SCRE4M: New Decade. New Rules. New Standard.

It’s been fifteen years since Drew Barrymore spilled her guts onscreen in the first Scream movie, ushering in a new era of horror and sparking a wave of subsequent sequels and spoofs. Now, writer Kevin Williamson and director Wes Craven return to the franchise that started it all, joined by the intrepid trio that managed to survive the original trilogy: Courteney Cox, David Arquette and Neve Campbell. But as the tagline suggests, it’s a new decade, there are new rules, and there are plenty of new cast members, thrills and deaths. Here’s the breakdown:

Sidney Prescott (Campbell) is on the final leg of her book tour. Her last stop? Woodsboro, the town where Sidney’s dark past was born. And she just happens to be there on the anniversary of the infamous “Ghostface” killings. Once home, Sidney reunites with local sheriff, Dewey Riley, and his wife, intrepid reporter turned fiction writer, Gale Weathers-Riley. But Sidney’s past won’t die, and gruesome murders once again shake the small Woodsboro community. It’s up to the three friends (who’ve survived Ghostface thrice before) to find the killer and save the next generation of unsuspecting victims.

The Monkey: Where to begin. Oh, right…this movie was perfect. From its ingenious opening sequence to its twisted finale, SCRE4M is everything fans of the franchise hoped it would be and more. The film is so self-referential, so tongue-in-cheek, so self-aware, so meta that you can’t help but be impressed with Williamson’s razor-sharp wit and deft storytelling. It’s as if SCRE4M is staring at itself in a mirror, while holding up its own mirror – you’re left with an infinite loop of self-references and meta-jokes, making your head spin…in a good way.

There are even large portions of the dialogue dedicated to veritable cinema commentary and philosophy; the characters are practically delivering monologue treatises on the state of the horror film in modern cinema, critiquing the very genre with which it sits squarely. SCRE4M is wickedly funny, in that it covers any of its own shortcomings by the mere fact that it has analyzed, panned and dismissed them already. Brilliant. It’s like writing a book about the death of the paperback and the domination of the eReader, only to publish said manifesto in paperback; the irony is scathing and delicious and will have savvy audiences grinning from ear to ear the entire film.

The story progresses quickly, the kills are numerous and sufficiently grizzly and the characters are all shrouded in mystery. You’d think after decades of “whodunits” audiences would be numb to these types of movies, that there would be no surprises left. But Craven and Williamson perform magic onscreen, cobbling together a mysterious collage of hooded glances, impromptu entrances and noticeable absences for every single character, making it wonderfully impossible to guess the outcome. When they say everyone is a suspect, they mean it.

Campbell, Cox and Arquette reprise their roles with enthusiasm, brining a sense of history and gravity to a film that, otherwise, features a young, fresh (and unscarred) cast. And not only is the meta subtext confined within the realm of the fictional world – there were several real world nods as well, most notably, to the very public relationship between Cox and Arquette. A move like that could have easily been seen as cheap and could have pulled audiences right out of the movie – but Craven is a master and the references did nothing but strengthen the movie’s near academic self-evaluation.

As for the young cast: Emma Roberts as Jill Roberts, Sidney’s cousin, and Hayden Panettiere as Jill’s friend Kirby Reed led the new generation of teenage slasher film fodder expertly. In a wise move, SCRE4M didn’t try to fit the new characters into blatantly obvious roles (aside from Jill’s similarities to Sidney, there really weren’t any “younger versions” of Gale or Dewey, for instance). This allowed the new cast to stake a claim in the franchise on their own. It was this independence from the original trilogy that made it that much more satisfying when shameless throwbacks did show up. Rory Culkin and Erik Knudsen played the film’s version of Jamie Kennedy’s Randy from Scream and Scream 2 – the somewhat stereotypical film nerds. They deliver the franchise’s signature “rules” lecture, introducing a whole new slew of meta references and ushering the franchise into an era of shaky-cam horror and YouTube fame.

It was this juxtaposition of old and new, young and old, traditional and edgy, familiar and unfamiliar that made SCRE4M such a delight and will not only please die-hard fans of the original, but will garner a horde of new fans as well. SCRE4M speaks to the YouTube generation while playing to the generation that grew up with the originals. It still amazes me how well the film was able to balance the myriad dichotomies that were created by its very existence. This movie just might give cinema theorists existential crises.

While I, obviously, won’t divulge who the killer is here, I will say that I was pleased with the outcome: it was yet another instance of the film’s uncanny ability to self-critique, and, in this instance, provide a bit of uncharacteristically enlightening social commentary as well.

The Weasel: The concept of filming the murders was brought up as part of the “new rules.” But it wasn’t really touched on until about two-thirds into the movie, and even then, it almost felt like a throwaway reference, one that was never fully capitalized on. The influence of social media networking sites like Twitter and Facebook, while referenced, were similarly underdeveloped. And I have to say – initial buzz has it that SCRE4M is the first part of a second Scream trilogy. I’m beginning to hope otherwise. This movie outdid even its predecessors and it’s unclear how two more sequels could top what Craven has done this round.

A gem of a film, especially considering it’s the fourth in a horror franchise. The script is devilishly meta, the actors are above par and the direction keeps you guessing till the very end. So, what’s your favorite scary movie?

5 Death Stars out of 5

Please don’t reveal too much about the plot, the kills or who Ghostface is in the comments. Give those who haven’t seen the movie yet a chance to be surprised. If you give away too much in your comment, I’ll delete it, or ask you to edit it before posting. Thanks!

What do you think? Does SCRE4M live up to the original? Did you enjoy the self-aware nature of the movie? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Burlesque: You’ve Seen This Song and Dance Routine Before

Cher returns to the big screen and Christina Aguilera makes her film debut in this holiday season’s musical extravaganza Burlesque. Here’s the breakdown:

Ali (Aguilera) is a small town girl looking to make it big in Los Angeles. Her dreams start to become reality when she begins working at the Burlesque Lounge, owned by veteran dancer/singer Tess (Cher).

The Monkey: Cher and Stanley Tucci were excellent. They played off each other incredibley well and brought humor, sass and reality to their roles that made them stand out. Cher reminds audiences why she has an Oscar; while her role as Tess is hardly award-worthy, she was consistent, believable and truly enjoyable to watch. She had just the right amount of attitude and vulnerability to be a watchable, three-dimensional character. Stanley Tucci was relegated, in most instances, to comic-relief duty, but his character Sean (stage manager of the lounge) acted as Tess’ sounding board – always there with words of wisdom and a funny quip. Alan Cumming played the doorman and was shamefully underutilized. I would have loved to see a  movie focused on these more mature characters.

The songs written for the movie were catchy and the music throughout the film gave the lounge that underground, sexy, Parisian feel. Christina Aguilera certainly has some pipes on her (nothing new) and she uses them to the fullest extent throughout the movie. A particular standout moment for her occurs when she sings live after the dancers’ lip sync track is disconnected. She ramps up the vocals, ramps up the band and ramps up the crowd for one of the movie’s most rousing numbers.

The film ends with a stellar performance, both visually and vocally.

The Weasel: Aguilera is never quite able to make up for her lack of acting ability. Sure it’s a musical, so singing counts, but, even there, Burlesque falls short; instead of songs meant to mirror the drama, songs about events happening in the movie, most of the songs (80% sung by Aguilera) are nothing more than an excuse to show off her vocal prowess and parade a bunch of scantily clad women across a rather drab looking stage. And this could even have been forgiven, except for the fact that most of the numbers left much to be desired. Audiences have become increasingly used to extravagant dance and song numbers in movies and TV recently. Take Nine, Chicago, Moulin Rouge! and even Glee for example. Burlesque had the opportunity to wow audiences with crazy stage performances never seen on film; instead, it delivers lackluster performances that aren’t even worthy of an episode of Glee.

Aguilera’s acting ability is evenly matched by her co-star and onscreen love interest, Cam Gigandet. The movie knows exactly what he’s good for (his looks) and it takes every opportunity to remind the audience of that: putting him in pouring rain wearing a white shirt, having him shirtless most of the time, even throwing in an unnecessary (but decidedly steamy) striptease…I dare you to eat Famous Amos cookies the same way again.

Burlesque attempted to make Kristen Bell and Eric Dane the villians, but a bitchy dancer and rich real estate mogul (respectively) both failed to illict any emotion or connection to the rest of the story.

Aguilera was at her best when she was being snarky and cold to fellow dancer and rival, Nikki (Bell). This is a classic case of miscasting. Think of Mandy Moore: known for being the goody two-shoes, she wasn’t taken seriously until her amazing performance as villainess extraordinaire in 2004’s Saved!. If Aguilera was given the chance to break out of her mold, she might surprise audiences; as it is, she brings nothing to her Burlesque performance other than her vocals.

One last note: I’m surprised the filmmakers haven’t received a call from the makers of Coyote Ugly for copyright infringement. Burlesque is uncomfortably similar to the 2000 film starring Piper Perabo. Small town girl moves to the big city to make it big in the music industry/rents a crappy apartment/apartment gets broken into and all the money that was hidden away is stolen/girl works for feisty club owner/girl not given a shot until she proves her worth singing/girl gets nickname based on her hometown/girl dates guy who writes music/guy performs striptease….I could go on, but you get the picture…yikes.

Cher, Stanley Tucci and Alan Cumming should have made their own film about running an underground Burleqsue club. Instead, audiences are treated to an age-old story that doesn’t even bother trying to cover it up with decent song and dance numbers.

2.5 Death Stars out of 5

What do you think? Did you enjoy seeing Cher back on the big screen? Do you think Christina Aguilera has what it takes to become a movie star? Share your thoughts in the comments!

You Again: A Movie I Won’t Be Seeing Again

You Again is a comedy that will have a high female demographic appeal. With an all-star cast comprised of Kristen Bell, Jamie Lee Curtis, Sigourney Weaver, Odette Yustman, Kristin Chenoweth and Betty White, there are definitely some heavy-hitting comedy chops at play. But does You Again deliver? Here’s the breakdown:

Marni (Bell) had a horrible high school experience. Constantly teased and humiliated by the popular “JJ” (Yustman), Marni relied on the support of her older brother to make it through high school. Years later, Marni comes home for her brother’s wedding, only to realize he is marrying none other than JJ, now Joanna, her high school nemesis. To add to the drama, Joanna’s aunt, Ramona (Weaver), turns out to be Marni’s mother’s (Curtis) own high school enemy. Will old fueds be rekindled? Will these women be able to forgive and forget?

The Monkey: Kristen Bell is fun to watch in anything she’s in. Ever since seeing her in the amazing and appallingly short-lived TV show, Veronica Mars, I’ve been a Bell fan (not to mention her epic turn as a Star Wars fangirl in 2008’s Fanboys). Her comic timing and facial expressions are hilarious and she carries the movie well.

It was nice to see Victor Garber in a fun role, as Marni’s dad. I’ll never be able to see him as anything but the stone-cold Jack from TV’s Alias, but he does comedy well. Great to see some of my favorite TV stars represent!

The movie features some surprising cameos that definitely earn some laughs, including Betty White, Kristin Chenoweth, Cloris Leachman and Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson.

The Weasel: The premise of You Again is comic gold, yet somehow, the filmmakers were able to make it completely unfunny. It was atrociously paced, edited together without any thought to the overall movie. There was no clear rising action and the movie’s conclusion was completely unearned. What little plot there was didn’t get started till a third of the way into the movie, and even then, never fully took off. You Again had all the necessary plot points and cliché romantic comedy moments; it almost felt like a movie version of paint-by-numbers.

Curtis and Weaver were wasted. Their potential for a riotously funny screen duet was overlooked. Instead, they were forced to deliver canned dialogue with a punch line never in sight. I was hoping for something along the lines of Curtis’ 2003 Freaky Friday, but instead, got a movie that parades big stars across the screen for no apparent reason. These women can act, people, and they’re funny! But how did they manage to make You Again feel like a straight-to-DVD flick?

And don’t even get me started on Odette Yustman. Well, this is a movie review blog, so I guess I have to get started. How she ever made it past high school drama is beyond me. She plays a lame villainess, without the personality to make the audience feel anything, let alone that sweet love-hate thing that truly good movie villains elicit.  And during emotional scenes, her piercingly grating, high pitched whine of a voice distracts from anything she’s saying and induces ear bleeds. If I ever see her in a movie again, I’ll definitely be saying, “you again?!”

A movie with all the right ingredients for hilarity, yet manages, somehow, to create a bungled mess of unfunny. It’s too bad the filmmakers didn’t just let these actors loose on a movie set, relying on ad-libs and scenes of craft service table gossip – I bet it would have been funnier.

1 Death Star out of 5

What do you think? Do you wish Kristen Bell would get some better movie roles? Would you like to see Sigourney Weaver and Jamie Lee Curtis try again as a comedy duo? Share your thoughts in the comments!