Scream (SPOILERS INSIDE THREAD!!)

[cfr1970]

Watched it free on Tubi tonight. It's been years since i've seen it and I forgot a lot of it.

That opener is always loads of fun to watch and still plays well today with lots of suspense. The last 20 minutes are a lot of fun too.

As I was watching it I was slowly remembering who the killers were and I also remembered how much that smiling guy annoyed the hell out of me the first time I saw it.

I forgot his name but he was the one who wasn't Sidney's Johnny Depp looking boyfriend. I was glad when he finally died.

Some things don't hold up now though. What was innovative in 1996 is tired in 2020, like all the endless horror movie references. They just kept that going on and on but I get that it was a new angle at the time and the killers were twisted horror film fans I guess.

And I have this memory of Dewey being alive in the end and Gale being happy to see he wasn't dead. There's a quick shot of him being put into the ambulance (I think it was him)...but I remember a scene with him and Gale together when he was discovered to be alive....unless it was in part 2?!

I'm going to watch that one on Monday because it leaves Tubi at the end of next week. I think I know who the killer was in that because I have a vague recollection of the ending....I won't say who I think it is because maybe i'm wrong and I don't want to be spoiled.

I have no idea what part 3 is....I think that was the movie in a movie one?...I'll watch that one on Tuesday.

It was fun to revisit it again though and the last half hour things really got fun. Oh and what I found amusing watching this today is how everyone refers to cell phones back then as "cellulars".

I don't recall anyone referring to them in this way. My friend got her first phone in the mid 90's and I always called it her "cell phone" but never "cellular"....Actually I called it her "Parrot Phone" because there was this commercial that was always on TV at that time where a parrot kicks the phone off a perch lol. And she got the exact same one so I always annoyed her by calling it her "Parrot Phone".

Holy crap! Writing about that commercial just made me go see if it's on You Tube and it is!! LOL...here is it....the "Parrot Phone"

[JamesG]

Originally Posted by cfr1970

I forgot his name but he was the one who wasn't Sidney's Johnny Depp looking boyfriend. I was glad when he finally died.

Some things don't hold up now though. What was innovative in 1996 is tired in 2020, like all the endless horror movie references.

That was Matthew Lillard (Stu). Yeah, I think the “best” dated thing is when Billy drops his cellphone in Sydney’s bedroom and she’s shocked that he has a mobile phone.

[cfr1970]

Originally Posted by JamesG

That was Matthew Lillard (Stu). Yeah, I think the “best” dated thing is when Billy drops his cellphone in Sydney’s bedroom and she’s shocked that he has a mobile phone.

I thought that was strange at first and then realized that back then everyone didn't have a cell phone so it was a pretty good clue for her that he could be the killer.

I didn't expect it to feel so dated in that respect because I always think of Scream as a modern horror but yikes it's almost 24 years now since it came out!! It really doesn't feel all that long ago.

[Christopher]

Originally Posted by cfr1970

Watched it free on Tubi tonight. It's been years since i've seen it and I forgot a lot of it.

This is one franchise I rewatch frequently. It never grows old or outdated for me. I really like that the characters aren't written as brainless zombies waiting to be killed off. They all fight against the killer to try to live. Sidney is the most intelligent heroine because she knows to shoot the killer in the head to keep them from coming back. We also see from her first chase scene she knows to call 911 when someone is after her. I like that they brought logic to the writing.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

Some things don't hold up now though. What was innovative in 1996 is tired in 2020, like all the endless horror movie references. They just kept that going on and on but I get that it was a new angle at the time and the killers were twisted horror film fans I guess.

I don't think that would be tired in today's times. Killers get their ideas from real life events and movies. They need some guidance on how to kill people and get away with it. I think it was showing us a valid way that potential killers look to these ways of how to get started.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

And I have this memory of Dewey being alive in the end and Gale being happy to see he wasn't dead. There's a quick shot of him being put into the ambulance (I think it was him)...but I remember a scene with him and Gale together when he was discovered to be alive....unless it was in part 2?!

Yes, that is from part 2.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

I'm going to watch that one on Monday because it leaves Tubi at the end of next week. I think I know who the killer was in that because I have a vague recollection of the ending....I won't say who I think it is because maybe i'm wrong and I don't want to be spoiled.

Part 2 is my favorite Scream. I hope nothing is edited out of it like Better Watch Out was on Tubi.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

I have no idea what part 3 is....I think that was the movie in a movie one?...I'll watch that one on Tuesday.

Part 3 isn't bad, but it's my least favorite. I don't think the story is as solid as 1, 2, and 4 are. Plus 3 tries rewriting the history of part 1 that you'll see when you watch it that I don't think pulled off very well.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

It was fun to revisit it again though and the last half hour things really got fun. Oh and what I found amusing watching this today is how everyone refers to cell phones back then as "cellulars".

I don't recall anyone referring to them in this way.

The first time I can remember ever hearing this term was on the episode of The Facts of Life called Seven Little Indians. Blair said she could make a call on her "cellular phone" because the phone lines were down. I always remember cell phones being called as that in the 90's.

[cfr1970]

Originally Posted by Christopher

This is one franchise I rewatch frequently. It never grows old or outdated for me. I really like that the characters aren't written as brainless zombies waiting to be killed off. They all fight against the killer to try to live. Sidney is the most intelligent heroine because she knows to shoot the killer in the head to keep them from coming back. We also see from her first chase scene she knows to call 911 when someone is after her. I like that they brought logic to the writing.

Yeah like in the scene where Sidney's on the phone with the killer who says he's outside and she says to him "I call your bluff" and walks right out onto the porch. I liked that because it's real and what a normal person would do rather than instantly turn into a crying idiot like Drew Barrymore did.

When I watch these types of movies the first thing I think of is "Just run out of the freaking house!!"

Originally Posted by Christopher

I don't think that would be tired in today's times. Killers get their ideas from real life events and movies. They need some guidance on how to kill people and get away with it. I think it was showing us a valid way that potential killers look to these ways of how to get started.

I think the movie references went on too long. I get they were showing how horror films can influence already fragile and mentally ill minds to mimic what they see in them, but the references went on a bit too much for me.

I did like that the final chase scene from Halloween was playing in the background on the TV during Sidney's final chase scene.

Originally Posted by Christopher

Yes, that is from part 2.

Ok, you can spoil me just a little....so Scream 2 starts off the same night or the next day then right?

Originally Posted by Christopher

Part 2 is my favorite Scream. I hope nothing is edited out of it like Better Watch Out was on Tubi.

Just that final end scene was edited out of Better Watch Out, but it was important to the story. Hopefully i'll remember enough of part 2 to know if something was edited out.

Originally Posted by Christopher

Part 3 isn't bad, but it's my least favorite. I don't think the story is as solid as 1, 2, and 4 are. Plus 3 tries rewriting the history of part 1 that you'll see when you watch it that I don't think pulled off very well.

What I don't get (at least for now) is how they kept the sequels going if the people who killed Sidney's Mom were the ones killing everyone in part one and they're now dead.

Who the hell is continuing to stalk this poor girl then to make the story stretch so long? All this time I thought it was the same killer intent on getting her, but when I watched last night and saw everyone was killed in that original one...I began to wonder if it's different people always after Sidney in the following films?

Don't confirm yet, but I THINK the killer in part 2 was a parent of one of the killers in part 1. So there's the connection and motive to get Sidney. I may be wrong but this is what I remember from my foggy memory. And I think it was Jackie from Roseanne that wound up being the killer who played the mother of one of the part 1 killers. It's all foggy, but this is what I THINK happens in part 2. I can't wait to see it again to piece it all together.

Parts 3 and 4 I have absolutely no idea what happens except that one of them is a film within a film thing.

Originally Posted by Christopher

The first time I can remember ever hearing this term was on the episode of The Facts of Life called Seven Little Indians. Blair said she could make a call on her "cellular phone" because the phone lines were down. I always remember cell phones being called as that in the 90's.

I saw an early Frasier where it's called a "cellular phone" but I always personally called it a "cell phone" and heard it spoken that way by others even back then. Maybe it was only in movies and on TV it was referred as "cellular"?

[Christopher]

Originally Posted by cfr1970

Yeah like in the scene where Sidney's on the phone with the killer who says he's outside and she says to him "I call your bluff" and walks right out onto the porch. I liked that because it's real and what a normal person would do rather than instantly turn into a crying idiot like Drew Barrymore did.

When I watch these types of movies the first thing I think of is "Just run out of the freaking house!!"

Right. I Know What You Did Last Summer came out around the time of Scream. Their portrayal of a heroine is have her scream her lungs off and run around like an idiot. Scream had them grab objects and try to get one up on the killer. I think this is why Scream is such a success with fans is because they don't write the characters as dumb idiots waiting to die.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

I think the movie references went on too long. I get they were showing how horror films can influence already fragile and mentally ill minds to mimic what they see in them, but the references went on a bit too much for me.

I did like that the final chase scene from Halloween was playing in the background on the TV during Sidney's final chase scene.

Well that was the point of Jamie Kennedy's character. He's the movie buff who is always comparing real life to the movies. I don't care for his character and am glad he's done with the movies.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

Ok, you can spoil me just a little....so Scream 2 starts off the same night or the next day then right?

None of the sequels take place right after the event. They take time to allow the process of how each occurrence affected the characters. I think part 3 really brings a realistic view of how Sidney deals with trying to be killed twice. Scream is more intelligent and realistic than the Halloween series.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

What I don't get (at least for now) is how they kept the sequels going if the people who killed Sidney's Mom were the ones killing everyone in part one and they're now dead.

Billy and Stu started a chain of events with Sidney's life. It's not just them who want Sidney to suffer and that's what we see in the sequels. Sidney is paying for the actions of her mom which is messed up. Scream 3 goes more into Sidney's mom's life that you will see.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

Who the hell is continuing to stalk this poor girl then to make the story stretch so long? All this time I thought it was the same killer intent on getting her, but when I watched last night and saw everyone was killed in that original one...I began to wonder if it's different people always after Sidney in the following films?

Don't confirm yet, but I THINK the killer in part 2 was a parent of one of the killers in part 1. So there's the connection and motive to get Sidney. I may be wrong but this is what I remember from my foggy memory. And I think it was Jackie from Roseanne that wound up being the killer who played the mother of one of the part 1 killers. It's all foggy, but this is what I THINK happens in part 2. I can't wait to see it again to piece it all together.

Parts 3 and 4 I have absolutely no idea what happens except that one of them is a film within a film thing.

I think the Scream series does really well with bringing different people in trying to kill Sidney. Billy and Stu created the idea for everyone in Sidney's life to follow with how to make her suffer.

I'm curious to see how they do Scream 5. Scream 4's reveal made sense. I don't know who else they could logically write as a person wanting Sidney dead. They've tapped all the ideas with the first 4. I'm wondering if they'll use Sidney as a way to create the next heroine to restart the series. Even if they do, I think Sidney covered all the bases of why a person would be ghostface killing people and targeting a victim.

[cfr1970]

Originally Posted by Christopher

Right. I Know What You Did Last Summer came out around the time of Scream. Their portrayal of a heroine is have her scream her lungs off and run around like an idiot. Scream had them grab objects and try to get one up on the killer. I think this is why Scream is such a success with fans is because they don't write the characters as dumb idiots waiting to die.

That's one thing that annoys me about these slashers...the way the women scream like idiots when they're either running from the killer or finding a dead body. It's not a natural reaction and only makes them look silly.

If I came across a dead body, i'd maybe gasp but what the hell would I scream at the top of my lungs for?! The first thing i'd do is instinctively check if the person is dead or needs help. But in these movies, they just take one look at the body and stand there and scream like a moron rather than act like a real person.

I want to watch those "Summer" films but will do the "Wrong Turn" collection first since I already have the dvds of that.

Originally Posted by Christopher

Well that was the point of Jamie Kennedy's character. He's the movie buff who is always comparing real life to the movies. I don't care for his character and am glad he's done with the movies.

I didn't either and found him annoying when he went on to Ghost Whisperer. I read on Scream's Wikipedia page that Breckin Meyer was up for that role and I think he would've been better in it.

Originally Posted by Christopher

None of the sequels take place right after the event. They take time to allow the process of how each occurrence affected the characters. I think part 3 really brings a realistic view of how Sidney deals with trying to be killed twice. Scream is more intelligent and realistic than the Halloween series.

I have to watch all the Screams to see if I agree, but Halloween 1 was intelligent and realistic but flew off the rails after part 2. The only ones I count of that series are parts 1, 2 and H20. Everything else just doesn't exist for me.

Originally Posted by Christopher

Billy and Stu started a chain of events with Sidney's life. It's not just them who want Sidney to suffer and that's what we see in the sequels. Sidney is paying for the actions of her mom which is messed up. Scream 3 goes more into Sidney's mom's life that you will see.

I forgot the whole story about her Mom being the focal point of the killings. For some reason I remembered her Mom had died many years before so the whole thing was forgotten to me because when it was said she was killed only a year before I was surprised by that.

I'm glad they tell more of that story in the sequels because it's interesting and hopefully we get to see flashbacks of her Mom so we can see how she was first hand. Do they do that?

One thing I didn't like was the rape factor. If Billy & Stu had just killed her, that would've been enough---but to go as far as having them brutally rape her too was over the line imo. Especially since Billy dated and slept with her daughter afterwards. I wish they had just made it so they killed her and left the rape part out.

Originally Posted by Christopher

I think the Scream series does really well with bringing different people in trying to kill Sidney. Billy and Stu created the idea for everyone in Sidney's life to follow with how to make her suffer.

I'm curious to see how they do Scream 5. Scream 4's reveal made sense. I don't know who else they could logically write as a person wanting Sidney dead. They've tapped all the ideas with the first 4. I'm wondering if they'll use Sidney as a way to create the next heroine to restart the series. Even if they do, I think Sidney covered all the bases of why a person would be ghostface killing people and targeting a victim.

Scream 4 I have no recollection of and I wonder if i've even seen it. So don't tell me anything more about that one because I think it's totally new for me. I see it came out in 2011 and I know I wasn't into movies at the time because I was working so much so i'm sure I totally missed out that one.

One thing I found interesting about the first one though is that for a slasher, there's not that many kills in it. You just have the opening with Drew Barrymore and the boyfriend getting killed and then the HS principal before we get to the end and Tatum in the garage and the guy in the news van is killed before the big finale.

Hopefully they ramp up the kills in the next ones.

[Christopher]

Originally Posted by cfr1970

That's one thing that annoys me about these slashers...the way the women scream like idiots when they're either running from the killer or finding a dead body. It's not a natural reaction and only makes them look silly.

If I came across a dead body, i'd maybe gasp but what the hell would I scream at the top of my lungs for?! The first thing i'd do is instinctively check if the person is dead or needs help. But in these movies, they just take one look at the body and stand there and scream like a moron rather than act like a real person.

I want to watch those "Summer" films but will do the "Wrong Turn" collection first since I already have the dvds of that.

Sidney doesn't do much screaming in the Scream franchise. She does more attacking which I find believable of someone in that situation.

Do you have all 6 Wrong Turns? 1 and 4 are my favorites. 6 is the absolute worst. You'll see why when you get around to it.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

I didn't either and found him annoying when he went on to Ghost Whisperer. I read on Scream's Wikipedia page that Breckin Meyer was up for that role and I think he would've been better in it.

Breckin is from Freddy's Dead The Final Nightmare. He would have been good in that role. I'm surprise Wes didn't cast him.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

I have to watch all the Screams to see if I agree, but Halloween 1 was intelligent and realistic but flew off the rails after part 2. The only ones I count of that series are parts 1, 2 and H20. Everything else just doesn't exist for me.

I haven't seen Halloween 2 in awhile. I plan to watch it next month for the Halloween season and part of Torgo's 31 days of horror challenge. I do remember I got bored with Halloween 2. I don't think there was enough Jamie Lee Curtis in it and she was the reason I liked the Halloween movies. 4 and 5 are good because Danielle Harris plays a creepy kid pretty well.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

I forgot the whole story about her Mom being the focal point of the killings. For some reason I remembered her Mom had died many years before so the whole thing was forgotten to me because when it was said she was killed only a year before I was surprised by that.

I'm glad they tell more of that story in the sequels because it's interesting and hopefully we get to see flashbacks of her Mom so we can see how she was first hand. Do they do that?

One thing I didn't like was the rape factor. If Billy & Stu had just killed her, that would've been enough---but to go as far as having them brutally rape her too was over the line imo. Especially since Billy dated and slept with her daughter afterwards. I wish they had just made it so they killed her and left the rape part out.

In part 1 it was established that Billy and Stu killed Sidney's mom and framed Cotton for it.

I must not have paid attention to the details of Maureen's death. Where did Billy say he raped her before killing her? I don't remember Maureen being raped before murdered.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

Scream 4 I have no recollection of and I wonder if i've even seen it. So don't tell me anything more about that one because I think it's totally new for me. I see it came out in 2011 and I know I wasn't into movies at the time because I was working so much so i'm sure I totally missed out that one.

One thing I found interesting about the first one though is that for a slasher, there's not that many kills in it. You just have the opening with Drew Barrymore and the boyfriend getting killed and then the HS principal before we get to the end and Tatum in the garage and the guy in the news van is killed before the big finale.

Hopefully they ramp up the kills in the next ones.

I won't say anything else about Scream 4. Just that I like it better than 3

As for the kill count, I can think of at least 10 death scenes in Scream 2. You got to remember Scream was more about story than gore. Scream wasn't just a flick that liked killing people for no reason. The killers have motives and a layout for who and why they kill.

[cfr1970]

Originally Posted by Christopher

I must not have paid attention to the details of Maureen's death. Where did Billy say he raped her before killing her? I don't remember Maureen being raped before murdered.

I'm currently watching part 2 on Tubi and there's a commercial break so i'll just answer this part of the post for now before the commercial's over.

In part 1 when Sidney's in her house watching Gale report on the murders, Gale mentions her mother Maureen saying "Only a year ago, Maureen Prescott, wife and mother, was found raped and murdered not far from this peaceful town square."

I watch with closed captions so it's easier to get passing bits like this being said when you read them.

If you play the film on Tubi on your computer or laptop, you can quickly go to 23:55 to catch it.

Ok, i'm going back to part 2 now and reply to the other stuff later on.

[cfr1970]

Finished part 2 and boy do I have some issues with this one.

I think this is the first time seeing it since it came out because I don't remember much of it, but here's what I had issue with and i'll just list them:

1. Too many television stars and famous movie names in this one and for me it detracted from the movie. The part of the killer should never have been cast with Laurie Metcalf from Roseanne because all I saw was crazy Jackie wielding a knife. Someone else lesser known should've been in that part imo.

2. It played more like an action or crime drama than horror film to me. The opening was great, but after that didn't have that "horror" feel to it that I usually like. I prefer my horror films more atmospheric, dark and forboding. This played out so light and airy in comparison to the kind of horror I enjoy.

3. When Sidney and her friend are in the car with the protective cops, there's no way in hell that the killer could've ambushed both of them the way it played out! It was almost comical!

As soon as he smashed in that driver window, the 2nd cop would've had out his gun and blown him away in half a second! It was so unrealistic I kept rolling my eyes.

And then....after the crash, neither girl attempts to smash out the car windows with their feet? Yeah they're probably bulletproof...but at least TRY?!

THEN---Sidney climbs over the killer ever so s l o w l y LOL....I mean come on...a normal person would think and climb over real fast OR better yet think like a normal person and rip off the mask and grab him by the throat and the friend in the backseat helping to attack him.

NEITHER girl thinks to do this while he's obviously lying unconscious!! What was WRONG with them?! It was silly how they both acted.

And why on earth did Sidney not have a phone on her for emergencies? This is a girl being hunted by a serial killer in protective custody....we saw college students all over campus with phones so it was already mainstream....no way she wouldn't have been given an emergency phone to use.

And she would've called police as soon as that car crashed!

4. And after watching like an idiot and screaming her head off while her friend get killed right in front of her....I saw cars in the background driving on the street.
But instead of running towards the traffic close by....what does Sidney do??!....She runs into an abandoned auditorium LOL. WHY?! WHY didn't she instinctively run towards the traffic that was clearly visible nearby?!

Then of course she's trapped in there by the killer who miraculously made it there before her from the crashed car. How did he know she would go there?! He was already up in the projection booth when she got there and it couldn't have been Jackie from Roseanne because she was busy with Gale since she brought her out later on at gunpoint.

5. Sidney's borfriend was at a keg party just a scene before. How the HELL did he get tied up to that thing on stage so fast if the killer was attacking the police car at the same time?!

How on earth was he kidnapped from the keg party so quickly, tied up and gagged the way he was so quickly and without anyone noticing this?! He seemed to literally be the life of that party the way they were all acting just ONE scene prior!!

So many plot holes in this one that I can't say it's a favorite. The only scene I really enjoyed was the opening scene and the chase with Gale after Dewey got stabbed.

Oh and Jamie Kennedy's kill was unbelievable too....there was a police car right in sight of the van where he was pulled in to get killed....this would've been noticeable since police were obviously watching that campus...unless they were all on lunch breaks at the same time.

Also so convenient that students blaring boom boxes (in the late 90's?!) walk by the van while he gets killed so they can't hear the ruskus....with an OPEN WINDOW as well....I'm to believe NO ONE was close by on that whole campus to see or hear that? Please!! I'm glad he was killed anyway.

Oh and Buffy the Vampire Slayer was another idiot because literally within 20 seconds of her friend leaving the house the killer asks her over the phone exactly what her friend said about the alarm being turned on.

That tells her he's INSIDE the house and heard her friend say that just a minute ago!! But instead of running out the front door to call after the friend who just left 20 seconds ago...she bolts the front door like an idiot LOL.

I was so glad when she was tossed out the window...she deserved it.

I hope Scream 3 is better and you say 4 is really good so i'll look forward to that one. But 2 is....omg....I just can't go on anymore....it was "ok", but not one i'll watch again. (Now I know why I haven't seen it again since it came out!)

But it was fun to see it again though if only to be able to rag on it like this.

I'll watch part 3 on Wednesday because tomorrow is the debates and I want to tune into that.

[cfr1970]

Oh I almost forgot the worst one of all!!

When crazy Jackie from Roseanne is waving the gun at Sidney and giving that long drawn out speech---OMG I hate when movies do this. If you're going to kill someone, you don't give a grand speech!! You just BLOW THEM AWAY!!

It's the oldest plot device in these films and I hate it. Jackie goes on and on and on explaining everything, and even how she plans to get away with it.

If this woman was so traumatized at her son's death and blamed Sidney and her "slut mom" the rage would be so high that she'd just blow her away in an instant...but she gives a big speech while holding the gun so Sidney can have her plot device and distract her attention and fight back.

And when Cotton had the gun on Crazy Jackie, the rage in her would be so great she would have slit Sidney's throat right there without caring about getting killed herself....yet she bargains with Cotton? Please....my eyeballs again were rolling back in my head at all that.

[cfr1970]

Originally Posted by Christopher

Sidney doesn't do much screaming in the Scream franchise. She does more attacking which I find believable of someone in that situation.

Do you have all 6 Wrong Turns? 1 and 4 are my favorites. 6 is the absolute worst. You'll see why when you get around to it.

I bought the Wrong Turn 1-6 Collection for $10 bucks at Walmart a few months ago. I figure that's a great price for all 6 so even if only 3 are great, i'd still get my moneys worth.

Originally Posted by Christopher

Breckin is from Freddy's Dead The Final Nightmare. He would have been good in that role. I'm surprise Wes didn't cast him.

Wikipedia says about that: "The role of Randy Meeks was contested between Jamie Kennedy and Breckin Meyer. The producers favored Kennedy, believing him to best embody the role. As he had no major roles prior to Scream, the studio wanted a more prominent actor than Kennedy to play the character. The producers were adamant that he was the best choice and successfully fought to keep him."

I guess the producers are above the director which is what Wes was? But I agree Breckin would've been the better choice.

Originally Posted by Christopher

I haven't seen Halloween 2 in awhile. I plan to watch it next month for the Halloween season and part of Torgo's 31 days of horror challenge. I do remember I got bored with Halloween 2. I don't think there was enough Jamie Lee Curtis in it and she was the reason I liked the Halloween movies. 4 and 5 are good because Danielle Harris plays a creepy kid pretty well.

I didn't care for any of the ones after part 2 except for H20 and i'm debating whether to break my rule of not watching the latest one where they changed so much history. Part of me is afraid that seeing it would ruin the whole franchise for me.

Originally Posted by Christopher

I won't say anything else about Scream 4. Just that I like it better than 3

As for the kill count, I can think of at least 10 death scenes in Scream 2. You got to remember Scream was more about story than gore. Scream wasn't just a flick that liked killing people for no reason. The killers have motives and a layout for who and why they kill.

Yeah, that's why I say after seeing part 2 that I wouldn't classify this as "horror" but more action/adventure, or crime drama due to it being more story focused over gore and kills.

I'm looking forward to part 4 because you say it's good and also I know I have absolutely no idea of what the plot is and i'm staying far away from the Wikipedia page on it so not to spoil myself.

I know 3 is the film within the film thing....I don't remember exactly what happens except the basic plot of it.

[Christopher]

Originally Posted by cfr1970

In part 1 when Sidney's in her house watching Gale report on the murders, Gale mentions her mother Maureen saying "Only a year ago, Maureen Prescott, wife and mother, was found raped and murdered not far from this peaceful town square."

This is so weird because it's always emphasize that Billy and Stu murdered Maureen when referenced in the sequels. They don't mention the rape. That is disgusting now that you bring that up. I'm surprise that alone didn't traumatize Sidney to the extremes before part 2 began.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

Finished part 2 and boy do I have some issues with this one.

Are you sure? I bet the commercials distracted the brilliance of part 2 for you

Originally Posted by cfr1970

1. Too many television stars and famous movie names in this one and for me it detracted from the movie. The part of the killer should never have been cast with Laurie Metcalf from Roseanne because all I saw was crazy Jackie wielding a knife. Someone else lesser known should've been in that part imo.

After seeing Laurie Metcalf, I couldn't picture anyone else doing that part. I thought Laurie did a fantastic job as the killer. This movie definitely helped her experience for when her character held a grocery store hostage on Desperate Housewives and was shooting at people.

I agree there's a lot of 90's TV stars in Scream 2. That's one of the reasons I like it more than part 1. These were stars that I watched in the 90's so they had some acting experience. This was better than bringing in inexperience actors trying to capture what the character's presence is.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

2. It played more like an action or crime drama than horror film to me. The opening was great, but after that didn't have that "horror" feel to it that I usually like. I prefer my horror films more atmospheric, dark and forboding. This played out so light and airy in comparison to the kind of horror I enjoy.

Well the time span in the movie was only two days. It was very rushed to get to trying to kill Sidney in the final showdown. Maybe that's why it felt like a crime drama?

Originally Posted by cfr1970

3. When Sidney and her friend are in the car with the protective cops, there's no way in hell that the killer could've ambushed both of them the way it played out! It was almost comical!

I agree to some extent. I think Ghostface pounding on the car to get their attention was corny. He should have just stabbed the cop in the neck to announce his presence there instead of being theatrical.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

And then....after the crash, neither girl attempts to smash out the car windows with their feet? Yeah they're probably bulletproof...but at least TRY?!

Sidney does say it's a cop car when they're trapped so maybe we're to assume they knew the windows wouldn't break? That could be why they didn't try.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

THEN---Sidney climbs over the killer ever so s l o w l y LOL....I mean come on...a normal person would think and climb over real fast OR better yet think like a normal person and rip off the mask and grab him by the throat and the friend in the backseat helping to attack him.

They wanted to get away from the killer as safe as they could. Sidney screwed up though wanting to know who the killer was. See the killer was never unconscious. Their plan was to lure her back to the auditorium because that's where their grand finale was planned to take place.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

4. And after watching like an idiot and screaming her head off while her friend get killed right in front of her....I saw cars in the background driving on the street.
But instead of running towards the traffic close by....what does Sidney do??!....She runs into an abandoned auditorium LOL. WHY?! WHY didn't she instinctively run towards the traffic that was clearly visible nearby?!

Then of course she's trapped in there by the killer who miraculously made it there before her from the crashed car. How did he know she would go there?! He was already up in the projection booth when she got there and it couldn't have been Jackie from Roseanne because she was busy with Gale since she brought her out later on at gunpoint.

Sidney was still close to the college grounds. I think this is why she went back there instead of going elsewhere. I'm going to believe Mickey had his car nearby or some kind of transportation because he did have to get back there to set the stage for the reveal.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

5. Sidney's borfriend was at a keg party just a scene before. How the HELL did he get tied up to that thing on stage so fast if the killer was attacking the police car at the same time?!

How on earth was he kidnapped from the keg party so quickly, tied up and gagged the way he was so quickly and without anyone noticing this?! He seemed to literally be the life of that party the way they were all acting just ONE scene prior!!

That wasn't a keg party. They were punishing him for giving Sidney his fraternity letters necklace. They just tied him up on the prop and left him there for someone to find. Mickey knew this and wanted to screw with Sidney's head making her think for a second that she was dating another killer. That moment was actually cruel for both Sidney and Derek because he died with her thinking he could hurt her. She didn't even try to help him because she believed Mickey.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

Oh and Jamie Kennedy's kill was unbelievable too....there was a police car right in sight of the van where he was pulled in to get killed....this would've been noticeable since police were obviously watching that campus...unless they were all on lunch breaks at the same time.

Also so convenient that students blaring boom boxes (in the late 90's?!) walk by the van while he gets killed so they can't hear the ruskus....with an OPEN WINDOW as well....I'm to believe NO ONE was close by on that whole campus to see or hear that? Please!! I'm glad he was killed anyway.

I believe Mrs. Loomis stabbed Randy in the throat before repeatedly stabbing him. I agree it's weird no one heard him scream or yell or anything. I'm believing (even though we don't know for sure) she cut the throat first to affect his vocal cords. Either way, I was just happy he was killed off

Originally Posted by cfr1970

Oh and Buffy the Vampire Slayer was another idiot because literally within 20 seconds of her friend leaving the house the killer asks her over the phone exactly what her friend said about the alarm being turned on.

That tells her he's INSIDE the house and heard her friend say that just a minute ago!! But instead of running out the front door to call after the friend who just left 20 seconds ago...she bolts the front door like an idiot LOL.

I was so glad when she was tossed out the window...she deserved it.

How do you really feel? Well do you at least give her points for trying to slow the killer down? She threw a few objects at them when trying to get away.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

I hope Scream 3 is better and you say 4 is really good so i'll look forward to that one. But 2 is....omg....I just can't go on anymore....it was "ok", but not one i'll watch again. (Now I know why I haven't seen it again since it came out!)

But it was fun to see it again though if only to be able to rag on it like this.

You might actually like part 3 better. I'm bummed you didn't like part 2. Part 2 is my favorite in the series.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

Oh I almost forgot the worst one of all!!

When crazy Jackie from Roseanne is waving the gun at Sidney and giving that long drawn out speech---OMG I hate when movies do this. If you're going to kill someone, you don't give a grand speech!! You just BLOW THEM AWAY!!

It's the oldest plot device in these films and I hate it. Jackie goes on and on and on explaining everything, and even how she plans to get away with it.

If this woman was so traumatized at her son's death and blamed Sidney and her "slut mom" the rage would be so high that she'd just blow her away in an instant...but she gives a big speech while holding the gun so Sidney can have her plot device and distract her attention and fight back.

And when Cotton had the gun on Crazy Jackie, the rage in her would be so great she would have slit Sidney's throat right there without caring about getting killed herself....yet she bargains with Cotton? Please....my eyeballs again were rolling back in my head at all that.

Well some killers like to have their moment before killing what they consider, a "prize". Mrs. Loomis had all these deaths done in less than 48 hours. She was having her moment and enjoying it. I agree that usually is the killer's biggest fail, but I liked hearing Mrs. Loomis's hatred for Sidney. Laurie played the crazy character so well IMO.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

I bought the Wrong Turn 1-6 Collection for $10 bucks at Walmart a few months ago. I figure that's a great price for all 6 so even if only 3 are great, i'd still get my moneys worth.

Whatever happened with Final Destination 2? Did you get a replacement disc? Since that happened, do you check your movies right away after buying to make sure they're closed captioning?

Originally Posted by cfr1970

Wikipedia says about that: "The role of Randy Meeks was contested between Jamie Kennedy and Breckin Meyer. The producers favored Kennedy, believing him to best embody the role. As he had no major roles prior to Scream, the studio wanted a more prominent actor than Kennedy to play the character. The producers were adamant that he was the best choice and successfully fought to keep him."

I guess the producers are above the director which is what Wes was? But I agree Breckin would've been the better choice.

I would have thought they'd want someone with a major role to ensure a fanbase would watch the film they're creating? I now remember Breckin was in Clueless. That movie was huge with the teeny boppers in the 90's. They could have had more people watching Scream if they had cast Breckin.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

I didn't care for any of the ones after part 2 except for H20 and i'm debating whether to break my rule of not watching the latest one where they changed so much history. Part of me is afraid that seeing it would ruin the whole franchise for me.

It might. They turned Laurie into a shriveling, alcoholic mess. Sidney's had 4 encounters with Ghostface. She never broke. The new Halloween has Laurie broken after 1 encounter 40 years ago.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

Yeah, that's why I say after seeing part 2 that I wouldn't classify this as "horror" but more action/adventure, or crime drama due to it being more story focused over gore and kills.

I'm looking forward to part 4 because you say it's good and also I know I have absolutely no idea of what the plot is and i'm staying far away from the Wikipedia page on it so not to spoil myself.

I know 3 is the film within the film thing....I don't remember exactly what happens except the basic plot of it.

Yes, Scream 3 is about the cast of the film series Stab getting targeted. It's alright. It's very campy. You'll see what I mean.

[cfr1970]

Originally Posted by Christopher

This is so weird because it's always emphasize that Billy and Stu murdered Maureen when referenced in the sequels. They don't mention the rape. That is disgusting now that you bring that up. I'm surprise that alone didn't traumatize Sidney to the extremes before part 2 began.

That's why I think it should've been scrapped from the plot. Having her mother killed is bad enough, but being raped too and by her boyfriend is just a bit too much.

Originally Posted by Christopher

Are you sure? I bet the commercials distracted the brilliance of part 2 for you

Like everyone else I despise commercials, but i'm surprised by how much the breaks on Tubi don't bother me at all. They place them pretty spread out and they're not 5 minute commercials like you see on broadcast TV. So far it doesn't affect the movie watching experience for me at all, and again i'm surprised by that because I thought they'd annoy me when I started watching the channel.

For what it is, it's an ok film. I wouldn't give it 1 star or anything that low. But for me, i'd place it right in the middle as average. I don't love it or hate it. If I look at it as more part crime drama, part horror, part parody then it's a good film.

But it's not something i'd watch if i'm in the mood for scary horror which is the big kick i'm on these days.

Originally Posted by Christopher

After seeing Laurie Metcalf, I couldn't picture anyone else doing that part. I thought Laurie did a fantastic job as the killer. This movie definitely helped her experience for when her character held a grocery store hostage on Desperate Housewives and was shooting at people.

I agree there's a lot of 90's TV stars in Scream 2. That's one of the reasons I like it more than part 1. These were stars that I watched in the 90's so they had some acting experience. This was better than bringing in inexperience actors trying to capture what the character's presence is.

I remember that Desperate Housewives episode and how shocked I was when I saw that scene where she blew away one of the hostages. I agree the actress plays crazy really well and she spent years playing crazy neurotic Jackie on Roseanne...but she's so well known in that part that for me, whenever I see her all I can see is "Jackie".

I have to disagree about the part being played by another actress. Sure an inexperienced one would screw it up, but there are tons of great actresses, even unknown ones who could've done that part just as good or better. For me personally, all I saw was "Jackie" and I admit that's not right, but that role was so big for her that for some viewers it's hard to put aside.

Originally Posted by Christopher

Well the time span in the movie was only two days. It was very rushed to get to trying to kill Sidney in the final showdown. Maybe that's why it felt like a crime drama?

I'd say it was because there was a lot more "action" than "horror" going on throughout the film. Not to say that's a bad thing, but I think if someone is looking for a good horror to watch, I wouldn't recommend this one for them. If they wanted lots of action and crime, with some humor thrown in, then I would.

Originally Posted by Christopher

I agree to some extent. I think Ghostface pounding on the car to get their attention was corny. He should have just stabbed the cop in the neck to announce his presence there instead of being theatrical.

They both had guns and were experienced cops. And there was just a murder on campus. There's no way i'm going to believe that the second cop wouldn't have been Quick Draw McGraw and blew the killer away as soon as he stabbed the driver cop in the neck. I would've redone that whole scene to make it more believable.

Originally Posted by Christopher

Sidney does say it's a cop car when they're trapped so maybe we're to assume they knew the windows wouldn't break? That could be why they didn't try.

Yeah, but when your lives are at stake here I think instinctively they'd have tried over not even bothering. And besides, the killer easily smashed the driver side window in to stab the driver so the window was shown to easily break.

Originally Posted by Christopher

They wanted to get away from the killer as safe as they could. Sidney screwed up though wanting to know who the killer was. See the killer was never unconscious. Their plan was to lure her back to the auditorium because that's where their grand finale was planned to take place.

When Sidney said she wanted to go back to look that was fine with me, but what a normal person in that situation would do is tell the friend "Run to the street and get help. I'm going back to get a look at him." You could see car lights driving very close by to where they were. This is what I believe a person in that situation would've done.

And if it were me, the first thing I would have done when the killer was slumped over after the crash is tear off the mask, have the friend in back grab his throat from behind and attack from the front with all you've got.

The way they both ever so slowly climbed over him was comical. And how did the killers know she would have gone to the auditorium rather than run for help? Why go to the empty auditorium at night when you need help? It made no sense.

Even if it was close by, the moving cars in the street were instant help right there. No rational person would think to run into the auditorium imo.

Originally Posted by Christopher

That wasn't a keg party. They were punishing him for giving Sidney his fraternity letters necklace. They just tied him up on the prop and left him there for someone to find. Mickey knew this and wanted to screw with Sidney's head making her think for a second that she was dating another killer. That moment was actually cruel for both Sidney and Derek because he died with her thinking he could hurt her. She didn't even try to help him because she believed Mickey.

Ok, it looked like they were all having a big party. When they carried him off, I thought it was just to all go party.

Well we already know Sidney isn't a very good judge of character. When Derek was denying what Mickey was saying and shouting at him, it came off genuine but she still doubted him enough not to help him. But this is a girl who unknowingly dated the guy who raped and killed her Mom so she's not the best when it comes to her intuition.

Originally Posted by Christopher

I believe Mrs. Loomis stabbed Randy in the throat before repeatedly stabbing him. I agree it's weird no one heard him scream or yell or anything. I'm believing (even though we don't know for sure) she cut the throat first to affect his vocal cords. Either way, I was just happy he was killed off

I wasn't sure which killer offed who but if it was Mrs. Loomis then damn she had the strength of a linebacker to pull Jamie Kennedy so quickly into that van and overpower him! but I too was happy when he was killed off.

Originally Posted by Christopher

How do you really feel? Well do you at least give her points for trying to slow the killer down? She threw a few objects at them when trying to get away.

A potted plant lol. And she runs upstairs which was even said in this film or the first one is the stupidest thing to do when talking about the horror film rules. So now after remembering that, i'm actually wondering if its possible that her kill was a parody of that rule because she did everything that was the opposite of what a person should do in that situation.

Originally Posted by Christopher

You might actually like part 3 better. I'm bummed you didn't like part 2. Part 2 is my favorite in the series.

It's not that I didn't like it. It's an ok film for what it is. But I went into it expecting more of a horror flick and that's not what this is so it's just that my expectations were off.

Originally Posted by Christopher

Well some killers like to have their moment before killing what they consider, a "prize". Mrs. Loomis had all these deaths done in less than 48 hours. She was having her moment and enjoying it. I agree that usually is the killer's biggest fail, but I liked hearing Mrs. Loomis's hatred for Sidney. Laurie played the crazy character so well IMO.

I just always cringe when the killer with the gun gives their big speech. It's always a huge plot device on soaps and always made me want to toss the TV out the window. But I agree that Laurie plays crazy well.

Originally Posted by Christopher

Whatever happened with Final Destination 2? Did you get a replacement disc? Since that happened, do you check your movies right away after buying to make sure they're closed captioning?

Never heard from them and didn't expect to. I knew she was just giving me the brush off. I've learned over the years never to buy anything without seeing that "CC" or "SDH" label on the back of the box. The Final Destination misleadingly had it and that's wrong, so I never needed to check the discs until this experience because I buy nothing until confirming the logos on the box.

After this, I do check discs now just to be sure so I can return stuff before the 30 day window goes away. But I never had issues before FD.

Originally Posted by Christopher

I would have thought they'd want someone with a major role to ensure a fanbase would watch the film they're creating? I now remember Breckin was in Clueless. That movie was huge with the teeny boppers in the 90's. They could have had more people watching Scream if they had cast Breckin.

I guess they wanted someone more nerdier for that part and Jamie Kennedy is much more nerdy than Breckin Meyer is.

Originally Posted by Christopher

It might. They turned Laurie into a shriveling, alcoholic mess. Sidney's had 4 encounters with Ghostface. She never broke. The new Halloween has Laurie broken after 1 encounter 40 years ago.

If it's ever free on Tubi or another streaming channel, I may check it out. No way i'm paying to see that though. I hate that they changed a solid 40 year history just to reboot the series. And we saw Laurie die in the one after H20 so bringing her back just makes it look like Jamie Lee Curtis needed a paycheck.

Originally Posted by Christopher

Yes, Scream 3 is about the cast of the film series Stab getting targeted. It's alright. It's very campy. You'll see what I mean.

I'm glad you forewarned be about that. If I go into it knowing it's campy then I won't have such high horror expectations as I did with part 2 so i'll probably have more fun watching it. Will see that one Wednesday night.

[Christopher]

Originally Posted by cfr1970

That's why I think it should've been scrapped from the plot. Having her mother killed is bad enough, but being raped too and by her boyfriend is just a bit too much.

I agree. I'm going to rewatch Scream 3 and see if they make any mention of her being raped before murdered. I really don't believe they do. All they ever touch on is that Billy and Stu murdered her mother. Scream 3 is about Sidney's mom so I'll pay close attention when there's references of it.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

Like everyone else I despise commercials, but i'm surprised by how much the breaks on Tubi don't bother me at all. They place them pretty spread out and they're not 5 minute commercials like you see on broadcast TV. So far it doesn't affect the movie watching experience for me at all, and again i'm surprised by that because I thought they'd annoy me when I started watching the channel.

For what it is, it's an ok film. I wouldn't give it 1 star or anything that low. But for me, i'd place it right in the middle as average. I don't love it or hate it. If I look at it as more part crime drama, part horror, part parody then it's a good film.

But it's not something i'd watch if i'm in the mood for scary horror which is the big kick i'm on these days.

I watched a movie on Tubi last week called Hangman. It actually fits well with the movie The Rental. Hangman is about a family who comes back from vacation and realize there's more to just their house being broken into than they thought. It's a good movie. A little short, like 80 minutes. You might like it. It's listed in the horror section, but I consider it more suspense than anything else.

I don't consider any of the Scream movies scary horror. It's more brilliant horror because of how the killers always have their motives and the way most characters respond when being attacked. I like Scream for what it is and the characters it created with the core 3.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

I remember that Desperate Housewives episode and how shocked I was when I saw that scene where she blew away one of the hostages. I agree the actress plays crazy really well and she spent years playing crazy neurotic Jackie on Roseanne...but she's so well known in that part that for me, whenever I see her all I can see is "Jackie".

I have to disagree about the part being played by another actress. Sure an inexperienced one would screw it up, but there are tons of great actresses, even unknown ones who could've done that part just as good or better. For me personally, all I saw was "Jackie" and I admit that's not right, but that role was so big for her that for some viewers it's hard to put aside.

She'll always be Jackie for me too, but I enjoy seeing her in other projects. I was excited when she got the part on Desperate Housewives and even more thrilled when she would bounce off Marcia Cross's character. I like that Marc Cherry knew to put experienced performers with Marcia Cross because she could hold her own with them.

I think it's because I've been rewatching Scream 2 for over twenty years( ) that I am use to this being Laurie's role and no one else's. I'm also someone who doesn't see a lot of flaws with Scream 2 and enjoy it so much that I like how everything was

Originally Posted by cfr1970

They both had guns and were experienced cops. And there was just a murder on campus. There's no way i'm going to believe that the second cop wouldn't have been Quick Draw McGraw and blew the killer away as soon as he stabbed the driver cop in the neck. I would've redone that whole scene to make it more believable.

I agree that the other cop didn't act believable. After he sees his partner get stabbed, he pulls out his gun and gets out of the car. I would have stayed in the car waiting for the killer to be in a range where I could shoot them. After he got out, he was just a target practice for Mickey.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

And how did the killers know she would have gone to the auditorium rather than run for help? Why go to the empty auditorium at night when you need help? It made no sense.

Even if it was close by, the moving cars in the street were instant help right there. No rational person would think to run into the auditorium imo.

After rewatching Scream 2 a lot of times, I came to the conclusion that the reason Mickey turned the sound on in the auditorium was to make Sidney think there were people in there. She was running for help so what better place than a building where there's usually rehearsals or plays taking place?

Originally Posted by cfr1970

Ok, it looked like they were all having a big party. When they carried him off, I thought it was just to all go party.

Well we already know Sidney isn't a very good judge of character. When Derek was denying what Mickey was saying and shouting at him, it came off genuine but she still doubted him enough not to help him. But this is a girl who unknowingly dated the guy who raped and killed her Mom so she's not the best when it comes to her intuition.

Well they were celebrating having him on the prop to humiliate him for others to see. They didn't stay though after they were done. They had their mission and moved on to something else.

Derek really liked Sidney though. I think when she saw him as he died tell her that he would never hurt her, it traumatized her more. We do see her wear his necklace in Scream 3 so we know his death has some affect on her afterwards. I like that part because everything Sidney went through in the first two films does have an affect on how she lives her life in part 3.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

I wasn't sure which killer offed who but if it was Mrs. Loomis then damn she had the strength of a linebacker to pull Jamie Kennedy so quickly into that van and overpower him! but I too was happy when he was killed off.

When Sidney is going off about how crazy Billy was, Mrs. Loomis tells her to watch it because Randy did and she got carried away with her knife. That's how we know she killed Randy. I don't think strength has that much to do with it. Randy wasn't expecting anyone to be behind him. His guard was down so it is very easy for anyone to jump him and over power him. Either way, he died and I was glad

Originally Posted by cfr1970

A potted plant lol. And she runs upstairs which was even said in this film or the first one is the stupidest thing to do when talking about the horror film rules. So now after remembering that, i'm actually wondering if its possible that her kill was a parody of that rule because she did everything that was the opposite of what a person should do in that situation.

I think it was a parody because she didn't act that terrified when running from the killer. It was more for show for the viewers. Sarah was pretty big in the 90's so Wes was giving them a helpless view of the vampire slayer.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

I just always cringe when the killer with the gun gives their big speech. It's always a huge plot device on soaps and always made me want to toss the TV out the window.

I can't wait to discuss this after you see Scream 3 It's funny you bring this up because it's mentioned in Scream 3. There's a good reaction to it just like yours.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

Never heard from them and didn't expect to. I knew she was just giving me the brush off. I've learned over the years never to buy anything without seeing that "CC" or "SDH" label on the back of the box. The Final Destination misleadingly had it and that's wrong, so I never needed to check the discs until this experience because I buy nothing until confirming the logos on the box.

After this, I do check discs now just to be sure so I can return stuff before the 30 day window goes away. But I never had issues before FD.

That's a shame they false advertised their merchandise and don't plan to correct it. I'm glad your other movies work well though.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

If it's ever free on Tubi or another streaming channel, I may check it out. No way i'm paying to see that though. I hate that they changed a solid 40 year history just to reboot the series. And we saw Laurie die in the one after H20 so bringing her back just makes it look like Jamie Lee Curtis needed a paycheck.

I don't count Halloween Resurrection. That film was so stupid. Jamie's portrayal was worst in that film than the recent one. I watched it once or twice and that was it for me. I still have never seen Halloween 3. When I learned it had nothing to do with Michael, I skipped it to part 4.

Originally Posted by cfr1970

I'm glad you forewarned be about that. If I go into it knowing it's campy then I won't have such high horror expectations as I did with part 2 so i'll probably have more fun watching it. Will see that one Wednesday night.

Yeah there's a lot of campy things in Scream 3. The character who plays Gail's part in Stab is so over the top. Gail herself is over the top. She went from serious reporter in part 2 to "I'm here for laughs" in part 3. They tamed her down horribly in part 3 that it felt like it was Monica from Friends we were watching. I didn't like that change. She goes back to Gail from Scream 1 and 2 for Scream 4.

Some people actually consider Scream 3 to be the best. I don't see this so I'm curious to see your review on Scream 3 after you see it.