Connect with us
Scream 4 Scream 4 Scream 4 Scream 4

Film

With ‘Scream 5’ Announced, Let’s Look Back at ‘Scream 4’

Published

on

‘Scream 4′ is Bloodier, Smarter, Better and Just Plain Scarier Than all Three Before It

This isn’t a comedy, this is a horror movie. People live, People die, people run, but more importantly people scream in Wes Craven’s fourth installment. In horror’s most self-reflexive and in some ways most successful horror franchise, Scream 4 is bloodier, smarter, better and just plain scarier than all three before it. In an era of reboots and remakes, Scream 4 treats its fans with an entry as salient as the original. More importantly, Scream 4 obeys the number one rule: “Don’t fuck with the original.”

“You’re addressing a generation of young fans, but also a generation that has gone with you for three, as well as a decade worth of other films. You have to be as good as, or better than those films.” – Wes Craven

Much like Scream, Scream 4 is a rarity and more than a simple winking nod to films from the past. The secret ingredient is effortlessly merging humour with genuine scares around a story taken seriously. Unlike most slasher films, characters are fleshed out, and you care who lives and dies, so the tension is high throughout, and the fate of the characters actually matters.

Scream 4 may not feature a scene that matches the masterfully conceived and terrifying stand-alone opening sequence featuring Drew Barrymore from the original, but what it does offer is one hundred and eleven minutes of nail-biting suspense. While the first entry spent too much time with characters cocking guns and spraying bullets, in what is supposed to be a slasher film, the fourth installment paints the screen red with gallons of blood. Scream 4 earns its R rating since the film’s many stabbings don’t cut away from showing the penetrating blade. It cuts and it cuts deep.

scream4

Wes Craven and writer Kevin Williamson worked hard to re-imagine familiar territory and do a superb job in bringing the franchise up to date. Scream 4 boasts a witty script, one that kills off the genre’s clichés with panache. And while it displays some of the same attributes present in its predecessors, the film’s references to social networking sites, it’s use of mobile phones, portable digital cameras, live internet feeds not only help in making it more current but for once these tools are used in intelligent and constructive ways to actually help move the story along. After all, the best horror films have always reflected the times in which they were made.

scream4image

Scream 4 isn’t just a horror movie about horror movies, but a commentary on how they’ve changed since the first Scream was released. As the tagline reads, “New Decade, New Rules.” Sex doesn’t necessarily equal death; ‘I’ll be right back” can mean you most likely will return; the unexpected is the new cliché; everyone is expendable — including victim royalty — and running up the stairs might be your best option this time around.

scream4rules

Much like the original, the plot manages to cast suspicion on a barrage of characters and there are enough red herrings for five more movies. Craven reunites the lead trio (Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, David Arquette), and introduces a new cast whose stellar efforts carry a critical role in securing the film’s success. Eric Knudsen and Rory Culkin star as the most technologically savvy of Scream’s teens; the duo rightfully replaces the much beloved and missed Jamie Kennedy as the prototypical film-geeks. Rounding out the rest of the teen cast is newcomer Marielle Jaffe, Lucy Hale, Shenae Grimes, Nico Tortorella, Alison Brie, Emma Roberts, and Hayden Panettiere. And that’s just the start: Adam Brody, Mary Shelton, and Anthony Anderson all play deputies and two-time Academy Award nominee Mary McDonnell stars as Aunt Kate. Of course, Scream 4 wouldn’t be proper without cameos so look out for Kristen Bell, Anna Paquin, and some ghosts from the past.

Kickstarting with a movie within a movie within a movie within a movie and so on, the film piles through a dozen set pieces, heavy doses of blood, and a sweaty workout of self-references. Once the frenzy of artifice and self-congratulatory winks are all said and done, the climax shifts into auto-drive relying on the basic genre tropes to unveil “the big reveal” that Ghostface is in fact … (insert your own speculation as to who the killer or killers are here). For some, the ending may disappoint, but in my opinion, it perfectly reflects the past ten years of the genre.

Scream 4

Scream was a box office success, grossing $173 million internationally but it actually only made $6.3-million over its opening weekend, a disappointing figure for a film whose budget hovered around $15 million. It was word of mouth that made Scream a cultural cinematic phenomenon, selling out theaters three weeks after its initial release. Scream arrived at the perfect moment. Slasher films were no longer commercially viable. The first film was released in a decade that offered some of the worst horror films ever made. Creativity was at an all-time low. Fans were sick of seeing the same story featuring a killer chasing down a group of good looking teens in either the suburbs or a cabin in the woods. Scream took those very ideas and twisted it in such a clever way that even though we were watching the very same slasher film we’d seen hundreds of times before, audiences didn’t care. Fans appreciated how the film commented on such a fixed genre while operating as a sharp example of what a slasher film is. And like Scream, Scream 4 also came at the right moment. With the sudden and unwelcome rise of torture porn in the ’00s, audiences were craving some good old-fashioned Craven.

For genre enthusiasts, Scream 4 is a hard left lead followed by a right cross, a horror movie that slices its way through expectations and, a sequel that takes a stab at altering the shape of horror films for another decade.

Ricky D

Some people take my heart, others take my shoes, and some take me home. I write, I blog, I podcast, I edit, and I design websites. Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Goomba Stomp and the NXpress Nintendo Podcast. Former Editor-In-Chief of Sound On Sight, and host of several podcasts including the Game of Thrones and Walking Dead podcasts, as well as the Sound On Sight and Sordid Cinema shows. There is nothing I like more than basketball, travelling, and animals. You can find me online writing about anime, TV, movies, games and so much more.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Advertisement

Film

‘Greener Grass’ Is a Pain in The Ass

Maybe get high for this one

Published

on

Greener Grass

Co-written, co-directed, and co-starring Jocelyn DeBoer and Dawn Luebbe as two soccer moms who battle it out over who has the more perfect suburban life, Greener Grass looks like it creators are having a lot of fun. Possibly more fun than anyone actually watching the film, a surrealist satire of suburban life that is neither cutting enough to be insightful nor funny enough to be worthwhile. While watchable thanks to its strange, cartoonish world-building and bold production design, it ultimately fails both as comedy and as meaningful commentary. 

Greener Grass starts with Jill (Jocelyn DeBoer) and Lisa (Dawn Luebbe) watching their kids play soccer; Jill has a new baby, which Lisa hadn’t previously noticed. In the first sign that this world is completely askew, Jill just gives her baby to Lisa as a present. This is one of the least weird things that happens in a film with little concern towards logical construction or narrative coherence. 

Featuring a soundtrack giving off serious original Twin Peaks vibes, the world of Greener Grass is one of pure strangeness: cars are replaced by golf carts, characters wear matching coloured suits, and the whole town gives off a twinkling aura reminiscent of classic television adverts. Jill and Lisa are classic models of femininity, at one point switching husbands to kiss as a comment on how generic their men seem. Nonetheless, they are constantly competing, with the ever-susceptible Jill constantly on the lookout for a way that she can finally improve her life, while Lisa tries to iron out her own familial issues. Sadly, neither Jill nor Lisa ever make it past their sketch-show characterisations, making them at first unrelatable, before eventually becoming straight-up annoying.

Greener Grass

There is a sense here that more care has been put into crafting this weird universe then telling a coherent story of what actually happens in it; Greener Grass mostly using its setting as an excuse to string together a bunch of middling skits. At first, the randomness seems freeing; when you watch so many films for a living, B constantly following A can get rather repetitive. This is a world where anything can happen and nothing is explained. For example, when Jill’s son turns into a dog — suddenly leaving the woman who once had two children with none at all — the how of it all is never asked, and the event is instead used as a means to explore Jill’s relationship to Lisa. Yet, once it becomes obvious that there is no true connective tissue between absurdities (like you might find in the tightly-wound films of Yorgos Lanthimos), the world of Greener Grass grows easily tiring — even moreso considering its barrage of adolescent, amateurish, awkward and atrocious attempts at comedy. 

Comedy is a hard thing to quantify. Sometimes it simply boils down to whether something makes you laugh…or at least smile. While the madcap world of Greener Grass is aesthetically delightful, the jokes can come across as painfully awful — the kind of try-too-hard skits you find in the bottom basement of a bar at the Edinburgh Fringe. Undeniably an each-to-their-own kind of situation, its an even bigger shame that these jokes cannot even be corralled into something actually interesting. 

The obvious influence here, in both form and construction (featuring a subplot with a mysterious killer), is David Lynch. Yet, while Twin Peaks (at least in season 1 and The Return) and Blue Velvet used that weirdness to expose the darker underbelly of American life, it’s hard to say what Greener Grass is actually saying about the nature of suburban aspiration. While it seems that the point is to show how suburban life is already kind of absurd, dialing the zaniness up to eleven doesn’t hammer in that point any further. It comes as little surprise that the feature film is adapted from a short. Perhaps it should’ve stayed that way. 

Continue Reading

Film

‘In Fabric’ is a Mesmerizing Satire of Consumerism

TIFF 2018

Published

on

Our obsession with shopping and consumerism is going to be the death of us all — at least, director Peter Strickland seems to think so. The constantly increasing Black Friday crowds and coupon-clipping masses will rue the day they bought that really nice pair of pants at such a great price. Or in the case of Strickland’s latest cocktail of absurdity and horror, a beautiful red dress. In Fabric is a phantasmagoric allegory for our growing obsession with buying into our wants, and losing our souls in the process — and it’s about as weirdly fantastic as it sounds.

Though Strickland may refute that he consciously went for evoking giallo films when making In Fabric (which he did at a Q&A that took place at the midnight screening of the Toronto International Film Festival), it’s difficult not to see the influence. While there isn’t much here in terms of plotting — a red dress makes its way to different owners, affecting their lives in different, negative ways — Strickland focuses more on illuminating the characters’ lives while they have this haunted outfit.

The only real connection between stories is the department store that sells the dress, filled with bald women wearing wigs and saying everything in as complicated and absurd of a way as possible. They move through the interior of the building using dumbwaiters, and are managed by a creepy old man who is a professional at customer service. The same model can be found throughout an in-store catalogue that showcases all the latest fashions; it’s an eerily intricate nightmare of normality. The women all essentially cast spells on their customers to get them to buy something, except the spells are just really flattering comments and exceptional customer service. Strickland strikes right at the heart of consumerism with his weird fixation on the ways we’re lulled into parting with our money.

In Fabric

Standing out is the way that the rich atmosphere is presented. In Fabric blends a deadly cocktail of sensuality and dread in every frame, from a red dress lighting up an entire room with its bright colors, to images of its smooth texture overlapping over morbid imagery; every moment in Strickland’s fourth feature is a delight. It’s not necessarily style over substance, but one of the many ways In Fabric falters is how indebted to its editing and visuals it becomes, especially by the second half. Berberian Sound Studio also fell into the same trappings, but where that was used for narrative purposes, In Fabric utilizes it solely for a more textured atmosphere. This lends it a strong voice, but one that drags on too long.

The question that many will wonder as the movie progresses: is this is horror or comedy? The truth is, In Fabric falls more on the comedic side of things. It’s not exactly a scary movie, but it evokes a lot of haunting imagery. Strickland has always written from a more humorous point of view, with maybe the exception being his debut film, Katalin Varga, but this marks the first film of his to just lean into the laughs. It’s absurd and preposterous, but grounded in something we can all relate to in some manner — either the customer service side of things, or being swindled into buying something we don’t need.

The appropriately campy performance from Fatma Mohamed as a saleswoman who manages to convince different people to purchase the possessed red dress is one of the greatest delights of In Fabric. On top of that are some of the weirder concepts that the film latches onto and decides to explore — like the semantics of washing machine repair. The monotonous descriptions of washing machines in disarray, and subsequently what parts and procedures are needed to fix them, offers a glimpse at how monotony can be hypnotic.

In Fabric

There’s an allure to everything here, as even its smallest jokes feel representative of some larger conversation about the items we purchase and the meaning (or lack thereof) that we attach to them. Peter Strickland exists within a very unique form of cinema. Here he’s at his most reverential for the medium, but also posits his most ambitious and relevant statements. There may not be more than just a simple self-awareness to the act of consumerism, but Strickland at least offers an entertaining satire of an industry we all submerge ourselves into for the smallest deal.

Editor’s Note. This article was originally published on September 17, 2018, as part of our coverage of the Toronto International Film Festival.

Continue Reading

Film

‘The Painted Bird’ is An Incredibly Grim Portrait of Anti-Semitism

From 14 Films Around the World Festival: Not for the faint of heart, the latest film from Václav Marhoul, is a deep dive into human misery without much love, hope or grace.

Published

on

The Painted Bird

A grueling epic of misery, The Painted Bird (based on the novel of the same name by Jerzy Kosiński) makes Come and See look like a children’s book. Taking place in the Czech Republic during the end of WWII, it finds one young Jewish boy on an odyssey to find his family, suffering indignity after indignity on the way there. Nearly all human deprivation is here — rape, murder, bestiality — which is made all the worse by its grim inevitability. It’s a difficult, brutal watch; the kind of film I’d recommend, but would find difficult to defend if challenged.

The Painted Bird is not like other birds. Due to its strange plumage, the other birds get jealous. They surround the painted bird, and they kill it. This metaphor suggests that due to the savagery of Central Europe during WWII, anything that is different — whether Slavic, gay, gypsy, or Jewish — must be surrounded and bullied and ultimately destroyed. 

Our unnamed young protagonist (Petr Kotlar) is one such painted bird. The film starts with him holding a ferret while running through the woods, being chased by other boys. They beat him up and burn his pet to a crisp. He then comes home to his aunt, who tells him it’s his fault. Things get much, much, much worse from there. 

It turns out that the boy has been sent away to the countryside by his parents, evidently for his own protection. When his aunt dies, he finds himself completely adrift, relying on the kindness of strangers to get by. The big problem is that these strangers aren’t too kind at all. In fact, they are kind of evil, with nearly each one finding a new way to abuse the young lad. Told in a completely unsentimental style, The Painted Bird is an incredibly difficult watch — yet, its disturbing scenes aren’t merely there to exploit or titillate, but to lay witness to the horrors of recent history. 

The Painted Bird

The story is told in an episodic format, with each chapter bookmarked by one or two names. Each one brings a new sense of dread: will this person be kind, or just another monster? The genius of the screenplay is how each episode seems to change the young lad just a little bit more, showing how one’s view on life can be completely altered by experience. 

Credit must go to Kotlar, who turns in all-time great child performance, Bresson-like in the simple and pure way he interprets the role. This is the right choice; if it aimed for histrionics, it would have been unbearable. As it is, it feels inevitable. Like The Irishman, the weighty runtime here really immerses us into the young boy’s life; make it an hour shorter, and his transformation wouldn’t have anything near the same effect. 

The epic-length is matched by the epic 35mm black-and-white-cinematography. Making use of a huge anamorphic widescreen, our protagonist is often situated to the side of the frame while horrific things going on in the background, as if to stress his unwilling participation in a degraded world. Unlike the cinematography, the film’s moral conclusions are a complete grey zone, depicting horrific things that show how terrible the war was — and what the disease of antisemitism led to — without ever editorializing or telling us how to feel. One can only watch and watch and watch, powerless to stop the awful things from happening. 

The Painted Bird makes it absolutely clear that antisemitism was not just limited to the Nazis. Nearly everyone seems to hate the young lad, simply for the unavoidable fact of his birth. Anti-semitism doesn’t end with the Nazi’s demise either; the transition to peacetime does little to placate the locals’ hatred of Jews. Coming at a time when hatred of Jewish people seems on the rise and being weaponized, The Painted Bird devastatingly shows us the inevitable end of such hate. While it definitely courts controversy, there is a method to such relentless misery. This is the story of survival. The kind of story that should never be told again.

‘The Painted Birdplayed as part of 14 Films Around The World Festival at Kino in der KulturBrauerei in Berlin, Germany, a special selection of 14 films from 14 countries from Cannes, Locarno, Berlinale, Venice and more.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending