After a series of mysterious deaths, a seemingly peaceful community becomes a place where no one is safe . . . and everyone is suspect! Thats when an offbeat group of friends rally to unlock the towns deadly secrets . . . and get caught up in the deadly results.
|Scream Movie(DivX)||Resolution: 640x440 px||Total Size: 929 Mb|
|Scream Movie(HD 720)||Resolution: 1280x544 px||Total Size: 4471 Mb|
|Scream Movie(iPod)||Resolution: 480x208 px||Total Size: 301 Mb||
|Scream Movie(HD)||Resolution: 852x368 px||Total Size: 650 Mb||
This is a horror film, but also a sort of spoof of horror films. It playsaround with some of the rules and cliches of the genre, whilst avoidingusing them. Whilst in the middle it gets slightly sidetracked, it is a goodhorror film in its own right, with quite a few scary moments, and some'false' scares, when we expect something to happen but something else does. There is quite a bit of comedy, but also this film has its fair share oftension.All in all, a film well worth watching.
Some of the basic story guide spoils some of the movie, but I needed angood intro, and this was as good as I could make it.Basic Story Guide: Spoiler Alert (some of the introducing paragraph spoils certain aspectof the beginning scene, if you wish to remain in the dark, read from"Enter Sidney Prescott,") Woodsboro, a town settled far away from the more violent and notoriousstates of California, such as L.A., or Oakland. But one night, while ateenager is settling down to watch a horror movie, she receives a phonecall from an unknown person. At first, its all innocent flirting fromboth person on the phone and your girl. Until, he begins stalking her,with repeated phone calls. (spoiler, if you wish to remain in the dark,do not read) After an extended amount of time, young Casey, and herboyfriend are both murdered. Enter Sidney Prescott, an average teenager of who is still recoveringfrom the tragic murder of her mother a year prior. The murderer, CottonWeary has been placed in prison, is awaiting the death sentence. As shebegins to put her life back together from this traumatic event, shethen receives phone call from an unknown person. Sidney finallyrealizes she is in the cross hairs of a killer who is relentless, andthat she may have placed the wrong person in prison for her mothersmurder.Verdict: This movie is my all time favorite. The acting in it isconvincing, the plot is throughly engaging, and the characters areabsolutely enjoyable. Although I will say this (spoiler alert for acertain event in the movie): by the time the party scene starts up,it's almost like it has out of steam, and then it picks back up, so beprepped for that. But this movie is my all time favorite horror moviefor three reasons: 1.) The main character had a back story to her, and the movie had aplot. It wasn't some nihilistic movie like Hostel or something alongthose lines where someone is standing on a street corner and isabducted by a deranged psychopath, and plunged into violentcircumstances.2.) The movie has a balance of both comedy and horror. One moment youare laughing, the next you are jumping in your seat. And the charactersthemselves are lovable, even the killer. They literally grow on you.3.) This movie breathed life back into the slasher genre, most of themovies were sub-par, but none-the-less, effective and creative. UrbanLegends, I Know What You Did Last Summer and Cherry Falls being a fewthat stick out in my mind.Overall, an awesome movie, and I am grateful for seeing this movie.Thank you Wes Craven for making this historical movie.10 out of 10
Wes Craven has provided audiences with original, entertainingworkwhich has left their indelible mark on the movie world. One only has tomention 'Nightmare on Elm Street' for it to be seen that he is a directorwho has made a massive impact on the horror genre. Both movies had largefollowings and produced characters that will be long remembered. Creatingcharacters that become icons within a genre is difficult and Craven hasproduced two. Not only is it because the material is so original, it is also becauseCraven uses a talented cast who appeal to present day audiences. He is ableto blend classic horror, that is, the bogeyman with the mask who stalks themain characters from the shadows, with the window dressing provided byphotogenic actors and actresses which is obligatory for today's movies. Ineffect he has made horror movies appealing to mass audiences Â somethingthat only the very best could do. This has been accomplished by way ofnumerous means. As previously mentioned, the cast - window dressing - areusually fresh, bright, young talent. They can act. There is also a story ofnote. The central characters are all engrossed in conflict with each otherand this is not only due to the fact that the characters have been createdwith a lot of personality differences, but also because they are given realdilemmas. A good example is in 'Scream' where Sydney is struggling to cometo emotional terms with her mother's death and she then also has to dealwith Gale Weathers who questions the legitimacy of her testimony which putaway 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 thatthis movie leans more towards suspense thriller rather than horror. Althoughit is argumentative, I believe that this movie is still rightfullyclassified as horror rather than suspense since the suspense is a catalystfor the horror. The suspense sets us up for the horrific scenes. Thesuspense thus provides a service rather that it being the recipient of aservice.In accordance with present day adaptations of teenagers on screen, they areinsightful with understandings of relationships, but not the emotionalmaturity to deal with them. This is well used within 'Scream' as the maincharacters have insight into the 'rules' of horror movies, but still putthemselves at risk for the climatic sequence where they are secluded andvulnerable although probably feeling safe in numbers.Neve Campbell is excellent as the fragile Sydney Prescott. She has anextremely fragile way of speaking which makes her more vulnerable to thevillain. She aptly portrays the emotional turmoil which seems to sap hercharacters strength. Her ability to show the dilemma concerning hertestimony towards Cotton Weary aids in the audience acceptance of hertrusting of her boyfriend - would she be able to deal with anotherquestionable accusation? Given her portrayal, we thinknot.Skeet Ulrich and Matthew Lillard are equally commendable. Ulrich does notget too offbeat when his characters true intentions are shown. This keepsthe transition more plausible. Lillard remains as over the top as he wasbefore which thus keeps his character consistent and hence believable. Theywere the best villains of the franchise and were a healthy contributingfactor to the first movies success and its reputation, earned quitecorrectly, as the superior.You could not comment on 'Scream' without mentioning Kevin Williamson. He isthe one who after all provided the seed for the most successful horrormovie. Although he penned a few of the movies that followed on the successof this one, this is still the gem. The audience is kept guessing throughoutand suspects are numerous meaning that some members of the audience may havechanged their minds on several occasions as to who the villain is. Whoguessed that there were two of them? Not many, of that I am very sure. Thereis 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 forthe 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 movieswere produced which were mostly a paler version of the source of inspirationor source of plagiarism, as would have often been the case in order tosecure sound revenue. Audiences became indoctrinated with the same ideas andthus familiarity gave birth to contempt. Although this is true, the Ârules'must be kept to even within the most original script. A fine balancing actneeds to be struck. It is important to note that all genres have their ownset of rules which must be abided by if audiences are going to identify withthe movie. Notwithstanding this fact, movies made for the drive - in theatreage, the B grade support flick, generally followed these Ârules' withoutmuch attention to plot and were therefore ridiculed. 'Scream' makes the mostof this. It could have so easily fell into the spoof movie trap, but doesnot thus securing its place in movie history. Of more importance, itreignited the genre which had long been without a leading torch. The lastone was ÂElm Street' and this is not coincidence that the director was WesCraven. He is that good.
Scream recreated the slasher genre when it was released in 1996. It wassmart, violent, and even a bit scary at times. Wes Craven was the perfectperson to direct this and he chose a great cast. The best way to make a filmlike this, is to just get a good script first. Many films have trieddesperately, and failed miserably to get up to this level.3/4
I enjoyed Scream 4. It was a fun ride that I would say is worth seeing. However, it is not as scary and as good as the first scream. Too many jokes and comic relief are all over this film. (Begin SPOILER)... Right before the cop dies, he says "f*** Bruce Willis"...(END SPOILER)....kind of ruins the horror because most people getting attacked would not say that. I know scream isn't something that should be perfect and a lot of it isn't realistic; but some of the lines and situations went against the scary affect. I would say its not crap so I would give it a chance.
I remember when I saw "Scream", it was back in December of 1996, when thefilm first opened. I went and saw it with my oldest brother whom had neverbeen into horror movies, but thought the trailer of the movie looked good.Well, when I walked out of the movie I have to say, Craven and newbieWilliamson did a great job. What I thought would be a horror spoof turnedout to be a chilling real life horror movie. Not the clichÃ© unstoppablekiller (i.e. Jason, Freddy, Michael, etc.). The movie takes place in asmallfictional California town, called "Woodsboro" I can't say too much withoutgiving some of the movies secrets away, so I will just say the movie isabout a killer who starts stalking Sidney Prescott (played by NeveCampbell)and threatens to kill her and takes credit for her Mothers murder the yearbefore. As the movie continues, the killer continues to knock of a fewpeople and along them, some of Sidney's friends. From the opening sequenceto the ending sequence, this movie is DEFIANTLY worth a look. But don'ttakemine or anyone else's opinion. See this movie for yourself. You may loveitor hate it. I'm just the messenger :)
This is a good twist on a continuing movie. It follows the same route as the others and gives a good show to keep you entertained. Don't expect too much new. It goes back closer to the first movie making it better than the second 2. Hopefully its the last.
Fun to watch i'll admit but still there was something bugging me about thisone that i couldn't figure out when i first saw it. Now i think i know whatit was. It's so damn pristine! I mean look at all those fresh-faced teens.They 're so trendy. They 're so hip! So much that you absolutely have toKnow What They Did Last Summer (come to think of it where was jennifer lovehewitt when they were casting for scream?). They're media fodder. So comeon! This is supposed to be a frat horror flick. Where are the losers? Whereare the geeks? Where are the jocks? Where are the flunkies? All beenreplaced by GAP material. But above all where is the gore? Sure Courtney'sgot a pretty face. But if its a horror movie we want to see then she'd lookfar better with guts all over her.
The terrorized teens in the "Scream" movies have always been wise to the ways to survive and (far more likely) die in horror films. But original screenwriter Kevin Williamson and original director Wes Craven (the original 1984 "Nightmare On Elm Street") know that a lot has changed since "Scream 3", the last, extremely disappointing, installment. A decade has passed, to be exact, and teens today live in the age of Facebook, instant messaging, cell phones, instant video streaming, and horror movie remakes, "re-imaginings" and "reboots." Williamson and Craven cleverly incorporate all this into the plot of "Scream 4." The rules of survival and death in horror movies have clearly changed, and these teens (and likely the "Scream" audience as well) still think they know it, and have seen it, all. "Scream 4" is not a remake or a reimagining. It is a startlingly, revitalized reboot. "Scream 4" has plenty of surprises, as it (literally) brings the series screaming back to life with an especially bloody vengence. Having miraculously survived "Scream 1-3", Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) has written a book about her ordeals with the killer Ghostface titled "Coming Out Of The Darkness." Sydney finds herself trapped in that old nightmarish darkness soon enough. No sooner does she return to Woodsboro on a book tour, reuniting with fellow "Scream" survivors Gail (Courtney Cox) and Dewey (David Arquette), and Ghostface starts his/her/its murder spree all over again; transforming Woodsboro (once again) into the image of "Mayberry, USA", with a nasty psycho killer on the phone and on the loose. The target this time is not only Sydney, but Sydney's niece Jill (Emma Roberts) and her teen friends. These 2011 teens are indifferent to the murderous rampages that Sydney, Gail, and Dewey survived-- except that they serve as the basis for the "Stab" horror movie series. "Stab" is the movie franchaise within the "Scream" franchaise."Scream 4" functions as a movie-within-a-movie-within-a-movie-within-a-movie-within-a-movie to the point where it becomes beyond surreal. To the teens in "Scream 4", Ghostface is a cult hero; that is, until he/she/it starts stabbing them to death. Trouble is, the teen characters in "Scream 4" (Hayden Panettiere, Erik Knudson, Rory Culkin. Marielle Jaffe. Emma Roberts, and Nico Tortorella) are such a snarky, snobby, selfish, and self-absorbed group the audience won't likely care who is stabbed to death or who or what is stabbing them. Okay, one character gets a particularly violent and bloody death that is disburbing. But you go into the "Scream" movies excepting violent deaths, so it isn't all that disturbing. What is disturbing about "Scream 4" is its sharp commentary on our culture. One character is obsessed with broadcasting every aspect of his life on the Internet via Video Streaming. His death is broadcast for posterity, too. Sydney's fame-grabbing book publicist (Alison Brie) tells her, "You're a victim. You will always be a victim. So embrace it." She says this matter-of factly, almost cheerfully; as if a lifetime of victimhood is a guarantee of lasting fame and immortality. Another character cynically states that, to be famous today, "you don't have to do anything. You just have to have a lot of _________ happen to you." The fact that all of this is true is the most frightening thing about "Scream 4."
Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courtney Cox, Jamie Kennedy, SkeetUlrich, Matthew Lillard, Rose McGowan, Drew Barrymore, Henry Winkler,Liev Schrieber, W. Earl Brown and Linda Blair.The original and true classic Scream film that redefined what makes agood slasher film. It starts off with a now classic opening starringDrew Barrymore as an unsuspecting victim that a killer is playing gameswith over the phone. We are then introduced to several friends who arekilled off one by one, but in an unusually fresh way. Henry Winklerplays a principal. See this...it's good!my rating-A plus. R for violence and language. 116 minutes.
I'm a huge fan of slasher films. The scream movies weren't always my favorite ones but, SCREAM 4 i would have to say is the best one yet that they made since the first one. It's def. worth buying if you like the movies.
I was hopeing for a chance for this franchise to redeem itself after Scream 3 and it proved it be much better then I hoped for. When the movie starts it felt confusing but after the movie had a chance to set everything up, it got a whole lot better. I really enjoyed the change in each main character's storyline, as they all feel more grown up and learned from their pasts. Also the issues they encounter feel more relatable as they are more like common problems anyone in their positions would face.The new characters were great to see, adding great personalities. I loved the more modern setting of the movie, how more menacing the killer was and was espically glad for the return of a more smart killer not running into everything possible. The killer's identities were very clever and the franchise did a first that I'm really glad they did ***. The resolution was very well done and concluded another next generation sequel that I enjoyed.This movie singalhandedlly redeemed the franchise and gave me another great installent to my Blu-ray collection. Highly recommended.*** SPOILER ALERT**** They have the killer be a girl.****SOILER ALERT****
SPOILERS****** This is any horror fan's worst nightmare. The acting in thisis horrible, and the script is awful. And the death scenes are so fake likethat one girl who gets crushed between the garage door. Is that even apossibility????? And what were they thinking putting Fonzie ( Henry Winkler) in there???? As the principal no less!!!! Oh and Wes Craven never shouldhave decided to direct this!!! Why did he go and waist his time on this whenhe could have been making a slasher movie of his VERY own, instead ofwaisting his time with Kevin WIlliamson.( Writer ) I recommend this film toanyone who enjoys boring teeny-bopper films. 3/10
First off, I don't think anyone should be comparing this to Hitchcock's"Psycho". It is a really good film, but it's a completely differentgenre to this (there are different types of horror, and these two donot fit together).Anyway, it's a basic plot. Serial killer, immature school kids,lalalala. It constantly references and compares itself to other horrorfilms (which is overused, but still funny). It has some good humor init, but don't watch it if you're not looking for humor, because there'sa lot of it.The best scene, in my opinion, is the scene where the plan isrevealed(which is near the end, so I'm sorry for those who got boredand stopped it who might have liked that scene). The way the actingduring this scene is so subtle, you wouldn't know what they weretalking about without paying attention to dialog. That is the funniestpart, "Oh but wait, there's more!" There isn't much else to say because I don't want to give things away.If you're looking for a good horror film (which has lots of blood,they're not super graphic but there is a lot of blood) with comedy thenyou should at least try, because overall, I feel it's a good one(especially since most of the school kids horror flicks are the wostpieces of garbage ever, even though some are good to laugh at)
Don't get me wrong, I love this movie. It wasn't particularly scary,exceptfor a few good "jump" scenes, but it was a fun, humorous, bloodyrollercoaster ride. I thought the cast was entirely likable with greatcharacters, and I think Mr. Craven did a great job of directing (I likelotsof his stuff). It was great to see Fonzie's cameo, too. This is anenjoyable film, but a true horror fan like myself was first delighted bythis movie's success, then appalled by what actually became of horror's"Ressurrection." The floodgates are still open, and the crap keeps flowingthrough. A bunch of young, hip, teen-soap stars and a guy in a mask with aknife do not a good movie make....unless the script contains even an ounceof the wit, style, or energy that this one has....Horror fans get together,don't allow anymore "Urban Legends" (scarily enough part 3 is in the works)and there sorry ilk to make money....The first is always best and this oneis it....
Scream... One of the best horror movies EVER made! The story isbasically high school teens who are getting stailked by a suspiciousmurderer. After several deaths, everyone starts to worry. And EVERYONEis a suspect. The film is fast-paced and scary. From the beginning ithas high energy and the film is kept high energised until the end. Someparts may be funny, but most of the film is chilling and full ofsuspense. All cast were brilliant! Drew Barrymore, Neve Campbell,COurtney Cox... Everyone did brilliant and made the film 10 timesbetter to watch. Even though you don't like the movie, you have toagree, this film started the whole scary movie thing. Everyone wasinspired by this film, from the famous "Im making popcron" line to thesilly garage death scene. But this film is TRULY brilliant! Wes Cravenis amazing! 10/10 - Best Scary Film Ever!
After the mysterious assassination of a young lady in a small townrumours circulate between Sidney Prescott and her friends. At this timeGale Weathers a local TV reporter enters to do some research. Sidneyreceives strange phone calls and get's pushed further into the plot ofmurders while her friends start to get less and less. Scream is bestdescribed as "could have t this been but is not". The plot is mediocreand very predictable. The acting was really bad and the cast was too.The ending of the movie was very disappointing and rather dull. If theending would have been clever the movie wouldn't be that bad but thismajor mistake ruined it all. 3 of 10 stars
Desensitization, on a couple of levels - but really only the mostpainful, and superficial. The plot concerns Billy (Ulrich/Depp - couldhave sworn it was Johnny Depp, or Johnny Depp playing James Dean - Idon't know - Ulrich probably gets a lot of that) and Stu's acting outtheir obsession with horror films, shared by friend Randy, who is notquite as far gone as Billy and Stu. It's Columbine, 1999, in effect;although other school shootings took place before and since the releaseof this movie for Christmas 1996 (according to IMDb). Like those reallife killers, this movie tries to portray real life killers of its ownwho have lost their sense of self, from whatever personal grief andproblems, to the horror film genre. They now consider real life to be amovie, but perhaps just without all the horror/slasher film 'rules'that Randy would place on it.Williamson, in the trailer/documentary, says that a horror movie,particularly the 'slasher' film I would guess, is therapeutic and agood emotional release. Bates didn't really kill anyone in Psycho. Itwas just a movie. It's always just a movie. Movies never encourageactions or influence real life. Oh - of course. Laugh, scream and holdeach other tight. It does at least encourage that. But the problem withScream is that it's a movie about . . movies. The characters actuallydiscuss the corn syrup blood. And right after that, they expect theaudience to believe that's not corn syrup and sound effects in the nextscene. (It was the problem in the adventure/comedy with Tim Allen aboutspace aliens - one minute, in the studio, next minute it's supposed tobe real? why? walk us through it, Mr. director) And if the whole thingis phony, and seen as phony, and known to be, and so much of it istelegraphed, if there's no real expectation that the audience willsuspend their disbelief, but rather sit in the director's chair behindthe lights spouting clichÃ©s and watching the cameraman, then I think itbothers me. It's a depiction of what's supposed to be, in some way, amurder conspiracy involving two vicious serial killers. And yet it'splayed for . . laughs, for entertainment. It's a bit lazy. It's noHitchcock. And that wasn't the subtext in Psycho, either; or in Silenceof the Lambs, for that matter. The excuse, here, would be that becauseit's not real, these aren't political prisoners fed to the lions in thearena, for example. Murder can be entertainment, when it's fake. Justso it's not that sort of murder. This isn't Auschwitz. The actors arenot wearing stars. It cannot desensitize.Well, golly, sure it can. If some say this film doesn't cause one toidentify with the killers, possibly they're wrong. The killers not onlysee life as a film. They see themselves as part of the cast. Butbecause this is a wink at movies, and the horror/slasher filmspecifically, the audience sees the killers as actors in a film, andliterally as part of the cast - as they playact at random humanslaughter, discussing horror movies, all the while. It's real. It'snot. It's all in good fun, as the obviously fake bodies, and scenarios,hang around and goof around, and lay around until they pop up again asif at a Halloween haunt at the local amusement park. No one dies. Thereis no death. As the killers basically say - life is just as unreal as amovie.Looked at another way, the plot is simple, as Randy says is a hard andfast rule. But it's not a rule, in . . other horror classics, apartfrom the exploitation flicks they take care to mention. This film issloppy. And the 'cleverness' is meant to disguise that failing. Silenceof the Lambs was simple, in a way - but not stupid. Scream is notsupposed to be Airplane '1996', either. And yet it has more in commonwith that sort of thing, or with a Wayans Bros. comedy, than Silence ofthe Lambs. The opening scene, with Drew Barrymore, plays like afiction, from the start. You expect to zoom out to see people in atheatre, or that the protagonist is merely writing a novel (and that isbriefly the suggestion in the following scene). The film gets off to abad start just trying to establish that these murders were part of theprotagonist's reality. And it gets more confusing, in scene afterscene. And what exactly . . is . . the point of the father - who justgets tossed in, perhaps as the embodiment of yet another horror flick'rule'? He goes crazy and kills half the town? That's the killer's planto frame him? And so on.A movie within a movie doesn't seem to work for just any film. It mightwork in an old musical. It might work as some annoying flashback (whichare often overdone). But if that, rather than the killer pair, is thereal gimmick of this movie, then a movie long joke about whether it isor it isn't fails simply because everyone knows it . . . isn't (and canremember the cost of the ticket/vid/DVD). Maybe, in that light, it'stherapeutic (for potential serial killers)? I don't know. Maybe it'sjust sick. Maybe it's a depiction of a certain disturbed, homicidal,lunatic geek fringe, and not intended to be a suggestion for behavioreven to same? It's creepy on so many levels. Maybe the same audiencewould appreciate, 'SAW II'. I just don't know.
I do enjoy this movie a lot. However it has gotten many people on the bandwagon who don't know this movie's origins. Such as the Evil Dead movies, first A Nightmare on Elm St. The Hills Have Eyes and so on. It bothers me that people all of a sudden call themselves horror fans. Go watch the horror genre's roots before you make an ass of yourself proclaiming to be into horror.
"Scream" is practically the best slasher film out of all of them (I KnowWhat You Did Last Summer, Urban Legend, etc). The movie delivers a chillingplot and story, and makes you think your being watched by the murderer inthe ghost costume. Wes Craven did an excellent job on the directing. Theacting was very good. Neve Campbell, Skeet Ulrich, Rose McGowan, DrewBarrymore, Courtney Cox and David Arquette did an excellent job in theirroles. This movie is very creepy and very good. It makes you think there isa killer stalking you. If you are a movie person I recommend "Scream",especially to horror fans. The movie is well done the acting is great, thefilmmaking is excellent, and the movie is just plain great! This is aclassic horror movie for anyone who has interest in horror films! This is myfavorite slasher film out there. The movie is great! You should DEFINETLYrent this movie if you stop by your local video store. I'm sure any videostore carrys it. This is the best slasher film in the world! This is ahighly recommended horror fans! It is great! I give it a 10 out of10!!!!!!!