Showing posts with label Scream 4. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scream 4. Show all posts

8/26/11

My Interview With Billy Loves Stu

This past June I had the distinct honor in participating in Billy Loves Stu's roundup of future queer voices in horror. To say that I was flattered while simultaneously wholly undeserving of the title is an understatement of the highest order, but I couldn't say no to the website's founder, my dear Uncle Pax Romano (aka my mentor, friend and occasional online therapist). I wanted to wait awhile before I posted it here and seeing as how The October Country has picked up some new (much cherished) readers, it seems like the perfect time for me to introduce myself to them. And so boils and ghouls, I humbly present to you the "brains" behind The October Country, because who says you can't relive your 15 minutes of fame?

And again, a very special thank you to Mr. Romano for this exciting opportunity to open up.

Pax Romano: Justin Roebuck-Lafleur (aka Justin Graves), is a relatively new (and outrageous) voice in the horror blogosphere. His blog, The October Country is a terrific journey into the grotesque, the erotic and the musical (downloadable soundtracks, anyone?). He has also recently started up a photo blog, I Float Alone, that I can only describe as David Lynch style gay porn with some animal pictures thrown in. Seriously, I love this guy, he’s creative and opinionated and is not afraid to speak his mind. So pull up a comfy chair (you'll be her for a bit, trust me) and let's meet my main man, Justin...



Pax:
Justin, what was it that drew you to horror films originally? Was this a life-long romance or did it happen later on?


Justin: Oh, it was definitely a life long love affair. I think my very first exposure to anything horror related was Disney's animated adaptation of Washington Irving's The Legend of Sleepy Hollow (with Bing Crosby). Watching that movie was my daily custom when I was two years old. Sitting crossed legged in front of our old monstrous floor television set in my footie pajamas, probably with chocolate all over my face, I couldn't get enough and every time the Horseman's howl sounded throughout the foothills, my heart would just pound out of my chest. In fact, when I was trying my hand at screenwriting as a young adult (natch) I found that my more, shall I say adult horror fare, kept getting sidelined by these less "respectable" slasher components, that I'd dreamed up over the years. I decided that I really needed to exorcise these elements from my system, if I was ever going to move on and write the things that were really eating at me, so I resolved to put every single stalk and slash scenario that I thought was awesome, into one screenplay once and for all. When I was looking for what this particular story's hook would be, I quickly went back to my very first love, which was The Legend of Sleep Hollow, only updating the scenario of Tarry Town's haunted history to modern times and titled the project Old Haunts. I knew even then that meddling with such a classic story was kind of ridiculous (such endeavors usually get under even my skin) but I did my best to be respectful of Irving's tone, his nostalgia for the New York countryside locale in addition to bringing forth many hinted at ideas from the novel, regarding the town's affinity for the supernatural. It favored atmosphere over bloodshed (I think the body count was kept to a minimum of 5) and I even got the opportunity to turn an old ghost story my grandfather told me before bed every night, into a rather cool set-piece of prolonged tension. Though ultimately the script never saw completion, it was an absolute blast to write, probably the most fun I've ever had writing anything. But yeah, my love of scary things started with the Headless Horseman chasing down lanky 'ol Ichabod Crane.

However that was just the first baby step. I would say that the man most responsible for making me the horror nut that I am today would be Steven Speilberg of all people. Jaws and his executive produced Gremlins and Poltergeist were my holy trinity of fright for the first 10 years of my life (also, in most cases I wasn't allowed to view anything over a PG-13 rating in our home, so I took what I could get back in those days). But I didn't just watch them (individually, between then and now, I've probably seen each one of those movies over 200 times, if not more). I was constantly "starring" in them while every other kid on the block was busy playing with their G.I. Joes. In my review for Lew Lehman's The Pit, I spent over half the article (I over-related to the plight of that movie's pint sized protagonist) recounting embarrassing scenarios from my childhood wherein one of those three films were always the root cause of some public spectacle I was making of myself and my family; playing Jaws all on my own, on a daily basis, at the public swimming pool involved me giving the lifeguards near heart attacks (or I imagine) as I was constantly screaming and splashing and crying for help before sinking beneath the surface for as long as I could hold my breath, having been "devoured" by the bloodthirsty "shark". Poltergeist? I reenacted Diane Freeling's (JoBeth Willaims, all hail) muddy swimming pool slide into a sea of decaying corpses routinely in the back of my parent's car (we didn't buckle up back then) utilizing the backseat itself as the "slanted, slippery side of the swimming pool", the space above it and beneath the window as my "goal" and a rather realistic looking decrepit skull (a Halloween decoration, complete with a long mane of filthy hair) that would "spring forth from the ground" (rather simply, held in my hand and shoved into my own face) ala the film and "frighten" me so badly that I would then "slide" back down to the bottom of the "pool" (the foot well of the backseat) and start again. Going so far to sound like a screeching banshee (I imagine) on most occasions as I was constantly "humming" (or something akin to that) the memorized scores from the films I was, er, "interpreting" and so my parents were treated to little Justin Roebuck's acapella rendition of Jerry Goldsmith's Night of the Beast in addition to my own pre-pubescent lady-boy screams. A battered and weathered Gizmo doll was my only security blanket in those days, so it goes without saying that everywhere I went, he went as well, and there were always nasty Gremlins up to no good that needed dispatching. Later on, movies such as The Gate, The Midnight Hour, The Monster Squad and Critters got added to the mix and there were more than a few babysitters that got fired as a result of me convincing them that I was allowed to watch harder fair like Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives and April Fool's Day, but those initial three Speilberg vehicles were my much loved constants.

As far as what constantly drew me to stories of misty graveyards and creaky crypts and all the scary creatures that lurked within them, it's anyone's guess I suppose. For starters, I was always a very imaginative kid. I didn't have many friends growing up and spent most of my waking life retreating into my own daydreams. Horror, what with it's dark fantastical elements was a perfect breeding ground for sowing seeds of adventure in our backyard, our dusty basement or dirty garage. Science fiction, which I do appreciate, was too specific, too limiting. Horror had it all! Vampires, zombies, crazed killers and a whole host of supernatural entities that could bend the laws of nature anyway they saw fit. The genre captured my young imagination and it hasn't relented it's grip since. Also, my other theory is that it was a comforting escape from a messy home life that was constantly in flux. Both my parents were constantly in and out of marriages and as a result I had a revolving door of mother and father figures, not to mention siblings, constantly coming and going. Add to this we were seemingly, constantly moving around. That instability, and the real feeling of never ending loss of loved ones, led to a lot of unhappiness. Then throw into the mix my even then apparent, childhood homosexuality all the while growing up in a small, conservative Midwestern town. This aspect of myself left me with a constant suspicion that there was something "wrong" or "off" about me. Even at the age of 5 or 6, I was perceptive enough to realize that many adults and most children regarded me as something "alien" or different. Some people like escapism that reaffirms their belief that all is right with the world or rather, everyone is a comic and all is lighthearted and fun. The guy always gets the girl, nobody ever dies or leaves unless the story is a noted "downer", there is always a storybook happy ending and all that jazz. I guess I'd fall on the opposite side of that spectrum. I think I related an awful lot to the inherent darkness that runs throughout all of horror, be it cinema or literature. It was reflective of my inner mood. I'm certain on the outside I appeared to be a happy, if somewhat strange child. But on the inside I was finger painting black swirls again and again and again ad infinitum. The adults in my life always fought against this preoccupation with the genre of course and loved ones would say that I was a pessimist even then, but I choose to believe that I was a realist. The world was and is a scary place and I've always known that to some degree and the horror genre is one of the few precious realms, where we don't have to pussyfoot around that reality. There is no sugar coating things when you discover the hacked up bodies of your friends strewn about the dark campground, ya know?

Pax: You are a married man (congratulations), does your husband share your love of the macabre, or does he just tolerate it?


Justin: Well first off, thank you. Sometimes it's still a shock that my name carries that big moniker above it especially because for the longest time I refused to not only date, but I resisted being domesticated in anyway (the latter of which is still something that I stubbornly fight). Thankfully, my love of horror has been one of the easier, more tolerable aspects of married life with me. When Daniel (my husband) and I met he enjoyed horror movies sure, but I'd say more in passing. He wasn't obsessed with them and he surely didn't possess a background education on the big players and important landmarks in the genre's history. I suppose he has had no other choice but to pick up on things through his daily exposure to me and my incessant prattling about the subject. Over the years though he's constantly surprised me by blurting out some tidbit of information that he took the time to learn on his own; a director's body of work, a composer's notable contributions, why someone was considered a scream queen. At first, I imagine that my brow would probably always furrow and I'd look confused and then realization would set in and I'd give him a big proud kiss. I'd say that through his own volition he's become nearly on par with my knowledge of the genre and in some cases he's even surpassed me. Our tastes are radically different sometimes as much as they can be the same. We both love slow burn, atmospheric creep-fests and vintage monster movies, we're both partial to many of the artier foreign offerings and we both also appreciate a good old fashioned gore flick. However, he's struck out on his own of late and has discovered that above everything else, he really enjoys some plain awful, exploitation cheapies, which is not an enthusiasm that I share even though he's slowly whittling away my reservations. The one aspect where we are really different though would be that he has yet to fully tumble into fanboy territory. Save for the occasional film that he absolutely must own (recently it's been J. Michael Muro's Street Trash and Giorgos Lanthimos' Dogtooth), he certainly has resisted the call to purchase things like action figures, vintage promotional standees and all that other good stuff that comes with the territory. Also, he occasionally helps me out with The October Country so I gotta love him for that.

Just like in any other marriage though, we have to make compromises. Sometimes he wants to listen to Pink Floyd and I've had Fred Myrow's Phantasm score stuck in my head for the better part of an hour. Other times he is in the mood for Ilsa: She-Wolf of the SS and I'm leaning towards The Mist for the billionth time. On his behalf, I've done my best to keep the horror related shit regulated to one room, so when we moved into a small house last year, I was designated a space that became our library (thereby fulfilling my life long dream of having such a thing) which is where all the horror novels, movies, posters and general memorabilia is on display. So yeah, it's a total holy matrimony. From the very beginning though, there were three stipulations he had to possess if I was even going to give him the time of day, in my utterly jerkish, geeky way. First, he must have reverence for the almighty David Lynch. Secondly, he had to promise that he would at the very least give author Ramsey Campbell a shot and third, he must accept that throughout the month of October we are consistently going to be flat broke as I would be buying any and all Halloween decorations that even mildly struck my fancy. Also, in short, our house was going to be transformed into the Haunted Mansion for 31 days. Obviously, he passed with flying colors.

Pax: Speaking of marriage, since most states in the US still do not allow gay couples to marry, what horror icon do you think would be the best spokesperson for gay marriage?

Justin: Oh, good question. And a tough one I might add. I guess that begs the question as to who ultimately is more influential in the eyes of heterosexual voters; out of the closet gay men and women or their heterosexual allies. Obviously, the more iconic they are the better. If it were the former I would say Anthony Perkins, if he was still with us. Perhaps I'd nominate him because I know he caught the eyes of many ladies in his (and their) youth, which never hurts. That and my grandfather loves him (and as everyone knows, the elderly vote can mean millions). Unfortunately though, he is no longer, so perhaps Clive Barker (though he may be too obtuse for the average fella).

If we were to go the latter route, I'd say perhaps Robert Englund or Stephen King. Englund, because he is probably one of the genre's most recognized and beloved modern madmen whose popularity back in the day truly crossed dozens of demographics (be thy age, color or gender) all the while he's shown himself to be a likeable, intelligent and astute individual. I mean, who wouldn't just smile if Freddy Kruger was talking to you? I'd buy whatever he was selling (except for maybe Strippers vs. Werewolves). But if he were unavailable, I'd say Mr. King would be an ideal runner up. Even though he himself seemed to suffer from a slight case of homophobia in the 70's (if his reminiscences from Danse Macabre are to be believed) he seems better of it now. I'd nominate King because though his style isn't my cup of tea (I appreciate his ideas and worlds, just not their execution), his work is already in the majority of every household in this country, sitting right next to Americans' copies of Rush Limbaugh's An Army of One and Bill O'Reilly's Pinheads and Patriots.

Pax: What is your favorite horror film, and why.

Justin: George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead. Hands down. I think that that movie is the most perfect horror film ever made, and on first viewing, one of the most horrifying. Honestly, you really couldn't ask for more. Romero's biting social satire has never been stronger. The story on a whole is intelligent and sophisticated. There's its eye-popping, stylish color palette. The four leads are all great, each and every one of them earning a memorable, iconic place in horror movie history. Despite mostly being confined to the shopping mall, the film's scope and canvas feel huge and despite many attempts at ripping it off (and bigger budgets) since, nothing has trumped its epicness (at least in my mind). There is Goblin's awesome score and even the stock, incidental music rocks (and might I add, there's nothing in this world that I cherish more than the memory of my husband tooling about the house in his underwear humming Herbert Chappell's The Gonk). You've got Tom Savini's beautifully executed gore. I mean really, I could just go on and on, but I highly doubt that I need to sell your readers on this particular masterpiece.

Dawn of the Dead was also the first real gore film I'd ever seen (around the age of 15 I think). Spurned on by the pages of Fangoria, I hunted down a copy in the small, do-nothing town my father was living in and bought it sight unseen on some boring summer afternoon. I watched it right after eating lunch from the hot dog / root beer stand across the street from us, and then spent the next 2 hours trying to keep all that chili sauce down as I witnessed the most graphic bloodshed I'd seen up to that time splash across the screen. Actually, the neck / arm ripping during the opening SWAT invasion still gets to me a little. Additionally, and this is despite the daylight beaming in through our windows, I think I had the blanket pulled up to my eyes on more than one occasion. It's not so much that I am a pussy, but I usually go into these things with an over eagerness to be frightened, the opposite of many viewer's puffed-up stance of "I DARE you to try to scare me." That's whats fun for me. Not getting grossed out (though I can take it) but really having the hairs on my arms raised. You'll never find me standing there, hands on hips, legs spread, chest to the sky acting like I've seen it all (even though really, I think I have) and proudly declaring that nothing can or will effect me. Sometimes, I really can't wrap my head around that attitude, outside of its macho posturing. I'd practically take a film maker by the hand and beg them "PLEASE scare me" if I could. And Dawn of the Dead, with it's sea of gnashing, rotting teeth and decayed, clawing hands, did just that.


Pax: David Lynch is coming to your house for dinner, what do you serve and what kind of entertainment would you provide?

Justin: Oh goodness. For starters I can only cook one thing, West African Peanut Soup and that's probably not what I'd wanna serve him because we only have one bathroom. So I think I'd leave this in the hands of my husband, who can whip up anything really. I know Mr. Lynch is partial to Bob' Big Boy so perhaps we'd just serve plates of greasy bacon, eggs, pancakes, hash browns and toast. As far as entertainment is concerned, my first instinct would to have a regular three ring circus twirling about the dinner table; Monkeys wearing white clay masks with elongated noses, burlesque dancers shaking their business in our faces, somebody who knows magic fire tricks and could sit in a corner silent and still, shooting flames outta their hand with the snapping of their fingers and so on. However, I'd probably ignore the urge for theatrics and resign myself to a very quite, very entrenched evening of picking his brain. In all honesty, I don't think Mr. Lynch would have very much fun because he wouldn't be allowed to leave our home until he spelled out the entire season three of Twin Peaks for me, scene by scene. Maybe even season four. In fact I've already got the pliers, duct tape and ball gag.

Pax: Your blog sometimes celebrates sexuality. Do you think there a link between the darker side of sex and horror in general?

Justin: Absolutely. Hence the inclusion of such content on the site. That and the marriage between the two has always been a highly controversial, often hush hush aspect of the genre that frequently is only ever discussed or acknowledged by those that seek to condemn it. Well, I want to celebrate it. I think that that is possible without stepping over too many lines, even if certain lines sometimes need to be crossed for no other reason than it can be healthy to stop and ponder the darker, less seemly side of life sometimes. To take your torch to those shadows. It's there, it always has been and it always will be no matter how much censorship or letter writing campaigns you throw in its way. So why not examine that and dispense with the knee jerk judgements. That and quite frankly, I live for pushing certain people's buttons. Anytime a largely complacent, doe-eyed person crosses my path, I have this overwhelming urge to shake things up a bit. Does some of the art make you uncomfortable? Good. Does some of the art turn you on too? Awesome. That is the point. Look, I'm not attempting anything straightforward here, or rather there hasn't been an open dialogue on the site as far as feedback between the dealer (me) and the user (everyone else) is concerned. Whatever confrontational aspect the art possesses, the readership thus far has dealt with it privately. Add to that, the art in question isn't always nude bodies slathered in blood or gore. Some of them are just good, cheeky fun. Others are so under the radar I think that only certain fetishists will pick up on the purpose of their presence. For instance, sometime ago I posted a vintage photo of a fully dressed woman with her stockinged, high heel clad foot perfectly positioned a top a shovel as she hovers above an open grave. Now for many, the picture seems like just that, a fully dressed woman perhaps up to no good (made all the more apparent by the accompanying text) but nothing more. But for some, her very means of dress and position of dominance is incredibly sexually charged. It's certainly nothing new that I am attempting, I'm just openly and unabashedly nodding to it's ubiquity. It's present in most if not all horror films with an R rating. From the completely mundane T&A that you find in most hack n' slashes, to the more adult aimed, erotically tinged thrillers of the 90s (really just slasher films for yuppies in most cases) to just about everything that Clive Barker, David Cronenberg, Jess Franco, David Lynch or Takashi Miike has attached themselves to. Sexuality, much like Grim Reaper that haunts the sidelines of all horror films, never really leaves us.

As far as sexuality's importance or relevance within the horror genre is concerned, this is how I see it (if you will allow me to get pseudo-philosophical for a moment). Some years ago when I was being hopelessly undeveloped with my bottom of the barrel creativity, I was looking up at this antique, oil painting of Jesus that I had hung in my bathroom above the toilet bowl (it's very position should be enough of an indication as to where my beliefs lie) and I had the sudden urge to cover the majority of the thing in images of penises and vaginas (even though ultimately I didn't, as I recognized that my means and approach would just look infantile and amateurish). Despite what some may think though, the urge wasn't born out of some need to be crude or offensive. On the contrary, the spark stemmed from the exact opposite. I'd got to thinking about how most Christians, or most religious types claim to have this deep reverence for life (as we all should) and in their case, eternal life. But I've always found it funny that they would hold such a notion, eternal life, in such high regards when most can't even look life and where it begins for us all, right in the face. That's what the penises and vaginas were about. I just thought it silly to talk about living forever when you can't acknowledge the true forces that brought you into being in the first place.

Anyway, I guess as far as my personal outlook is concerned (and yes, this relates back to what I was just saying and I'll get to that in a moment), I've applied that particular thought process to horror over the years. I've never been one to watch scary movies and rejoice and applaud the brutality on screen. Sure, I'll get as excited over an excellently executed gore effect as the next fanboy, and I'll appreciate it if you make me squirm from the red stuff. But on a deeper level, the death and carnage I'm witnessing usually instills within me a sensation of loss (assuming the screenwriter or director has done their job and the characters are somewhat three dimensional). Which is a wonderful thing really, because outside of some weepy chick flicks, where else in cinema is the handling of such unavoidable human destruction seriously, and routinely dealt with? It's not in action films I'll say that much. When Bruce Willis or Jason Statham blows several hundred people away in one film, where was the respect and honor for human life presented in any way by the time the closing credits roll? When throughout do they ever pause and with any recognizable human emotion, reflect about the heartache that has been wrought? They don't because it wouldn't be an action film if they did. That's pixalated dead bodies, video game nonsense. That's modern warfare propaganda. With the horror genre, when someone dies, when someone is lost, there are real consequences to that within the story for our characters. Our protagonists don't light a cigarette and swagger off into the sunset all cocky and proud of themselves when and if they vanquish the villain (unless of course, you're Bruce Campbell). No, they are oftentimes broken or destroyed as a result of what they endured. The lives that have been lost in the 90 minutes we just sat through carry a real weight for our hero or heroine. Death, as it is in real life, is ugly, messy and it's accompanied by much screaming and hysterics and sorrow. Which brings us back to my philosophy about sexuality's place within the genre. I feel as though if one is to respect the presence of death in horror films, in all its incarnations and visages, if you are to feel the gravity of it, you must respect life somewhere along the line. There is no weight or horror from death unless you cherish life, and much like the content of the bad art I almost made so long ago, you cannot cherish life without celebrating the very act that creates it. I think the two are eternally intertwined. Linked, whether we know it sometimes or not. Surely I'm not the only person that gets the sudden urge following a funeral to just grab someone and wrap my naked body around theirs and just sweat and thrust and feel ALIVE! It's one of the few natural acts that many of us employ, unconsciously or not, to fight back against our own mortality. To push back against death, to deny it, even if in the end we all lose. Anyway, that's my personal philosophy about it.


Pax: Do you think horror films in general speak to the disenfranchised?

Justin: Without a doubt. First off, the people who create them many times seemed to have had awkward childhoods, so that little seed is already planted right there. I'm not saying bad childhoods, just awkward. Many of them (and us) were the "weird" children down the block. This was all a misunderstanding of course, many didn't know what to make of us and wrote us off as strange. We just liked scary things more than most is all. This was a never ending "problem" for me when I was growing up. Add that to being gay in a small town and I just wanted to escape into horror films all the more, where the creatures were as freakish as I felt. It can be a life lived in solitude, in our our heads and wonderful imaginations and that just naturally leads to feelings of disenfranchisement, of being cut off from everybody else. Whether you be gay, transgendered, black, white, brown, or just a nerd, whatever it is that made people give you a hard time, who among us can't relate to the misunderstood "monster"? From Frankenstein's monster to vampires to Carrie to May and little picked on Jason Voorhees, the horror genre is THEE genre for outcasts. We celebrate them, honor them, give them half-baked motivations in an effort to understand them. Our heroines even tend to be rejects, oftentimes shy, reserved, virginal or saddled with a traumatized back story that has left them scarred and removed from the rest of society in some way. It could be seen as the genre of victimization, but the end message is almost always a positive one of triumph over terrifying odds, the opposite of victimization. Wherein our put upon hero rises up and vanquishes the snarling, blood hungry metaphors for society's ills, the very things that have seeked to hold him or her back, or end them entirely. Or society's meat grinder if you will. The genre's monsters may be there to scare us, but I think most of us suspect that underneath the glowing red eyes, or behind the mask, there is a little bit of each of us. Which is the duality, we recognize the "oppressor" and the "oppressed" and often times the role reversals they go through, oftentimes relating to both as many times the oppressed become the oppressors later on in life. Many of us can understand that bitterness, that pain with little to no explanation needed as it's amazing what some people endure; the unbelievable cruelty and heartache that is so prominent in the world. Sometimes I think that that is merely our lives thrown up there on screen. Metaphorically speaking of course.

Pax: Your blog ran a countdown to Scream 4 – was it worth the wait, what did you think of the film in general?

Justin: That was a lot of fun to do, really nostalgic. Reaching back into '96, '97 and 2001 (the release dates of the first three), I was shocked at how much useless Scream related trivia was cluttering up my brain space but it certainly came in handy when I was writing all those articles. Though I can't say (what with an at times demanding home life), I'm eager to start another countdown for anything anytime soon. As far as whether or not it was all worth it, or more specifically, was the wait for Scream 4 worth it, I'd have to say...partially, on both counts. The film itself presented quite a conundrum for me as a critic. On one hand, I enjoyed myself immensely with each viewing (I had to see it 3 times to suss out my feelings about it). I thought it was fun and sassy and possessed a wicked mean streak, a really good time. On the other hand, my criticisms (mostly related to the script and it's paired down running time, which was heavily edited) were legion and at odds with my aforementioned enjoyment. It walked like a Scream film, it talked like a Scream film, but I felt a lot of elements were lacking and that review, my God, that review had to be one of the most frustrating things I've ever tackled. Discussing films within films within films that are remakes, reboots, retellings of previous Scream films. Murders that are copycats of movies which are retellings of murders. I got it all, but trying to explain the various, clever plot threads whose tentacles stretch back over a decade in printed form without the whole piece ending up a corpulent mess was a real headache. As far as the countdown. Well, despite my...I'd say passing enjoyment of Scream 4, I felt like the countdown amounted to a whole lot of nothing in the end. It was meant as a build up to something quite monumental so that was a bad call on my part. It was the cock tease of 2011. In my heart, when I decided to run a countdown, it was for an imagined, hypothetical film that was going to be a whole helluva lot more groundbreaking than what we got. My deepest wish was that Scream 4 would turn the mainstream, Hollywood financed horror industry on it's head all over again. I wasn't hoping for another glut of teen slasher films mind you (even though that is probably what we would have got), but a changing tide of some sort. A diversion away from remakes and rehashes, or as I like to call them, whore copies, at the very least. But alas it wasn't to be as I think Scream 4 has been certified a bomb now and it certainly didn't make any ripples that I've detected.

Pax: In your roundup of the “worst films of 2010” you sited Skyline. I loved that movie, but I know most found it lacking. Why do you suppose certain genre films cause such extreme reactions either positive or negative, with no in-between?

Justin: Well with "genre anything", be it horror or science fiction or fantasy, you are dealing with the fanboy contingent and their preponderance with obsession tends to make them a vocal lot. Even when it's not something that they are entirely in love with, they already know how to argue their hundred and one reasons as to why something is "great" or a "masterpiece". They can be quite formidable to go head to head with about anything. I worked in a comic book shop for about year not to long ago, with a staff of about 30 working in the shipping department and those boys could really go at it sometimes, bless them (I only vaguely knew what they were talking about most times, but it was entertaining to listen to). I think with our particular sub-culture, the sub-culture of geekdom, what you occasionally have are very intelligent, very bright people who haven't necessarily had the most fulfilling of social lives sometimes (which is fine) and have built up a lot of love and loyalty for things that have substituted for actual fullfillment elsewhere in life. God knows I've done it throughout some of the harder patches in my life (I could probably quote every episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer from beginning to end, as a result). Anyway, I think that that particular, pre-existing way of living just naturally lends itself to being protective of things that bring us happiness. I think that those fanboy obsessions sometimes have been the safe and protective cushioning that we have built up around some of our childhood wounds. Some of those fictional, fantastical worlds have been our salvation sometimes.They have been for me anyway. They're comforting for us and they have treated us well and so we're very guarded with them. If you are a horror nut, your kinda use to not being excepted as you are, you are use to having to defend much of what interests you from grade school onwards. The great thing is though once you get older nobody but Focus on the Family gives a shit and you are left with some really great debate skills. Even if it's for a shitty movie like Skyline (love ya Pax). Other than that, human beings don't agree on anything ever anyway. I'm certainly an argumentative fella through and through.

Pax: Finally, what do you want the world to know about Justin?

Justin: What indeed. Hmm, well I've run the gamut as far as what I've wanted pursue with horror over the decades. I spent the better half of my teen years convinced I was destined to be an author but realized later on down the line that I wasn't very good at it. Likewise, I experienced a short bout of wanting to make horror movies. I still kinda do. However, I deduced early on that I didn't have it in me to play the Hollywood game of ladder climbing and ass kissing. Really perhaps I just wasn't ambitious enough, but I think I'm just too nice a guy to be vicious on a set when need be, play hard ball with studio execs or tolerate or humor exaggerated, monstrous celebrity. Plus, I can't imagine living in a city where everybody is there pursuing the exact same dream. I imagine that would get quite boring and tiresome really fast. I need variety in company.

As far as as the here and now is concerned, I'm busy having fun with The October Country. My initial aspirations for the site seem to be a bit bigger than what one man is capable of pulling off though. Which was a downer when that realization set in. However, I've been talking with people here and there and seeing if they might like to come aboard and contribute so that it's content can expand. We'll see how that goes I guess.

All of that and I intend to do my very best at getting the world to view our beloved genre with the seriousness and respect that I think that it deserves, which has become kinda hard again considering some of films that have been getting released of late. Or rather, the films that have been getting released to cineplexes nation wide. But then people shouldn't slight an entire genre because of the greedy, number crunching idiots sitting at the top and currently pulling the strings. Hopefully horror will always be the black sheep of the creative universe, I hope that never changes no matter how successful it becomes at the boxoffice. When things become too mainstream and popular, you end up with what we've had these past couple years coming out of Hollywood; watered down whore copies streamlined for mass consumption. The same 'ol thing time and time again wherein nobodies buttons are getting pushed in anyway meaningful. That's not the job of the genre, to lay there flaccid and ineffective. Horror is meant to make you feel uncomfortable. This doesn't mean that it must disgust you, it can achieve this oftentimes on a purely emotional level. But it's meant to shake you one way or the other. This unique side to our genre, which really no other genre has, is something that I think deserves serious respect. Where else can filmmakers routinely have a conversation with their audience about subject matter oftentimes deemed too dark to be discussed? Metaphorically and thinly veiled of course but discussed nonetheless. The horror genre isn't trash, it can be cinema. Horror fiction can be literature. If I change just a handful of minds and they in turn continue the argument, I'll be satisfied.

Also, all the while people have been bemoaning their belief that the genre has sucked of late, I think that many of them have failed to notice that that statement couldn't be further from the truth. Because, (and seemingly this has always been the case) the films that are contenders to be considered classics later on down the line, films like Martyrs, The House of the Devil, Frozen, Antichrist and so many more, have all come out of the independent world. They haven't garnered the exposure of films like Nic Cage's Season of the Witch, Skyline or Legion. Which goes to show that the more things change the more they stay the same. The majority of movies that we now know are masterpieces, movies like Carpenter's Halloween, Romero's original Dead trilogy, Hooper's The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and hundreds upon hundreds of others, all came from the indie world and if they were released today, would likewise probably play 5 select cities and then go straight to DVD. I guess I'm just trying to urge people who think horror is in dire straits to get off their butts and do the leg work required to really track down the worthwhile titles. Stop allowing yourselves to be spoon-fed the dreck that Hollywood is trying to distract and disappoint you with. Don't give up on the genre because the good stuff is always out there. That's my other goal, to get more people to open their eyes to this amazing world of cinema that decidedly is not being shown in 3-D. I guess I'm a man on a mission these days.

4/20/11

Review - Scream 4

Don't Fuck With The Original
(Or, What Exactly Is The Problem Here)


Warning: Major Spoilers Below

A quick sojourn through The October Country's posts from the past couple weeks should indicate to anybody reading this, that we here at TOC are big fans of Kevin Willaimson's / Wes Craven's meta, modern day take on the horror genre (or more specifically, the slasher sub-genre). Certainly, our love for the series is going to shade our review with a degree of bias opinions.
There is no denying the fact that we are those big dorky fans that literally counted down the days leading up to Scream 4's release and then promptly waited impatiently in the theater lobby 90 minutes before the film's pre-premier midnight screening We are the type of fans for which there was to be no waiting any longer than need be to experience this sucker as we'd already been waiting for over a decade to return to this world, for crying out loud. Trust me when I say, we simply couldn't put it off one more day.

We had in equal number, so many hopes (detailed here) and apprehension and reservations (here) leading up to the big unveil. We were mildly hoping for another masterpiece (Scream is arguably a masterpiece and Scream 2 is one of the worthiest successors in genre history) yet we were not getting our hopes up, lest our expectations set the bar so high for 4 that no manner of its awesomeness could please us. As far as our doubts are concerned, we prayed that it at least be better than Scream 3. After a decade away from the franchise, a new era of studio horror "films" (recycled, rebooted, remade, ripped off retreads) mucking up the landscape, the mainstream slasher genre essentially put to bed, Wes Craven's previous film being the mangled turkey that was My Soul To Keep and Kevin Williamson's horror output being confined to teenybopper small screen endeavors (The Vampire Diaries and soon The Secret Circle) in addition to Williamson leaving the project midway through production, script rewrites, recasting and the meddlesome nature that is the Weinsteins, being better than Scream 3 seemed like the most that we could realistically hope for.


Right off the bat I'll tell you that thankfully, it is better than Scream 3, so a travesty of those proportions were averted. But what of it's other merits, or lack thereof? Turns out we had to see the film two more times to make up our minds. It's not as though we didn't enjoy Scream 4 by any stretch of the imagination. To the contrary, we had a blast right from the get go. A regular 'ol screaming and laughing, armrest-clenching blast. However, I became aware 20 minutes before the film started of something peculiar going on inside of me. Gone were my everyday pretensions and trademark cynicism that gets me through life (and much of what Hollywood produces). Save for the aforementioned worrying that Scream 4 wouldn't measure up, I was uncharacteristically overexcited and giddy as if I was 15 again (my age when the first film debuted). I realized that for the first time in eons, I was about to watch a film as a eager fanboy first, and a critic second. So, it is this reason that I felt as though additional viewings were required before I officially committed any thoughts down, and those thoughts are as follows.

Picking up 10 years after the conclusion of Scream 3, we return to Woodsboro (the scene of the first film's now famous slaughters), a town that proves the more things change, the more they stay the same. Dewey Riley (David Arquette) once deputy of the small hamlet has now been graduated to sheriff and not only has he staffed his department with equally bumbling and incompetent lawmen (Adam Brody, Anthony Anderson and Marley Shelton) but he's gone and finally made an honest woman (after three films of on again off again romantic struggles) out of the now terminally-bored-as-a-housewife-in-a-small-town Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox, I feel ya girl). Into Woodsboro's relative facade of tranquility enters Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), harbinger of death and destruction arriving like a black thunderstorm on the horizon (not really, she pulls up in a modest, efficient rental but you know what I mean) , or as one character aptly refers to her, "the angel of death". Coinciding with Sid's return to her hometown, a new rash of killings break out that finds not only the core trio back in harms way of Ghostface's blade and pithily humorous threats (or positively bone chilling at times, Ghostface this time around, is not mincing words "I'm going to slice your eyelids open so you don't blink when I stab you in the face") , but also Sidney's remaining estranged family; Aunt Kate (Mary McDonnell, absolutely wasted) her younger cousin Jill Roberts (Emma Roberts) and Jill's high school pals. If the film's dialogue is to be believed (yet, the action falls sadly short of illustrating in most cases), Sidney has yet again awoken a masked madman (or men) hellbent on "remaking" the first "movie" (aka Stab, Scream's film-within-a-film counterpart, based on the "real life" killings from Gale's trashy tell all book The Woodsboro Murders, itself a recount of Scream's fictional world, phwew). A psychopath that won't stop until everyone Sydney cares about is taken from her and in short, she suffers dearly and suffers greatly. Terminally so.


Right out of the gate, Scream 4 announces itself as a film so hyper-aware of itself, so deconstructive of it's trappings, that it seesaws dangerously close from beginning to end into tipping over into outright analysis and fading away as a film. Mirroring the real life (really real life this time) hallway of smoke and mirrors that Craven, Williamson and co. sent fans down prior to its release (feeding us false plot information such as Scream 4 being the beginning of an entirely new trilogy wherein the torch would be passed from the original characters onto Jill and her surviving friends, effectively throwing everybody off their game and fucking with their expectations of the film's intent and final denouement), Scream 4's opening moments are likewise a magic trick that continuously keeps disappearing down it's own rabbit hole (or possibly emerging from it, depending on how you look at it). In essence though, the prologue is stating that what follows is going to be a series of bait and switches that toys with what audiences thought that they were in for (like a set of Russian dolls, Stab 6 begets Stab 7 which begets...dum da da dum, Scream 4) which as it turns out, is only the first in a multitude of this entry's incredibly intriguing story ideas and plot concepts that perhaps worked better on paper than they do in execution. Or rather, this particular version of its execution (being aware of the alleged, initial 2 hours and 20 minute running time makes reviewing the film and picking apart its script entirely frustrating). I mean, does that first trick, the one where we are meant to believe going into this thing, that Jill and her younger generation will inherit Scream's throne work on anybody other than the diehard fans that read Dimension Film's official plot synopsis and listened to what Craven and Williamson had to say about the film's new direction? I see no reason to think so. Likewise with the opening narrative trick. Does it work? Not entirely, not as a whole. Stab 6 moderately works as a tension filled 4 minute mini-movie with some amusing banter between Trudie (Shenae Grimes) and Sherrie (Lucy Hale) transpiring before the characters devolve into world where Scream apparently hasn't taken place and start doing very stupid, groan inducing things that as everyone knows, will surely be their doom (which is right around the point where you the viewer say "Hey wait a damn minute, these two are supposed to be the big celebrity kills?", the requisite tradition of the franchise's prologues). But then there is abrupt screaming and bloodshed and the opening moments end very suddenly and disappointingly until...gotcha, Stab 7 (unknowingly) takes its place. Okay, Kristen Bell (Chloe) and Anna Paquin (Rachel), now these two are celebrities and this is more like it. Except it's not. It's barely more than a slightly clever, blink-and-you-will-miss-it joke (with Paquin doing her usual over emoting of every line, I swear, how did this woman win an Oscar?) There is more biting analysis on the current state of the horror genre (over analysis in this case, or maybe it's just Paquin's delivery of the lines that makes them stick out like the blood spurting, thumb severed appendage that Ghostface just played with) before stab, scream, blood and...gotcha, Scream 4 (unknowingly) takes it's place accompanied to nervous laughter and no doubt furrowed brows from the audience. Enter Jenny Randall (Aimee Teegarden) and Marnie Cooper (Brittany Robertson), two pretty, blonde high school girls carrying on the same deconstructive conversation that the last four dead women had. Only this time, the action is the real action that is about to set off Scream 4's chain of events that will leave a pile of attractive dead bodies in its wake by films end. Action that begins and ends as suddenly as the previous two examples.


Though we all expect an awful lot of these scenes, I don't hate Scream 4's opening moments. Surely, its better than Scream 3's Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber) Christine Hamilton (Kelly Rutherford) home invasion (lifeless, limp and bloodless in addition to a returning character like Cotton deserving a better orchestrated, more cleverly conceived sendoff). No, 4's opening lands somewhere slightly behind Scream 2's Jada Pinkett-Smith's / Omar Epps' theater slaughter. Like part 2's, it's fascinating in concept, but it works (sometimes) more as a clever gimmick instead of the emotionally draining roller coaster that the original Scream devised for Drew Barrymore. Which is a shame, because after a 10 year absence from movie screens, Scream 4 should have opened with something that went straight for our throats instead of our smart ass, know-it-all, wink wink funny bone. It's...underwhelming, considering the wait for it. This particular opening is called into further question when taking into account the original way it was conceived (like I said not moments ago, being aware of all that deleted footage is a bitch), the remnants of which can still be seen in the film's trailer, TV spots and film stills. Apparently, Marnie and Jenny's characters, or rather who took the lead in in the unfolding events, were initially reversed. Keeping in line with how nobody in Woodsboro (of their generation) treats Ghostface as anything other than a boogeyman to have fun with (scaring their friends and taunting their acquaintances with phone apps that recreate his signature voice, the second of Scream 4's brilliantly conceived yet go nowhere ideas), Marnie is none-to-impressed when after getting up from the couch to get some popcorn (breaking away from the released version's series of events that finds Jenny going upstairs), she is interrupted by the spectacle of Ghostface brutally stabbing her friend to death on the couch. She barely blinks, going about her business, making sarcastic comments as Jenny screams and bleeds and dies, thinking it is all just another joke that is being played on her. It isn't, obviously (culminating in the clip some may have seen on TV of Marnie lying on the floor, bloodied, croaking out "But your not real" before biting it). Perhaps we'll never know (unless it surfaces on DVD), but that sounds like hands down a helluva lot more disturbing opening that what was ultimately presented to us. Perhaps it was too thematically close to Scream 2's opening, wherein Maureen and Phil are murdered in plain sight of a crowded theater, but likewise, everyone witnessing the crime think it's nothing more than a gag. In a sequel about remakes and recreating past atrocities from the previous films though, I can't see why this would have given the makers pause. I mean, they could have really gotten meta on us there, recreating Scream's killings of Casey Becker and Steven Orth (another deleted scene that finds both Marnie and Jenny's bodies posed like Casey and Steve's; one hung from a ceiling fan, the other tied to a chair) and Scream 2's murders (thematically), which in turn were recreations of Scream's opening kills and copycatting Maureen Prescott's death, all the while, Stab is playing on the theater screen recreating Scream's opening crimes as well, throw in Stab 6 and Stab 7 as a prelude to all of this and....Jesus! I think my scalp just popped off in a hail of smoke and sparks and hit the ceiling trying to work my way through all of that. Unfortunately though, as with much of Scream 4, it comes just inches away from truly clever and falls short of its own potential in addition to going for the humor, instead of the shiver Which by the way, the movie continuously insists on doing at really awkward, inappropriate times (see Anthony Anderson's demise for example, surely the most disturbing death in the film...right up until the moment is ruined by a really cheap, really unfunny one liner, something that really shouldn't be a part of this world). Either way, what remains is still a relatively fun 10 minutes, the body count is up to six, the main titles flash across the screen and then we're off (again, for really real this time).


What follows for the remaining 90 some minutes, is an intriguing mess of ideas, characters, red herrings, murders and story threads that all carry with them the means to really go for the gusto and make something truly memorable of this sequel. Unfortunately, like the opening sequence (a microcosm of the entire film's faults boiled down to 10 minutes), they all race for the finish line, giving everything they got, then abruptly stop dead in their tracks feet from the goal and content themselves with staying there. As far as all of these million and one concepts and metaphors all getting juggled simultaneously by Scream 4's script, ultimately they all come crashing down by film's end, without any one of them having made a serious statement on the proceedings or lasting impression to mull over on the walk to your car.

First we have the idea of remakes. Though the movie gets in some wonderfully acidic jabs at the trend currently destroying mainstream horror films (Kirby's breathless, desperate reciting of every recent remake she can remember off of the top of her head is a show stopper, in both a hilarious bitch slap kinda way and tellingly sad statement on the state of affairs the genre finds itself in, and she didn't even list them all) but as far as the concept of Scream 4 itself being a remake (in both the killer's actions and the recreation of key scenes, moments and characters from the franchises' history), it only makes it halfway there. Given how the opening murder of Jenny and Marnie was changed at the last minute, it makes all the characters' proceeding dialogue about a killer "recreating" the original events of Woodsboro completely nonsensical and moot. We get what the filmmakers are trying to establish, so we go with it as viewers but need only pause for a second to realize that it's still all bunk. In fact, no actual recreation of anything on Ghostface's part occurs until the final reel, which finds Charlie Walker (Rory Culkin) tied to a chair on a back patio (ala Steven Orth from Scream's opening moments), his life in the hands of Kirby Reed (Hayden Panettiere, taking over for Casey Becker in this instance) who must answer a series of horror trivia questions to save his life. Certainly, Ghostface does a lot of talking about how he is re-imagining events, but alas he (and the script) is all bark and no bite in this department. As far as the movie itself remaking it's original film, it's a bit more successful but outside of it's own self-satisfied assurance that it is hitting all the right marks (in reality, just barely), this new direction only manages to be nothing more than a series of mildly amusing yet wholly diverting winks to the series' hardcore fans; Kirby is unquestionably the re-imagined Tatum Riley (Rose McGowan), Robbie Mercer (Erik Knudsen) and Charlie together are the re-imagined Randy Meeks (Jaime Kennedy), the entire floundering, inefficient police force is Dewey 2.0, the vaguely stalkerish, quietly menacing Trever Sheldon (Nico Tortorella, smoking hot, did I mention that?) is our new Billy Loomis (Skeet Ulrich) and so on. There is the new version of Billy and Sid's high school hallway confrontation from the original (and spoofed in the sequel with Luke Wilson and Tori Spelling) played out between Jill and Trevor. They also recreated the famous fountain side banter between the kids from part 1 (again, seen in the trailers), but apparently this was excised as well. They recreate the big party in the third reel, but again, this is another missed opportunity (c'mon guys, you got the creepiest barn this side of Halloween 5's Tower Farm, and a scarecrow version of Ghostface's mask created last year and you couldn't cook up something a bit more impressive). Billy and Stu Macher's (Matthew Lillard) kitchen stab-o-thon is recreated in the last act, and finally here is an instance where they almost recapture the same disturbing and horrifying display of insanity but this scene only proves that when recreating the original, you are always going to fall short of matching it. Which is around the time I started to wonder if Scream 4 is just a big, expensive, elaborate lark played on the fans and studio, perhaps its truncated, less than perfect existence is snidely intentional, perhaps it is the statement.


Next up we have the film's preoccupation with new, modern technology and the exciting role this could potentially play into events. Well, I did say potentially, because ultimately the don't do anything with it (it almost seems thrown in either as an after thought). Robbie walks around the film with a huge, streaming webcam strapped to the side of his face like some atrocious modern day head brace and...you guessed it, besides distracting us with its presence, the filmmakers don't do anything with it. Even when the moment arrives where we are led to believe that something clever is about to occur, as Robbie's cam has been reversed and recording what is behind him in his intoxicated state, is proven to be nothing but a false start as he fumbles around and turns it forward only to reveal seconds later that that is where Ghostface is standing, just in front of him (this is one of the film's lamest, most frustrating moments of missed opportunities, goddamn it can I write at least the setpieces next time fellas?) The modern plague of texting is in our face throughout, but nothing really comes of it. Likewise the phenomena of Facebook and Twitter just sit there like some declaration that the filmmakers are "with it" (though the latter does earn an amusing line). So besides being either nothing more than gratuitous product placement or another half-baked concept, all these iPhones and webcams and whatnot do nothing more than seriously date the film, which is never something that you should strive for. It certainly doesn't add anything to the movie but more interruption (and things are already getting mightily disordered at this point).


Then we have the aforementioned characters / red herrings / knife fodder / returning series' stalwarts and again, another mess. The core three, Dewey, Gale and Sidney don't fair so well this time, seemingly regulated to mere cameos as a side effect of the filmmakers' insistence to make this relevant to teenagers (a Hollywood thought process that I will loath till the day I die, seriously I had zero issues with being engaged in and or caring about characters who weren't in my immediate age bracket when I was kid, nor do I know any kids today who think the way that Hollywood presumes they do about such matters). Both Dewey and Gale are wasted in a major way this time around. Regulated to the sidelines, their meager roles are seemingly scaled back to their importance in the original (not an attempt to keep in line with the remake motif, I fear). Dewey isn't even put into harms way until the final scene for Christ's sakes. Though Sidney fairs a little better as far as exposure, but she is given absolutely no storyline other than to react to the next attack on Jill or one of her friends. What gives? This is the one aspect of the film that does really piss me off; The fans don't sit around for ten years wondering how Ghostface could creatively kill off more teenagers. No, we sit around wondering what Gale, Dewey and Sidney might be up to. It is the characters that is the unique heart and soul of this franchise. It is the characters that keep us coming back. Maybe the meat of their storylines ended up on the cutting room floor like much else of the film's substance, but I can't say that for sure and so I'm going to judge the film from what I do know and I know this: you don't spend three films feeding the blossoming relationship between Dewey and Gale only to have them get married and then drop the ball in exploring that aspect of their characters. You don't take a richly fiery woman like Gale Weathers (Gale freakin' Weathers damnit), with all her aspirations of fame and fortune (something that could have easily tied into the film's climatic statement on said matter), plunk her down in no man's land for a decade in the name of love and then not dig into that juicy nugget of dramatic potential. You don't take someone like Dewey who has been fighting for nothing but respect and for people to finally take him seriously for three films, and then not examine how that character may have grown since finally achieving that respect (I'll take his new found position as town sheriff as a sign that somebody believes in the boy). You don't champion Sidney as the face of modern horror's scream queens and then shade her character's return with no more soul other than that she wrote a book (that's it, that's all there is to her this time and it's not even used as a crux of the film's storyline). You just...don't do any of this. In effect, we the audience are left just as in the dark as we were at the conclusion of Scream 3. Hell for all the lack of material they are given to their 10 year back story, this movie might as well just have picked up directly after that one and gone retro. I've done a lot of daydreaming as a result by the way, and I've chosen to believe that Sidney has spent a lot of time regretting that she was always one step behind in the past, and her friends and family suffered as a result. Hence, the explanation as why in this film she goes barreling into danger like a bat outta hell, confronting the killer, rather than retreating (a brush stroke I must single out for praise, as it's quite awesome to behold of our gal, even if she is as unsuccessful in saving anyone as she was before).

The new, younger faces are a mixed bag. Besides being modern day incarnations of previous entry's characters, they're also not all that sympathetic (something the Scream series has always asked it's audience to do, is care when that blade slices flesh to ribbons and people start dropping like flies). It's my opinion that a degree of this is unintentional (you cut back your film's running time, you cut back your characters' dimensionality, assuming that it was there to begin with, period) but that a huge amount of it is intentional; commenting on younger generations' desensitization and their removed attitudes from real world horrors (they've seen it all on YouTube) in addition to growing up in a culture obsessed with fame and celebrity, this lot is more concerned with status and shallow pursuits than they are with one another. When their friends start getting brutally butchered in front of their very eyes, they go through the requisite screaming and hysterics, for a moment. Then the next day, it's seemingly back to business as usual: parties, gossip, snark. This new approach to the franchise's potential victims works in a blackly satirical way (if you dig in mind you, it's subtle enough where you wonder if this is indeed what is going on, or if everyone just happens to be unlikable assholes) but it doesn't do much for our sympathy which in turn doesn't make us give a hoot if they die, which in effect renders the scare sequences kinda toothless and so on. However, this is no fault of the actors as the young cast all turn in fine performances, Robertson and Knudsen standing out with Panettiere stealing the show as every geeks wet dream (she owns Suspiria and knows who Gunner Hansen is, hotness incarnate), even if she is kind of a bitch. As far as the cast of characters doing double time as red herrings, I say what red herrings? Besides a few suspicious, pointed camera shots and select characters being in suspect locations at certain points in the game, there are virtually no clues left for audiences to stew over. Largely gone is the series' format of murder mystery via slasher film. There really isn't any mystery. Or investigation. Or yes, clues. Instead, we have in its place a series of killings that stretch to the climax where the killers are revealed abruptly, without any diverting storylines laid, or red herrings worked for, that should make their ultimate unveiling shocking.


Which leads us to the motivation of the killers, film geek Charlie Walker and Sidney's cousin Jill. Again, much like most else in the film (I'm getting really sick of saying that at this point), Jill's initial motivation, that she deserves the spotlight after growing up in the shadow of Sidney's fame, that she deserves a chance to be Sidney, is very intriguing until you realize that again, what filmmakers have shown us contradicts the information coming out of their character's mouths. Throughout Scream 4's runtime, we witness the denizens of Woodsboro mostly meet Sidney with scorn or derision (save for a few stragglers at Sidney's book signing). When the murders start anew, townspeople congregate outside the police line and heckle Sidney, blaming her presence for the the death of one of their own. Her own Aunt Kate even seems initially put off by her return ("nobody asks me about my scars"). Likewise Jill's very friends, though they regard Sidney from afar as a pseudo-curiosity, want nothing to do with her ("What are you doing in the house with her, that's like being on Top Chef with Jeffrey Dahmer"). So we are yet again being told something contradictory that we haven't seen, at which point we are left but no choice but to try and take Jill's word on matters (an unreliable witness no doubt, though I get the impression we are supposed to believe her sob story) . As far as Charlie? Well he is along for the ride apparently, seeking the same fame and notoriety that Jill is perusing (he's to be the new Randy to Jill's Sidney). Despite the above criticisms, I personally liked this turn of events, or the latter half of Jill's motivation. I'm just about as over this nation's obsession with fame, reality TV and celebrity gossip as anybody could be and I found Jill's statement that she didn't need friends, she needed fans, very dead-on in the moral rot it was portraying. I fear that her Jill Roberts is a very accurate representation of a certain contingent of modern day American society (hey, if parents are willing to concoct elaborate ruses like setting their small children adrift in balloons to gain attention, I'm not putting anything past anybody anymore) and I think this last magic trick the filmmakers perform; pulling back the curtain to reveal a selfish motivation even sicker than bloodlust, insanity or revenge, is one of the film's few, genuinely amazing moments (and finally, a relatively concise deceleration escapes the movie's other, muddled fumbles at them). If the film had ended in the glare of flashing light bulbs and swarming reporters in the vein of Sunset Boulevard, as Jill was wheeled away on the stretcher (achieving her goal), I think frankly I would have been stunned at both the statement and the balls on display. But alas, Scream 4 has no balls, and we are drug along to the hospital for a protracted climax that even one character has the sense of mind to realize is "getting silly", or more aptly, way over the top (Sidney even resourcefully uses a defibrillator as a weapon, ala Dr. Giggles, now there is a film you want to model yourself after, good Christ). As expected by this point, Jill goes down (several times, per tradition) and Sidney, Gale, Dewey and Deputy Judy Hicks (Marley Shelton) triumph. The end.


You probably have forgotten by this point and after all of that nitpicking, that I actually enjoyed Scream 4 (three times now, and there is sure to be many more times in the near future). I think what you have just have borne witness to, was the inner struggle of a rabid fanboy against his more critical nature (a nature that knows better). However, when all is said and done, the overly eager, salivating fan who waited 90 minutes in the lobby for the film to start, so impatient he was to get to it, wins (mark it down, because it isn't likely to happen again for another 10 years). In all honesty, if I judged Scream 4 by the merits of everything else that is getting produced in Hollywood these day, it would surely rate a lot higher. In all reality, it could be so very, very much worse than it is (even Campbell has stated publicly that it is a "miracle" it came out at all, considering the behind-the-scenes drama that hounded it endlessly). And when stacked up against other part 4s in major horror franchises (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 4: The Next Generation, Jaws 4: The Revenge, Hellraiser 4: Bloodlines, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, Saw 4 but to name a few), it looks all the more like a regular class act. However, I'm not grading the film on a curve. I'm holding Scream 4 up to the franchise's own standards and it is these standards (not mine, not Hollywood's, not sequel's, not remakes) that it fails to live up to.





Scream 4 stars Neve Campbell (The Craft, The Glass Man, The Dark), Courteney Cox (The Tripper, Cougar Town), David Arquette (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Ravenous, Eight Legged Freaks, The Tripper), Emma Roberts (It's Kinda a Funny Story, Homework), Hayden Panettiere (Heroes, I Love You Beth Cooper), Lucy Hale (Fear Island, Pretty Little Liars), Shenae Grimes (Sugar, The Cross Road), Anna Paquin (True Blood, Darkness, Trick R' Treat, Open House), Kristen Bell (Pulse, Roman), Marielle Jaffe (Locked Away), Marley Shelton (Valentine, Dark Shadows, Grindhouse), Erik Knudsen (Saw II, Beastly, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), Rory Culkin (The Zodiac, Signs, Mean Creek), Aimee Teegarden (Beneath the Darkness, Beautiful Wave), Brittany Robertson (The Secret Circle, From Within), Alison Brie (Man Men, Parasomnia, Born), Nico Tortorella (The Lowenfish Party, Trespass), Anthony Anderson (Scary Movie 3 & 4, Urban Legends: The Final Cut), Adam Brody (Jennifer's Body, Smiley Face), Mary McDonnell (Donnie Darko, Independence Day) and Heather Graham (Scream 2, From Hell, Twin Peaks, Nowhere). Scream 4 is currently in theaters worldwide.




Skull Ratings:
5 Skulls - The Best
4 Skulls - Very Good
3 Skulls - Good / Average
2 Skulls - Poor
1 Skull - The Worst

4/17/11

Scream 4 Review

Coming Soon


Talk about an anti-climax. No, not the movie, our delayed review. We here at The October Country spend two weeks counting down to the release of Scream 4 and then we drag our feet on getting our review posted. I know, I know. Unfortunately, all that every day Scream content took us away from working on other things...such as real work (which is now backed up and behind schedule). So, we're busy spinning plates and juggling with our feet trying to get everything else done around here this weekend, and then, then we are posting our official review. Additionally, I wanted to make time to see Scream 4 one more time before I commit to any final thoughts on the film. I feel like a microcosm of all the critics that have been evenly split right down the middle about the movie. I loved it. I had a blast. However, I have criticisms. Many, many healthy criticisms. It's really rare that I feel the need to re-watch something anymore to fully suss out my feelings about it, as I've usually made up my mind about a film by the time the closing credits initially roll. Not so with Scream 4. I'm not exactly sure what this says about the movie, if anything, other than I really want to get it right before I open my mouth. In the interim dear readers, do I think that you should be making your pilgrimage to cineplexes nationwide to see it this weekend? Absolutely, with no reservations. It's imperfect it is, that Scream 4. But chances are you are gonna leave the theater with a smile on your face and a rejuvenated skip in your step. More to come though, when we get around to posting the review. Till then, get out there and support relatively great horror.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...