Something must be wrong with me...how can it be possible that I give 3 positive reviews of movies in 2 weeks?  Crazy...downright crazy.

I really liked this, and if you enjoyed the first 2 Screams, I can't imagine you won't enjoy this one.

Well done all the way around.  Good cast, engaging characters, good kills, pretty brutal, even.  I did not know who the killer was. I thought I did several times, only to see that character get  taken out.  Well, I can't completely say that, but I don't want to offer any spoilers either, so let's just say it did a good job in what it set out to do.

I'm sure there will be haters, as this is exactly what you think it's going to be. It accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do, entertain, provide some laughs, and keep you guessing right down to the very end.

If you enjoy slasher movies a cut above the usual dreck, you'll enjoy this.  If you don't, then there's no reason for you to see it.

The theater i saw it at today, for the 2nd showing was absolutely dead, which is surprising to me.  I hope it's not a sign of a poor showing, as this movie deserves to do well and maybe even keep the franchise rolling along, as planned.

This was the second best in the series for me, right after scream 2.  Wes Craven is back in form, his last 2 films have not been up to par and filled with too much cgi, here no cgi and lots of good old fashioned fake blood, this is a very very bloody movie. I also liked that it focuses on Sydney, the last scream she was just a side character, I was actually worried from the trailer that the sydney, dewey and gail were just gonna have small parts and focus more on the new kids but it is actually the other way around.  I also didn't see the second killer coming, i knew who one of them was from the trailer, but i would never have guessed the other.  All in all this is a good return to the hack'n slash and good comeback for Wes Craven!

Quoted from Dreamscale engaging characters

Wait, what?!

I always thought the "classic" trio of Campbell, Cox and Arquette were some of the most dull, charmless characters in horror history portrayed by equally dull, charmless actors. When David Arquette's the best of the bunch, you're in deep doodoo.

Knowing that the three leads suck from the last three movies, I have to wonder what exactly are you getting at here.

???

I really enjoyed this movie as well. It was great to have Scream back. Such a fun franchise.

Edit: This doesn't hold up, unfortunately. Still probably the best sequel, but that's not saying much.

James, engaging as in entertaining...like them or hate them, they're all engaging, IMO.  Even the secondary characters have personalities...they're funny at times, the chicks are hot.

Pretty much all the dialogue is well done, in that you get something from each character, at least I do.

We tend to have completely different opinions on what makes a good movie and character, and that's OK.

BTW - I watched Scream 3 last night (it came on a movie channel, so I recorded it), just to see if I was too harsh on it (as I recall not really liking it and it being by far the worst of the series).

Yeah, not good at all, IMO.  I liked the opening kills, and every now and then, there was something cool or funny, but overall, it just doesn't even compare to the other 3.  I actually fell asleep near the end, which is never a good sign.

Glad to hear a few others went to see this on opening day and enjoyed it!

I thought it was great. Some real funny lines, brutal kills and a great twist. I hope a fifth installment is in the works. Absolutely loved the Kristen Bell/Anna Paquin cameo at the start.

Brian, Craven and Williamson are on-board for another trilogy, actually, assuming this one does well.

I'm surprised to see that it's not doing nearly as well as even Scream 3, which was pretty lame, IMO.  I don't think people are giving it a chance, but hopefully, good word of mouth gets out and it has some legs to crawl towards $100 Million, but it's not looking that way at all out of the gate.

Perhaps the audience is tiring of the blatant cashing in. Don't get me wrong, I don't have this reactionary anti-Hollywood attitude, but when you're basically filmmaking as a form of marketing, you got to get the marketing right - and they didn't here. Why would you go see this? That's the fundamental question the bods involved need to answer and define for the audience. The attempt has been pretty uninspiring and that's borne out by the opening take.

Well, Andrew, let's see...

The original Scream not only redefined the entire horror, or at least "slasher" genre, and took in $173 Million WW, on a $14 Million budget.

Scream 2 took in $172 Million on a $24 Million budget.

And 11 years ago, Scream 3 took in $162 Million on a $40 Million budget.

All 3 were critically appreciated.  It's been 11 years.  Craven and Williamson are back on board.  The 3 surviving main stars are back on board.  There's a whole new demographic to bring into the Scream world.  The new movie is well done and will appeal to both old and new fans.

Why wouldn't you want to see it if you enjoy this genre of film?

I know people say it "redefined" the genre, but did it? How did it? What was redefined? I'm not sure it fundamentally altered horror moviemaking but rather created a successful box office template that others followed. A swathe of similar film owed more to the $$$ than the artisitic creation, IMO.

But on top of that, you're missing my point: this film has been marketed poorly. With such a large gap since the last film, you're now pitching to a new audience as your primary target and trying to reestablish the bond with your last group. Toy Story 3 was marketed to perfection, despite facing the exact same problem.

The trailer indicates almost the exact same premise for this film: we're redefining horror. But it's the exact same idea. And yet, the words from the trailer are almost verbatim of what was said when Randy (was that his name?) made the same claim years ago. The audience are now savvy enough to know that this notion of redefining is ostensibly bollo*ks.

I have nothing against the movie or its franchise. I couldn't give a toss but as a man with years of marketing experience, I think I know bad marketing when I see it. And like or not, filmmaking product emanating from Hollywood is inextricably to marketing.

Quoted from Dreamscale   There's a whole new demographic to bring into the Scream world.  The new movie is well done and will appeal to both old and new fans. Why wouldn't you want to see it if you enjoy this genre of film?

Ahh, but that's the problem. Are there going to be new fans? The horror genre has changed since Scream came out. The originals are good for what they are, but they definitely feel like a 90's phenomenon. I know people who were around to experience the originals first time around will probably be excited to see these, but while these 'new fans' actually materialise?

Wes Craven's star power has pretty much disappeared. I'd say a fair chunk of the teen market these films might be hoping to draw in (I note that Scream 4 is a '15' here in the UK) will probably never have heard of him. To draw a comparison,  it's not like when Indy 4 came out. Spielberg is still the most famous director in the world - his profile didn't drop at all between the installments. I enjoyed Red Eye, but Wes Craven just isn't A-list now.

And whether the new one's good or not (I haven't seen it), it's been a financial disappointment. I agree with Andrew - the marketing's been poor. It just feels like executives retreating into their comfort zone, trying to live off past glories. That may not be what it actually is, but that's what it feels like. The Scream films just aren't quite iconic enough to bring people in on name alone. It's not like Saw, with a new film every year - as much as they might have enjoyed the originals, the movie-going public has moved on. And the new generation? It just doesn't look like they're interested.

I don't think releasing it at this time of the year was any help. Surely with no more SAW movies in the works, Halloween would have been the ideal time to cash in on a new horror/slasher.

I would imagine, in the UK anyway, that most of the new audience they were hoping for went to see "Your Highness" and "Red Riding Hood" which were both released on the same day. Not a very smart move. Also, as Jonny pointed out, it is only rated 15 here, so if it wasn't released alongside those two movies (which are also targeting the teen market) it may have done more business.

Note I haven't seen the UK box office numbers so it may be going great. I'm just going by the numbers in the cinema today, which were far from great.

I agree with Jeff, I hope the good reviews get people to the cinemas over the next week or two. It's definitely worth it for horror fans.  

Well, I don't know what marketing expertise either of you guys have or think you have, but I doubt it compares to the people in charge of marketing this movie.

You and the film industry can say that a $20 Million opening weekend at the NABO is "weak", but it will more than make back it's $40 million budget.  And, when DVD/Blu Ray, On Demand, etc. comes out, this will make another killing.  It will be a solid money maker anyway anyone wants to look at it.

And let's not forget that it may not follow the typical horror movie formula of opening big and quickly dying out.  The first 3 sure didn't.

IMO, any film hat is successful enough to instigate a myriad of copycat films, is genre defining, or redefining.

The youth of today, although much smarter than that of 20/30 years ago, is also much easier to please with any garbage that's churned out, as far as I'm concerned.  Just look at all the rehashed, remade ripoffs of the past.  Hell, look at the pathetic remakes of Prom Night and When a Stranger Calls, and they're crazy success compared to the far superior originals.

Jeff, I love the irony of that last part.

Cool, well, we'll just bang our heads here if we continue, 'cos you see it one way, and I see it another.

And that's what makes the world go 'round, Andrew.  Nothing wrong with that, but I do have to press...what irony exactly are you referring to?