Scream 4

Warning: Since the mystery is pretty much what a Scream film is all about, this review contains major spoilers not just for Scream 4 but for Scream 1 and 2 as well. Be forewarned!

The secret to the Scream formula is that these films play at half a dozen games, and win them all. That's a major reason why this franchise is so popular, you can watch them for a variety of different reasons and still come away satisfied.

First, and perhaps foremost, they are world-class "whodunit" stories in the age-old tradition. Where everyone is a viable suspect, and you won't know until the end who's good, and who's evil.

Secondly they are, of course, brilliant deconstructions, which is arguably what made Scream famous. It took a genre awash in cliches and injected a spark of awareness to make it all feel new again. It was a quintessentially 90s idea, the Nirvana of horror films, so it's no surprise I love it.

But the deconstruction is about more than just a hip eye-wink to the audience. How many horror films exist in a universe apart from the horror culture that we fans live and breath? How many zombie movies are there where no one has heard of George Romero, and the walking dead are called, well, the walking dead and never "zombies?" How many classic slasher set-ups are there where the kids never bother to realize they're the unfortunate recipients of a tragic archetype? 

As a horror fan, if I ever found myself living in a by-the-numbers horror scenario, movies are the first thing that would come to my mind. How could they not, with them being such a part of my life? And that's where Scream comes in, to rectify that perplexing lack of awareness which makes so many horror films feel slightly disconnected from the real world we live in. That's why films like Scream are such a hit with hardcore horror fans despite taking their share of cheeky 'stabs' at the cliches of the genre, these are films that connect the fandom of horror with the medium of horror. 

Thirdly, the Scream films are the two things they're supposed to be, the two genres they're born from. They're the all-time ultimate "teen scream" genre films, full of hip dialogue, drunken parties, sexy characters and teen angst. It's also beyond question the highest quality slasher franchise in 20 years, full of creative kills, intense chases, and doomed ingenues.

Unlike other fun horror films like Shaun of the Dead or Dale & Tucker Vs. Evil, Scream is fun but it's not a comedy, it's a horror film that takes itself seriously and even delivers a couple of decent scares. Come on, all alone in the house, the killer calls, but wait, he's in the house! The intros are always pretty darn creepy, admit it. One who is so inclined could ignore the deconstruction, and even the mystery, and just enjoy these films as slasher films. And they'd still come away with a good experience.

Lastly, in regards to the Scream series... Not being a veteran slasher fan, I've never really had one of those iconic killers to call my own before, but I have to say I've grown very fond of Ghostface. The creepy voice, the obsession with horror films, the meticulous planning, he's a fantastic 'character,' even if technically he's someone new each time. And that signature move he has when he turns his head to the side after a character says something to him, is just fucking amazing. Despite being a mask, it totally gives this powerful impression of mock-concern, almost pity. It's such a simple little thing but whoever came up with that was a genius. 

Now on, specifically, to Scream 4.......

The concept that Scream 4 is a makeshift, in-universe reboot of the original Scream in addition to another sequel is what really kept the mystery fresh and alive for me. That's because you have all these archetypes from the first film (and some, even, from the second film -- I was definitely looking at that one nosey reporter with suspicion during her one short scene), except it's impossible to know which of the archetypes are going to pan out as they originally did, and which ones are going to be turned on their head. So you have all of these obvious killers and yet you still have no idea who it's going to be. This gave Scream 4 a dimension of ingenuity where it feels like we're treading on uncharted territory instead of just being the fourth iteration of the same set-up. In other words it doesn't feel cheesy ala "really, everyone gets caught up in the same kind of murder mystery AGAIN?" when (in-universe) the killer is intentionally recreating the past again and (conceptually/on the filmmaker's meta level) the film is intended as a tongue-in-cheek way to win new viewers, many of whom would not have been around to watch the original Scream 15 years ago. 

Some people have complained that the film isn't modern enough. Admittedly  it definitely appeals a lot more to original Scream fans than to newcomers  characters like Dewey and Gale are never even fully explained (as far as their history goes), so newcomers would probably feel at least a little in the dark. But what's wrong with Scream appealing to the classic formula? If they wanted to do a true reboot they'd probably have named it Scream Again or Scream Louder. People complain so much about modern horror, is it so wrong for one film to hearken backwards?

More importantly, though, I think the movie's classic 90s feel was intentional, because it's another piece of the deconstruction, and it actually helps to make the film relevant to today. It's a pseudo remake, after all, retro is the idea! Even when they aren't remakes, retro horror has been very successful recently, with period films such as The House of the Devil, Paranormal Activity 3, and Let Me In. So rather than detracting from Scream 4's relevance, its bygone style actually marks it more clearly as a comment on modern horror.

And that gets into what makes Scream 4 so special for me, individually. The original Scream films played on the slasher classics of the 80s. Scream 4 ingeniously arrived just as dozens of modern remakes of these classic slashers started pouring out of film studios. But the remake craze isn't restricted to slashers, remakes of all kinds of creature features and exploitation films joined in as well. And Scream 4 was able to perfectly nail the tropes of all these silly remakes, really down to a T. I've never been an avid fan of the classic slashers, so the original Scream films only tangentially connect with me on the deconstruction level. But I'm quite familiar with these modern remakes so Scream 4 makes an intimate connection with me. 

The only mild criticism I have is that it feels like they should have 'gone for broke' and made this a climactic finish to the series, maybe even kill off a major character. Instead, they had their sights on rebooting the franchise and following through with more sequels. Unfortunately, Scream 4 performed below expectations, and the idea for further films has been scrapped. Even so, I have to admit, had new films followed, that would have been worth a lot more than the shock & awe of killing Sidney or another major character in Scream 4. As badass as it would have been, nothing's better than more Scream films, and a Scream film without Sidney, Gale, & Dewey sounds like it would be hard to pull off, quite possibly a "jump the shark moment."

In hindsight, part of me wishes the killer had turned out to be Sidney, because her motive and backstory would be by far the most compelling. The film definitely started to build it up with her whole arc about not being the victim. Well, in a slasher, you're either a victim, or you're the killer. After sustaining atrocity after atrocity in her life, it's plausible that Sidney could have developed a need for murder in order to prove to herself that she's not powerless, that she in fact wields the power to end a life. Sidney Prescott has actually killed several people over the course of the series. It's always been strictly in self-defense, but killing that many people has to change a person, it could reasonably have germinated a taste for murder inside her. 

Of course had the series continued, it's possible the plan was to eventually make Sidney the killer, perhaps with Gale as her accomplice. Part of me thinks Kevin Williamson is too sentimental to go that route, and I can respect that. If they went that route but they failed to pull it off excellently, if it ended up kind of cheap or weak, then that would retroactively damage the rest of the series for some people, by ruining the Sidney character. Of course if it was pulled off really well, it would add a whole new dimension to all the previous films. On the other hand, it might just be too cheeky and brutal for the Scream franchise. As Scream 4 very aptly quipped, "the unexpected is the new cliche," and the Sidney-Gale killer ending would very much play into that.

All in all this is one of my favorite horror films by far. Don't just rent it online, buy or rent the DVD, because it contains an extended version (with a different chain of events) of Britt Robertson's intro scene. I wish she had been cast in one of the main roles, her snarky precocious style (not unlike a young Katie Holmes) was perfect for Kevin Williamson's writing (perhaps she could get a gig on The Vampire Diaries). It also contains an extended ending with an interesting tone. And it contains a bunch of other deleted scenes, one or two of which should definitely have been included in the film because they expound on the deconstruction aspect, and those are always the best scenes.

The Cabin in the Woods

Notice: By virtue of the film's content, a spoiler-free review would be basically pointless so this review contains HEAVY SPOILERS.

I've been gleefully rewatching all my favorite new acquisitions from the Halloween season, and I have to say.... The Cabin in the Woods is even more brilliant the second time around, where I was able to appreciate the full range of nuance in the back-story.

Honestly, when I was watching this film it felt like reading The Hunger Games or watching Avatar: The Last Airbender, in the sense that they've compiled so many familiar tropes but each one has been executed to utter perfection, begetting a new whole that becomes something distinctly unique and formidable. 

Cabin first gives you a Hunger Games-style control center for a Battle Royale blood sacrifice (similar films but the distinction is, The Hunger Games features the immense level of environment control which Battle does not, and Battle features the concept of the blood sacrifice being to placate rather than to demoralize as it is in Games; both aspects being present in Cabin). Then it sets you up with the archetypal 'college kids' isolated vacation' we've seen in nearly every "teen scream" genre flick since antiquity. Finally we throw in some classic Evil Dead "oops I summoned zombies" and the main pieces are in place, though that doesn't begin to address the vast myriad of film references throughout the movie.

This film combines a dozen and ten things, to the fifth power if you count all the monsters. But at its core, at its deepest conceptual level, it's a marriage between two approaches towards horror: the self-aware deconstruction of the Scream series, where a group of would-be victims tap the necessary "rules" of horror films in a bid to survive while the nature of these rules is snarkily pondered in a social context; and the tongue-in-cheek horror-comedy of recent hits like Shaun of the Dead, Zombieland, and Tucker & Dale Vs. Evil; where a basic horror set-up gives way to a humorous farce while lovingly poking fun at horror cliche's. And while I would not place Cabin above Scream (by virtue of what Scream accomplishes), even as much as I enjoyed Shaun and Tucker & Dale, Cabin is definitely the greatest and funniest horror comedy ever made.

And there's no question that The Cabin in the Woods is more clever than Scream. Scream set out to accomplish at least a trio of disparate goals and succeeded flawlessly with them all, but what that means is the deconstruction only received a fraction of each films' focus. Cabin, alternatively, combines a handful of disparate films but enlists each into one single goal: total horror deconstruction. The "rules" are outlined here thrice more vividly and articulately than in any Scream film.

And while Cabin lacks the "meta" aspects of Scream, which Kevin Williamson is famous for (moments where the film ironically -- in the classic literary sense -- pokes fun at itself, ala the "Stab" series), it makes up for it with the elaborate and well-crafted implications regarding the fact that most of the horror films you've watched, and most of the horror films that have yet to be made, are all de facto prequels to The Cabin in the Woods. Every trope, every dumb move, every slow build-up, was all the work of these blokes in a control room in their periodic attempt to save humanity by appeasing ancient overlords. While Cabin almost surely will never get an actual sequel, all you have to do is pick any a horror film off the rack and piece together for yourself (as Marty did in Cabin), what ways the "puppet-masters" are orchestrating the events. 

The sole way in which this film fails, the way -- if accomplished -- The Cabin in the Woods could have bested not only Scream but it would have placed itself in the top iota of horror films ever made, is that it's simply not scary. I don't see why they fell short in that category, it seems basic enough. I get the feeling merely producing/directing the monster scenes differently (in a traditional horror style) could possibly have made it scary. But perhaps they just didn't want to risk gutting the comedy, or betraying the deconstruction, or erring too close to Scream, or lord only knows what. In any case, achieving the best and cleverest horror-comedy of all-time is no cause for complaint. The Cabin in the Woods is an instant classic for horror buffs and it's destined to go down in history as the best-made horror deconstruction.

Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed

Notice: No real spoilers here, just expository information.

This is the greatest series of werewolf films. The original Ginger Snaps is a modern classic, and Ginger Snaps 2 is a genuinely superior film, believe it or not. The original Ginger Snaps is thick with stylish, brooding goth flair, and I love it for that. But Ginger Snaps 2 takes a turn for the darker, and it's better for it: with decrepit asylum corridors, the spectres of mental illness, and recurring flashes of gore. The other avenue number 2 takes to improve on the first is in its basic story premise. The original told an iconic werewolf story, but as such it was more basic. Brigitte's struggle in Unleashed is a more unqiue and unpredictable adventure.

As always, the subtext is exquisite. Unsurprisingly unconvinced that the condition which forced her to kill her sister is a positive transformation, Brigitte continues her tooth and nail battle against the onset of puberty. The titular Ginger appears only as an incorporeal hallucination to calmly harbinge doom for her kid sister. The hallucinations are quite possibly brought on by Brigitte's vascular injection of the powerful poison monkshood, the only way to postpone her transformation into the beast. But when a well-wishing suitor confuses the epeleptic seizure, a side-effect of the monkshood, with a narcotic overdose, Brigitte becomes held against her will in a drug addiction clinic. Now she's stuck in an asylum, with no way to stave off lycanthropy, and to make matters worse there is another werewolf stalking her, drawing ever nearer.

I found the relationship between Brigitte and Ginger very nuanced and touching in this film. Ginger appears to mock Brigitte, but it feels less like residual derision than like anxiety (on Brigitte's part) over the unstoppable transformation she is going through. All the while, Brigitte carries pictures of her and her sister with her always, never losing the love and mercy which unfortunately forced her hand in the murder of Ginger. Does Ginger appear as a result of Brigitte's fear towards lycanthropy, or does she appear as a haunting guilt over dealing Ginger's final blow? Perhaps both, and more.

I enjoy the misandristic overtones. The only two significant male characters are monsters who are obsessed with sex. One is a monster for killing and presumably eating humans. The other is an even more deplorable monster, who manipulates mentally disturbed drug addicts in order to sexually abuse them. And, to prove how great of a guy he is, he's found a way to keep them addicted to drugs while he does it! But, hey, the three minor characters who are male seem to be decent blokes. And not all of the women are very humane, it's not like it's black & white. But it's always nice to see a horror film with female heroes who don't conform to the hysterical, can't run, victim archetype.

The first Ginger Snaps was largely about the love and devotion between the two sisters, and the dark side of puberty & sexual awakening. Ginger Snaps 2 carries on these themes but takes the latter in a somewhat different direction. For Ginger, the transformation represented both evil, and an awakening of powerful new abilities and experiences. For Brigitte, it means only becoming a horrible monster. In that sense this a twisted, grim reiteration of the classic "innocence forever" theme from Peter Pan, Toy Story, The Santa Claus, et. al. The ultimate theme of the Ginger Snaps series is that you can't fight the coming of age. No matter how hard you try, you're doomed to grow that hair, feel those pheromones, crave human flesh... But I like that Brigitte tries. I like that she's willing to give up everything and anything to keep from becoming that monster.

The DVD also has some excellent deleted scenes (Ghost telling Brigitte that they're going to harvest her organs is priceless). I always wish scenes like this would be included in an "extended version" instead of just tacked on as an extra. I could do with an extra ten minutes of runtime on such a good film. I could just eat that up.