“Scream” is neither a reboot nor a sequel to the landmark 1996 meta slasher thriller “Scream,” which it shares a name with. The term requel refers to a franchise extension that’s poised, on a kitchen knife blade, between the past and present, between something jumpy and new while also paying homage
That’s not even mentioning the fact that there was a character in the original Scream named Ghostface, who looked identical to Billy. The young individuals in the first Scream were living out their own slasher film, with a masked killer who stood for death (he was like Edvard Munch’s The Scream turned into a piece of costume-shop kits
There’s a lot of that sort of thing in the new “Scream.” A young partygoer goes into the basement to get some beer, which is followed by a friend who asks, Don’t you know not to go into the basement? “Never trust the love interest” is one of rule number one when determining suspects. But
The original “Scream” was released 26 years ago, and you could describe it as being pitched to the VCR generation or the Cinemax generation: that is, those who were first introduced to trash horror sequels like M&Ms, deconstructing their ingredients and mechanisms, enjoying the regulations they imposed through sheer repetition when they were children.
So, what has changed for this generation? According to “Scream,” the Internet has given rise to a new school of fan culture in which movies are still endlessly analyzed and deconstructed, but now with a kind of primal cynicism about how and why they were made in the first place. Film fans are obsessed with sequels because most end
In the new “Scream,” which is set in Woodsboro, California once more, there’s a lot of discussion about the horror franchise that began with “Stab,” a film based on the Woodsboro massacre (which was referenced in “Scream 2”). There have now been seven “Stab” sequels, many of them subpar.
Even if I thought “Scream 2” was excellent, I’d take the film’s self-satirizing thesis to heart: that even though slasher sequels, particularly those that are as shivery and playful as “Scream,” have a built-in we’ve-seen-it-all cheesiness.
The new “Scream” may be the first horror film to utilize fan service as a form of mockery. Is it entertaining? In general, yes. Is it surprising? It keeps you guessing who the killer is and playing that game is a part of the film’s tension, but it’s based on the fact that the movie can stay one step.
The new “Scream” is just as good as the original “Scream” was — it keeps the excitement of the first “Scream” flying in the air like a blood-drenched balloon — but it’s essentially a rehashing of an old sleight-of-hand dread plan. Except that now it feels brand new again
The film was directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett, who made a part of the 2012 cult anthology horror film “V/H/S.” They begin our smiling celebration of trash horrors with Tara (Jenny Ortega) in the amusing and effective opening sequence.
The murderer, like Drew Barrymore in “Scream,” keeps calling Tara, who continues to resist playing his games as an individual at home; she is a snob who looks down her nose at slasher flicks and prefers more intellectual horror; her idea of a scary movie is “The Babadook.” In desperation, she
The killer, Ghostface, quivers as always in a way that strangely humanizes his homicidal plastic shroud, and he emerges from the woodwork to attack Tara. She survives the attack, and we meet the film’s gallery of friends and suspects immediately afterward. Sam (Melissa Barrera), Tara’s older sister, might appear to be an
Sam is a protective sister who suffers from psychotic flashbacks. Her lover is Richie (Jack Quaid), who is so tall and pleasant and curly-haired in a later-day Judge Reinhold way that…well, it might be him. (Anyone could be Sam’s companion in these films.)
Mikey Madison’s Amber (heavenly) is a hellion, and Mindy, who has centered her film-fan-in-chief arcana, is the sort of person whose hyper rationality may be a facade. She’s watching “Stab” on TV with a hapless character laying on the couch who is told to “Turn
Would Mindy’s audience scream, “Turn around!”? I could be wrong, but I don’t think the target audience for the fresh sequel to “Scream” is a talk-back-to-the-screen generation; that would be uncool. Of course, one of the reasons people enjoy watching scary movies is to have their cool
The first one, while it has shocks, jolts, and one clever sequence in which a character is poking around a kitchen and we anticipate the killer to jump into the frame but he keeps waiting and timing his attack, stretching out the tension like taffy.
The film does its best to integrate Cox, Arquette, and Campbell into the action, but they feel inevitably like tribal elders we’re supposed to admire because of their “Scream” heritage, even as their very dynamic is mocked with a cutting reference to bringing Jamie Lee Curtis back to the “Halloween” series.
“Scream” is a movie clever enough to hide its mechanisms. But I’m not sure if it’s cleverly postmodern or just transparent in doing so.