Scream 2.

Review #2593: Scream 2.

Cast: 

Neve Campbell (Sidney Prescott), Courteney Cox (Gale Weathers), David Arquette (Dewey Riley), Sarah Michelle Gellar (Cici Cooper), Jamie Kennedy (Randy Meeks), Laurie Metcalf (Debbie Salt), Elise Neal (Hallie McDaniel), Jerry O'Connell (Derek Feldman), Timothy Olyphant (Mickey Altieri), Liev Schreiber (Cotton Weary), Lewis Arquette (Louis Hartley), Philip Pavel (Officer Andrews), Christopher Doyle (Officer Richards), Duane Martin (Joel), Rebecca Gayheart (Lois), Portia de Rossi (Murphy), with Roger L. Jackson (voice of Ghostface), David Warner (Gus Gold), Omar Epps (Phil Stevens), and Jada Pinkett (Maureen Evans)

Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street, #558 - Scream, #633 - Red Eye, #939 - Swamp Thing, #1156 - Wes Craven's New Nightmare, #2135 - The Last House on the Left, #2306 - The Hills Have Eyes, #2455 - Vampire in Brooklyn)

Review: 

To be perfectly honest, I never really got into Scream the way I expected to. Sure, I liked the first film (as released in December 1996) just fine, but I honestly forgot that I saw it way back in 2014 and honestly forgot that, yeah, there were pretty clever moments to serve as the attraction for folks that maybe squirm a bit when confronted with horror stuff in a horror movie*. Sure, it was the brainchild of Kevin Williamson being inspired by both his experiences watching horror films like Halloween (1978) and also the idea that maybe movies just make psychos more creative than actually create them. The opening sequence, well, that's the showstopper, and that's the one that got Miramax to buy into it and eventually corral Wes Craven into doing it. You basically got a who-dun-it with enough pieces for folks to enjoy putting together before the inevitable TV-to-the-head. It took a few weeks, but it became a hit that led to clamors for a sequel. Naturally, Williamson actually had a few ideas in mind for potential sequels pretty early (why entice buyers with one movie when you can sell the potential for a franchise?) and production for a second movie was greenlit three months after its release. After a brief fling with having Robert Rodriguez direct, Craven elected to return instead for a film that started filming in the summer for a winter release. By this point in time, Williamson attracted enough attention to become involved in TV with his development of Dawson's Creek, which meant that he shuttled between sets that saw most of the script pages for Scream 2 written when on set. A leak of a script (with one ending stated by Williamson as a "dummy draft" meant to keep details under wraps) on the Internet did not help matters, but the film was released on time to, well, enough success to inspire further sequels, with Scream 3 (which did not have Williamson back) coming out three years later in 2000.

I don't know, man. I did like this movie just fine, mainly when it actually does engage with the actual premise of gore and also with some of its ideas of just who would go around wearing a Ghostface mask after all that happened the first time around, but it really is a case where it almost outsmarts itself with actually getting to the point by the time its two-hour trek is over. The new characters prove to be more of a cipher than really developed, which is a curious move in what is meant to be a "guess who?" movie, and in general it just feels like a movie that needed more time in the oven. The opening sequence (involving a busy movie theater with death in the seats) probably sets too high of an expectation/delight from what actually happens afterwards, and that is saying something for something that pales a bit from what one saw in to open the first film. Campbell does carry the movie pretty well in the vulnerability of someone who I suppose would do better than most in living the hell of life after seeing people you know be murdered get turned into both a book and a film (or worse yet, get played by Tori Spelling) and then see it happen all over again (minus one quibble*). It goes a bit better when seeing the interactions between Cox and Arquette, who probably share the best scenes, mainly in seeing that tension slowly melt away for fondness that is a bit fun to see (it does get a bit distracting hearing that Broken Arrow cue again and again though) in the show of just how much fun-loving bravery can be enough in one guy when pooled against opportunism (or in a different scene with Cox, getting slapped for their trouble). It lifts the film plenty when compared to the new blood with O'Connell-Olyphant-Gellar-Neal, who, well, are just not the kind of folks to really roll with besides a mild flick of my eyes, particularly when I was more interested in the wormy nature of Schreiber (given a bit more to do from the last film, if you recall). 

You might remember Kennedy's character as the one who explained the rules of surviving a horror film in the previous movie, but I'll be honest with you: I don't care (geek or no geek, I think I'll take the bus). If you're going to dispatch anyone who happened to be around from a previous horror movie, if you're going to do kill someone off to raise the stakes, if you're going to do so in broad daylight, he fits the bill, so it is quite a way to go out. It probably isn't too much of a spoiler to say that one of the new blood ends up being a killer, and I have to say that the motive is actually pretty interesting, as if someone wanted to crib lovingly from Natural Born Killers (1994), but then it gets a bit too cute with its other dangling twist, because heaven forbid one killer isn't enough, no, it runs off the oldest tricks of the book in the guise of "cleverness", as if hanging around so long in plain sight (oh hi familiar face from TV) along with, well I'm sure you can get the rest. In general, there are a few fun moments in actual mayhem (and that one fateful moment of triumph) to make for a fairly decent sequel that gives you a few scares within its scrapes of gore and playful attempts at digging into familiar slasher territory that works more often than not.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Tiniest sidenote: When doing these cast listings, sometimes I have to adjust them because for whatever reason, billing is sometimes done *alphabetically* (as noted on the poster and on Wikipedia), which is the stupidest way to do credits. You know and I know who is the star, so why bother?

*You ever hear people whine about horror movies being too gruesome or possibly being a bad influence on the youth? I laugh too.

*The only quibble I have with Sidney comes in the sequence when she gets into a car-wreck. So she escapes a wrecked car, goes a couple of feet and decides, no, I need to go back to try and unmask Ghostface just because. Nay, I won't go to see if that cop on the hood has a gun so I can straight up shoot him, I'm just going to get close and- oh golly gee, the girl I'm with is dead! On an unrelated note, I do wonder if Sidney ever considers getting a gun in the sequels because, screw it, what could go wrong?

Jerry Maguire.

Review #1513: Jerry Maguire.

Cast: 
Tom Cruise (Gerald "Jerry" Maguire), Cuba Gooding Jr (Rodney "Rod" Tidwell), Renée Zellweger (Dorothy Boyd), Kelly Preston (Avery Bishop), Jerry O'Connell (Frank "Cush" Cushman), Jay Mohr (Bob Sugar), Bonnie Hunt (Laurel Boyd), Regina King (Marcee Tidwell), Jonathan Lipnicki (Raymond Boyd), Todd Louiso (Chad the Nanny), Jeremy Suarez (Tyson Tidwell), and Jared Jussim (Dicky Fox) Directed by Cameron Crowe.

Review: 
"I'm proudest of the fact that I've been able to make a few movies in the studio system that are slightly unorthodox and personal. But it's never quite as easy as you dream that it could be."

Cameron Crowe had his own little path towards filmmaking: writing about music. He graduated from high school at 15 before being hired to write for Rolling Stone magazine, travelling with bands such as the Allman Brothers Band about travels on the road with them and their voices. In 1981, nearly ten years after graduating high school, he finished writing his first book based on the idea to pose undercover as a high school student in San Diego, which resulted in Fast Times at Ridgemont High and a film the following year. Crowe wrote another look into teenagers with The Wild Life (1984) before James L. Brooks took interest in the writer that would result in him producing Crowe's first directorial effort: Say Anything... (1989). This and Singles (1992) were mild successful romantic comedy hits with audiences and critics before Crowe did this for his third effort.

Truly, if you work hard enough, you too can make a heartfelt, overproduced romantic comedy just like the ones your parents made, complete with hokey lines (having me at hello goes straight to the garbage can) that threaten to shake the agent parts out of actual interest. Beyond a long 139 minute stretch that seems to be intricately built on too many characters and plot threads while trying way too hard to be anything other than just a decent "sports" film. When it tries its hands at romance, it doesn't really spring as much enthusiasm beyond what you could find in anything else. It is built on the idea that one really wants to hear much about the plight of a sports agent (with Leigh Steinberg being the inspiration that Crowe would follow around for significant amount of time in 1993 for research) and their crisis of conscience (money isn't everything when it comes to customers-I mean clients, story at 11). In a way I care, but if you zero in on just Cruise and Gooding Jr without most of the others in building itself, you may very well have a better film, or at the very least one that doesn't seem so choked in selling itself short. Rom-com clichés or sports clichés, I'll take the latter any day. Sap has become the way to try and teach someone empathy for years so at least Crowe can say he made something that looks different from the typical film without really doing too much different, complete with a third-act breakup after having them marry (ooh, different from the usual breakup before marriage).

I suspect Cruise wanted to do a role to challenge him from the usual charismatic charmers he usually played, one where he has to bring himself up from narcissistic loneliness. It isn't really that hard to like Cruise anyway, and he does fine with generating some carefully controlled interest, wracked with doubts and zeal. In a sense, Zellweger does fine. She has a zip and interest to her that seems to suit her in trying to elicit charm even while having a script that seems lacking in really giving her something to really do beyond idealism and "cute" moments with Cruise or her on-screen son. Actually, it is Preston and her ferocious honesty that seems more suited for this strange little film, amusing in zippy honesty. Gooding delivers a well-faceted performance with charm and humor, confident and well-suited against Cruise when showing the connection of agent and star beyond just the memorable lines of showing one the money, which is a good highlight in of itself, although the scene near the end with them hugging is probably more poignant than anything else in the film. Lipnicki and Mohr seem to be in competition for who I don't care to see more deliver what is meant to be charming/funny lines (whether out of a child actor with one trick of trying to tug at the audience's heart or a comedian with...one trick of trying to be smarmily hilarious), but I actually enjoyed the resistance displayed by Hunt far better in managing to display the point-of-view of the audience in skepticism. On the whole, I did think the film was at least somewhat successful in generating interest in its agency world, where one has to see beyond big profits and egos to really see something fresh in life. If one can't find something to like in life, it will be hard to sell something in it as well. It might be a bit plodding and cliched, but it is at least passable in most of the right places of quippy humor that shows some heart without needing to become consumed in itself.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.