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?

'Cos evidence and research points to the exact opposite for educational standards. That's the argument with 'watering down' of admission standards and the 'dumbing down' of syllabus. I'm not siding either way, but there's definitely resonance in some of the conclusions.

Also, the part about wildly successful rehashings and poor quality content, which is ironic considering what we're discussing here points to the exact opposite with Scream 4.

Well, I'll address your 2nd issue here.

Have you seen the both the originals and remakes of the 2 movies I brought up?  If not, you can't really comment.

You haven't seen Scream 4 either, so again, you can't comment on any poor quality content.  It's a sequel...it's not a rehash or a remake.  It's the 4th in the installment, and/or the first of the 2nd trilogy.

Yeah, I saw the first three. Haven't had chance on the fourth and as I said, the trailer doesn't appeal to me.

That's why I said "points" to the opposite. I wasn't concluding, but suggesting it was the case.

Just read Scream 4 pulled in about 19 million this weekend, about ten million less than openings of the previous installments.  I doubt the low numbers have anything to do with the quality of the film, it's just the "heat" for this series is long gone.  Scream built its franchise by being the series that rewrote the rules for slasher films, but that was back in the 90s.  The idea just isn't fresh anymore.  Scream 3 didn't exactly leave people screaming for more, and that was 11 years ago.

But, I have been hearing some pretty good reviews around here, so as usual, I'll wait for the dvd.

Andrew, my point related to Prom Night and When a Stranger Calls.  Did you see the originals and remakes?

Scream 4 is a different beast entirely.

Yes, yes, yes and yes.

And no for my Lakers!  Unbelievable!!  PITIFUL!!!!!!

What's your favourite scary movie? the voice asks.  And we're off.

This is the problem when you walk into a movie theater... it's 112 minutes of your life you can't have back.  Sure I liked scream 1, and 2, but I was a kid back then.  But after scream 3, needless to say when scre4m came out I wasn't jumping for joy.  But since someone twisted my arm, we went.  I should have known when I walked into the theater, yep...4.  It was like twenty people there.  7:55 showing.  Oh well.

I have to admit, the opening bloodbath was pretty good.  It was good to see the original cast back, especially Neve.  And yes she had the best line, "Don't fuck with the original."  The irony alone makes it a classic in my book.   Some of the killings were too funny and I don't know if they should have been.  Yeah I know it's a slasher film.  

I'm thinking maybe the killer shouldn't be connected to any of them.   The middle just dragged, maybe too many characters, all the plots that didn't seem to lead anywhere, some of the campy dialogue.  The ending I did like, but having said that... it falls short of 1 and 2, but better then 3.

For all those die-hard scream fans, they'd probably love this, "it's the best thing since peanut butter and Jelly."  But my expectations were low, so I'll give credit where do, thanks "scream 3."  So I wasn't too disappointed.  But if I could turn back the hands of time... I would have waited for the DVD.

Ghostie

Oh...dude...no...really?  You weren't entertained or you were hoping for more?

I honestly thought it was well done, well written, well shot, and very high production value.

Oh well...

Jeff, don't get me wrong, it was good.  I just didn't find it captivating enough, but that's just me.

Ghostie

OK, I hear ya.

I'm kind of boycotting this movie.  Last I heard was that Craven and company were not given full control of the script.  Also Williamson has backed out.  Not to mention the majority of the cast is unhappy with the final product and all claim that the majority of the good stuff was taken out or rewritten.

While I'm not all that hot on Craven (Not a huge horror fan) and the only movie of his I thought was decent was Red Eye, but that was all Cillian Murphy, who plays dark extremely well.

I enjoyed the other Screams for what they were, but wasn't a huge fan. But when the writer, director and majority of the cast have issues and are saying they're not happy, something happened.

So I don't know if you'll see a 5th installment with the same cast.  Anyone have any news of this "fallout"?

Funny. This is a rare instance where I feel like the studio restricting control would be a good thing. Craven has been jaded and unenthusiastic about his work for a long time and Williamson flat out shouldn't write horror. His films were passable in the 90s because there was a horror drought. He could never stand up to guys like Eli Roth or Rob Zombie. They changed the game and these Scream guys got left behind.

As much as I don't care for Scream at all, it was a film that was right for its time and that time has passed for both the series and its filmmakers.

I kind of agree with these last 2 posts, but if you haven't seen the film, you really don't know what you're saying.

Scream 4 was a good movie...no way around that.  There were instances where it went too far into the corny realms or downright unbelievable, but it was a solid flick, well put together, and totally kept you guessing until the final 20 minutes...and then threw in a number of twists into the finale that were all very good.

I watched Shocker the other night and was literally appalled by how horrendous it was.  I don't remember it being so terrible, but I'd honestly say it has to be one of the worst horror flicks I've ever seen that was an actual decent sized budget wide release.

Craven's a lucky man, as he is so hit and miss, it's crazy.

I suppose I really can't say much about a film I haven't seen. I think I'll die happier if I never have to see Scream 4 even if I don't get to hate on it with any sense of credibility.

But I will say that I know Sydney Prescott, I know Gale Weathers, I know Officer Dewey, everyone knows Ghostface... they are the people who make the franchise and I couldn't be less interested in any of them. Dull as paint. What good is suspense if Neve Campbell's the star? What good are clever twists and turns if Courtney Cox is the one trying to figure them all out? Maybe they upped the gore or something. So what? Unless all three leads who have been in the series since the original get continuously chopped up with no edits for the entirety of the last twenty minutes, you can keep it. No thanks.

OK, James...fair enough.

I'm really surprised by all the hate, though...not just from you, but from the general "fans" as well.

IMO, Scream 3 SUCKED for the most part.  Stupid, unbelievable, lame gore, lame deaths, weak plot, terrible script, less than stellar performances...yet...it did $162 Million, 11 years ago.

As far as I could tell, peeps wanted to see more...wanted to see the franchise redeem itself, which it did with Scream 4, but yet, everyone, other than the critics are avoiding it like the frickin' plague.

Oh well...

Scream 3 was trash. I have no doubt Scream 4 redeems itself and maybe the whole franchise made enough of a dent where it deserves to be redeemed. I just can't be bothered with the Scream universe or Craven's wishy washy sensibilities.

I suppose I'm surprised that fans would avoid it as well though. Before it came out, it seemed like everyone was excited about it and the critical response wasn't too bad.

Saw this last night.
I'm not surprised this movie was a boxoffice failure.
It reminds me of why movies like "Star Trek: Generations" don't click.
It subjugates the "new blood" to cater to the older audience.

Sure, the three "survivors" do their thing with a modicum of charm.
But the main reason I liked them is no longer present, conflict.
Gail and Sydney didn't used to get along, now their simpatico. Yawn.
Dewey used to chase Gail and fawn over her, now, they're married. Yawn.
All the fireworks between this trio have been neutered.

New movie goers aren't going to get much out of them.
There's no rekindling of rivalries or a "catch up" sequence to acquaint new viewers.
The new cast members are dullards, save for the Heroes cheerleader.
I like her short hair and big attitude, only one with a pulse of the newbies.

There was some occasional cleverness, the Ghost Face app for your phone, etc.
But, I was shocked at how low budget this film felt to me.
Not one car crash or set piece in the entire film, save for the Stab-a-thon.
Outside of the occasional suffering of stab victims, the deaths were meh.
It's cool they didn't do the CG blood thing, points there.

It's a step up from the number three, for sure.
But the Scream franchise has become the one thing it can't afford to be, dated.

E.D.

I rank them 2 > 1 > 4 >>> 3.

I really liked this.

I am a huge Scream fan, like, so so so huge, love these movies, even Scream 3 even though it is the worst.

But yes, Sidney was badass.  Gale was fierce.  And Kirby was awesome.

However, I did guess one of one of the killers early on.

Regardless, great movie, great slasher saga.

Im a HUGE scream fan too, and 1,2 and 4 are my favorites. 3 was the worst, the characters were awful and the killer was a baby.

Scream - 10/10
Scream 2 - 10/10
Scream 3 - 6/10
Scream 4 - 10/10

I have the whole collection in my shelf and its my favorite horror series. I ejoyed this

Scream 4 was good, but that’s it.  Nothing more.  That 11 year gap doesn’t help much, either.  Sequels to movies that happened ten years or more ago. . . I don’t know.  Some people move on.  I think 4 could have done a whole lot more with what the horror genre left at it’s feet.  Decent sequel -- step up from 3.  Read a tweet or an article or something like that from Wes Craven, concerning fans who want Scream 5 and 6, and it went something like this:  “You guys really want another one???”  Almost as if making another didn’t even cross his mind.

Quoted from James McClung Funny. This is a rare instance where I feel like the studio restricting control would be a good thing. Craven has been jaded and unenthusiastic about his work for a long time and Williamson flat out shouldn't write horror. His films were passable in the 90s because there was a horror drought. He could never stand up to guys like Eli Roth or Rob Zombie. They changed the game and these Scream guys got left behind. As much as I don't care for Scream at all, it was a film that was right for its time and that time has passed for both the series and its filmmakers.

I don’t know about Eli Roth, but Rob Zombie did/does nothing for the horror genre.  The exception to that is The Devil’s Rejects-- great movie.  Terrible, bland script, but wonderful movie.  That’s where Rob really makes up for his terrible writing/ideas -- the final cut of the film.  But that doesn’t mean he always is successful.  Halloween (07) was OK and H2 was a lumbering mess of a movie with an equally lumbering killer who just stabbed and stabbed and stabbed and stabbed, and that was it.  That’s the movie.  I think the only thing redeeming those crappy reboots is Danielle Harris, and her fine lookin’ booty.  

Kevin Williamson could never stand up to guys like Rob Zombie?!  Ha!

Rob Zombie is a mess of a movie maker, his lame attempt at rebooting Halloween is an example of this.  Halloween (07) was alright, and Halloween 2, well the less said about that mess the better.

I agree there was a huge gap between Scream 3 and Scream 4, and it could have done a lot more since lots in the horror genre did happen in that gap.  But I think it did okay.

Has anyone read the script?  The ORIGINAL script Kevin wrote?  The ending was way different, and would have been something new and fresh and epic for us Scream fans.  I thought the ending we got was okay, it was a little new, but overall it just lapped in the "been there, done that" territory.

Also, I think Scream 4 did a lot to keep up with modern times.  Ghostface putting the kills on the interent, for example, I thought was an awesome and fresh idea for the franchise.  Also, all the characters in Scream 4 (with the exception of Hoss and Perkins, ugh) were great.

It blows my mind how anyone could not love the main trio.  Sidney is up with with Laurie Strode as one of the best horror final girls of all time.  Gale is a fierce bitch who has proved herself to have a heart, and we love her.  As for Dewey, well he's Dewey.  I kind of wanted him to die in Scream 4, but that's less of the point.

My point is, that the Scream series might not try to tackle new ground all the time, but IMO it's miles better than any RZ sludge.

Don't get me wrong, guys. I hate Rob Zombie. I thought the Halloween remake was not only bad in it's own right but also totally betrayed everything that made the original what it was. Strangely, I found the Haunted World of Superbeasto to be exceedingly worse and I really hated Halloween. I loved House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects in high school but when I saw The Devil's Rejects last year for the first time since, I had to apologize to my friend for suggesting we watch it. I haven't seen House since high school and haven't seen Halloween 2 at all but I can't imagine they'd fare well for me.

Ironically, I have very high hopes for the Lords of Salem.

What I meant by my comments was that since Scream's heyday, the 90s, horror has gotten much more extreme in multiple respects. I mention Rob Zombie and Eli Roth because I feel like between 2003 and 2006, we got the films that played the biggest part in the new movement like Hostel, Saw, House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, High Tension, and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. Scream is a slasher film so it can't take the PG13 route; it's gonna have to compete with films like the ones I've mentioned above. I haven't seen this one so I can't comment on the gore but I didn't think the other films were all that extreme and as I understand it, pretty much everyone in Scream 4 just gets stabbed in the stomach. Hardly over the top by slasher standards.

I also feel like there're some films that are very much of their time and just feel out of place when studios try to revamp them. Rush Hour was one such film. When Rush Hour 3 came out, it just felt awkward. If they tried to bring back Austin Powers, I imagine it'd be the same problem.

To me, Scream is very much a film of its time, the 90s. The idea of a Scream 4 in 2011 sounds like an old dog trying to learn new tricks, especially when so many other horror movies nowadays play on the whole meta spiel. Scream can't even stand out this time around.

I agree - even though I like Scream 4 - but it could have been a whole better… or a whole lot more “hipper” if that’s a word.

Well, I am happy you're not Rob Sloppy fan then.

And as for the deaths/gore factor, not everyone is stabbed in the stomach, the gore is in plentiful this go around.  People get blasted in the nuts, not to mention what happens to the opening characters, a character also gets stabbed in the skull, and the third character to get killed -- if anyone can recall -- was an utter gore, blood-bath of horror.

The Scream franchise lives and dies based on what is expected of it.  Or maybe better put, what the creators think the expectation is.

I enjoyed Scream 4 when i saw it in the theater and I still enjoyed it when I watched it on a movie channel.  But, let's not kid ourselves, it's definitely not great movie making.

One of my complaints is the lack of gore.  There are definitely alot of ill will brutal kills, but the gore is minimal.  As others noted, the vast majority are simple knife kills, which for me, does get a bit old.

But, at the end of the day, Scream 4 stands head and shoulders above most horror movies and delivers pretty much exactly what is expected of it.

I agree it isn't great movie making.  But for what it is -- a modern sequel, slasher flick -- it was pretty good and miles better than some of the horror garbage that has been thrown at us in the last three years.

I didn't think there was a lack of gore.  I mean, compared to the the others, this is pretty gore-filled.  More than 3, maybe on par with 2, but nowhere near as up there with the original gore-wise.

So, a question, who was everyone's favourite newbie?