happiness haha.

Ok, my favorite Final Destination was the 2nd. Although I watched the 4th one a few weeks ago and boy oh boy............it was SO BAD I was laughing from start to finish! But in that sense I enjoyed the hell out of it so much I bought it used for 5 bucks just so my friends and I can watch it again and LOL all night. Good times haha!

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ I could never get into Final Destination. There always something off about that series, IMO.

 

[Xtroid]

^^ I could never get into Final Destination. There always something off about that series, IMO.

I never understood those movies. Everyone will die one day. It's inevitable.

So, why does "The Grim Reaper" bother killing people? Why does it (I assume Death is an intelligent being) have a plan for everyone, and why go to such great lengths to ensure that people die? Is The Grim Reaper just bored? lol

Why does a person develop precognitive abilities that allow him/her to foresee when and the manner in which they will die?

Also this means there is an afterlife and a god right? Is god behind everything? What a dick. And if you go to an afterlife can you kick Death in the balls for decapitating you?

And how come Tony Todd knows everything...

Explain movie! Explain!

[YT]OD0v9kvlMOA[/YT]

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ My main problem with them is that it becomes simplified so easily and I just found them to be boring as they whent on. Friday the 13th never gets boring, Halloween never gets boring, A Nightmare on Elm Street, HIlls Have Eyes, etc, those franchises never get boring, but I can honestly say that I've only seen the first 3 FD films, and i really don't feel like seeing the 4th.

 

[marvelman2006]

^^ My main problem with them is that it becomes simplified so easily and I just found them to be boring as they whent on. Friday the 13th never gets boring, Halloween never gets boring, A Nightmare on Elm Street, HIlls Have Eyes, etc, those franchises never get boring, but I can honestly say that I've only seen the first 3 FD films, and i really don't feel like seeing the 4th.

Ironically though my problem with those movies are most of the time, these idiots cause there own death. like in the second one where the guy is killed by the ladder going through his head, he put a chinese food container in the microwave with the metal handle on the side and I dont know about you but I would notice a big colorfull magnet sitting in my rice, and then he sticks his hand down the dispenser and gets it stuck, what idiot sticks there hand in a dispenser to begin with. just stuff like that irked me to no end. I also liked too in the final one that was in 3D where a simple nascar race accident turns into hell on earth and just engulfs the whole place, give me a break.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ Yeah, I mean, I still think FD is better than the Saw and hostel films, but alot of the deaths in the FD films are just stupid. I'm proud ot say that I saw Rob Zombie's Halloween II (2009) in theaters isntead of FD. RZ's H2 (2009), though not his best, was still entertaining, IMO.

 

[marvelman2006]

^^ Yeah, I mean, I still think FD is better than the Saw and hostel films, but alot of the deaths in the FD films are just stupid. I'm proud ot say that I saw Rob Zombie's Halloween II (2009) in theaters isntead of FD. RZ's H2 (2009), though not his best, was still entertaining, IMO.

Oh we differ there, I was so appauled at what Rob did to the Michael Myers character. He essentially turned him into a long bearded imbred homeless man traveling with a butcher knife and eating dogs. I couldnt stand the laurie character ethier, all she did the whole movie was cuss at people and cry.


I will say though I really liked Rob's halloween 1 in 2007 though, but he just did a 180 for the sequel. The tone and story was great for the remake and asked the questions I always had but the 2nd one is a slap in the face.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ He wanted to take H2 (2009) in a new direction an do something completely different, which I respect. He was pushed around the set of H2 (2009), btw.

Thankfully, his new film ,Lords of Salem, he has complete control and it's looking AWESOME.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

Eh, Rob Zombie hasn't really done anything original with any of his movies.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Hobo Myers is an affront to humanity.

Scream 4 had it right, F all these remakes. Freddy, Michael, Jason, they'd all endured almost a dozen films apiece and were still kickin'. Then they star in ONE remake (two for Mike) and it stops the franchise dead in its tracks.

 

[The Shape]

Hobo Myers is an affront to humanity.

Scream 4 had it right, F all these remakes. Freddy, Michael, Jason, they'd all endured almost a dozen films apiece and were still kickin'. Then they star in ONE remake (two for Mike) and it stops the franchise dead in its tracks.

Yeah, very sad, in my opinion. How do you **** up Michael Myers that badly? IMO, a new Halloween film should have gotten the budget and attention that Scre4m received. Then, it might have been a lot better.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Eh, Rob Zombie hasn't really done anything original with any of his movies.

Meh, I disagree. Devils Rejects, House Of 1000 Corpses? Those are very original. Lords Of Salem is his new one coming out.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

Meh, I disagree. Devils Rejects, House Of 1000 Corpses? Those are very original. Lords Of Salem is his new one coming out.

House of 1000 Corpses was really really really bad. Like really really really bad. And nothing original, it just seemed like he threw alot of shocking weird **** together.

Devil's Rejects only original element was the focus on the fact they were a family and played off that, but in the end it still plays across just like House did in that it's ripping off Texas Chainsaw's feel.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ well, To each his own, I guess. Most critics felt Devils Rejects was very original. The only part it had a similar feel to Texas CHainsaw is when Bill Moseley's character was yelling at the old man about Jesus. Other than that, it seemed pretty original. I found it to be better than Hosue, even though I liked House.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

I just generally don't like his whole white trash shtick that he brings to everything. The real sign of a master of writing and film is if he can do something different each time.

Like the Halloween remake could've been a perfect example for him to try something new? To show us a new Rob Zombie. To bring us a new side of himself as a filmmaker. Why did Michael's family have to a WHITE TRASH dysfunctional family in his idea? Why couldn't they just be a normal family with problems? They exist. It might've been even more effective with the whole ''This is what would really have happened if Halloween were real" thing he wanted to go for.

Why did everyone have to curse like a sailor on shore leave? Why did no one looked like they bathed? And why didn't he find a solid grounding for his timeline? Everything felt like it was stuck in some weird timeless bubble where it was the 70's, 80's, and 90's all at once, yet we get a vibe it's suppose to take place in modern times towards the end of the remake and the sequel.

The less said about the sequel and the whole ghost of his mother guiding him thing? The better. It felt right out of Friday the 13th's motive for Jason, and just felt like an excuse to be out there and weird just like House did.

The only thing I'll give him is he handled Annie's death well BOTH times, but especially in the second one. It's one of the only times I've seen a main character actually pause to mourn their friend. In fact the Brackett family was the only thing I really enjoyed his horrible remakes.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ Well, that's his style. If Michael Myers was never the shape and he fit into a real world, the "Trash" family is one of the strongest possiblities for his behavior. I can gaurantee his style will be different for Lords Of Salem. I just don't see why people get so worked up about it. He's easily, IMO, one of the best horror dirctors of the past few years along with Adam Green.

Rob stated in a recent interview that's he's not doing remakes because all fans do is b**** and moan about how close it is to the original or how it deviates from the original, which is kind of true for alot of people out there. He also says any little 12 year old stuck in a basement can be a critic now, which is true. The swearing that came form Linda in his remake of Halloween is actually how some girls (current generation) talk in high school. Trust me, it may sounds liek I'm jumping the shark with it, but it's true.

I guess it's just all a matter of opinion though.

 

[DACrowe]

^^ He wanted to take H2 (2009) in a new direction an do something completely different, which I respect. He was pushed around the set of H2 (2009), btw.

Thankfully, his new film ,Lords of Salem, he has complete control and it's looking AWESOME.

I actually liked Zombie's Halloween (2007) because it felt like he had something to say. Yeah the first half is a lot better than the second half, but he made a film about exploring his own humanized version of pure evil in Michael Myers. I loved the scenes with him and Loomis in this one. It felt like they had a real connection and we saw Loomis really reach out to Michael and feel like he's failed the boy, as opposed to spending six movies going "He's.....eeeVILLLLL!" I also thought the brutality of the bully, the sister and Danny Trejo's deaths made it clear this wasn't about glorifying the killer. The deaths were disturbing and you were supposed to feel bad for the victims. What he did to Danielle Harris was memorably creepy and made my skin crawl. I even liked the ending with him trying to reach out for Laurie, her stabbing him, the pool, the gunshot to the head, etc.

But H2 sucked hard. It was one of the worst movies I've seen. The only thing good about that film were Brad Dourif and Danielle Harris as the Bracketts. They felt like real people and Annie's death was actually tragic and meaningful in that movie. Otherwise it was complete incomprehensible music video images mixed with Hobo Michael Myers eating dogs while Laurie had unexplainable visions that Mikey was dreaming of a mother she didn't remember while rocking out to music 30 or 40 years before her time.

I did like the ending with Laurie going crazy, but that's not going anywhere as they'll never let Michael Myers not be the bad guy. I heard a rumor it was supposed to be a reveal that Laurie killed her friends and Annie in the end and imagined Michael Myers who was still dead. That would have been better than we got with dog-eating random strip club/redneck slaughtering Michael Myers for the first hour of that terrible film. Let's not even get started on what they did to Loomis.

My opinion, of course.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ H2 (2009) may not have been great, but I enjoyed it for the most part. It's his least great film though. His remake was awesome, IMO. One of the really good remakes because it seems he put his heart into it.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

I'm aware people curse in high school I was there 7 years ago. And unless it's gotten worse in that time frame, no one curses that much. No one. He just seems set on this one thing and that's just not good.

I actually think Scream 4 kinda got teenage voices right. They curse, they say vile things, they seem desensitized to violence and tragedy, but they don't say **** every 2 seconds to show it like Laurie and her friends did in the Halloween remake.