Matt Shea
RubySoho
Morgan Bell
Cibbuano
David O'Connell
Mountain Fog
SCREAM
November 14th 2009 09:30
SCREAM official poster
This Wes Craven film is perfect for teenagers grouped together for a night of giggles and scares. It was effective even for me, the first time I saw it, all those years ago. It poked fun at the clichés of horror films and then delivers some graphic and surprisingly effective murder scenes, while keeping the suspense driven ‘whodunit’ aspect alive.
Trouble is, so many years later, and more jaded than ever I watched the film again, not remembering the surprise ending, till right at the end. Even so, it failed to raise a hair on my head, neck, or any other part of my body and I was home alone, watching it at night.
However, if you have not seen it, or you have a household of teens to entertain, I think you would have an entertaining night. Lots of thrills and spills and laughs, even the corny bits can bring a smile.
The production elements are excellent and the film won many awards. It was a huge box office success.
For me, it dated badly I have to admit, losing its power. The mix of teen aimed humour and self parody most likely didn’t help Scream retaining its fright factor.
However, Craven could easily argue that those aspects were integral to its financial and critical success.
DISTRIBUTED BY ICON FILM DISTRIBUTION
AVAILABLE NOW ON BLU RAY AND DVD
Directed by
Wes Craven
Produced by
Cathy Konrad, Cary Woods
Written by Kevin Williamson
Starring
David Arquette
Neve Campbell
Courteney Cox
Matthew Lillard
Rose McGowan
Skeet Ulrich
Drew Barrymore
Music by Marco Beltrami
Cinematography Mark Irwin
Editing by Patrick Lussier
Distributed by Dimension Films (USA)
Release date(s) December 20, 1996
Running time 113 minutes
Country United States
Language English
IMAGE CREDIT:
CREATOR UNKNOWN, PRESUMED COPYRIGHT HELD BY PUBLISHER AND/OR FILM PRODUCTION COMPANY AS INDICATED IN CREDITS OF SCREAM POSTER. USE OF IMAGE FOR CRITICAL APPRAISAL ONLY AND PRODUCED FOR ICON FILM DISTRIBUTION
| 93 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Matt Shea
20/20 Filmsight
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by Mountain Fog
yeah it is pure teen flick shallow entertainment.
cheers
fog
Comment by Mountain Fog
I'll check out your review now.
cheers
fog
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
i don't think Luhrmann really intended for it to be a timeless rendition, it was very much made for the moment and designed to encapsulate the mid ninieties.
Comment by Mountain Fog
I think the biggest mistake he made was Australia, both its title and the visual style references to the Golden Years of Hollywood with the big sweeping shots etc.
I cannot forget the scene where Hugh Jackman does the big pose with the bucket of water splashing down his chest, so embarrasing.
Luhrmann tried to capture atmosphere without strong character and plot development, and cast Kidman (again) in a part that needed to exude warmth and empathy, but she always comes across as the ice queen to me. Maybe its her taut expression and cool blue eyes?
But, I agree, there is an argument that some films are suited to their era only, usually because of topical references, the meaning/subtext of which are either lost in time, or translation, when seen in another culture.
I am unsure whether this really does apply to Luhrmann's work, as Australia, for instance, was an almost non stop homage to great scenes in cinema past. And Scream wasn't constructed to be a classic horror film, it is too tongue in cheek to ever achieve that.
cheers
fog
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Is the best way to portray Shakespeare then to do it utterly straight with costuming of the era it was set??
I need to watch it again to see if I agree with it appearing dated. Surely it hasn't dated nearly as much as say Zeffirelli's 60s production ...? It's certainly the most stylistic production of the play put on the big screen, and perhaps viewed purely as a extreme stylistic it isn't so much that it dates, but that it becomes a modern work of art and thus renders it dateless, but of a time.
I think I'm probably talking out of my arse, but hell, Luhrmann does it all the time!
Comment by Matt Shea
20/20 Filmsight
Ruby, totally agree regarding Romeo and Juliet. Performances are wooden and the editing totally out of touch with the language of the play, thus coming off as awkward and, well, garish, as you say.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
perhaps viewed purely as a extreme stylistic it isn't so much that it dates, but that it becomes a modern work of art and thus renders it dateless, but of a time.
I think that is exactly what Luhrmann was going for and at the time I thought he had succeeded but watching it now, I really don' t think it holds up.
I've never sat through all of Zefferelli's version and I don't think Shakespeare has to be played straight, i just think Luhrmann overdid it. Which is of course very unlike him
Oh and sorry for derailing this thread fog.
Comment by Mountain Fog
He is so enamoured with the stylised theatrical (stage) approach in his work, I feel it cannot but help get in the way of the subject at times. Ballroom, Romeo and Moulin he classed as his "Red Curtain Trilogy".
As Bryn says, I must watch Romeo and Juliet again, to get some perspective. Actually, I might try and watch all three, in order, that might reveal more about him as a director.
cheers
fog
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
I can't stand Moulin Rouge though.
And even if you paid me I still wouldn't watch Australia.