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.