A Classic?

Rating: 7/10 (23 December 2004)

Director Wes Craven almost singlehandedly resurrected the horror genre in the mid 90's with this film. Prior to Scream the 90's and the entire 80's had been decades with tireless and tiresome retreads of once popular horror films. These films adhered to the same formula, had little or no innovative or imaginative ideas, and were filled with empty-headed teens big on looks and almost totally void of any real talent. Craven adheres to many of these notions as well in Scream, but he is always using them in a self-mocking way. Scream has much going for it as a horror film: one of the best opening sequences of any horror film with the subtraction of star Drew Barrymore very quickly, some genuine thrills and chills as well as some genuine laughs, and a constant homage to the genre with references such as Wes Carpenter as a popular director of the day and the rules that one should learn having watched horror films. Craven even manages to insert a clip of Whale's Frankenstein for good measure. BUT...and you might have guessed this was coming...I get real disheartened when so many people say this is a classic, one of the greatest horror films ever made(if not the greatest itself), or even Craven's finest film. It just isn't so. I would not even imagine any scenario where I would put Scream on my top ten...top twenty...top thirty... greatest horror film list. Great horror films have great scripts. Scream does not. Aside from the roller coaster introduction with Barrymore, the film never manages to reach those same heights. There are a lot of good plot twists, but let's face it - the story is pretty preposterous. Great horror films usually have great actors giving great performances. Scream does not have any great performances. The cast does a nice job smiling through much of the film - even in the face of impending death. As an audience we are never asked to take anyone seriously. And as an audience we don't. Great horror films have great, memorable scenes that linger with the viewer. Scream DOES have some of these. the opening is very effective. Craven deserves a lot of credit for it, but it is never rivaled again in the film. Don't get me wrong - I liked Scream. It was a fun movie. It gave me a few reasons to jump from my seat. It made me laugh here and there. But it never left any long-lasting impression on me that I had just sat through a masterpiece like when I first saw Psycho, Rosemary's Baby, or Carpenter's Halloween. Craven is a good director and has made many good films. I like his 70's work best: Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes(films that may well repulse many viewers but left a lasting impression on me, though most of it was pure shock!). Those films are really better than this film. Craven plays up to a modern audience whom he is making fun of indirectly in the film. He laces the film with all kinds of genre references that most of his younger, hip audience will have no understanding of at all. He tells us that those people in horror films that have sex or drink or take drugs will die. He shows his audience exactly what they want to see and then pokes fun at it. Surely this hip approach has a lot to do with the wide accolades the film has received from its loyal audience over the years. I think Scream, though not a great film, deservedly is due recognition for making horror popular again and mainstream. This mainstream approach has led to many new, innovative horror films since its release and has made the horror genre certainly one of the more profitable genres to produce a film for. Yes, we still have the umpteenth sequels and unnecessary remakes, but there have also been some new films that I believe are direct descendants of the legacy of Scream.