The "Scream" Trilogy (I've Finally Seen It!)

SPOILERS FOR THE SCREAM FILMS INSIDE.

Every time the horror genre seems to be on its last breath, a new film comes along that revitalizes the entire enterprise. In the ‘70s, it was Halloween. In the new millennium, the “found footage” films such as The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activtiy started gaining power. In the ’90s, it was Scream. Its mixture of genuine suspense, gory violence and sly meta-commentary on the genre helped remind audiences what it was like to be truly entertained—and frightened—at a horror movie. At least, that’s what I had been told. I pride myself on knowing a lot about movies. Horror movies, however, are rarely my cup of tea. This is because I’m a certified wimp. I’m not exaggerating. I have a certificate and everything.

Part of the reason I missed Scream the first time might be that I was five years old when it came out. This isn’t exactly the film you want to show a kid who was just about scared out of Toy Story. Yet—even then—you could feel its impact everywhere. Now, with Scream 4 set for release this Friday, I have decided to explore what I had previously ignored.

It’s been well-documented that the Scream films aren’t only horror movies, they’re about the fact that they’re horror movies. At their best, they play out the usual slasher clichés while simultaneously commenting on them. At their worst, they become exactly what they set out to poke fun at. The first film just about nails the intended tone, while the second film finds it more often than not. As far as Scream 3 is concerned… well, no.

Reading Kevin Williamson’s original screenplay Scary Movie (it was re-titled later) must have been a weird experience. Depending on you who you are, the material could have been interpreted as several things. Some may have seen it as a straight-up comedy, while others perhaps saw it as an especially gruesome slasher film. The truth—of course—lies somewhere in the middle. Horror icon Wes Craven understood what the film was meant to be, and the final product reflects that.

Scream does not reinvent the horror film. Instead, it plays around with the fact that it is a horror film. Most every scene plays out in a clichéd fashion, but the film’s own self-awareness somehow saves it. There are many scenes which define the film, but the one moment where I chuckled loudest came about 25 minutes in. Our heroine Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is on the phone with the killer. She goes through a laundry list of problems she has with scary movies, including the fact that the female victims always seem to run upstairs when they should be escaping. Once the iconic Ghostface begins his attack, what does she do? She runs upstairs. Scream embraces the fact that it’s all been done before.

Even the first scene—in which Drew Barrymore answers a phone call before she’s attacked—is a sequence out of millions of horror movies that came before Scream. Yet Craven directs each scene with surgical precision. Each jump, scare and kill is incredibly well-earned, despite the fact that they follow conventional horror film rules.

It turns out there’s a reason Scream is a slave to these clichés: the entire plot was planned out by two horror film fanatics played by Matthew Lillard and Skeet Ulrich. In fact, the entire plot was intended so that they could create their own little horror film—only in real life. This revelation is set up through several scenes of meta-commentary mostly delivered by Jamie Kennedy’s movie-obsessed video clerk. He’s like Abed from Community before there was an Abed from Community. Eventually, their characters use their knowledge of scary movie tropes to their advantage.

I could go through a handful of complaints I have about Scream, but I’m choosing to abstain. Any and all flaws in the film’s first two acts are completely negated by a third act that leaves you breathless. As clever as it is, this film would not have succeeded without being truly scary itself. Craven’s pretty ingenious in his ability to make each and every scene of the film as terrifying as possible. Even when you know a jump is coming, he makes you sit there and wait for it. Unfortunately, this is a skill he’d use to a fault in the sequels—particularly Scream 3.

Before we get there, let’s discuss the fact that Scream 2 is a pretty solid second chapter in the series. I’ve noticed that in the past week there has been quite a bit of Internet negativity directed this film’s way, and as a result I almost didn’t check it out. When I talked myself into it, the viewing experience did not begin promisingly. Sure, the opening sequence—in which Omar Epps and Jada Pinkett fall victim to Ghostface in a movie theater—is quite good. The problem is that the rest of the first act seems to go out of its way to be the same thing as the original. People worry about the return of the killer, David Arquette and Courtney Cox have an antagonistic relationship which may blossom into romance, and Jamie Kennedy freaks out about movies. After the far too predictable sequence which features the murder of Sarah Michelle Gellar, I was about to check out.

Scream 2’s great fault is that it doesn’t explore its own characters and clichés like the original did. It’s great strength is that it can still scare the living daylights out of you, particularly in the middle 90 minutes or so. The best sequence is when Jamie Kennedy’s character talks to the killer over the phone while Dewey and Gale try and find him. The other great sequence comes when Sidney and her friend Hallie must escape from a crashed car with the killer inside.

Baskin Robbins: The scariest product placement of all.

The film then goes in the wrong direction with the ending. In all three Scream films, I’ve never been completely convinced by the killer’s identity once it’s revealed. At least the original made up for it by making the proceedings as effectively creepy as possible. When it’s revealed that Timothy Olyphant’s relatively unimportant supporting character has teamed up with the mother of Skeet Ulrich’s character from the first film, it hardly rings true. On top of that, Olyphant’s performance is from another freaking universe. The result is a climax that isn’t so much scary as it is laughable. Still, given the circumstances, Scream 2 is a pretty solid horror film. When a compliment like that comes from me, that’s saying something.

However, when it comes to Scream 3 I stand right alongside the consensus. Unlike Scream 2, it’s unable to hide its shortcomings behind some solid horror sequences. The result is bland and anything but frightening. The main problem is that the main characters never register on what I like to call the Give-A-Crap-Meter. These people don’t embrace their roles as slasher movie victims. Instead, they just exist because they exist… like in every horror movie outside of the Scream series. This film stops being a Scream movie and it becomes a bad, ineffective horror movie with annoyingly stupid characters.

This would be fine if only Wes Craven built up the tension like he had in the first two. Scream 3 relies far too heavily on “fake” scares. By that I mean something like The Leaping Cat™, or someone coming up behind you that actually turns out to be an ally rather than a psycho killer in a cheap Halloween costume. These fake scares come so fast and so furious that we grow accustomed to the musical stings that accompany them. As a result, we have no reaction when real trouble shows its face.

Still, I was quite impressed with the Scream series, and this is coming from someone who is far from a horror movie fan. All three films are watchable, two of them are solid, and one of them is understandably seen as a classic. The original is as influential a horror film as has ever been created—so influential that it has created its own brand of horror clichés, many of which its sequels fell victim to. After having watched all three films in two days, I can safely say that I have been seduced into Scream fandom. So, uh—can’t wait for Scream 4, right, guys?