I happened upon a quaint little independent film on Netflix's instant stream the other day. It's a Canadian film called One Week, released back in 2008. I didn't know what to make of it given that it's not something I've ever heard of and it stars Joshua Jackson, who, since his Dawson's Creek days, has become a big name in the horror genre. Regardless, I decided to sit down for the film's 94 minute run time and give it a shot.
I must say that I was pleasantly surprised. It's a quiet film, which is a nice departure from the big, and incredibly loud films, Hollywood has been shoving out lately. Maybe it's a Canadian thing. Maybe they understand the need for a little peace every now and then.
We open on Ben (Jackson) sitting in a doctor's office and just learning that he has terminal cancer. We immediately see him put a gun to his head and blow his brains out. Thankfully, this is merely a thought in his head and the film continues. We are told, by an omnipresent narrator, that several thoughts ran through Ben's head upon hearing the news. One was, of course, to kill himself. Another was to call off his wedding to his fiancee Samantha (Liane Balaban).
What he ultimately does is buy a motorcycle and begin a cross-country journey searching for, well, life. His goal is simply to see the various landmarks that dot the Canadian landscape and experience the beautiful countryside. All of this much to the chagrin of Samantha.
As I said earlier, the film is narrated throughout and it almost sounds like someone is reading from a book. This makes sense by the end of the movie, but it can catch you off guard if you aren't used to the ever present narrator. It's a film to take heart in and enjoy the quiet moments where the only visual is the road or one of the various "world's largest" exhibits.
By the film's end there is a sense of accomplishment and gratification. As I said, it's a quiet film so watch it on your own time. It won't do to have a heartfelt moment ruined by someone asking for the popcorn or walking in front of the TV.
One Week - 3/5 stars
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Friday, April 15, 2011
Scream 4 Review
New Decade. New Rules. This is Scream 4's tag line. It's written on every poster and is even a spoken line in the film. What this means is that the rules this time around aren't just an update for the fourth film in a horror series, but rather, a whole new set of rules for a whole new horror series. Of course, it's not necessarily a new horror series, but a new generation of horror movie.
Scream 4 sets out with the ultimate goal of poking fun at the string of horror movies that have come out since roughly 2003. These are films that are marked by intense violence, more blood and gore than ever before, and the most important fact of note: they are pretty much all remakes. It's that last fact that proves to be the butt of many jokes in this film.
The film stars Neve Campbell reprising her role as Sidney Prescott, who has returned to Woodsboro on the last leg of her book tour. This coincides with the anniversary of the original Woodsboro Massacre (talk about poor timing). David Arquette and Courtney Cox have also returned as Dewey Riley and Gale Weathers-Riley, respectively. They are joined by Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere, Rory Culkin and Erik Knudsen who make up the main cast of the new generation.
Now, Roberts plays Jill Roberts who is Sidney's cousin. Panettiere plays Jill's best friend Kirby, who is lusted after by Culkin's Charlie, who runs Woodsboro High's Cinema Club with Knudsen's Robbie. This may seem like a jumble of information, but I'm merely trying to mirror the film's complex nature. A lot goes on in Scream 4 and it can be hard to keep up, but it never gets too out of hand. Now on to the actual plot.
We open with one of the most inventive pre-credits kills in horror movie history. From the get go director Wes Craven and screenwriter Kevin Williamson want us to know that they're still up to their ironic, satirical and incredibly self-aware ways. The opening kill also acts as a way for Williamson to effectively distance this film from its predecessor and to apologize for ever letting Ehren Kruger get his hands on that script.
Cut to Sidney's arrival in town and it soon becomes somewhat of a TV star soup as actors from hit shows like Heroes, Mad Men, Community, True Blood, Veronica Mars and The O.C. show up and make their presence known. Cue more death scenes, some plot progression, minor character development, and we find ourselves at the jaw-dropping conclusion that will have many talking for weeks to come. Ultimately, we learn that the killer is patterning their kills after those in the original film. No. not the original Scream, the original Stab, which is the movie-within-a-movie.
This brings us to the 'new rules.' The official rules are provided to us by Charlie and Robbie, but there are many other rules that are brought up elsewhere in the film. The rules laid out for Sidney and the gang are: The killer has to film the murders, there will be a guaranteed third act main cast bloodbath, and the unexpected is the new cliche. Other rules are: never say, "I'll be right back," revived from the original Scream, never say, "Who's there?" again from the original, and, unless they're Bruce Willis, movie cops always die.
As is expected there is a ton of self-reference and satire in Scream 4. In fact, there is much more than in the original trilogy. These characters have seen more horror movies than Randy (Jamie Kennedy) from the original film. They just know everything there is to know and they jump at the opportunity to prove it.
Much of the humor is provided by the voice of the Ghostface Killer (Roger Jackson) and his conversations with potential victims. Ultimately, there might be too much self-aware satire going on, but the ending of the film leads me to believe that there was a distinct reason for that. I'll let you come to your own conclusion.
PROTIP: If you want to solve the mystery of Scream 4, just remember one thing: remakes.
Scream 4 - 4.5/5 stars
Oh, and we finally learn who 'directed' the original Stab. It's Robert Rodriguez, which is ironic given his romantic relationship with Rose McGowan, who was in the original Scream, which is what Stab is based on. The self-referencing never ceases, apparently.
Scream 4 sets out with the ultimate goal of poking fun at the string of horror movies that have come out since roughly 2003. These are films that are marked by intense violence, more blood and gore than ever before, and the most important fact of note: they are pretty much all remakes. It's that last fact that proves to be the butt of many jokes in this film.
The film stars Neve Campbell reprising her role as Sidney Prescott, who has returned to Woodsboro on the last leg of her book tour. This coincides with the anniversary of the original Woodsboro Massacre (talk about poor timing). David Arquette and Courtney Cox have also returned as Dewey Riley and Gale Weathers-Riley, respectively. They are joined by Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere, Rory Culkin and Erik Knudsen who make up the main cast of the new generation.
Now, Roberts plays Jill Roberts who is Sidney's cousin. Panettiere plays Jill's best friend Kirby, who is lusted after by Culkin's Charlie, who runs Woodsboro High's Cinema Club with Knudsen's Robbie. This may seem like a jumble of information, but I'm merely trying to mirror the film's complex nature. A lot goes on in Scream 4 and it can be hard to keep up, but it never gets too out of hand. Now on to the actual plot.
We open with one of the most inventive pre-credits kills in horror movie history. From the get go director Wes Craven and screenwriter Kevin Williamson want us to know that they're still up to their ironic, satirical and incredibly self-aware ways. The opening kill also acts as a way for Williamson to effectively distance this film from its predecessor and to apologize for ever letting Ehren Kruger get his hands on that script.
Cut to Sidney's arrival in town and it soon becomes somewhat of a TV star soup as actors from hit shows like Heroes, Mad Men, Community, True Blood, Veronica Mars and The O.C. show up and make their presence known. Cue more death scenes, some plot progression, minor character development, and we find ourselves at the jaw-dropping conclusion that will have many talking for weeks to come. Ultimately, we learn that the killer is patterning their kills after those in the original film. No. not the original Scream, the original Stab, which is the movie-within-a-movie.
This brings us to the 'new rules.' The official rules are provided to us by Charlie and Robbie, but there are many other rules that are brought up elsewhere in the film. The rules laid out for Sidney and the gang are: The killer has to film the murders, there will be a guaranteed third act main cast bloodbath, and the unexpected is the new cliche. Other rules are: never say, "I'll be right back," revived from the original Scream, never say, "Who's there?" again from the original, and, unless they're Bruce Willis, movie cops always die.
As is expected there is a ton of self-reference and satire in Scream 4. In fact, there is much more than in the original trilogy. These characters have seen more horror movies than Randy (Jamie Kennedy) from the original film. They just know everything there is to know and they jump at the opportunity to prove it.
Much of the humor is provided by the voice of the Ghostface Killer (Roger Jackson) and his conversations with potential victims. Ultimately, there might be too much self-aware satire going on, but the ending of the film leads me to believe that there was a distinct reason for that. I'll let you come to your own conclusion.
PROTIP: If you want to solve the mystery of Scream 4, just remember one thing: remakes.
Scream 4 - 4.5/5 stars
Oh, and we finally learn who 'directed' the original Stab. It's Robert Rodriguez, which is ironic given his romantic relationship with Rose McGowan, who was in the original Scream, which is what Stab is based on. The self-referencing never ceases, apparently.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Review - The Scream Trilogy
It's been 11 years since the last Scream film. In that decade of time audiences have come to know a new brand of horror film: the torture porn. This is an exceptionally gruesome and bloody sort of horror film that has been cultivated by the best and brightest that the Splat Pack has to offer: Eli Roth, Alexandre Aja and Rob Zombie to name a few.
Why is it important to know about these filmmakers and their films for a Scream review you ask? It's simple really: the Scream franchise made its bread and butter by actively satirizing slasher films from the '80s through the mid-'90s. They poked fun at this unspoken set of rules that guided the killer's blade in films like Halloween, Friday the 13th, The Prowler and My Bloody Valentine. In regards to the first two listed here the Scream films also joked about the rules of horror sequels and trilogies.
In addition to deconstructing slasher films, which, by the time came to be, were incredibly stale, the trilogy also revitalized the whole horror genre, something that the Splat Packers should be thankful for. Now, after more than a decade of a revitalized genre, which, just like before, has gone stale, audiences are ready to be awed by what Scream 4 has in store. Given the increased brutality of horror films over the past 10 years we can expect a more gruesome film from master of suspense Wes Craven.
But enough of what is in store for us come Friday. Let's look back on the trilogy that breathed new life into a dying genre and the man who had already done it once before.
It's 1996 and teens the nation over are sitting down in movie theaters ready to see a film called Scream from established horror director Wes Craven. Sure he had done some less-than-favorable films like Vampire in Brooklyn, but he was also the man who had scared a nation from their dreams with A Nightmare on Elm Street.
From the very beginning audiences realized they were about to see something they hadn't seen before. The letters S-C-R-E-A-M crash on to screen with a woman's shrill scream set above it. Open on a young Drew Barrymore making Jiffy Pop and a movie in the other hand. The phone rings and she answers with, "Hello?" After some innocent back-and-forth the voice on the other end asks, "What's your favorite scary movie?"
This is where audiences truly begin to grasp just what they are witnessing. I mean, could you do that in a horror movie? Could you blatantly leave the film and ask such a post-modern question, venturing into the realm of self-reference? This isn't a documentary, right?
The conversation continues with a discussion of the finer points about A Nightmare on Elm Street (a send up to the film's director) and soon spirals out of control into a frightening bloodbath. After being stabbed by the killer, and nearly making it to the safety of her parents, Barrymore is gutted and hung from a tree to be found mere moments later by her hysterical mother. And just like that one of the biggest stars of the time was the first victim in a heart-pounding thriller (or as director Wes Craven refers to it, a "teen mystery").
We are then introduced to Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell). Sidney is the film's "final girl." All horror movies have them. This is the girl who is the innocent virgin and manages to outsmart the killer in the end due to her pure nature (think Halloween's Jamie Lee Curtis). What's interesting is that Sidney is the ultimate final girl. She survives in all three films for Christ's sake. That's unprecedented even by today's standards.
Most of the film revolves around Sidney, her boyfriend Billy Loomis (Skeet Ulrich), her best friend Tatum (Rose McGowan), her boyfriend Stu (Matthew Lillard) and their friend Randy (Jamie Kennedy). Randy is the most aware character of them all. He lays out the rules for surviving a horror movie (which we'll get to in a moment) and he's the only character to correctly guess who the killer is, even explaining the system of red herring's in slasher films.
Now, on to the rules. Near the film's climactic ending Randy explains "the rules" to a group of drunk party-goers. They are: 1. You can never have sex, 2. You can never drink or do drugs (it's an extension of the first rule), and 3. Never, ever say, "I'll be right back," because you won't. In addition, the killer provides a couple of unofficial rules, which are: Never ask, "Who's there?" and never investigate a strange noise.
All of these elements combine to create an incredibly self-aware film that contains some of the smartest horror victims to date (excepting one victim who thought it would be a good idea to try and escape through a doggy door on the garage door). These self-aware elements combine with the films comedy aspects to create one of the best horror films ever made.
Nothing is safe when it comes to the film's ability to poke fun at the horror genre, and that includes the film itself. Given that it is a horror film and falls under the bounds of most horror films, it is subject to the same jokes that it is telling.
Given the film's massive success as sequel was inevitable and it came out little more than a year later.
Scream 2 contained the same elements as the original, but everything applied to horror sequels. In this film, Sidney returns along with Dewey (David Arquette), Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) and Randy, who was "so glad to be a virgin" in the first film. The film takes place, wouldn't ya know it, at a film school with a bunch of film nerds, one of them played by Timothy Olyphant.
The film opens with another pre-credits kill sequence and this time there is much more at stake. Not one, but two people are killed and they also serve to poke fun at the stereotype that black people are always the first to die in horror movies. We once again look to Randy to explain the rules of horror sequels to us and he doesn't disappoint. This time around: 1. The body count is bigger, with much more blood and gore, 2. The death scenes are always more elaborate, and 3. Never, ever assume the killer is dead.
Much if the self-reference and satire is derived from in-jokes in Scream 2. Many of the jokes refer back to the first film. Example: In the first film Randy is watching Halloween and warning the film's star, Jamie Lee Curtis, to watch out behind her while the Ghostface Killer sneaks up behind him. Now, it's funny enough that he's saying, "Jamie, behind you," because in a crazy self-aware kind of way he's warning himself. Anyway, as this happens, Gale's cameraman watches on a 30-second delay hidden camera and goes to warn Randy, but gets his throat cut for his effort.
In the sequel, Gale's new cameraman storms off and as a result Randy is pulled into the news van and gutted. So, in the first film the cameraman's presence saves Randy and in the sequel his absence offhandedly leads to Randy's death. It could also have been the loss of his virginity, which we learn about in the third film.
Scream 2 might not be as intense as the first (in fact, there is actually more blood in the original), but it is still equally as good at satirizing a still-stale horror genre. Three years later, something went wrong.
In 2000, Scr3am came out and immediately audiences knew something wasn't right. To start, series creator Kevin Williamson did not return to write the script (he was busy working on his hit TV show Dawson's Creek). Instead, the studio brought in newcomer Ehren Kruger to write it. To gauge Kruger's ability I'll only tell you that he was also the scribe of 2009's blockbuster Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Yeah, he's the guy responsible for that story-lacking hunk of junk. But more on that another time.
Kruger's biggest mistake was making the film less of a horror movie and more of a comedy. There wasn't really anything scary about Scr3am and, ironically, there wasn't really anything funny about it either. So, instead I'll just talk about it's self-aware qualities.
The most apparently aware part of the movie is that it takes place on the set of Stab 3, the movie-within-a-movie based on the original film's murders. Now, getting more aware, the actors who are in are killed by Ghostface in the order that they appear in the movie-within-a-movie. Confused yet? Yeah, that's another problem with Kruger's script. It's too complex for the Scream formula. The jokes are supposed to be subtle or modest at best. All this "in your face" crap is just annoying. Oh, and Carrie Fisher is in it poking fun at her character Princess Leia Organna from Star Wars. Jay & Silent Bob make an appearance, as well.
The opening kill this time around sets the victim as Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber) who was in the past two films as convicted murderer of Sidney's mother Maureen in the first film and wrongly convicted murderer of Sidney's mother Maureen in the second.
You can bet that there is a whole new set of rules to go with the third film, too. And, in a somewhat poorly written excuse for a cameo, they are provided yet again by Randy, back from the dead in a video he recorded back in college.
The rules this time around are: 1. All bets are off. Even the main character (Sidney) can die this time (she doesn't) and 2. Go back to the beginning and discover that wasn't true back then.
All in all, it's a pretty disappointing conclusion to such a great series. This gives me hope for Scream 4 (or Scre4m). First, Williamson is back as the writer and although Kruger was brought back to tweak a few things it's still Williamson's work. Wes Craven is once again sitting in the director's chair and the three main characters (Sidney, Dewey and Gale) return as well. This time, though, it's a whole new generation of teens who will get sliced-and-diced. I'm actually hoping Sidney gets offed in order to make room for Emma Roberts et al to emerge as the faces of the new (potential) trilogy. Only time will tell.
Out of five stars:
Scream - 5/5 stars
Scream 2 - 4/5 stars
Scream 3 - 2.5/5 stars
The Rough Cut
Why is it important to know about these filmmakers and their films for a Scream review you ask? It's simple really: the Scream franchise made its bread and butter by actively satirizing slasher films from the '80s through the mid-'90s. They poked fun at this unspoken set of rules that guided the killer's blade in films like Halloween, Friday the 13th, The Prowler and My Bloody Valentine. In regards to the first two listed here the Scream films also joked about the rules of horror sequels and trilogies.
In addition to deconstructing slasher films, which, by the time came to be, were incredibly stale, the trilogy also revitalized the whole horror genre, something that the Splat Packers should be thankful for. Now, after more than a decade of a revitalized genre, which, just like before, has gone stale, audiences are ready to be awed by what Scream 4 has in store. Given the increased brutality of horror films over the past 10 years we can expect a more gruesome film from master of suspense Wes Craven.
But enough of what is in store for us come Friday. Let's look back on the trilogy that breathed new life into a dying genre and the man who had already done it once before.
It's 1996 and teens the nation over are sitting down in movie theaters ready to see a film called Scream from established horror director Wes Craven. Sure he had done some less-than-favorable films like Vampire in Brooklyn, but he was also the man who had scared a nation from their dreams with A Nightmare on Elm Street.
From the very beginning audiences realized they were about to see something they hadn't seen before. The letters S-C-R-E-A-M crash on to screen with a woman's shrill scream set above it. Open on a young Drew Barrymore making Jiffy Pop and a movie in the other hand. The phone rings and she answers with, "Hello?" After some innocent back-and-forth the voice on the other end asks, "What's your favorite scary movie?"
This is where audiences truly begin to grasp just what they are witnessing. I mean, could you do that in a horror movie? Could you blatantly leave the film and ask such a post-modern question, venturing into the realm of self-reference? This isn't a documentary, right?
The conversation continues with a discussion of the finer points about A Nightmare on Elm Street (a send up to the film's director) and soon spirals out of control into a frightening bloodbath. After being stabbed by the killer, and nearly making it to the safety of her parents, Barrymore is gutted and hung from a tree to be found mere moments later by her hysterical mother. And just like that one of the biggest stars of the time was the first victim in a heart-pounding thriller (or as director Wes Craven refers to it, a "teen mystery").
We are then introduced to Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell). Sidney is the film's "final girl." All horror movies have them. This is the girl who is the innocent virgin and manages to outsmart the killer in the end due to her pure nature (think Halloween's Jamie Lee Curtis). What's interesting is that Sidney is the ultimate final girl. She survives in all three films for Christ's sake. That's unprecedented even by today's standards.
Most of the film revolves around Sidney, her boyfriend Billy Loomis (Skeet Ulrich), her best friend Tatum (Rose McGowan), her boyfriend Stu (Matthew Lillard) and their friend Randy (Jamie Kennedy). Randy is the most aware character of them all. He lays out the rules for surviving a horror movie (which we'll get to in a moment) and he's the only character to correctly guess who the killer is, even explaining the system of red herring's in slasher films.
Now, on to the rules. Near the film's climactic ending Randy explains "the rules" to a group of drunk party-goers. They are: 1. You can never have sex, 2. You can never drink or do drugs (it's an extension of the first rule), and 3. Never, ever say, "I'll be right back," because you won't. In addition, the killer provides a couple of unofficial rules, which are: Never ask, "Who's there?" and never investigate a strange noise.
All of these elements combine to create an incredibly self-aware film that contains some of the smartest horror victims to date (excepting one victim who thought it would be a good idea to try and escape through a doggy door on the garage door). These self-aware elements combine with the films comedy aspects to create one of the best horror films ever made.
Nothing is safe when it comes to the film's ability to poke fun at the horror genre, and that includes the film itself. Given that it is a horror film and falls under the bounds of most horror films, it is subject to the same jokes that it is telling.
Given the film's massive success as sequel was inevitable and it came out little more than a year later.
Scream 2 contained the same elements as the original, but everything applied to horror sequels. In this film, Sidney returns along with Dewey (David Arquette), Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) and Randy, who was "so glad to be a virgin" in the first film. The film takes place, wouldn't ya know it, at a film school with a bunch of film nerds, one of them played by Timothy Olyphant.
The film opens with another pre-credits kill sequence and this time there is much more at stake. Not one, but two people are killed and they also serve to poke fun at the stereotype that black people are always the first to die in horror movies. We once again look to Randy to explain the rules of horror sequels to us and he doesn't disappoint. This time around: 1. The body count is bigger, with much more blood and gore, 2. The death scenes are always more elaborate, and 3. Never, ever assume the killer is dead.
Much if the self-reference and satire is derived from in-jokes in Scream 2. Many of the jokes refer back to the first film. Example: In the first film Randy is watching Halloween and warning the film's star, Jamie Lee Curtis, to watch out behind her while the Ghostface Killer sneaks up behind him. Now, it's funny enough that he's saying, "Jamie, behind you," because in a crazy self-aware kind of way he's warning himself. Anyway, as this happens, Gale's cameraman watches on a 30-second delay hidden camera and goes to warn Randy, but gets his throat cut for his effort.
In the sequel, Gale's new cameraman storms off and as a result Randy is pulled into the news van and gutted. So, in the first film the cameraman's presence saves Randy and in the sequel his absence offhandedly leads to Randy's death. It could also have been the loss of his virginity, which we learn about in the third film.
Scream 2 might not be as intense as the first (in fact, there is actually more blood in the original), but it is still equally as good at satirizing a still-stale horror genre. Three years later, something went wrong.
In 2000, Scr3am came out and immediately audiences knew something wasn't right. To start, series creator Kevin Williamson did not return to write the script (he was busy working on his hit TV show Dawson's Creek). Instead, the studio brought in newcomer Ehren Kruger to write it. To gauge Kruger's ability I'll only tell you that he was also the scribe of 2009's blockbuster Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Yeah, he's the guy responsible for that story-lacking hunk of junk. But more on that another time.
Kruger's biggest mistake was making the film less of a horror movie and more of a comedy. There wasn't really anything scary about Scr3am and, ironically, there wasn't really anything funny about it either. So, instead I'll just talk about it's self-aware qualities.
The most apparently aware part of the movie is that it takes place on the set of Stab 3, the movie-within-a-movie based on the original film's murders. Now, getting more aware, the actors who are in are killed by Ghostface in the order that they appear in the movie-within-a-movie. Confused yet? Yeah, that's another problem with Kruger's script. It's too complex for the Scream formula. The jokes are supposed to be subtle or modest at best. All this "in your face" crap is just annoying. Oh, and Carrie Fisher is in it poking fun at her character Princess Leia Organna from Star Wars. Jay & Silent Bob make an appearance, as well.
The opening kill this time around sets the victim as Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber) who was in the past two films as convicted murderer of Sidney's mother Maureen in the first film and wrongly convicted murderer of Sidney's mother Maureen in the second.
You can bet that there is a whole new set of rules to go with the third film, too. And, in a somewhat poorly written excuse for a cameo, they are provided yet again by Randy, back from the dead in a video he recorded back in college.
The rules this time around are: 1. All bets are off. Even the main character (Sidney) can die this time (she doesn't) and 2. Go back to the beginning and discover that wasn't true back then.
All in all, it's a pretty disappointing conclusion to such a great series. This gives me hope for Scream 4 (or Scre4m). First, Williamson is back as the writer and although Kruger was brought back to tweak a few things it's still Williamson's work. Wes Craven is once again sitting in the director's chair and the three main characters (Sidney, Dewey and Gale) return as well. This time, though, it's a whole new generation of teens who will get sliced-and-diced. I'm actually hoping Sidney gets offed in order to make room for Emma Roberts et al to emerge as the faces of the new (potential) trilogy. Only time will tell.
Out of five stars:
Scream - 5/5 stars
Scream 2 - 4/5 stars
Scream 3 - 2.5/5 stars
The Rough Cut
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)