Passable

Rating: 8/10 (31 July 2003)

"Scream"'s opening, with Drew Barrymore being toyed then destroyed by the masked killer, is surely now legendary, and indeed the only scary part of the film. The best realised part is Drew being dragged away from her torturously close parents, trying to scream out to them, but not able to. It's actually quite touching. But it all goes downhill from there.
Firstly, "Scream" isn't scary. It actually works a lot better as a comedy than it does a horror film, as writer Kevin Williamson has a much better affinity with one liners and comedic rants than he does actual horror- but it was right to pitch this film as genuine horror, as otherwise it would have been farcial. Essentially, there are only two death scenes- the opening and the stretched out finale- and so through the rest of the film we are left to concentrate on the characters. This is always risky for a horror film. Luckily, though, the protagonist is generally interesting, and played by a capable actress- Neve Campbell. Her character Sydney faces an interesting and indeed scarier inner conflict than a frankly clumsy killer in a cheesy mask: what if her dead mother, enshrined in her memory, was in fact not the person Sydney would like to pretend she was?
With this sort of pseudo-hip flick, cast is everything. Luckily it's not too bad. Courteney Cox is impressive and genuinely funny (in a very non-Monica way) as Satan in lime green heels, Gail Weathers. Rose McGowan plays Sydney's spunky best friend, and while personally I don't seem to enjoy her as an actress or as totty, she shines in this role(particularly in the exchange between her and Sydney just befoe the party, when McGowan's character is in the awkward position of trying to break something painful to a close friend- Sydney's mom was "maybe a very unhappy woman"). And at least she's a more interesting choice than some bland Sarah Michelle Hewitt flavour of the week.
Skeet Ulrich is a little over the top in this, and is frankly just bad at the climax. When he screams the line "Movies don't create psychos- they just make them more inventive" you squirm, because he's not the sort of actor who can pull of incandescent. I was surprised to find I enjoyed Mathew Liliard's performance, as normally I can't stand him. He still has this mind numbingly irritating habit of sticking out his tongue like some inane drunken snake from time to time, but his manic, over the top persona suits the role perfectly, and gives personality to the most underwritten of "the kids". Jamie Kennedy is excellent as the comedic heart of the film, and gets one of the most sympathetic characters, while David Arquette, as Deputy Dewey, is annoying for any time over a minute, but funny in small doses ("Hello?...").
The plot? Well, while usually in Hollywood teen fodder plot is minimal, there's lots of plot in this- it just doesn't make sense. At all. Why does Liliard's character pretend to kill Ulrich's? It's ridiculous to think the pair would wait a whole year between killings if they're this het up. And so on and so on. But hey, it's a popcorn horror film, no one cares.
As for the idea of it being taboo busting or groundbreaking in any sense- I think not. It proclaims that it breaks the horror rules, but it never does. Sydney might technically loose her virginity, but she does so with integrity, love and trust shining in her heart. Figuratively, she's still "The Virgin" of the piece, so her survival, despite having had sex, isn't groundbreaking at all, and is utterly predictable. Indeed, "Scream" is a lot more conservative than most horror. All the bland/sympathetic characters survive. Cox plays a bitch, but we see her sweet side, so she lives. McGowan's character was too spunky, cynical, and self assured to be guaranteed a sequel card. Keeping HER alive and killing off Randy or Dewey (or both) would have been truly original, but oh well.
As for the famed pop culture references- I personally find them jarring. In other pieces of entertainment- for example "Buffy"- they work, because they used for comedy and not mere name dropping for the sake of it. When Sydney says that her town under curfew is like some other horror film, it's unnecessary and takes you out of the film. Some of the references are witty, though- the Tori Spelling line even got paid off in the sequel (which also has a frightening opening followed by an hour and a half of nothingness).
Overall, a good cast, lots of good (and some bad- the constant use of pop-psychology is lazy and grating, and cheapens the only interesting issues) dialogue, and an intruiging protagonist, leads to a so-so film that doesn't entirely work (as either a comedy or horror), but is fairly enjoyable.