Scream 7 (4 Stars)

A new Scream film! I couldn't wait. I had to go see it on the first day.

The cinema was less than a quarter full. I expected more people. I'd read that based on advance ticket sales "Scream 7" will probably the most successful film in the series so far. Does it deserve such success? That's a difficult question to answer. It's a good film, but I wouldn't rate it as highly as the first three films.

I'll only give two spoilers:

1. There's no after-credits scene.

2. There's a mid-credits scene with bloopers.

Scream 3 (5 Stars)

Scream 3 (2000) – When the Horror Becomes Hollywood

By the time Scream 3 arrived, the slasher genre had already eaten itself alive through imitation, and Wes Craven knew it. So instead of pretending to resurrect something fresh, he and writer Ehren Kruger (standing in for original scribe Kevin Williamson) leaned even further into Scream's defining trick: horror that knows it's horror. The result is a film that isn't just about killing the survivors of Scream 2, it's about killing the franchise itself, or at least dissecting it on the operating table.

Set against the backdrop of Stab 3, the in-universe film series inspired by the original Woodsboro murders, Scream 3 folds in on itself until the line between fiction and reality all but disappears. Every scene is both a murder sequence and a movie scene, a set within a set. Characters walk through Hollywood replicas of their own traumatic pasts, and Ghostface's violence becomes a twisted form of direction. If Scream was about how horror movies shape behavior, Scream 3 is about how the machinery of Hollywood rewrites the truth.

This is where the film's “rules of the trilogy” come into play, courtesy of Randy's posthumous videotape cameo – a highlight of the film and a meta masterstroke. He reminds the survivors (and us) that in the final act of a trilogy:

The past comes back to haunt you.

Secrets are revealed.

The killer's powers reach “superhuman” proportions.

Craven dutifully checks these boxes: hidden parentage, retconned motives, and a villain who practically embodies the ghost of franchise lore. The meta-commentary doubles as catharsis; what began as parody of slasher tropes becomes a self-portrait of Hollywood's own cyclical storytelling and moral amnesia.

Still, Scream 3 isn't as sharp or as sly as its predecessors. The absence of Williamson's script shows in the pacing and dialogue; the balance between horror and satire tips toward the latter. It's more playful than scary, more commentary than carnage. But as a metafilm, it's fascinating; a horror movie about the impossibility of ending a horror movie.

In the end, Scream 3 doesn't just close a trilogy; it closes a loop between artifice and authenticity. By the time the credits roll, we've watched not only a film about films but a film haunted by its own franchise DNA–a slasher turned séance.

Though generally considered the weakest film in the trilogy, Scream 3 has hordes of fans who praise it and attribute it cult status. It stands as a fittingly self-referential finale – a meta-horror about the rules, myths, and monsters that movies themselves create.

Success Rate:  + 2.1

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk

Scream 2 (5 Stars)

Scream 2 – The Horror Sequel that Watches Itself Watching You

When Wes Craven released Scream in 1996, it revived the slasher genre by dissecting it – both loving and mocking its clichés. Its sequel, Scream 2, takes that self-reflexive impulse and amplifies it, becoming not only a horror film about horror films, but a horror sequel about the inevitability and predictability of sequels. It's a movie obsessed with its own status as cinema – what it means to depict violence, to consume it and to perform it again and again under the guise of entertainment.

The Meta of the Meta: Watching the Movie Within the Movie

The opening scene of Scream 2 is one of the most audacious metafilm gestures in mainstream horror. Set in a packed cinema showing Stab – a film based on the murders from the first Scream – we are thrust into a spectacle of spectatorship. The audience within the film, masked and gleeful, mirrors the audience watching Scream 2 in real life. Craven transforms the theatre into a mirror maze: viewers watching viewers watching murder as entertainment.

The scene literalises horror's self-awareness while critiquing its consumption. The boundaries between fiction and reality collapse in real time. When Jada Pinkett's character, Maureen Evans, is stabbed to death amid cheering crowds who think it's part of the show, Craven forces us to confront our complicity as horror audiences – our appetite for stylized death and our comfort with seeing certain bodies die first.

Race and the Periphery of the Frame

That opening sequence also foregrounds Scream 2's uneasy engagement with race. The choice to feature two black characters (Jada Pinkett and Omar Epps) in the prologue is not incidental – it's a deliberate metatextual gesture. Their dialogue critiques the horror genre's historical whiteness: Maureen complains that "Black people always get killed first", voicing a long-standing fan frustration and cultural truth about slasher films.

But Craven's choice is double-edged. By having them die in the very next moments, the film acknowledges that critique yet also reproduces it. It's both a self-aware nod and a failure of imagination – a knowing wink that doesn't save the characters from the same fate. This recursive irony is precisely what defines Scream 2's relationship to race: it sees the problem clearly but remains unable (or unwilling) to step outside the structure it mocks.

Beyond the opening, the film reverts to a predominantly white cast, situating its story in a college environment coded as upper-middle-class and implicitly white. The only black characters who speak meaningfully are relegated to brief, marginal roles. Scream 2 thus reflects a broader pattern of 1990's Hollywood diversity: inclusion through commentary, not transformation.

In other words, Scream 2 knows it's participating in exclusion, and calls attention to that fact, but still participates.

The Meta Frame as Social Commentary

What keeps Scream 2 so compelling, however, is that its metafilm sensibility extends beyond just genre rules; it becomes a mode of cultural reflection. The film within the film (Stab) mirrors how the media capitalises on real violence, transforming trauma into spectacle. For Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), the survivor of the original film, the existence of Stab turns her pain into entertainment. She's forced to watch her own trauma fictionalised and sold – a meta-commentary on how real-life suffering, especially women's suffering, is endlessly recycled for cultural consumption.

This idea connects back to the racial dynamic of the opening: both Maureen and Sidney are victims of a system that aestheticises violence differently depending on who's watching. The Stab audience cheers Maureen's death; the media profits from Sidney's survival. Both are products in the machinery of spectacle.

Conclusion: Self-Aware but Not Self-Transcendent

Scream 2 remains one of the sharpest horror sequels ever made precisely because it knows it cannot escape its own reflection. It's trapped in the feedback loop of representation: critiquing what it reproduces, reproducing what it critiques. Its metafilm brilliance lies in this tension: the recognition that awareness alone doesn't equate to change.

When Jada Pinkett's Maureen dies screaming in a theatre full of spectators who mistake it for performance, Scream 2 asks us a haunting question: if horror knows it's problematic, and we know that it knows, why do we keep watching?

Success Rate:  + 5.2

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk

Scream (5 Stars)

Revitalising the Teen Slasher and Reimagining the Victim

By the mid-1990's, the American slasher film seemed creatively exhausted. After the explosive success of Halloween (1978) and Friday the 13th (1980), the genre descended into formula: interchangeable masked killers, one-dimensional teenage victims and endless sequels that dulled the impact of the original innovations. The archetypes – the "final girl", the sexually active couple, the killer's traumatic backstory – had become so familiar that they no longer provoked fear. Into this stagnation entered Wes Craven's Scream (1996), a film that not only revitalised the teen slasher but also transformed the role and meaning of the victim. Through its self-aware script, complex characters and layered treatment of violence, Scream resurrected a dying form by allowing both its characters and its audience to understand and question the very rules that had once defined it.

Reviving the Rules

Kevin Williamson's screenplay for Scream is built on the premise that its characters are already fluent in horror. They know the "rules" of the slasher film – never have sex, never drink, never say "I'll be right back" – and they recite them with a mix of irony and affection. Yet, despite this awareness, they are still drawn inexorably into the same deadly pattern. This self-referential structure revitalised the genre by acknowledging its clichés while using them to generate new forms of tension.

Director Wes Craven, whose earlier "A Nightmare on Elm Street" (1984) helped shape the original slasher boom, uses this meta-approach not as parody but as reanimation. He brings intelligence and energy back to the genre by blending comedy with genuine horror. The film's opening sequence, in which Drew Barrymore's Casey Becker is terrorised over the phone, encapsulates this new sensibility: the scene references "Halloween" and "When a Stranger Calls", but its execution is sharp, cruel and emotionally devastating. The audience expects irony but gets terror. In killing off its biggest star within the first ten minutes, Scream announces that its rules will not be predictable and that its victims will matter.

The Significance of Each Victim

One of the ways Scream revitalises the slasher is through the individualisation of its victims. Rather than treating them as disposable archetypes, Craven and Williamson give each death emotional and thematic significance, transforming what was once mechanical slaughter into commentary on horror itself.

Casey Becker, the opening victim, is the ultimate meta-casualty. Her playful conversation about favourite horror movies turns fatal when her knowledge fails to save her. Her death represents the futility of media literacy in the face of real violence. Casey's murder re-establishes fear in a genre that had become predictable; it shocks precisely because it violates expectation. The visceral brutality of her death signals a return to the raw horror that the 1980's sequels had diluted, while simultaneously marking the death of the passive horror audience.

Principal Himbry, stabbed in his office, serves as a symbolic victim of adult authority's impotence. His death, though played partly for dark humour, underscores how the adults in Scream are powerless to protect their students. The slasher's focus shifts firmly to the teenage sphere; adults are spectators, not saviours.

Tatum Riley, Sidney Prescott's best friend, embodies the genre's gender politics. Smart, witty and assertive, Tatum might in earlier slashers have been reduced to the "promiscuous victim" stereotype. Yet Scream complicates this by making her death tragic rather than moralistic. Killed in a garage door – a grotesque mixture of humour and horror – her death highlights the absurdity of slasher violence and the audience's uneasy complicity in enjoying it. Craven's staging transforms what could have been a punishment for sexuality into a critique of the genre's misogynistic conventions.

Kenny the Cameraman, representing the voyeuristic media, dies because of his proximity to spectacle. His murder outside the van literalises the film's central anxiety about watching: the line between observer and participant collapses. In Scream, to watch horror is to risk becoming part of it.

The final victims, Stu Macher and Billy Loomis, invert the genre's traditional moral dichotomy. They are not supernatural monsters but horror fans turned murderers, consciously modelling themselves on cinematic killers. Their revelation exposes Scream's central paradox: that violence in the media and violence in life are entwined in a cycle of imitation. The killers' self-awareness reflects the audience's own, implicating viewers in the very horror they consume.

The Final Girl Reimagined

At the centre of this landscape of victims stands Sidney Prescott, the quintessential yet redefined "final girl". Unlike her predecessors, Sidney is acutely aware of the horror narrative she inhabits. Her trauma – rooted in her mother's murder and the town's moral hypocrisy – gives her depth and resilience. When she eventually turns the camera on her attackers, reversing the gaze of the slasher, Sidney symbolically reclaims agency for the genre's victims. Her survival feels earned, not formulaic.

Through Sidney, Scream revitalises not just the slasher's structure but its emotional core. She is not a mere survivor but a participant in the film's deconstruction of horror, embodying both the genre's past and its future.

Cultural and Genre Legacy

The success of Scream was immediate and transformative. It rejuvenated box offices, inspired imitators like "I Know What You Did Last Summer" (1997) and "Urban Legend" (1998), and brought horror back into mainstream teen culture. More importantly, it made the slasher self-conscious without making it sterile. By turning victims into characters with symbolic weight, Scream restored emotional investment to a genre that had become hollow spectacle.

Each victim's death carries meaning – about youth, media, sexuality and spectatorship – so that the film becomes both a critique and a celebration of horror. In recognising the constructedness of its world, Scream paradoxically makes that world feel more real, its violence more shocking, and its victims more human.

Conclusion

Scream revitalised the teen slasher genre by reintroducing intelligence, emotional depth and cultural self-awareness. Its victims are not interchangeable bodies but reflections of the genre's own anxieties: about spectatorship, morality and identity. By giving meaning to each death, Scream transforms the mechanics of horror into a meta-narrative about the genre's rebirth.

Nearly thirty years later, Scream remains the definitive bridge between the classical slasher and the postmodern horror film; a blood-soaked love letter to the genre that refused to die.

Success Rate:  + 10.4

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk

Scream 2022 (5 Stars)

There's some confusion about the name of this film. When it was released in the cinemas it was called "Scream", the same name as the original film, giving the impression that it was a reboot. On the Blu-ray disc I'm holding in my hand it's called "Scream 2022". But most fans call the film "Scream 5". That would be the most logical name.

The film isn't a reboot. It continues from the original films. To be precise, it continues from the original trilogy, without denying the fourth film. "Scream 3" was made in 2000, and "Scream 4" was made in 2011. The on-screen timeline is the same as the real time between the film releases. 22 years has gone by since the events of "Scream 3".

Gale Weathers and Dewey are now divorced, even though it's made clear that they still love one another. Dewey couldn't keep up with her. They moved to New York, which was a living Hell for the boy from a small town. He left her in the middle of the night. He was really leaving the city, not her, but it was a poor thing for him to walk out and let her wake up in the morning in an empty bed.

Dewey is falling apart. He lives alone in a shabby trailer. He's stopped shaving. His only pleasure in life is watching Gale on the "Good Morning" television show.

In all four films Dewey has been stabbed, but he survived. It's been a standard trope of the series. This time he's stabbed again, but he doesn't get up. Without Gale, what does he have to live for?

Farewell, Dewey.

Success Rate:  + 3.8

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Scream 4 (4½ Stars)

What's happened with Gale Weathers and her husband Dwight Riley, nicknamed Dewey? At the end of the last film they were so happy. Whenever we see them together in "Scream 4" they're arguing. It must be tough when a sheriff is married to an investigative reporter. He says something is police business, but she insists on knowing about it because reporters need to know everything. They could discuss it calmly behind closed doors, but she has to humiliate him in public by calling him Sheriff Dewey.

As it turns out, Sheriff Riley (to give him his correct title) needs his wife's assistance. She shows more skill than him in tracking down the new killer wearing the Ghostface mask.

"Scream 4" was made 11 years after "Scream 3". Was it necessary? The story could have been left to rest after the first three films neatly tied up the trilogy. It was the studios that put pressure on Wes Craven to make a fourth film. Decisions are made by money. "Scream 4" should have been the first film in a second trilogy, but it never got that far, for several reasons. It made a profit, but it was less successful than expected. It was produced by the Weinstein Company, which ceased operating due to the sex scandals surrounding Harvey Weinstein. But the main reason was the death of the director, Wes Craven. The Scream franchise couldn't continue without him.

What I like about this film is the return to a predominantly teenage cast. It has the atmosphere of the first film. And the high school students deal with a crisis in the same way: "There's a killer in town? Let's have a party".

Success Rate:  + 0.4

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Scream 3 (5 Stars)

After the hot passion in the last film, you might think that Gale Weathers and Dewey are an item.

But Gale was obviously too much for him, so he's settled tor Jennifer Jolie, the actress who plays Gale Weathers in the Stab films. (In case you don't know, the Stab films are the Scream films within the films. It all gets very meta). Dewey would rather have a fake Gale than no Gale at all.

But a few deaths later, Dewey finds his way back to the real Gale. He doesn't have much choice, now that the fake Gale is dead. Dewey finally proposes to her. So they live happily ever after? Wait till the next film to find out.

Why is it that Dewey always look scared when Gale kisses him.

The first three films go through three phases in Sidney Prescott's life:

"Scream" shows Sidney and her friends as high school teenagers.

"Scream 2" shows Sidney and her friends as college students.

"Scream 3" shows Sidney as a young working adult. She's become a recluse and doesn't have any friends.

Success Rate:  + 2.1

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk

Scream 2 (5 Stars)

Gale Weathers and Dewey get off to a rough start in "Scream 2". Dewey accuses Gale of exploiting Sidney by writing a book about her mother's murder.

But they can't resist one another. An hour later they enjoy their first kiss.

Within minutes Gale is all over him. She's the apex predator. When she wants a man she takes him, and the small town policeman is unable to resist.

That's as far as they get. There's a killer in the next room watching them.

Wait for the next film to see how the romance continues.

Success Rate:  + 5.2

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk

Scream (5 Stars)

As I've recently said, my son Benjamin prefers horror films over all other genres. I have nothing against horror films, but I don't want to watch only horror films for the two weeks that he's visiting me. I tried to calm things down with "Annette" and "White Noise" yesterday, but after the second film he insisted on watching a horror film today. I suggested watching the six Scream films, and he immediately agreed. It's been years since he last watched them. I suggested watching two films a day for three days, but this morning he said he wants to watch three films a day. Why not? They're great films.

The only problem with watching so many films is that I won't have enough time and energy left to write lengthy reviews. I'll keep to a minimum. If you're not happy, you can find my previous, more detailed reviews in my alphabetical list of posts.

 I'll just point out one thing that I didn't mention in my previous reviews. The Scream films feature an on-off relationship between Deputy Dwight Riley (nicknamed Dewey) and the news reporter Gale Weathers. She has a way with words. When she first meets him she tells him that he looks young. Dewey takes it as a compliment, but then she adds that he doesn't look a day over 12.

Way back in 2015 I created my first animated GIF using Photoshop. It was fun, but I never did it again. It's a lot of tedious work, and the resulting animation is huge. There are tools for creating GIFs automatically, if I ever want to make one again. Here's my GIF showing Rose McGowan going down to a chilly cellar. Click on the picture to see everything moving.

Success Rate:  + 10.4

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk

Never Been Kissed (4 Stars)

This is the third film in my high school movie marathon. It's also one of the films that features a high school prom. Josie Geller, who's never been kissed, is the prom queen dancing with the prom king, Guy Perkins. Their lips are close, so can we expect a kiss? Not this time. She's 25, but he's only 17. That wouldn't be a problem in England, Germany or anywhere in the world apart from America. In America 17 is considered underage, which is so strange in my eyes. You can see that they both want to kiss as their bodies sway in time with the music. To be precise, they're swaying to "Erase/Rewind" by the Cardigans.

So what's a 25-year-old woman doing at a high school prom? Josie works for the Chicago Sun-Times as a copy editor. I've watched the film a few times, but today is the first time I've looked up what a copy editor is. According to Wikipedia, "Copy editing is the process of revising written material to improve readability and fitness, as well as ensuring that a text is free of grammatical and factual errors". To me that sounds like proofreading, but there's a subtle difference which was important in the pre-digital age of newspapers. Copy editing corrects what a person has written. Proof reading looks for errors after the text has been typeset. To explain it more clearly, a copy editor would correct spelling mistakes, whereas a proof-reader would notice mistyped words.

Josie is the perfect person for the job. She's precise and pedantic. When talking to her colleagues she corrects what they say. She can't turn herself off. It goes further than just words. She has to keep adjusting the sign on her door when it's not perfectly straight.

But Josie has never been kissed. It's understandable with her attitude. Kisses are wet and messy. She's waiting for the perfect moment with the perfect man. I hate to break the news to her, but there's no such thing as a perfect man.

Despite having the perfect job for her personality, Josie wants to climb up the corporate ladder by becoming a journalist. She's finally given an assignment. Her boss wants an investigative report on high schools, so Josie has to pretend she's 17 and enrol at South Glen South High School. That's a mouthful. It's a fictional school, so they could have come up with something snappier.

The investigation is about school in general, but it's only a few weeks before the prom, so that's what all the kids are talking about. Just one question though: do they really rate proms? Out of the 20,000 high schools in America, how does anyone know which has the best prom? Photos? Videos?

The year is 1999, so the prom's theme is the Millennium. Surprise, surprise, another local high school has already picked the theme, so they change it to "Famous couples through history".

Josie can get away with being a high school kid. She looks young. I could have got away with it as well. On my 23rd birthday I was waiting at Stuttgart train station for a friend. I got into a conversation with some men at a kiosk, and I told them it was my birthday. They didn't believe I was 23. They said I looked like I was 16. But that was a long time ago. Nobody thinks I'm 16 any more.

But what's Josie doing? In her real high school years she was an outsider, and she wants to fit in this time. But how can she fit in wearing clothes like that? She looks like a throwback to the 1950's.

This is more typical high school fashion. Jessica Alba looks disgusted. In England it wouldn't have been a problem. Everyone wears the same uniform. It's better that way. School shouldn't be used for a fashion show.

This is a slight improvement. Now she looks like a 1960's housewife.

But the teacher notices her. It's not just about Josie's looks. He's impressed by her knowledge of Shakespeare. The class is studying "As You Like It", a play that I've never read. I have the complete works of Shakespeare on my Kindle, so I have no excuse. Sam Coulson, the English teacher, is genuinely attracted to Josie, but she's off-limits because she's only 17.

Josie would take issue with the last paragraph. I learnt in school that no sentence should begin with the word "But". I agree, and when I right serious documents I keep to the rule, but not in my blog. I try to keep a colloquial style, and it's common to begin sentences with "But" when we talk. But Josie would criticise that as well. Oops, I did it again!

They meet by accident at a fairground, and they ride the Ferris Wheel together. Now she's finally clothed more naturally.

There's only one way Josie can become popular in school. Her older brother Rob also pretends to be 17 and enrols in her school. He's naturally popular, and by talking positively about Josie he swings the others in her favour. But does he look 17? Not really. I don't know how old Rob was supposed to be, but David Arquette was 28 when he appeared in the film, and he looks nothing like a teenager.

Riding the wave of popularity, she's invited to the prom by Guy Perkins, the boy that all the girls want. They're dressed as Orlando and Rosalind from "As You Like It".

Not everyone takes the prom theme so seriously. The school's Mean Girls look like Three Shades of Barbie. Where's Ken when you need him?

Fast forward to the spoilers. Josie's article is a success, and she finally gets kissed by Sam Coulson. That's not much of a spoiler, is it? Everyone knew they would get together in the end.

This was the first film made by James Franco. He only appears briefly, speaking a few lines, so it's easy to miss him. He isn't named in the film, but the credits list him as Jason. He's an actor I like a lot. His breakthrough was as Harry Osborn in "Spider-Man", three years later, but in my eyes he'll always be a B-Movie actor. That's what he does, and he's good at it.

Would I have kissed Josie? In school or at work? She's pretty, but she's not the first girl who would have attracted my attention.

Octavia Spencer is more my type. She was 29 when she made "Never Been Kissed", and she looks even more beautiful now. She's beautiful and she's talented. She's been nominated for three Academy Awards, of which she won one.

I've read that "Never Been Kissed" is considered a cult film. I'm in urgent need of finding the definition of cult film.

Success Rate:  + 1.4

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk

Scream 4 (4½ Stars)

Yes, I know I'm watching the Scream films out of order. I watched "Scream 2022" aka "Scream 5" yesterday, and now I'm watching "Scream 4". I'd like to blame my son Benjamin, but it's really my own fault. He doesn't force me to watch any film. Next time I watch them, I'll watch all five films in order, probably in March before the sixth film arrives in the cinema. I also intend to make notes with a complete kill list. I know I've watched the films repeatedly, but I can't even name the character played by Drew Barrymore in the first film. I know there are websites that already list the information, but it's more fun to do it myself. I'll just check the websites afterwards to see if I've made any mistakes.

One thing I can say now is that that "Scream 2022" is an improvement over "Scream 4". It's obvious when watching them after one another, even in the wrong order.

I just hope that the new films will be made in quick succession, one a year. Keep up the excitement. The meta aspects and the self-criticism in the last two films especially are a good excuse for any weakening as the series continues. I'll comment further on this after seeing the sixth film in the cinema.

Success Rate:  + 0.4

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Scream (2022) (5 Stars)

Sometimes I'm disorganised. I bought this Blu-ray while I was on holiday in England, and I wanted to watch it after "Scream 4". Now my son Benjamin is staying with me over Christmas and New Year, and he wanted to watch the film. So I'm watching it out of sequence. Even worse, I didn't have time to read my original review before watching it. Today I thought of what I wanted to write while watching it, but guess what? It's exactly what I wrote last time.

So I'll leave you here without a review. I can recommend "Scream 2022", "Scream 5", or whatever you want to call it. There will be a sixth film in the series in March, probably called "Scream 2023". I welcome it. In order to be successful, the films need to appear in yearly intervals, not once every 11 years.

Success Rate:  + 3.8

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Scream (2022) (4½ Stars)

It seems like every eleven years there's a new Scream film. That's a long interval. It must be a fight to persuade the actors to return from the early films. They've moved on, and maybe they're afraid of being upstaged by the new younger cast members. The Scream films are teen films. They always have been. The older cast members aren't just old enough to be their parents, in some cases they're old enough to be their grandparents.

Now there's a fifth film, which isn't called "Scream 5", it's simply "Scream". That made me groan when I first heard about it. A reboot? We don't need a reboot. Luckily, it isn't. It's a continuation of the earlier films, so it's effectively "Scream 5", in all but name. In some countries it's called "Scream 5", and I'll make it easier for my by calling it "Scream 5" in the rest of this review.

Once more, the metafilm aspect is strong. The characters repeatedly talk about the Stab films, which are the in-film versions of the Scream films. There have been more films over the years, seven Stab films in total. Now an eighth film is in production, and it won't be called "Stab 8", it'll be called "Stab". Ah ha! When the characters talk about "Stab 8" they're answering all the possible criticisms of "Scream 5". This is something I'll have to discuss in detail when I have the film on Blu-ray. I don't want to misquote them.

Has anyone else noticed that Neve Campbell and Courteney Cox are looking more similar as they get older? Or maybe it's deliberate. Their hair might have been styled the same to give the viewer the impression that Sidney Prescott and Gale Weathers are growing together.

This is a very good film. It's better than "Scream 4", even though I've given it the same rating. Maybe it deserves more. Despite the abundance of new technology, "Scream 5" is a return to the franchise's roots. There's more comedy than in "Scream 4", which is welcome. The violence is also more explicit. What I miss in the new film is the lack of music. Yes, there are songs playing, but the music isn't as overpowering as in the previous films. I need to watch "Scream 4" and "Scream 5" back to back to make a better comparison.

Scream 2 (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #60

"Scream 2" was  made in 1997, only a year after "Scream". Was a sequel even possible? The serial killer died at the end of the first film. That's become the style of the Scream franchise. In every film the killer dies, and in the next film another person puts on the Ghostface mask and continues his work. This is usually considered copycat killing, but in the case of the Scream films it's more. The new killers aren't just imitating the ones who went before, they're becoming the killer.

In "Scream 2" the metafilm aspect begins. A film called "Stab" is being shown. It's based on a book written about the events in "Scream". Excerpts of "Stab" are shown in the cinema which repeat the dialogue from "Scream" with new actors. This is a very intelligent story, and it's part of what makes "Scream 2" such a good film.

"Scream 2" takes place in an unnamed town in Ohio, far away from Woodsboro, California. That's more than 2000 miles away, but the cast members of the original film are all gathered in the new location. Sidney Prescott and Randy Meeks are studying in Windsor College. The others flock to the town when the first murders take place. Some want to be close to Sidney to help her, while others, such as the reporter Gale Weathers, see it as a publicity opportunity.

Visitors of the sneak preview are given Ghostface costumes, which many immediately put on. I hope the masks were more comfortable than the one I bought. No, I'm not a serial killer. I bought a Ghostface outfit as a Halloween costume in 2014. The cloak itself was very comfortable, but the mask was so clammy that I couldn't wear it for more than five minutes at a time.

This is me threatening a young lady. She was supposed to scream, but she knew me too well to be frightened of me. I don't have it in me to be a serial killer.

Maybe the problem is just that my pink-haired friend isn't a good actress. I'm sure Neve Campbell wasn't really scared on the film set, but she convincingly expressed fear.

So did Sarah Michelle Gellar. It's a shame she was killed so early in the film. I would like to have seen more of her in the sequels.

Liev Screiber is an outstanding actor. He'd already appeared in other films, including a non-speaking cameo in "Scream", but this was his breakthrough role.

While not as important in film history as "Scream", I consider "Scream 2" to be almost as good as "Scream". I've reflected this by putting them side by side in my top films list. I've chosen not to include "Scream 3" in my list. I'll watch it again later this year to decide whether it was a mistake.

Success Rate:  + 5.2

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk