Scre4m

"Scream 4's" recent box office failure in the States at the very least, makes one thing, thankfully, very abundantly clear. There will not be a "Scream 5" (or '5cream' if you will). This is something to rejoice in for a number of reasons, the most pertinent of which is that "Scream 4" is not very good at all. I could argue as to the many reasons why this sequel does not not work but it will always come back to the main fact that had the film doomed straight out of the gate. "Scream 4" was unnecessary. No one was waiting for a fourth entry into the franchise, especially after the dismal third chapter. "Scream" is a product of its time. It worked because it kick started the referential and acutely self aware trend in films, that had never really been done before that point. It was fresh and new. It's concept could not last beyond it's first sequel, of which it just barely did. Then it just began repeating itself. In "Scream 4" all original surviving cast members return, in an attempt to restart the franchise for a new generation. Sidney (Neve Campbell) is now an established author, writing about her traumatic experiences and self-help. On the fifteenth anniversary of the Woodsboro killings she returns home on her book signing tour. However, as soon as she arrives home, more killings start. Killings tracking Sidneys niece Jill (Emma Roberts) and all her high school friends. It's up to Sidney and the now married Sheriff Dewey (David Arquette) and Gale (Courtney Cox) to find who is behind all these new slayings. People forget just how hip the original "Scream" was. It had a hot young cast on the (thought to be) verge of some very big things; an original, achingly cool script, and a renowned classic horror director looking for his big come back. Flash forward eleven years since the last film, and most of its cast have all faded away into obscurity, its writer has a slew of failed film projects and bad TV and the directors last film went straight to DVD over this side of the pond, so bad was its failure in America. This reeks of its original creators cashing in to each give their flailing careers a much needed shot in the arm. The film isn't absolutely atrocious but it really doesn't do itself any favours when it constantly succumbs to the horrible horror cliches it constantly pokes fun at. "Scream 4" wants to have its cake and eat it, which it just can't do. The films witty and all too knowing nature clash violently with its scary and tense framings. Wes Craven is a horror institution but is showing more and more how hard it is to sustain a career in it, whilst still trying to come up with something scary. "Scream 4's" scares are tired and predictable. The most terrifying thing in it is Courtney Cox's horribly stretched and botoxed face. It's characters are all one note and the films final reveal (without giving anything away) is easily the worst in the franchises history. On a positive note, the new generation of victims aren't grating for the most part and some of its digs at recent horror remakes and torture porn are slightly amusing. But it just isn't scary enough or witty enough to really convince as something truly relevant anymore. If its argument is 'there's nothing left to do with horror, lets just have some fun with it all', then why attempt a reboot in the first place? Sure, it's better than "Scream 3" (Scr3am anyone?) but that wasn't exactly too hard in the first place. It is struggling to find a voice in a horror climate that didn't ask for it. It can't mock horror conventions and then fall prey to them itself. "Scream 4" has turned into the thing the film series originally set out to make fun of in the first place.

Verdict: 3/10

The first "Scream" loved horror and loved scaring you with its wit and intelligence. "Scream 4" hates horror and doesn't know what to do with itself. Poor work from everybody involved.

"Scre4m" Trailer

Shutter Island

After 20 feature films, one of cinemas most respected and esteemed directors is back. Leonardo DiCaprio, on his 4th collaboration with the man says, ‘that in thousands of years, people studying film will look back on a name that has become synonymous with it.’ That name is Martin Scorsese. Simply put, he is possibly the greatest living director still working today. Although he has directed a variety of seminal films and documentaries, it is with perhaps the gangster genre he is most readily identified with. However, looking closer there is perhaps a more relavant theme throughout his works. And that theme is just how fragile the mind is. This is perhaps none more relevant than in his 21st offering here.

Adapted from the novel by Dennis Lehane (writer of ‘Mystic River’ and ‘Gone Baby Gone’) ‘Shutter Island’ is an intense and sometimes devastating journey inside the fractured psychosis of the human mind. Set in the mid 50’s it centres on DiCaprio’s US Marshall, Teddy Daniels’ investigation into the case of a missing patient on an island, housing dangerous psychopaths and criminals. No one here is prepared to talk and both Daniels and his new partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) can find no allibies. To make matters worse Head Psychiatrist, Dr Cawley (Ben Kinglsey) and almost everyone else on the island seem to be covering up potential information and housing some dark secrets….. To reveal more about the plot would do a great disservice to both DiCaprio and Scorsese, not to mention screenwriter Laeta Kalogridis for expertly weaving an intense psychological thriller.

What I can say, is that with every collaboration Scorsese and DiCaprio seem to be besting their last, and this is no exception. From DiCaprios performance here, it is easy to see why he has become Scosese’s new muse. It is quite possibly his best performance to date; one that balances raw anger, heartbreaking emotion and sanity loss - sometimes all at once and you may not even know what he’s actually doing for most of the films running time. It’s very courageous on his behalf. Why Paramount moved the picture outside of the Oscar nominations is anyones guess-in a perfect world, DiCaprio would have been walking home with the little gold man on March 7th. Partly in fact why the movie succeeds as well as it does is down to its cast. As mentioned, DiCaprio yet again excels, but is joined ably by Ruffalo, who while not at first seems to be doing much, is in fact housing far more complex emotions and nuances in his performance. Kingsley as well gives another solid turn which is pretty much to be expected from the ‘Sir’ with almost anything he does these days. Michelle Williams make great use of her limited screen time with one scene in particular that leaves you reeling. Also nice to see genre favourites Ted Levine and John Carroll Lynch popping up, actors who just by their history in similarly themed movies, you can tell that something is not quite right.

This might not be the straight forward exercise in terror as some might have originally hoped from its trailers. No, while there are plenty of deranged inmates to terrorise both DiCaprio and Ruffalo (one dark and nighmarish scene in Block C springs to mind), it is actually the unstable mind and it how it can be the most fragile of all things that Scorsese is interested in. This shares themes with many of the mans movies ranging from ‘Taxi Driver’ all the way up to the recent ‘The Aviator’. So sure, from the outset, this might seem to be new ground for Scorsese, but come the climax, there is no doubt you were in anyone else’s hands but his. Unfortunately, the films climax, while earth shattering in its effectiveness is not as clever as you might have been led to believe and for some might be considered a little cheap. The film can also be quite cold and emotionless for most of its running time. Scorsese employs a radical cutting technique with his editor Thelma Schoonmaker, which harks back to her work on ‘Goodfellas’, ‘The King of Comedy’ and ‘Bringing Out The Dead’. Of course you have to know Scorsese to know that you’re in experienced hands and that all is there for a reason that will eventually pay off. This might not work as well for the less patient viewer. Other problems include the fact that various characters seem to come and go throughout the film, (hello and goodbye Patricia Clarkson and Jackie Earle Haley) although this can be down to the films climax and is therefore debatable. Scorsese has more than enough flair and confidence to keep us watching, though make no mistake, ‘Shutter Island’ deals with some intense and tough themes. Scorsese does not make it easy on the viewer from its many weird dream sequences, fractured editing and plotting that may seem ‘all over the place’ to some.

However, Scorsese delivers a far deeper film than the one I was initially expecting. Robbie Robertson (of The Band) and Scorsese hand picked various previously established score music from various different sources and the effect is stunning-the images and many of the music themes work beautifully together. Cinematographer Robert Richardson also creates a blue hued dystopia-creating some of the most beautiful, and disturbing imagery of Scorsese’s career. So what it may come down to is a basic mystery, thriller. Scorsese and DiCaprio elevate it above its genre confines to the 1st great film of 2010.


Result: 81%
You may not know where it is taking you for most of its running time but by its heart wrenching and devastating climax you will know there is only one master.

Martin Scorsese Career Overview and Film Trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGu9ggNtp0g