I don’t always do anything to mark Halloween on this blog… but when I do, this is the kind of thing I do: complete coverage of the Scream movies (so far).
That means all-new “100 Films Guide To”s for the original film, its two sequels, and the 2011 legacy sequel, plus my brand-new review of this year’s, er, new legacy sequel. You know, the film that should’ve been called 5cream, but wasn’t.
Nowadays, reviving horror franchises with reboots or continuations that just use the same title as the original film are all the rage — witness The Thing, Halloween, and Candyman; you might also include Evil Dead, Blair Witch, The Predator, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. (And it’s not just limited to horror movies: Shaft is a sequel to Shaft, which was a sequel to Shaft.) And where there’s a trend in horror movies, the Scream series must follow, to both emulate and roast the genre’s new status quo. Fortunately, there’s more than merely “we could call a new Scream film ‘Scream’” to the movie’s satirical targets.
Set about ten years after the last film, the fifth Scream (I get that the recycled title is a meta-gag too, but I still think it’s a shame they missed the chance to go with 5cream, or Screams / Scream5) introduces us to a new cast of characters. That’s what every Scream film has had to do (that’s the thing with slashers — most of your cast gets killed off each time), but here we’re in ‘requel’ mode. For those who don’t know, ‘requel’ is a portmanteau of “reboot” and “sequel”, i.e. a film that’s both a reboot (in the sense it’s a new story you can jump onboard with) and a sequel (in that it’s still in continuity with the previous films). “Legacy sequel” is a similar thing — a belated sequel, in continuity, with the original cast, now older — but Scream already targeted that kind of follow-up last time out. What being a ‘requel’ means for this film is we meet all the new characters before the legacy ones are gradually introduced the plot.
A plot summary is barely necessary: someone in a Ghostface mask is murdering people. Who is it? What’s their motive? That’s the plot of all the Scream films — of course it is, that’s how horror franchises work. The devil is in the details, but that can make the details spoilers. There are some neat reveals, and twists on the franchise’s formula, that I’m not going to spoil here because that would ruin the fun. If you’re a fan of the series, the less you know going in, the better. For example, there’s one reveal — which doesn’t come until we’re already in the final act — that was, apparently, blown in the trailer, even after the filmmakers worked hard to keep it secret until the right moment in the film itself. (That’s according to the audio commentary — I haven’t watched the trailer to see if it blatantly blew it or if fans just worked it out from the footage shown.)
Scream being Scream, it gets to both have its cake and eat it by pointing out the laughable clichés and ridiculous tropes of other horror films, then doing them anyway. Some people dislike this approach — “pointing out that what you’re doing is a cliché doesn’t stop it from being a cliché” — but, personally, I think it’s part of the charm of these films. They don’t do the thing and then have someone go “that was so cliché!”, they tell you “wouldn’t it be clichéd if this happened?” and then it does. Too subtle a difference for some, I guess, but it works for me. One thing the previous films have a habit of doing — and it continues in this one — is laying out the entire plot for you, even telling you who the villain is, but you don’t notice because you’re busy playing whodunnit and stringing the mystery together. Of course, they also lay out red herrings, so it’s always easier to spot the “they gave it all away” moments with hindsight.
Whether or not you’re on board with that “point out what it’s going to do then do it” approach will probably dictate how much enjoyment you can get out of a film like Scream. The best bits are the ones that are self-aware, either because characters are expressly discussing the plot or because the filmmakers are playing with our expectations. In the case of the latter, this film has a really neat sequence in which you know for certain the killer is going to jump out at some point, but the character on screen is, as ever, oblivious to this fact, so merrily goes around opening doors, thus blocking our lines of sight, or wandering past open doorways, which are then held in shot for just a moment too long… It’s a gag that builds in hilarity the longer it goes on, and directors Bettinelli-Olpin & Gillett milk it magnificently.
As for the former, this film has an especially neat exchange about “fan fiction”. Without Wes Craven in the director’s chair and/or Kevin Williamson at the typewriter, this film could definitely be dismissed as just “fan fiction” — that’s the gag, really. But, in terms of quality, there’s “fan fiction” and there’s “fans who have become professionals picking up the baton and continuing a franchise perfectly”. If this film is either, I’d argue it’s the latter. Which is a slightly convoluted way of saying Scream (5) nails the tone, style, and — perhaps most importantly — meta humour that makes a Scream film a Scream film.
Scream is the 69th film in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2022.
Also Known As: Scream 4. Not in the film itself, though. Nor on any of its marketing. But most places on the internet? Apparently. Quite why certain online movie databases are so resistant to listing the film by its proper title, I don’t know.
Country: USA
Language: English
Runtime: 111 minutes
BBFC: 15
MPAA: R
Original Release: 13th April 2011 (Belgium, Egypt & France)
US & UK Release: 15th April 2011
Budget: $40 million
Worldwide Gross: $95.99 million
Stars
Neve Campbell (Scream (1996), Scream (2022))
Courtney Cox (Scream 2, Scream (2022))
David Arquette (Scream 3, Scream (2022))
Emma Roberts (Wild Child, We’re the Millers)
Hayden Panettiere (I Love You, Beth Cooper, Scream 6)
Director
Wes Craven (Wes Craven’s New Nightmare, Scream)
Screenwriter
Kevin Williamson (Scream, I Know What You Did Last Summer)
The Story
Ten years since the last Ghostface killings, and the tragic events have faded into festivity for the teens of Woodsboro, who now celebrate the anniversary of the first killings. But this year is a special one, because Sidney Prescott is back in town, and someone has donned the mask to go on a new killing spree…
Our Heroes
Sidney Prescott, perennial survivor of multiple Ghostface killers, must face one again as she returns to her hometown for the first time in years to promote her new book. Dewey — now Sheriff — and Gale — now his wife — are back, too, along with an array of fresh faces ready for the slaughter.
Our Villain
After a decade away, Ghostface is back! Except, as always, it’s a new killer (or killers) behind the famous mask. They’re still stalking Sidney, her friends and her family, but who is it and what’s their motive this time?
Best Supporting Character
Each new Scream film has introduced fresh faces (the films have a habit of killing off most of the supporting cast each time round, funnily enough, so you kinda have to), but the “whole new generation” angle of Scre4m makes it feel like there are even more this time round. While many are clear mirrors of characters from the first film (deliberately so), perhaps the one that manages to stand out the most in her own right is Hayden Panettiere’s Kirby, sassy best friend to Sidney’s cousin Jill. Yeah, she’s he new version of Rose McGowan’s Tatum, but, unlike some of the other characters, she doesn’t just feel like a 2011-painted carbon copy of the original. Plus, (major spoiler alert!) there’s a reason that, despite this film leaving her for dead, she’s set to reappear in Scream 6.
Memorable Quote
The Voice: “It’s time for your last-chance question. Name the remake of the groundbreaking horror movie in which the vill—”
Kirby: “Halloween, Texas Chainsaw, Dawn of the Dead, The Hills Have Eyes, Amityville Horror, Last House on the Left, Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street, My Bloody Valentine, When a Stranger Calls, Prom Night, Black Christmas, House of Wax, The Fog, Piranha. It’s one of those, right?”
Memorable Scene
The film begins with two teen girls at home choosing a movie to watch, when a mysterious caller with a gravelly voice threatens their lives. What happens next would be a spoiler… but, from the very start, Scre4m sets out its stall as a movie that, in true franchise tradition, is going to play with the rules and expectations of movies.
Previously on…
After a hugely successful and acclaimed first film, Scream did what so many popular movies have done in the past few decades: got turned into a trilogy. Really, it’s only fitting that it got in early on the 2010s trend of “reviving a once-popular but thought-finished film series”.
Next time…
And now it’s getting in on the “just keep making more films forever” trend that once used to be more-or-less limited to James Bond and shitty horror sequels but nowadays is the defining feature of the entirety of Hollywood. First there was a new film simply titled Scream (the fact it’s not called 5cream or Scream5 is a sin), and next is… a second/sixth film that no one seems quite sure what the final title will be. I guess we’ll find out when it’s released next March.
Awards
2 Scream Awards nominations (Horror Actress (Neve Campbell), Best Cameo (Anna Paquin & Kristen Bell))
Elsewhere on 100 Films…
I originally reviewed Scre4m after I first watched it back in 2012, when I felt the film was “kind of old school. It fits better in the era of the original trilogy and/or earlier horror films than with the development of the genre in the intervening decade.” I went on to suggest it “plays best to those who saw the first three at the right age, i.e. mid-to-late teens or so. I shouldn’t think it would engage a new audience all that much, especially ones versed in the gorier Saw and Final Destination franchises. But for those of us with fond memories (to one degree or another) of the first three films, it’s kind of a nice little revisit.”
The original Scream trilogy was the defining horror franchise of the ’90s, so reviving it over a decade after its last instalment seemed like the usual Hollywood BS of revisiting any recognisable IP. But with the original last, screenwriter, and director all returning, the film actually did what Scream has always done: be part scary movie, and part commentary on the horror genre landscape. And this time it throws in some social commentary for good measure, with some slightly-ahead-of-its-time satire of social media celebrities. It’s only become more pertinent with the stratospheric rise of YouTubers in the additional decade since the film came out.
One criticism I’ve seen levelled at Scre4m a few times is that it takes on remakes when it isn’t a remake itself. Well, that wouldn’t work, would it? For the characters to know they’re in a ‘remake’, they’d have to know there was an original — which by default would mean it’s not a remake but a continuation. In fact, the film does address this: it points out that we’re back in the original town, with killers who are following the pattern of the original movie (in-universe, that’s Stab, which seems to be a pretty faithful telling of the ‘real-life’ events shown in Scream). Most of the new characters are analogous to ones from the first film, too. So, Scre4m is, in fact, a remake… while also not being one, obviously.
All in all, the eleven years between Scream 3 and Scre4m gave the filmmakers enough fresh material to chew on to make the film a more-than-worthwhile addition to the franchise. For my money, the fresh perspectives make it easily the series’ best film since the first.
Country: USA
Language: English
Runtime: 117 minutes
BBFC: 18
MPAA: R
Original Release: 4th February 2000 (USA & Canada)
UK Release: 28th April 2000
Budget: $40 million
Worldwide Gross: $161.8 million
Stars
Neve Campbell (Three to Tango, The Company)
David Arquette (Ravenous, Ready to Rumble)
Courtney Cox Arquette (Commandments, Zoom)
Liev Schreiber (Sphere, X-Men Origins: Wolverine)
Director
Wes Craven (The Last House on the Left, My Soul to Take)
Screenwriter
Ehren Kruger (Arlington Road, The Ring)
The Story
As production gets underway on Stab 3 — the latest in the series of horror movies based on the Woodsboro killings — someone wearing a Ghostface costume starts killing the cast. But really, they want to know one thing: the whereabouts of perpetual murder-target Sidney Prescott…
Our Heroes
With Sidney in hiding at a remote location known only to a handful of people, the initial investigation into the new killings falls to the other survivors of the previous films: Dewey, now working as a consultant-cum-security on Stab 3, and his former love interest, intrepid reporter Gale Weathers.
Our Villain
The Ghostface killer is back, now terrorising Hollywood — but who’s behind the mask this time? As with the first two films, this technically counts as a whodunnit, though well done if you guess anywhere near the correct conclusion — it’s hardly Christie-level…
Best Supporting Character
Mark Kincaid (Patrick Dempsey) is the Hollywood homicide detective investigating the murders. As someone who grew up around the movie biz, he’s as au fait with the rules of cinema as most of the characters have had to become — but does that mean he fits right in, or has all the knowledge necessary to be the new Ghostface?
Memorable Quote
“Is this simply another sequel? Well, if it is, same rules apply. But here’s the critical thing: if you find yourself dealing with an unexpected backstory and a preponderance of exposition, then the sequel rules do not apply. Because you are not dealing with a sequel, you are dealing with the concluding chapter of a trilogy.” — Randy
Memorable Scene
Looking for someone, Sidney wanders into the abandoned Stab 3 soundstage — to be confronted by a perfect full-size replica of her childhood home. As she wanders inside, remembering the terrifying events that occurred there, she begins to suspect the killer is also lurking. Cue a clever re-staging of one of the first film’s most memorable scenes, as the new killer chases Sidney around her old home.
Making of
Neve Campbell was busy shooting a TV series and another film during the production of Scream 3, meaning her availability was limited to just 20 days on set. That’s why Dewey, Gale, and the new supporting cast get so much more screentime now, with Sidney mostly by herself. But whoever was in charge of scheduling around Campbell’s availability actually did a pretty good job maximising her presence, spreading her appearances throughout the film, with a few key interactions with the rest of the cast. If you didn’t know the behind-the-scenes story, you might not even realise what they had to do.
Previously on…
The first Scream garnered much acclaim for its amusing deconstruction of slasher movies. Naturally, Scream 2 applied the same modus operandi to sequels.
Next time…
Scream 3 was supposedly the end of the series… but if there’s one thing popular horror movie franchises do, it’s keep coming back. So, a little over a decade later, the series was revived with Scre4m in 2011. Then it was turned into an unrelated TV series that ran for two seasons in 2015 and 2016. Then that was rebooted as Scream: Resurrection in 2019. Then the original movie continuity was returned to earlier this year, in the confusingly-titled Scream. That’s getting a sequel next year. Goodness knows what they’re gonna call it.
Awards
2 MTV Movie Award nominations (Female Performance (Neve Campbell), Comedic Performance (Parker Posey))
1 Fangoria Chainsaw Award (Supporting Actress (Parker Posey))
The Scream movies were always noteworthy for the metatextual way in which they addressed and engaged with the tropes and clichés of slasher movies, but actually setting this one in Hollywood on the set of a slasher movie based on the events of the previous movies is perhaps taking the whole self-awareness thing one step too far. It pushes its luck even further with some cameos that are kinda fun, but also kinda too silly (Jay and Silent Bob?! So the Scream movies are canonically set in the View Askewniverse…) Plus, the attempt to retcon in a series-overarching motive for the killer, in aid of making it a true trilogy rather than just “another Scream movie”, is as forced and unsatisfying as it sounds.
All of which said, the film still has effective moments and individual sequences, and a smattering of entertaining gags that are still on the money. Even if it remains the least of the Scream films, but it’s far from the disaster it’s often been painted as.
Country: USA
Language: English
Runtime: 120 minutes
BBFC: 18
MPAA: R
Original Release: 12th December 1997 (USA & Canada)
UK Release: 1st May 1998
Budget: $24 million
Worldwide Gross: $172.4 million
Stars
Neve Campbell (54, Skyscraper)
Courtney Cox (Masters of the Universe, Bedtime Stories)
David Arquette (Wild Bill, Eight Legged Freaks)
Jamie Kennedy (Romeo + Juliet, Son of the Mask)
Director
Wes Craven (The Hills Have Eyes, Cursed)
Screenwriter
Kevin Williamson (Teaching Mrs. Tingle, Cursed)
The Story
Sidney is now at college, but when a movie is released based on the Woodsboro murders, a new killer dons the Ghostface mask and begins targeting her fellow students.
Our Heroes
The sequel natural reunites the survivors of the first film (spoilers!) — target Sidney Prescott, police officer Dewey Riley, reporter Gale Weathers, and film nerd Randy Meeks — while adding a host of new victims / suspects. It’s full of faces that were TV-famous at the time and/or have gone on to be better known since: Jada Pinkett Smith, Omar Epps, Liev Schreiber, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Joshua Jackson, Timothy Olyphant, Jerry O’Connell, Laurie Metcalf…
Our Villain
Ghostface — but unlike other slasher franchises with supernatural villains, this is just a mask, worn by different killer(s) in each film. Who is it this time? Well, that’d be a spoiler — the Scream movies are effectively murder mysteries. Not particularly good murder mysteries (they don’t function in that Christie-esque way of laying out suspects and clues so we can have a fair guess at whodunnit), but they’re technically murder mysteries nonetheless.
Best Supporting Character
Some of the new characters give their best shot at being memorable, but sorry, it’s Randy again (see this category in the first Scream). That said, there is a nice little cameo from the ever-excellent David Warner.
Memorable Quote
Randy: “The way I see it, someone’s out to make a sequel. You know, cash in on all the movie murder hoopla. So it’s our job to observe the rules of the sequel. Number one: the body count is always bigger. Number two: the death scenes are always much more elaborate. More blood, more gore. Carnage candy. Your core audience just expects it. And number three: if you want your sequel to become a franchise, never, ever—”
Memorable Scene
Sidney and her roommate Hallie are being escorted to safety in the back of a police car when Ghostface appears out of nowhere, hijacks the car, and crashes it into roadworks. With the car’s back doors locked, the girls’ only chance of escape is by climbing into the front seat and out the driver’s window — right past the unconscious serial killer…
Previously on…
The original Scream was such a hit that this sequel was in production just six months later, and eventually released less than a year after the first.
Next time…
As the horror franchise of the ’90s, naturally Scream has continued into the ’00s and beyond: Scream 3 wrapped up the trilogy in 2000, before the series was revisited with Scream 4 (actually titled Scre4m) in 2011, and then revived earlier this year in a film simply titled Scream. That’s getting a sequel next year, which obviously poses titling issues. There have also been a couple of TV incarnations, both entirely unrelated in story terms: Scream: The TV Series ran for two seasons in 2015 and 2016, and Scream: Resurrection (or season 3, if you prefer) in 2019.
Awards
1 MTV Movie Award (Female Performance (Neve Campbell) — she beat Kate Winslet in Titanic!)
3 Fangoria Chainsaw Awards (Wide-Release Film, Supporting Actress (Courtney Cox), Screenplay)
2 Fangoria Chainsaw Award nominations (Actress (Neve Campbell), Supporting Actor (Liev Schreiber))
3 Saturn Award nominations (Horror Film, Actress (Neve Campbell), Supporting Actress (Courtney Cox))
Where the first Scream was a forensic deconstruction of the slasher genre, the second is more of a vague gesture in the general direction of sequel tropes — less focused, less insightful, less funny. But, crucially, it’s still quite entertaining. There are abundant references for movie buffs to enjoy (primarily to other sequels and, er, other Friends cast members), while Wes Craven’s ever-skilful thrill sequences ensure the tension doesn’t slack too much. There are even a few jump scares for the more susceptible. It’s not a genre-(re)defining classic like the first movie, but it’s still a solid scary movie.
Country: USA
Language: English
Runtime: 111 minutes
BBFC: 18
MPAA: R
Original Release: 20th December 1996 (USA)
UK Release: 2nd May 1997
Budget: $14 million
Worldwide Gross: $173 million
Stars
Neve Campbell (The Craft, Wild Things)
David Arquette (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Never Been Kissed)
Courtney Cox (Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, 3000 Miles to Graceland)
Drew Barrymore (Firestarter, 50 First Dates)
Director
Wes Craven (A Nightmare on Elm Street, Red Eye)
Screenwriter
Kevin Williamson (I Know What You Did Last Summer, The Faculty)
The Story
In the quiet town of Woodsboro, a mysterious man in a mask starts murdering teenagers, first taunting them with horror movie trivia questions.
Our Hero
Sidney Prescott is an ordinary high school girl… apart from the fact her mother was murdered a year ago, and it was her eyewitness testimony that saw a man sentenced to death. Now, a serial killer seems to be targeting her — could the events be connected?
Our Villain
A slasher movie has to have a distinctive-looking, nicknamed serial killer at its centre, and here it’s Ghostface — although he’s actually only called that once in the film itself. His costume is a generic Halloween outfit bought from any old store, and is technically called Father Death. Why didn’t that name stick instead? Probably because it’s a bit shit.
Best Supporting Character
The film has severable memorable supporting turns, but perhaps the key one is nerd and video store employee Randy (Jamie Kennedy). He knows all the rules of horror films, and when it turns out his friends don’t, he helpfully gives them an explainer — which also works for any audience members who maybe aren’t so au fait with the genre either.
Memorable Quote
“No, please don’t kill me, Mr. Ghostface, I wanna be in the sequel!” — Tatum
Memorable Scene
The opening scene: everyday teenage girl Casey (played by Movie Star™ Drew Barrymore) is preparing to watch a movie when she gets a phone call. It seems like a wrong number, but the man keeps calling back. At first their chat is a bit flirty, but then it begins to get a bit weird, and soon… well, if you haven’t seen it, I wouldn’t want to spoil it for you.
Making of
The movie’s climax takes place at a house party the kids are having to take their mind off the killings, or something. But you wouldn’t guess it was the climax to start with, because it begins a little over halfway through the film — the ‘scene’ altogether lasts 42 minutes. It was shot across a gruelling 21 days of night shoots. After it was finally done, the crew had T-shirts made saying “I Survived Scene 118”.
Next time…
Two direct sequels followed in 1997 and 2000. More recently, the franchise has been subjected to the usual rounds of revivals: it took on parodying the ‘legacy sequel’ with a continuation in 2011, then did the same again with another one in 2022. A sequel to that is on the way next year. In between, there was a spin-off TV series that lasted three seasons. Season 1 and 2 were a reboot, unconnected to the movies; then it rebooted itself for season 3, still with no connection to the movies.
Awards
1 MTV Movie Award (Movie)
1 MTV Movie Award nomination (Female Performance (Neve Campbell))
4 Fangoria Chainsaw Awards (Wide-Release Film, Actress (Neve Campbell), Supporting Actress (Drew Barrymore), Screenplay)
1 Fangoria Chainsaw Award nomination (Supporting Actor (Skeet Ulrich))
3 Saturn Awards (Horror Film, Actress (Neve Campbell), Writer)
3 Saturn nominations (Director, Supporting Actor (Skeet Ulrich), Supporting Actress (Drew Barrymore))
By the mid-’90s the once-popular horror genre was languishing in a mire of endless sequels to the same old titles — but then Scream came along and gave it a much-needed kick up the rear end. Originally titled Scary Movie (in some ways, a more apt title), Scream is a horror movie that knows it’s a horror movie — a kind of self-awareness, often (arguably mistakenly) referred to as post-modernism, that was ever so popular in the ’90s. But it worked for a reason: it treated the audience with respect. It said, “you know the rules, so let’s not pretend.” And that facilitates two things: by acknowledging the rules, it can play with them to make you laugh; and it can break them to surprise you. Thus Scream is simultaneously a spoof of the slasher genre and a genuine entry in it. It’s potentially a tricky tightrope to walk (several major directors were rejected because they thought the film was just a comedy), but Wes Craven nails the tone so perfectly that he makes it look easy. So what might have been a last-hurrah commentary on what had already been instead turned out to be the beginning of a new wave; one which has helped fuel the genre for over 25 years since.
Hello! Yes, it’s me — I am still here. I’ve just been finding my time filled up with other stuff: working on the 2022 iterations of both WOFFF and FilmBath Festival (in addition to the ol’ day job); dogsitting for the in-laws; throwing up from eating bad garlic…
Anyway, here are some reviews of films I watched all the way back in July. (Oh dear, I am behind. Well, let’s see if I can catch up…)
Art Ford | 67 mins | digital (HD) | 4:3 | USA / English
The history of cinema is littered with fascinating asides and dead ends, and this is one of them: an independent film from before independent films were really a thing; from the time when the studio system was beginning to falter, but the film school auteurs hadn’t yet arrived (Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola, et al were still in their teens when this was made).
As with the films that would later break similar new ground after the digital video revolution in the ’90s, there are cracks — it’s amateurish and undeniably low-budget in places — but also artistry — every once in a while it’ll whip out an exceptionally well-lit scene or interesting visual. Story-wise, it’s an odd mix: there’s the noir-ish gangster plot line, which is derivative and clichéd; but it takes over the film from what you feel like it almost wants to be, which is a Before Sunrise-style slice of life. Maybe, in a freer world, that’s what the filmmakers would’ve produced; but when you’re one of the first people trying to break in from the outside, hitting the familiar beats of a genre is no bad idea.
Some of the highlights of the film come at the start, with documentary-like shots of New York street life when our heroine visits the Greenwich Festival. It’s a brief little window into the real 1950s NYC, before the rote gangster plot comes to dominate. Indeed, being shot on location, and with an inexperienced cast, lends the whole production a certain veracity that you don’t always get from soundstage-bound studio pictures of the era. On the other hand, that’s also what gives it the rough edges that will make it unpalatable to some viewers.
However you cut it, this is hardly a forgotten gem, but it’s an interesting detour of movie history that I’m glad I stumbled across.
Johnny Gunman is the 45th film in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2022.
aka Ying hung boon sik
John Woo | 96 mins | digital (HD) | 1.85:1 | Hong Kong / Cantonese, Mandarin & English | 18
A Better Tomorrow was the first in a run of modern-day gangster action movies that would make director John Woo’s name. Its original Chinese title translates as True Colours of a Hero, which is just as apt: it’s about a pair of mid-level crooks, one of whose brother is a cop, and the ways and whys in which they try and fail to escape the criminal life.
Woo’s style was cutting edge back in the day, but that day is now pushing 40 years ago. Of course, his flamboyant style has never been to some people’s taste (witness the dismissive stance some still take towards M:i-2). Viewed now, this is cheesier and less stylistically polished than his later career-defining HK films like The Killer or Hard Boiled, but, on the couple of occasions it does explode into action, it’s suitably grandiose, and it has an engaging storyline and character dynamics.
In regards to the latter, you can definitely see why Chow Yun-Fat was the breakout star. He’s actually got a supporting role, but his charisma shines off the screen, and there’s a plausibility to the way he handles the action. (Ironically, although it made Chow an action icon, he was cast because Woo didn’t think he looked like an action star.)
Not Woo’s strongest film, then, but a definite sign of someone headed in the right direction — and, clearly, his later work paid off that promise.
A Better Tomorrow is the 46th film in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2022. It was viewed as part of “What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…?” 2022.
Steven Okazaki | 77 mins | DVD | 16:9 | USA & Japan / English & Japanese | 12
At just an hour and a quarter, this biography of the actor Toshiro Mifune feels more like a primer on his work and life (complete with newcomer-friendly contextual asides into the history of Japanese cinema, the career of Akira Kurosawa, etc) rather than the deep-dive exploration of the man and his legacy that some reviewers hoped for. I certainly learnt stuff, but such criticism has validity. For that reason, the less you know about Mifune (and Kurosawa), the more you’ll get out of the film. That said, it might pay to have already seen some of their films — it’s not that director Steven Okazaki doesn’t introduce and summarise them adequately; more that, if you’ve seen them, you know the full context.
Nonetheless, a good range of interviewees ensure the documentary is not without insight, managing to explore both what made Mifune the man tick and what made him such a phenomenal screen presence. Plus, the fact that Okazaki is happy to explain contextual topics (like a history of chanbara films; or matters of social history, like what losing World War 2 was like for the Japanese people) is both education and useful, because I imagine most non-Japanese viewers don’t have much baseline knowledge about this stuff. The film is definitely a biography of Mifune (not, say, a history of 20th century Japan using the actor as a gateway), but there’s much to be gleaned here for the interested viewer.
Mifune: The Last Samurai is the 47th film in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2022.
Maggie Gyllenhaal | 122 mins | digital (HD) | 1.66:1 | USA, UK, Israel & Greece / English & Italian | 15 / R
Maggie Gyllenhaal’s directorial debut, based on a novel by Elena Ferrante, stars Olivia Colman as Leda, a woman on holiday alone in Greece, where she encounters a young mother (Dakota Johnson) whose daughter briefly goes missing, reminding Leda of her own younger days, when she was played by Jessie Buckley and had a husband and two daughters herself.
It’s perhaps initially difficult to pin down exactly what The Lost Daughter is driving at — I suspect it’s the kind of film in which some people would say nothing happens. But it’s really a kind of mystery, where the mystery is the lead character’s psychology: why is she like this? There’s also the more obvious mystery of what exactly happened in her past, but that isn’t solved so much as gradually doled out in flashbacks. Obviously that kind of story relies a lot on its performances, and Colman is as strong as ever. So much of the importance of the film, which lies in her character and emotion, is conveyed without dialogue. That’s not do down the able support from Buckley and Johnson, mind.
Gyllenhaal’s direction is interesting and effective, using lots of fairly extreme close-ups to give a kind of tactile sensation to the film. On the other hand, I would say it feels a little longer than necessary (especially after the ‘reveal’ scene, where the final piece of the puzzle clicks), and I’m not convinced it knows how to end (or perhaps it’s my fault for not really ‘getting’ the finale).
Overall, though, it’s an impressive debut from Gyllanhaal, and a great alternative perspective on motherhood.
Arguably my true failings his month were not watching any Blindspot or “What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen” films, plus all the other 100 Films Challenge categories I’m behind on. But, as usual, this column will focus on all the new releases and purchases of interest that I didn’t see either.
The season for big-name blockbusters may have ended at cinemas, but that doesn’t mean there weren’t films worth mentioning — like George “Mad Max” Miller’s latest, Three Thousand Years of Longing; or a limited UK release for David Cronenberg’s Crimes of the Future; or Kevin Smith’s return to the milieu that made his name in Clerks III — and there were certainly films that generated blockbuster-sized numbers of column inches, like Don’t Worry Darling and its endless behind-the-scenes controversies. In and around those were the likes of starry whodunnit comedy See How They Run; George Clooney / Julia Roberts romcom Ticket to Paradise. Also, a bunch of horror and/or horror-adjacent movies that seem to have accidentally released a month early: Fall; Bodies Bodies Bodies; Smile… Plus, horrific in a different way, the belated debut of Michael Flatley’s Blackbird.
And yet, for all that, the biggest of them all was arguably a re-release: James Cameron’s Avatar returned to the big screen for its… fourth? fifth? (I forget, but it’s had a fair few re-releases at this point) go-round at box office glory. I don’t think it topped the chart, but it certainly kickstarted conversation about the film’s merits (or lack thereof) and enduring influence (or lack thereof). I haven’t seen it since it was first in cinemas almost 13 years ago, so I probably ought to revisit it before the sequel arrives in a couple of months. The only question is, which version? Even without finding a cinema showing, I can choose from the theatrical cut in 3D, or two different extended cuts…
And talking of social media chatter, the only thing with even more than Avatar was Netflix’s Marilyn Monroe kinda-biopic Blonde, which some people would have you believe you’re an evil degenerate for even considering watching it. I’m 50/50 on its director, Andrew Dominik (I adored The Assassination of Jesse James; Killing Them Softly bored me), and, to be honest, he’s given some spectacularly tin-eared interviews in promotion of his new work. I don’t morally object to it, I’m jus not sure I care enough to give it nearly three hours of my time. We’ll see.
Other Netflix premieres included Lou, which I only heard about due to the Netflix Twitter account sharing some behind-the-scenes footage of Allison Janney’s fight training. But that day it was #1 in their films category, so maybe I missed some other promo. I also didn’t see any official promo for Athena, but I did see a couple of critics saying it was very good (while expressing their disappointment about it going direct to streaming — it was worth seeing on the big screen, apparently. Oh well, we’ll never know). Meanwhile, seemingly the best Amazon could offer was another mistimed horror remake, Goodnight Mommy with Naomi Watts, and horror-comedy My Best Friend’s Exorcism, which I just happened to see advertised on their app last night, hardly a ringing endorsement. (I call all of these horror movies “mistimed”, but there are people who spend the entirety of October just watching horror movies, so it’s a boon for them.)
Disney+ were getting in on the act too, with the debut of Hocus Pocus 2. I’ve never had any interest in the original, so I doubt I’ll be watching this either. Earlier in the month, discussion focused around the Robert Zemeckis-helmed live-action remake of Pinocchio. Even the best reviews couldn’t drum up much enthusiasm for it, but it goes on my watchlist — alongside the various other Disney live-action remakes I still haven’t got round to (Lady and the Tramp, Beauty and the Beast, etc), so who knows when, if ever, I’ll actually watch it… As for new-to-streaming titles, I think Disney+ also had the most noteworthy of the month with the latest divisive MCU instalment, Thor: Love and Thunder. Also catching my eye were a variety of short films — something streamers could do a lot more with in general, I feel — including Hard Way: The Action Musical (sounds… interesting) and The Devil’s Harmony, which I actually watched back in 2020 when it was Short of the Week someplace online, but I never got round to reviewing it. It was quite good.
Actually, maybe beating that Thor flick was Amazon bringing Everything Everywhere All at Once to the UK (it did have something of a theatrical release here, but Amazon are pushing it as an “Exclusive” as if it didn’t), which I only didn’t note more prominently because I’d already imported the 4K disc (see July’s failures). Other streaming debuts or re-appearances filling out my various watchlists included, on Amazon, Cyrano (the new one with Peter Dinklage, directed by Joe Wright), Chopping Mall, and Selma; on Netflix, Kajillionaire and Alejandro Jodorowsky’s Santa Sangre (which has already been removed again); on MUBI, Olivier Assayas’s Demonlover and Pedro Almodóvar’s Parallel Mothers (do you know, I don’t think I’ve ever seen an Almodóvar film? Ought to correct that); on BBC iPlayer, Journey’s End, The Sisters Brothers, Stan & Ollie, and Blazing Saddles (which I’ve seen but owe a reconsideration); and on All 4, Bacurau, Terrence Malick’s A Hidden Life, Monos, and True History of the Kelly Gang. I think some of these are available on other streamers already (especially when it comes to stuff on the TV-tied ones like iPlayer and All 4), but them getting added (or removed) does help remind me of their existence.
As ever, that’s just a few selected highlights — stuff comes and goes from these guys all the time, and I follow it all because I like to have an awareness of what’s available to me, but if I listed it all we’d be here forever (and these columns are long enough as it is). One streamer I haven’t mentioned is NOW, aka Sky Cinema, which I’ve just resubscribed to. I was supposed to be cutting down on streamers but I’ve ended up back on MUBI, Apple TV+, and now NOW! But they offered me two months (with their Boost add-on, which is essential because it’s how you get HD) for a total of £7 (vs £30 at regular rates), so I took it. I’m sure there’s a whole load of stuff on there I need to catch up on (I noticed they added Belfast at the beginning of the month), but I’ll look into that for next month.
Finally, as always, new additions to my disc collection. Almost all were brand-new releases this month, because the boutique labels just keep putting out interesting stuff, and there are more of those guys than ever — I remember when we basically just had Eureka/Masters of Cinema in the UK, and then Arrow came along, and now we’ve also got Criterion over here, and Indicator, and 88 Films and Second Sight have stepped up their games, and Radiance is on the way… Whew!
Anyhow, let’s begin with 4K. The highlight of the month there is surely Eureka’s first foray into the format, a box set of Jackie Chan’s Police Story Trilogy. I got my copy early, even, but unfortunately haven’t had a chance to watch any of it yet. 88 Films also made their 4K debut with Drive — not the Nicolas Winding Refn / Ryan Gosling cult fave (that came from Second Sight earlier in the year, you’ll remember), but the 1997 actioner. I remember the DVD cover; it was the kind of cheap-looking title I used to avoid that nowadays I kinda revel in. As for major label 4K titles, there was a nice box set for The Lost Boys (a film I’ve been meaning to revisit for years, and what better time?) and the regular release of Jurassic World Dominion (which I’ve not heard anything good about from anyone, but, hey, gotta complete the set).
No other brand-new films made their way into my collection this month, but plenty of other new releases from the boutiques did. To go label by label, from Arrow there was a pair of films with superb titles: Japanese epic crime drama A Fugitive from the Past and Indonesian action throwback Vengeance is Mine, All Others Pay Cash. Another title I love is All Deceased… Except the Dead (what does it even mean?), billed as a “mid ’70s Italian horror combining the aesthetics of Giallo with an Agatha Christie-style murder mystery” (sounds like my idea of a good time), which came from 88 Films, along with Yeun Biao thriller On the Run and Sherlock Holmes drama The Seven-Per-Cent Solution (which, I’m ashamed to say, I’ve never seen but am now buying for the third time. Anyone want the US Blu-ray? I think it might even still be sealed…) Indicator finally brought The Swimmer to the UK (if you don’t know, their releases are numbered, Criterion-style, and while some of their new titles are into the 300s now, this is #46, suggesting they’ve been working on it for a looong time). It’s missing the feature-length documentary from the US release, but I managed to, er, find a copy of that elsewhere. They also put out a two-film Robin Hood at Hammer set, which seemed worth a punt (I enjoy Hammer films; I enjoy Robin Hood films), and Madigan, which I confess I only bought to get the bundle discount (and because it sounded potentially up my street — believe it or not, I don’t buy just anything).
As for labels who only put out one title of interest this month (or where I mentioned the other title(s) already)… more martial arts action from Eureka in an Angela Mao double-bill of Hapkido (aka Lady Kung Fu) and Lady Whirlwind (aka Deep Thrust); Tom Hanks-starring ‘satanic panic’ Dungeons & Dragons-aping TV movie Mazes & Monsters, a worldwide HD premiere from Plumeria Pictures; Katsuhiro “Akira” Otomo-led anime anthology Memories from All the Anime; and 101 Film’s clone of Severin’s AGFA release Smut Without Smut, Volume 1, featuring two X-rated genre movies with the good naughty bits removed, to better allow you to focus on the genre stuff. They also include the uncut versions, fortunately.
And that’s it for another month! I say “that’s it” as if I haven’t just listed about as many movies for one month as I’ve watched in the entire year to date…
I’m not, by nature, a royalist (although I’m not sure that I’d vote for their abolition, if it came to it — I’d rather the certainty of Charles III and William V than risk the whims of the UK public vote giving us something like President Boris), but I know history when I see it, and there’s no doubting that the death of the Queen — and all the ensuing pageantry — was history, on a scale we’ll probably never see again.
So that’s my excuse for this month’s relatively paltry film viewing: I watched a lot of news and TV coverage. Plus, a known quantity: the much-anticipated release of the long-hoped-for Return to Monkey Island, which I spent most of my free time on for the best part of a week. It was worth the wait. If I included non-film stuff in my “best of” lists and whatnot, it’d be a shoe-in.
Anyway, enough about other timefillers — let’s look at some films…
#55 Clerks (1994) — DVD #6
#56 Persuasion (2022) — New Film #9
#57 He Walked by Night (1948) — Genre #5
#58 Paddington 2 (2017) — Rewatch #9
#59 Broken Blossoms (1919) — Decades #12
#60 Scream 2 (1997) — Series Progression #3
Favourite Film of the Month
I finally saw it and, just like almost everyone else, I loved it. It’s a small field this month, I know, but Top Gun: Maverick is both an easy victor and likely to find a place somewhere on my “best of year” list come December (well, January; it’d be a miracle if I got my list together in December).
Least Favourite Film of the Month
I enjoyed it more than I expected, but Persuasion was still the weakest link amongst this month’s viewing.
The Audience Award for Most-Viewed New Post of the Month
My review of Love on a Leash made a resurgence in the chart this month. (It looks like it actually started last month, but was overshadowed by Prey doing so well.) No idea why that’s happened. As for what this award is actually about — i.e. new posts — the winner is a rarity: the monthly review of August. The last time that happened was May last year — and it might’ve been the first time, too (back then I couldn’t be bothered to dig through 71 previous awards, and I can’t be doing with that now, either).
Halloween — one night of the year that, if some people were to be believed, goes on an entire month (at least). Regular readers will know I don’t celebrate it too heavily, but this year I am intending to offer a series of “Guide To” posts covering the Scream series.
100Films.co.uk 