i dunno if it was mentioned but yes back in the early 2000's they did the widescreen and full screen and i f... hate full screen and for those who hate wide screen here's why i hate full screen, take a film like Ben Hur (1959) TCM shows this on tv and has for years the difference, you show the chariot Race in full screen you don't see anything but shots of the animals and you really don't see the race that well certain shots of Heston but it looks really awful than watch it widescreen you see not only the people in the stands but the entire race. or in It's a Mad mad mad mad world (1963) one of the greatest movies ever f... made in my opinion
the scene at the start of the film when they are talking about money after Jimmy Durante dies in it, in the full screen of it you see half the group talking and you see bits and pieces of the other sides faces, while if it's widescreen you see the entire cast talking to one another. i'm sure there are people today that still don't know that or realize it but thank god they stopped doing full screen
honestly i'm for a more Gory Scream film and here's why Horror films for years i'd say the past 10 years or so have been watered down PG-13 films that it's watered down because they don't really show anything. not that all horror films need blood they don't not that all of them need to be gory they don't. but if they are going to start making horror films well certain ones anyways more gory here's what they should do STOP USING CGI! for some films i get it but others... also if you are going to do a horror film no jump scares a horror film does not have to scare you if it's got no jump scares at all. that's not the say that Friday the 13th never used them they did but they weren't used that much and rightly so. also get the actors actually dirty for a change have the blood be fake blood and not no damn CGI blood it looks awful
Melissa Barrera Dropped from 'Scream 7' Over Israel-Hamas Social Media Posts
deadline.com
For me, Melissa Barrera's expulsion is not as bad as Neve Campbell's, only the circumstances are debatable. I have to admit that Melissa Barrera never really convinced me in Scream. The only new actor that impressed me is Jenna Ortega, but since she won't be returning either, that's another problem. Maybe Scream 7 should be postponed.
I never was a fan of slasher films, but the first Scream is a very good thriller with well-rounded characters, significant suspense, and smart dialogue. (and the tension in the opening scene is so strong that it is hard to watch)
Since i liked it, I saw the second and third shortly after seeing the first. The second feels as though it hasn't mastered the emotional level entirely. It does feel somewhat rushed (explained by the last minute reshoots). I liked Scream 3 more than most, as it wasn't quite as gory and I thought Parker posey was wonderful in it. I know that one had been toned down too in production because of fears of graphic violence after the Columbine killings.
Yikes. I've just discovered I've been mispronouncing Liev Schreiber's name for the last twenty five plus years. Note to self: "LEE-evv" - not "Leave"...
What an engaging and erudite respondent he is (I was going to say "interviewee", but it's not even that). Every answer he gave held my interest and I came away feeling I knew more about each of the topics.
He talks a little about Scream at 1:40. I was surprised to find out he was paid $20k for that blink-and-you'll-miss-it, wordless, orange-suited cameo. When Scream 2 came along, I'd initially assumed he was an extra from the first who got lucky when the character was expanded (a bit like the actors who played Sid's parents being asked to do sequels).
This is not good news. As a fan, you were always curious whether Patrick Dempsey would be brought back at some point, but now only his Scream character is coming back and with Joel McHale as recast of all people.
This is not good news. As a fan, you were always curious whether Patrick Dempsey would be brought back at some point, but now only his Scream character is coming back and with Joel McHale as recast of all people.
My understanding is that it's not a recast - they mentioned that Sidney had married a "Mark" in Scream 5 as an easter egg and will use the fact they never named his last name to get around it. Still annoying knowing that they negotiated with Dempsey for months.
while i'm glad she's gonna be in the next one i still think they should f.. stop with these films there's enough of them as it is. now don't get me wrong they are fun and i'm a fan but what made me laugh was in the last one that guy got stabbed how many times? and he's still walking around? like it was just a pin prick! even in the earlier films he would have died
I'm interested to see how Scream 5 presents itself, but since there's no Wes Craven (sadly), no Kevin Williamson and no Marco Beltrami I think they have an uphill struggle.
It's only taken me almost four years but last night, for the first time, I watched...
Scream (2022)
Ahead of watching, I expected to feel similarly towards this one as I did Scream 4. That is, a product trying to revive a series that doesn't necessarily need reviving. Still, with the three key leads from the original film returning it was going to be worth a look.
This one felt a little off from the very beginning. The Dimension logo is strongly associated with this series for me (the first two instalments were probably the first place I would have seen it), so its absence took away a little anticipatory excitement.
Then came the opening scene which set the tone for the good and the bad of this film. Firstly, I didn't mind the near-recreation of the 1996 film's opening scene.. actually I enjoyed it and thought it had decent atmosphere even if it lacked the intense build-up of the Drew Barrymore sequence. Incidentally, I thought Jenna Ortega has a similar look to young Neve Campbell which I'm sure must be intentional.
Sadly, the opening scene also set the tone of this film having its cake and eating it. In this case, it sold us the opening kill by referencing the original directly - this time the questions all related to the Stab series to give a meta flavour - and then had the opening scene girl survive.
I was on the fence about less-than-subtle directorial nods to the original, such as Tara leaning on the kitchen worktop, pulling a knife out of a block as she discussed scary movies with a killer on the phone, but at the same time I put these down as a "requel" thing, in the same way 2018's Halloween had covered some of the same ground as the original film and its sequels. The term "requel" by the way, is defined within the film:
Mindy said:
See, you can't just reboot a franchise from scratch anymore. The fans won't stand for it... But you can't just do a straight sequel either. You gotta build something new. But not too new or the internet goes bug-fucking-nuts. It's gotta be part of an ongoing storyline, even if the storyline shouldn't have been ongoing in the first place. New main characters, yes, but supported by - and related to - legacy characters. Not quite a reboot. Not quite a sequel. Like the new Halloween; Saw; Terminator; Jurassic Park; Ghostbusters; ...even Star Wars. It always, always goes back to the original.
I'm not 100% sold on the term. That is, I haven't quite got my head round how a requel is different from a soft reboot. Or indeed, a sequel. Is Scream 4 not a requel because it didn't reference the original enough? Or is it simply because the term didn't exist then? And it seems that a "legacy character" has a different meaning than "legacy hero" in comics, which usually applies to those superheroes who have taken on the identity of superheroes who have come before (in that sense, all the sequel's Ghostfaces would be "legacy villains").
On the subject of "legacy", the surnames of two of the new actors were rather familiar and a quick search confirmed that, yes, these are the sons of Dennis Quaid (and Meg Ryan) and Cuba Gooding, Jr.
That said, I do like the "ongoing storyline" explanation, in that it has characters directly related to the original interacting with those legacy characters. And there's certainly an abundance of those here: Billy Loomis's daughter; Randy Meeks's niece and nephew (as well as a return-cameo from his sister Martha); son of Scream 4's "Deputy Judy" Hicks (who returns herself as the town's new sheriff). Whether or not they're all needed is a different matter, but I'd give most the benefit of the doubt in that the ground is being cleared for some to return in the sequels (and they killed off the least-interesting of the four new relations anyway).
Typically for a sequel the kills are more graphic than earlier films. Mercifully it most avoids "creative kills" but instead gives almost disturbingly nasty depictions of stabbings. This level of visual information really isn't my thing, but still feels connected to the series' roots since even the original didn't go the less-is-more route when it came to the gore.
There were two significant deaths by virtue of the fact that they were returnees. Neither was particularly surprising to me, but I still found them effective.
Judy's death wasn't something I knew would happen, but - to my relief - she'd played a fairly small role in this film anyway, so was happy for her to be sacrificed for the progression of the story. I did smile almost nostalgically when her lemon squares were referenced.
While I have judiciously avoided spoilers, I had read certain comments and video titles along the way that suggested fans weren't happy about a certain death which I'd taken to be
Dewey. I didn't know for certain, and I'd thought it applied to Scream VI rather than this film, so at least his death came as a surprise as much as possible. Frankly, he's had so many fake-out deaths that it was difficult to believe it even as I watched. I'm keeping everything crossed that they don't undo this one as that would just be beyond credibility. I've made no secret of the fact that I'm not a Dewey fan, which I know puts me in a small minority. Beyond the first film, I just felt Arquette was goofing around too much and Dewey became a pain to watch (certainly in terms of the original trilogy). He had a terrifically memorable "death" in Scream 2, and I've generally been minded that this would have been the right time for him to depart. That said, I found him watchable enough in Scream 4, and I actually really liked the grizzled and flawed Dewey we met in the 2022 film (for the first time, I found Dewey a more interesting and watchable character than Gale) so this gave some weight to his departure and made it more meaningful.
As far as the Ghostface reveal goes, I had an initial shortlist of three:
Tara was in there for a while, based mainly on the specific lyrics of "Red Right Hand" that were played at one point referencing the scheme being "designed and directed" by a Red Right Hand. Tara, of course had been stabbed in the hand in the opening scene.. but some doubt was added because that was her left hand. Also, the only way she could feasibly have been involved was coming on board after the opening scene, which was the main reason I ruled her out pretty quickly.
Chad Meeks-Martin was in there for me as perhaps the least obvious, which was my only reason for suspecting him. So much for my gut instinct.
My number one suspect was always
Richie, based on the fact that he had a lot of screen time and was aggressively "nice". With each scene I felt he became more obvious as someone with an ulterior motive and by the time he was saying they wouldn't go back to the hospital for the inhaler it was screamingly obvious (of course that inhaler was going to be a Chekov's gun since they hammered us round the head with it from the beginning). Still, I was chuffed to guessed one correctly, and Jack Quaid did do a nice flip into psycho killer.
Sadly, the only interesting thing about Amber was her Kristin Shepard wonky smirk and Mikey Madison was pretty terrible at doing deranged. Spitting while speaking - as gross a visual as it may be - does not a good performance make (I always felt Matthew Lilard did this to overcompensate for the lack of any genuine intensity, and the same is most definitely true here, but doubly bad because it's a clunky imitation of what came before). I really wish the second killer had been someone - anyone -else.
I thought the use of the "legacy characters" was really good. All three probably had smaller roles than in previous films, but it didn't really tell because of how they were utilised. As always, things really came to life when Sid arrived. I was all geared up to dive into Scream VI, but I've now read that there is no Sid, which makes it feel like a pointless exercise to me. Still, it does see the return of Kirby, whose Easter egg I missed while watching this film but read about afterwards.
Some of the meta stuff was enjoyable. Some of it felt quite clunky, such as a character complaining that the new Stab film was simply called Stab when it should be Stab 8 or 9 or whatever, and even going on to say that it went off the rails beginning with the fifth film in the series. None of it's worse than the "sequels suck" discussion in Scream 2, so I've probably been a bit overly-critical of the film in general. Perhaps by this point I simply have less goodwill about this sort of thing and after a gap of this length expectations for a slick, genre-defining film are going to be higher.
There were also some covert criticisms of the 1996 film, done through the filter of Stab movie discussion. Tara described the original Stab as "super-Nineties" and "overlit".
Similarly, Sid criticising Ghostface 2022 as the most derivative one for even using the same house could be seen as the writers covering their arses, as though shining a light on the shortcomings of their own script will excuse it or even make it seem clever. Here's where I did find some goodwill, though, as it was nice to get back to that house, and I felt pleased as a viewer to have recognised the house some time before the big reveal moment (even though it's very obvious and perhaps I was even slow to recognise it).
There's no danger of this film being to the genre of the early Twenties what the original Scream was to the late Nineties. It's probably not even a contender for the best of the Screamsequels. Still, with expectations levelled, there's still entertainment to be found, and overall it's a worthy entry in the series. There isn't an instalment yet that hasn't been watchable in some way, and that's saying a lot for a horror franchise.
This guy's done videos for Who Killed Who in all films in the franchise to date, but I really appeciate these in-depth ones which break down the opening scene and the final act of the original Scream. The level of (over)analysis is thoroughly enjoyable and I applaud it.
This one goes the extra mile with a full floorpan of the Macher house and how all the spaces link up. Finally, it's made sense of that double-staircase where Sid runs down one as Ghostface appears on the one opposite:
Mark Kermode is usually reliable, so I won't be in a hurry to watch Scream 7.
I hadn't realised how convoluted the production was with changes to the key crew, cast dropping out and suchlike. Shades of the seventh Halloween film, H20.
Off the back of this, I also watched Mark's reviews of theScream"requel" and Scream VI. He was a little kinder about the 2022 film (which I thought was OK-ish) but it doesn't make me want to rush out and watch the sixth film either.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
