Hi, my name is Jonathan Denard McNeair and I grew up in Lexington, North Carolina, also known as Pig City...Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha...The town is mostly known for its barbeque where they often throw barbeque festivals every October. In my chosen career, I am a self-published author of fiction.
Just wanted to say hey, hello, and how are you. I hope you all are having a safe and well-deserved Christmas. I do have a very special present for you but it's pending at the moment, so be extra patient if you can. I've had a pretty busy year with all the taking the time blogging, writing, going to school, and working. Yeah, it's a trip but all is well, and hopefully, all my hard work will pay off in a big way.
Here's what coming in store for next year:
Romeo and Juliet (1996)
1999 The Year of Classic Literature and theTeen Film: She's All That, Cruel Intentions, Ten Things I Hate About You
Ginger Snaps (soon)
Jennifer's Body (soon)
Cat People: Book, Movie, and Remake
I Know What You Did Last Summer: Book and Movie Review
I hope you all have many blessings and an incredible New Year...
Since Scream 2 is set around a college campus and it is around Christmas time, I thought I take a dive into the 2019 version of Black Christmas.
Um...this movie was forgettable and definitely fails as a horror movie. Although it's a very loose remake of the 1974 cult classic, I"m still going to make comparisons, along with the equally dreaded 2006 version.
Let's give a little backstory. Director Sophia Takal was originally going to remake I Spit On Your Grave but was offered to remake this instead. Okay, let me stop there. Don't we already have a remake of I Spit On Your Grave? It came out 9 years before this movie. Plus there have been two sequels to that film, including a spiritual sequel to the original. Why is Hollywood so remake and reboot happy? (I just now heard they're rebooting True Blood and it's been only 6 years since that show's been canceled.) But I guess Black Christmas is the more appealing of these choices, so Sophia Takal agreed to direct this one.
This movie reportedly had only five months to shoot with an incomplete script. You can imagine how the end result turned out. It's a movie that's lost in translation. It has a message but it doesn't know how to tell that message within a story. Everything is spoken loudly. It demands your attention. It PREACHES to you from the screen. I get the director's intention. I really do. But I wish she would've been more subtle about it.
You think that by looking at the poster of the four girls that they would be the main focus of the movie, but only Riley and Kris are better developed than the other two. They are what you call the Four-Girl Ensemble: Riley, the shy reserved one, Marty, the nice one with the steady boyfriend, Kris, the outspoken one, and Jess, the slightly ditzy one.
Let's start with Kris first. She's sort of set up as the mouthpiece for the film, being very vocal against the DKO fraternity and uses her activism to get Professor Gelson fired along with the removal of Calvin Hawthrone's statue. But unfortunately, that's basically Kris's character. A mouthpiece for the message of the film.
Okay, let me put my two cents here for a minute, just to see how better written this character should be. Yes, her activism should be a vital point to the story. Let's say Kris had this friend during her Freshman/Sophomore year and then suddenly that friend gets date raped by one of the DKO frat brothers. Her friend tries to seek justice but to no avail. There's a court date and her friend's rapist gets only one year and finishes his education at another college while her friend falls into a deep depression and drops out. Kris soon finds out Professor Gelson, who is one of the founding members of DKO got that frat brother off scot-free. Kris is livid. So in fierce determination, she uses her activism to take down the DKO fraternity. This will also explain why she's so pushy towards Riley. It's because she doesn't want her to end up like her friend did. I feel like that would've been much better character development for Kris than the one we have here. Furthermore, Kris could've been much more likable as a result. Her personality can be grating at times. She is self-righteous and opinionated to the point of nausea. I feel like if the filmmakers give her better development, she might've been a compelling character.
Riley was the only character that was actually properly developed than the rest. Her story arc involves a terrible incident where she was date-raped by DKO Fraternity brother Brian Huntley. It leaves Riley into a sort of sheltered state, not knowing how to cope with the events of what happened. She tries to seek justice but to no avail. Brian is out scot-free and she has to deal with his lingering presence.
There is actually one scene that I liked and that's the "Ho Ho Ho, I didn't know," sequence. Besides the song being earwormingly catchy, it also strengthens Riley's character. At first, Kris convinces her to go on stage as an understudy and she isn't sure if even wants to do the performance. But once she faces Brain, she looks at him straight in the eye and sings out loud, basically saying, "Hey, I'm not gonna let you forget what you did to me, asshole." I found that to be a powerful moment but sadly that's the only good thing I can say about this movie.
Imogen Poots did a decent performance, displaying the emotions needed within her character, which made her distinctly relatable.
I wouldn't say the same for the other two girls though. Marty and Jess are just so one-dimensional without a pinch of character development. All we know is that Marty is the nice one and Jess is the ditzy one and you think by judging from the movie poster, they'll survive for the rest of the movie. But *spoiler alert* they get killed off fairly easily. There's just isn't enough time to get invested in them, unfortunately leaving the characters to be interchangeable.
Speaking of interchangeable, the men don't fare much better. They're your typical smarmy, misogynistic frat boys with their overly overt toxic masculinity, looking to cause a disturbance amongst the MKE sisters.
The only good male characters are Landon, a guy who has a crush on Riley, and Nate, Marty's boyfriend. Though there is one scene where Nate goes into a rant about how men get blamed for everything leading him into a heated argument with the girls including his girlfriend. However, it's revealed that it was the migraine effects of the Hawthrone statue bringing out his "inner alpha." Ooookay. yeah, I'll talk about that later.
This is how I think this should've played out:
Let's say that Nate speaks from the heart and approaches Kris and the girls in a calm manner to where Kris opens up about her friend and why she's so headstrong when it comes to her activism. She wants to make sure her MKE sorority sisters feel safe and that comes from a place of sincerity. The dialogue felt like something out of a Twitter thread, not hitting the different viewpoints well. If the filmmakers wanted to do a scene like this, I think it would've worked better if it was set in debate class.
Landon was developed a bit better since he was Riley's love interest. He's this sort of shy kind of guy who becomes fiercely protective of the girls later on. It shows that he genuinely cares and wants to do the right thing, which was one of the good points of the script.
So this leaves us to the more antagonist male characters:
Brian Huntley, Riley's tormentor, is just another typical smarmy jerk jock character who has some sort of grudge towards the DKE sorority sisters. This comes from having his ego bruised by the Christmas performance. The only way this movie portrays him is cartoonishly evil. Sure there are guys like him that do exist but I wish the movie would've handled him better.
To my surprise, Cary Elwes, of all people is in this movie. I haven't really seen him in much lately which puzzles me as to why he would take on such a one-note villain role. For the most part, Cary Elwes just does a phoned-in performance.
He plays Professor Gelson, the misogynistic founder of the DKO fraternity who refuses to do women's studies and is the one who helps out the frat brothers when they do their misdeeds.
He is very protective of the Calvin Hawthrone Statue and the reason why because it's filled with a mysterious black goo that somehow brainwashes the frat brothers into violent sadists. Yeah, I have to talk about this for a sec. I think this is the most stupid and nonsensical thing in the movie. This black goo is never explained. It's mentioned that Calvin Hawthrone has dabbled in the black arts but it never goes beyond that and some part of me thinks that this was a rushed attempt to finish the final draft of the screenplay.
This is how I think would've played out better:
What if Brian was Professor Gelson's nephew and the reason why he gets away with Riley's assault is that his uncle was able to get him the best lawyers on his case just like what he did with the previous frat brother that I mentioned earlier. This is where I think the movie could've kept the whole murder mystery angle to where Brian and Professor Gelson are responsible for the murders and it's because they have a vendetta against women. I think that's far better than the whole black goo turns you evil scenario, which I found to be ludicrous.
Most of the criticisms that this movie has is how terribly edited it is. In my opinion, there is just no way that a PG-13 slasher can work. But then again, I can see why the filmmakers wanted to cut down on the blood-letting. Looking at the 2006 version, the blood and gore are extremely gracious, sometimes unnecessarily with Billy making Christmas cookies out of his mother's skin and also eating the eyeballs of his victims. Yeah, it was a little too much. I totally understand. But, unfortunately, it's at the cost of suspense and tension, which this movie really needed.
Oh and side note, I wish the filmmakers would've kept the whole creepy phone call angle. I just don't find creepy text messages scary.
And here's one example of a poorly edited scene:
The scene in question is where Riley and Kris are trapped in the sorority house and the DKO frat brothers are lurking about. They wait for the cops to arrive and once a police officer bursts into the door it cuts to a scene where another group of sorority sisters had just killed a frat brother in self-defense. After that, the police officer is suddenly impaled by a frat brother. It sort of took me out of the movie and ruined the suspense.
The next scene is more at the fault of how terribly rushed the screenplay is:
Riley and Kris narrowly escape from one of the frat brothers and as they drive off to safety, Riley goes off into exposition mode, practically explaining the entire plot. I feel like there is a time and place for exposition in movies and this wasn't it. It would've been better if they place the scene in a library where Riley and Kris do a little research on the Calvin Hawthrone guy. But then again, it shows how clumsy the movie is written.
The final takeaway of the movie is its social commentary. I don't mind the message, though it's more so of how it's told. Its very...forced and the dialogue doesn't feel natural because of it.
When looking back at the 1974 film, I felt it was pretty progressive at the time, particularly based on the topic of abortion, which was a big deal during the early to mid-70s.
There's a pivotal scene where the main character Jess sits and argues with her controlling boyfriend Peter. He talks of quitting his training as a concert pianist and insist Jess do the same with her ambitions because of the baby. But Jess refuses and sticks to her decision. She clearly tells him that just because he's getting rid of his ambitions doesn't mean she's getting rid of hers. I thought that scene was handled incredibly well by being very subtle with its feminist message to where the 1974 film works better in that regard.
And that's what missing with both versions. They have no subtly and character development whatsoever. What I liked about the 1974 film is that it felt like a drama slowly turning into horror. We have time to really get to know the girls and their personalities. Their weaknesses and their strengths, the bad traits and their good traits. They were portrayed as actual human beings and the character development was handled much better than most slasher movies. This is what the 2019 version should've been. Where it puts more focus on the human drama and understanding the characters.
Okay, now it's time to talk about the ending: *spoiler alert*
It turns out one of Riley's sorority sisters, Helena, betrays her and becomes a mole for the DKO fraternity. Then Professor Gelson goes into this long exposition monologue to where it made me think that this was another script flub from the filmmakers. Now I can accept Scream for doing this kind of thing, but I felt that this was not needed. Just to show how evil the fraternity brothers truly are, they kill Helena by snapping her neck.
It seems like it's all over for Riley until Kris and a group of sorority sisters come and save the day. A fight ensues. Riley defeats Brian, Professor Gelson gets caught on fire, Landon, who was brainwashed, gets out of his spell, and Riley destroys the statue of Calvin Hawthorne.
Riley, Kris, Landon, and the other Sorority sisters escape from the fraternity, locking the frat brothers in to be burned alive. Jesus! I mean didn't they stop to think that the rest of the frat brothers were brainwashed too? If Landon broke out of his spell, I'm pretty sure the rest of those guys did as well but then the group decides to burn them anyway? I don't find that to be the best moral of the story. And...the movie just ends. There's no sense of closure or anything. And that's why the overall message just fell flat for me.
So that was 2019's Black Christmas. I just didn't think this was a good movie. They were seeds to be planted here, some really good seeds but it was executed quite poorly. If Sophia Takal wanted to make a movie with a powerful message, she should take the time to put more care into the process.
It was around the early to mid-90s where the rein of the slasher films were waning down. Franchises such as Halloween, Friday The 13th, and A Nightmare On Elm Street spawned lackluster sequels and further disappointed moviegoers. The people who watched these movies during its heyday in the 80s felt that the genre needed something fresh and inventive to make it interesting again.
Enter Kevin Williamson.
Born in North Carolina (hey, that's my home state), Williamson was a struggling actor who took screenwriting classes on the side. His first screenplay, Teaching Mrs. Tingle, was bought by a production company but it was unfortunately put on the shelf with little interest. So Williamson was stuck in a runt and he had to think of something quick. Inspired by the Gainesville College murders, Williamson wrote a horror movie titled Scary Movie. Miramax took interest in this as they were in the hellish (no pun intended) production of Hellraiser: Bloodline. The script was bought for 400,000, stamped with their Deminson Films label and the rest is history.
Enter Wes Craven.
After the success of films such as The Hills Have Eyes and A Nightmare On Elm Street, Wes Craven was going through a bit of a slump by the start of the '90s. Although Craven had some growth potential in the decade with the Cult-favorite The People Under The Stairs, he eventually followed that up with the box office flop Vampire In Brooklyn. To gain back his momentum, Craven read a script called Scary Movie. Intrigued by the story, he lobbied for various film studios to direct and Miramax was just under his belt. So, it has begun the making of what is to be the gamechanger of 90's horror.
Need I say more? This movie is classic. Period. Sure, it might not hold up well for most people but it's still a pretty solid film with an interesting cast of characters.
The Story: A serial killer has invaded the town of Woodsboro, California, killing two high school students in the process. This brings up haunted memories for seventeen-year-old Sidney Prescott, who, over a year ago, witnessed the brutal murder of her mother, Maureen. Nosy television reporter Gale Weathers doesn't make matters easy on her once she publishes a scathing tell-all about Maureen's affair with Cotton Weary, claiming how he was unjustly fingered as the prime suspect in her murder investigation. Alongside those issues, Sidney and her friends become the target of the killer's wrath. Though there lies the question, who is the man behind the mask...
What I really want to talk about is the incredible, amazing opening sequence.
The movie starts with absolutely no credit sequence. It opens with a teenage girl getting ready for movie night. The girl as you may know is Drew Barrymore as Casey Becker and she actually does a great job here. She's not just some random horror movie victim, the film takes its time developing her as a human being, which is made better by Drew's stellar acting. Then the phone rings and it starts off like a normal conversation, wrong number and there you go, but then the caller calls back and gets a little flirty with Casey. This is how he gets Casey's guard down and she even has fun with him a little. When the caller wants to know her name, Casey asks why, and then he gives her the chilling answer: "I want to know who I'm looking at." That's when Casey gets rightfully paranoid. She gets irritated when the caller constantly harasses her and once she puts her foot down, he gives her a backhanded threat.
And that's when the horror starts...
What makes this scene so proverbial is the amount of buildup it facilitates. Here we have the audience identify with Casey, which is uncommon with the slasher films of the 80s. Usually, the victim or victims are used as props to propose the killer as a threat but for the rest of the movie, we usually identify with the killer from then on. In this instance, we are the ones who actually feel scared for Casey. She seems like a sweet person that doesn't deserve what happens to her. On top of casting a well-known actress, the audience feels less safe when the murders happen. One thing that works in this opening scene is that the killer is shrouded in mystery. I think a slasher film works best when the killer is kept a mystery. During the 80s heyday, there were too many slasher villains such as Micheal, Jason, and Freddy that was put in the spotlight to the point where they were almost seen as anti-heroes in their own franchise. Sure, it may have been entertaining for some people, however, some of those sequels totally misses the point of how a good slasher film works.
Finally what makes this scene so outstanding is Drew Barrymore. She really did a good job of humanizing the character and giving a sense of raw fear that anybody could feel in Casey's situation. What happens to Casey and her boyfriend is slow and brutal and from then on, the audience is left out of the loop of who survives and who doesn't.
The cast is, of course, phenomenal, where the actors give us special personality quirks that help us relate and identify with the characters. You know me, I'm going to save the best for last. So, let's start with Gale Weathers.
The filmmakers were hesitant about casting Courtney Cox for the role. She was best known as resident nice girl Monica Gellar on Friends and taking the role of the hard-nosed, ruthless Gale Weathers might've been a stretch for her. Janeane Garofalo and Brook Shields were considered at first. I can see Janeane Garofalo playing the character since she was best known for playing snarky, cynical types and Brooke Shields was taking on much more gritter and edgier projects in the 90s. But Courtney Cox really nailed the part of Gale. It was indeed a risk at the time though it was a good risk. For now, the role of Gale Weathers has become an iconic role for Cox as well as Monica Gellar.
Now let's tap into the character of Gale Weathers. She starts off as this headstrong, bitchy, fame-hungry news reporter who is willing to throw anybody under the bus, including the recently murdered Maureen Prescott who can't even defend herself on trial. Speaking of, she writes a tell-all book detailing the sordid affairs Maureen had before she was murdered, including the main suspect of her case, Cotton Weary, who Gale deems innocent.
Then there's Gale's first scene with Sidney, who after being almost murdered and clearly traumatized, ambushes her for an interview, which is why I think it was justified when Sidney punches her square in the face.
But we also see the good traits of Gale. Sure, she might come off as opportunistic, however, she is adamant about figuring out the truth and uses her investigative skills for the right purposes. She even gushes like a schoolgirl when she first sees Dewey, taking a liking to his sweet, boyish charm.
By the film's climax, Gale is the one who actually ends up saving Sidney, which is a surprising turn and a form of good writing. In any other movie, Gale would be the type of character you couldn't wait to get slaughtered but the film takes time for you to grow with the character to see that there are likable traits to her to where she becomes heroic.
Courtney Cox did a fantastic job and made the character her own. It's one of her most memorable performances and it shows how much of a versatile actress she is.
We have the adorably handsome David Arquette as Deputy Dewey Riley. At first, the filmmakers envisioned him as a more of a studly-hunky type of guy but Wes Craven liked David Arquette's softer, geekier approach and decided to go with that. When it comes to Dewey, the film sort of plays on the "cops are useless" trope in slasher films. But unlike most examples, Dewey is a police officer that do indeed care as he is very protective of Sidney and Tatum.
Sure, he's not so equipped when it comes to self-preservation but at least he tries.
He starts to take a liking to Gale Weathers and I must say, David Arquette and Courtney Cox do have good chemistry and the actors play off well with each other. Originally, Dewey was supposed to be killed off but because he was such a lovable character to the audience, he survives instead, thus beginning his lasting presence in the series.
David Arquette originally auditioned for the role of Billy, but the filmmakers felt he was more fit for the role of Dewey and I agree. His blend of boyish awkwardness and big brother instincts makes the character easy to root for. And it's all thanks to David Arquette's affable performance.
Here we have the spunky, take-no-charge Tatum Riley played by Rose McGowan. Originally, there were other actresses:
Melinda Clarke,
Chole Sevingy
and Rebecca Gayheart auditioned for the role of Tatum.
Rebecca Gayheart was a runner-up but due to scheduling conflicts, she couldn't make time for the film. Gayheart will eventually appear in a small role in Scream 2 and would also star in the subsequent Scream-knock off Urban Legend.
But Rose McGowan really sealed the deal with this role, giving the right amount of spunk and wit to carry on throughout the film. Tatum would be viewed as the wild best friend in contrast to the more shy, reserved main character. But unlike most examples, Tatum has a personality.
Tatum is blunt, assertive, fierce, and a real genuine and loyal friend to Sidney. She is anything but the typical horror victim as she fights her way to the very end. That's what makes Tatum such a fearless character in my opinion.
Rose McGowan did an awesome job of making the character of Tatum engaging. She can be snarky yet there is a hidden innocence that makes her endearing. This was a huge breakout role for Rose McGowan and she would later star in one of my all-time guilty pleasures Jawbreaker and would have a main starring role in Charmed.
Now let's get to Randy played by Jamie Kennedy. Before Kennedy, there were two other actors up for the role.
There was Jason Lee, who I imagine his version of Randy would resemble his character from the film Mallrats.
Though the filmmakers were really banking on Breckin Meyer for the role. He was pretty much the go-to-guy for 90s teen movies back in the day as he had starred in my most cherished Clueless and had a small role in my equally cherished The Craft. And yeah, I can totally see him as Randy.
But it was something about Jamie Kennedy that charmed the filmmakers. His funny deliveries and quirky sense of humor help elevate Randy as a popular character. Randy is your typical horror movie fanatic who can recite 27 film quotes if he knew any. He represents the audience, being the observer in his own story yet still lost in his theory of horror movie knowledge.
This leads to the pivotal and most memorable scene of the movie where he entertains a group of friends, laying out the rather cliche, tired rules in a slasher movie. The scene proves why the audience found him so endearing.
Jamie Kennedy embodied the character of Randy so well. He had just the amount of charm to weigh in his comedic talents, which solidified Randy's legacy to the Scream franchise.
Now the moment you all been waiting for. This girl is by far the most powerfully written female character in a horror movie and perfectly acted as well. I give you...
Neve Campbell as Sidney Prescott
Neve Campbell is right up there with Jamie Lee Curtis as while she is in a horror film, she puts in a top-tier performance way above the archetypical role that is given to her. Sidney is an actual character and most of the focus is her psychological trauma. No one can play her character as well as Neve Campbell but there were considerations before her. Let's go through the list:
Get this, Molly Ringwald was the first choice. Yes, that Molly Ringwald. However, she didn't want to continue on doing high school roles since she was hitting the ripe age of 27. So the casting director had other options.
There was Melissa Joan Hart also known as Sabrina The Teenage Witch. I'm trying to see if she can handle such an emotionally challenging role such as this. Yeah, I've seen her in some dramas and even the occasional thriller, though I'm kind of in the middle when it comes to her.
Then there's Melanie Lynskey, who had a breakthrough role in the 1994 film Heavenly Creatures. I think she would've pulled off the role well. She would have the vulnerability of Sidney but just as well as complimenting her resilience.
Alicia Witt auditioned. I do find her to be a competent actress as she was a prominent presence in a lot of 90s films. Although she didn't get the role, she would eventually have a lead role in Urban Legend, starring alongside the aforementioned Rebecca Gayheart, who ironically plays a character that's similar to Tatum.
There's the late, great Britney Murphy who had a breakthrough role in one of my all-time favorite movies of my childhood Clueless. Britney Murphy certainly has great acting chops to take on the role of Sidney. She would've been a strong contender. However, she would later star in the Screamesque slasher film Cherry Falls.
Lastly, we have Resse Witherspoon. Need I say more? There is no given Reese Witherspoon could pull this role off. In her earlier roles, she wasn't afraid to take on gritter projects as she starred in the darkly comedic crime drama Freeway, which also starred the aforementioned Brooke Sheilds. In the same year, she worked on her scream queen skills in the psycho boyfriend thriller Fear. Yes, I definitely can see Reese Witherspoon as Sidney. She can be sweet, charming, and adorable yet can be this feisty badass that doesn't take any bullcrap. So Reese would be definitely up there in the top spot but she eventually turned it down which leads to...
Neve Campbell. This role was made for her. Period. The sheer complexity of her acting is shared within this character. Sidney is actually written with care where the film helps us understand Sidney's psychological trauma.
When she hears the news of Casey's death, she is the only one that's affected. It was only a year ago when she witnessed the death of her mother, dealing with the aftereffects which she can't hold back.
This causes a rift between her and her boyfriend Billy, who wants an understanding but can't fully understand how her mother's death was a blow to her heart.
Not only that, she has to constantly deal with the media portraying her mother in a bad light, focusing on her extramarital affairs, including Billy's father and Cotton Weary, who eventually become one of the suspects in her mother's murder case. Sidney is surely positive that Cotton killed her mother but then she wonders if she fingered the wrong man.
To add more weight to her worries, she is attacked by a knife-wielding maniac, which comes into question: is this the same person who actually murdered her mother?
But throughout her circumstances, Sidney is able to fight back, rise above the ashes of her trauma, and comes back swinging hard. She is by far the most admirable and inspiring female character I've seen in a long time.
She is played beautifully by Neve Campbell, displaying her strength in the best of ways. Neve is a very humble person in real life and it's her humbleness and earnesty that makes the character of Sidney so authentic. Neve Campbell deserves all the praise she gets for committing her natural talents to such an immaculate level. So I give all my roses to an iconic character and an iconic actress.
Now, this brings us to the antagonist Ghostface. This is gonna be a spoiler but I guess you already knew that since I didn't cover the last two characters but oh well. Finally, as we get to the climax of the movie, the two killers are unmasked. Yes, I said two killers. They are revealed as...
Billy and Stu
The casting of Billy Loomis all leveled down to the screen-testing of four main actors. At first, the filmmakers approached Ben Affleck and Joaquin Phoenix for the role.
With Ben Affleck...mmm...I'm not so sure. Even though he has played jerks on screen, I have yet to see him play a role that's intense as this.
Joaquin Phoenix, on the other hand, would've been perfect. He can play sweet and sensitive yet dark and deadly at the same time. I think the filmmakers thought of casting him solely based on his performance in To Die For. And I think his version of Billy would've been an entirely different version than the one we know now. He would probably portray Billy in a sympathetic light. Still a horrible human being no less but more of a sad, puppy dog kind of way. However, both actors declined the role.
The four main candidates for Billy were: Michael Landes, Freddie Prinze Jr., Kevin Patrick Walls, and Justin Whalin.
I mostly know actor Michael Landes in Lois and Clark and Final Destination 2, so I can't quite tell if he would pull the role off or not, so I have to go with a maybe?
Then there's Freddie Prinze Jr. I never really saw him in a villainous role, so it's kind of hard for me to picture him as Billy. He'd always worked well as the romantic or heroic lead and it's hard to see him channel the intense viciousness that's required for the character. Freddie Prinze Jr. would eventually star in the Kevin Williamson-penned I Know What You Did Last Summer and its sequel.
Kevin Patrick Walls nearly got the role but the filmmakers decided on casting him as Casey Becker's ill-fated boyfriend Steve.
Lastly, we have Justin Whalin, who actually screen-tested with Neve Campbell. Okay, I would say the chemistry worked well between them but I just don't see Justin Whalin as Billy. He sort of has this innocent boy next door vibe about him that just wouldn't pull off well in the role that is dark as this. He's just too nice in my opinion.
Skeet Ulrich, however, was the perfect choice for Billy, crafting the seductive and devious charm of the character. Not only that, the filmmakers cast him based on how he so closely resembled Johnny Depp, who also starred in Wes Craven's A Nightmare On Elm Street. Though this wasn't the first time Skeet Ulrich played a toxic love interest as he had a prominent role in The Craft.
Billy Loomis is supposed to be the concerned caring boyfriend to Sidney but it turns out that nothing is what it seems.
He plays the part well, trying to understand Sidney's problem of intimacy after her mother's death and accepting her solace for lovemaking but this is all part of his master design for revenge. At first, he is a red herring, though this is only a rouse to let him off the hook. Which leads to his partner in crime...
Stu Macher
When the filmmakers cast Matthew Lillard in the role, they actually had him in mind. He usually played the role of the goofy best friend in a lot of 90s teen movies.
That's pretty much Stu's role in this movie too, but him being one of the killers was actually quite shocking to the audience. However, he is nothing more than a lackey to Billy Loomis and is the typical teenager who doesn't have a mind of his own, which leads to their killing spree.
And that's the thing about Matthew Lillard's performance. He can be funny and goofy but terrifying and creepy at the same time.
What's scary about Billy and Stu is how naturally they fit in. In any other movie, they would be deemed as the weirdo outcasts, but here, they come off as well-adjusted for the most part. They're handsome, charismatic, and part of the popular crowd. Girls in particular seem to fall for them quite quickly. For example, Stu used to date Casey Becker, an attractive blonde and after that relationship fizzles, he dates Tatum Riley, another attractive blonde. So it shows that they're pretty much socially accepted among their peers. But it doesn't stop them from craving their bloodlust.
I noticed that their killings are psychosexual in nature. They seem to have an obsession with attempting to kill the girls that they date. Stu especially has a grudge against Casey and her boyfriend Steve since she dumped Stu for him. With Billy, after taking Sidney's virginity, he wants to now fulfill his enjoyment of killing her, which was part of this grand master plan of his, alongside sexually assaulting and brutally murdering her mother, who he blames for his mother leaving him and his father.
But then it all boils down to Billy and Stu themselves. There have been many articles and Freudian accounts of how these two might be in a relationship together.
This is quite evident in the scene where they continually stab each other mercilessly. It's like they're having some sexual thrill with Stu urging Billy to go in for the kill. "Come on, baby, stab me! stab me!" Though they constantly fight over who gets the masculine role. If they were in a sexual relationship, they would definitely be versatile.
Yet at last, they are no match for the almighty Sidney Prescott as she takes them down through strength and perseverance. Billy and Stu are incredibly incompetent when it comes to being serial killers. They are not swift like Michael, strong like Jason, nor manipulative like Freddy. They're quite clumsy in their attempts and this is what ultimately meets their end.
Skeet Ulrich and Matthew Lillard give rather chilling performances and definitely made quite the disturbing duo. They have the charm but also channeled the sociopathic apathy that's required for the roles.
The main gist of Scream is its writing. The witty dialogue and the clever jabs at horror movies is what makes it unique. Scream seems like one of those movies that are of its time yet timeless. Yeah, some people nowadays might get annoyed at how the characters compare their lives to the movies they watch but I think that's what goes with the satire of Scream. It goes into comedy without ever going too far. The movie takes its comedic timing in subtle ways and it's the source of that comedy that balances out the more intense moments. On top of that, Kevin Williamson actually gives much care to his characters, making them true to life. The script certainly works well as a mystery, putting in the obvious red herrings and clues to give the audience a more intelligent view of the slasher genre, never dwelling on pacing issues or pandering. Everything is tight, well-paced, and gets you hooked throughout.
Like I said, this movie terrified me as a kid due to how brutal the deaths were, and trust me, they are brutal. Some you don't even see coming. The violence is neither cartoonish nor over the top. It's grisly and straight to the point. I even heard that in the original script, it was going to be much more graphic but due to MPAA regulations, the filmmakers had to cut down on the bloodletting, though I still find the violence horrifying.
What else can I say when it comes to the directing. Wes Craven is a master at what he does. The suspense is at the tipping point with the clever use of shadows advancing the killer's mystique followed by the constant feeling of dread oozing from the screen. Wes Craven works his magic well and there is no given why he is a legendary filmmaker.
The main theme of Scream is sensationalism. Sure, the movie is about how a person's obsession with horror movies makes them homicidal, however, the real point of the movie is how the media portrays true crime stories and how they show little regard for the victims. This is especially evident in the case of Maureen Prescott. Not only Sidney's mom fall victim to murder, but she also falls victim to the media's scrutiny of her personal life. What makes this subject more touchy is that Sidney is now targeted. After she's been attacked and tries to go to school like normal, a reporter (played by Linda Blair by the way) ambushes her and unjustly asks her, "How does it feel to be almost brutally murdered?" It's as if they're using the victim's trauma as a source of entertainment. Speaking of which, the kids at Sidney's school seems to be unfazed by the deaths of Steve and Casey, with some of them even donning the killer's costume to pull school pranks.
Since Kevin Willamson based this on an actual true crime story, it goes into the commentary of how we need to see these victims as people, which is why he goes out of his way to humanize them and not just use them as disposable mannequins to be slaughtered on screen.
So that was Scream and, oh boy, this was an epic review. Soon enough, I'll be covering Scream 2, so take a lookout if you can. I think I've said what I've said about Scream, it's a bonafide classic and easily the one that stands out from most of the slashers of the 90s. It's got great horror, eye-catching cinematography, top-notch directing, superb writing, and some amazing performances.
