Movie Review: Scre4m

The fourth installment of the horror francise,“Scream” (spelled Scre4m), picks up 10 years after the events of “Scream 3” (spelled 3cream?). Survivor Sydney Prescott (played by Neve Campbell) returns to her small town of Woodsboro only to find herself wrapped up in yet another bloody massacre, orchestrated again by a demented man (or woman?), wearing a black robe and a ghost face mask, who likes to call their victims and taunt them with movie trivia questions (preferably of the horror movie kind) before dissecting them quicker than they can dissect the horror genre itself. David Arquette & Courtney Cox also reprise their roles as Dewey (now the town sheriff) and Gale Weathers, former hard nosed journalist turned wife of Sheriff Dewey. There is also a whole new assortment of characters, fresh for the filleting, and a new generation of horror movie rules that most be followed in order to survive.

There is a word being thrown around a lot these days in the movie blogger world; it’s called “meta.” This is not exactly a new word but it’s used to describe any kind of movie that is so self-aware of its very being that it seems to transcend the idea of simply being a movie itself, and becomes more of a commentary on the idea of being a movie. Well, “Scream 4” takes this definition to its logical conclusion by being a movie that is SO self-aware that at times it feels more like a parody of itself, rather than a horror movie. Every step of the way, characters (including the killer) make numerous references to horror movies (even the idea of reboots and sequels that go on far too long) that it is very difficult to really give this movie much of a review because it has already premeditated the criticisms.  It already knows that it is a sequel merely cashing in on the success of the previous films (11 years later); it already knows that when characters say, “I’ll be right back” in a horror movie, they won’t be right back. And that is the problem with “Scream 4”: It is so savvy about the rules of the game that there never really is a game. It’s just one long running commentary about…itself.

The original “Scream” was something of a rarity in 1996. Before that, horror movies seemed to have run their course. They had recycled just about every clichéd scare while also repeating them in an endless string of sequels. Horror movies began playing in emptier & emptier theaters (Freddy & Jason were “dead” and Michael Myers would soon be) until “Scream” came along and proved that there was still some fresh blood left in the genre. Unlike a lot of what came before, this one had a fresh take: what if the characters had all seen every horror movie and were aware, not only of all of the clichés, but also how to use this knowledge to outwit a killer who was patterning himself on horror movie conventions.  What could be more “meta” than a horror movie about a cast of characters who know they are in a horror movie?  Also, what could be more unsettling than a horror movie that dared to ask the question, "can movies be blamed for violence in our society?" But the difference between the original "Scream and "Scre4m" is that it actually took itself (and that question) seriously enough to work as a scary horror movie. "Scre4m", most of the time, takes itself as seriously as a Mad magazine parody of itself which all but kills any semblance of horror. 

To be fair, a lot of the dialogue is very clever (more than most horror movies even) as characters dissect the conventions (or the ‘rules’) of horror movies and apply them to their current situation (being the latest victims of a deranged psychopathic murderer who is patterning themselves after a killer from the previous movies.) There are discussions here that comment on torture porn, “Asian ghost horror”, remakes, reboots, and even the “found footage” genre that has inspired recent films like “Cloverfield” & Paranormal Activity.” The movie does away with the slickness and gritty realism of recent horror movie reboots (notably “Halloween”, “Friday the 13^th, & “Nightmare on Elm Street”, which this movie also comments on) in favor of a jokier and more self-referential tone. At times this works great (particularly in the opening scenes which, while not scary, are quite funny!) Also, it is fun to have the original cast back; Neve Campbell & Courtney Cox seem to be the only ones acting as if they are in a horror movie (while David Arquette comes off having less fun as the bumbling sheriff; Maybe his recent separation with Cox had affected his mood. Although, his "Axel F." cell phone ringtone is a nice touch.) Other notable standouts include Rory Culkin (as a cinema geek who knows the new horror movie rules) and Hayden Penettiere as a fellow cinema fan, but far to gutsy to just be a geek.  

Yet, for all of its wit, "Scre4m" is completely devoid of anything scary. The movie seems far more interested in commenting on itself than it does providing anything closely resembling the frightening opening sequence in the original “Scream”. In that, Drew Barrymore played a teen that gets a frightening phone call asking that immortal question, “What’s your favorite scary movie?” before she is brutally attacked for getting the question wrong about who the killer was in the original “Friday the 13th.” In "Scre4m", there is never really any suspense because the characters never seem to act like they are in any real danger; they aren’t in a horror movie so much as in a horror movie ABOUT horror movies. They constantly comment on it as if they were providing their own running commentary of the movie. But maybe this is the movies point: have we, the horror movie audience, become so familiar with this genre that we have also become numb to its tricks? That “Scream 4” works so tirelessly to stay ahead of an audience so savvy of it may be why it completely fails at being scary or suspenseful. If this series is going to continue, they’d better pull back on the self-awareness just a bit and take the scares a little more seriously (or at least have the characters pretend that they are in a horror movie.)

Overall, “Scream 4” had enough fun moments to make it an all-around decent flick. It is a lot smarter and more interesting than most films in this genre. Also, the ending brings the 90’s franchise into the modern world with a savagely perverse twist that effectively skewers our whole media-obsessed culture. I just wish the movie had a couple of decent scares! It is inevitable that the long-running horror franchises devolve into self-parody; the more familiar with them we become, the less scary Freddy, Jason, & Michael Myers become. The last really scary movie I saw was “Paranormal Activity” because it relied, not on stylish filmmaking or special effects, but on good ol’ fashioned mystery for its scares. One rule of franchises that “Scream 4” did not point out would easily apply to itself: with all of the great horror franchises, that element of mystery is there in the beginning. However, that mystery is eventually diluted by a parade of never-ending sequels and reboots that render our most frightening movie monsters no scarier than a cheap rubber Halloween store mask of their likeness. 

.