Review: Scream 4 (2011) exists purely to acknowledge its own pointlessness.

Scream 4
2011
110 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

It is rare that a film spends such a large chunk of its running time basically admonishing its own existence. Yet Wes Craven's return to the world of Scream is not only a relatively unnecessary franchise revival, it wears its uselessness on its sleeve. Call it 'meta' or call it a genuine distaste for those who would demand a fourth installment of this particular series, but Scream 4 shouts early and often about the myriad of ways in which it rips itself off. While it delivers the bare essentials (violent murders, copious blood, pretty people being stalked), it becomes, due to a lack of emotional potency and an unwillingness to take itself particularly seriously, a pale imitation of not only itself, but of those that ripped it off over the last fifteen years. Scream 4 is like a the last couple Michael Jackson albums: it's disheartening seeing the franchise that reinvented the wheel merely doing what its successors did, but at an inferior level.

A look back at the Scream franchise part III. Scream 3: Scared of Columbine's shadow, a horror film series cuts its own throat.

It remains to be seen whether or Scream 4 can become the first breakout mega-smash of 2011, drawing in nostalgic 20-somethings and 30-somethings while bringing along the next generation who grew up watching the first three films on DVD over the last decade. I was invited to Tuesday night's press screening but had to decline due to not being allowed to bring guests (IE - my wife). But in the meantime, let us take a moment to both reflect on the original trilogy as well as discuss how well these films have held up over the years. Needless to say, if you have not seen the first three Scream films, there will be complete and total spoilage. Consider yourself warned...

A look back at the Scream franchise part II. Scream 2: the second time's the charm.

It remains to be seen whether or Scream 4 can become the first breakout mega-smash of 2011, drawing in nostalgic 20-somethings and 30-somethings while bringing along the next generation who grew up watching the first three films on DVD over the last decade. I was invited to Tuesday night's press screening but had to decline due to not being allowed to bring guests (IE - my wife). But in the meantime, let us take a moment to both reflect on the original trilogy as well as discuss how well these films have held up over the years. Needless to say, if you have not seen the first three Scream films, there will be complete and total spoilage. Consider yourself warned...

A look back at the Scream franchise part I. Scream: still entertaining, but with a genuine learning curve.

It remains to be seen whether or Scream 4 can become the first breakout mega-smash of 2011, drawing in nostalgic 20-somethings and 30-somethings while bringing along the next generation who grew up watching the first three films on DVD over the last decade. I was invited to Tuesday night's press screening but had to decline due to not being allowed to bring guests (IE - my wife). But in the meantime, let us take a moment to both reflect on the original trilogy as well as discuss how well these films have held up over the years. These will hopefully run on Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday, leading up to a review of Scream 4 either Friday or Saturday night, depending on when we can get a sitter (we offered to drop Allison off at Rio while mom and dad were across the hall, but she demanded that we come with her... so clingy!). Needless to say, if you have not seen the first three Scream films, there will be complete and total spoilage in. Consider yourself warned... First up, obviously, is the original Scream.

For those who care: Scream 4 gets a new poster.

Scream 4 officially gets a longer, slightly less mediocre trailer.

Shouldn't there be a regulation in Woodsboro against Sydney Prescott returning to town around or on the anniversary of the original 1996 massacre? Oh, and most people don't buzz in before before the entire question is read off on Family Feud, let alone when a psychotic killer is quizzing you over the phone. This is a slightly more stylish and entertaining trailer than the generic teaser that was released late last year. There is a token amount of witty dialogue, everyone looks awfully pretty, and the film seems to be advertising a healthy body count. But, in the end, this doesn't look any less like the desperate cash-in that it probably is. And BOO on the seemingly major spoiler at 1:15, although said performer was obviously far too busy with a lead role on the best comedy on TV and a supporting role on the best drama on TV to join the Scream franchise on a regular basis.

2010 in Review: The 'Worst' Films of the Year.

I use the term 'worst' subjectively, both because I'm stating subjective opinions and because there are plenty of allegedly terrible films that I did not see this year (Yogi Bear, Gulliver's Travels, Sex and the City 2, Little Fockers, Grown Ups, etc). Sadly, this was the first year in as long as I've been doing this where it was easier to make up a 'worst of year' than a 'best of year'. Not because there were so few good films, but because there were so many astonishing failures from some of my favorite filmmakers. So, without further ado, and in alphabetical order, I give you my personal picks for the ten worst films of 2010.

Alice in Wonderland
It is a strange thing to see a director that you worshiped in your youth score by-far the biggest hit of his life from one of the worst films of his career. Yet Alice in Wonderland is easily Burton's worst film, give-or-take Planet of the Apes (the latter is duller, but I love the 'up yours' ending). The screenplay turns Alice into a passive character defined by predestination and what other people expect from her and then expects us to find the film a rousing piece of female-empowerment. The result is an equally passive film that contains no suspense and no driving force. The film is inexplicably ugly to look at, and the 3D only muddies the image that much more. This was an assembly-line paycheck job for all involved, and a sign that, traumatized by the box office failure of (the secretly right-wing?) Mars Attacks and the outrage over Batman Returns back in the 1990s, Burton may have given up any attempt to be a visual or narrative original. If this were any one else's artistic failure, it would simply be a very dull and uninspiring film. But coming from Tim Burton, it was just one of the heartbreaking failures of the year.

Scream 4 gets a mediocre, generic teaser.

This thing, or a version of it, premiered last week at the 2010 Scream Awards, which are airing tonight on Spike TV. I wish I could say that this teaser gave me a renewed confidence for a project that was made purely as a money grab, and has been plagued by all kinds of studio tinkering from the get-go (the Weinsteins interfering in a horror film... no!). But this frankly looks as generic as can be, feeling less like a genuine sequel than a remake that they really wanted to make but didn't have the guts to. It feels like a mishmash of all three Scream films (high-school murder spree, tie-in movie being filmed/released, Sydney suffering from survivor's guilt), with a token nod to the last ten years of grindhouse-type horror. I'll happily eat crow if this turns out to be as good as the first two films, and the final bit with Lucy Hale is worth a chuckle. But with Lauren Graham leaving because her character had allegedly been dumbed-down, with Hayden Panettiere allegedly furious that her character had been bimbo-ized, and with original writer Kevin Williamson being tossed off the project and replaced by Scream 3-scribe Ehren Kruger, this feels like a cold-hearted cash grab for all who remain onboard. Oh, and unless they do what I thought they were going to do in Scream 3 (make Dewey the killer), my money is on Allison Brie. She currently stars on Community and co-stars on Mad Men, how much time will she have to become a cornerstone of the new Scream series?. This nostalgia-fueled retread opens April 15th.

Scott Mendelson

Still Freddy's finest hour...

And it's also probably the best 'part 7' in cinematic history. Granted there isn't much competition in the limited realm of seventh chapters. Halloween H20, Friday the 13th: The New Blood, Star Trek: Generations, Police Academy: Mission To Moscow, and Diamonds Are Forever are the only ones that spring to mind. And while it may not be the only instance where part 7 is better than part 1 (Star Trek: Generations is better than Star Trek: The Motion Picture), it's certainly the only instance where part 7 is the absolute best in a franchise. Without question, Wes Craven's New Nightmare is the best Nightmare On Elm Street film of them all and one of the best horror films of the 1990s. This one is Wes Craven's masterpiece, bar none, and easily the best of the Nightmare On Elm Street series.