Scream to Scream, Scene by Scene: SCENE 17 of Scream 2 (0:46:24-0:49:54)

In this project I attempt to review the entire Scream trilogy scene by scene in chronological order. Heavy spoilers and gore throughout!



SCENE 17 of Scream 2
Length: 3min 30secs
Primary Characters: Sidney Prescott, Derek, Hallie, Mickey, Sister Lois, Sister Murphy, Portia de Rossi's Eyebrows, Officer Richards and Officer Andrews.
Pop Culture References:

• Prime Time Live, 20/20 and Dateline (news programs Sidney has apparently turned down)
• Jeffrey Dahmer (Mickey compares Randy to this serial killer)
• The Bodyguard and Kevin Costner (Hallie references the movie)
• Top Gun (Derek's impromptu singing is like this Tom Cruise movie)
• The Partridge Family ("I Think I Love You" was originally performed by them)
  

Timothy Olyphant with an apple in his mouth. Oh dear...

Also, I like that Hallie and Derek are sitting together. Perhaps plotting their next murder in the original version of the screenplay. Hmmm.


"Where's the secret service guys?"
"Uh, over there."
"And which one is Kevin Costner?"
"The one on the right is Officer Richards, he is a Capricorn divorced father of two. And the one on the left is Officer Andrews and he is a Gemini, SINGLE but I think he's gay."



Teehee. Cute moment between Hallie and Sidney.


Okay, so I have to confess that I sorta really don't like this scene at all. Maybe if it was anyone other than Jerry O'Connell in his ivy league frat outfit I could enjoy it, but... ugh. Of course, it's meant to evoke Top Gun and it was awful there too, but everytime I think of this scene I just think of how much better it was two years later in 10 Things I Hate About You with Heath Ledger and Julia Stiles on the bleachers. Now that's a musical serenade that I can get behind! Let's look at both.


The only good thing about this scene is watching the reactions on the faces of Portia de Rossi and Rebecca Gayheart.





Mickey is pretty good value, too, with that massive grin on his face, little head-bop dance moves and his ringmaster attitude he makes. The bit where he moves the salt and pepper shakers is cute.






And then there is, of course, the stripper moment.


Actually, maybe this scene isn't so bad after all?


"Isn't that a big frat faux pas?"
"Oh yeah, that is a big no-no. See, you're not supposed to give your Greek letters to your girl. No way, shape or form. The brothers are gonna kick his ass... but it's tradition."
That necklace is so sharp and dangly it's almost like it could be used as a weapon.

Scream:
Intro, Scene 1 Scene 2, Scene 3, Scene 4, Scene 5, Scene 6, Scene 7, Scene 8, Scene 9, Scene 10, Scene 11, Scene 12, Scene 13, Scene 14, Scene 15, Scene 16, Scene 17, Scene 18, Scene 19, Scene 20, Scene 21, Scene 22, Scene 23, Scene 24, Scene 25, Scene 26, Scene 27, Scene 28, Scene 29, Scene 30, Scene 31 Scene 32, Scene 33, End Credits

Scream 2
Scene 1, Scene 2, Scene 3, Scene 4, Scene 5, Scene 6, Scene 7, Scene 8, Scene 9, Scene 10, Scene 11, Scene 12, Scene 13, Scene 14. Scene 15, Scene 16

Review: Source Code

Source Code
Dir. Duncan Jones
Year: 2011
Aus Rating: M
Running Time: 93mins

When American soldier Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes on a train bound for Chicago, he is unaware of his surroundings or how he came to be there. Sitting opposite him is a beautiful woman named Christina (Michelle Monaghan), who’s calling him by the name “Sean” and acting as if they’re friends. Soon enough – eight minutes to be exact – Colter (or is it really Sean?) and Christina are blown to bits along with the rest of the passengers as the train explodes into a mass of fire and debris. Oops.

Read the rest at Trespass Magazine

Scream to Scream, Scene by Scene: SCENE 16 of Scream 2 (0:44:54-0:46:23)

In this project I attempt to review the entire Scream trilogy scene by scene in chronological order. Heavy spoilers and gore throughout!



SCENE 16 of Scream 2
Length: 1min 29secs
Primary Characters: Gale Weathers, Debbie Salt and Dewey Riley
Pop Culture References:

• None
  

And so we resume "Scream to Scream, Scene by Scene". I took a bit of a break from this project over the last few weeks as Scream 4 came out because I was, as hard as it may be to believe, a bit Scream-ed out. So much to discuss with the new one that I didn't have the time or the inclination to talk about the old ones in such detail. Never mind though, we're hopefully back on a more regular schedule.

I'm definitely going to try to not involve Scream 4 all that much in the conversation at this point. We'll discuss Scream 4 when we come to it (if we come to it, if you know what I mean), although I am sure the latest instalment will rear its head amongst the conversation every now and then. I just really don't wanna be all "this scene in Scream 2 is what Scream 4 was missing!!" or "this idea what done better in Scream 4 rather than Scream 3!!"

Shall we proceed?


Of course, having said all that, it must be said: Courtney Cox's plastic surgery has gone too far. I love this woman so much and it was sad to actually hear mumblings and verbal grimaces upon her first scene in Scream 4. Yikes. I don't notice it so much when watching Cougar Town on the tele, but plastered on the big screen? 0_0


"I'm not here to write a book Ms Weathers. I'm here to help Sid."


"I wanna help her too! And help myself... of course."
I love that Dewey calls her "Ms Weathers" in that pouty way that he does. As if distancing himself from her in that professional way (rather than calling her Gale on a more personal level) will help convince himself that he's not attracted to her.


I just paused it here while I typed up something and I kinda liked the shot with Mrs Loomis there looking all "phew, Dewey didn't recognise me!" Wouldn't that have been awkward!!


It's these little moments of character interaction that I just love about the Scream movies. While it's obvious they've been scripted to the ends of the Earth, the way the actors play it makes it feel so zippy and spontaneous. Like this moment of Debbie Salt and another reporter discussing Sidney's father. It's minor, but it all helps the films to stand out. It weaves other characters in and out just like in real life where we don't just talk to six or seven same principal people. It's hard to describe, actually.


"I'm not here to do your job, Ms Salt."
Zing! Especially since, ya know, Debbie Salt doesn't really have a job. Of course, judging from the other press seen throughout Scream 2, I find it hilarious because Debbie Salt is the best one of the lot! The others - like that woman in cream for instance - who don't seem to know anything or know what to say.


"What about this ex-cop, Dewey Riley, it's kind of strange he showed up -"

Hah. I love it. Knowing that she is in fact Mrs Loomis and is indeed the killer makes this line so deliciously evil. She's getting braver with Gale and knows how to push her buttons. She's like a cat playing with a mouse, seen again during the upcoming "Randy in the van" sequence.


"Well, it just seems to me that if the killer is repeating what happened in Woodsboro that it's quite possibly the killer could from Woodsboro. That's all.
Oh Debbie Salt! Paving the way for your own reveal - I love it! Still, it does make you wonder why Billy or Stu's family's are never mentioned as suspects. Not even a throwaway line by Gale or one of the other reporters asking if they've been accounted for. I mean, obviously, doing so would have meant "nobody knows where Mrs Loomis is" and there aren't too many older women in Scream 2, but it's interesting nonetheless.


LOOK AT THOSE CLOTHES!

They are outrageously bad, are they not? Silly reporter wearing beige pant suit and beehive hair waving her pen around like she knows what she's doing. You do not! And you just know that lady in the white with her done up in a bun is a total hardnosed Gale Weathers wannabe.

Was this really the fashion back in 1997? I mean, go back to scene 2 and see the pastel gray number that the female reporter wears in that scene. Yikes.

Scream:
Intro, Scene 1 Scene 2, Scene 3, Scene 4, Scene 5, Scene 6, Scene 7, Scene 8, Scene 9, Scene 10, Scene 11, Scene 12, Scene 13, Scene 14, Scene 15, Scene 16, Scene 17, Scene 18, Scene 19, Scene 20, Scene 21, Scene 22, Scene 23, Scene 24, Scene 25, Scene 26, Scene 27, Scene 28, Scene 29, Scene 30, Scene 31 Scene 32, Scene 33, End Credits

Scream 2
Scene 1, Scene 2, Scene 3, Scene 4, Scene 5, Scene 6, Scene 7, Scene 8, Scene 9, Scene 10, Scene 11, Scene 12, Scene 13, Scene 14. Scene 15

Review: Video Nasties: Moral Panic, Censorship & Videotape

It may appear to be nothing more than a glorified DVD extra, having appeared on “Video Nasties: The Definitive Guide”, but what Jake West’s documentary Video Nasties: Moral Panic, Censorship & Videotape lacks in length, big name interviewees and theatrical prestige it gains in pure thorough entertainment. An obvious relative to Mark Hartley’s Not Quite Hollywood, which looked at the bawdy “ozploitation” films of the 1970s and ‘80s, West’s film is never the less a more historical look at a time when British politics went mad and aimed to silence filmmakers for simply failing to adhere to the prehistoric borders of good taste and decency.

Beginning with a superbly edited and comically ridiculous three minute montage of “the 72 films that changed Britain forever” (as the tagline suggests), Video Nasties then aims to educate viewers on the hows and whys, ins and outs of just what was so deemed so bad about these films, who was responsible for their subsequent banning and the fall out from what was tantamount of a right ol’ book burning, but with beta and VHS piled up instead of paper and bindings.


Jake West comes from a background of horror movie DVD featurettes as well as direct-to-DVD sequels like Pumpkinhead: Ashes to Ashes and has directed and edited Video Nasties himself. For the first 10 minutes or so he throws in VHS-style “grindhouse effects” like tracking symbols, fuzziness and looping, but downplays it after a short while. The 72 running time (coincidental or deliberate?) feels like it could easily have been extended, but that’s probably more an issue of time and budget than West’s skills behind the camera. Unfortunately though, Video Nasties lacks a sort of bravura authoritativeness that Not Quite Hollywood had in spades.

His interview subjects are fascinating, but apart from several big(ish) name directors like Neil Marshall (The Descent, Dog Soldiers) and Christopher Smith (Severance, Triangle) and some important political figures of the time, they lack depth. Their expertise on the topic somewhat makes up for this, but it’s a shame West and his producers couldn’t nab a big name like Hartley did with Quentin Tarantino, Dennis Hopper or the seemingly never-ending parade of cast and crew that were directly involved in the making of the “ozploitation” films that particular movie covered. It is interesting to hear them speak on something I’ve noted personally several times, that watching these movies on blu-ray almost defeats the purpose of them. The example of A Serbian Film is used, saying that it looks too good to be a true “video nasty”, the value of which comes from being grungy and done so that you either believe it’s really happening (Cannibal Holocaust) or so over-the-top that you can’t believe anybody ever thought it was scary (Night of the Bloody Apes).

If Video Nasties does improve upon Not Quite Hollywood in one aspect, it’s the way its subjects have such a strong historical context in the censorship debate. A debate that, it must be sadly noted, is still raging to this day, at least here in Australia (what with movies being banned and the like). West’s clip selections – film and vintage news – are also a riot, and it’s fascinating to see footage from so many movies and laugh at the thought that the overly silly violence was deemed too indecent for the British public. Hearing Marshall, Smith and the others discuss that thrill of entering a video store during those early years of video tapes and discovering the world that cinema would open up to them is something all cinephiles will identify with and find humour in.


Video Nasties: Moral Panic, Censorship & Videotape is not a perfect documentary, but it tells a wonderful story that is rarely discussed about in these days of everything being available to anyone, anywhere at the click of a mouse. It’s important to remember that Apocalypse Now, The Big Red One and even poor, defenceless The Best Little Whore House in Texas were once taken off the shelves purely because some people deemed fit to monitor the public’s viewing habits thought they sounded offensive and would corrupt the masses. Movie lovers should watch this and imagine what could possible happen in 2011 of a similar nature. Perhaps that’s a topic for another DVD. B

Review: Mrs Carey's Concert

Mrs Carey's Concert
Dir. Bob Connolly & Sophie Raymond
Year: 2011
Aus Rating: PG
Running Time: 95mins

It has been ten years since renowned documentary filmmaker Bob Connolly – not to be confused with Robert Connolly, director of Balibo – made a film. Connolly has kept a low profile after the death of his directing partner Robin Anderson in 2002, but the two made some of the seminal documentaries in Australian history; think of Facing the Music, Rats in the Ranks and Black Harvest. Connolly has now returned with Mrs Carey’s Concert, charting the struggle of Karen Carey, Director of Music at MLC School for girls in Sydney, to get her students ready for a concert at the Sydney Opera House that will hopefully help shape the girls’ outlook for years to come.

Read the rest at Onya Magazine

Review: American Graffiti & Two-Lane Blacktop

American Graffiti
dir. George Lucas
Year: 1973
Aus Rating: M
Running Time: 112mins

Two-Lane Blacktop
dir. Monte Hellman
Year: 1971
Aus Rating: M
Running Time: 102mins

Having only THX 1138 to his directorial credit, George Lucas’ second film was a radical departure from that science fiction thriller, not to mention the Star Wars franchise that would consume the rest of his filmmaking career thereafter. American Graffiti is a groundbreaking comedy from 1973 that sees Lucas putting the focus on his own childhood of the early 1960s. Lucas’ iconic movie would go on to become a box office blockbuster that would define the independent film movement for decades to come.

Read the rest at Trespass Magazine
This review originally went up at the end of last week in time for the week-long season of American Graffiti and Two-Lane Blacktop at The Astor Theatre. Alas, Trespass Magazine went away for a few days for a makeover. They're back now, but this glorious double feature is only screening for two more days so if you're in Melbourne do check it!

When a Spoiler Calls, Part II

At the start of this week I told you dear readers about the escalating controversy surrounding Melbourne-based (yet nationally published) film critic Jim Schembri. You see, Schembri had written a review of Wes Craven's Scream 4 that revealed the identity of the killer in the very first sentence. A crime of stupidity if ever there was one, especially from a critic as seasoned and high ranking as Schembri. Read this piece from Monday that explains the whole story as we knew it at the time to catch yourself up because, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Schembri has one-upped himself in the "oh no he did not!" stakes.



Throughout the past week the man had promised "the full story" behind the "Scream 4 meta controversy", as seen above, which followed after a truly bizarre series of ridiculous tweets about time travel and Luke Buckmaster of Crikey. He kept promising and promising and never delivering. Naturally, it emerged at around Midnight on Good Friday when he suspected nobody would notice/care because it's a five-day weekend. It's amazing to think that on a weekend in which people celebrate a man who CAME BACK TO LIFE AFTER BEING EXECUTED that this would be the most ridiculous thing you'd read about today?


Yes, Jim Schembri posted up his "full story" and it's the biggest load of bullshit you're likely to read all week! In the piece titled "How I punk'd the Twitterverse" Schembri muses on how he played a big ol' prank on us Twitter users by outing the Scream 4 villain in his review; "I decided to create a online event. I wanted to become the scourge of the Twitterverse as I led the hordes down a merry trail of cryptic messages and misdirection." Except he didn't lead the hordes down a merry trail of cryptic messages and misdirection. He blatantly gave away the identity of the "who" in a "whodunnit". That isn't being cryptic, it's being an arrogant prick.

"I anticipated that the moment Scream 4 opened, sites such as Twitter would be positively brimming with spoilers", he says before later opining "Twitter wouldn't respect Scream 4, surely. Twitter doesn't respect anything." While it's true Scream 4 spoilers were overflowing on websites like Twitter as well as IMDb, YouTube and even websites like Scream-Trilogy.net, none of the people announcing said spoilers were film critics who get paid by a mega-corporation (Fairfax) to review movies on a professional basis. I'd also hazard a guess that many of them were not grown men who were clearly smart enough to end up as the lead film critic at publications like The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. You don't get a job like that by being an idiot, but you sure can become one afterwards it seems. Still, this is the newspaper that somehow stuffed up today's paper by headmasting it with "THE SATURDAY AGE". On a Friday.

What it all boils down to is that Jim Schembri doesn't like Twitter ("(T)he Twitterverse, in my view, is largely populated by idle minds seeking to engage in banal, repetitive discourse and revel in the cheap thrills derived from being crude, vulgar, ignorant and abusive",) and felt like playing a prank on us. Except, wouldn't it have made sense to ACTUALLY PLAY A PRANK? Revealing the actual, true, real identity of the Scream 4 villain isn't a prank. Revealing the villain as someone who was not the villain would have been a prank. He would have gotten the vitriol is he craves and we all would have had a laugh when we realised "Oh that Jim Schembri was just fooling with us!"

Except here he wasn't just playing with the so-called "Twitterverse". Schembri's spoiler-laden review sat pretty upon the top of Rotten Tomatoes for several hours before, eventually, newer reviews began to push him down the lead page. Still, anybody who clicked on his review for the first day it appeared (it wasn't altered until 8am on Friday - a full day after the film's release and several hours after the print edition went on sale) would have been greeted with a spoiler that would ruin the movie's big climax. That's ANYBODY WHO CLICKED. I supposed Schembri believed everybody who uses the internet must use Twitter (and thus must be evil?), but they do not. Many do not like Twitter and yet they still would have been "punk'd" by this inexcusable social experiment. As another critic stated on, you guessed it, Twitter: "Once you start using your reviews as a forum for anything aside from your views on the film you're reviewing, it's pretty much over folks." Another states it "That piece insults the intelligence", another "How fitting of @jimschembri, on Good Friday, to depict himself as Twitter Christ. He spoiled for our sins, people", and another "I lost a bit of respect for The Age if it actually runs @jimschembri 's lie in print." And, of course, this one that sums up everything I've been saying: "Even if #Schembrigate was a genius twitter experiment, surely that doesn't justify spoiling the film for people WHO DON'T EVEN USE TWITTER".

And, even if Twitter is evil and full of crude, vulgar, ignorant and abrasive folks who are willing to spoil the enjoyment of movies for others then it's quite easy to find Twitter users who are not. I follow 460 people on Twitter and not one of them revealed the identity of the Scream 4 killer. I am followed by 1175 and I'm happy in knowing each and every one of them could go into Scream 4, if they so wish, and not know who the villain is. Unlike anybody who read Schembri's review. His revelation shows a distinct lack of respect for all of his readers, not just those who use Twitter as a valuable social networking tool.

And, for that matter, the irony of Schembri playing a wicked "punk" on Twitter is surely not lost on the man. Schembri himself has (as of right now) 497 followers and he started off the week with significantly less than that. Schembri, however, doesn't follow a single person; no filmmaker, no fellow critic, no friends. Nobody. And, for that matter, until this past week's clusterfuck of time machine tweets the man had never used the site for anything other than self-promotion of his The Age affiliated blog, Cinetopia. And, even further, as the image below shows, he doesn't even Tweet his reviews in any timely fashion! As ever, he's ahead of the technology curve is Mr Schembri.


None of this would have even been necessary if Schembri had have just admitted his fumble and apologised. Instead, he sent us down a ridiculously convoluted rabbit hole of pranks, punks and spoilers. It was obvious from his 1.5/5 review that he wasn't a fan of the movie, and yet in his article he continues to act petty and pouty towards the film whilst treating anybody who didn't want the ending spoiled with contempt.

Nobody likes being insulted, especially by a lame film. But that's how I felt about 10 minutes into Scream 4. ... No originality, no imagination. And predictable. The identity of the masked killer was obvious from the moment you first saw him. Or her. Or it. Hey, wouldn't want to spoil the film for anyone.

No, you wouldn't, but you did and I won't soon forget. Nor will anybody else who sees through his childish tantrum as anything but what it really is: a last minute attempt to save credibility, peddling a topic that his newspaper and other forms of print media are trying to push to their dwindling readers.

Poisin Pen has already written about it and I am sure you'll read a lot more about this throughout the weekend - freelance writers don't necessarily get five-day weekends - and beyond. Just remember, Jim Schembri played fast and loose with his readers by single-handedly destroying years worth of work by Wes Craven, Kevin Williamson, the cast, crew and producers with one sentence of a review. He thought his readers were beyond contempt, played a gag with no thought of the consequences and then admitted to using his position for an elaborate gag that nobody can make heads or tails of (apart from Schembri himself, of course).

He concludes his article by giving Wes Craven, a filmmaker for 40 years (his debut, The Last House on the Left was released in 1972), condescending tricks on how to truly breath life in Scream 4's tagline of "New Decade, New Rules". It may be a new decade, but the old rules still apply to being a film critic and Jim Schembri broke them. It appears doubtful The Age will hold him accountable at all, which is truly sad, since they published this nonsense drivel of his. I guess it's up to us to let him and The Age know that playing games with readers is a cruel thing to do. Especially if they want us to keep paying that $1.50 every morning, right?

Review: Scream 4

Scream 4
Dir. Wes Craven
Year: 2011
Aus Rating: MA15+
Running Time: 103mins

**NOTE: This review is spoiler free!**

Some people appear to have mistaken my anticipation for Scream 4 as just geeky franchise worship. And while it’s true that I would most definitely go and see even Scream 8: Ghostface Takes Manhattan, a lot of the reason why this movie feels like such an event is because this is the Scream 4 we never thought we’d get. By the time the fourth film of a horror franchise rolls around the cast and crew that made the original(s) so worthwhile have almost all but moved on, so when it was announced that not only that the original creative team – director Wes Craven and screenwriter Kevin Williamson – were returning, but also the three main principal cast members – Neve Campbell, David Arquette and Courteney Cox – well, that was the tipping point from being an exciting curiosity to full-blown mad anticipation. Did it live up to my own hype? It sure did!

Coming 11 years after Scream 3 reconfigured its story to Hollywood and became one big in-joke (a funny one that I like much more than most, it would seem), Scream 4 returns to the Californian town of Woodsboro from the original Scream where the residents seem equally divided between those who mourn the original tragedy and those who revel in it. The anniversary of the slayings is treated like Halloween by the younger generation, sending mock telephone calls to their friends and dressing public property up in scary costumes. Hollywood turned Woodsboro’s – or more specifically, Sidney Prescott’s – tragedy into a movie named Stab and now the students of Woodsboro High host a yearly “Stabathon”, a movie marathon featuring all 7 of the Stab movies. Even the fifth one that, hilariously, somehow involves time travel.


Returning to Woodsboro is the aforementioned Sidney Prescott, touring a new self help book touting herself as “no longer a victim”. But, needless to say, her return brings about a new batch of killings, committed by somebody – or somebodies – in a Ghostface mask who uses the telephone to taunt his prey. Sidney’s cousin, Jill, and her friends appear to have become the killer’s prime targets, and along with Sheriff Dwight nee Deputy Dewey and his former Hollywood entertainment reporter wife Gale Weathers they must try and hunt down the perpetrator for as long as they can survive.

Some may say I was predisposed to liking Scream 4, but as has been proven time and time again it is usually those who are so closely tied to a franchise that will find the most at fault with a new one - just look at the Indiana Jones and Star Wars series’ for examples of that. And while Scream 4 has its issues, it succeeds through a mix of the old fashioned slasher movie conventions that the original Scream trilogy manipulated so well, as well as new twists and tricks that will surprise anybody who has watched the original trilogy enough. Just when you think nobody else can die, they do. Just when you think the filmmakers will take a break from the murdering mayhem, they don’t. Just when you think the movie has ended, it hasn’t. Long-time fans will find a lot of cherish about this new sequel, which abides by its tagline of “new decade, new rules”. Regular moviegoers who just want a few frights on their Friday night will also find plenty to satisfy, I’m sure. Gorehounds disappointed by the rather bloodless Scream 3 will rejoice.

Where Scream differs so greatly to the vast majority of horror movies is in its characters. Where most have generally anonymous actors playing stock standard roles that equate to nothing more than “heroic boyfriend” or “sassy best friend”, Scream 4, just like its predecessors, goes a long way in establishing its band of new and old cast members as a real group of friends and family. Their interactions with one another, their back and forth dialogue and secrets bubbling beneath the surface make them far more interesting and worthy of investing time in. When one dies – and to pretend they all get out alive is silly – there’s actually feelings there. When the killer (or killers) is revealed, it hits like a punch to the gut. In fact, Scream 4 works much better than Scream 2 or 3 in that regards, by having worked its characters harder and stronger (despite a much shorter, punchier running time). There are several deaths that were met with shock, surprise and near hysterical behaviour (and not just by me, I assure you). The performances are generally strong, with particular notice going to Campbell – looking so mature and beautiful, even if she’s dressed in dowdy outfits for the second half – Roberts, Hayden Panettiere, Rory Culkin and Alison Brie. And to say it doesn't feel good to see Arquette and Cox in fine form is a big fat lie. Cox especially gets several great one-liners, relishing the chance to spit foul language out of her mouth that she can't do on Cougar Town.


If I have to be critical then my displeased glare would be focused very quickly upon the opening scene. For a franchise that became famous for its typically violent prologue (remember Drew Barrymore’s untimely end 15 years ago?), Craven and Williamson have taken an incredibly big gamble with it this time and haven’t altogether succeeded. They do, however, include several great gags that go a long way to relieving the pent up pressure that 11 years between franchise instalments can produce. Elsewhere, I have to question the character of Mary McDonnell’s Kate Roberts. Written like an afterthought, acted like she’s in another movie (actually, she would fit right in with the more comically aligned Scream 3) and all but forgotten at long stretches. It’s especially disappointing for a franchise that has always gone to great lengths to make the adults as interesting and important as the teenagers. It’s also sadly quite obvious that some scenes have been heavily tinkered with, especially when you compare it to the trailers and television commercials. It’s like there’s a different film waiting for the DVD release.

And, honestly, the number of times a character places their body against a door with the killer right outside? The number of times a character walks outside to investigate a strange noise? That's a bit silly. Haven't they learnt anything?

Still, Scream 4 succeeds far more often than it falters and that’s most surely because of the direction of horror maestro Wes Craven and screenwriter Kevin Williamson. Both have done a stunning job of subverting expectations, whilst at the same time delivering on exactly what we wanted. They have given us Scream nerds what we wanted, and given Hollywood what it needed. They have shown how you do a sequel and proven that the fourth film in a franchise needn’t be a simple throwaway grab for cash. It can be relevant and necessary.

Williamson, who wrote with additional work done by Ehren Kruger and Craven, appears to have made Hollywood and this generation’s ever-churning instant news cycle his prime target. One scene in which Hayden Panettiere’s Kirby reels off a seemingly never-ending list of horror remakes is particularly telling and even mustered up an applause or two from the audience. The screenplay also has swift, if increasingly meta, jabs at the horror genre in general as well as the internet’s jagged turn from being a place of film discussion to a place of mass hysteria. There’s even a joke about the use of the word “meta”! Meanwhile, the media, in their bloodthirsty quest for the latest in breaking news get the biggest twist of the knife of all. Emma Roberts gets a moment of such pure and utter classic filmmaking that I have to hand it to Craven for having the guts to do it.


The Scream films have always been known for their references to other films and the latest is perhaps the most referential of all. The jokes on its own franchise with the Stab film-within-a-film-within-a-film-within-a-film(?) as well as footage from Scream 2 (if that makes sense) are just the beginning. Endless horror movie citations from Saw to Peeping Tom, film posters adorning the walls of nearly every room, two police officers that recall Craven’s own Last House on the Left and even recreations of other famed horror movies (one such scene that emulates the original Scream from 1996 specifically had me in fits of “oh shit!”) They never let up and even when Halloween II gets a big shout out, I couldn’t help but admire the bravura. It even gets in jokes about Facebook, Twitter and Jersey Shore without looking desperate for hip points and its handling of modern mobile phone technology is keenly done alongside the old fashioned clunky landline phones that are as iconic to these films as the Edvard Munch inspired mask.

The team behind Scream 4 have gone for broke. They know people stop caring about horror sequels after a while and the only way this was going to be any different was to take everything they had done before and turn it up to eleven. They succeeded in making a Scream for a new generation, one that is more brutal and more gory, yet still funny and entertaining. This could perhaps rank as the greatest franchise revival in cinema history and while even discussing the potential for a Scream 5 seems ridiculous given where this fourth film goes, if they show half as much ingenuity in it as they do here then it will be just as much of a must see as Scream 4. A- (although who knows where it'll sit once I've seen it five times, 20 times, 106 times...)

Scream to Scream, Scene by Scene: SCENE 15 of Scream 2 (0:43:31-0:44:53)

In this project I attempt to review the entire Scream trilogy scene by scene in chronological order. Heavy spoilers and gore throughout!



SCENE 15 of Scream 2
Length: 1min 22secs
Primary Characters: Sidney Prescott, Derek, Officer Andrews (Philip Pavel) and Officer Richards (Chris Doyle)
Pop Culture References:

• None
  

One thing I'm noticing with Scream 2 is that there are a lot of shorter scenes. Perhaps that was a trick by Craven to keep the pace punchy, especially since this one is longer than the first by a hefty margin, they probably needed it. Also since none of the new characters are quite as enjoyable as Tatum, who I could watch for the entire length of War & Peace. Doubled.


I normally wouldn't consider them "prominent characters" in this scene, but one of this scene's major points is to show how these two detectives are "attached at the hip" to Sidney. They get their moment in the sun later on, as you're no doubt aware.


"You are concerned with my personal well-being and not with trusting me or anything, right?"
To quote Grandpa Simpson; "a little from column A, a little from column B."

One of the secret hidden joys of Scream 2 - although I have curiously never even attempted to test it out on other Jerry O'Connell films - is watching the abnormal frequency with with O'Connell blinks. Seriously. In this one static shot that runs from 0:44:23-0:44:33 (in which he says the above dialogue) he blinks 12 times! That's more than one blink a second! Settle down, Jerry!

Scream:
Intro, Scene 1 Scene 2, Scene 3, Scene 4, Scene 5, Scene 6, Scene 7, Scene 8, Scene 9, Scene 10, Scene 11, Scene 12, Scene 13, Scene 14, Scene 15, Scene 16, Scene 17, Scene 18, Scene 19, Scene 20, Scene 21, Scene 22, Scene 23, Scene 24, Scene 25, Scene 26, Scene 27, Scene 28, Scene 29, Scene 30, Scene 31 Scene 32, Scene 33, End Credits

Scream 2
Scene 1, Scene 2, Scene 3, Scene 4, Scene 5, Scene 6, Scene 7, Scene 8, Scene 9, Scene 10, Scene 11, Scene 12, Scene 13, Scene 14

Scream to Scream, Scene by Scene: SCENE 14 of Scream 2 (0:42:16-0:43:30)

In this project I attempt to review the entire Scream trilogy scene by scene in chronological order. Heavy spoilers and gore throughout!



SCENE 14 of Scream 2
Length: 1min 14secs
Primary Characters: Gale Weathers, Dewey Riley and Chief Hartley
Pop Culture References:

• None
  

One of the things I love about the first two movies is the way that Craven routinely uses establishing shots that, with each one, lessens the number of people around. In Scream it reaches the point of "the town that dreaded sundown" and then with this shot we see the numbers starting to decrease before eventually, later on the film, there's nobody else around. Scream 3, however, had people everywhere, which perhaps says something different altogether about how Hollywood reacts in the face of violence (gather the troops, for instance). Hmmm...


Everytime I see Chief Hartley write "COOPER" on his blackboard (aside: BLACKBOARD!!! wow. ancient.) I think back to the Twin Peaks episode "Zen, or The Skill to Catch a Killer" wherein Agent Cooper teaches the local police on Tibetan detective methods or whathaveyou.


Gale's in her reporter mode and upon being told Cici's real name is actually Casey, you can she's turns to Dewey and telepathically shares an "uh-oh". Dewey, meanwhile, is probably all "I could go for some Pringles right about now..."


Do you think the Arquette family get together featured many an anecdote about the Scream trilogy, with Lewis - David's father - piping in with about that time he "worked on the sequel"? I think so.

Meanwhile, this is the 200th Scream 2 screencap, apparently. Frightening. We're not even half way through!


"I think you've got a copycat on your hands, Chief."
It's this sort of scene, brief as it may be, that adds that little something extra to these films. It not only deal with adults, but shows them working and investigating, trying to solve something. Not like, say, Halloween that only ever seem to show adults being a) idiot police who always underestimate their foe, or b) Dr Loomis who's always frothing at the mouth spouting verbose dialogue about Michael Myers being the "bringer of DOOOOOM!" or some such. It's also not like most imitators that think having a cop character means they just stand around and say "i pulled the files, looks like HE IS INSANE! Let's catch this creep."

I dunno, it's hard to explain, but I've just always felt like the adults were just as much a part of these films as the knife-bait teenagers and that's a good thing. The adults are just as integral to the story and they add much needed weight. Plus, it helps that the performances, especially Cox, are so good. But we'll say more about her later. Make sense? Probably not.

Scream:
Intro, Scene 1 Scene 2, Scene 3, Scene 4, Scene 5, Scene 6, Scene 7, Scene 8, Scene 9, Scene 10, Scene 11, Scene 12, Scene 13, Scene 14, Scene 15, Scene 16, Scene 17, Scene 18, Scene 19, Scene 20, Scene 21, Scene 22, Scene 23, Scene 24, Scene 25, Scene 26, Scene 27, Scene 28, Scene 29, Scene 30, Scene 31 Scene 32, Scene 33, End Credits

Scream 2
Scene 1, Scene 2, Scene 3, Scene 4, Scene 5, Scene 6, Scene 7, Scene 8, Scene 9, Scene 10, Scene 11, Scene 12, Scene 13

Review: Justin Bieber: Never Say Never

Justin Bieber: Never Say Never
Dir. Jon Chu
Year: 2011
Aus Rating: G
Running Time: 105mins

Just what the world needed; a new version of Madonna’s iconic documentary In Bed with Madonna focused around a barely pubescent boy pop singer. I know what you’re thinking, and for some readers there will be no budging on the predisposed opinion they have of Justin Bieber: Never Say Never, but for some this documentary about the now 17-year-old music sensation may prove an eye-opening, if still fundamentally flawed, experience. The slavish devotion of Justin Bieber’s fans – predominantly “tween” girls, but all ages are welcome – will be unchanged after this film and may just earn the guy a few new ones along the way.

Read the rest at Trespass Magazine
I'm so glad I got in my references to In Bet with Madonna, Celine: Through the Eyes of the World, Glitter and The Lord of the Rings.

Review: Rio

Rio
Dir. Carlos Saldanha
Year: 2011
Aus Rating: G
Running Time: 96mins

Last month the animated film de jour was the bonkers and adventurous, yet rather family unfriendly Johnny Depp comedy Rango. The latest cartoon fare is from the makers of Ice Age and goes in the opposite direction, trying to be as child friendly as possible, perhaps to its detriment for the parents who will attend with their kids. Still, even if Carlos Saldanha’s Rio errs on the side of G-rated shenanigans and colourful jungle beats, it still provides enough excitement and unabashed joy that allows its brisk 90 minutes to drift on by in a haze of neon-coloured feathers and catchy tunes.

Read the rest at Trespass Magazine

Review: Sucker Punch

Sucker Punch
Dir. Zack Snyder
Year: 2011
Aus Rating: MA15+
Running Time: 110mins

Original concept, female-led fantasy films don’t come along very often these days, what with Hollywood’s obsession with men, remakes, reboots and sequels, making Zack Snyder’s newest film, Sucker Punch, noteworthy. Moreso noteworthy is how truly awful it is. Snyder has succeeded in turning his female empowerment action extravaganza into a full-blown bore.

Read the rest at Trespass Magazine
Oy... what a train wreck. I'd also recommend you check out Clem Bastow's review at The Vine, which is a fantastic dissection of this colossal WTF-fest. In an early draft of my review - which, if you click over to Trespass, includes references to Sex and the City, Mortal Kombat, the "I Spit on Your Grave School of Feminism" and "Zach Snyder: Empowering women to wear matching hooker ensembles whilst seducing and murdering evil rapists since 2011!" and much more - I actually had many of the same observations, but had to cut them due to word limit. As Clem quipped on Facebook, "This movie is so dumb it's reduced all critics to sharing the same synapse." So true. D

Review: Brighton Rock

Brighton Rock
Dir. Rowan Joffe
Year: 2011
Aus Rating: M
Running Time: 110mins

Audiences may not be aware of Graham Greene’s 1938 novel thriller Brighton Rock, or its original 1947 adaptation starring Richard Attenborough. Even those who berate filmmakers for constantly returning to the same old wells of inspiration with remake after reboot after sequel can’t fault director and screenwriter Rowan Joffe for making another version; 64 years is a long time! What can be faulted, however, is Joffe’s handling of the material, which certainly doesn’t live up to the precedent set by the Boulting Brothers’ 1947 version.

Read the rest at Trespass Magazine
For those interested... Brighton Rock (1947), B+ > Brighton Rock (2011), C-

Review: In a Better World

Danish director Susanne Bier has rightfully claimed a place as one of the best and most important voices of international cinema. She has collaborated with Lars von Trier and Benicio del Toro, had films remade by Hollywood (Brothers), been nomination for two Academy Awards, winning this past February for this sober, but compelling, examination on violence and family. In a Better World may be one of the most old-fashioned pieces of filmmaking you’ll see this year, but that doesn’t make it any less fascinating as it wields a dramatic left-hook to the gut.

Read the rest at Trespass Magazine

Review: Never Let Me Go

Never Let Me Go
Dir. Mark Romanek
Year: 2010
Aus Rating: M
Running Time: 103mins

In a countryside boarding school named Hailsham, three children – Kathy, Tommy and Ruth – form a triangle of love and jealousy that they will continue to navigate many years later, long after they realise their tragic fates. Such are the beginnings of Never Let Me Go, an adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro’s acclaimed novel directed by Mark Romanek. A visually arresting mood piece that unfortunately doesn’t deliver the devastating punch its plot desperately craves.

Read the rest at Trespass Mag

Never Let Me Go, or as I like to call it: An Ode to Sea-Green, Beige and Brown.

Review: Kaboom

Kaboom
Dir. Gregg Araki
Year: 2011
Aus Rating: MA15+
Running Time: 86mins

If one had to put Gregg Araki’s latest film into a finite box then it would be fair to call it a queer apocalyptic stoner religious cult horror comedy. Not content to just make a movie about the end of the world, or the bisexual frolics of American collegegoers, or masked cult devotees murdering students on campus, Araki has gone and merged them all together in the form of Kaboom. Whether the title is a direct reference to the sound the world would make if it was suddenly blown apart or if it’s the metaphoric noise a young person makes upon entering the sexually confusing world of post-high school education, either way Araki has crafted an entertaining, violently funny movie that’s amongst his best work yet.

Read the rest at Trespass Magazine
Did you hear today that Kaboom star Juno Temple - she of the film's best performance, I might add - has been cast in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises?

Wait - why am I asking that? Of course you've read it since it has been pasted on every single "entertainment" website known to mankind. Never mind that it hasn't been announced exactly who she's been cast as. Nothing more than "street smart Gotham Girl" according to websites like Cinema Blend, which for all we know could be little more than a walk on role with one or two moderately sassy lines about how "the streets work" or some such. I'd recommend seeing Kaboom before Nolan remembers he can't write or direct women very well at all and sticks this formidable rising talent into a do-nothing role. Oh sure, Marion Cotillard was quite good in Inception, but the character was problematic. The less said about Ellen Page, Katie Holmes, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Hilary Swank the better.

Perhaps, in fact, the mere casting of Juno Temple is a sign that things are changing in the brain of Nolan.


I can actually see her fitting in amongst the Joker's menagerie of minions. Or, actually, wouldn't she have made a far more interesting choice for Selina Kyle than Anne Hathaway? Far less obvious and she looks like she could do brittle quite well.

Anyway, amongst all the "Juno Temple Officially in Dark Knight Rises" links that filled up my Twitter feed this morning, I was also bombarded with every website this side of Bea Arthur Mountains Pizza Blog telling me about the latest casting rumour of Superman: Man of Steel. Yesterday is was Carlos Ramirez, today it's Michael Shannon. And what's the bet that a new name pops up within a day or two? It's all such lazy film writing, don't you think? One website posts a rumour from an anonymous source and everyone else just copies it (with or without citation) and tada an easy thousand (or tens of thousands? I can't begin to imagine how many hits those sites - you know the ones - get) blog hits! It's truly depressing.

1. Write article about project being announced before anybody has been attached.
2. Write article about specific actors being considered for various roles of various sizes in project that still may or may not exist.
3. Write article about the perceived “frontrunner”.
4. Write article about a rumour that an actor has been hired, but not confirmed.
5. Write another article as we wait to find out if the rumour was true. Come up with magical reasons for and against chosen actor’s non-selection.
6. Write article about movie studio announcing they haven’t made an announcement. Copy press release verbatim.
7. Write article about how a different actor altogether has been cast, negating everything that was written earlier, and yet conveniently not wiping away your website’s unique hits and advertising dollar!
8.-10. Write several articles about the life and career of the chosen actor, judging them before a single frame has been filmed.
11.-4379. Write articles about every single minute detail including what the extras had catered for them to how many takes it took a notoriously fussy director to film one scene as if it’s news. Announce an entry on Twitter “WOW! NEW PHOTOS FROM SET OF [insert movie]” that are of someone having a cigarette away from the set. Somehow turn paparazzi pictures of a cast night out into a story about a “troubled set. Have site “reporter” visit the set and report about how harmonous and perfectly run the set is as if they completely unaware of the impending visit. Announce everything as “EXCLUSIVE!” or “FIRST LOOK!” even if all you mean is “first look on my own website, but you’ve probably seen it elsewhere already.”
4380.-4412. Report on the test screenings from people who saw the movie without completed visual effects, music, editing and detail how the screenings were “disastrous”. Include spoilers, just ‘cause.
4413. Report on studio “tinkering” with the film, even if said “tinkering” included, ya know, finishing it like they had planned.
4414. Write review.
4415. Write article about box office takings despite having no real knowledge of how box office/budgets/money even works.
4416. Promptly forget the film ever existed because ew, gross, it’s old. Unless it’s good, in which case
a) Start new website feature named “Under-Appreciated Movie of the Week” discussing the film, even though it made over $300 million at the box office,
b) Write article asking “Will Oscar Embrace [movie in genre they rarely ever embrace]?”
c) Write article about how the Oscars “snubbed” said movie and how the Oscar’s “don’t mean anything but omg we’re gonna keep talking about them anyway!”
4417. Repeat for next movie.

It's depressing.

All the more reason to go see a movie like Kaboom I suppose. Those of us here in Melbourne are lucky to have a place like Cinema Nova who are exclusively screening it as well as several other amazing titles like I Love You Phillip Morris. I believe it's getting a similar Brisbane release at the Tribal Cinema, but that's second hand Twitter knowledge so don't take my word for it. It's in Sydney too, but I don't know where. Movies like Kaboom don't come along too often - of, if they do, it's not on a cinema screen - so please see it.