Another original contribution by Wes Craven.

Rating: 7/10 (27 July 2003)

Wes Craven has provided audiences with original, entertaining work which has left their indelible mark on the movie world. One only has to mention 'Nightmare on Elm Street' for it to be seen that he is a director who has made a massive impact on the horror genre. Both movies had large followings and produced characters that will be long remembered. Creating characters that become icons within a genre is difficult and Craven has produced two.
Not only is it because the material is so original, it is also because Craven uses a talented cast who appeal to present day audiences. He is able to blend classic horror, that is, the bogeyman with the mask who stalks the main characters from the shadows, with the window dressing provided by photogenic actors and actresses which is obligatory for today's movies. In effect he has made horror movies appealing to mass audiences  something that only the very best could do. This has been accomplished by way of numerous means. As previously mentioned, the cast - window dressing - are usually fresh, bright, young talent. They can act. There is also a story of note. The central characters are all engrossed in conflict with each other and this is not only due to the fact that the characters have been created with a lot of personality differences, but also because they are given real dilemmas. A good example is in 'Scream' where Sydney is struggling to come to emotional terms with her mother's death and she then also has to deal with Gale Weathers who questions the legitimacy of her testimony which put away the main suspect. She also has to deal with her mother's promiscuity. This is a great basis for conflict and has a high degree of believability. In the hands of two good actresses, it enhanced the movies plot.

The suspense is of such a high level, that you could argue the fact that this movie leans more towards suspense thriller rather than horror. Although it is argumentative, I believe that this movie is still rightfully classified as horror rather than suspense since the suspense is a catalyst for the horror. The suspense sets us up for the horrific scenes. The suspense thus provides a service rather that it being the recipient of a service.
In accordance with present day adaptations of teenagers on screen, they are insightful with understandings of relationships, but not the emotional maturity to deal with them. This is well used within 'Scream' as the main characters have insight into the 'rules' of horror movies, but still put themselves at risk for the climatic sequence where they are secluded and vulnerable although probably feeling safe in numbers.
Neve Campbell is excellent as the fragile Sydney Prescott. She has an extremely fragile way of speaking which makes her more vulnerable to the villain. She aptly portrays the emotional turmoil which seems to sap her characters strength. Her ability to show the dilemma concerning her testimony towards Cotton Weary aids in the audience acceptance of her trusting of her boyfriend - would she be able to deal with another questionable accusation? Given her portrayal, we think not.
Skeet Ulrich and Matthew Lillard are equally commendable. Ulrich does not get too offbeat when his characters true intentions are shown. This keeps the transition more plausible. Lillard remains as over the top as he was before which thus keeps his character consistent and hence believable. They were the best villains of the franchise and were a healthy contributing factor to the first movies success and its reputation, earned quite correctly, as the superior.
You could not comment on 'Scream' without mentioning Kevin Williamson. He is the one who after all provided the seed for the most successful horror movie. Although he penned a few of the movies that followed on the success of this one, this is still the gem. The audience is kept guessing throughout and suspects are numerous meaning that some members of the audience may have changed their minds on several occasions as to who the villain is. Who guessed that there were two of them? Not many, of that I am very sure. There is ample plot here to keep attention as well as multi - layered conflict. This gave a new dimension to the slasher flick and redefined the genre for the 90's.
This movie is not reverential of the genre. It rather pokes fun at the 'rules' that moviemakers kept to in order to operate within the genre. Success of a movie meant that others would follow and many similar movies were produced which were mostly a paler version of the source of inspiration or source of plagiarism, as would have often been the case in order to secure sound revenue. Audiences became indoctrinated with the same ideas and thus familiarity gave birth to contempt. Although this is true, the rules' must be kept to even within the most original script. A fine balancing act needs to be struck. It is important to note that all genres have their own set of rules which must be abided by if audiences are going to identify with the movie. Notwithstanding this fact, movies made for the drive - in theatre age, the B grade support flick, generally followed these rules' without much attention to plot and were therefore ridiculed. 'Scream' makes the most of this. It could have so easily fell into the spoof movie trap, but does not thus securing its place in movie history. Of more importance, it reignited the genre which had long been without a leading torch. The last one was Elm Street' and this is not coincidence that the director was Wes Craven. He is that good.