Scream 4 Review

I was absolutely shocked by how much I hated “Scream 4.”

Trust me when I say that I WANTED to love it. I was 14 when the funny, scary, all-around outstanding original “Scream” came out, so it was right in my teenaged wheelhouse. On top of that, I thought “Scream 2” had some pretty strong moments (that opening sequence in the movie theatre is still chill-inducing) before a weak ending. Meanwhile, “Scream 3” was…a movie. (Seriously though, Parker Posey was the only good thing in it.)

Either way, I was excited for “Scream 4.” The original cast, director and (most importantly) writer were back! Even better, “Scream 4” appeared to share an excellent sense of timing with “Scream.”

When “Scream” came out in 1996, the slasher/horror movie genre was all but dead at the box office. Director Wes Craven and screenwriter Kevin Williamson injected new life into the genre by cleverly deconstructing its conventions AND delivering a strong horror movie in its own right. Fast forward to 2011. The last “Saw” movie limped into theatres less than a year ago and Hollywood has pretty much stopped remaking Japanese horror flicks featuring creepy ghost kids. It seemed like the perfect time for “Scream 4” to come along and give its horror movie colleagues a kick in the ass.

Instead, “Scream 4” is the person who was hanging out with a group of friends, had a perfect opportunity to say something witty or make a perfect comment, but couldn’t come up with anything until it was too late. This has happened to all of us. There was even a “Seinfeld” episode about this.

The perfect example is the movie’s opening sequence, which I won’t spoil here except to say that it takes aim at “Saw” and its many sequels…and at people who talk during movies.

I totally agree with the movie’s observation that most horror flicks these days — especially the torture porn stuff from the “Saw” and “Hostel” franchises — aren’t so much scary as they are simply gross. The only problem is that EVERYONE pretty much agrees with that not-so-biting insight…which is why both of those franchises are dead. This kind of satire might’ve actually been more effective if it had been done when the “Saw” movies were at the height of their popularity.

There are two major problems: 1.) Where the original “Scream” succeeded both as a satire of slasher movies AND as a great, stand-alone horror/mystery, “Scream 4” fails at both. 2.) Once “Scream 4” actually starts, it’s only slightly better than the intentionally-bad fake-outs from the beginning.

The plot revolves around Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) returning to Woodsboro on a tour to promote her book about surviving the wrath of the Ghostface killer(s). Meanwhile, Sheriff Dewey Riley (David Arquette) is now married to a bored, insecure Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox).

We also meet Sidney’s cousin Jill (Emma Roberts), who serves as a connection to the movie’s new cast of young characters. (Fresh blood!) That includes Jill’s friends Kirby (Hayden Panettiere) and Olivia (Marielle Jaffe,who was CLEARLY only cast so she could strip down to her underwear before being attacked), as well as Jill’s ex-boyfriend Trevor (Nico Tortorella).

There’s also Charlie (Rory Culkin) and Robbie (Erik Knudsen) a pair of smug tech-savvy movie geeks along to explain the new rules (throw out all the old rules!) and generally continue to give a bad name to respectable movie geeks like yours truly.

Some of the performers managed to deliver vibrant performances. I liked what Cox brought to the table —probably because her character seemed as annoyed as I was in the theatre — as well as Panettiere (strong and spunky, despite a truly inexplicable hairstyle) and Alison Brie of “Community” as Sidney’s foul-mouthed publicist. The most notable thing I can say about Campbell is that she still looks really good after several years away from the spotlight. Meanwhile, the only thing Arquette’s fan-favorite Dewey gets to do is arrive late at murder scenes and run his hand through his hair.

Unfortunately, the movie couldn’t decide if it wanted to be a sequel or a reboot. “Scream 4” most closely resembles a sequel because the three main characters are here and it’s a continuation of the previous movies’ storylines. However, the killer’s motives — by far the WEAKEST in any of the three previous movies, except maybe “Scream 2” — seem to strongly suggest that this movie wanted to be a reboot.

It’s that kind of non-committal push and pull that ultimately doomed the movie. Did “Scream 4” want to be a sequel or a reboot? Did it want to be scary or funny? Even the rare effective kill or set piece was undermined by a bad joke like “F--- Bruce Willis.” How current! It seems like Craven and Williamson couldn’t decide, so they accomplished neither. And I think they accomplished even less with this disappointing effort.

I know a lot of people will enjoy “Scream 4” purely for the nostalgia factor, but I’m bummed that what started out as a cutting edge franchise is now the cinematic equivalent of the 300th person to make a spoof video of Rebecca Black’s “Friday.”

Scream 4…D