And this will somehow allow for a resurgence of the Scary Movie franchise.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

STOP THE MADNESS

Tatsuma: I know it's an easy film to bash because it's so cliché, but the first Scream movie was actually a very good slasher in its own right. It didn't try to be a serious horror movie, it clearly was an homage to the genre (I mean, from the janitor dressed as Freddy Krueger to "Don't Fear the Reaper" playing), delivering a few good scares, a lot of gore, it really was on top of its game.

However, the two following sequels took themselves too seriously, especially the third movie, and where nowhere near as good as the original, but still, they weren't awful. I think a lot of flak and hatred this movie gets is because it both spanned horrid movies trying to ride its coattail (see: late-90s mainstream horror slashers) and horrid parodies.

Wes Craven is directing and producing this one, and it's the same writer as well. I'm not excited about this, I don't think I'll see it in the cinema unless it gets really strong reviews from Fangoria and Bloody Disgusting, but of all the movie sequels to get angry about, this isn't one.

well said

Tatsuma: I know it's an easy film to bash because it's so cliché, but the first Scream movie was actually a very good slasher in its own right.

For the first ten minutes. Then it turned into the first of an entire genre of copycat "horror" movies that Rob Zombie would later refer to as "big-budget Nancy Drew mysteries."

It had great potential, but right after Drew Barrymore gets stabbed, you might as well turn it off and pretend the rest of the movie was that good, because the rest of it was pretty disappointing.

I've been wondering what ever happened to Neve Campbell. She was big for maybe four or five years and then disappeared.

Everyone knows the villain in Scream 4 is a chimp.
/obscure?

VwlssWndr: Tatsuma: I know it's an easy film to bash because it's so cliché, but the first Scream movie was actually a very good slasher in its own right.

For the first ten minutes. Then it turned into the first of an entire genre of copycat "horror" movies that Rob Zombie would later refer to as "big-budget Nancy Drew mysteries."



While you may not like the film, you admit yourself that it led the way. It was the first good film to treat horror as self referential. Whatever copycat films came after it doesn't diminish the first one.

And really, as much as I love Rob, it's not like his Halloween remakes are breaking new ground.

pcat: Everyone knows the villain in Scream 4 is a chimp.
/obscure?

I prefer "Good Will Hunting II: Hunting Season"

the only way they could make this interesting to me is if Sydney winds up being the killer this time. have someone dressed up like "ghost-face" harassing her, but have that turn out to be a crank who was just trying to mess with her head, and she starts using him as cover for sexy revenge.

mmmm, sexy revenge.

DjangoStonereaver: better than
the splatterporn non-horror of things like SAW {N+1}

Does this mean that the first one was actually good? Or that the yet-to-be-made next one will be bad, no matter what? Or both?

DjangoStonereaver: Bee Roo Ga Ho Shee: DjangoStonereaver: better than
the splatterporn non-horror of things like SAW {N+1}

Does this mean that the first one was actually good? Or that the yet-to-be-made next one will be bad, no matter what? Or both?

Crap! I forgot to define N! Standard Integer, starting with 0.

/Never liked structured programming

I assumed it started with 1, since there are no "prequels", thus you thought all of them sucked (even future ones) except for the first one, which naturally led me to scrunch up my face into a constipated jumble of confusion and proclaim "Waaaaahhh?!?"

I was 13 when the first Scream was released, and it was a perfect age to enjoy it. And this one will probably be perfect for todays 13-year-olds too.

Well now hang on a second, since every successive movie has the same plot [zomg, one of my FRIENDS is the killer?? how unexpected!] and the rest is just trying out ways to off people on screen, isn't EVERY sequel a remake?

Just saying.

Kohl: Well now hang on a second, since every successive movie has the same plot [zomg, one of my FRIENDS is the killer?? how unexpected!] and the rest is just trying out ways to off people on screen, isn't EVERY sequel a remake?

Just saying.

Technically, if you leave out the killer as a whole and just have teenagers dying, you have the Final Destination series. Which, for my money, was a lot more interesting even if the plot is inherently flawed: exactly how does one escape an abstract concept such as death anyway? Dramatically, it's quite boring because there's no real suspense.

Kohl: Well now hang on a second, since every successive movie has the same plot [zomg, one of my FRIENDS is the killer?? how unexpected!] and the rest is just trying out ways to off people on screen, isn't EVERY sequel a remake?

Just saying.

Scream 2's killer is the mother of the boyfriend/killer from Scream...

/Just saying

Rocktacula: While you may not like the film, you admit yourself that it led the way. It was the first good film to treat horror as self referential.

Not the first - Wes Craven's New Nightmare predates (and set the stage for) Scream.

Already Disturbed: Rocktacula: While you may not like the film, you admit yourself that it led the way. It was the first good film to treat horror as self referential.

Not the first - Wes Craven's New Nightmare predates (and set the stage for) Scream. was unwatchably bad.

VwlssWndr: Tatsuma: I know it's an easy film to bash because it's so cliché, but the first Scream movie was actually a very good slasher in its own right.

For the first ten minutes. Then it turned into the first of an entire genre of copycat "horror" movies that Rob Zombie would later refer to as "big-budget Nancy Drew mysteries."

It had great potential, but right after Drew Barrymore gets stabbed, you might as well turn it off and pretend the rest of the movie was that good, because the rest of it was pretty disappointing.

I saw 1000 Corpses and Halloween.
Rob Zombie should stick to music.

And they need to call it STAB.

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener:
STOP THE MADNESS

Do you know what could really stop the madness?


The Weinstein Company To Restructure(Nikki Finke)
Just this week, a very reliable source confided that The Weinstein Co may need to hold a fire sale or it could go out of business by August. Trouble is, we all have been hearing rumors that TWC may go under, and yet it stays afloat.

Does this mean more or less cheap schlock fests like Scary Cox Arquette? Dunno. But if Weinstein goes under, Scary Movie 4 will be a one-off.

pcat: Everyone knows the villain in Scream 4 is a chimp.
/obscure?

But Market research says everyone loves Monkeys.

/farkin Miramax

DjangoStonereaver: But, even at they're worst, the SCREAM movies are better than
the splatterporn non-horror of things like SAW {N+1} and
HOSTEL.

Though Saw is certainly deserving of the Torture Porn tag, I've always wondered why Hostel got saddled with that tag too. Yeah, it's certainly very torture-based, but it also has a pretty dark sense of humor as well. I thought it was just as funny as it was gross.


Didn't see Hostel 2, though.

pcat: Everyone knows the villain in Scream 4 is a chimp.
/obscure?

Farking Miramax. CUT!

caperbear 2009-06-09 08:28:28 AM
the only way they could make this interesting to me is if Sydney winds up being the killer this time. have someone dressed up like "ghost-face" harassing her, but have that turn out to be a crank who was just trying to mess with her head, and she starts using him as cover for sexy revenge.

mmmm, sexy revenge.

They did something like that in the new My Bloody Valentine.
It was really predictable and totally sucked.

So, Scream 4 II, then Scream 4 III, ??

Tatsuma 2009-06-09 11:51:17 AM
Heroic Poser: I saw 1000 Corpses and Halloween.
Rob Zombie should stick to music.

... do yourself a very big favor: See The Devil's Rejects as soon as possible. It is, by far, one of the top 5 (possibly top 3) best exploitation movie of the last 30 years. One of the top 30 best endings of the last decade as well.

While I did like The Devil's Rejects you can't actually think that it was original or had one of the best endings ever. Zombie ripped off more movies than Lucas.
Being killed while listening to Freebird isn't exactly epic or anything.

The only way I'm watching it is if they gave it a title like:

Scream 4: Courtney Cox and David Arquette's characters finally get killed... for the whole movie.

I was in HS when Scream came out... hollywood.. let it go. It was a great movie for it's time but it needs to go away now.

/What's your favorite scary movie???
//New movies could use more Rose McGowan though

Pucca: caperbear 2009-06-09 08:28:28 AM
the only way they could make this interesting to me is if Sydney winds up being the killer this time. have someone dressed up like "ghost-face" harassing her, but have that turn out to be a crank who was just trying to mess with her head, and she starts using him as cover for sexy revenge.

mmmm, sexy revenge.

They did something like that in the new My Bloody Valentine.
It was really predictable and totally sucked.

Well, good. that's two movies i don't need to see, then.

robsul82 2009-06-09 01:28:36 PM
Pucca: Tatsuma 2009-06-09 11:51:17 AM
Heroic Poser: I saw 1000 Corpses and Halloween.
Rob Zombie should stick to music.

... do yourself a very big favor: See The Devil's Rejects as soon as possible. It is, by far, one of the top 5 (possibly top 3) best exploitation movie of the last 30 years. One of the top 30 best endings of the last decade as well.

While I did like The Devil's Rejects you can't actually think that it was original or had one of the best endings ever. Zombie ripped off more movies than Lucas.
Being killed while listening to Freebird isn't exactly epic or anything.

The Devil's Rejects is the best American horror film in years. Ever since, Rob's been pretty focused on showing us how much he doesn't understand the original Halloween.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about Devil's Rejects. It was nothing special.

How bad is Rob Zombie's 2005 murderfest The Devil's Rejects is? Well, you have to go back to how and how long it took for him to get House Of 1,000 Corpses (unreviewed) issued. Originally, Universal Pictures picked it up and wanted to have it as part of their Horror legacy. It kept getting more and more delayed until the studio took a later look at it and dropped it. What would have spelled disaster was soon forgotten when it found new distribution and was a surprise moderate hit. It was not that good either, but lucked out by riding a mostly unrecognized cycle of Horror films that are like Snuff films where people watch to see the torture and killing without any ironic distance as given characters are tortured and killed.



Part of the influence is a screwy misinterpretation of what Tobe Hooper achieved in his 1974 classic The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, one of the most imitated films now ever made. Sure, it had influences too, but the low-budget classic just stuck with people and has been rediscovered by new generations of filmmakers since, including musician Zombie. One of the greatest mistakes in the Texas Chain Saw sequels have been that they were shot in 35mm film instead of the original 16mm, making them less realistic. When the classic was remake, original cinematographer Daniel Pearl used 35mm, but insisted on a new approach that made that version a moderate hit and curio.



Here, Zombie makes all the same pedestrian mistakes the remakes and rip-offs have since 1975, thinking he is being effectively retro when he is just doing the same thing that literally hundreds of others have been doing all this time. Ripping off and recycling Texas Chain Saw without admitting it does not make you cleverer than obviously ripping off George Romero's original Night Of The Living Dead in endless homage. First, the set up.



Instead of a cannibal family, we get a family of killers taking on the local authorities ruthlessly, beginning with a very obvious sequence (so much so that what will happen is telegraphed by the freeze-frames used in the 1970s mode more as cliché than clever homage or application) as Baby Firefly (Sheri Moon Zombie) pretends to be injured on the road to attack an innocent person who is instantly stabbed in the back to death. This is a sequel to House Of 1,000 Corpses, but you don't need to see the original to see why this is so lame.



Then, they go on their rampage, killing many of the local sheriff's men and not stopping until he gets as crazy and murderous for the obvious, lame showdown. Even in the uncut version, the gore has no context. Also, when this was more original in the 1970s (including a few good knock-offs to be reviewed later) it was supposed to play on the fears of the counterculture, Vietnam, Watergate, Kent State, Rock Music (when it was still considered dangerous, something Zombie's career has not begun to reinfuse the genre with and probably never will with More Human Than Human being licensed to the point of idiocy) and political assassinations is missing, so all the murders and signature 1970s shots & editing happen for no good reason, with no context and no good point.



It is actually embarrassing how this and the purposely degraded look is done to overkill, pun intended. If it is supposed to offer some kind of great showdown, it fails miserably because of lack of form, suspense and a sort of death worship obsession that happens to the point of being a stupid sick joke. The result is what I have to say is to date, the dumbest Texas Chain Saw Massacre rip-off ever made by a longshot.



It is an extremely watered down version of the 1974 Hooper film for people who could not handle the original or similar films like Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange (1971) and you know you are in big trouble when you get this kind of film with extremely grandiose self-congratulatory statements and quotes. The back of the case describes the climax (if we can call it that after the all the blood as masturbation that has happened up until then) calls it ""one of the most depraved and terrifying showdowns in cinematic history" as if it were cinematic enough to qualify.



By comparison, writer/director David DeFalco's own recent cheap knock-off of Texas Chain Saw based on a 1970s serial killer called Chaos (2005, reviewed elsewhere on this site) did the same thing and actually ripped off the opening text idea. It was really bad, but still actually better than this mess despite its constant incompetence and equally grandiose boastings. Haig and company offer mixed performances since Zombie does not know how much they should act or "act natural" as it were. Instead, it is like some kind of grunt-fest like pro-wrestlers suddenly skipping the gym, skipping baths and taking crystal meth or the like.



How beyond obvious can you get? Very. And all the blood, gore and smugness will never cover it up.

zz9
I prefer "Good Will Hunting II: Hunting Season"

Who is Season and why are they hunting him?


/got nuthin'

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: And this will somehow allow for a resurgence of the Scary Movie franchise.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

STOP THE MADNESS

First thing I thought of. The first one was pretty good though and 2 wasn't bad after that was nigh unwatchable

Tatsuma: ... did you read my post? That was exactly the point of that movie. It was an homage, it was self-referential, it was a paint-by-number self-aware slasher movie with a big budget.

Maybe it was more fun for horror buffs like me, but I had a nice time spotting all the clever references and so on. All and all, it was mindless fun, incredibly better than what other mainstream horror movies had produced since the late 70s and early 80s.

If you want a good horror movie anyway, the general rule is don't watch something that got advertised on tv.

Yeah. Horror buffs like YOU. I was only interested in seeing Scream because I saw it advertised on MTV. Whatever.

I would argue that it was not an homage, but instead a self-aware parody. Most of the "clever references" you mention are explicitly stated in dialogue! It sets up its own pins so that it can knock them down. I didn't think that was "clever" so much as it was force-feeding the audience. Sidney says the formula is "insulting." I disagree; I consider it insulting when a filmmaker feels the need to lead you by the hand to the point they wish to make, instead of thinking you might be smart enough to get it on your own.

Slasher movies were silly enough for lots of reasons, but I never felt that the genre could be improved upon through moments of blatant slapstick. Craven obviously thought differently.

Tatsuma: Even if I agree with Rob here, maybe he should learn how to write, direct and produce a good horror movie before he criticizes others.

Feh. The fact that his turn to horror films has been largely disappointing still does not, in my book, render his opinion wrong, nor does it mean he can't criticize. Ideally, a good filmmaker should notice the flaws in someone's work in order to avoid making the same mistakes. Zombie's heart is in the right place, he's just not doing so hot in actual practice.

Rocktacula: While you may not like the film, you admit yourself that it led the way. It was the first good film to treat horror as self referential. Whatever copycat films came after it doesn't diminish the first one.

Yes, it was the first. The latter films don't diminish the first; I think the first movie diminished itself by being TOO self-referential. It's a post-modernist film, I get it.

I think my disappointment with that film is specifically because of the prologue. The stuff with Drew Barrymore and the boyfriend...that stuff was quality. But it set the stage for a different movie than we ended up with. Dude getting his stomach ripped open at the beginning, that's pretty harsh; but then we got something like 90 minutes of inept killers falling all over each other like a "Three Stooges" short. It opened on a high note and then turned into something else. Too much goofy comedy.

DjangoStonereaver: But, even at they're worst, the SCREAM movies are better than
the splatterporn non-horror of things like SAW {N+1} and
HOSTEL.

I always liked old school monster movies better, anyway.

Frankly, the very first trailer for Saw was intriguing to me -- the ones that were circulated around the time of Sundance, when it was a movie nobody knew about. It looked fiendish and darkly twisted. Needless to say, however, after seeing it once, I've never watched it again or bothered with any of the sequels.

Yet another disappointing "horror" franchise. I won't even bother with Hostel.

therecksays: First thing I thought of. The first one was pretty good though and 2 wasn't bad after that was nigh unwatchable

And then it spawned Date Movie and Epic Movie and Disaster Movie and Meet the Spartans and...

... IT MUST END HERE.

parkerlewis: zz9
I prefer "Good Will Hunting II: Hunting Season"

Who is Season and why are they hunting him?


/got nuthin'

You have to watch Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back to find out...