QuoteReplyTopic: Forum Members' Discussion of SCREAM 4... Posted: May 22 2011 at 4:29pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy
[QUOTE=BurnHollywoodBurn]You don't honestly think this is a $hit movie, do you?
At least I don't think it's total sh(beep). I thought it was merely average from what I know about it. I don't agree with you that it's a very good movie, but I agree that it doesn't deserve any nominations. On the other hand, it was mostly my fault this forum was here. I drew attention to it back in February, thinking it would crash because it's a sequel to a movie from a decade ago, until the reviews turned out to be middling. Little as we need this sequel, it's simply not bad enough to be one of our prime targets.
RAZZIE Dirty Dozen: Battlefield Earth, F G Fingered, Pluto Nash, A Sound of Thunder, Alone in the Dark, Dirty Love, Rise Silver Srfr, Daddy Day Camp, IKWKM, The Love Guru, All About Steve, Airbender
You don't honestly think this is a $hit movie, do you?
Uh, YEAH! If I wanted a bad movie that self-parodies how Hollywood is obsessed with remakes and reboots these days while not giving us anything better on it's own merits, I would wait for Seltzerberg to do "Remake Movie".
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Does anyone here watches COMMUNITY?There's an episode where a character wants to make the ultimate meta movie,so he's constantly saying "we're inside a movie within a movie and we're making a movie" and stuff,and it helped me realize that being meta isn't that hard after all.The opening scene was a major headache.To quote SOUTH PARK(sorry GTA)about INCEPTION "Just because an idea is very complex doesn't mean it's cool".By the end of the opening scene,I thought I was watching a spoof of SCREAM because they focus more on being cleverly funny than scary,and that remains that way the rest of the movie.This is a horror movie.I'm glad it tries to be clever,but being scary and/or suspenseful it's the most important.All this movie has is the same cheap jump-scares that any bad horror movie you can mention(that wasn't mentioned in this movie).Also,I may be wrong,but here there are even more characters discussing horror movies,except they're more like statements from intelectual people.Kevin Williamson was talking through the characters,and all he really said was "I'm smarter than you,audience member".
The 2nd and 3rd movie tried to tie the events and the new killer to the backstory of the original movie.Here,they just talk about what we saw in the present of the 1st movie.No mentions of SIDNEY's mom or anything.Is that good or bad?That's up to you.
The performances are...meh.They're all equal(except for Neve who's so uninspired),so I wouldn't like that you just nominate Emma,only because she was in another movie.By the way,she's not really the lead here but she's very close,so if she does get nominated it should be up for Worst Actress and not Supp. Actress.
I give this 4/10.
Originally posted by GTAHater767
Apparently, Scream 3 was released in February of 2000. It got mixed reviews, which is probably why it wasn't considered for the RAZZIES.
It got around 35%.That's negative.
Originally posted by Vheid
I want to suggest Emma Roberts for the Worst Supporting Actress-ballot. *spoiler* She is the killer. First of she stabs Sidney "to dead" without checking her pulse (which is plain dumb writing) and then you see 3 minutes of her cutting herself, stabbing herself and walking in to walls (so that she looks like the soul survivor) this looks extremely silly and is worth a Razzie-mention. *end of spoiler*
What does that have to do with her acting?If she didn't check her pulse is because...well,she forgot.She's a psycho killer,and they always make mistakes.
,so I wouldn't like that you just nominate Emma,only because she was in another movie.
What does that have to do with her acting?
I won't be voting for her just because she was in another movie...
I found her acting in this movie far bellow average.... and in that scene she was just all over the top... I'll be voting for her.... If she's on the ballot... and you can do nothing to stop that...
Originally posted by Vits
By the way,she's not
really the lead here but she's very close,so if she does get nominated
it should be up for Worst Actress and not Supp. Actress.
I disagree... You said it yourself "She's not really lead here"... The movie is clearly told from Neve Campbell's p.o.v. and she doesn't even nearly has as much screentime as Neve... So.. She is is deffinetly not a lead actress...
Originally posted by Vits
If she didn't check her pulse is because...well,she forgot.She's a psycho killer,and they always make mistakes.
That's no excuse... If she's is planning the PERFECT CRIME (as she said), she should have made sure that her victim is actually DEAD... You can't defend that... It's just an enormous gaping plot hole in the movie... and Wes Craven or Kevin Williamson should have noticed it when it was written...
I disagree... You said it yourself "She's not really lead here"... The movie is clearly told from Neve Campbell's p.o.v. and she doesn't even nearly has as much screentime as Neve... So.. She is is deffinetly not a lead actress...
Right,but she's the lead in the other movie.So it would make more sense if she's nominated for one lead and one semi-lead performance.
I disagree... You said it yourself "She's not really lead here"... The movie is clearly told from Neve Campbell's p.o.v. and she doesn't even nearly has as much screentime as Neve... So.. She is is deffinetly not a lead actress...
Right,but she's the lead in the other movie.So it would make more sense if she's nominated for one lead and one semi-lead performance.
Freddie Highmore is the lead in The Art of Getting By.... The story is clearly told from his P.O.V. .... She's (as far sa I know) just the romantic interest... She's playing the same character that she played in It's Kind of a Funny Story...As far as I could see from the promotion of TAOGB.... I however have to get back with you on that after I've seen the movie...
I am a huge fan of the first two and despite its visible flaws 3 is a guilty pleasure for me. However, even critics these days are liking 4 more than 3 and it just barely missed out on a fresh rating on RT.
The Scream series has always been funny. It's not just horror. It's a comedy/horror series that points out the conventions of other horror films. And I disagree, the opening scene was genius!
Originally posted by Vits
The opening scene was a major headache.To quote SOUTH PARK(sorry GTA)about INCEPTION "Just because an idea is very complex doesn't mean it's cool".By the end of the opening scene,I thought I was watching a spoof of SCREAM because they focus more on being cleverly funny than scary,and that remains that way the rest of the movie.
Well, I think it's a great thing. The sequels never really quite reached up the potential of the first. The whole mom plot got out of control since the third film.
The 2nd and 3rd movie tried to tie the events and the new killer to the backstory of the original movie.Here,they just talk about what we saw in the present of the 1st movie.No mentions of SIDNEY's mom or anything.Is that good or bad?That's up to you.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Furl
Google Boomarks
Google Buzz
MySpace
Newsvine
reddit
StumbleUpon
Twitter
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Post Options
Quote 
Topic: Forum Members' Discussion of SCREAM 4...
