Over the course of four films director Wes Craven and writer Kevin Williamson (with the aptly named Ehren Krueger taking over duties for the third film) took the horror genre both in an entirely new meta-textual direction and also in a commercially viable direction again, this quadrilogy of terror of course began with the almost immediate slasher classic Scream. Over the course of three more films, with a fourth sequel/ legacy reboot coming out this week, it seemed the right time to return to one of my favourite horror franchises of all time. Why is it one of my favourites? Because although it has the advantage of naturally having less entries to lower the standard, I find it to be one of the more iconic and consistently excellent horror series of all time. Let's start with the natural best of the films with the masterpiece original.
Scream (1996)
Simplicity is the strongest element a horror film can have and yet although the original Scream screams 'barebones' when compared to the character overflowing and exposition oozing sequels, in the grand Scream scheme of things, even in the film’s most daring, still entirely intense and horrifying opening, arguably the series least gimmickified and least meta-tinged sequence, we find ourselves introduced to the provocative premise that riveted audiences and immediately set this film apart from decades and decades of horror fare - the characters knew and had seen the same horror films that the audience had. Hey Ma! I made it all the way to the end of that sentence! Halloween, Friday the 13th and Craven's own Nightmare on Elm Street are just some of the first to get name dropped, and although on a first watch you're blown away by this conceit it perhaps un-intentionally welcomes a burden that nobody would immediately think of, but every reader of the script and viewer of the film would inherently feel. Scream knows and brings up repeatedly the masterpieces and underrated gems of the genre, so why should any audience member reminded once again of these classics stay watching? ...Unless Craven and Williamson in the first 12 minutes exemplify a complete mastery of the form, as well as a knowing wry wink about its flaws and trappings. Anybody who has seen the film or even knows of the films name and reputation knows that the opening with Drew Barrymore's Casey Becker is of course nothing short of absolute perfection in the genre, perfecting and bettering at times age-old tropes and trappings whilst breathing a new and frankly intense ultra-violence and brutality into the genre, and for me a chief realism. However in having such a truly astonishing opening, thanks perhaps mostly to Barrymore's extraordinary on-camera performance and Roger Jackson's repeatedly terrifying and unsettling off-camera voice performance. Craven and Williamson set themselves again for a further challenge; to keep and maintain the power of that opening for a further 90 minutes - and once again anybody who has seen the film knows that this is most certainly true (even in the opening 12 minutes still remains the entire series biggest crowning achievement, and perhaps even the best horror sequence of Craven’s ouvre). One would of course be remiss to not mention for the first time the staple actors that will carry through for all four films; the iconic Neve Campbell, as the tragic and brutally resilient Sidney Prescott, Courtney Cox as the furiously funny and wickedly dynamic (and of course humoursly self-obsessed) Gale Weathers, with the goofy yet deeply caring David Arquette as Deputy Dewey. This trio of heroes are our foundation and one of the key factors in this series having such a sustained level of quality. When one returns to the original Scream there is so much to enjoy, not the least of which being the performances of both Mathew Willard (whether completely over-the-top or not) and Skeet Ulrich (whether knowingly Deppified or not), but fundamentally it’s the simplicity and the strikingness of the original script that pulls one in just like the first time all over again.
Scream 2 (1997)
Now in certain circles I have found this to be a rather controversial opinion, but for me, I absolutely love Scream 2. And yes there are days, although it may sound close to blasphemous, that I even prefer the sequel. Now is it in anyway a competition between which is the leaner more effective film between the two, of course not, however for me there is an implicit joy in the reunion of the characters we love and the introduction of a bevy of new equally lovable new faces. All in all Scream 2 is every bit as successful as the first film, and also presents us with fun, if a little less subtle than the first entry, commentary upon the sequel format whilst as I have already said giving us absolutely everything that we would ever wish for a sequel to be. Gale, Sidney, Jamie Kennedy’s Randy and Dewey all return, as nearly all surviving characters will throughout the series - in many ways a clear sign of how beloved the atmosphere created by Craven was, as well as the scripts of Williamson (and Krueger). Our setting here is with Sidney at college, where once again she is stalked by a new Ghostface killer wreaking horrific horror wherever she goes and killing off those closest to her, leading specifically in this film to the overall painful tragedy arc of Sidney Prescott to begin to solidify. Williamson's script here blends multiple new and interesting characters into a cohesive narrative with a whole lot more strands than the previous film, still without it ever feeling as if the film is overblown or indulgent or overlong, every new character is relevant and every legacy character gets their due with their own interesting arcs - with this entry including for me the finest and most believable entry in the first three entries Dewey and Gale 'will they, won't they' saga, which is thankfully through by the fourth film. Liev Schreiber returns for an actual role this time and naturally gives us a complex figure that doesn't exactly have a cut and dry hero arc and a glimpse that we may first suspect. Many have commented on this films majorly plagued bout of script leaks leading to the first of many rewrites and Ghostface reveal alterations as the series went on. For me the two killers we get here are both wholly believable and even if there reveal scene goes on a touch long, it's still deeply enjoyable to see stellar actors deliver psycho-killer jargon and evil speeches. I also believe this to be Craven's best directed film with the horror sequences here all being wildly different and building upon one another with a nice tension, pace and increasing of the stakes. Of course the series will never top the first 12 minutes it ever gave us, such will always be the curse of the Scream franchise, however these set pieces do their own elevated budget version and thankfully don't reach the absurdities of the third entries multiple explosions. For me Scream 2 really is the high watermark for sequels in the series, and is by far one of my favourite sequels in the horror genre of all time.
Scream 3 (2000)
 |
| Credit |
Scream 3 is most likely my least favourite of the sequels, however also warranted after a recent watch a text to a friend that read “I think I’m all in on Scream 3”. This text however was sent around the midway mark prior to the terribly overlong and convoluted conclusion within the mansion. So what in this first half led to my message? Well Scream 3 pivots on a new invention in the world of Scream with the usually Roger Jackson modifying voice changer now having the profoundly ridiculous ability to modify to absolutely any voice the killer wishes. As a conceit this is absurdity at its finest, however the opening of this film does highlight how crafty and fun a conceit it is. This first sequence featuring Liev Schreiber does kick of the film for me to a great start, however the cracks very quickly begin to show as the film continues down its path. This first hour has so much going for it to begin with though, with a fun commentary upon remakes and sequels, a neat setting of the Hollywood soundstage of Stab 3 (sending us back to Woodsboro in a kind of sort of way), whilst also having an abundance of fun cameos and references as the series is of course at this point expected to do. With also the Jay and Silent Bob cameo; arguably the worst and most random and painfully cringey cameo in a studio movie I may have ever seen. Parker Posey is a clear standout as an amalgamation of stars in the character of Jennifer Jolie (an unknowing manifestation of Brad Pitt’s perfectly named woman). However the films flaws ultimately end up outweighing its strengths. A deeply convoluted and awkward re-introduction of Randy has never worked for me. And in the end as aforementioned the final mansion sequence is a deeply dull and un-interesting affair, culminating in the series worst Ghostface reveal, one that undermines previous characters and slaps the audience in the face with its blatantly cheap writing and un-effective horror commentary. However in one final twist the film gives us the best final moment of any of the films, a beautiful touching note of hope and an epically touching final chord on the tragic arc of Sidney Prescott as a survivor. That is somewhat undone by the fourth film, so thank god the fourth film wasn’t terrible.
Scream 4 (2011)
Scream 4 for me personally is a bit of a mixed bag. It’s greatest strength for me is also it’s greatest weakness; we’re completely back to barebones Scream as a slasher whodunit in the town of Woodsboro. It’s a strength because it’s Craven back on full form with the series easily goriest entry and a propulsive narrative, even if we know all the beats, with interesting twists and a clear focus from Craven on absolute terror above anything else. For this fourth film we are back to a world of brutality, reminding us with every kill of the horrifying death of Casey Becker, all those movies ago. However as aforementioned, personally, this is also a touch of a weakness, following the very successful second film and the less so third, it leads one to feel like we’re rehashing rather than returning – fundamentally my biggest fear about this new reboot. Thankfully Williamson and Craven go about this with all the right knowingness and the film manages to deliver something still fresh with again another batch of fun and lovable characters. As a slasher the Scream series has always stood out as having characters that you don’t want to see die. It’s not that you ever want people to die in these movies, but sometimes they are so underwritten, cliché or at times annoying, that they can’t help but be seen as machete fodder and so one awaits the demise of them eagerly. The ending fo this film was the best outcome of the series constant issues with re-writes and studio issues, here the extended prologue is of course not as tantalising or as intriguing as the original conceived Williamson idea, but with the help of (he’s back!) Krueger once more we get a fun and knowing conclusion that pays off the arc of this specific villain with intriguing flare, whilst also giving us an all-time line for Sidney and a perfect capper for the series. But....
Oh
Wait.... It seems there’s more...
And so what will this fifth entry bring? A stupid, confusing, original eradicating numberless title? Of course, as all these bloody legacy sequels can't help but do. But here's hoping a return to mastery, because for me Craven (Rest In Peace) and Williamson not being anywhere near this project does make one worried, no matter the calibre that the reboot does have in front and behind of its blood-stained lens. Look, my black gloved fingers are crossed and my knife and mask are ready!
- - Thomas Carruthers
0 Comments