#scream saga | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

holden-norgorov · 1 year ago

Text

Ranking the SCREAM Movies

I've just finished rewatching all the franchise in order so I'm making this ranking with all the movies fresh in my mind. The ranking is from worst to best.

6. SCREAM (2022).

This was by far the easiest to place because it's the closest the franchise has ever been to making a bad movie. I wouldn't necessarily call it a bad film per se, but in my opinion it ranks below the rest by a significant degree. The opening scene is the least interesting and most predictable out of all the movies: it lacks the power and iconic status of the first, the fun and insightful commentary of the second, the stakes of the third (due to the direct involvement of a character the audience is already familiar with), the unexpected meta subversion of the fourth and the experimental fake Ghostface of the sixth. Jenna Ortega does a good job acting-wise, but it's clear early on that all the scene wants to do is to requel-ize the original Scream opening. This severely strips the scene of suspense and provides nothing in its place that is able to truly hold the audience's attention in a similar way to how all the other five movies manage to. The peculiarity of the scene ends up steming from the fact that the person supposed to be the original victim (Tara) actually survives the attack, but the effectiveness of the twist is delayed because the audience is obviously revealed that once the opening scene is over.

This is also the worst movie out of the bunch acting-wise. Melissa Barrera is really unconvincing in most of the movie to the point of being almost hard to watch, particularly in the first half. The entire new supporting cast is lukewarm at best and doesn't seem to be comfortable in handling typical Scream banter, with many one-liners and puns not landing at all due to failure of delivery. I couldn't really say whether several lines don't land because the script is sub-par or because the main cast does a pure job bringing it to life, but that's still the result. The tear-filled infodump Samantha provides to Tara when the movie has barely started is really disappointing and arguably the worst scene in the entire movie. Not only does the scene feel misplaced (you can't expect your audience to be able to buy a moment like that so early on with new characters - we have known Sam and Tara for twenty minutes, so the emotional investment that kind of scene is supposed to inspire completely falls flat), but it's also very poorly delivered and, strictly quality-speaking, a betrayal to the original Scream, where Sidney's background and connection to a previous Woodsboro murder was carefully revealed to the audience through bits and pieces by different characters in a very intelligent manner. Here instead we have a huge exposition from Amber to everyone else about Sam and Tara's relationship, and another huge exposition from Sam to Tara about her true origins. Neve Campbell as Sidney feels also way less invested in the story than ever before: she doesn't even shed a tear for Dewey's death, which I find rather odd (you could argue that a lifelong exposure to constant death, trauma and inability to discern who to trust could have bolstered her to the point of self-protective stoicism, but I still think such a pivotal moment as the death of one of the Core Three who had been a main character for five movies merited a more weighful reaction from the iconic protagonist of the franchise). Instead, we just get a quick acknowledgement, and by the very next scene Sidney and Gale are back to a rather forced and forceful banter that almost makes it look like parody.

Last thing I'm going to mention is the new characters. This is the area where I think it's more evident that the script has also to be somehow at fault. Every character here feels incredibly generic. It's not that they are not given enough screen time to develop some kind of personality, it's just that the movie doesn't seem interested in providing it. Compare the general hallowness and vagueness of each new character here (including those who are going to become the new main characters of the requels, particularly Tara, Mindy and Chad) with how the way less important and more decorative characters were written, for example, in Scream 3. Sarah Darling was dead in the first quarter of the movie, and yet in a couple of brief scenes she had more depth and texture than almost everyone acquires here in the entire length of the movie. Same thing could be said about Scream 2's CC Cooper. Here instead we have a very long scene preparing us to the murder of Wes, but we know basically nothing of him, and our investment in his survival is severely compromised as a result. Same thing goes for Stu Macher's nephew, who is literally just a caricature. The killers' motive is also a bit underwhelming and feels very much like a meta excuse to bring the franchise back to life with a new generation. I also think it's hilarious that the villains complain about the Stab movies needing new material and about how stupid and disappointing is for Stab 8 to decide to call itself like the original movie (as a requel could never beat the original, as they say)... within a movie that's supposed to be called Scream 5 but instead labels itself as another original Scream. It's hilarious not because it lacks self-awareness (it obviously doesn't), but because the entire meta commentary ironically falls short due to this requel proving that its villains are correct - as Scream (2022) doesn't even come close to Scream, and fails at most of what made the first instalment of the franchise so great.

Not everything's bad, though. There are things I like about this movie, although they are few and far between. Samantha being Billy's illegitimate daughter is actually a brilliant way to revitalize the franchise without betraying the essence of the saga, because it provides believability to the establishment of a requel by still tying up with not only Scream, but Scream's own prologue (Maureen Prescott's death). This provides a valid reason for the franchise to continue existing and to even evolve in something possibly unforeseen, without it being contradictory or turning itself into something completely different than what it was always supposed to be about. Although I have to say, Sam having mind conversations with an astral projection of Billy is a bit weird and I don't think works remotely as well as Sidney's own allucinations of Maureen that she experienced during Scream 3. The meta scene at Martha Meeks's house works well enough as long as you keep in mind that, in universe, real-life events surrounding Ghostface attacks have given rise to a long-lasting Stab franchise that is thematically equivalent to Scream. This does provide the characters with the ability to analyze their lives and experiences as they were pieces of cinema without incurring in suspension of disbelief from the audience, or turning "too meta". The characterization of Dewey and Gale's relationship as being strained by divorce is completely believable and a very good narrative choice, and the twist about Sam actually having freed Tara that comes up at the climax is successful - mainly because it's the first real taste we have of Sam's potential and badassery as a protagonist.

Overall, it's not that bad. There are a lot of things I don't like, but also a handful that I really like and think live up to what came before. But I can't say the movie ever escapes the state of mediocrity.

5. SCREAM VI (2023).

Now it starts to become difficult. I was torn between three different instalments for this position, as they basically rank at the same level in my mind, but I ultimately decided to go with Scream VI. Overall, there's very little here that doesn't work, and I find this "sequel of the requel" a gigantic step-up from its predecessor in pretty much every aspect I can think of. The opening scene sets itself apart from what came before by luring us to believe that we might get a Ghostface POV firsthand and proceed with it through the movie, thereby instantly awakening an additional level of curiosity in the audience towards what's happening. The entire cast seems much more at ease with their characters and the rhythm of the franchise, with Melissa Barrera particularly showcasing a definite improvement in the acting compartment. Unlike Scream (2022), each character now gets a specific voice and personality that is able to escape caricatureness and enter into personhood. The group dynamic is also definitely felt way more, with "The Core Four" being given enough material to finally merit the viewers' emotional investment in their characters.

Another upside of the movie lies in the little moments of exchange between characters that help to build up the main relationship between Sam and Tara - I'm thinking about scenes like that between Sam and Gale, or Tara and Kirby. Sam and Tara face a character development of their own that is clear, well-written and aptly executed. The writing is definitely much more Scream-like than what we were given in the previous movie, despite its occasional overindulgence in meta territory that in my opinion sometimes takes it too far. The kills are by far the most graphic of the entire franchise right along with the ones shown in Scream (2022). Some of the sequences of this movie are also among the best of the saga when it comes to suspense, particularly the ladder escape scene and the subway scene, with a honorable mention to the Gale apartment scene. The phone call between Gale and Ghostface is terrific and fully manages to capitalize on the fans' attachment to the only present member of the original three in order to build an amazing sequence, where the killer both taunts her about Dewey and provides meta reference to Gale's recurring role as Sidney's shadow and failing opportunity to turn herself into an iconic Ghostface. It's an exploitment of the original trilogy in the best possible way. Another huge positive is the killer's fake lair with all the iconic evidence from the previous murders, because of how fucking cool it was to see that tapestry of Woodsboro history and all the memories it brought back up - it helped providing an additional sense of realism, and therefore enhanced the viewers' investment in the entire universe even more. Sam's complicated relationship with her father's influence on her self-perception as a possible future killer is incredibly fascinating to watch unfold and I'm very curious to see where it's going to lead (I predict a future final instalment with Sidney vs. Sam aka Ghostface). The conspiracy theory idea was also brilliant both on a narrative standpoint and on a meta commentary standpoint on the way modern technology lends itself to easily manipulate truth and spread falsehoods like a virus in the virtual public square. I also appreciated Kirby's comeback, even though her characterization seemed a bit off compared to Scream 4 - but people change and it's been twelve years, so I give it a pass.

So... why am I ranking this at fifth place out of six, if there's so much I like and think of as improved compared to the requel that came before it? Well, for a couple of reasons mostly. First one is, obviously, the Ghostfaces of this movie. This sequel of the requel attempts once again to live up to the sequel of the original, this time by replicating the killers' motive, but once again it lands nowhere near Scream 2. And that's probably Scream (2022)'s own fault more than it is this movie's, but that's the way it is. In Scream 2, Mrs. Loomis's motive was layered and incredibly complex given the little screen time that was allowed her upon her reveal. Yes, she wanted to avenge her son's death at the hands of Sidney, not differently than how Richie's family is trying to do the same exact thing in this movie against Sam - but what Scream VI lacks is the additional level of background that informed pretty much everything surrounding Sidney and all the Ghostfaces in the original trilogy. Mrs. Loomis was also a victim of marital infidelity because of Sidney's own mother, and an argument could be made that she was also after some posthumous forgiveness from her son regarding her own abandonment of him upon her discovery of said adultery. In a very brief scene the audience was provided plenty of reasons to speculate on how and why Nancy Loomis was on a killing spree and was specifically targeting Sidney. Here instead, the only motive we get is a clear-cut, old-fashioned revenge story - but it lands very clumsily, given the fact that Richie's own motive was never about some perceived harm perpetrated against him at the hands of Sam, but only about his own disappointment at Stab's decrease of quality. While it becomes quite easy to get why Mrs. Loomis would go to such lengths to target Sidney, it is rather hard for me to wrap my head around an entire family turning psychopathic in order to avenge the death of someone who, as far as we know, didn't even have any kind of traumatic past and just went on a killing spree because he was pissed at the movies, targeting Sam not because of personal vendettas but simply because of who her father was. It's a downer, and it makes it very hard for me to buy this movie's Ghostfaces, especially given how vicious their kills are. It ends up just being not that interesting and not that believable either, making Scream VI by far the entry of the franchise with the worst Ghostfaces.

And secondly, there are multiple instances, throughout the movie, where my suspension of disbelief is significantly tested. How is Quinn able to steal the knives and allow another Ghostface (presumably Ethan) to enter her own apartment without anybody else noticing? How come is Ghostface so slow at moving a fairly small cabinet that was only partially blocking a door no one was holding close, taking so much time that Mindy is able to cover the entirety of the ladder, and Anika, who is severely wounded at the abdomen, about half of it? How is Detective Bailey able to swap Quinn's body with a fake and circumvent forensic analysis? How is Gale able to find Greg and Jason's lair? (I mean, that's not hard to guess, but my complaint is that we are not allowed to see the process of discovery. If this was happening in the original trilogy, we would have been shown Gale finding the place, not just told as much and asked to take the information for granted.) And how is all that evidence been able to slip out of police archives unnoticed? I get that Bailey is a detective, but we are not talking about a couple of pieces of evidence. We are talking about the entire thing, including all the original Ghostface costumes and masks used by the actual killers. It's just too much. And finally, how is that the plot armor seems particularly evident in this movie? Chad survives something like 10+ stabs to the chest and abdomen. Tara is able to keep on fighting despite being stabbed at the back and at the abdomen as well. I get that adrenaline effect is powerful, but she also has an entire conversation with Sam showing no signs of distress, and what should be a copious amount of constant bleeding doesn't seem to do anything more than stain her clothes, and then just... stops by itself? Let me get this straight: I'm usually not that interested in focusing on these kinds of plot-holes in a Scream movie, and I'm sure each one of them has some questionable moments when it comes to credibility. But this movie is the only one where these kinds of plot-holes were so recurring to the point of being impossible not to see, and therefore for them not to affect my suspension of disbelief.

All things said, though, this is a very solid movie, and a definite step-up from the previous. By no means it is bad, or even mediocre.

4. SCRE4M (2011).

This definitely caught me by surprise because Scream 4 is, in a very similar way to (I suspect) most of the fans of my generation, the movie that started it all for me, other than probably the first horror movie I have ever seen. It not only encouraged me to experience the previous three movies and catch up with what came before it, but also to dive into the horror genre as a whole, kicking out some sort of passion towards horror cinema that still persists in me nowadays. I've always held this instalment in high regard, partly because of my attachment to it and his status as personal gateway to the franchise, and it's only throughout this last full rewatch session that it found itself slightly losing ground on my ranking, ending up in fourth position.

The beginning of the movie is, in my opinion, a brilliant way to summarize what Scream is about and to re-capture the attention of an audience that hasn't been fed Scream material for more than a decade, while simultaneously taking the viewers by surprise and reminding them of the importance of metatextuality for this franchise. It cleverly reminds us of the existence of Stab in such a way as to force us to peel back to the raw material like an onion is opened and reached at its core through layer and layer. We are reminded that Stab is an on-going franchise, partly fictional, partly inspired by books written by Gale Weathers, which are based on real-life events the writer herself has been repeatedly implicated in, which happen to constitute the plot of the previous Scream movies. The reason why it works is because it pays homage to the iconic opening of the original trilogy while subverting it at the same time, only for later on to betray that very subversion with an updated reiteration of the same scene, providing a modernized commentary on how the evolution of technology since the previous instalment is equipping psychopaths with newer, more subtle ways to subdue their victims and carry out their crimes. I think this scene works perfectly to re-open the Scream experience after so long - way better than what Scream (2022) ends up doing after a comparable time jump.

Overall, I have next to nothing about this movie to complain about. Sidney's character development as the writer of a self-healing book is completely believable and provides new interesting ways of enriching her dynamic with Gale, who is both envious of her for a variety of reasons but also uncertain about the kind of person she herself has become. Is she still the ruthless, shameless journalist of ten years ago who would have exploited even tragedies sorrounding her loved ones to bolster her career prospects, or is she a depressed writer falling into obscurity after deciding to give up her work for love? The movie shows that she is a combination of both. Seeing Dewey as the new Woodsboro sheriff and the way he handles the conflict of interest with his wife, all while indulging the obvious flirting of deputy Judy, provides fertile ground for their future divorce while simultaneously feeling like a natural progression from the last movie, or a very likely an IC route that their marriage could have easily embarked on. The new generation of characters is also well-written, with an interesting and believable dynamic and mostly fleshed-out personalities, with maybe the exception of Trevor and, shockingly, Jill herself, who for most of the movie comes out as suffering from the Main Character Syndrome (i.e. she is written mostly as a blank slate so that most people can project their own personality onto her, thus easily identifying her as the character through which to experience this new Woodsboro). However, what could be seen as a writing flaw turns into a solid strength when it is revealed that Jill was, in fact, Ghostface, and therefore that the personality she showed the viewers was mostly, if not entirely, a deliberate act on her part aimed at tricking them into thinking she was the next Sidney in line.

Speaking of which, the best aspect of this movie is precisely the worst aspect of Scream VI: Ghostface. For starters, the idea of revitalizing the saga by having Ghostfaces decide to actually film the murders to make their own movie is genius and a perfect way to make us feel the passing of time from the first three movies. That said, both Charlie and Jill's reveals are pretty awesome, to the point that they are arguably the best reveals of the franchise. Of course, Jill's mastermind plan and ability to completely subvert the audience's expectations takes the cake, but it would be a mistake to overlook Charlie's own very effective and subversive twist, aimed at mimicking Steven Orth's death and turning it on its head. Jill's speech to Sidney about growing in her suffocating shadow and being the product of a generation of fakeness and virtuality that needs fans as opposed to friends, with another twist that shows her exploitation of Charlie's romantic feelings to turn him from a possible Randy to Trevor's Stu and her willingless to play proto-Amy Dunne and cover herself in self-inflicted scars to build up a heroic story, is incredibly poignant and utterly satisfying to watch. So is Jill's own cruelty and cold-blooded apathy at the hospital, where she manages to almost incapacitate four people, three of which are the historical main characters of the original trilogy, before stumbling on a very rewarding and effective death by defibrillation. And the finale scene of the movie, with the audience staring into her lifeless eyes while the journalists outside the hospital award her with the final-girl hero status she so desperately craved, is fantastic.

So why is this movie in fourth position? Because here and there there are some things I think could have been done better. I ultimately think the pacing drags a bit when the movie stops to focus on minor characters that are ultimately not that likable or not developed enough to be interesting to follow or to witness being killed, such as (respectively) Sydney's publicist Rebecca, or Perkins and Hoss. There's the wasted potential of a conversation between aunt Kate and niece Sidney about Maureen that sadly never takes place. There's the questionable acting of Marielle Jaffe as Olivia that fortunately doesn't last long. And maybe most importantly, there's the fact that everything that Jill herself does at the hospital in the last scene, upon discovering of Sidney's survival, ultimately disintegrates her entire plan up to that point and inevitably taints the story she wishes the world would be told, regardless of whether her secondary attempt at killing Sidney proves to be successful or not. Simply put, if she could have gotten away with everything she had orchestrated at Kirby's house... she would have never managed to preserve her imaginary status as heroic victim within the public consciousness after confronting a very-not-dead Sidney, even if she had managed to effectively kill her the second time. That makes the entire last scene, though satisfying in many ways, ultimately pointless with respect to Jill's entire mastermind plan, thus losing at least some of the viewers' investment into (and respect for) her character. But that's pretty much it.

All in all, this is a very strong and successful attempt at bringing the saga back to life, with excellent ideas and shocking reveals, a large amount of strengths and very few, almost insignificant weaknesses. And despite falling down a bit in my current ranking compared to the position it used to hold, I still think it's an amazing entry for the franchise.

3. SCREAM 3 (2000).

I think this is by far the most underrated movie in the entire franchise. I know it's a bit divisive, because there's also people who really love it and share my same opinion, but at the same time this is the instalment I find most often at the bottom of people's ranking, and I genuinely don't understand why. There's very little here that doesn't work, and most importantly, it builds on its predecessor with impeccable ability. It's a movie that, from beginning to end, is imbued with a deep sense of finality, with the clear intent of having the story of Sidney Prescott come full circle in a way that truly proves to be successful in selling the idea that the franchise was actually meant to be a trilogy all along (especially because if there's something Scream 2 lacked, was a sense of overarching closure to the entire story). It ties so flawlessly and spontaneously with how Scream 2 had left things that I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that the second and third entries of the saga were planned simultaneously, and the idea of having the story evolve into a trilogy was entertained even before starting to make a sequel to the successful original Scream.

I find the opening scene of the movie really effective in awakening the audience to the fact that this chapter of the story is meant to be climactic. The stakes are higher than before right from the get-go: Ghostface's first attack is against a main player in the background story of Sidney, other than the very person who saved Sidney from Nancy Loomis at the end of the last movie. In fact, Scream 3 starts by getting rid of the same person that made its entire existence possible in the first place. Ghostface also has voice-changing devices that he exploits to trick Cotton's girlfriend Christine into attacking him, already establishing to the audience that, this time around, an additional level of mistrust and impairment for the heroes to communicate with each other will be in place. The feeling of climactic finality is effectively laid out here, and remains constant through the entire movie.

I know one of the most common complaints about this movie lies in Sidney finding herself out of reach from the main source of the action, the Hollywood set of Stab 3, for a significant portion of the film (about half), but it actually doesn't bother me at all. Her arc through the movie is a perfect continuation to her Scream 2 more secluded, antisocial persona, other than being the exact follow-through solution to her problems she herself proposed to Dewey during the previous film, as soon as Ghostface had reappeared and bogyguards were being given instructions to keep her safe. Other than feeling totally IC, this seclusion plan allows for Sidney to undergo a deeper and richer introspective exploration of the way she has been psychologically scarred by Maureen's death and her own previous victimizations, in such a way as to lead both the character and the audience to understand that a resolutive point is going to come (by the way, having her work as a crisis counselor for women is actually a brilliant narrative choice). I also love the way Roman's Ghostface allows for the movie to play with the idea that Sidney might be actually allucinating her mother, in a not so different way than how Scream 2 never made clear if she was allucinating Ghostface sorrounding her during threatre class or if she was actually being toyed with by him. This ability to play with real-or-not-real is what, in my opinion, makes these kind of PTSD-like allucinations in the original trilogy way more interesting and effective than those Sam suffers from during the requel generation.

Dewey and Gale's relationship likewise seems like a perfect follow-up to the previous movie, with their dynamic feeling like the same while simultaneously changing just as much as to keep it interesting and keep us invested in what's going to happen next between them. The writing of the movie is also really good, and while I don't necessarily agree with those who claim that Scream 3 is tonally different from all the other instalments (I don't find it too light or too funny for its own good, as seems to be the general opinion), I will admit it keeps me highly entertained and consistently amused - almost certainly more than any other entry of the franchise is able to do. Another huge positive for me is the supporting cast. There's a lot of secondary characters here, and they all feel aptly characterized and pleasant to watch. There's never a moment where I'm bored or uninterested in what's happening, or a character that I find too generic and caricatural. The movie also takes advantage of its setting to provide some solid and daring commentary on Hollywood culture, power dynamics and exploitation. I also love that in the same movie where Sidney enhances her isolation to the point of social seclusion she ends up finding her future husband - we don't have much with respect to romantic tension between her and Kincaid, but we have enough to grasp that a mutual fascination is taking place.

The climax of the movie works very well, in my opinion. Sidney shows experience and a renowed sense of badassery that proves to be the culmination of three movies by tricking Ghostface with a double gun and a bulletproof vest. I also like the idea of Ghostface exploiting Dewey and Gale to lure Sidney into the mansion, capitalizing on the audience being finally able to preemptively exonerate them from their suspect lists. And I will say it right here, I'm usually not a fan of retcons at all, because in my opinion it takes a certain kind of talent to be able to pull an effective retcon off - someone like Joss Whedon, for instance. Not many screenwriters are able to do that convincingly. But I think this particular retcon actually works. Both because it is actually cleverly orchestrated and doesn't delegitimaze or confute anything the canon previously established, and because it does provide the ultimate circular closure to the story of Sidney, retroactively lending a justification to her ongoing allucinations of Maureen and her inability to move on and get past her own past. The entire subplot about Maureen having worked as an actress under stage name and about her known promiscuity being the traumatic response of the sexual exploitation she endured during the ‘70s is incredibly fitting and interesting; the twist of Roman being Sidney's half-brother feels merited and credible, and the actual retcon of Roman being behind Billy's discovery of his father cheating with Maureen, which as we know prompted his decision to kill her and then to try to kill Sidney one year later, is actually a very smart narrative choice. And I know the story works because I don't find cringe at all the moment where a filled-with-trauma Sid takes the hand of a seemingly dead Roman, whose own mother's rejection lead him not only down the path of psychopathy but also to find common ground with Billy as well. Everything truly does come full-circle in a way that's commendable.

Why the third position, then? Because there's one scene that I struggle to get behind: the Randy scene. I get the need to have a meta scene to explain to the characters the rules of a horror trilogy, but the idea of Randy having decided before his death on Scream 2 to capture on tape such a discussion just doesn't work. It's silly. It would have been much better if Martha herself had been introduced as a fellow geek and done the explaining herself, in my opinion. I love Randy and was happy to see him again, but that scene is just too much a stretch of credibility for my taste.

Other than that, I think I have nothing else to complain about. I also loved the ending of the movie, with Dewey's proposal to Gale and Sidney finally coming to terms with her past and cutting ties with her self-perception as a constant victim. Perfect.

2. SCREAM 2 (1997).

I think this is an excellent sequel, that in some ways ends up being even an improvement from the original. People often underestimate the importance that a sequel holds in establishing not only the trajectory, but also the very existence of a franchise. If the original movie is good, then a sequel is green-lit; but if the sequel is also good, then the opportunity for a significant expansion of the world is presented, and talks about the creation of an entire franchise start to happen. Just like it was Empire Strikes Back, not Star Wars, that determined the direction and expansion George Lucas's franchise could be able to reach, it's Scream 2 that solidifies the idea that Woodsboro is a place worth revisiting, and our characters are people worth exploring and knowing better. Without Scream there would be no Scream 2, but an argument could be made that without Scream 2 there could be no franchise. This by itself cements the importance of this movie.

I don't think I'll be spending that much time on this. I have next to nothing to complain about. Not only does everything basically work, in many cases it builds on the previous instalment to effectively raise the audience's expectations. The opening scene introduces the metatextuality of Stab to the franchise; it's incredibly fun and suspenseful at the same time, with two iconic kills, some commentary about the tropes found in horror cinema, a subversion of racial expectations and a kind of gimmick that is capable of capturing the full attention of the viewers early on (the woman is named Maureen). The movie is written incredibly well, to the point that I would go so far as to say that it's the best written out of the entire franchise. The film class scene where sequels are discussed is arguably the best and most successful attempt the franchise is able to make at effectively providing meta commentary about the specific instalment it's producing (be it a sequel, a conclusive chapter of a trilogy, a remake, a requel, or a sequel of a requel), because in this case it almost doesn't even feel meta.

Perhaps the biggest accomplishment of this movie lies in the way it's able to take the distinctive character profiles that were introduced in Scream and make fully fleshed-out people out of them, ending up being arguably the best movie for Sidney, Dewey, Gale and Cotton when it comes to characterization. If Scream established that Sidney was a self-described "sexually anorexic" girl with unresolved family trauma and a survivalist attitude likely steming from a coping mechanism, Scream 2 builds on the additional trauma she experienced during the first movie to depict an even more secluded, guarded and mistrustful individual, whose PTSD has significantly increased to the point of genuinely affecting her own day-to-day life, who is somehow shown to be both more afraid (as she knows what Ghostface is capable of this time) and more badass and willing to fight back than she was previously, without it ever seeming contradictory. She is afforded well-executed psychological exploration and many occasions to show mental frailty and inability to cope with her reality of seemingly inescapable victimization, while simultaneously attesting that she has an inner core made of steel and a fiery determination. Between the "I'm a fighter" moment, the "I want to know who it is" moment and the iconic "You forget one thing about Billy Loomis. I fucking killed him" moment, this movie shows Sidney at her lowest and at her highest, and officially turns her into one of the best written female protagonists of a cinematic franchise.

Likewise, if Scream established that Gale Weathers was an unscrupulous, power-hungry journalist who was willing to do anything to advance her career and, while clearly harboring some kind of fascination towards Dewey, was mainly concerned with how to manipulate him to make her job easier, Scream 2 gives her a full character arc, re-acquainting her with the audience with that same archetypal persona but clearly showing that this time (as opposed to last time) she learns something from her experience with Ghostface and undergoes a clear character development, ending the movie prioritizing her humanity and genuine care for Dewey to her conventional opportunism. Dewey also gets to shine through this instalment in a way that was not possible to him before, showcasing the lasting effect of physical scars and a newfound level of maturity and assertiveness that clearly sets him apart from his boyish characterization in the previous movie, highlighting the important role experience and Tatum's death had in accelerating his growth. A honorable mention also goes to Cotton Weary, who goes from being barely a face in the background that fed Sidney's insecurities in Scream to a very interesting and well-written character here that constantly seems to vacillate between hero and anti-hero until the final act.

Scream 2 also features some amazing sequences, mainly Dewey and Gale's chase at the movie archives, Sidney's reharsal in theatre class, the car scene (which has to be the most successfully suspenseful the franchise has ever been) and the entire final act. I've already talked about my opinion on Mrs. Loomis as Ghostface, so here I will just reiterate that I love her. Mickey's motive is definitely banal, but I think it works perfectly as complementary to Billy's mother, who is clearly meant to steal the show. Besides, Timothy Olyphant imbues Mickey's character with gleeful euphoria as well as psychopathy, and Derek's death scene has to be one of the most tragic moments of the entire franchise because of what Sidney's deep-seated traumatic mistrust says about her willingness to risk him being killed. This might be as close an ending to the original movie as there have been in the franchise thus far, with respect to success and effectiveness. It's just an amazing final act.

The only complaint I have about this movie is that, as opposed to what happens in Scream 3, here a lot of secondary, background characters do feel severely underwritten. Derek has a very plain personality, and the cafeteria scene is more cringe than cute on his part (even though I think it was absolutely needed to show Sidney's ability to still enjoy life and not fall into despair). The top chicks of Omega Beta Zeta are so useless I don't even remember their names. Hallie is just kind of there until she isn't. Joel is cool, though.

I've nothing else to add. Amazing sequel. About Randy's death scene I'm just going to say: it was the right call. An effective way to raise the stakes without compromising the narrative too much for its own good.

1. SCREAM (1996).

Of course the one that started it all had to be first. It just occurred to me that this ranking may probably seem incredibly ordinary at this point, but it is what it is.

This is arguably one of the best horror movies ever made. Certainly one of the most iconic, and one of the most capable of exploring an entire generation's relationship with the horror genre, the ongoing and rapid technological development of the modern age and the way society is impacted by it, with a particular emphasis on the existential crisis of the modern man, his constant feeling of dreadful out-of-placeness and the role cultural artifacts play in incentivizing him to consider unhealthy let-outs for his ill approach to life and the world. There's pretty much nothing here that the movie fails at. It features one of the most iconic opening scenes of all time, great characters, an amazing story and fantastic writing. It effortlessly manages to blend horror and comedy together creating a successful mixture of vibes, in such a way as to easily remind me of its contemporary masterpiece that is Buffy The Vampire Slayer. One of my absolutely favorite things about this movie is its ability to allow the full spirit and atmosphere of the ‘90s to manifest on screen and to color the entire story with a specific generational touch that, in my opinion, truly ends up making this one of the most emblematic movies of that decade to ever be produced.

Honestly there's very little else to point out because everything works perfectly. One aspect of the film that particuarly striked me during this latest rewatch is how much Scream actually spends on the subplot regarding Cotton Weary's incarceration being the result of a convinction likely based on erroneous testimony - a testimony at the hands of the daughter of the town's notorious promiscuous woman who was raped and murdered a year before the events the movie focuses on. Sidney's character is incredibly fascinating, has a very interesting and peculiar backstory and makes for a perfectly conceived and very well-written protagonist. Likewise, Billy Loomis makes for at least as alluring an oppositional character, showing his ability to hold his ground against the main heroine in terms of character depth, iconicity and background material. Sidney and Billy, with everything intertwined about their past that comes on the surface during the third act, are by far the pinnacle of the movie with respect to what makes the story fascinating and worthwhile to watch. But every other secondary character is iconic in its own way - Gale, Stu and Randy in particular. The metatextuality is brilliantly executed. Randy's scene on the rules of horror, juxtaposed to Billy and Sidney's sex scene, and his subsequent advice to Jamie Lee Curtis to turn around while Ghostface is right behind him are some of the most memorable moments that helped turning Scream into a cultural milestone of the genre. The entire third act is phenomenal, with Billy's motive being the perfect piece of the puzzle to make the entire story come together fully in a satisfying way, and Stu managing to come off as both terrifying and hilarious in his psychopathy. Sidney in the Ghostface costume will always be iconic. "Not in my movie" will always be iconic.

Overall, there's only praise and absolutely no complaints here on my part, and If I was to pause and analyze everything that I believe makes the original instalment of the franchise the one deserving the first spot, I would end up writing about pretty much every single scene of the movie, and that's beside the point of this ranking.

It's just a masterpiece, and still remains an unicum in the horror landscape to this day. I mean, there's a reason why almost thirty years later an entire franchise based on the success of its formula is still going on, and the fanbase for this movie is still continuing to grow. It's just a classic.

3 notes · View notes