We'll clearly need to get a chat thread going for that. They may have kept critics at bay, but they cannot keep Reveal readers from speaking the truth!
(I see it at 4, as a guy who would have a hard time determining whether he loves dinosaurs or film more I really hope I'm entertained)
Review of Scream tie into larger discussion about how creatively bankrupt meta commentary is. Just to pick one example, first Austin Powers was terrific sendup/homage to Bond movies, but that trick only work once, so third Austin Powers was flailing sendup/homage to Austin Powers movies.
Legacyquels only work if A) original has enough depth to keep us invested, and B) sequel break new ground and push story forward. But one could argue Scream 2 was already legacyquel, as you not can start franchise based as self-aware commentary on slasher movies and then un-ring that bell in future installments. You can only just ring same bell over and over, and it very hard to find interesting ways to do that.
CREED is good. (So is CREED II. CREED III is fine.) I still like THE FORCE AWAKENS, though it's tainted a bit by RISE OF SKYWALKER. (Oh, those are the answers you want to provide for all the intriguing questions you raised?) COLOR OF MONEY is the OG legacyquel, isn't it?
Force Awakens and Rise of Skywalker perfect case studies on what to do and not to with legacyquel.
Me know people like to trash Force Awakens, but it does masterful job of centering new characters, casting legacy characters in new light, reminding us of what we love about franchise, but making nostalgia feel like shared history between characters and not shared history between audience and their wallets.
Whereas Rise does exact opposite of that. It basically toss aside new story and new characters' concerns in favor of "Hey! Remember Emperor?!? Remember Death Star?!? Remember Lando?!? ♫For no reason here's Apu.... Those were the daaaaays!!!♫"
I have no idea what this Rise of Skywalker film is, we all know Star Wars ended with broom boy. They tried to make a film after that, but unfortunately everything was washed away in a terrible, terrible flood.
Your mileage may vary on these, but I think Mission Impossible didn't really exist as a coherent franchise until 3 and 4 established an identity for the series, which has been consistently excellent since then.
4 has since been overshadowed by the McQuarrie films (justifiably), but I don't think it can be overstated how much the staging and stunt work of that film informed the movies that followed.
I caught Scream VI at a screening the other night and all the positive reviews the next morning were a shock. Thank goodness for some sanity here, Scott. The opening sequence had me hoping for something subversive but it doesn’t take long for it to get drunk on its own mythology. It even copped out on living up to its own explicitly stated rules.
As with previous Screams, the sheer joy of watching the original in 1996 will still propel me to, by now grudgingly, watch this one too as I have with all the others.
Nobody will ever read this, but gotta say I enjoyed 6 a lot more than 5, even if it's impossible to end one of these movies now that the whole thing is so convoluted. Really enjoy the cast bouncing off each other, and the sequence on the subway train(s) was really good, almost totally silent.
About the Farrelly's - er, Brothers Farrelly - historically featuring disabled people in supporting roles: I do wish they had gotten on this sooner, for There's Something About Mary, when they cast typical actor W. Earl Brown (aka "Dan Dority", IYKYK) as Warren. Of course I love Brown, and even despite the Brett Favre of it all, TSAM might still hold up today. But they saved their representation for their lesser films by and by, including by the sounds of it, Champions.
Champions is...124 minutes? This seems like the type of movie that would be decent 90-minute charmer that could get played on HBO post-release (back in the days when cable was king!). A few weeks ago, I watched The Marx Brothers' Horsefeathers with my 10-year-old. It's 68 minutes long! I guess with today's ticket prices, maybe moviegoers want more, but the length of a lot of feature films is a deterrent for me.
Um where's the review for Adam Driver and Dinosaurs. Don't let us down, guys
I just realized how much I need the IV hate-watch review of 65.
We'd have jumped on it, but it wasn't screened for us!
Well I'm seeing it in MD tomorrow. If you wanna come down, I'll give you some of my popcorn and provide potential bon mots for the review
Let me Waze it and get back to you.
We'll clearly need to get a chat thread going for that. They may have kept critics at bay, but they cannot keep Reveal readers from speaking the truth!
(I see it at 4, as a guy who would have a hard time determining whether he loves dinosaurs or film more I really hope I'm entertained)
Review of Scream tie into larger discussion about how creatively bankrupt meta commentary is. Just to pick one example, first Austin Powers was terrific sendup/homage to Bond movies, but that trick only work once, so third Austin Powers was flailing sendup/homage to Austin Powers movies.
Legacyquels only work if A) original has enough depth to keep us invested, and B) sequel break new ground and push story forward. But one could argue Scream 2 was already legacyquel, as you not can start franchise based as self-aware commentary on slasher movies and then un-ring that bell in future installments. You can only just ring same bell over and over, and it very hard to find interesting ways to do that.
is there an actual example of a legacyquel that is Good?
Emmanuelle. She even went to space.
CREED is good. (So is CREED II. CREED III is fine.) I still like THE FORCE AWAKENS, though it's tainted a bit by RISE OF SKYWALKER. (Oh, those are the answers you want to provide for all the intriguing questions you raised?) COLOR OF MONEY is the OG legacyquel, isn't it?
Force Awakens and Rise of Skywalker perfect case studies on what to do and not to with legacyquel.
Me know people like to trash Force Awakens, but it does masterful job of centering new characters, casting legacy characters in new light, reminding us of what we love about franchise, but making nostalgia feel like shared history between characters and not shared history between audience and their wallets.
Whereas Rise does exact opposite of that. It basically toss aside new story and new characters' concerns in favor of "Hey! Remember Emperor?!? Remember Death Star?!? Remember Lando?!? ♫For no reason here's Apu.... Those were the daaaaays!!!♫"
I have no idea what this Rise of Skywalker film is, we all know Star Wars ended with broom boy. They tried to make a film after that, but unfortunately everything was washed away in a terrible, terrible flood.
J.J. Abrams died on the way back to his home planet
Your mileage may vary on these, but I think Mission Impossible didn't really exist as a coherent franchise until 3 and 4 established an identity for the series, which has been consistently excellent since then.
4 has since been overshadowed by the McQuarrie films (justifiably), but I don't think it can be overstated how much the staging and stunt work of that film informed the movies that followed.
If the Scream franchise is 27(!), maybe it’s time for it to join the 27 Club and quietly choke to death on its metaness.
I caught Scream VI at a screening the other night and all the positive reviews the next morning were a shock. Thank goodness for some sanity here, Scott. The opening sequence had me hoping for something subversive but it doesn’t take long for it to get drunk on its own mythology. It even copped out on living up to its own explicitly stated rules.
My favourite bit of window dressing was the blink and you’ll miss it shout-out to Abe Snake, which is real trainspotting for Wes Craven completists
I guess the one Scr6am question I have (and thrown into Rot13 for spoilers):
Ab bar erpbtavmrq Evpuvr'f qnq, oebgure be fvfgre?
I have an entire laundry list of “this makes no sense” complaints.
Jul qvq Rguna erfphr Zvaql?
Jul qbrf Punq fnl “vg’f bx, fur’f jvgu Rguna” orsber trggvat gur grkg fnlvat fur’f jvgu Rguna?
Jul frg “ab bar vf fnsr, abg gur pber pnfg be yrtnpl punenpgref” vs lbh’ir pyrneyl fvtarq nyy bs gurz gb zhygv-svyz qrnyf?
Jul qbrfa’g Fnz’f gurencvfg xabj nalguvat nobhg ure uvfgbel ng nyy?
Jul qbrf rirelbar unir 1000 uvg cbvagf? “Vg’f svar, V whfg tbg fgnoorq va gur thgf, abguvat gb jbeel nobhg.”
Gurfr ner nyy eurgbevpny dhrfgvbaf naq V'z ba obneq jvgu nyy bs gurz, rfcrpvnyyl gur 1000 uvg cbvagf guvat. Jung qbrf vg gnxr gb qvr va gurfr zbivrf? Uhznaf ner abg *gung* erfvyvrag.
Nyfb, fvapr jr'er urer va guvf rapelcgvat fvgr:
Qevax Zber Binygvar.
The one thing I'll always remember from the first one is Matthew Lillard's delivery of "I think you went a little too deep!"
As with previous Screams, the sheer joy of watching the original in 1996 will still propel me to, by now grudgingly, watch this one too as I have with all the others.
Nobody will ever read this, but gotta say I enjoyed 6 a lot more than 5, even if it's impossible to end one of these movies now that the whole thing is so convoluted. Really enjoy the cast bouncing off each other, and the sequence on the subway train(s) was really good, almost totally silent.
About the Farrelly's - er, Brothers Farrelly - historically featuring disabled people in supporting roles: I do wish they had gotten on this sooner, for There's Something About Mary, when they cast typical actor W. Earl Brown (aka "Dan Dority", IYKYK) as Warren. Of course I love Brown, and even despite the Brett Favre of it all, TSAM might still hold up today. But they saved their representation for their lesser films by and by, including by the sounds of it, Champions.
Champions is...124 minutes? This seems like the type of movie that would be decent 90-minute charmer that could get played on HBO post-release (back in the days when cable was king!). A few weeks ago, I watched The Marx Brothers' Horsefeathers with my 10-year-old. It's 68 minutes long! I guess with today's ticket prices, maybe moviegoers want more, but the length of a lot of feature films is a deterrent for me.