Scream

Scream With the countless number of teen slasher movies doing the rounds, it is too easy to watch scream and see simply another school serial killer movie that has just rolled off the factory production line. However, it was Wes Craven's 'Scream' that started the whole revival of the horror genre and re-invented the teen horror. Through no fault of its own, but rather a succession of bland rip-offs, not to mention a very successful spoof (Scary Movie), Scream's original impact has been severely dulled. Were Scream released today it would no doubt be moderately successful but would be instantly forgettable. But back in 1996 the teen horror market was wide open. The teenagers of the 90s were bored of traditional horror movies featuring haunted houses, vampires or deformed monsters. They had seen them all. So Wes Craven, having reinvigorated the horror genre once before with 'Nightmare on Elm Street', set out to do it again. This time, along with Kevin Williamson, who would go on to be creator of Dawson's Creek, created a new kind of horror – one that you could laugh at as well as scream at.

What made Scream so successful is that it was never patronising, and displayed a strong sense of ironic self-awareness. It took every horror cliché in the book and turned them upside down. For the kids that had seen too many movies, there was now a movie for them. The characters did not follow the clichés, but in fact talked about them, and talked about what would happen if they were in a movie. This sense of irony may seem tired now, but when Scream came out it was new and exciting. There was rarely a need to scream 'don't go upstairs' or suchlike in Scream, because the characters themselves were saying that! The idea of the killer being amongst the students adds a fresh dimension to the film, as fear gives way to paranoia at not being able to trust anyone. The subversions of the accepted horror clichés, in particular in the opening ten minutes (I'm not going to give anything away for those who have not seen it) also contribute to making Scream a truly shocking movie. It was this sense of innovation that made Scream such a breath of fresh air for the horror genre, and it is only a shame that Craven's genius has been ripped off so many times that his work has dated far too quickly. Craven and Williamson have also created a new horror star – but it was not a particular character but just a costume with an iconic mask. The Scream mask has become just as symbolic, perhaps even more so, than that of Michael Myers or Jason Vorhees.

For any serious horror movie fans, Scream is essential viewing, if only to witness the film that started it all. The 'movie within a movie' idea was terrific, and would be taken even further in the sequel. The frequent references to classic horror movies, and reversals of accepted horror clichés, especially in the opening ten minutes) are also fun to watch out for. There is even a wonderful moment where one boy climbs in the bedroom window of his girlfriend – a scene that would be taken and used as one of the foundation for Williamson's successful teen series Dawson's Creek.

The iconic mask, the one-liners, and the unique self-awareness when it comes to horror clichés make Scream a true original – accept no imitations.

There's more than a few reasons to hate `Scream'; the main reason would be that the film single-handedly resurrected the teen-slasher genre, a movie category that had long been beaten to death. Because of the success of `Scream', witless horror crap like `I Know What You Did Last Summer' and `Urban Legend' got greenlighted, half the teenage casts of various WB television shows got summer acting jobs, and some awful scripts that should've been left dead and buried `Teaching Mrs. Tingle' got to see the light of day. `Scream' is responsible for a lot of garbage. But the truth of the matter is, `Scream' is also a phenomenal movie.

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-

I have been recently reading a lot of reviews of the latest film in this series, Scream 4. Now, for one reason or another I have never seen any of the 'Scream' films before… well not all the way through anyway. Time to change that I thought and so here we are with the first one, Scream. I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would, it doesn't take itself all that seriously and there's an awful lot more humour than I expected.

We open with a mysterious voice calling up a girl called Casey, who is home alone about to watch a scary movie. She tries to blow him off but he is persistent and eventually begins to creep her out. Things don't end too well for Casey, or her boyfriend, Steve, after a masked assailant has finished with them. We then switch to another girl, Sidney, her mother had been murdered almost a year ago and her father is about to leave on a business trip. All the talk the next day at school is about the murder and on returning home Sidney receives a call from a man with a mysterious voice. She isn't so easily scared, but still she is attacked by the same masked assailant. Having fought him off, her boyfriend, Billy turns up just before Deputy Dewey. Having found a cell phone on him, Dewey arrests Billy and Sidney goes to stay the night with Dewey's sister, Tatum. As time goes by the bodies begin to mount up and this attracts the media, particularly ambitious reporter, Gale Weathers. It's only a matter of time before Sidney is to be the next on the list, and anyway, there's a score to settle and an awful lot of suspects.

This made a refreshing change for me, a horror film that doesn't take itself too seriously but at the same time has all the scares and shocks of a more serious one. I liked it! Decent performances all round; Neve Campbell did a good job as Sidney, as did Skeet Ulrich as Billy. Also of note were Courteney Cox as Gale Weathers, David Arquette as Deputy Dewey and Matthew Lillard as Stuart. Also nice cameos from Drew Barrymore as Casey, Wes Craven very briefly appeared as Fred the Janitor and Henry Winkler as Principal Arthur Himbry.

There is a great soundtrack too, including an interesting acoustic rendition of 'Don't Fear the Reaper' when Sidney and Billy are first seen on screen together (very nicely done). I suspect, unfortunately, that the other films in the series may not live up to this rather good beginning, but we shall see… If you haven't seen it, it's definitely worth a viewing, even if you're not really a fan of teen horrors (like me)… Final verdict: Recommended.

My Score: 7.5/10

Almost a year after someone raped and killed Sidney Prescott's mother in the small town of Woodsboro, someone is killing teenagers. When Sidney herself becomes a target, the link is apparent and her missing father is a suspect. However, as with all good scary movies, everyone is a suspect.

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

Making a brilliant, original horror film is pretty hard these days, since practically everything has already been told, and more than once. Using that premise, director Wes Craven and screenwriter Kevin Williamson came up with Scream, whose cleverness derives from the fact that it knows every single stereotype of the genre and satirizes them.

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.