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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I guess the one Scr6am question I have (and thrown into Rot13 for spoilers):
Ab bar erpbtavmrq Evpuvr'f qnq, oebgure be fvfgre?
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.
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.