"Do it if you have the guts!" AKA "New decade.... New Rules.... Better haircuts."

*****SPOILERIFIC POST ABOUT SCREAM 4 - DON'T MOAN AT ME FOR GIVING AWAY THE ENDING, ALRIGHT?**********

Those were the days.

What's the best way to chill out on a hot day? Go to the cinema. See something a bit edgy for extra chilliness.
So me 'n Stu met up for a few ciders before traipsing off to a not very good multiplex (Vue @ Romford - sticky, STICKY floors, blurry screen. Not a good combo). Our film of choice was Scream 4 (or Scre4m, according to the film makers. Never liked numbers in titles - a trend started by the equally daft-monikered 'Se7en'. Se-seven-en?).

Why did we see this film, even though we both knew it was going to be at least a bit rubbish? Because we felt like we owed it to the other three. I never saw the first installment at the cinema (which I absolutely love - watched it last week, and it still holds up as a fresh, funny film), but I did see 'Scream 2' (which runs on its own hype - it has energy, but also has too many characters that do precious little. And killing off Randy was never a good idea. As soon as he died, the humour went with him.) and 'Scream 3' (which overdoses on its own in-jokes and ends up playing like an episode of Scooby-Doo.)

Ghostface never misses a photo opportunity.

So, part 4.... Kicks off as per every installment, with the pre-title murders. Only this time it plays out like an over-stretched Monty Python joke. Meanwhile, I'm hoping that none of the other 5 or 6 people in the cinema are going to act out any Scream fantasies - this is why me and scary films don't mix. Anyway, so far, so 'hmmmm'. But then Hayden Panettiere shows up. Or rather her haircut does. Suddenly, the film improves. Some one-dimensional characters die in not particularly creative ways, and our trio of survivors are wheeled out once more. Sidney has written a book on her experiences, which to me doesn't fit her character - If she had any sense, she'd keep her head down. Dewey and Gale's marriage is as dry as a biscuit (Given the Arquette's recent split, it certainly adds a bizarre depth to their on-screen partnership). Dewey is now the sheriff, and Gale is a bored housewife.

Do I like scary movies? Did you not notice my haircut?                   

The only new characters with any spark are Charlie and Kirby, played by Rory Culkin and Hayden Panettiere: Both elevate their characters with edgy performances and choice haircuts. Seriously, the cheerleader from 'Heroes' is wearing that haircut. Anyway, more people die, Sidney never thinks to jump on the next plane to Marrakesh, the big reveal happens, and we discover that the only way to make Scream 4 fresh was to remake the original but with added role-reversal. As for their motive - They did it because they wanted to be famous? Wasn't that Mickey's reason for killing his friends in part 2? If not, it was flippin' close to it. Anyway, the film almost ends on a risky, daring note: ALMOST.

Do it if you have the guts. Or maybe not.

The film feels like some choice decisions WERE made, but then were RE-SHOT when test audiences didn't like seeing their favourites die. I'll admit, I went to see this film on the basis of 'Are they going to kill Dewey/Sid/Gale'? Even in the trailer, there's a clip of Gale - about to be knifed - saying 'Do it if you have the guts'. I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying this, but I don't remember seeing this moment in the film. And there's nothing that bugs me more than seeing stuff in trailers that isn't in the actual film itself. (Okay, other things DO bug me more... just sayin', like...). And I seem to recall seeing a still from the film with a body hanging from the ceiling - ALSO NOT IN THE FILM.

As not seen in Scream 4.

Scream 4 felt like a movie that was going to have balls - but the makers lost their nerve. Killing off the main three characters felt like the thing to do - and The Bitter Script Reader's blog makes some good points about why they should have gone through with it.

http://thebitterscriptreader.blogspot.com/2011/04/scream-4-when-core-character-needs-to.html

But to me, killing off Sid, Gale or Dewey wasn't the answer. In fact, killing off your stalwarts can sometimes have a detrimental effect to the previous entries. Think Ripley in Alien 3. Okay, ballsy, somewhat inevitable ending, but it undid a lot of good work in Alien and Aliens. When I watch those movies now, they feel a little redundant because you know in part 3, Ripley buys the farm. So offing Scream main trio would have lessened the previous entries. What, in my opinion, was required was DECENT STORYLINES.

All Dewey has to keep himself busy in Scream 4 is show up at crime scenes, or be seen driving to them at speed. Gale does even less. Their characters feel stale because they've been given nothing to do. Thats no reason to kill them off; because they've served their purpose and the writer doesn't know what to do with them. The best answer is: Don't use these characters any more - move on, get fresh blood in, so to speak. The Scream movies work best when its kids in peril whilst being smart-arses. Killing off all the new characters was not a smart move. Its always better to keep a couple of the more likable new characters alive, for sequel purposes. When the same 3 people are alive at the end of each film, it gets a little tiresome. Much like Jack Bauer in '24'. But that show wouldn't work without Jack. Scream movies CAN work without Sid, Gale and Dewey.

New Stu, New Randy, New Casey, New Tatum

By now you probably think that I hate Scream 4. I don't, actually. It was nonsense, but enjoyable, watchable  nonsense. Yes, each approaching death scene is signposted in big neon letters, but there were a few fun moments, a couple of laughs, and some great haircuts (okay, I'm stopping now). The films have always been more about mis-direction than anything else, and Scream 4 certainly offers an array of possible killers. Is it an essential addition to the series? It plays better than parts 2 and 3, but its a pity that a lot of potential went untapped. Still, it wasn't half as bad as I feared it would be. 3 out of 5.