Archive 5, Vol.9

Posted on March 15, 2024 by badblokebob

I have a backlog of 525 unreviewed feature films from my 2018 to 2023 viewing. This is where I give those films their day, five at a time, selected by a random number generator.

Today, a couple of Agatha Christie adaptations from very different eras; plus a heist, a horror, and a Hong Kong love story for the ages.

This week’s Archive 5 are…

Evil Under the Sun (1982)

Sneakers (1992)

Us (2019)

Crooked House (2017)

In the Mood for Love (2000)

Evil Under the Sun

(1982)

The third in the run of Poirot adaptations that began with Murder on the Orient Express and continued with Death on the Nile — no, not the recent Branagh ones: this is the first time they did exactly that. But, funnily enough, both third films in their respective series (i.e. this and Branagh’s A Haunting in Venice) take a UK-set Christie and relocate it somewhere more exotic, to fit with the style of the rest of the series. So, rather than a small island off the north Devon coast (which likely stretches the definition of “under the sun”, based on my experience of Devon), here the action is located to the Adriatic Sea, although actually filmed on Mallorca.

All of which is incidental when the rest of the movie is, at best, fine. It doesn’t help that the storyline is ultimately very similar to Death on the Nile, making the whole affair feel like more of a rehash than it needs to. Guy Hamilton’s direction underwhelms, giving a TV movie-ish feel, which is only exacerbated by the less-starry cast — there are recognisable names and faces here (James Mason, Diana Rigg, Maggie Smith), but, in totality, it’s not in the same league as the previous two films. It rather prefigures where Ustinov’s Poirot would appear next: literally, TV movies.

Evil Under the Sun was #2 in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2020.

Sneakers

(1992)

I never paid Sneakers any attention (not that it came up often) — I think, because it’s an American movie called Sneakers, I assumed it was about shoes — until indie magazine Film Stories announced a Blu-ray release (long since sold out, I’m afraid). I’m always keen to support small/new labels doing interesting things. And thank goodness for that, because, turns out, it’s actually very much my kind of film and good fun.

So, turns out, in this context, “sneakers” are not an Americanism for trainers, but good-guy hackers who test security systems. When the team are hired to steal a code breaking device, they get suspicious about the setup and, of course, it turns out they’re right to be. Thus unfurls a tech-based heist thriller with a strong vein of humour, but without tipping over into being an outright comedy. Stylistically and tonally, that’s right up my street — I love a heist movie, and that kind of tone (funny without being silly; what I think of as a ‘real world’ awareness of humour) often works for me. It’s the kind of film that’s just a lot of fun to watch. I can imagine it being highly rewatchable; a go-to favourite for people who do that kind of thing.

Sneakers was #132 in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2021.

Us

(2019)

Part of what made Jordan Peele’s debut feature, Get Out, such a success was the way it chimed perfectly with the cultural zeitgeist of 2017; indeed, of the whole decade (time may yet add “of the whole century”). This immediate followup doesn’t benefit from a similar boost, but it’s a strong work of horror cinema in its own right.

Us follows a family who are attacked by a group of doppelgängers. That’s the most basic version, anyway — Peele seems to have a lot of ideas he wants to mix in here; almost too many. It seems to operate on the level of a home invasion/slasher kind of movie much of the time, but having more on its mind means it’s a bit too slow to satisfy as something so viscerally straightforward. Thus, all the Meaningful stuff ends up crammed into the third act, which perhaps leaves it feeling back-heavy. There’s also a big twist, naturally. On one hand, it seems really obvious, pretty much from the beginning; but on the other, it does cast the rest of the movie in a different light, which is quite interesting.

If all that sounds rather negative… I blame my notes (I’m writing this review over four years later based solely on what little I wrote down at the time). Us is imperfect, but it’s also great in places, and is at least passably interesting to reflect on in light of the final reveal.

Us was #23 in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2020.

Crooked House

(2017)

Despite a moderately starry cast (Glenn Close, Terence Stamp, Gillian Anderson, Christina Hendricks fresh from Mad Men; plus Brits of varying degrees of recognisableness) and a screenplay by Julian “Downton Abbey” Fellowes, this Agatha Christie adaptation was virtually dumped straight to TV here in the UK (apparently it did have a theatrical release, but the TV premiere was less than a month later — and on lowly Channel 5 at that). Of course, some of the best Christie adaptations have been made for TV; but when something’s designed for theatrical and ends up skipping it, it’s never a good sign.

Fortunately, Crooked House isn’t a disaster, though it’s far from a resounding success. Quite what attracted the big names I don’t know — it’s a reasonable setup (big dysfunctional family), but the screenplay isn’t exactly sparkling, aside from one or two moments or scenes. There is, at least, one helluva resolution. It also feels disjointed thanks to poor editing and/or direction. If the aim was to keep the pace up, it failed, because it begins to drag after a while. All of this is only partially masked by decent cinematography from Sebastian Winterø, which is the only thing that saves it from looking very TV-ish. Maybe it found its rightful home after all.

Crooked House was #1 in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2020.

In the Mood for Love

(2000)

aka Fa yeung nin wah

If my four-years-late review of Us was hampered by largely-negative notes, my four-years-late review of In the Mood for Love is in even worse shape: no notes at all. Some trivia? I can do that! An interesting quote from the director? Got it saved! But anything on my own thoughts beyond settling on a five-star rating? Nope. I would try to repurpose my Letterboxd review, but all I wrote was: “I mean nothing but respect when I pithily describe this as Brief Encounter in Hong Kong.” Accurate but, indeed, pithy.

On the bright side, this is a widely-acclaimed film, so if you’re after in-depth writing I’m certain you’ll find some somewhere else. Indeed, even if I did have more fulsome notes, I doubt I’d contribute anything more insightful. This is a subtle, almost delicate work, and that’s the kind of thing I feel I often struggle to properly get to grips with in my short, usually spoiler-averse reviews. Suffice to say, I concur that this is a very good film indeed; although, as with any understated work, some might prefer if the feelings and emotions were more overt. Each to their own.

In the Mood for Love was #200 in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2020. It was viewed as part of Blindspot 2020.

Archive 5, Vol.8

Posted on January 26, 2024 by badblokebob

I have a(n insanely huge) backlog of 533 unreviewed feature films from my 2018 to 2023 viewing (not to mention the 77 shorts, but they’re a problem for another day). This is where I give those films their day, five at a time, selected by a random number generator.

Today, it’s killers galore with Korean zombies, comical hitmen, rampaging security robots, and plain ol’ murderers. Plus, dying of boredom in Saturday detention.

This week’s Archive 5 are…

One Cut of the Dead (2017)

The Breakfast Club (1985)

Chopping Mall (1986)

Dead Man’s Folly (1986)

Wild Target (2010)

One Cut of the Dead

(2017)

aka Kamera o tomeru na!

You know, it’s not just my reviews that are tardy: I bought this because it was hyped up, both as “good” and as “see it knowing as little as possible”, and it went on my “must watch soon” pile… where it sat for 14 months. And that’s far from the most egregious example of “ooh, I must get round to that” equally a long, long delay.

Now, it’s taken me another 46 months to write this review. Eesh. On the bright side, perhaps I shouldn’t be so worried about spoilers anymore. I mean, if you’ve not seen it by now, whose fault is that? And it definitely is the kind of film where the less you know the better, because it’s going to pull the rug out from under you. Of course, even knowing that means you’re on the lookout for what’s going to happen; and the film gives you a helping hand, because right from the off there are nods to the conceit. Still, I’ll try to be fairly vague.

It’s a film of three parts. The first is, with hindsight, an establisher; setup and groundwork for what comes next. Alternatively, some genre fans will take that as the purpose of the movie, and what follows as extraneous. Then there’s a long, slow middle section. Again, no direct spoilers, but we know where this part of the narrative ends up, so it feels like it’s over-expounding stuff (we don’t need as much backstory as we get) and consequently goes on a bit. Halfway through, I began to wonder what all the fuss was about. I worried that I’d left it too long to see it and let the hype get the better of me.

But, ultimately, it’s all setup for the final half-hour, and it pays off in hilarity. The middle could still do with a trim, but it’s worth sticking with for the payoff.

One Cut of the Dead was #54 in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2020.

The Breakfast Club

(1985)

Is The Breakfast Club the definitive ’80s high school movie? It’s got to be on the shortlist, right? Personally, I preferred Heathers, or, if you want to stay within the John Hughes universe, Ferris Bueller, but that doesn’t mean this is without its qualities.

If you’re unfamiliar, it’s about a gaggle of misfits in Saturday detention. Over the course of the day, the unlikely group form a bond — well, there’s a surprise. One thing I did like about that: even after they’ve become ‘friends’, the slightest thing can still set off their animosity to one another. They’ve not really changed and it’s a fragile allegiance. The stuff about how they’d never talk to each other in real life after this rings true. So, I don’t want to come down too heavily in the region of the idea that the film might be clichéd. I’ve read other modern reviews criticise it for that, and you have to wonder: when you’re writing about a popular movie 35 years after it came out, was the film clichéd or did it create the clichés? That said, my favourite observation in this sphere was: “if this is cliché, then life is too.” Oh boy is that a sentiment I agree with about so many fictions that are deemed “cliché”.

That said, I guess we’re beyond the film’s era of influence now. I mean, if you made something like this today, it would probably be an arthouse-aimed indie production (in fairness, the original is also an indie), probably produced for a similar (or lower) budget than it was almost 40 years ago; and it would be adored and analysed by 30- and 40-something-year-old cineastes while actual teenagers were at the multiplex watching MCU XXIV. (You can tell I wrote these notes four years ago, because I would not now suggest the latest MCU release as a default popular success.)

On the other hand, I know we all look down on remakes, but if you’re going to remake any popular film, this is the kind of thing that would withstand it. It’s so much about its era that if you took the basic concept and remixed it for the 2020s, there are a several interesting avenues to be explored. I’m sure cliques still exist in American high schools (based on media depictions, they never seem to go away), so you’d still get the contrasting personalities; and you could shift the sexual dynamics, the way different groups view each other, and sort out the ending (the way certain characters are ‘fixed’ is very of its time, and not in a good way); and put a modern spin on it all, of course, with some race and LGBT points. You know, make it “woke”, as dickheads say. That would be a pretty different film, but that’s entirely the point: if you’re going to remake something, make it different, make it new. (To be clear, I’m not criticising the original film for not including those elements — it’s a product of its time and it’s not choosing to be about those things, which is entirely valid.)

I appreciate I’ve talked more about what the film could be today than what it is. Oops. But, look, this is the kind of film where I can’t remember any of the characters’ names — if I wanted to talk in specifics, I’d have to refer to them by their actors (or do a bit of googling, of course). That’s another way of saying I did like it, but it’s not a film that’s stuck with me in the way it has for its many fans.

The Breakfast Club was #56 in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2020. It was viewed as an additional film in my Blindspot 2020 project, after I failed to watch it for Blindspot 2019.

Chopping Mall

(1986)

Blood, boobs, and berserk ’bots are the order of the day in this campy sci-fi actioner.

That’s right: “sci-fi actioner”. I don’t know where I’d heard about this, or if I’d just made inferences from the title and poster, but I’d assumed it was a regular slasher whose USP was simply “it’s set in a shopping mall”. But nope, it’s actually about security robots who go barmy and start killing a bunch of young people who’d locked themselves in a mall overnight. According to IMDb, it was originally released as Killbots — a more to-the-point title — but it performed poorly, and the producers’ reasoning was the title had made audiences think it was a Transformers-like kids movie (if anyone did take their kids to see it, boy, were they in for a surprise!) So, after cutting over quarter-of-an-hour, they re-released it with the more-clearly-exploitation-y title and… well, I don’t know if it as a major success or anything, but I guess it performed better and that’s the version that has endured.

I don’t know what was in those deleted 15 minutes, but presumably nothing of great import. Indeed, the short running time is a blessing: it gets on with things at the start, and doesn’t try to drag them out later. It knows what we’ve come to a movie like this for, and it delivers that with admirable efficiency. What’s left is so barmy and schlocky that it’s kinda fun, even if most of it doesn’t make a lick of sense. Even allowing for the implausible setup (lightning sends robot security guards berserk), there’s little to no logic in what follows (the robots have turned murderous? Fine, but why are they such shit shots? And why, when they have an easy shot, do they suddenly stop shooting? And so on).

Chopping Mall is no lost gem, although it may make you nostalgic for an era when they actually made stuff like this. Would the world be a better place if people were still churning out low-budget schedule-fillers full of gratuitous-but-clearly-fake violence and unnecessary-but-welcome nudity? I don’t know, but I doubt it could be any worse. At least it might’ve desensitised younger generations enough that we wouldn’t have to suffer endless rounds of “sex scenes are bad, actually” discourse on Twitter…

Chopping Mall was the 13th new film I watched in 2023.

Dead Man’s Folly

(1986)

This second of three TV movies starring Peter Ustinov as Poirot marks the fourth of his six appearance as the character overall, and it might be the low point of the generally-underwhelming bunch. Ustinov was no doubt a quality performer, and I know his version of Poirot has its fans, but, for me, he remains a lesser interpreter of the Belgian sleuth.

This particular film does nothing to outweigh his shortcomings. I don’t know if it’s the fault of the original story, this adaptation, or just me, but I didn’t feel there was enough provided for the the viewer to join in with the whodunnit guessing game, which I think is half the fun of a murder mystery. Events just unfurled until, eventually, Poirot explained it all. Add to that a portrayal of Poirot’s sometime-sidekick Hastings by Jonathan Cecil that verges on the lascivious, and production elements (costuming, hairdos, music) that are painfully ’80s, and the recipe is all-round distasteful.

Dead Man’s Folly was #154 in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2021.

Wild Target

(2010)

In this remake of French comedy-thriller Cible émouvante, Bill Nighy plays an ageing hitman who falls for his latest target, pretty young thief Emily Blunt. Romance blossoms, in what must be one of the most implausible storylines ever committed to film. That’s partly because of the 33-year age gap between 26-year-old Blunt and 59-year-old Nighy (who, frankly, seems even older — the age gap may be roughly father/daughter, but she feels more like his granddaughter), but also because the movie does little to overcome this blatant shortcoming. If it wants us to buy it, it needs to sell it, but instead it half-arses it. When you learn that Helena Bonham-Carter was originally cast in Blunt’s role (but had to pull out due to commitments to Alice in Wonderland), it all begins to make sense: you can imagine a relationship between her and Nighy working on screen, and presumably they didn’t bother to retool the screenplay in between actor changes.

All of which says, the film just about survives because there’s enough else going on. The hitman and thief wind up on the run from the people who want her dead, with a young apprentice (Rupert Grint) in tow, and the ensuing farcical hijinks are all daft fun, with the great cast (which also includes Martin Freeman, Eileen Atkins, and Rupert Everett, among others) clearly having a good time. Sometimes that’s off-putting, but here it’s infectious.

Wild Target was #59 in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2021.

The Return of Archive 5

Posted on January 19, 2024 by badblokebob

Hey, look what else is back! Almost a whole year on from the last instalment in the series, I’ve finally managed to rustle up a new Archive 5. Although, that previous post was also a comeback after a long time off, so I probably shouldn’t celebrate until I mange two in a row.

Being another year on, the pool of possible reviews has increased — quite significantly, as I’ve so far covered hardly anything from my 2023 viewing. But today’s five were chosen (but not written up, otherwise I’d’ve posted it) back when Vol.6 was published, so they were selected (at random) from the backlog of then-443 unreviewed feature films from my 2018 to 2022 viewing.

This week’s hideously delayed Archive 5 are…

The Mummy (1932)

So Dark the Night (1946)

The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949)

A Brief History of Time Travel (2018)

Misery (1990)

The Mummy

(1932)

The third classic Universal Monster film, following Dracula and Frankenstein, The Mummy ditches literary adaptation for a horror based in then-contemporary fears. Nowadays, the notion of digging up of mummies is an Old Thing, but in 1932 they were just a decade on from the discovery of Tutankhamen’s tomb, and it was only in that year that it was finally fully excavated, so that kind of thing — and, of course, the attached curses — were still fresh in the public imagination.

In the wake of Frankenstein, The Old Dark House, and The Mask of Fu Manchu, Boris Karloff was now the horror star in Hollywood, and so The Mummy was conceived as a starring role for him. Perhaps that explains why, plot wise, it’s a remix of Universal’s take on Dracula: the villain is after the girl, using supernatural tricks to lure her; the dashing young man is in love with her; there’s even a Van Helsing-esque figure with the knowledge to stop the monster. But originality is not the be-all-and-end-all — overall, I much preferred this to Dracula. Karloff is superb as the antagonist; Zita Johann (and her array of skimpy outfits) makes for an appealing (and, perhaps in spite of said clothing, competent) female lead; and there’s some intensely atmospheric direction from Karl Freund. His name may not seem as familiar as Dracula’s Tod Browning or Frankenstein’s James Whale, but he was already an acclaimed cinematographer, who’d shot the likes of Metropolis and, er, Dracula.

The Mummy presented considerably less bandaged-wrapped foot-dragging living-corpse action than I expected. I guess those clichés come from the sequels (reportedly, their stories are entirely unconnected to this one) or another studio’s efforts (Hammer, perhaps). Instead, it’s quite simply one of my absolute favourites from the initial wave of Universal’s classic monster movies.

The Mummy was #122 in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2021.

So Dark the Night

(1946)

How many serial killer mysteries have you seen that spend their first half being bucolic romances? I can’t think of any others than So Dark the Night. The title and setup don’t prepare you for it, but the first half-hour is more of a genteel country romcom, with only the slightest hint there might be darker turns to come. Half-an-hour isn’t long generally, but it’s almost halfway through a film this short — and that’s when things take an abrupt turn for the murderous.

The short running time probably works against the film, on the whole. For example, it makes it easy to miss that there are several interesting supporting characters or facets to main characters. Love interest Nanette is sort of depicted as an innocent ingénue, but we first meet her ogling the expensiveness of Henri’s car, and then she and her mother conspire for her to meet Henri and try to elicit a romantic connection, even though she’s already got a long-standing engagement. That’s not exactly upstanding and sweet behaviour, is it? Then there’s the widowed maid, who’s so lonely and desperate to escape that even after she suspects the killer, she pleads to be taken with him.

Along with a few other factors that are rather spoilersome, this is a film that takes the usual shape of the whodunnit and subverts it to disquieting effect. It’s a film that, on the surface, looks nothing like a noir — it’s set in a pretty French village (created with surprising authenticity on Columbia’s backlot) — but exposes that the darkness and violence of the human condition can exist anywhere. I say “on the surface” because the film’s photography is great, with many interesting shot and lightning choices peppered about, without overwhelming proceedings with unnecessary flourishes.

So Dark the Night was #57 in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2020.

The Adventures of
Ichabod and Mr. Toad

(1949)

Disney’s canon of animated films goes through a weird blip between Bambi in 1942 and Cinderella in 1950. That’s when the six so-called “package films” were released, bundling together short films into themed features. They’re almost a footnote in the Disney animated canon — I mean, before them you’ve got Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo, and Bambi, and after you’ve got Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp, Sleeping Beauty, and so on… and on… But it’s not a period of hidden gems: these are films mostly only worth bothering with if you’re a completist. This final one is, perhaps, the exception. At any rate, it’s easily the best of the package films.

Whereas the others contained multiple short features, here there are just two: adaptations of The Wind in the Willows and The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. There’s barely any faffing about with linking segments, either: a quick intro from Basil Rathbone (who narrates Willows), and an equally speedy transition from Bing Crosby (who narrates Sleepy Hollow), and that’s it. And that’s all it needs, instead spending time and resources on the stories themselves.

I’ve never been a huge fan of The Wind in the Willows, but this is a fast-paced and fun version, with a particularly entertaining ‘action sequence’ in Toad Hall as the good guys and weasels run around trying to keep hold of the property deed. Then, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow recasts the famous horror story as… a small-town romantic farce. No, seriously. It’s fine if a little dull, but picks up considerably when it reaches Halloween and we get a song about the headless horseman, a highly atmospheric sequence in spooky woods, and an exciting/comical chase between Ichabod and the horseman. It takes a while to get there, but it’s worth it.

The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad was #176 in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2020.

A Brief History of Time Travel

(2018)

Gisella Bustillos | 69 mins | digital (HD) | 16:9 | USA / English

It’s a decade this year since I backed this documentary on Kickstarter — how’s that for time travel for you? I mean, technically, “normal and linear”, but also: time flies. It doesn’t feel like Kickstarter’s even been around that long. What the hell is going on with our perception of time (for example, the increasingly widespread observation on social media that everyone’s perception of how long ago things were is stuck somewhere in the early- to mid-2000s) would be an interesting topic for a documentary.

But anyway, that’s not what this is. This is a wide-ranging overview of the concept of time travel, taking in fiction, science (both real and theoretical), and religion, as well as how those things interrelate and influence each other. It’s probably most interested in the science side, using other angles to illustrate rather than be examined in their own right. For example, it details the significance of H.G. Wells’s The Time Machine (the first story to involve time travel into the future, and one of the first where the travel was achieved via a man-made machine rather than some form of magic), but that’s about the last fictional story it describes. There are clips from Doctor Who and Back to the Future, but no discussion of their influence, nor of the kinds of time travel they present.

At its best, the film draws interesting links and parallels between the different spheres it’s encompassing. This is at its most poignant when we meet a physicist who got into the field because his father died when he was young and time travel stories offered the idea that he might be able to revisit his dad, which developed into him learning the real science and becoming a physicist. Now, he believes he has a workable theory for how information could be sent into the past. I have no idea if that stands up to scrutiny, mind — the film doesn’t vet it with other interviewees’ opinions.

Considering it only runs a little over an hour, it’s unsurprising that there’s not room to cover everything in depth. Nonetheless, it’s so blatantly leaving significant amounts of material untouched that you can’t help but feel disappointed. To be kind, it’s a reasonable primer for the uninitiated, with interesting bits of info dropped here and there, but almost every topic covered would merit a deeper, dedicated examination.

A Brief History of Time Travel was #123 in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2021.

Misery

(1990)

I feel like Misery is one of those movies that was once very well known in general pop culture, but has since slipped back, if not into obscurity then certainly into a lesser-known status, remembered only when mentioned by people who were there or as one in a list of Stephen King adaptations, that sort of thing. And that also feels fair enough, because it’s very much a movie that’s pretty good but not exceptional. The author whose work it’s taken from, the filmmaker who’s adapted it, and the main players on screen have all been responsible for or involved in even better and more enduring works of cinema, so of course this has become an “and also” note in their careers.

Perhaps transcending that — and, certainly, by far the most famous thing about Misery — is the ankle-bashing scene, which unfortunately means you spend most of the film waiting for it to turn up, and when it does it’s rather unaffecting. That’s time and infamy for you. The former: it’s not as gruesome as it would be if shot today. The latter: I’d already seen the clip a dozen times. I can see how it was striking on the film’s original release, but familiarity has really blunted it.

Fortunately, there’s more to the film than one shocking act of violence. Kathy Bates is excellent as Annie Wilkes, making her wild mood swings terrifyingly plausible. Her Oscar was well earned. Then there’s the subplot with the local sheriff and his unceasing investigation, which also introduces a welcome note of comedy via his interactions with his deputy (who’s his wife) and some of the other townsfolk. He’s brought to life with immense likability by Richard Farnsworth, and I’d’ve happily watched a whole movie based around him. On the whole, the film has a somewhat underwhelming “TV movie” feel to its visual (lack of) style, but there are some nicely done bits: the scene where Annie’s coming home while Paul tries to cover up that he’s been out and about; the final fight, which is just the right mix of tense, scrappy, and believably comical.

Misery was #230 in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2020.

2023 | Weeks 3–4

Posted on February 4, 2023 by badblokebob

“Wait, did I miss Weeks 1 and 2?”, you may have asked yourself upon seeing this post pop up wherever you see my posts. And the answer is: no, I missed them, because I failed to watch a single film in either Week 1 or Week 2 of 2023. Most extraordinary.

Anyway, I wrote about that in January’s monthly review, so let’s get on with reviewing. I will note that I’ve skipped a couple of films from these weeks. Normally I only do that when I’ve already written their review and it’s long enough I feel it should be posted solo. I haven’t formally started writing about either The Girl Who Knew Too Much or Black Girl yet, but I have an inkling they’re both going to be quite long (the latter, definitely), so I’ve set them aside for the time being. Which leaves us with…

The Magician (1926)

Glass Onion (2022)

My Year of Dicks (2022)

Shotgun Wedding (2022)

The Banshees of Inisherin (2022)

The Magician

(1926)

Rex Ingram | 80 mins | Blu-ray | 1.33:1 | USA / silent

Based on W. Somerset Maugham’s novel, itself inspired by the antics of real-life occultist Aleister Crowley, The Magician concerns a mad scientist, Oliver Haddo (Paul Wegener), trying to complete an alchemical spell to create life by kidnapping a pretty virginal sculptor, Margaret (Alice Terry), so he can cut out her heart and use her blood. But why just kidnap a young woman when you can hypnotise her into marrying you? And why just kill her when you can use your hypnotic control to, er, take her gambling in Monte Carlo and make lots of money?

Wait, what?

Yeah, The Magician is kind of an odd film. Whether that’s due to Maugham’s original work and his desire to write a takedown of Crawley, or if it was the impetus of director Rex Ingram fancying a jolly around Europe with his wife, who he’d cast in the lead female role, I don’t know. Either way, the varied asides (before the eponymous Haddo even turns up, Margaret is paralysed in a sculpting accident and goes for experimental surgery to get it fixed) slow the pace, possibly to pad out what is really quite a slight story. On the other hand, there are some atmospheric sequences scatted throughout, like a demonstration of Haddo’s powers at a snake charming show, or a devilish orgy (yes, you read that right; no, it’s not at all shocking by modern standards). Plus, as if to balance out all the stuff with dark magic, Ingram finds room for dashes of humour, giving a bit of texture and stopping the film from becoming too self-serious.

However, The Magician remains most noteworthy today as a stylistic precursor to Universal’s initial run of horror movies in the early ’30s — James Whale’s Frankenstein, in particular, seems to have taken some cues from this film’s climax. It’s a fairly entertaining melodramatic fantasy-horror in its own right, but is primarily worth a look for those interested in the early development of the horror genre in Hollywood, or for silent movie fans who’d like something with a supernatural edge. General audiences are probably fine sticking to the established classics it influenced.

The Magician is the 1st film in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2023.

Glass Onion

(2022)

aka Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery

In some respects, Glass Onion delivered a movie closer to what I’d been expecting from the first Benoit Blanc mystery, Knives Out; that is to say, a proper murder mystery that is also unabashedly a comedy. Don’t get me wrong, I found Knives Out amusing — even more so with subsequent rewatches — but it has a kind of dry humour, with a wit more likely to raise a wry smile of acknowledgement than a guffaw. Glass Onion surely has such moments too, but it also has big, broad laughs that stand out more on a first viewing.

The mystery at its core remains a true Christie-style puzzler, with enough about-turn twists to keep you off balance — you can try and guess what’s going on if you want, but it’s just as much fun to be swept along for the ride — but the surrounding material is satirical almost to the point of parody. Kate Hudson’s airhead influencer is more caricature than character, for example, while there’s no doubt that Edward Norton’s billionaire is a merciless pisstake of Elon Musk. That’s annoyed certain right-wing commentators. The rest of us can just enjoy the accurate pillorying.

This overall shift in tone will, I think, dictate which of the two movies viewers prefer — i.e. whichever one hews closer to your personal taste. On the other hand, maybe you’ll be like me, and enjoy them both for their own particular quirks. I’ve already watched Knives Out three times, so I’ll have to watch Glass Onion a couple more to make any kind of fair comparison. Fortunately, I intend to.

Glass Onion placed 1st on my list of The Best Films I Saw in 2023.

My Year of Dicks

(2022)

Sara Gunnarsdóttir | 26 mins | digital (HD) | 1.78:1 | USA & Iceland / English

One of the standout moments of this year’s Oscars nominations announcement was when Riz Ahmed read out the Best Short Animation nominees, thus having to proclaim “My Year of Dicks” to the world — especially as it was immediately followed by “An Ostrich Told Me the World Is Fake and I Think I Believe It”. Only one of those is currently available to watch online, so I did.

The autobiographical story of screenwriter Pamela Ribon trying to lose her virginity in early-’90s Texas, My Year of Dicks unfolds across five vignettes, each telling a different (but connected) story of sexual misadventure. The chaptered structure gives away that this is kinda five short films strung together; but they’re also a series, with a definite through-narrative (if you’ve ever watched any narrative film before, you’ll easily spot the early supporting character who’s destined to have greater significance). So, while it doesn’t fully work as a single ‘film’ (it feels like binge-watching a series of short episodes), there is at least a reason to lump them all together as a unit.

The parts are further differentiated by employing a variety of animation styles to depict Pam’s fantasies and inner feelings. It’s an effective use of the medium to help overcome the fact that the actual stories are relatively rote “coming of age” tales. The most successful of all is the excruciating “sex talk” with Pam’s dad, in which a bombardment of animated self destruction reflects the desire for escape we’re all feeling at that point.

As a story based around female sexuality, My Year of Dicks has an air of timeliness about it. Equally, it feels like such barriers have been continually been being broken down for the past 20 or 30 years now; in which case, one does wonder if its success has as much to do with the amusement value in seeing that title on the Oscar short list as it does the film itself.

You can watch My Year of Dicks for free on Vimeo.

Shotgun Wedding

(2022)

Jennifer Lopez and Josh Duhamel are about to get married in front of their family and friends at a remote tropical resort when pirates turn up demanding a ransom. Action and hilarity ensue. How exciting the action and how hilarious the hilarity is where opinions may differ.

For my money, the end result is a perfectly serviceable star-driven action-comedy. It’s the kind of middle-of-the-road, made-for-date-night fare that people keep bemoaning we’re losing thanks to Marvel’s box office dominance, even though Hollywood actually seems to keep making them (for another example from just last year, see The Lost City), and they get fairly widely slated every time one actually comes out.

Okay, the vast majority of the film’s funniest ideas and moments were in the trailer (heck, the way the first promo was edited to make the film look like a rom-com, only to about-turn into an action movie, is probably the best gag associated with the entire project), but the film itself has held back a couple of laugh-worthy moments, and even a few plot twists. No wheels are reinvented, but it’s fine as bit of non-demanding, Friday-night, never-going-to-watch-it-again, easy viewing.

Shotgun Wedding is the 5th film in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2023.

The Banshees of Inisherin

(2022)

The new film from the writer-director of Three Billboards reunites the star pairing from his first movie, In Bruges, for an altogether different — but equally as hilarious — tale of two Irishmen. Here, Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson play lifelong friends on a small island off the coast of Ireland in the 1920s; that is until one day Gleeson decides he just doesn’t like Farrell anymore. Cue a serious of escalating encounters as Gleeson tries to get his former mate to just leave him be.

After the quite heavy, discourse-provoking narrative of Three Billboards, Banshees feels somewhat like McDonagh heading for smaller-scale, less contentious waters. Not that I think he’s running in fear — he doesn’t seem like one to avoid confrontation or provocation around his art — but I think that Banshees feels more of a piece with Bruges, in that it’s focused on just a handful of characters and their fairly everyday lives. That said, things do get a bit… outrageous; and the Irish civil war is ticking away on the mainland, suggesting at least one thematic interpretation of the friends’ fallout. That’s not to mention the subplots involving Farrell’s sister outgrowing her place on the island, or the woes of the local village idiot (played superbly by Barry Keoghan) and his abusive father, who happens to be the island’s policeman.

All of which might begin to sound a bit serious. But then, juggling life-and-death issues and hilarity is almost McDonagh’s trademark. Indeed, the film’s biggest laugh is related to the story of a woman’s death; meanwhile, its saddest moment involves not the abuse or self-mutilation of any of the human characters, but rather the fate of a beloved animal (that might read as a spoiler, but I consider it fair warning for animal lovers). In viewing, it’s consistently very funny, but creeps up on you with Stuff To Think About, too. I enjoyed it a lot; maybe not as much has In Bruges or Glass Onion (no relatable comparison there other than I watched them both this month), but enough that my score rounds up.

The Banshees of Inisherin is the 6th film in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2023.

The 100 Films Guide to Scream

Posted on October 31, 2022 by badblokebob

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.

Scream

Scream 2

Scream 3

Scre4m

Scream

Scream (2022)

Posted on October 30, 2022 by badblokebob

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.

Scre4m (2011)

Posted on October 30, 2022 by badblokebob

The 100 Films Guide to…

New Decade. New Rules.

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.”

Verdict

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.

Scream 3 (2000)

Posted on October 29, 2022 by badblokebob

The 100 Films Guide to…

The most terrifying scream
is always the last.

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))

Verdict

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.

Scream 2 (1997)

Posted on October 29, 2022 by badblokebob

The 100 Films Guide to…

Someone has taken their love of
sequels one step too far.

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))

Verdict

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.

Scream (1996)

Posted on October 28, 2022 by badblokebob

The 100 Films Guide to…

Someone has taken their love of
scary movies one step too far.

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))

Verdict

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.