Scream 4 - A Review

It feels somewhat oxymoronic to describe the fourth film in a series as "refreshing", but that's exactly how Scream 4 feels. It's nice, after a decade of elaborate torture methods and booby-traps, to just watch a hooded, masked figure slice someone up. Very nice.

The plot of Scream 4 isn't anything out of the box; Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) returns to Woodsboro after a decade away to promote her new book. On the night of her return, two high school kids are murdered. By a new Ghostface. Scary stuff. David Arquette and Courteney Cox-Arquette also return as now-Sheriff Dewey Riley and celebrity journalist Gale Weathers-Riley attempting to catch the killer. New to the franchise are Emma Roberts as Sidney's cousin Jill, Hayden Panettiere and Rory Culkin as horror nerds Kirby and Charlie, and Marley Shelton as Deputy Hicks, among many others. There are a lot of people in this film.

After an opening sequence that is almost too clever for its own good, the film settles into a familiar pattern of stalking and slashing, with the franchise's trademark punches of black humour, irony and ten-a-penny pop culture references. It's quite a challenge to pick out good quotes that don't have unsuitable language, but two of my favourites manage to fit this criteria; Ghostface telling Sidney "I've got plans for you, I'm gonna slice your eyelids open so you don't blink when I stab you in the face" and ex-boyfriend Trevor's exclamation "What are you doing in a house with Sidney Prescott? That's like being on Top Chef with Jeffrey Dahmer." It's good stuff.

The problem with a film like Scream 4, which identifies itself by its own reflexivity is that the viewer is always left slightly in the dark regarding the intentions of certain scenes - is a particular scene predictable and familiar because it's supposed to be that way, or is it just a bit lazy? The 16-year-old horror nerd in me says that Williamson and Craven are far too smart to let these things slip by, but the 22-year-old man of the world that I am thinks that maybe Scream 4 isn't quite as clever as it thinks it is. But does it just want me to think that? My personal problem with irony and postmodernism is that anything can be explained away by the film being smarter and more aware than I am. Which cannot be true.

The thing with Scream 4 is that if you like Screams one to three, you'll probably like it, and if you don't like them then you won't being going to see this one anyway. That's just how it works. I liked it, but then I would. Because I like to be mindlessly entertained by absurd horror movies, and I also like to have my ego stroked by being handed the odd easy reference to 'get'. It makes me feel special. Speaking of feeling special, the reasoning that the killer(s) use(s) to justify their actions is, while slightly ridiculous, the least idiotic since Scream the first.

Tremendously enjoyable, if you like this sort of thing. If you don't like it, why are you reading this review? Why are you even worried about Scream 4? Thanks for reading though, it's nice of you.

****