Hotel Transylvania 2

Welcome back to my second post on Halloween Day. I will be looking at a good animated movie for kids, “Hotel Transylvania 2,” released in 2015.

Gregory Wakeman started his review out by saying, “Gloriously wacky and always with a laugh around the corner, Hotel Transylvania 2 is fun, fast and a joy for both kids and adults alike, even if other critics don’t want to admit it.”

You’re going to hear some bad reviews about the movie. That’s because it’s animated, but not done by Pixar. Also, it’s a sequel, which has Adam Sandler reprising his role of Dracula, and he is joined by all the returning goofy characters for the sequel as well.

When you look at it, everything should add up to say that “Hotel Transylvania 2” is both aggravatingly not funny and a boring movie experience. Wakeman admitted, “But, I’m here to insist that it’s not. In fact, Hotel Transylvania 2 actually excels for the very reasons why you’d assumed it would fail. The animation is gloriously cartoonish, allowing its spooky and peculiar world to come to life in an outlandish and engrossing fashion.” On top of that, Sandler’s Dracula voice works, even though his comedic friends each join in with jokes and one-liners, most of which work, as well.

At the same time, “Hotel Transylvania 2” perfectly works for both children and adults together. If you’re an adult who is a kid at heart (honestly, what adult isn’t), then you’ll really enjoy laughing at parts you know you probably shouldn’t, despite that you feel the need to let out the laughter.

Taking place 7 years after the first movie, “Hotel Transylvania 2” begins with the wedding of Dracula’s (Adam Sandler) daughter Mavis’ (Selena Gomez) to Johnny (Andy Samberg), who, if you remember, is a human. Sometime after the wedding, Mavis says that she is pregnant, and in time gives birth to a son, Dennis, voiced by Asher Blinkoff.

However, as Dennis’s fifth birthday is arriving, Dracula begins to think if his grandson has any vampire genes in him. The reason why is because if Dennis doesn’t grown any fangs when he turns five, then he is completely human. On top of that, Mavis is split about raising her son in Transylvania, so she decides to visit Johnny’s home in California to see if that would be better to raise their son.

Mavis and Johnny leave Dennis with Dracula, and the moment they leave, he starts to train Dennis in how to become a vampire, and is joined by Frank (Kevin James), Wayne the Werewolf (Steve Buscemi), Griffin The Invisible Man (David Spade), Murray the Mummy (comedian Keegan-Michael Key of Key and Peele) and Blobby the Blob (Johnny Salmon).

Wakeman said, “While Hotel Transylvania 2 is admittedly weirdly-plotted and careens through years in mere minutes, this actually suits the zippy pace of the film.” Along with this, the cast of characters are really lovable, you really enjoy seeing them on screen and seeing this from beginning to end. Plus, with Chris Parnell, Jon Lovitz, Rob Riggle (from “The Daily Show”), Dana Carvey, Megan Mullally, Nick Offerman, Molly Shannon, Fran Drescher (you might remember her from “The Nanny”) and Mel Brooks each joining the already incredible voice actors at different parts, the film never lacks any parts of laughs.

Actually, there are plenty of them spread out throughout the film thanks to the script that was written by Sandler and Robert Smigel. Wakeman said, “The jokes arrive at a frequency and in a style that is reminiscent of Disney’s underrated classic Emperor’s New Groove. Plus it has a unique look thanks to it constantly being set at night so that it’s lead characters can, you know … live!”

I admit that the story isn’t great. Wakeman noted, “It is, at times, remarkably corny, and if you pay to watch it in 3D, then you’re basically throwing your money away.” However, “Hotel Transylvania 2” is mostly a lot of natural fun and carefully entertaining. For those who didn’t like Adam Sandler’s work for quite some time now, this film will be a help for you.

In the end, if you liked the first one, then don’t miss this one. It’s actually a whole lot of fun, and I found this to be funnier than the first one, if you can believe that. I loved this one, and I think that if you have children, they should love this one as well.

Well, I would like to thank everyone for joining in on this year’s “Halloween Month.” I know that I mostly did reviews on bad movies, but I hope that you liked every one of them. Happy Halloween online readers! Go out tonight, dress up in your favorite costumes, get a lot of candy or give away candy, and make sure to watch some good scary movies.

Now I believe is a good time for me to take a few days off before I start back up with my usual Friday reviews next month. See all of you then.

Insidious: Chapter 3

Welcome to the finale of this year’s “Halloween Month,” where I will be talking about two different movies, but I will be splitting it up into two separate blog posts. Let’s get started with the third in the hilarious trilogy, “Insidious: Chapter 3,” released in 2015.

This is a prequel to the two movies about the supernatural torture of a disturbed family. Josh Terry stated in his review, “It’s good for a handful of genuine scares, but a late film tone change and some general clunkiness keep it in mediocre territory.”

Instead of continuing the story of the first two movie’s much-damaged Lambert family, this one decides to go back a few years to focus on Elise, reprised by Lin Shaye, the psychic who kept rescuing them.

However, this movie is not an origin story. Terry stated, “We meet Elise at the tail end of a distinguished psychic career as she’s suffering the effects of numerous supernatural bouts and the emotional fallout from her husband’s (Adrian Sparks) suicide.” When she is met by a high school girl named Quinn, played by Stefanie Scott, Elise is hesitant to return to the job.

I don’t think I will spoil the movie if I say that Elise will eventually accept, but before we get there, we have to go through seeing Quinn ponder.

Quinn lives with her father, Sean (Dermot Mulroney), and her little brother, Alex (Tate Berney), on the fourth floor of a five-story apartment building. Quinn’s mother, played by Ele Keats, died, and she is mourning her death as she enrolls in a theater school on the East Coast.

Wanting to see her mother again, Quinn tries to call her, but her novice psychic attempts end up calling an evil spirit instead. The spirit – who shows up in the shape of a shadowy old man wearing Darth Vader’s breathing mask (not really, but just go with it) – tortures her all the time and looks like he is approaching her apartment room.

Terry informs, “Director Leigh Whannell – who wrote the screenplays for the first two films – spends about half the film letting the audience twist on the rope while we watch the ‘man who can’t breathe’ (Michael Reid Mackay) torture Quinn. There’s a fine line between being scared and being antagonized, and Whannell wanders well into the second area before finally allowing ‘Chapter 3’s’ plot to grind forward.”

Sadly, that’s also just where “Insidious: Chapter 3” starts to go downhill, deciding on the dark mood and inserting it with sudden parts of humor that doesn’t feel right. By the time the third act starts doing the full supernatural resolution bit, the movie feels completely irregular and uninspired.

Terry mentioned, “There are a handful of ‘aha’ moments sprinkled in for fans of the series.” We get to see Elise first see the ghost-hunter duo, and we learn more about what makes her character a strong psychic she was when she first met the Lamberts in the first movie. However, there is something missing from Whannell’s effort which helped James Wan’s films get a little personality.

Terry is right when he said, “It doesn’t help that the acting and writing is often clunky, making it that much harder to suspend disbelief in a genre that insists on doing just that.” The best part Whannell does is putting Quinn in leg casts early on. Terry noted, “The added degree of helplessness – think Audrey Hepburn in “Wait Until Dark” – projects a genuine level of distress on the audience.”

It’s not enough to make “Insidious: Chapter 3” a good film, but it helped.

I agree with Terry when he says, “Like its predecessors, ‘Chapter 3’ is a sworn believer in the jump scare: Better to punctuate a sudden visual with a jarring sound effect than to let the horror really get under your skin.” If that’s what you want, then the movie will give you that. However, you may not remember a lot when they make a fourth one, which I’m hearing rumors of.

Like the last two movies, I didn’t find this one scary at all. Unlike the last two movies, which made me laugh, this one I actually hated. I didn’t like this film at all, so I don’t recommend this movie. If you liked the last two movies, you might like this one just fine, or you may not. I personally didn’t think this movie was worth seeing at all.

Well, stay tuned later today when I post my second review for Halloween Day.

2001/2010

Today we’re going to look at a classic outer space movie that is a classic to this day, “2001: A Space Odyssey,” released in 1968. Seeing how this may not be considered a Halloween movie, it has quite possibly the scariest performance in motion picture history. Let’s get started.

Roger Ebert started his review out by saying, “It was e. e. cummings, the poet, who said he'd rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach 10,000 stars how not to dance. I imagine cummings would not have enjoyed Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey," in which stars dance but birds do not sing.” What’s interesting about this film is that it’s not good on the human level but “is” on how it looks.

Director Stanley Kubrick’s space, and the spaceships he made to go on this mission, were pretty innovative at the time that no one had done before. The ships are great, cool machines which travel from one planet to another, and if men are sleeping in their bed champers, then they also get to the destination.

However, the success are credited to the machine. Also, Kubrick’s actors appear to know this. They are realistic but without emotion, like, how Ebert put it, “figures in a wax museum.” However, the machines are needed because man would not be able to know what is going on in space.

Kubrick starts the film with a segment where one society of apes find how amazing it is to actually hit some other society with one of their weapons. As a result, what we believed we were our ancestors start using tools.

At the same time, an odd pillar appears on Earth. Ebert noted, “Until this moment in the film, we have seen only natural shapes: earth and sky and arms and legs. The shock of the monolith's straight edges and square corners among the weathered rocks is one of the most effective moments in the film. Here, you see, is perfection.” The apes look around it carefully, go to touch it, then move away. Many years after this moment, humans will go into outer space with the same uncertain feelings.

Who put this pillar there? Ebert said, “Kubrick never answers, for which I suppose we must be thankful.” The movie fast forwards to the year 2001, where astronauts on the moon discover another pillar. This one draws signals toward Jupitar. Seeing how man is confidant on the machines, they boldly follow the beam.

At this part the story starts to form. The ship piloted by two astronauts, Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood. Three scientists (William Sylvester, Leonard Rossiter and Robert Beatty) are on the ship in cryogenic sleep to save supplies. The pilots start to question the computer, the “Hal 9000” (Douglas Rain), which runs the ship. However, they behave suspiciously – Ebert noted, “talking in monotones like characters from "Dragnet"” – that we’re not invested.

There’s not really character development in this film, so we don’t get much suspense. What stays interesting though is the thought of how Kubrick built his machines and succeeded the special effects. There is not one minute, in this lengthy film, when the audience can see through any of this. The stars look like stars and outer space is empty and great.

Some of Kubrick’s effects have been complained as boring. Ebert said, “Perhaps they are, but I can understand his motives. If his space vehicles move with agonizing precision, wouldn't we have laughed if they'd zipped around like props on "Captain Video"?” This is how it should actually be, you think to yourself to believe.

At any rate, every machine and computers are forgotten in the surprising last half-hour of the movie, and humans in some way comes back to their mindset. Another pillar is found past Jupitar, aiming to the stars. It looks like it gets the spaceship into a universe where time and space are abnormal.

What appears to be Kubrick’s message, in the final scene, is that to give humans time to not be too dependent on machines, or be sucked into them by some space-like alertness. He will become an infant again, but a baby of way more intelligent, more extinct race, just as apes were before, to their own shock, the baby form of man.

And the pillars? Ebert said, “Just road markers, I suppose, each one pointing to a destination so awesome that the traveler cannot imagine it without being transfigured. Or as cummings wrote on another occasion, "listen -- there's a heck of a good universe next door; let's go."”

Definitely see this film, if you haven’t. It is a good movie, but if you get tired by looking at the effects for too long, I completely understand. I actually got through this movie by fast forwarding through the slow moments because it was late, and as much as I liked the look, it was nighttime and I needed to watch the movie quickly. I liked the film though, maybe not as much as everyone else, but I do acknowledge that it’s a classic.

This might come as a surprise to everyone, but in 1984, Peter Hyams directed the sequel to this film titled “2010: The Year We Make Contact.”

Roger Ebert started his review out by saying, “All those years ago, when "2001: A Space Odyssey" was first released, I began my review with a few lines from a poem by e.e. cummings: I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance.”

Ebert goes on to say, “That was my response to the people who said they couldn't understand "2001," that it made no sense and that it was one long exercise in self-indulgence by Stanley Kubrick, who had sent a man to the stars, only to abandon him inside some sort of extraterrestrial hotel room. I felt that the poetry of "2001" was precisely in its mystery, and that to explain everything was to ruin everything -- like the little boy who cut open his drum to see what made it bang.”

The time that “2001” came out, Ebert noted it was “that legendary time when yuppies were still hippies, and they went to see the movie a dozen times and slipped up to the front of the theater and lay flat on their backs on the floor, so that the sound-and-light trip in the second half of the movie could wash over them and they could stagger to the exits and whisper "far out" to one another in quiet ecstasy.” With “2010,” the sequel of the Kubrick movie, directed by Peter Hyams, whose back is, as Ebert said, “in more pragmatic projects such as "Outland," the Sean Connery space station thriller. The story is by Arthur C. Clarke (who, truth to tell, I always have suspected was a little bewildered by what Kubrick did to his original ideas).” “2010” is in every way a 1980s film. It doesn’t have the same level of what made the original so memorable, but it does continue the story, and it gives dialogue, realistic explanations for a lot of look and space look in “2001” that had everyone thinking so much around the 1960s.

Ebert mentioned, “This is, in short, a movie that tries to teach ten thousand stars how not to dance. There were times when I almost wanted to cover my ears. Did I really want to know (a) why HAL 9000 disobeyed Dave's orders? or (b) the real reason for the Discovery's original mission? or (c) what the monoliths were trying to tell us? Not exactly. And yet we live in a most practical time, and they say every decade gets the movies it deserves.” What we see in “2010” is not a milestone in special effects, but it is an effect of computers, of look, of great, exciting filmmaking. This is a movie that pays tribute to George Lucas more than Stanley Kubrick, and Ebert said, “more to "Star Wars" than to Also Sprach Zarathustra.” It has and ending that is irritating, not only in its effortlessness, but in its shortage to succeed the feeling of hope, the feeling of ponder we had at the end of “2001.”

However, the truth is this is a good movie. Once we’ve gotten the points, once we’ve processed it fully that “2001” continues to be as one of the greatest movies ever made, once we have no longer compared “2010” with Kubrick’s film, what we are left with is a good-looking, sharp-edged, entertaining, exciting space flick – a superior film of the “Star Trek” genre (especially when you look at the first one).

Because “2010” relies a lot on its story, it would not be right to describe more than the basics: A joint Soviet-American journey travels out for the moons of Jupitar to look at the fate of Discover, its crew, and its computer Hal 9000. There is trouble on the ship between the American astronaut (Roy Scheider) and the Soviet captain (Helen Mirren), and it looks worse because on Earth, the militaries are on the verge of nuclear war over Central America. If Kubrick sometimes looked like he was making a non-war film with unknown characters, Hyams pays a whole lot of attention to story and personality. However, only of the best moments in this movie is out of character (the great part where a Soviet and an American hold each other’s hands in the fear of dying). The other great parts are special-effects extravaganzas: a spacewalk in danger by faintness, the awe-inspiring look of Jupitar, and an eye-candy flight through the planet’s upper atmosphere.

It is possible that no ending to “2010” could be in anyway satisfying, especially to those who still remember the head-scratching, great ease of the Star Child looking at us to inform at the end of “2001.” This sequel really has a lot going for it. Also, the screenplay works the difficulty by repeatedly telling us that “something wonderful” is going to occur. After we’ve been told countless times about that amazing fact, we’re ready for something really amazing, and we don’t get it. Ebert said, “We get a disappointingly mundane conclusion worthy of a 1950s sci-fi movie, not a sequel to "2001." I, for one, was disappointed that the monoliths would deign to communicate with men at all -- let alone that they would use English, or send their messages via a video screen, like the latest generation of cable news.”

As a result, you have to make up your own mind. On the one hand, “2001: A Space Odyssey” stays innovative, one of the greatest films to be called a true masterpiece. On the other hand, “2010” does get nominated to be a superior entertainment, a movie with more of skill than rhyme, with character than with suspense, a movie that explains too much and leaves too minor to leave questions in our heads, but a good movie in the end. Ebert ended his review by saying, “If I nevertheless sound less than ecstatic, maybe it's because the grave eyes of the "2001" Star Child still haunt me, with their promise that perhaps someday man would learn to teach ten thousand stars how to sing.”

In the end, “2010” is still a good movie that is worth checking out. I know it focuses more on character than on the look, but it was a different director with a different style of filmmaking, so I say to give it a chance. Check it out and see for yourself. The only reason why I consider this a Halloween film is because of how frightening the Hal 9000 was. Seeing how it was a man-made machine is scary enough for it to watch around Halloween.

Wow what a rush. Check in tomorrow to see what I will end “Halloween Month” off with. I’m thinking that I will do two separate posts since this was a lot to talk about, so we’ll see.

Scary Movie 5

Now we have thankfully come to the finale of the “Scary Movie franchise,” “Scary Movie 5,” released in 2011.

Max Nicholson started his review out by saying, “When it was first announced that Anna Faris wouldn't be coming back to star in the latest Scary Movie, my expectations went from low to lower. I was never a huge fan of the series, but they were never offensively unfunny, especially with names like Faris, Marlon Wayans, Cheri Oteri, David Cross and Tim Curry attached.”

What’s good about this is that “Scary Movie 5” was like a reboot to the franchise and actually succeed at doing what the first one wasn’t able to do. Unfortunately, that’s not what happened in any way. (I wish to say that I am kidding, but I’m not.)

Also, if you thought that this would help out Charlie Sheen or famous child star Lindsay Lohan by staring in this movie, you are clearly wrong. To start with, if those two “actors” are why you are seeing any movie, then you need to check yourselves. Also, the time they are in this movie is only like three minutes at the beginning of the movie. If you saw the trailer, you saw their entire scene – except for the clown-like bed scene with the Benny Hill theme playing in the background. (Which should give you an idea of what kind of comedy is in the movie.)

The main stars of this sequel are Ashley Tisdale and Simon Rex, who, from beginning to end, parody parts from scary movies like “Paranormal Activity,” “Mama,” “Sinister” and “Evil Dead” – but with the usual fart jokes and shameless humor. There’s also a strange little of “Inception” and “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” in here – because, as Nostalgia Critic put it, “the zeitgeist must flow!”

On top of that, you’ve got cameos from people like rapper Snoop Dogg, comedian Katt Williams, Terry Crews, Jerry O’Donnell, Sarah Hyland, Katrina Bowden, Kate Walsh, rapper Usher, Heather Locklear and boxer Mike Tyson – none of them help out their ridiculous, one-note jokes. Actually, the only cameo that I should even talk about is Molly Shannon, who partially lights up the screen as cigarette-smoking, martini-drinking Winona Ryder from “Black Swan.”

Nicholson said it best in his review when he said, “In terms of comedy, Scary Movie 5 is painfully flat, stupid and vulgar, as well as moderately racist. To say this script was written by monkeys would be an insult to all those monkeys in a room with typewriters. Shannon aside, I can't even think of one time I actually chuckled.”

Obviously, the main problem with parody movies is that, once they are released in theaters, they’re already miserably obsolete. The best example of this is “Scary Movie 5’s” spoof of “Paranormal Activity,” which along with “Mama,” is the main spoof story of the film. Not only did the first “Paranormal Activity” came out almost six years prior, but another similar spoof movie, “A Haunted House” (which I have never seen, thankfully), came out three months prior to this film.

Even with the film’s parodying of “Evil Dead,” which was released a week before this one, every writer put in their all in the trailer, which you think is basically the blueprint for sharp parody.

Nicholson advised, “If it isn't obvious already, I'll spell it out for you: Don't see Scary Movie 5. In fact, I'd recommend seeing literally any other movie in theaters right now: 42, To the Wonder, Disconnect -- heck, go see Evil Dead again, it doesn't matter. Just avoid Scary Movie 5 at all costs. Unless you were that group of sixth-graders I saw sneak into my theater after buying Croods tickets, I don't think anyone will enjoy this film. And if by some cruel twist of fate you find yourself in a theater watching Simon Rex bang his schlong between two cooking pots, just don't say I didn't warn you.”

If that actually happened, “Scary Movie 5” is the worse in the franchise, coming to a point of ridiculousness and a failing comedy. Not even the long list of celebrity cameos can help this horror parody out.

As I think everyone can already guess by what I have typed, do not see this movie. As a matter of fact, don’t even watch this whole franchise. I made that mistake of seeing this franchise, and I’m living with that regret. It’s actually surprising that I saw this film out of order. Here is the order I saw the franchise: 3, 4, 2, 5 and 1. I didn’t like any of them, but maybe a few had a couple of chuckling moments, but that’s about it. Just don’t bother with the franchise, as I have already stated.

Oh, thank goodness I am done with this franchise. Now that I have survived all of this, check in tomorrow when I review two classic outer space movies that are fitting for “Halloween Month.”

Scary Movie 4

“Scary Movie 4,” released in 2006, is better than “Scary Movie 3.” James Berardinelli said in his review, “Writing that sentence falls into the category of damning with faint praise, because the experience of sitting through the third installment of the comedy series was as pleasant as spreading organic fertilizer on the hottest day of the summer.” The feeling of distraction that infiltrated “Scary Movie 3” is gone, and there are enough laughs this time around. “Scary Movie 4” keeps most audiences distracted for a good part of the 80-minute runtime. However, as good as that might be, there’s so much bad, and it’s because of all those countless jokes that miss, way too much farting and urine, and (I’m not joking) a completely naked Leslie Nielsen. Obviously, that part definitely defines the “scary” in “Scary Movie 4.”

The story is unconnected to this film, so I don’t think I should talk about what happens in this one. “Scary Movie 4” has unfocused parody of four basically reachable movies: Saw, War of the Worlds, The Grudge and The Village. As the movie goes on, there are references to other movies like “Fahrenheit 9/11” (but you might question whether this is a putdown at the film or at the President) and “Brokeback Mountain.” The way these storylines are put together make no sense, but it doesn’t have to. Berardinelli stated, “The production team features David Zucker and Jim Abrahams, two of the three members of ZAZ (Zucker/Abrahams/Zucker), the trio responsible for Airplane! and The Naked Gun, and their goal is to find a familiar looking backdrop for a clothesline of spoofs and jokes. This "saturation style" of comedy doesn't work as well as it has in the past because the ratio of failed jokes to successful ones is too high.” It’s not even worth to sit through “Scary Movie 4” but there are times when it comes close.

Returning for a fourth time around is Anna Faris, who reprises her role of Cindy Campbell. Faris is either a great worker or really needs a good movie. Speaking of great workers, there’s the late Leslie Nielsen, who plays a weak version of George W. Bush. For the first time in his filmography, Nielsen did a nude scene – or was it really him? It’s possible that it was a stunt double, but that doesn’t matter. The scene is somewhat funny in the gross type of way. This is not like Nielsen could embarrass himself any worse than he did in “Scary Movie 3.” The other cast is Craig Bierko, who imitates Tom Cruise – and yes, that includes running through a fake Oprah couch before actually fist fighting her, played by Debra Wilson.

There are a handful of cameos, but every one of them are used poorly. Former basketball player Shaquille O’Neal and talk show host Dr. Phil are in the beginning in a parody of “Saw.” Charlie Sheen is back in the same role as “Scary Movie 3.” His three girlfriends, played by Holly Madison, Bridget Marquardt and Kendra Wilkinson, play a game of Scrabble. (Berardinelli said, “Why in the world would anyone be interested in watching these three play a board game? I can think of much more interesting things to watch them do.”) Michael Madsen does what he is famous for – look intimidating. Mike Tyson puts on a dress and bites ears off in a “Million Dollar Baby” spoof. Finally, Bill Pullman appears wearing a thick beard – looking like he hopes to be paid without anyone recognizing him.

What else can I say about “Scary Movie 4?” It’s not even in the same funny, uneasy tricks of “Scary Movie” but is has enough for it as “Scary Movie 2.” It’s a film for Dimension and Miramax to make a quick buck, and doesn’t have to make much at the box office to be a huge success. The quality looks like it is direct-to-video, but that won’t stop teenagers from wanting to see it. (The series went from being rated R and lowered to PG-13 with “Scary Movie 3.”) Berardinelli is right when he said, “It's okay for a few cheap laughs, but better suited for late-night cable viewing than even a matinee ticket purchase. If you decide to sit this one out, never fear - I am reasonably certain there will soon be a Scary Movie 5.” There are some franchises that won’t stop, and this series is one of them.

Much like how it was with “Scary Movie 3,” I saw this one as well On Demand for free. I liked it back than when I saw it late high school, but looking back, I can’t believe I liked it. Sure it did have some funny moments, but still, the spoof genre has long died and shouldn’t keep going.

Unfortunately they didn’t stop and decided one last time to make a sequel. If you want to know how poorly that was done, check in tomorrow when he thankfully complete the “Scary Movie Franchise.”

Scary Movie 3

“Scary Movie 3,” released in 2003, understands the thought of a parody but not the thought of a ridicule. Roger Ebert noted, “It clicks off several popular movies ("Signs," "The Sixth Sense," "The Matrix," "8 Mile," "The Ring") and recycles scenes from them through a spoofalator, but it's feeding off these movies, not skewering them. The average issue of Mad magazine contains significantly smarter movie satire, because Mad goes for the vulnerable elements and "Scary Movie 3" just wants to quote and kid.”

Just look at what it parodies from “8 Mile.” Ebert admitted, “Eminem is talented and I liked his movie, but he provides a target that "Scary Movie 3" misses by a mile.” His Eminem satire is played by Simon Rex, whose lines mainly have a mirror image of what Eminem did in the original movie, in a painful way. He throws up in the bathroom (on someone else), he does a rap battle onstage with rapper Fat Joe, he prevents blame by mocking himself as white, he puts on his hood from his jacket and it looks like a Ku Klux Klan hood, etc. This is parody, not satire, and nothing on Eminem is credited.

Same with the crop farm from “Signs,” where farmer Tom Logan, played by Martin Sheen’s son, Charlie “Winning” Sheen, finds a big crop circle with an arrow pointing to his house and the message “Attack here.” That’s just the start. Why not something on how the movie has a prolong silence as long as it can? The scene with his dying wife, played by the hot Denise Richards, who is being kept alive by the truck that has her crushed against a tree, is painfully contrived.

“The Ring” spoof is hardly different from “The Ring” itself. Put in the VHS, answer the phone, you’re threatened to die in a week. “The Sixth Sense” parody is funnier, as a crazed Cody, played by Drew Mikuska, goes through the movie ruthlessly predicting everyone’s secrets. As funny as it is, nothing is built from that. Then there’s an uncomfortable scene at the home of news reader Cindy Campbell, where a drooling priest, played by SNL impressionist, Darrell Hammond, shows up to be a babysitter for Cody.

The movie has so many famous and somewhat famous celebrities, however two of them actually are funny and get them. It’s in the beginning of the movie, where the hot Jenny McCarthy and “Baywatch” drop dead gorgeous babe Pamela Anderson, as Ebert puts it, “take the dumb blond shtick about as far as it can possibly go, while their push-up bras do the same thing in another department.”

Other cameos include two of the funniest comedians ever, Queen Latifah and Eddie Griffin, along with William Forsythe, Peter Boyle, singer Macy Gray, the late George Carlin, rappers Ja Rule and Master P, and the late Leslie Nielsen, the king of parodies played the President. However, to what advantage? The movie was directed by David Zucker, who along with his brother Jerry and Jim Abrahams somewhat created the genre with “Airplane!,” which I have yet to see. Maybe he is not the problem. Maybe the problem is that the genre is over, done and dead. “Scream” looked like it pointed in a new and funnier direction – the smart satire – but “Scary Movie 3” puts it right back to where it was again. Ebert ended his review by saying, “It's like it has its own crop circle, with its own arrow pointing right at itself.”

Like I have already stated in my reviews on the first two movies, don’t watch this franchise. This one was ok compared to the second one since it wasn’t nearly as gross as the second one was, but it’s still just as painful to watch. The parody genre is dead in movies currently, but there are still hilarious parodies online and on TV. Ironically, this was the first “Scary Movie” I saw because I was in high school and it was free On Demand, so I checked it out and liked it, but looking back now, I can see how bad it was.

Well, as much as I hate to admit it, they did not stop here. They made another sequel, which we will look at tomorrow in the painful continuation in the reviews of the “Scary Movie Franchise.”

Scary Movie 2

Probably what will make you laugh the hardest in “Scary Movie 2,” released in 2001, is watching brothers Shawn and Marlon Wayans (who you might remember from “In Living Color” and “The Wayans Bros”) playing college students. Elvis Mitchell admitted, “It's one of the few things that made me laugh, anyway -- that and Shawn's sporting what looks like Samuel L. Jackson's hair from ''Unbreakable.''”) (Maybe the funning thing to the film’s director, Keenen Ivory Wayans, and its co-stars and co-creators, his younger brothers Shawn and Marlon, is breaking the “No Sequel” promise in the commercials for the first “Scary Movie.”) Otherwise, this simple comedy gives the “No Shame, No Mercy” risks from the original. Sadly, the end result is “No Good.”

Whoever helped create “Scary Movie” the highest-grossing R-Rated film at the time, there’s more of the unbelievable offensiveness that made its breakthrough success the previous year and more, too, of the absurdness: many of the cast that were murdered in the first movie have come back in the sequel.

The film starts at a haunted house. The title “Hell House” shows up, if we had somehow missed that. This part spoofs “The Exorcist,” maybe encouraged by the film’s successful re-release in 2000. The scene, like most of the others in “Scary Movie 2,” is only slightly related to the story. After the fast “The Exorcist” spoof and a very funny whites-only repeat of a recent rap song, the film moves to “One Year Later,” with Cindy Campbell now in college.

She’s with her other “Scary Movie” friends: Shorty (Marlon Wayans), his sister Brenda (Regina Hall) and her boyfriend, Ray (Shawn Wayans). (The sequel also redoes the first film’s dull visuals and boring pacing).

There’s also a link to the “Hell House” part at the beginning: Cindy and her friends are invited to that same house on the excuse of a scientific experiment by an evil professor (Tim Curry) and his assistant (David Cross). Soon the house is attacked by ghosts, and what’s even worse, by satires. The films that are parodied include “Final Destination,” “What Lies Beneath,” “Rebecca” and commercials like the Nike shoes.

Mitchell noted, “As a sequel, ''Scary Movie 2'' is a tamer beast than its predecessor and lacks any truly shocking moments, like the once anticipated appearance by Marlon Brando as a priest in the ''Exorcist'' segment. (Mr. Brando was unable to appear because of illness or a sudden attack of dignity, and was replaced by James Woods.)”

Mitchell also mentioned, “Aside from the expulsion of an ocean of bodily fluid -- enough to float the cast of both ''Survivor'' series back to the mainland -- much of the humor in this sequel is based on the talking-back-to-the-screen gimmick used by moviegoing characters in the film ''Hollywood Shuffle.''” That shameless attitude also was the source of the Wayans’ “In Living Color” sketch-comedy show. Mitchell is right when he said, “''Scary Movie 2'' seems pallid because it lacks the brains of that show, which gave a voice to groups excluded from the American cultural mainstream.”

I agree with Mitchell when he said, “''Scary Movie 2'' does have the cutthroat cool that links it and the original to hip-hop, and the take-no-prisoners crush of energy and cruelty toward the targets of its spoofs. (There's also a singular brand of inclusiveness: ''Scary Movie 2'' extends its satire to the disabled, also caricatured in ''In Living Color.'')”

You will be able to say this – as they say in rap battles – “Scary Movie 2” will aggravate screams of anger from those saying that it is further hurrying the end of movies as we know them. Maybe, in an occasional example of indirect social satire, this film was released on Independence Day so that we would be reminded of the freedom of speech right.

If you liked the first “Scary Movie,” then you will not like this movie. This one is way more disgusting and obvious with its humor than the first one. How could the first one be so successful that they decided to make a sequel? Like I said, none of the movies follow any sort of continuity, so it doesn’t matter if you watch them in order. You won’t miss a thing.

Well, I’m sorry to say that this isn’t the last one. They made a third movie, which I will look at tomorrow.

Scary Movie

I didn't mention this before, but last year, the "Scream Franchise" almost was reviewed along with the franchise that I will start reviewing today. Good thing I didn't and instead decided to review the "Evil Dead series," "E.T." and the "Blair Witch" movies. However, since I'm looking at horrible franchises that everyone should avoid, it seems right to fit these two franchises in this year.

If no one has been able to guess what franchise I am talking about, I'm talking about the spoof franchise that was supposed to bring back the spoof genre, but only killed it more, the "Scary Movie franchise." I know that maybe it doesn't count to review these for Halloween time, but since they spoof horror movies, I guess they count.

As much as I want to not look at this, I cannot prolong this any longer. Let's get started with the first entry in the series, "Scary Movie," released in 2000.

At the very beginning of the movie, the hot "Baywatch babe," Carmen Electra is being harassed by someone disguised as Ghostface, who makes himself sound so raspy that she doesn't know who it is when he asks her name. Why does he want to know her name? "Scream" made it popular that slasher villains want to know who they are peeping at, but this villain is not spying on her through her window, but is checking her photos out in the latest Playboy magazine. When the chase starts, and the killer stabs his knife into her chest, an implant comes out. The beginning actually looks promising between Carmen Electra and the Ghostface impersonator that everyone thinks that "Scary Movie" will be the one to bring back the spoof movies. Sadly, like every other horrible spoof movies (which I haven't seen any of besides this franchise, thankfully), "Scary Movie" is a comedy struggling on the edge, a film so dry, painful and childish that the comedy is bad and everything becomes disjointed before you get past the first half hour.

The story is basically a combination of the "Scream" trilogy and the "I Know What You Did Last Summer" movies, with little references of "The Matrix" and "The Blair Witch Project" inserted in. Cindy Campbell (obviously referencing Neve Campbell from the "Scream" series), played by Anna Faris, is your average high school girl with a secret. She and her friends (obvious unintentional) run over a man (Craig Bruhnanski) as he was crossing the screet and they were speeding recklessly down the road on Halloween. He is alive, but they don't see it, especially after they accidentally knock him out by throwing a beer bottle. To make sure no one notices, they dump his body into the river, saying they will never mention it again. One year later, their fellow student Drew (Electra) is killed. Who did it? Was it the man they thought they killed? Throughout this beginning segment, there is one nice funny line said by Cindy, where she says, "I'm glad this isn't a movie, otherwise they'd have someone like Jennifer Love Hewitt play my part."

As you might have guessed, no one is really paying attention to the plot, or whoever is watching this would instead see the movies that this garbage is parodying. What is it that we actually like? David Keyes stated in his review, "Certainly not the jokes, most of which are delivered at a tone so raunchy and disgusting that, as the terrific Nathaniel R. Atcheson said in his recent review, they drop “the limbo bar a notch” in comparison to something like “There’s Something About Mary.” One scene in particular leaves me puzzled; no, not because I don’t comprehend it, but because I don’t understand how anyone could have gotten away with it at an R rating."

This is what he's talking about: Ray, one of the friends who was there during the Halloween accident, played by Shawn Wayans of the Wayans family, says he has to go to the bathroom when he's at the local theater watching "Shakespeare in Love." Remember the beginning of "Scream 2" when Omar Epps went into the stall, put his head close to the wall when he heard something from the other stall, and was stabbed in the head? Take that part, put a hole in the wall, and put a man's private part through it instead of a knife? What was the reason for that? Has the MPAA now become soft when it comes to love scenes when it's only there to be funny? An interesting fact: "Eyes Wide Shut" almost got an NC-17 because of the love scenes where you didn't see anything!

Keyes mentioned, "I’ve always maintained the belief that spoofs are essentially juvenile comedies that are more interested in poking fun at basic idiocy and rather than their own source material, and though “Scary Movie” tries to do the opposite, it doesn’t have any legitimate desire." The Wayans brothers said they watch so many different popular movies for them to think up their spoofs, but where is the inspiration? In one of the beginning scenes when, similar to "Scream," Cindy's boyfriend, Bobby (Jon Abrahams) climbs through her window at night, talks about their relationship, hides behind the bed when her father (Rick Ducommun) comes in, and gets out again when she doesn't want to sleep with him. As you might have guessed, teh dialogue is virtually the same (except for the talk between Cindy and her father, which gives a few nice moments as her father gives Cindy some advice on the drugs hidden in the house). Like every satire/irony movies since the birth of movies, "Scary Movie" takes movies like "Scream" and "I Know What You Did Last Summer" not to satrize them, but to use their stories has ways to put together such weak and pointless humor.

This movie is so weak. I know that people probably were entertained by this vulgar and gross mess of a spoof film, but I wasn't. Except for maybe a few parts where I chuckled, but overall, this was a bad spoof film. Just don't watch it, and please heed my warning. If you do, and you end up liking it, great. Don't put your expectations too high because this didn't save spoof films.

If you thought this film would have learned its lesson, think again. Apparently this film was so successful that they decided to make sequels to it. Check in tomorrow when we look at the first sequel to the "Scary Movie Franchise."

Scream 4

Eleven years after Sidney Prescott and her friends faced the last person to pose as Ghostface, the “Scream series” have been resurrected. Completely forgetting that “Scream 3” was the last, it didn’t satisfy its audience and theater sales, the filmmakers have tried one last time, really desperate and returned to a series that was already bad from the start and sunk it to even deeper low. There’s no actually story in this film. “Scream 4,” released in 2011, gives somewhat more than returning characters walking around a horror movie scenario and saying self-referential one liners as the murders keep going and going and going. James Berardinelli mentioned, “Scream's brand of horror, which lampooned the slasher genre while simultaneously embracing it, was fun and breezy in 1996. In 2011, it's about as fresh as the whiff of something stale and rank from a crypt.”

Berardinelli went on to say, “Time in the Scream world has moved on in lock-step with time in the real world, so when we revisit the lazy town of Woodsboro, everyone who survived Scream 3 is older (although not necessarily wiser).” The “Stab” franchise, made by former news reporter Gale Weathers, are still popular, now at the seventh sequel. Meanwhile, Woodsboro prepares for their strange “celebration” on the anniversary of when the series started – something that aggravates Sheriff Dewey Riley to his boiling point, since he is the only one who thinks the murders shouldn’t be adapted. Sidney, now in her early 30s, has returned for this film to promote her book on self-healing and to amend her past. The Ghostface murder has chosen to resurrect in 2011, and who he has in mind are Sidney and her handful of family members: Jill (Emma Roberts), and her aunt, Kate (Mary McDonnell). Then there’s Jill’s friends, like Kirby (the hot Hayden Panettiere) and Charlie (Macaulay Culkin’s younger brother, Rory Culkin), who should get a coffin ready than a tuxedo and dress.

I agree with Berardinelli when he said, “Scream 4 is so obsessed with the self-referential element that made the original Scream unique that it loses the capacity to be genuinely scary or funny.” Just look at the recursive beginning (with cameos from Anna Paquin and Kristen Bell). You can tell it’s trying too hard. If you thought the first two movies where effortless, that’s fine, but I don’t think that. “Scream 4,” like the last movie, shows the screenwriter’s layers. Berardinelli said, “The story is thin and belabored - more an excuse to encounter old friends and revel in new gore than the "revision" promised by the promotional material.” The tag line is “New Decade, New Rules.” However, nothing has changed, except that “reboot” is said a few times. Other than repeating elements from the past movies, “Scream 4” is not a reboot, it’s a sequel.

Berardinelli said, “Toward the end, there's an opportunity for Scream 4 to break from the monotony of Horror 101 and, at least for a moment, I thought it was going to do it. Just as the glee was beginning to well up within me at the audacity being displayed by everyone involved (the actors, director Wes Craven, scriptwriter Kevin Williamson), the bubble burst. It's a cruel tease, more frustrating that the pieces of fruit in Austin Powers. The near-brush with boldness makes the flaccid conclusion all the more disappointing.”

The returning actors earn approval for putting in effortlessly in the personalities that they do not put on for more than a decade – not that the characters were even rich or considerable in the beginning. The new characters – Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere, and Rory Culkin – have been casted because they are popular with teenagers and young adults. (Berardinelli noted, “Roberts was in kindergarten when the original Scream was released.)” I think the reason why the returning actors came back for another “Scream” movie (to pay their bills), I cannot even fathom the reasons for Wes Craven to return as director. Berardinelli said, “This is a comedown for one of horror's Iron Chefs. The most the director can cook from this screenplay are a few weak "boo!" moments and one instance of jump-in-your-seat startlement (which is a throw-away near-miss auto accident). There's a casserole of blood and viscera, but it's all routine.” You could say that the torture horror films left audiences tired about that part.

Berardinelli is right when he said, “I doubt this is the last we'll see of the Scream series since horror franchises are as incapable of being killed as their monstrous stars.” I don’t even think Craven will come back if they make a “Scream 5.” They are just throwing this way deep when it’s already in the deep end with the sharks. Berardinelli ended his review by saying, “Scream 4 will probably prove sufficiently profitable that the Weinsteins will dial up another one, and this series will transform into what it once gleefully parodied - if it's not there already.”

As I had mentioned in every single review of this film, do not watch this franchise. If you like the series, then good for you. However, I just think these movies were just painful to watch, especially these last two movies. They shouldn’t have been made, especially since the last one talked about it being the end of the trilogy!!! How many more sequels do they need to make?

However, my best friend said that there is a television show that he actually thinks is better than the movies. I might check it out…the key word being “might.” We’ll see.

Well, thankfully we got another horrendous franchise out of the way. Stay tuned tomorrow when I talk about a horror parody series that you can watch around Halloween time, but are ones you should just avoid. I’m really not looking forward to it, and you might be able to guess what franchise I’m talking about. Well, the sooner we get it over with, the better for this year’s “Halloween Month” will be completed.

Scream 3

What we are taught in "Scream 3," released in 2000, that the difference between a trilogy and a sequel is that sequels keep going, but a trilogy has a beginning, a middle and an end: "In a trilogy, nobody's safe. Even the hero can die in the final chapter. This is explained by Randy in the third of this ridiculous slasher franchise where the characters know every horror cliches and get stuck in them sadly.

The movie this time moves every surviving character from the last "Scream" movies to Hollywood, where a horror film titled "Stab 3" is in production. There is a murder, then another: the murderer is killing the actors in the same way they are killed in the screenplay. However, the third victim may be hard to guess: "There were three different versions of the script," an executive, cameo made by Roger Corman, explains, "to keep the ending off the Internet. I don't know which version the killer read." All of that doesn't matter. The fax machine goes off, and it's a call from the murderer, sending revised script pages. Every issue with spoilers on the Internet could make a slasher movie of its own (Roger Ebert was funny when he said, "a serial killer, under delusion he is Freddy Krueger, kills to prove a Web rumor site is wrong.")

Ebert actually admitted, "And in an attempt to keep actual Web sites from revealing the movie's secrets, the studio delayed screenings of "Scream 3'' until the last possible moment, and even then banned many Web-based critics from attending (although the lads from Playboy.com were hunkered down happily in the row in front of me)."

Anyone who is able to know who the murderer in "Scream 3" was would be the smartest person of this franchise, since you keep guessing who it could be. Why? Because it's completely random. It could be any of the characters in the movie, or (what could have been a funny trick) none of them. Ebert is right when he says, "The characters are so thin, they're transparent. They function primarily to scream, split up when they should stick together, go alone into basements and dark rooms, and make ironic references to horror cliches and earlier movies in the series." Director Wes Craven already did the self-aware horror genre cleverly in "Wes Craven's New Nightmare," and this is the idiotic version.

Some of it is hilarious. You can actually recognize the cameo appearances from celebrities like Roger Corman, Kevin Smith and Carrie Fisher (she's a studio worker in charge of archives who says, "I was up for Princess Leia, but you know who gets it - the one who sleeps with George Lucas.")

You can also get the reasoning behind Parker Posey, who plays Jennifer Jolie, an actress who is casted to play Gale Weathers and tells her, "Everywhere you go, I'm gonna follow you, so if he wants to kill you, you'll be there to be killed, and he won't need to kill me." Ebert said, ""Scream 3'' is essentially an interlacing of irony and gotcha! scenes. The monster in his (or her) fright mask can be anywhere at any time and jump into the frame at any moment. All we know for sure is that two out or three scares will be false. (When will the characters in these movies learn that when victims are being "cut up into fish sticks,'' it is NOT FUNNY to sneak up behind friends to scare them?)" Neve Campbell is back as the main character, a woman who went through so much torture that she changed her name, moved to Monterey, and has a job for a hot line. The camera loves her. Ebert noted, "She could become a really big star and then giggle at clips from this film at her AFI tribute."

Also casted are David Arquette as a former cop, now a security guard who's still in love with Gale Weathers, Scott Foley as the "Stab 3" director, Dean Richmond as the man who knows every movie conventions, Liev Schreiber as a talk-show host, Patrick Dempsey as a cop, Lance Henriksen as a crazy horror film director with old secrets, and Jenny McCarthy as an actress who does or does not get killed, but, as Ebert stated, "certainly wears a dress we will see again in Playboy's annual "Sex in Cinema'' feature." Patrick Warburton, a fast-popular action star, has a funny part as a "professional celebrity guard" who clients have "included Julia Roberts and Salman Rushdie." Ebert admitted, "My own feeling is relief that the series is at last ended. If "Scream" (1996) was like a funny joke, "Scream 2" (1997) was like somebody telling you, "here's how I heard that joke,'' and "Scream 3'' is like somebody who won't believe you've already heard it."

Ebert went on to say, "What I will remember from the movie is that everyone uses cell phones constantly, which is convenient for the screenplay, since the characters can be anywhere and still call for help or threaten one another."

Ebert asked, "Remember the 1980 horror movie named "Don't Answer the Phone''?" If the "Scream 3" characters had taken that advice, there would have been (thankfully) no movie, just a lot of boring characters spread out through California, waiting for calls.

If you liked the first two movies, you won't like this one, I assure you. This movie is so bland and tired that it repeats the same formula that the past two movies did. Just because it may have worked before doesn't mean that it will keep working. Just try something new for crying out loud.

For those who thought this was the last movie, think again. A fourth one was made, which we will look at tomorrow in the last of my reviews on the ridiculous "Scream franchise."

Scream 2

With the surprising success of “Scream,” they came out with a sequel, “Scream 2,” in 1997. This movie talks about how horror sequels suck, as it is described in the movie. That is actually the right statement since this movie sucked harder than the first one.

Returning to the sequel, Sidney Prescott is now a college student who now has a new boyfriend named Derek (Jerry O’Connell) and has a handful of new friends, including her old friend Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy), who is obviously a film student. While they are busy trying to finish their college work, the nuisance TV reporter Gale Weathers has been plugging her book, The Woodsboro Murders, everywhere, and now it has been adapted into a movie titled “Stab.” Once “Stab” hits the theaters, the murders start again.

There’s more. Along with trying to plug her book, Gale comes to town with Cotton Weary, reprised by Liev Schreiber, fresh out of jail after being blamed for killing Sidney’s mother, even though he was innocent but Sidney said he was lying. Gale thinks that Sidney and Cotton should meet to let bygones-be-bygones than a posthumous interview with Princess Diana. Also there is Deputy Dewey, played by former WCW wrestler, David Arquette, who somehow survived the previous film’s chaos and wants to protect Sidney and everyone from the new murderer.

Maitland McDonagh stated in her review, “Like all good sequels-as Randy is quick to point out-Scream 2's body count is higher, its murderous tableaux are more elaborate-consider the possibilities of a well-equipped college drama department-and the gore is ladled on with an even heavier hand than in the original.” For the supporting cast like Drew Barrymore and the hot Rose McGowan (who you might remember as Paige from the downhill show “Charmed”) are not in here again, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Jada Pinkett and Tori Spelling (who plays Sidney in the movie-within-the-movie) pick up the slack with nice before murder brightness. Sadly, “Scream 2” is exactly below what “Scream” did poorly, getting itself completely stuck in every cliché where it senses to be satire.

“Scream 2” begins with the “Stab” opening night, where Craven redoes “Scream’s” beginning where Casey, played by Heather Graham in the redoing, home alone, tortured by an evil caller, but gives it, as McDonagh says, “the cheesy trappings of a cut-rate slasher movie, right down to the mandatory shower sequence.” In a theater packed with screaming horror fanatics in the Ghostface masks, Craven shoots a really amazing double murder and sets up the movie for another edge-of-your-seat ride where it is between imitation and harshly self-aware horror movie. McDonagh is right when she states, “But that only makes it more disappointing when the killer (killers?) gets up to his/their old tricks, making scary phone calls, popping out of dark corners and carving up miscellaneous incautious nubiles. Been there, done that, and gave it the 'Mystery Science Theater 3000' treatment-Times Square style, thank you-when these fresh-faced victims-to-be were too young to get into a scary movie without a parent or adult guardian.”

By the time the part where the murderer is unmasked, with a character so minimal that the line “The butler did it” arrives undeniably to your head, the handful of survivors have done a lot of ridiculous actions that it’s hard not to want every one of them dead. If that’s not making you see a ridiculous horror sequel, I don’t know what will be.

As you might be already guessing, you shouldn’t even be considering seeing this movie. If you liked the first one and you want to see the sequel, then go ahead. If you end up liking this one as well, then great, but if not, you’re not alone. Basically, this movie does the same thing the first one did, but sinks it to a whole new low, making it a painful trip.

If that is not enough, then you should stay tuned tomorrow when I talk about the third in this ridiculous “Scream franchise” that I don’t see why people like.

Scream

The next franchise that I will be looking at in this year’s “Halloween Month” is the “Scream Franchise.” I understand there are fans of this franchise, but personally, I didn’t like any of the entries. The reason being was that the plot was predictable, the characters were obnoxious and you could predict who the killer was every single time (or some of the times). If you want to know what I mean, let’s take a look at the first entry in the franchise, “Scream,” released in 1996.

The great director, Wes Craven, is on familiar territory with this movie. It takes place in a small town, the main characters are high schoolers and there’s a murderer on the loose. Leonard Klady stated in his review, “But he may have gone to the trough once too often, attempting an uneasy balance of genre convention and sophisticated parody. The pic’s chills are top-notch, but its underlying mockish tone won’t please die-hard fans. That adds up to no more than modest commercial returns and fast theatrical playoff.”

The film opens the usual way. A teenage girl named Casey Becker, played by Drew Barrymore, is alone at home making popcorn when she answers the phone and an evil man is on the other side. This psychopath starts to quiz her on a horror movie trivia just to taunt her. Eventually he jumps out in front of her and this meeting is Casey’s death.

The next person on this person’s list is Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) whose mother (Carla Hatley) was murdered by a similar murderer a year before. Actually, aggressive reporter Gale Weathers (the hot Courtney Cox, also a veteran of the bad show “Friends”) believes it’s the same man and the man (who is on death row) (Liev Schreiber) that Sidney framed for murdering her mother is innocent.

Klady stated, “Craven and scripter Kevin Williamson have worked hard to gussy up well-trod territory. And though the material is more intelligent than the norm and has an unusual third-act twist, it also employs some very clunky stereotypes.”

Klady goes on to say, “The fictional community of Woodsboro, Calif., is normally a sleepy hamlet populated by callous teens and ineffectual adults. The kids have been shaped by the movies and can quote chapter and verse from Craven’s “Nightmare on Elm Street,” “Halloween” and “Prom Night” to explain the killer’s gestalt.” The horror movie rules, which are described by a blockbuster worker (Jamie Kennedy), make Billy (Skeet Ulrich), Sidney’s boyfriend, one of the candidates and also gives you a long list of potential people dressed up as the murderer.

Craven, in this film and “New Nightmare,” gives an interest between reality and film. “New Nightmare” told if Freddy Kruegar was an actual person in the real world. “Scream” simply thinks mocking killings, something that happens too much onscreen than in sleeping towns.

I agree with Klady when he said, “There’s no question that the filmmaker knows how to put an audience on the edge of its seat. But this yarn isn’t content with visceral delight, and its attempts to instill irony and social perspective just slow down the proceedings.”

Along with a strong exterior, Craven put together a strong cast that is led by the charming Campbell and Ulrich. Cox has a nice rebel side as the determined reporter, and Henry Winkler (who you might remember as Fonzie from “Happy Days”) is in here as the principal of the high school.

Klady ended his review by rightfully saying, ““Scream” is an interesting stab at altering the shape of horror. But it’s one experiment that needed more lab time before venturing into the marketplace.”

Like I have already stated, this movie was bad. If you are a fan of it, go ahead, there’s nothing wrong with that. However, I personally think this movie was just horrible from beginning to end. Watch the movie if you want, and if you like it, great, but if you don’t, I’m in the same boat as you.

I don’t see why the creators think that they needed to make sequels to this movie, seeing how I didn’t like the first one. However, since this is “Halloween Month” I feel that I owe it to you, my online readers, to let you know what I thought of this stupid franchise. With that said, stay tuned tomorrow when I review the second in the “Scream franchise.”