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.
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.
Hey everybody, just wanted to give a quick update. I'm afraid I have to do a late Halloween review. there's a lot to talk about when it comes to the Scream series, so I'm putting a lot of thought, time, and research with a pretty hectic week, so rest is very important. But on the bright side, I am in the process of editing A Change Would Do You Good and I even have some more reviews for you guys to check out. Here's my list:
I've just heard that Paramount Pictures just made an announcement that they are producing a fifth Scream installment. How do I feel about this? I don't know. This is actually the first Scream film without the involvement of Wes Craven and even Kevin Williamson. I feel like without the collaboration of Craven and Williamson, It's just not going to capture the sharp wit and suspense of the first film. At least we have our core three leads back: Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette. Their characters have become a legacy in this franchise and that's quite an achievement.
But I want to go back to the movie that started it all. Scream is one of those movies that was ingrained in my childhood. The parodies, the inside jokes, the Ghostface costume that became a staple in Halloween stores. The hype was completely overblown.
I've seen trailers, tv spots, clips, and whatnot, though I never saw the movie itself. But it was at the age of ten where I got to watch the whole movie in its entirety. I was shocked at how visceral the violence was. It was actually, dare I say, scary because it wasn't your typical horror movie. It was intensely realistic. Now I've first watched I Know What You Did Last Summer when I was around seven years old and watched half of Wes Craven's New Nightmare when I was eight. And yeah those movies scared me but it didn't scare me as much as Scream did. Hell, I was still too scared to watch A Nightmare On Elm Street back then and have yet checked out the Friday The 13th films. I had to grow into Horror movies a bit, I wasn't an early bird like most kids. But at age eleven, I saw the fun in watching horror movies, even the ones that really, really scared me. At age 12, I was hooked. Age 13-14, the rest is history. And in between those stages in my life, Scream was the movie I watched the most.
Out of all the horror movies I've seen, Scream was a different experience for me. It felt very grounded. It felt very real. The characters were framed as actually relatable and there was a sense of authenticity that we don't see in most 80s slashers. They are now self-aware of the conventions and feel as though they're immune to it. The commentary on horror movies became a staple in the late 90s and brought in a breath of fresh air that was needed in the genre. However, Scream was not without its copycats, which I myself watched every now and then. Certain people would look back at Scream and cringe at the characters' dialogue where they constantly make movie references. But I feel like that's where the movie's charm comes from, demonstrating how the characters are comparing their lives to a movie that they themselves can't figure out.
At this time, I"m only going to focus on the first three films. I might do Scream 4 a little later into this year but I have to tell you that my opinions on Scream 4 have changed a little bit. I still enjoy Scream 4, however, there are some things I'm iffy about when it comes to that sequel. The first three films for me feels like a solid trilogy where you get to learn and explore with the three lead characters of Sidney, Gale, and Dewy with an ongoing theme based on sensationalism, which is rare for a slasher film series. Not only that, the mystery is pretty tight and does keep you invested with a well-enough pace, alongside the late great Wes Craven piling on the suspense with a pulsating atmosphere.
Gosh, I would go on and on about how great these movies are...well, at least the first two. Still not a fan of Scream 3 but I'll tell you my reason when I get to that review.
First and foremost, I present to you, on this Hallows eve, The film that changed the face of horror...
It has now come to this. They finally went through with a Craft Reboot of sorts. Well, it's not really a reboot, it's more of a spiritual sequel in a way. It's hard to explain.
So, the trailer starts off with the main character, moving into a new town to live with her mom's new boyfriend and three sons. It's very identical to the original where Sarah moves to Los Angeles at the start of the movie.
How the main character meets the three girls is actually through an embarrassing experience. The scene implies that she has her period in front of a classroom of students. Everyone is laughing except the three main girls, identifying as our coven in the movie. Right off the bat, they accept her, showing a surprising amount of empathy. Okay, that's one thing I do like about the trailer. It's comparable to the cold reception Nancy and the three girls in the original film give to Sarah when she first meets them but I guess that's supposed to demonstrate their sudden betrayal in the climax.
As the trailer continues, they give the girl a ceremonial bath, christening her as their fourth. This suddenly enhances their magic, the main character being the most powerful of them all. But with great power comes with great irresponsibility as the main character's thirst for dominance becomes too hard to handle.
Okay, at least I do see that they do things differently this time. When I heard the announcement that Blumhouse was going to remake The Craft, I cringed. Okay, I would say they did an okay job with the Halloween Reboot, not the best but way better than the sequels and the Rob Zombie remakes. But this is also the same studio who made the second Black Christmas Remake, which I have not heard good things about. I really wasn't looking forward to it. I always felt that the Craft worked well on its own, particularly in the time period it was set in. It's one of those lightning-in-the-bottle types of movies that didn't need sequels or remakes. Is it perfect? No, but it's still entertaining with a charming cast of female leads.
But in this day in age, we are getting an influx of year-gap sequels and reboots. So due to the cult following of the 1996 film, a second movie was in the works.
The first thing I noticed was that David Duchovny, of all people, was in the movie....as the dad character, no less. We also have Michelle Monaghan, who I haven't seen in a while, as the main character's mom. I don't know if their roles are significant or not, but we'll see.
The main girl is sort of a mix of Sarah and Nancy. One clue is that she is the new girl in town, starting off shy and repressed. But as the trailer progresses, she gets more powerful and becomes a bit arrogant. She even recites one of Nancy's classic lines. Yeah, let me talk about that. That was one thing about the trailer that threw me off, which makes me think that this is a sequel disguised as a remake.
They somehow include a photo of Nancy in the trailer (which doesn't look real by the way) but it never entirely explains how much of importance she has in the story. Is she related to one of the characters? Is she a distant cousin of the main girl? I'm scratching my head here. In my opinion, I wish they would've left this out to be a surprise in the movie. This is what annoys me about these trailers because they want to constantly shove in easter eggs to remind the audience of the original film. The callbacks just makes the sequel seem like a cash grab and that's a shame. In the first few seconds of the trailer, I was actually invested in what new ideas that would bring into this movie.
For instance, we have the coven leader played by Lovie Simone. The difference between her and Nancy is that she actually comes off as caring and intentive. She also guides the girls with full knowledge of the craft, kind of like the character of Lirio. She could be put into a position where warns the main girl not to take advantage of her powers.
But as soon as the main girl gets corrupted, the coven leader must do what she can to stop her wrath. That would be an interesting enough twist. If the trailer just left it like that, I would be singing a different tune right now. I'm not sure how the other two girls would be portrayed in the movie but let's hope they have more development than how Bonnie and Rochelle were handled, in which by the end of the 1996 film, they are no more than cackling minions to Nancy.
Though my question is: are the four main leads believable as outcasts? I"m sort of in the middle with this one.
While the girls in the original movie were beautiful, they were also believable as outcasts but with this version, the girls look a bit...polished. And that's what I was afraid of. That this version would strip away any edge the original had.
As demonstrated in this photo here, the girls look like they're posing in a photo shoot for Seventeen magazine. Maybe the performances will tell otherwise, but again, they look a little too prim and proper by comparison.
So now I am down to my final thoughts. Will I watch this? Maybe, but not right now. It's not the type of movie that I will go rush to see. If something like this was done a couple of years earlier, I might. But since there are so many of these year-gap sequels, I might have to sit and wait for this one.
