Like the film; hate the fans.

Rating: Null/10 (13 December 2002)

Not that the fans spoil any secrets or anything, I just hate how seriously the viewers take it as though before Scream they knew nothing about horror cliches, and now they quote Scream as though it will make them some sophisticated horror critic. Sorry guys, it's a running a joke--it's mocking unintentional repetition in older horror films which kept coming back because most were B grade and couldn't afford a decent writer to come up with something good and/or original.
Now, after Scream, we have films that feel obligated to meet Scream's horror requirements as though it'll be just as humorous as it was in Scream only no one's laughing any more. We're groaning. Now that they're requirements, it's not a funny thing that just caught on among bad films unintentionally. No, it's like the last guy at the party hears the joke and expects everyone else to laugh at him for telling it even though we've heard it a thousand times tonight already.
Now Scream is the horror bible with its "Rules to survive a horror film." And anyone and everyone know is anything in horror worships this concept. I don't think so. It was funny that *a* film finally brought to light trends of crappy horror films in the past, mocks them, and ultimately commits the same crime but somehow hovers above the films it mocks. This self awareness allows us to take it both as a satire and horror film, as both good while mocking the bad. And most importantly, it's interwoven into the plot and that made the whole film. The "Rules" were never intended to be taken outside of the film and applied everywhere else. Get a grip, people, and notice that all the *good* horror films do not follow, rather, they break those rules. Despite what Randy claims, Halloween does not follow those rules either as stated by John Carpenter, himself.
Scream delivered the welcome break of awareness of existing horror films, which does mark a welcomed turning point--that we're tired of idiotic slashers where the characters couldn't escape from Elmo if he turned Psychotic. Wes Craven effectively returns to the forefront of horror direction with this front, making the script work, and work well. Overall, despite the people who look back and bash it, Scream was a very good horror film with more pros outweighing the inevitable cons. The idea and originality behind it, it's self criticizing nature, added a new complexity and sophistication to the formula. And despite what many people say, the number of spin offs and films now sporting cinema-aware characters proves Scream's success and acceptance in general among all audiences.

Most people despise Scream for also inspiring another trend of mainstream horror films that followed--the "teen horror" subgenre as it is known, which Scream did kick off and is responsible for. However, Scream really is not a part of that subgenre; it's in its own little category by itself. Psycho spawned the god-awful TCM, which is heralded as a triumph in horror despite it's lack of anything inspiring or worth watching. Later Psycho inspired the well executed Halloween, which spawned the infamously bad series Friday the 13th, which spawned countless imitators not even worth mentioning (the same films Scream for the most part concentrates on while mocking.) So technically, Psycho spawned all the slashers, good and crappy--why not jump on the hate bandwagon and actively bash it too?
Good job Wes, and it's a shame that Scream suffered the inevitable with its sequels. Even with the same level of satire, same selfawareness that sequels generally get worse and worse and more humorous (as they obey that 'law') it just didn't seem funny anymore. Oh well . . .