The original Scream raised the bar for the slasher genre. It took jabs at the idea of horror films in general and added technology in the mix. Each new instalment tried to raise the bar, but wound up becoming more comedic. As if each sequel was spoofing the previous entry. This film was no exception.
I loved the way this film started. With a double-spoof on the series. Which kind of set the tone for the rest of the film. The idea that this killer doesn't follow the rules, making him/her/it unpredictable. But the film still winds up being predictable. So much so I actually found the revealing of the killers to be a bit of a middle finger to the fans. If the entire film was meant to be an ironic joke to the previous entries, then job well done. It was definitely funny, intentionally. It pokes fun at the idea of all the prequel/sequel/reboots that are out in Hollywood today. It's obviously a direct sequel to Scream 3, as Dewey, Gail and Sydney all return. But the film has equal focus on Emma Roberts' character Jill and her best friend Riley played by Hayden Panettiere. Which of course leaves us all to wonder if that means Wes Craven is going to give us a Cotton Weary for our 3 former main characters. Which gives the series that "remake" kind of edge. But when films are re-started so close to the previous series' last instalment (less than 25 years In my opinion) it's called a "re-boot" So I wasn't going to be surprised if Dewey, Gail and Sydney were all killed off in this film, leading the way for the next generation of survivors. Which I wouldn't mind seeing fresh faces survive, but I didn't want to see our 3 heroes die. Also, the killers' reveal was so idiotic it really took me out of the last 20 minutes of the movie...I'm conflicted if I should just say who the killer(s) is/are and let you decide if you still want to see the movie or not. I think i'll just say that don't be too surprised that it's completely illogical.
I loved the way this film started. With a double-spoof on the series. Which kind of set the tone for the rest of the film. The idea that this killer doesn't follow the rules, making him/her/it unpredictable. But the film still winds up being predictable. So much so I actually found the revealing of the killers to be a bit of a middle finger to the fans. If the entire film was meant to be an ironic joke to the previous entries, then job well done. It was definitely funny, intentionally. It pokes fun at the idea of all the prequel/sequel/reboots that are out in Hollywood today. It's obviously a direct sequel to Scream 3, as Dewey, Gail and Sydney all return. But the film has equal focus on Emma Roberts' character Jill and her best friend Riley played by Hayden Panettiere. Which of course leaves us all to wonder if that means Wes Craven is going to give us a Cotton Weary for our 3 former main characters. Which gives the series that "remake" kind of edge. But when films are re-started so close to the previous series' last instalment (less than 25 years In my opinion) it's called a "re-boot" So I wasn't going to be surprised if Dewey, Gail and Sydney were all killed off in this film, leading the way for the next generation of survivors. Which I wouldn't mind seeing fresh faces survive, but I didn't want to see our 3 heroes die. Also, the killers' reveal was so idiotic it really took me out of the last 20 minutes of the movie...I'm conflicted if I should just say who the killer(s) is/are and let you decide if you still want to see the movie or not. I think i'll just say that don't be too surprised that it's completely illogical.