Editorials
Special Feature: ‘SCREAM’… AND SCREAM AGAIN!
The wait is over. The teaser trailers are a thing of the past. The constant stream of leaked production photos and set news has come to a screeching halt. Tomorrow is the big day- the highly anticipated fourth installment of the SCREAM series hits theaters. Fans of the ghost-faced killer and leading lady Sydney Prescott will flock to theaters if not for the nostalgia, but for the newest generation of victims that are set to be claimed by the film’s yet to be identified masked murderer.
Let’s face it- SCREAM did for phones what Jaws did for the ocean, and even if you’re not a fan of the series, you have to admit that every once in awhile, when the phone rings, there’s always that curiosity- the one that says, what’s your favorite scary movie?
Inside you can read Andrea Albin’s special feature: SCREAM… AND SCREAM AGAIN!
“If you’re the only suspect in a senseless bloodbath, would you be standing in the horror section?” Randy- SCREAM
SCREAM slashed its way into theaters in December of 1996, only days before the Christmas holiday. While most were flocking to family friendly cinema, others were taking on a new wave of horror. After a gloomy kick off at the box office, word spread and by the end of its run, including a second release just a few months later, the movie had become one of the highest grossing horror flicks of all time. Not bad for a movie that faced more than its share of criticism and blunder. But it didn’t stop there, the cast returned for a highly anticipated sequel the following year and in 2000 director Wes Craven turned it into a full blown trilogy. It was like the horror engine that could.
But it’s not the statistics that horror fans cared about. It wasn’t about screenwriter Kevin Williamson’s highly noted bidding war over the original SCARY MOVIE script, or Craven’s battle with the MPAA- it was about changing horror. It was about putting a new face on a dying breed, and Williamson’s script pushed limits that hadn’t been pushed in years. Sure- the characters were cliché, doing the same things and making the same mistakes as thousands before- but that was the beauty of it. That was the direction it was meant to go. Add in some pretty gruesome deaths, a highly traumatized, cute female lead, and a couple of psychopaths and it was a hell of a way to kick off the franchise.
Many will argue that the sequel surpassed the original, initializing another cameo death sequence starring Jada Pinkett-Smith and Omar Epps, leading us into the same twists and turns that we had become accustomed to in the previous film. Finally, it rounded out with SCREAM 3 about three years later, disappointing many with its sudden turn from gory, rules-infused horror, to a comic bout with a mindless serial killer. However, with SCREAM 4’s release, fans are returning to theaters hoping that Ghostface is prepped to make a stellar comeback.
“Now Sid, don’t you blame the movies! Movies don’t create psychos, movies make psychos more creative!” Billy- SCREAM
Ask anyone who has seen the first movie, even those who aren’t fans of the horror genre, and the first thing they’ll remember are the rules. Every single one of the SCREAM films has, in one way or another, focused on those age-old annoyances that are seen in almost every slasher. A girl runs up the stairs instead of out the front door. Talking to strangers. Losing their virginity. Since SCREAM is one of the few films where the characters actually acknowledge the existence of cinematic horror, it was interesting to see them play it out just like a movie- a point that has given the franchise its trademark.
Randy, the nerdy video store clerk that bit the dust in SCREAM 2, walked us through the rules in all three films. That’s right, even after he was dead he managed to help Sydney and the gang defeat Ghostface. Pretty impressive. But let’s be fair, I couldn’t walk us down memory lane without talking about the rules, and, as obnoxious as Randy was, you can’t help but love him for it.
SCREAM
Number One… You Can Never Have Sex!
Quite the conundrum for Sydney since she loses her virginity to Billy right smack in the middle of a blood bath.
Number Two… You Can Never Drink or Do Drugs!
If this were true, the entire cast would have been screwed. That was one hell of a house party.
Number Three… Never, Ever, Ever Under Any Circumstances Say… I’LL BE RIGHT BACK!
More than likely, even the most careful of characters is bound to bite the big one. Look at Tatum, though her death had more to do with her assets than her strive to survive.
SCREAM 2
By the time the second film rolled around, Randy had a new list of rules to run with.
Number One… The Body Count is Always Bigger.
Just ask Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Will Smith’s wife.
Number Two… The Death Scenes Are Always Much More Elaborate… More Blood, More Gore.
The killers go so far as to commit murder in the middle of a theatrical rendition of Cassandra. Now that takes some stage presence.
Number Three… Never, Ever, Under Any Circumstances Assume The Killer is Dead.
It’s amazing how serial killers seem to have an immunity to guns and insanely heavy falling objects.
SCREAM 3
In the last film, Randy still managed to get his point across via video, despite his bloody demise in the second film. His sister miraculously surfaces with a tape that her brother had made smack dab in the middle of the massacre. Lame, sure, but we got the point.
Number One… You’ve Got a Killer Who’s Going to Be Super Human.
Or just smart enough to wear a bullet proof vest.
Number Two… Anyone, Including the Main Character, Can Die.
Come on now, we all know that Sydney is never really in danger. I don’t think the girl has even had a drop of her own blood spilt.
Number Three… The Past Will Come Back to Bite You in the Ass.
Or murder a bunch of movie stars and blame you for his shitty upbringing.
Going into SCREAM 4, I’m curious to see what’s thrown at us. Whether it’s a new set of rules or the theory that all rules go out the window, I’m sure Craven has something up his sleeve for how to survive another visit from the neighborhood masked killer.
“Have you ever felt a knife cut through human flesh and scrape the bone beneath?” Ghostface- SCREAM 2
Slasher fans love some good bloodshed. I know I do. I get tingles every time a director does something new and exciting to bring pain to a character on film. It’s that look of horror, the blatantly obvious fear that a character has that sets off the adrenaline it takes to fall in love with a scary movie- or detest the idea. Either way, the director got his point across.
Looking back over the first three SCREAM films, I’m sure everyone has their favorite death. I think most everyone can agree that the original opening sets it off. It was a huge surprise that one of the film’s main marketing perks, Drew Barrymore, gets gutted and hung from a tree in the first ten minutes of the film. No one saw it coming- the helpless boyfriend, the burning popcorn, the crazed voice on the other end of the phone. It all rolled into one hell of a memorable scare.
Another murder scene from the first film that had a lot of people talking was when Tatum met her demise via garage door. Girls remembered it because we had fallen in love with Sydney’s tough but tiny best friend. Most of the male population remembered it because of, well, you’ll see.
In the second film, I nearly cried when Randy was swiped off of the college campus, thrown into a van with Ghostface himself, and slaughtered via beatbox. Gale’s shrill scream said it all.
I’ll be the first one to tell you, I didn’t care for SCREAM 3. I felt as if there was something missing- as if it wasn’t meant to be a part of the trilogy. There wasn’t enough there in terms of fear, blood, anything that had become a crucial part to the existence of these films. However, I think the opening scene where Cotton Weary faces his demons and gets, well, stabbed, is the only scene worth mentioning.
The bottom line- SCREAM is a mainstay. Sure, there was laughter, there were plot holes, there were a few mind boggling mistakes, but overall, it was a vision. It was just what was needed to put horror back on the map and some of the more inventive kills are what makes the series. Think about it- would you have thought to kill the Fonz?
“It’s a perfect example of life imitating art imitating life.” Mickey- SCREAM 2
The original SCREAM film was truly thrilling. Here you have a director who was known for causing fright (hello, the guy did NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET!) at the helm of a successfully scary movie. Of course, it infused laughter, the occasional lame line, and a beautiful cast- but there was more to it. It was truly a groundbreaking film that the industry needed at the time. Unfortunately, it was followed by some movies that many of us horror purists would rather forget.
I Know What You Did Last Summer
A bunch of teenagers accidentally kill a man and bury the body. A year later, their lives are in the toilet and he’s after them for revenge. It could have been good, but it just wasn’t. I also hate the fact that it led to a lame sequel (I STILL KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER) and an even worse follow up (I’LL ALWAYS KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER). I wish I was kidding.
Urban Legend
The premise was kind of cool- a serial killer is murdering college students using age old urban legends. I could work with it- if the kills were actually inventive. I don’t consider putting a dog in a microwave a good use of my time.
There were others. Valentine. Disturbing Behavior. One followed right after the other and the trend really hasn’t stopped. Nearly all teen slashers try to follow what SCREAM did back in 1996- unfortunately, most of them fail. It’s hard to beat an iconic film.
“No, please don’t kill me Mr. Ghostface, I want to be in the sequel!” Tatum- SCREAM
It’s been fifteen years since the first SCREAM film hit theaters. Many had little hope for the film, which was released during a time of year when Santa Claus overrides gore. But it overcame many obstacles, raking in millions of dollars and pushing for not one, but two closely greenlit follow-ups.
Now, SCREAM 4 is only hours from surprising fans. Critics are saying that this film is going to bring Craven and his crew of misfits, including fan favorite Deputy Dewey, back into the spotlight. The director and his crew are also in talks for a fifth and possible sixth installment. It’s certainly a challenge to do something new and different with each new addition, so here’s hoping the later films capture the same essence that we’ve seen time and time again from Ghostface and his undying legacy. I, personally, am glad that Wes Craven took his love of horror movies just a little too far and asked the impeccably spine tingling question- what’s your favorite scary movie?
In this day and age, the word “troll” is often used to describe various online nuisances. Yet as abundant and irksome as the modern troll can be, they aren’t usually as fearsome as their mythological counterparts. I’m not talking about the small and gentler versions that have become more common to see in media. No, there are much bigger and scarier trolls out there—and André Øvredal’s movie Troll Hunter is one of the best places to find them.
It doesn’t take long for Troll Hunter (or Trolljegeren) to dump the Blair Witch Project-esque setup and aim for something a lot fresher. The trajectory of the story is augmented by Otto Jespersen’s character Hans, the titular Troll Hunter. The second he comes barreling out of the deep, dark woods and shouts “troll” at the camera, this movie takes a turn into what feels like uncharted territory. Not only subject-wise, but also conceptually.
For fantastical and made-up subject matter in cinema, found footage is a fast way to add a guise of believability. After all, what we accept to be the most crucial aspect of documentaries—the truth—rubs off on pseudo-documentaries, despite our understanding of the pretense involved. That is what Øvredal delivered with Troll Hunter: a movie so convincing that some viewers wondered if trolls really do exist. So, had this been straightforwardly made, it likely wouldn’t have been as effective. Conventional narratives would be more inclined to treat something like trolls as flat out unreal, and never try to convince the audience to think otherwise.
Hans petrifies the three-headed Tusseladd troll.
The viewers, like the characters trailing Hans, are quickly thrown into the deeper end of that extraordinary story. They have to process all this new information while staying on the go. So, although there is no significant amount of meandering, narratively or physically, there is still a good amount of atmosphere, not to mention tension building. It’s never anything frightful, but then again, Troll Hunter isn’t your standard offering of horror; it’s more on the low end of the dark fantasy spectrum. We aren’t ever spirited away to a faraway world—we stay in rather familiar surroundings, as well as dip into those less so. The outcome is a movie where you’re constantly more in awe than in terror.
As fantasy fiction might do, Troll Hunter prefers not to deal with incredulity. There is no time to waste on doubt, as interviewer Thomas (Glenn Erland Tosterud), soundperson Johanna (Johanna Mørck), and cameraman Kalle (Tomas Alf Larsen) all follow Hans around, recording whatever this character is willing to reveal about his bizarre job. Of course, the Troll Hunter himself is not an open book; in that respect, the diegetic documentary fails to fully capture and unpack the more interesting of its two subjects. Yes, all those giant, monstrous trolls are indeed incredible, but understandably, your mind wanders to their pursuer. What kind of person signs up for this gig and then chooses to stick with it for so long?
Reviews have called out Troll Hunter for its lack of character development. In regard to Thomas and his fellow documentarians, that criticism is valid, but bear in mind, they aren’t the focus of the story, either. Meanwhile, Hans is a well-crafted character. At least better than first realized. Before he was introduced, Hans had already grown tired of the troll grind. Fed up with that low compensation for his services, resentful of the bureaucracy, and wanting to expose his employer on a large scale, Hans’ discontent is glaring.
Then there are those finer details about the Troll Hunter, such as that indifference to both the natural splendor of his everyday surroundings and the affections of an obviously smitten colleague, that also suggest some level of despondency. So it is fair to say this movie doesn’t feature any sizable growth for its characters; however, the namesake isn’t underwritten. No doubt, putting a real-life character like Otto Jespersen in that role is partly why Hans is so fascinating—maybe even relatable.
Otto Jespersen as Hans the Troll Hunter.
There is always a small risk whenever using the term “mockumentary” to describe a found-footage movie, as the word could imply humor where there is none. In the case of Troll Hunter, the term’s usage is appropriate. Some folks have claimed the English-dubbed version has the more comedic tone, however, the Norwegian cut isn’t exactly humorless. Apart from the trolls’ absurd appearances, this is a movie where the characters nearly choke on the monsters’ farts, and Christians are like walking targets. Hans’ complete apathy towards everything is another cause of laughter. Overall, the comedy is intentionally dry and inconsistent. Unfunny, though? Absolutely not.
In a movie where endemic creatures are maltreated, as well as disavowed from living freely and peacefully, it’s hard not to notice the ecological message buried beneath the story. In addition to that is the unmistakable political satire. There is this whole business about intrusive and unsightly power lines—like trolls, they’re big blemishes on the land—that leads to what is perhaps the movie’s funniest moment. The scene in question is that one where certain electric lines, the ones secretly being used to keep the trolls at bay, go in a loop and don’t actually send power to any residents. Yet the monitors of said lines don’t find this at all weird. So it stands to reason that Øvredal was having a go at those who accept the government’s doings without question.
Looking past the fact that trolls aren’t actually real, this movie is an enlightening source of information. And not just for international audiences; Norwegians, too, get schooled about their homeland’s own mythology. It’s also evident from everything on screen that Øvredal and his crew were enthusiastic about the topic. The creature designs are the most indicative of that zeal; those imaginative yet myth-accurate manifestations are equally amusing and grotesque. One second you’re laughing at their phallic noses, the next you’re white-knuckling during a hairy sequence. Most surprisingly is how well the trolls’ visual effects hold up after fifteen years. It’s not all spotless, but on the whole, they remain impressive.
Vouching for a mockumentary about trolls isn’t easy, but those who do come around and give it a shot will more than likely be grateful for the recommendation. For Troll Hunter is a real find in that vast and varied genre we call “found footage“.
A bridge troll reaches up for food and finds Hans decked out in armor.
You must be logged in to post a comment.