Scream 4

OPENING: 04/15/2011

STUDIO: Dimension Films

RUN TIME: 111 min

ACCOMPLICES:Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
New decade. New rules.

Opening Statement
Has it been that long since director Wes Craven deconstructed the slasher genre with Scream (1996)? Evidently so because he’s back, along with screenwriter Kevin Williamson, for another installment in the successful franchise, one that attempts to introduce Ghost Face to a whole new generation.

Facts of the Case
A new decade emerges, one with new rules, and little regard to past formula.

Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), still recovering from previous run-ins with Ghost Face, returns to her home town to promote a new book. As luck would have it, another Ghost Face impersonator begins slaughtering the town’s denizens in unique, unexpected ways.

To save not only herself, but those closest to her, Sidney will have to confront her demons once more in an epic showdown where anything can happen.

In Scre4m, all bets are off …

The Evidence
I’ll confess I was excited for Scre4m, having enjoyed Wes Craven’s original trilogy upon their release in the apparently-oh-so-long-ago-’90s. I was never a diehard fan, so to speak. I saw each film once (always in the theater), and that was enough. I recall each of them fulfilling my 18-year-old expectations: Screams 1-3 allotted a wild, 90-minute thrill ride, replete with terrific, pop-savy dialogue (by then up and coming screenwriter Kevin Williamson, who penned parts one and two), sexy young talent, and a hodgepodge of over the top death scenes (none more brilliant than Jamie Kennedy’s startling, middle-of-the-day demise in Scream 2). I’m of the minority that enjoyed Scream 3 for what it was: an unnecessary sequel that got by on its predecessors’ good company. Yet, even I felt Craven and co. had stuck a nice, shiny fork in the franchise.

I was wrong.

Scre4m marks a confident return to form for Craven. He doesn’t reinvent the genre as he did in 1996, but dowdily revisits an unexpected career high point like a kid replaying one of his old video games–nothing’s changed, the game’s just easier to beat.

Sadly, Craven’s confidence arrives hand in hand with a case of diminishing returns. Scre4m basically is Scream circa 2011. Same game, same rules, updated cultural references (instead of Freddy and Jason, these teens discuss torture porn and Harry Potter). In that vein, all that once felt fresh and invigorating a mere decade ago now reeks of corporate money grubbing.

After a deliciously campy pre-credit sequence that headily establishes the film’s sarcastic, if not cynical, tone, Scre4m essentially picks up where Three left off. Sidney Prescott (Campbell) returns to her hometown and again finds herself caught up in another Ghost Face crime spree. Obviously the plot doesn’t revolve around uncovering Ghost Face’s identity (that would end the film all too quickly). Instead, Craven and (returning writer) Williamson set up frequent death sequences that follow the same basic, home grown trajectory: two (or three) people discuss scary movies, receive a threatening phone call from Ghost Face, and then, after a few false scares, meet a gruesome death.

I recall zingy dialogue lending the original Scream an ironic, unsuspecting tone; here it feels outdated, even tacky. The filmmakers should’ve gone against audience expectations and crafted a revitalized slasher film–new scares, new tone, new style. I kept waiting for something significant to happen, or something that would give this film relevance in regards to its existence. But that’s the problem with Scre4m –nothing happens.

People behave like idiots, in spite of their supposed slasher-film insights. Some wander into the dark by themselves, others go to parties celebrating the murderer regardless of the ongoing killing spree; people die by the hundreds and no one, not even slightly-less-goofy Sherriff Dewey (David Arquette), or his slightly-more-bitchy wife Gale (Courtney Cox), seems to care. Even Sidney offers little in the way of genuine emotion. (After three films can you blame her?) Then again, everyone who dies deserves to die based on sheer stupidity.

I know it’s silly to comment on the increased death toll (a staple in sequels to be sure), suffice to say I think one or two deaths sprinkled throughout a film draws more genuine suspense than offing an individual every other minute. I grew annoyed with the numerous stabbing sequences, which come far too quickly and often. It doesn’t help that the victims lack characterization. Mostly they’re introduced (hey, it’s that guy from that one show) and then just as swiflty killed off. To that end, Scre4m feels like an exercise in mass carnage, as though Craven felt the need to outmatch those despicable (but somehow successful) Saw films. Wes Craven mimicking someone else? What has the world come to?

On the flip side, the killer has a terrific motive this time around, one that smarmily kicks US pop culture in the ass. Had Craven and co. set out to make a satire, Scre4m would have ended fifteen minutes earlier and it would’ve been bloody brilliant. But alas, the obvious point here is to open the door for even more insipid sequels. And so a lackluster, tacked-on finale undoes all the good will established only moments earlier, leaving this latest installment feeling downright scary in its refusal to let bygones be bygones.

Closing Statement
Wes Craven revamps his Scream series for contemporary audiences, but ultimately fails in his attempts to reignite the genre that twice made him a household name.

The Verdict
6/10

The Last House On The Left

OPENING: 03/14/2009

STUDIO: Rogue Pictures

TRAILER: Trailer

ACCOMPLICES: Official Site

The Charge
If bad people hurt someone you love, how far would you go to hurt them back?

Opening Statement
This year will no doubt go down as the revival of once-indie producer Sean S. Cunningham’s resume. Not only did his classic Friday The 13thget a modern makeover, but his early collaboration with horror master Wes Craven (A Nightmare On Elm Street) is now unleashed upon the gullible masses. Most people I talked with this week has never seen the original, let alone heard of it. The 1972 shocker was one of the first—if not the first—to show grisly violence in a most realistic manner, as Craven & Cunningham were inspired by photos of Vietnam carnage. However, the template they ripped-off was a 16th Swedish folk tale originally filmed by Ingmar Bergman in 1960 as The Virgin Spring, and now they’ve decided to return to this morbid material which gave them both career boosts. However, doesn’t this look like another unnecessary, throwaway redux?

Facts Of The Case
Straight-arrow, devoted swimmer Mari Collingwood (Sara Paxton, Aquamarine), along with her physician father John (Tony Goldwyn, Ghost) and mother Emma (Monica Potter, Saw), is attempting to re-adjust after the death of her older brother.  Returning to their summer lake house, Mari is eager to catch up with high school friend Paige (Martha MacIsaac, Superbad), who remains a fun-loving  party girl.  Soon after they hook up, Paige gets the urge to get some weed and is promised some after meeting the brooding Justin (Spencer Treat Clark, Unbreakable).  Little do they realize, however, that Justin’s father is an escaped convict named Krug (Garret Dillahunt, Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles), whose dangerous posse include bisexual girlfriend Sadie (Riki Lindhome, Changeling) and deranged younger brother Francis (Aaron Paul, Breaking Bad).  Mari and Paige become virtual prisoners, but when Mari realizes they are driving near her house she causes an accident.  As a result, she’s brutally raped as she watches Paige slowly die from multiple stab wounds.  Leaving her for dead, Krug & Co. take refuge at the last house on the left…without the slightest clue who  the owners are.  

The Evidence
It’s the same situation: curious newcomers will ask “What’s this like?” and classic devotees will demand “Why, for the love of God?” The horror remake train is still running strong, and so long as the monetary fuel is being pumped in, Hollywood won’t be pulling the brake anytime soon. As unnecessary as all of these updates are, some are actually better than others: Dawn Of The Dead, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween were all not bad. However, the majority of them (Black Christmas, Prom Night, Psycho, The Hills Have Eyes, and even The Ring) all ended up to be a waste of celluloid more than anything else. Now we come to The Last House On The Left which, surprisingly, falls into the former category. While my expectations were low going in, Left had a benefit in which the others I mentioned sorely lacked: the original film, while considered a classic in a few circles, definitely allowed room for improvement.

Don’t rush out to the cinema just yet, however.  Comparing both films, Left 2009 may exhibit competency and structure while also boasting a polished presentation, though it’s all merely by default of the original, which depended on improvisation both in script and budget.  Craven admits he was stoned much of the time when he and producer Cunningham captured Left ’72 on grainy 16MM.  The film was surely effective (and realistic) in its violent vibes, but it also seemed to lack a point…and, worst of all, offered an unsatisfying third act, despite such then-fresh ingredients as chainsaws and oral castration.  Left 2009 maybe twice as pointless, but at least it strengthens its vengeance half with an intense urgency, providing likable parents which we actually root for!  Goldwyn & Potter are simply terrific, giving the project a much-needed jolt of stylish caliber.   

Using Craven’s original script as a blueprint, the screenwriters, including Carl Ellsworth (Red Eye, Disturbia) make some smart choices here.  For one thing, they slowly reveal the sadism of the villians (particularly Krug) instead of just exposing it up front, while also increasing the vulnerability of one of the characters which, in the original, was buried by heroin addiction.  Secondly, they beef up the story transitions, many of which were incomprehensible before, such as Mari’s attraction to the lake and the identification of the criminals by the Collingwoods when they come in their home.  The overall plot may still be improbable, but the flow feels smoother and scenes play a lot with more grip in the final third.  Craven may have been heavily influenced by Bergman, but director Dennis Illiadius (2004′s Hardcore) opts instead for Hitchcock’s technique of building the suspense until it explodes…with a generous supply of blood.  Regardless of your feelings of the original, Left 2009 pays more attention to story aesthetics than simply making audiences spew lung butter.

As for the unpleasant nature and graphic violence, everything feels decidedly toned-down.  There is a reason this film is R-rated, after all, as the original remains unaffected by MPAA manipulation.  The rape scene is appropriately ugly and handled extremely well…but even more important, the director makes a wise choice in allowing the aftermath to play out, soaking up the character’s emotions and reactions.  Plus, it’s truly refreshing to not be subjected to extreme gore every ten minutes or so; otherwise, this would have ended up just another Hostel or Saw sequel with its focus on depravity rather than patience.  Rabid horror fans may not appreciate how everything is “cleaned up,” but there are still those key shots which will instigate gasps and cheers.

The Rebuttal Witnesses
Unfortunately, for every hop, skip and jump from the original, Left 2009 makes an aggravating misstep.  The opening sequence introducing the antagonists is an ill-conceived cliche which could have been verbally explained in one sentence at some other point.  Cheap, all-too-typical scares may be rare here, but they are still embarrassingly used when the story is supposed to be always grounded in real horror and real time.  These may be relatively minor hiccups, but they are nothing compared to the real burden: Dillahunt is seriously miscast as the sadistic Krug.  Maybe it’s just the dialogue he was given or way he comes off as normal at times, but Dillahunt fails to project a genuine sense of menace.  Lindhome and Paul both fare a little better, but neither are given enough time to emphasize their supreme evilness.  Even the supposed humanity of the villains is botched because of the actors’ inability to allow us to understand what makes them tick in their one-dimensional mindsets.  Dillahunt is the dullest of them all, as he doesn’t even scratch the surface of David Hess’ terrifying turn as Krug in the ’72 version.

Left 2009 had a lot going for it, but it’s going to have to settle with being only on par with the original.  Krug’s mis-casting hurt the proceedings, but the giant mistake was the inclusion of a denouement which was ludicrous and not to be believed.  Some may get off on the idea (which pretty much replaces the chainsaw), but it feels desperate and tacked-on, almost as if the studio insisted on injecting one more shock moment rather than ending on a naturalistic note.  I’m sick of these horror movies which feel the need to push the envelope at the very end rather than just settle on a more subtle, almost meditative note.  Left 2009 almostdoes this, believe it or not, but it disappointly surrenders itself to the type of genre indulgence which prevents it from full respectability.  Creativity is one thing, but asinine actions for financial safety is another. 

Closing Statement
Major and minor flaws aside, The Last House On The Left has the distinction of being one of the more accessible horror remakes in recent years.  It may be no better or worse than Craven & Cunningham’s original, but worth watching by fans if only for comparison purposes.  Still, I would advise readers to hold out for the DVD rather than spending $10 at the theater; if you cannot wait, however, at least watch the original at home first.  (P.S.  A collector’s edition was released recently which I reviewed for DVD Verdict.)

The Verdict
7/10