Dez anos se passaram, e Sidney Prescott, que se reergueu graças, em parte, a sua escrita, é visitada pelo assassino Ghostface.Dez anos se passaram, e Sidney Prescott, que se reergueu graças, em parte, a sua escrita, é visitada pelo assassino Ghostface.Dez anos se passaram, e Sidney Prescott, que se reergueu graças, em parte, a sua escrita, é visitada pelo assassino Ghostface.
- Prêmios
- 1 vitória e 6 indicações no total
Roger Jackson
- The Voice
- (narração)
Shenae Grimes-Beech
- Trudie
- (as Shenae Grimes)
Britt Robertson
- Marnie Cooper
- (as Brittany Robertson)
Avaliações em destaque
I'm 23 years old. 12 years ago, I watched the original "Scream" (1996) and it was the first horror movie I enjoyed. It was a landmark in the puberty years of many movie-buffs-to-be who grew up in the late 1990's (good times!). SCREAM 2 & 3 were released in 1997 and 2000, respectively, and although entertaining, didn't hold a candle to the original (which is fine, most sequels don't). "Scream 3", in particular, lacked Kevin Williamson behind the script, and not even Wes Craven could turn what Ehren Kruger wrote into gold (meaning, a good flick; it did make a lot of money, though, and Parker Posey made it hilarious at moments).
So, eleven years later, a new SCREAM movie comes out, reuniting the original director, writer and the three survivors of the franchise, heroine Sidney Prescott (my first movie crush, Neve Campbell, still naturally beautiful and always a competent actress), Dewey (David Arquette) and Gale (Courteney Cox). Die hard fans, like me, have been waiting for this for a decade, and it paid off. Actually, it works so well because it was made 11 years after the last installment. The movie is far from perfect, obviously, but stands as the best of the sequels; "Scream 2" was above the average but came way too soon, and the third one was a wasted opportunity.
The tongue-in-cheek humor works for the most part, and Williamson knows how to parody a trend that he (re)created himself, including the ridiculousness of torture porn from the likes of SAW and its annual sequels - "movies with no character development, in which you don't care who lives or dies". That is the strongest link in this franchise: we've come to care about Sidney, Dewey and Gale, making the SCREAM movies work equally as slashers and satires. Whether or not SCREAM 5 & 6 will be made, it all depends on how much money this will make; I'm satisfied with this 4th chapter, although I won't deny I will still see another one if Craven, Williamson, and Campbell are involved. That said, it was a nostalgic flick that made me feel like I'm a preteen again. It may be a "new generation with new rules", but the iPhone generation oughtta know: "The first rule of remakes: you don't f*** with the original". Bravo, Sidney!
So, eleven years later, a new SCREAM movie comes out, reuniting the original director, writer and the three survivors of the franchise, heroine Sidney Prescott (my first movie crush, Neve Campbell, still naturally beautiful and always a competent actress), Dewey (David Arquette) and Gale (Courteney Cox). Die hard fans, like me, have been waiting for this for a decade, and it paid off. Actually, it works so well because it was made 11 years after the last installment. The movie is far from perfect, obviously, but stands as the best of the sequels; "Scream 2" was above the average but came way too soon, and the third one was a wasted opportunity.
The tongue-in-cheek humor works for the most part, and Williamson knows how to parody a trend that he (re)created himself, including the ridiculousness of torture porn from the likes of SAW and its annual sequels - "movies with no character development, in which you don't care who lives or dies". That is the strongest link in this franchise: we've come to care about Sidney, Dewey and Gale, making the SCREAM movies work equally as slashers and satires. Whether or not SCREAM 5 & 6 will be made, it all depends on how much money this will make; I'm satisfied with this 4th chapter, although I won't deny I will still see another one if Craven, Williamson, and Campbell are involved. That said, it was a nostalgic flick that made me feel like I'm a preteen again. It may be a "new generation with new rules", but the iPhone generation oughtta know: "The first rule of remakes: you don't f*** with the original". Bravo, Sidney!
Who could forget the first time Drew Barrymore met her end after being hunted down by ghost face in the original scream film some 15 years ago. Its been a decade since scream underwhelmed everybody with its lacklustre third instalment and with a fourth on the way I was sceptical about how the fourth would go and how it would affect the introduction to the review I would to write about it.
In my second paragraph, I can now write about how much I enjoyed the film and how I can now use my summary in that Scream 4 (or Scre4m)was "great fun and I was pleasantly surprised". I can't begin to tell you how true this statement is, the plot manages to weave a tidy little knot of a mystery that comes to a surprising and comical climax. The body count is large, making killings in this instalment come thick and fast. Though with a reduced age rating, scream 4 is far more gruesome than the previous threesome and a lot more in keeping with the current horror movie gore fest. To finish off the second paragraph of my review I will conclude that Scream manages to stick to its guns, but modernise itself not unlike the remakes it satirises.
Paragraph 3 contains scenes of critical nature. Now the film is paced very well, however there are a lot of characters to get through. And despite its self aware nature the two-dimensional characters are so underplayed that its hard to feel much for them as they quickly get stabbed to death. The only characters you feel much dread for is Gale, Dewey and Sidney as familiar faces that you don't want to meet there bloody doom,however the new cast have so little characterisation that you really couldn't care less if their stabbed to death and left to dry on their parents lawns. The film also wasn't as scary as the original and despite the "kids" knowing the rules of the horror movie they were starring in they all seem to go outside to investigate a strange noise when they know they're all being hunted by a killer. Whether this is done on purpose, as to mock other horror films is a possibility, but to be honest it would make the film a lot less predictable if they didn't make there predecessors mistakes.
So my conclusion is gonna be as sharp and concise as a horror movie should be. Scream 4 is entertaining, funny and thrilling. And one of the last lines of one of the survivors is bloody great.
In my second paragraph, I can now write about how much I enjoyed the film and how I can now use my summary in that Scream 4 (or Scre4m)was "great fun and I was pleasantly surprised". I can't begin to tell you how true this statement is, the plot manages to weave a tidy little knot of a mystery that comes to a surprising and comical climax. The body count is large, making killings in this instalment come thick and fast. Though with a reduced age rating, scream 4 is far more gruesome than the previous threesome and a lot more in keeping with the current horror movie gore fest. To finish off the second paragraph of my review I will conclude that Scream manages to stick to its guns, but modernise itself not unlike the remakes it satirises.
Paragraph 3 contains scenes of critical nature. Now the film is paced very well, however there are a lot of characters to get through. And despite its self aware nature the two-dimensional characters are so underplayed that its hard to feel much for them as they quickly get stabbed to death. The only characters you feel much dread for is Gale, Dewey and Sidney as familiar faces that you don't want to meet there bloody doom,however the new cast have so little characterisation that you really couldn't care less if their stabbed to death and left to dry on their parents lawns. The film also wasn't as scary as the original and despite the "kids" knowing the rules of the horror movie they were starring in they all seem to go outside to investigate a strange noise when they know they're all being hunted by a killer. Whether this is done on purpose, as to mock other horror films is a possibility, but to be honest it would make the film a lot less predictable if they didn't make there predecessors mistakes.
So my conclusion is gonna be as sharp and concise as a horror movie should be. Scream 4 is entertaining, funny and thrilling. And one of the last lines of one of the survivors is bloody great.
Before I begin with the negative I want to point out that I really enjoyed this movie. As slasher movies go this one is pretty solid. However compared to the first two movies in the series it is a bit underwhelming. There weren't as many surprises as one would expect from a movie like this. The killings and chase sequences lacked the the thrills that makes the viewer jump up.This could be because we don't really care for the characters as we barely know them. The whole interaction between the characters was very limited and felt rushed.The deaths were basic stabbing stuff. Not once did you actually thought OMG,horrible! Don't know about you but you have to have at least one scene like that.Also I think Wes Craven was so right to fear that after the Scary movie series that Ghost Face would not be effective any more. And he is right. Every time Ghost Face appeared you just couldn't take it very seriously. Speaking of which. While there were some funny moments it wasn't nearly as sharp as the comedy used in Scream 1. Still I did like the ending very much.Even if more red herrings could made the ending have more impact.Overall Scream 4 still manages to be entertaining and enjoyable as long as you realize it isn't as strong as the first two Scream movies in the series.
I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw that Scream 5 was in the pipeline, it instantly prompted me to revisit the films. This film could have easily been a disaster, but in all reality, it's a pretty fun watch.
I'm not sure there's much here for the casual viewer, it is one to please fans of the originals, and of course there is a new set of rules. I can't say I warmed hugely to any of the new cast, the joy comes from the original lineup.
The start was very imaginative, and good fun, the ending definitely came out of left field, but it grabs your attention. Lots of scares and thrills.
Here's to Scream 5.
7/10.
I'm not sure there's much here for the casual viewer, it is one to please fans of the originals, and of course there is a new set of rules. I can't say I warmed hugely to any of the new cast, the joy comes from the original lineup.
The start was very imaginative, and good fun, the ending definitely came out of left field, but it grabs your attention. Lots of scares and thrills.
Here's to Scream 5.
7/10.
I only semi-recently started to familiarize myself with the Scream franchise, but I loved it instantly. Creating genuine scares by avoiding all the clichés of horror movies, and turning the genre on its head with its self-mocking humor, and also by turning the killer not into a born psychopath with an elaborate back story or a supernatural, but someone dressed in a mask and robe, who uses his love of horror movies as his weapon against his victims. This helped create the mystery factor for the films, leaving you guessing til the end.
Unfortunately, as great as the franchise as a whole is, the sequels that followed the superb original did not live up to the same revelation in the end. The killer(s) was/were, if not predictable, then just the opposite to the point where you realize they didn't build up to it at all, leaving it to be a bit anti-climactic.
I'm happy to report that this is not the case with Scream 4. Even after an eleven year absence, Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson prove that they are still at the top of their game, and intelligent and original horror can still exist, even in these dark times full of repetitive sequels and remakes, something that the film comments on heavily.
The basic premise of the film is that Sidney Prescott returns to Woodsboro after ten years to publicize her new book on her experience with the killer. As soon as she returns, the killings begin again, and her cousin Jill begins to step into Sidney's shoes.
Where Scream 2 and 3 fail, this one succeeds. While I appreciated how they tried to put the premise of the first film in a different environment, it mostly felt like they were trying to live off the original, rather than build off it. While Scream 4 is constantly aware that it is repeating aspects from the original, making this impossible to be seen as a standalone, it does what any good sequel should do. It manages to take the premise of the original, and up the ante. Speaking of which, another thing that is upped besides the stakes is the body count and gore level. While the deaths for the most part are not nearly as elaborate as the original, they don't feel like the repetitive stab cycles in the 2 and 3. They are more brutal, and certainly show that violence in horror films has certainly gone up.
If there was any one weak aspect in this film, it would be the character development, or lack thereof. The three veteran actors from the trilogy, Neve Campbell, David Arquette, and Courtney Cox reprising their roles as Sidney, Dewey, and Gale Weathers respectively, play their roles very well, even amongst all the younger stars who more often then not, are in the spotlight, and it feels like they've definitely changed since the events in Scream 3. However, in this film itself, it felt as if they were just there as devices to the plot, and given no real character arcs. However at the same time, there wasn't much they could really do, since a lot of the focus had to be on the younger cast members, who actually put up some pretty good performances, though cannot be compared the cast of the original, but still fare a mile better than the characters introduced in the previous sequels.
I really liked how the actors from the two generations interacted, adding to the commentary on how not just horror movies have changed over the years, but our culture as well. With all that said, I suppose this is more of a character based movie than a character development one. Interesting how that works.
I felt this was the only one of the sequels to truly stay with the spirit of the original, while still making it work for today's audiences. The best example of it having the impact of the original has got to be the ending, which I will not elaborate on. All I'll say is that this is the only one since the original where the revelation of the killer(s) surprised me, as opposed to the "it was I, the butler!" conclusions of 2 and 3.
To sum it up, no fans of Scream or horror films could be disappointed.
Unfortunately, as great as the franchise as a whole is, the sequels that followed the superb original did not live up to the same revelation in the end. The killer(s) was/were, if not predictable, then just the opposite to the point where you realize they didn't build up to it at all, leaving it to be a bit anti-climactic.
I'm happy to report that this is not the case with Scream 4. Even after an eleven year absence, Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson prove that they are still at the top of their game, and intelligent and original horror can still exist, even in these dark times full of repetitive sequels and remakes, something that the film comments on heavily.
The basic premise of the film is that Sidney Prescott returns to Woodsboro after ten years to publicize her new book on her experience with the killer. As soon as she returns, the killings begin again, and her cousin Jill begins to step into Sidney's shoes.
Where Scream 2 and 3 fail, this one succeeds. While I appreciated how they tried to put the premise of the first film in a different environment, it mostly felt like they were trying to live off the original, rather than build off it. While Scream 4 is constantly aware that it is repeating aspects from the original, making this impossible to be seen as a standalone, it does what any good sequel should do. It manages to take the premise of the original, and up the ante. Speaking of which, another thing that is upped besides the stakes is the body count and gore level. While the deaths for the most part are not nearly as elaborate as the original, they don't feel like the repetitive stab cycles in the 2 and 3. They are more brutal, and certainly show that violence in horror films has certainly gone up.
If there was any one weak aspect in this film, it would be the character development, or lack thereof. The three veteran actors from the trilogy, Neve Campbell, David Arquette, and Courtney Cox reprising their roles as Sidney, Dewey, and Gale Weathers respectively, play their roles very well, even amongst all the younger stars who more often then not, are in the spotlight, and it feels like they've definitely changed since the events in Scream 3. However, in this film itself, it felt as if they were just there as devices to the plot, and given no real character arcs. However at the same time, there wasn't much they could really do, since a lot of the focus had to be on the younger cast members, who actually put up some pretty good performances, though cannot be compared the cast of the original, but still fare a mile better than the characters introduced in the previous sequels.
I really liked how the actors from the two generations interacted, adding to the commentary on how not just horror movies have changed over the years, but our culture as well. With all that said, I suppose this is more of a character based movie than a character development one. Interesting how that works.
I felt this was the only one of the sequels to truly stay with the spirit of the original, while still making it work for today's audiences. The best example of it having the impact of the original has got to be the ending, which I will not elaborate on. All I'll say is that this is the only one since the original where the revelation of the killer(s) surprised me, as opposed to the "it was I, the butler!" conclusions of 2 and 3.
To sum it up, no fans of Scream or horror films could be disappointed.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesLast film directed by Wes Craven before he died from brain cancer on August 30, 2015, at the age of seventy-six.
- Erros de gravação(at around 36 mins) When Sidney runs to Olivia's house she walks into the blood splattered room. Sidney runs her hand down the blood covered door frame. None of the blood smudges or goes onto her hand. If the murder had just happened the blood would have went onto her hand, and smeared down the door frame.
- Citações
Sidney Prescott: You forgot the first rule of remakes, Jill. Don't fuck with the original!
- Cenas durante ou pós-créditosWhen the end credits start, there are 2-second long clips of the characters with the actor's name corresponding.
- Versões alternativasThe UK version contains re-dubbed/additional dialogue compared to the US version. Both cuts are identical in terms of visual content, but there are approximately 30 aural differences between the two.
- ConexõesFeatured in Scream Awards 2010 (2010)
- Trilhas sonorasSomething To Die For
Written by Jesper Anderberg, Felix Rodriguez, Fredrik Blond, Maja Ivarsson, Johan Bengtsson
Performed by The Sounds
Courtesy of Arnioki Records
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
Detalhes
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 40.000.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 38.180.928
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 18.692.090
- 17 de abr. de 2011
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 97.231.420
- Tempo de duração
- 1 h 51 min(111 min)
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 2.39 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente