Ein Jahr nach der Ermordung ihres Bruders wird eine Teenagerin von einem neuen Killer terrorisiert, der es auf das Mädchen und ihre Freunde abgesehen hat und Horrorfilme als Teil seines tödl... Alles lesenEin Jahr nach der Ermordung ihres Bruders wird eine Teenagerin von einem neuen Killer terrorisiert, der es auf das Mädchen und ihre Freunde abgesehen hat und Horrorfilme als Teil seines tödlichen Spiels einsetzt.Ein Jahr nach der Ermordung ihres Bruders wird eine Teenagerin von einem neuen Killer terrorisiert, der es auf das Mädchen und ihre Freunde abgesehen hat und Horrorfilme als Teil seines tödlichen Spiels einsetzt.
- Auszeichnungen
- 12 Gewinne & 11 Nominierungen insgesamt
- Phone Voice
- (Synchronisation)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
Take the opening sequence, for example: a young girl (Drew Barrymore) is making popcorn and waiting for her boyfriend when she suddenly receives a phone call. Normally, this would be a huge clichè, only this time the killer decides to play a little game (horror film quiz, naturally) with his victim. In fact, the only reason why he kills her is that she gave the wrong answer to one of his questions (those who haven't seen Friday 13th might want to skip that bit, as it spoils said movie's ending). That scene is both very scary (the murder is quite graphic and disturbing) and at the same time funny (it tests the characters', and the audience's, knowledge of the horror genre), and the rest of the film continues in the same vein: after the first killing, the masked psychopath starts disposing of other teenagers in the town of Woodsboro using the same technique. One of the targets is Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), whose mother was raped and killed the year before. This implies the killer might be the same, but who could it be? Sidney's distant father? Her mother's lover (Liev Schreiber)? Or some random guy, with no motive at all?
Fortunately, it is not the last category: this murderer has a motive and a plausible identity as well. But it isn't the payoff that makes Scream interesting; it's how Craven and Williamson get to it, by outlining the genre's conventions (some of which were actually invented by the director himself) and using them in a clever, if self-referential, way. The point of the movie is, the more you know of this kind of films (pay attention to the rules, stated by geeky film buff Randy), the more chances you have to survive (although you must take into account that the killer has seen the same movies). The in-jokes that would ruin other films are the very cause of Scream's success, with memorable scenes such as the villain mimicking the movie his victims are watching or Craven's unmissable cameo as a janitor wearing Freddy Krueger's outfit (not to mention priceless lines like "Movies don't create psychos, movies make psychos more creative!").
In other words, Scream is a smart, effective horror film, which manages to amuse and scare in equal measures. Definitely worth watching, even if the two sequels (especially Scream 3) don't really match the original's intelligence and, forgive the expression, originality.
It's also a hard film to criticize, because the answer to almost every complaint (e.g. the actors playing high school kids all look like they're well into in their 20s) can always be 'but that's the whole point, it's always that way in these movies'. But one thing that does annoy me that isn't so easily shrugged off is that the cast seem to be in a number of different movies. Skeet Ulrich, for example, brings a surprising amount of realism and depth to his character, while Courtney Cox as an 'I'll do anything for a story' reporter plays a cartoon of a cartoon. This isn't of issue of 'good' versus 'bad' acting, but it does make figuring out just what the tone of the film is, more muddy than it needs to be.
Probably the best thing about 'Scream' is it knows when to BE best. The opening and closing 15 minutes are the two strongest sections of the film, so if the middle is a little all over the place and sometimes repetitive, and a little more obvious in it's humor, that's not what you walk away remembering.
It was written in a way that deceived and tricked and had you jumping out of your seats but also laughing at the paradoxical black humour. For anyone looking for a good horror film with a twist, you won't find a better one than Scream.
Overall I give it 9.5/10
The plot of `Scream' is very simple: a masked knife-wielding maniac is busy stalking the students of High, killing them off one by one. The killer's inordinately obsessed with one girl, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), who of course gets involved in the quest to unmask the killer. The catch (in case you don't already know it), though, is brilliant. Everyone in the film is familiar with all the slasher film conventions. They know that you shouldn't walk in the woods alone at night. They know that having wild sex is an unwritten invitation to be hacked to pieces. They know not to say things to each other like `I'm going outside for a cigarette; I'll be right back.' -- such statements are virtual death warrants. One of the best examples (and best characters) of this is Randy (Jamie Kennedy), the film-obsessed nut of the film, who actually goes so far as to muse what `real' actors and actresses should play the other characters in the film, going so far as to joke about who gets to be Tori Spelling. All the dumb conventions of slasher films are pulled out of the shadows, exposed for what they really are . . . and then, some of them get used anyway, because the characters willingly choose to ignore those conventions. Some cliches are thrown away, while others are embraced. `Scream' really turned the horror/slasher film genre on its ear, becoming the first truly suspenseful and exciting slasher film in many, many years simply because it suddenly had a million new avenues to explore. The film's self-awareness allowed to move in brand-new directions . . . and suddenly, scenes that used to be predictable in other slasher films suddenly become incredibly intense in `Scream'.
Director Wes Craven was perfect for this film -- as director of slasher classics like `Nightmare On Elm Street', he easily sets the visual feels and style of film to perfect evoke all the slasher films of yore . . . and then, much like `Scream's' script, chooses to either faithfully follow the tried and true, or to go off in competely unexpected directions. Either way, Craven manages to create a lot of absolutely nail-biting, thrilling scenes. He also doesn't hold back with the gore, which is always a plus in great slasher films. The acting ranges from barely mediocre to good -- Neve Campbell's okay as Sidney; Courtney Cox is pretty good as tart-tongued reporter Gail Weathers; Jamie Kennedy rules as Randy the film geek; and David Arquette is utterly bland and forgettable as Deputy Dewey Riley, the sad-sack policeman. But casts in slasher films don't particularly matter anyway; the good ones are all about suspense, terror, and gore. And in `Scream', Wes Craven provides massive amounts of all three of those criteria.
The irony is, `Scream' spawned dozens of imitators, and by spawning imitators, all the new avenues opened up by `Scream' quickly got old and boring once more. Still, purely on its own merit, it's an excellent film. The best slasher film of all time is still John Carpenter's `Halloween', without question, but `Scream' actually runs a close second. It's well worth watching. Grade: A-
The film that sparked the revival of horror movies (Halloween H2O, I know what you did last summer, Urban Legend etc all followed ..thanks a lot!). This stands out from all those (and it's lackluster sequels) by being really good and clever. The story is nothing more than the standard slasher plot but it avoids the cliches quite well. In fact it uses the cliches as references and makes plenty of jokey references to other movies and the supposed rules of horror movies we even have a quick flash of a caretaker dressed in Freddy's jumper and hat!
That doesn't mean it's not scary it is! From the tragically horrible opening 10 minutes through each gory killing the tension is high and the shocks are real. The plot twists nicely and the ending is much better than most slasher movies (including the absurd endings of 2 and 3). This manages to be fresh, clever and scary getting by any sticking moments with it's tongue in it's cheek.
The cats are good Campbell is a believable virgin, scarred by what happened to her mother before she starts turning into Buffy the vampire slayer in parts 2 and 3. Cox is excellent playing against type and David Arquette is funny as the Deputy Sheriff. Kennedy as Randy is also funny as the movie geek in fact he remains the highlight of the next 2 films. The cast being filled of up and coming faces (including Ulrich) makes it even more thrilling when the `wrong' people get killed, technically all the cast are `unknowns' who usually make up the body count, so really anyone can potentially get offed.
Overall funny black comedy, scary thrills and gory excitement. A rare treat a really good teen horror movie
Who Almost Starred in 'Scream'?
Who Almost Starred in 'Scream'?
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesThe party scene near the end of the film runs forty-two minutes long. It was shot over the course of twenty-one days from the time the sun set to the time it rose. After it wrapped, the crew had t-shirts made that read "I SURVIVED SCENE 118" (which was the name of the scene during shooting). The cast and crew jokingly called it "The longest night in horror history."
- Patzer(at around 34 mins) When Gale is attempting to enter the police station with Kenny the cameraman, she is stopped by a police officer and is heard saying "Hey watch the hand, do you know who you're dealing with here?!" But her mouth isn't moving.
- Zitate
Stu: Did you really call the police?
Sidney Prescott: You bet your sorry ass I did.
Stu: [starting to cry] My mom and dad are gonna be so mad at me!
- Crazy CreditsHenry Winkler, who played Principal Himbry, was asked to go uncredited because the producers did not want to detract any attention from the younger, lesser known actors.
- Alternative VersionenGerman DVD/VHS releases by VCL/MAWA were offered in two versions: the uncut 'Not under 18' version and a cut version which misses 4 minutes and has a 'Not under 16' rating.
- VerbindungenEdited into What Happened to Her (2016)
- SoundtracksDon't Fear The Reaper
Performed by Gus Black (as Gus)
Written by Donald Roeser
Courtesy of Sony/ATV Tunes LLC
Top-Auswahl
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Offizielle Standorte
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Scream. Grita antes de morir
- Drehorte
- 1820 Calistoga Road, Santa Rosa, Kalifornien, USA(Sidney's house)
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Budget
- 14.000.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 103.046.663 $
- Eröffnungswochenende in den USA und in Kanada
- 6.354.586 $
- 22. Dez. 1996
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 173.046.663 $
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 51 Minuten
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 2.39 : 1