|
|
Post by jesserebel on Sept 4, 2018 21:17:11 GMT
I used to be obsessed with this film. It was so fun and intense when it was released.
The best part? The opening scene. It was so iconic.
Its not perfect and I hate certain deaths (Rose McGowans in particular) but its still great.
7.5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Sept 4, 2018 21:27:59 GMT
10/10 GREAT Movie!  |
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Sept 4, 2018 22:55:17 GMT
I think it's great. Especially for its time, this was meta horror done perfectly.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Sept 4, 2018 23:11:45 GMT
I love the whole meta concept of it, I think that was brilliant. But for whatever reason, it's just not very re-watchable for me. I've only seen it once all the way through.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Sept 5, 2018 0:31:11 GMT
I mildly like the entire series.
I don't think the first movie is clearly the best like the average ratings suggest though as I don't have a clear preference of the series as I like all four roughly the same overall.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Sept 5, 2018 1:08:56 GMT
Overall it was good, but the part with the father in the closet was dumb. Either knock him unconscious in the kitchen or untie him to help Sydney. She couldnt have dragged him to the closet with hands and feet tied-it was a political decision and stupid. probably Harvey Weinstein's idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Sept 5, 2018 1:12:09 GMT
I don't get it.
Scream 2 is my fav of the series, but I never got why winking a meta eye was somehow beholden to genius.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dramatic Look Gopher on Sept 5, 2018 16:38:51 GMT
I remember going into the theater not expecting much, but then I was pleasantly surprised by how good it turned out to be. A terrific and knowing tribute to 80s slasher flicks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Sept 5, 2018 17:06:26 GMT
I’m not a slasher fan, but this one’s fun and the script’s smart (not just the meta humor, also the character personalities and some of the dialogue). The mystery stuff is also good—Williamson plays fair throughout, giving the audience all the clues. I guessed pretty early on that Billy was the killer—it’s that old Agatha Christie chestnut, making the most-obvious suspect the murderer, and Ghostface’s failed attack on him is a ruse from Christie and about a million ‘30s mystery b-movies—but I couldn’t figure out his alibi. That he and Stu were in together was a pretty neat twist, though in retrospect I can’t believe I didn’t see that he had to have an accomplice to be the murderer. Nice callback to other horror flicks, and nice direction by Craven as well. In almost every detail except mystery-plotting, though, the 2nd one is better. As kolchak92 mentioned, it doesn’t exactly hold up to re-watching; once you know the twists, it goes through these longueurs where it moves very slowly, with lots of red-herrings but little substance. The plot-holes and dead-end scenes also stick out like a sore thumb; in particular, so many just-introduced characters are killed unexpectedly, just as they were getting interesting and with little emotional response from the characters. The stuff with Cotton What’s-his-name, the Liev Schreiber character, is also rather irrelevant to the plot, and the solution to that mystery is thrown in senselessly at the end, as if Williamson had just remembered it. I shouldn’t be too negative, though, as I did enjoy it a lot the first time I saw it. |
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Sept 5, 2018 19:03:33 GMT
As kolchak92 mentioned, it doesn’t exactly hold up to re-watching; once you know the twists, it goes through these longueurs where it moves very slowly, with lots of red-herrings but little substance. The plot-holes and dead-end scenes also stick out like a sore thumb; in particular, so many just-introduced characters are killed unexpectedly, just as they were getting interested and with little emotional response from the characters. The stuff with Cotton What’s-his-name, the Liev Schreiber character, is also rather irrelevant to the plot, and the solution to that mystery is thrown in senselessly at the end, as if Williamson had just remembered it. What are the plotholes? I'm also not following you on the Cotton thing. Besides his use as fall guy, his story paints a picture of Maureen that leads into the whole motive of the killer. Even though he's only actually in it for two seconds (although it was actually planned from the beginning to make a sequel with him as a main character), he's detrimental to the plot. Also, besides the opening of course, no characters are really killed "just-introduced". Even Principal Fonz. You're right that deaths don't have huge impact on other characters, but the film was kinda mocking desensitization. |
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Sept 5, 2018 19:16:35 GMT
As kolchak92 mentioned, it doesn’t exactly hold up to re-watching; once you know the twists, it goes through these longueurs where it moves very slowly, with lots of red-herrings but little substance. The plot-holes and dead-end scenes also stick out like a sore thumb; in particular, so many just-introduced characters are killed unexpectedly, just as they were getting interested and with little emotional response from the characters. The stuff with Cotton What’s-his-name, the Liev Schreiber character, is also rather irrelevant to the plot, and the solution to that mystery is thrown in senselessly at the end, as if Williamson had just remembered it. What are the plotholes? I'm also not following you on the Cotton thing. Besides his use as fall guy, his story paints a picture of Maureen that leads into the whole motive of the killer. Even though he's only actually in it for two seconds (although it was actually planned from the beginning to make a sequel with him as a main character), he's detrimental to the plot. Also, besides the opening of course, no characters are really killed "just-introduced". Even Principal Fonz. You're right that deaths don't have huge impact on other characters, but the film was kinda mocking desensitization. Right. The fact that he’s only in it for 2 sec. makes his appearance rather pointless—and then we get a “wait! He didn’t actually do it,” as if we’re supposed to be interested or surprised by that. As he only pops up for 2 sec., though, adding that extra element that he didn’t do it, that the death of the mother actually has to do with this plot, just seems to come out of nowhere. OK, maybe not introduced just the moment before they’re killed, but killed very early on without any kind of look into their characters; no one really comes alive except for Sidney, they all exist on the periphery. (I’m thinking of the Rose McGowan character in particular, who’s just getting interesting and then stalked and killed for no real reason. Ho hum.) As annoying as Laurie’s friends are in Halloween, they feel like real people; Scream’s dead teenagers feel like types, or gags. And I’m not a big fan of justifying something by saying it was making fun of it. Just because a movie mentions the cliché doesn’t mean that it doesn’t use it, and in a not-particularly-original way. |
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Sept 5, 2018 19:43:43 GMT
What are the plotholes? I'm also not following you on the Cotton thing. Besides his use as fall guy, his story paints a picture of Maureen that leads into the whole motive of the killer. Even though he's only actually in it for two seconds (although it was actually planned from the beginning to make a sequel with him as a main character), he's detrimental to the plot. Also, besides the opening of course, no characters are really killed "just-introduced". Even Principal Fonz. You're right that deaths don't have huge impact on other characters, but the film was kinda mocking desensitization. Right. The fact that he’s only in it for 2 sec. makes his appearance rather pointless—and then we get a “wait! He didn’t actually do it,” as if we’re supposed to be interested or surprised by that. As he only pops up for 2 sec., though, adding that extra element that he didn’t do it, that the death of the mother actually has to do with this plot, just seems to come out of nowhere. OK, maybe not introduced just the moment before they’re killed, but killed very early on without any kind of look into their characters; no one really comes alive except for Sidney, they all exist on the periphery. (I’m thinking of the Rose McGowan character in particular, who’s just getting interesting and then stalked and killed for no real reason. Ho hum.) As annoying as Laurie’s friends are in Halloween, they feel like real people; Scream’s dead teenagers feel like types, or gags. And I’m not a big fan of justifying something by saying it was making fun of it. Just because a movie mentions the cliché doesn’t mean that it doesn’t use it, and in a not-particularly-original way. The question of whether the death of Maureen and the current killings are connected is raised from the beginning. We're not supposed to be particularly surprised Cotton is innocent, as even Sidney herself (the witness that helped put him away) starts to think so halfway through. The surprise is more who the actual killer is and why. Tatum was killed because she didn't like the killer and would have gotten in the way of their end game. And I thought we got to know her just fine. What more could have been said about her? Desensitized teenagers wasn't necessarily a cliche in 1996. Making the teenagers desensitized was "the original part". When I said it was mocking it, I was talking about the real life climate at the time with sensationalized murder and whatnot. The same kind of stuff Natural Born Killers was satirizing (in fact, Oliver Stone got in a huge bidding war for the script because he wanted to make it). |
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Sept 5, 2018 19:48:13 GMT
Great 90s horror. 8/10
|
|
