The Scream trilogy

[Bad Boy]

1. Scream -- The first entry in the ever popular "Scream" trilogy stars the likes of Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, David Arquette, Skeet Ulrich, Liev Schreiber, Matthew Lillard, Rose McGowan, Jamie Kennedy, and Drew Barrymore. The plot revolves around Sidney Prescott and her high school friends who are harassed by a psychotic killer who's seen one too many scary movies and is using them against his victims. This is the first movie that spawned many rip offs and copycats such as "I Know What You Did Last Summer", "Valentine", "Urban Legend", etc. "Scream" is one hell of a horror movie with laughs, suspense, scares, twist, and plenty of gore. 4/4

2. Scream 2 -- This sequel stars the likes of Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, David Arquette, Liev Schreiber, and Jamie Kennedy returning with newcomers such as Sarah Michelle Gellar, Jerry O'Connell, Timothy Olyphant, Laurie Metcalf, and Jada Pinkett. The plot this time around revolves around Sidney Prescott and her friends whom are now in college. They face yet another psychotic killer who is copying the murders in the first movie after "Stab", the true life story, is released. This is one of the few sequels ever that surpasses the original. It has more gore, more laughs, more suspense, more twists, and more everything! Definately better than the 1st and the 1st is terrific! 4/4

3. Scream 3 -- The third and final chapter of the trilogy stars Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, David Arquette, and Liev Schreiber yet again with newcomers such as Parker Posey, Lance Henriksen, Jenny McCarthy, Emily Mortimer, and Scott Foley. This time, Sidney Prescott is hiding out in the middle of nowehere with a new identity while another psychotic killer terrorizes the cast of "Stab 3", the latest sequel in the hit movie series which is based on the actual Woodsboro murders. As the saying goes 3rd time is the charm and the 3rd entry easily passes 1 and 2 combined. It has the most suspense, most laughs, and most twists, though the gore is the only thing that's lacking. Still it's the best of them all. 4/4

[HNT]

I think the first is actually a pretty solid film. I'm a big fan of the opening. I remember how shocking it was in the theater when I saw it for the first time. The second is ok fun, but not a great film by any means, and I don't like Scream 3 at all

[Nobody]

The first one was ok. I remember it being shocking when I saw it for the first time when I was like 8 as it came out on video, but watching it again later....well it isn't shocking in the least, but it can be fun when your bored. Not a fan of the other 2 really.

[Bone Daddy]

1 Was a a good, solid flick. Had all the right elements. As for the rest, meh.

[CT]

Nice reviews Bad Boy. I loved the first, and the second and third were alright. I had a big crush on Neve when I was 12, lol.

[Lazario]

It's incredibly refreshing to see some love for the Scream series on a horror board today. They really are great movies as a collective.



As for the first film, Scream, I think it's the greatest horror film Wes Craven has made and he was very much an American Pioneer in the genre. So, after such utter failures as Shocker, The Hills Have Eyes Part 2, and Vampire in Brooklyn - it was great to see him be able to top himself after over 20 years of work in the genre. The point of the movie wasn't about shocking people. Scream was all about respecting the audience's intelligence. So, it was probably shocking to some people that the movie didn't hold back on some levels. Which it didn't and that's part of its success as a great horror movie.

I Give it:



Scream 2 was a decent sequel for a few reasons. Great acting, ace writing, and some damn clever ideas that just happened to be very socially relevant to what was going on in the world of entertainment at the time. About the state of violence in film and so forth- the way the world looked at movies at the time. With Quentin Tarantino and filmmakers like that going over the top in very personal one-on-one violence. Which was strange of course, since not too many people complained when Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, and Steven Seagal movies were coming out left and right with people ripping off each others' arms and whatnot. The sort of martial arts-type road warrior / street fighter / vigilante films that were a dime a dozen at that time.



Anyway, Scream 2 changed the direction of the series and made the series more like detective / crime thrillers than horror movies. So, there's a sense of disappointment there with this sequel. But with almost any movie- all you can ask for is that it is entertaining and well-made and this movie is. If nothing else, it feels like a good, old-fashioned Fun Hollywood Blockbuster. Lots of stuff going on, a lot of good humored comedy and social satire, and a great ensemble cast.

I Give it:



The third movie kind of abandoned all the rules of the first two movies. It lacked almost all suspense and horror and became a romantic-comedy Hollywood satire. Which, on that level, it fails. Because it's not as clever as most Hollywood satires. It lacks the sophistication and quality of some masters of black comedy. Wes Craven kind of does this sort of thing standard, he's not a master of any kind of movie humor. He does suspense well. And this sequel wrote in more comedy and romance than suspense. Which is sad. And it's why this film is the weakest in the trilogy / series.



But, the acting is better than the writing (which is important). The story's focus on Gale and Dewey works. Parker Posey's performance is wonderful and she is hilarious (adding some much needed Classic Quotes / One-Liners quality to the movie). The ending is nice and uplifting. And the romance works. Great onscreen chemistry by husband and wife - David Arquette and Courtney Cox. I hope they manage to stay together.

I Give it:

[GL]

To me, they're fine, especially part 2, but they're nowhere near the league of the best of the 80s, when hardly any of them were bad.

[Lazario]

gl said:

To me, they're fine, especially part 2, but they're nowhere near the league of the best of the 80s

The 80's was a different time. What works for one decade doesn't always work for another. I think we're talking about different leagues, but the "sport" is still the same (is that the analogy we're both on? I hate sports analogies).

gl said:

they're nowhere near the league of the best of the 80s, when hardly any of them were bad.

That's a silly thing to say. But you're treating the 80's like it was a Scene. Like, you just drank in the air and suddenly, you loved even the worst movies. I agree a lot of great horror movies came out in the 1980's. But - "hardly any of them were bad"? That's overstating (a lot). Don't you think? Every decade has its' fair share of clunkers.

[GL]

True, there has been a fair few clunkers in the 80s, but frankly, the best the 90s have done is get a few into 9/10 range. The slashers of the 80s reaked all the way up to the 10/10 section, and did it often with Fridays 1, 2, 4 and 7, Halloween 2 and 4, The Prowler, The Mutilator, Slumber Party Massacre, The Burning, Madman, My Bloody Valentine and Happy Birthday to Me. They also produced a much higher degree of quality fare, with very little slipping down into the 7/10 or below, whereas the later ones got there more often. Therefore, it's better to say that the best of the modern age can't get up to the range of the classics produced during the 80s.

Also, to say there wasn't a slasher scene in the 80s is a statement of gross negligence. There was over 300 produced in about 4 years, which to me is a scene, as that is such a high number for productivity when there wouldn't have been an audience.

[Lazario]

gl said:

the best the 90s have done is get a few into 9/10 range.

I agree.

gl said:

to say there wasn't a slasher scene in the 80s is a statement of gross negligence.

That's not what I said. I said the two times were different for horror films.

gl said:

They also produced a much higher degree of quality fare

If you mean there were more good movies from the 1980's than the 1990's, I'll agree.

gl said:

The slashers of the 80s reaked all the way up to the 10/10 section

There isn't one single slasher film from the 1980's I would put in the 10/10 section.

gl said:

and did it often with Fridays 1, 2, 4 and 7, Halloween 2 and 4

None of those 6 movies are 10/10's. The best of those, Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood would get a 7 out of 10 from me and that's the highest any of those films would score with me.

gl said:

Happy Birthday to Me

Saw that recently. I enjoyed it enough - 6/10. But it's not nearly good enough to be 10/10, if that's what you are implying.

[GL]

I give them 10 because they do what slashers are supposed to do: gory, inventive kills, lots of bloodshed, nudity aplenty (or at least one really good shot) threatening killer and a relentless pace to get them through. These do it, and they're all great because of it.

[Lazario]

If I judged horror movies by Set-Subgenre-Standards... I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror in the morning.

I don't play that game. I think if you do, you run the risk of having each movie being the same as every other one in its subgenre because of the pressure people would then put on every movie to fit The-Set-Criteria of its subgenre. We'd never get anything different. People would be too busy going- "that one didn't have enough kills because these movies usually have more," or "the monster wasn't big enough because these movies usually have bigger monsters," or "there wasn't enough nudity because these movies have more boobs" to accept the movie based on its' own merit. There'd be too much comparison- to the point where a movie would have to look in A Book of how it should be made.

I dispise that sort of thinking. It hurts imagination and creativity. I think each movie makes its own rules for itself, regardless of subgenre.

[GL]

You can have variation, but more often than not, fitting in a few of the points makes for a great film. They offer them and plenty of examples, making them all 10s.

[Lazario]

gl said:

You can have variation, but more often than not, fitting in a few of the points makes for a great film.

Not true. It only makes the film half good. And, that's only if they're well done.

For instance- there's no rule that all slasher films have to have nudity in them. And nudity does not enhance the quality of a movie. The only film genre in which nudity is a requirement is porn. And in fact, the persistance of many 80's slasher films to have high quantities of nudity in them is a weakness, not a strength. Gratuity for its' own sake, is not a good thing. It's bad.

[GL]

That's true, and there really isn't one. I don't really care if there is or not, as I enjoy the ones that don't just as much as the ones that do.

However, out of sheer coincidence, my top 20 of the genre do include nudity, either exposed views or a brief flash. Not that it's a determining factor, but for other reasons, my top 20 all include nudity. All time, that's a different story, but for slashers, top 20 include it.