Average User Score: 8.3Sep 27, 2011I watched this one because I saw it at the library and I knew it was supposed to be very interesting. Then a friend told me it was the best thing Page had done even over Juno. I was really excited to see this one. What I saw...*shudder* oh yes, *shudder*
Acting/Characters: There are only 2 people in this movie. Yes I know Sandra Oh receives top billing but it was like John Rhys-Davies in Ferocious Planet, it's just a name draw. It is just Patrick Wilson and Ellen Page interacting with each other. I must say, Ellen Page can play a total psychopath if she wants. In fact, this movie showed me that she can play whatever she wants. I had only ever seen her in Juno, Inception, and X-Men. I agree with my friend that this was the best thing she has done. Her range of emotions and delivery of her lines were spectacular I must say. Patrick Wilson did an excellent job acting with Page. But it was really her show of course. She commanded ever scene. Make no mistake, she was in charge. End of story. Thank goodness she did such an awesome job or this movie would have sucked. 9/10
Plot: The story itself is original but I don't think the idea behind it is. Role-reversal of stuff like this isn't something I've never seen. The way that they presented it and the actual story is very original as far as I am aware. I was definitely never bored. It had me on the edge of my seat the entire time. One scene was just so difficult to watch. Anyone who is a guy who has seen this film knows which one. Double shudder on that one. The film wasn't too long although they probably could have shaved off a few seconds here and there...maybe not I guess. It wasn't overly long is what I'm trying to say. It was engaging, not too long, and told very effectively. The theme isn't original but I don't see anything wrong with that. 8.5/10
Screenplay: I'd like to take a screenplay course someday and see if writing a screenplay for a film like this, that is to say, two or three principle actors who take up all of the screen-time in one basic space, or for a film with lots of people to write for. Whatever the case is, this one was pretty good. It really helped the actors out. it was written well enough for the really interesting bits of Page's character to come out. I don't know how hard it is to effectively write a sociopath, but they nailed it here. Very good job. 8.5/10
Likableness: I saw it, I'm glad I saw it, but it isn't a film that I'm immediately going to pop back into the good ol' laptop again to watch. It'll be a while before I see this again. It will stay with me though. it is far from a forgettable film. I found myself wide-eyed with horror throughout most of the film. This is far better than any Saw film. It leaves a lot to your imagination which just makes it all the more effective. I would suggest this one to anyone who can handle something like this. It is definitely not for the fainthearted though. especially any fainthearted guys. I liked it a lot though. 9/10
Final score: 35/40 87% (N)
Tomatometer rating: 68%
Tomatometer rating if my review was added: 68%
TRIVIA TIME: 1. The stunt coordinator's house served as the exterior for Jeff's house. The interiors of Jeff's house were inspired by that of producer David Higgins, who planned to shoot the film there if enough money could not be secured to build sets.
2. Both cast and crew members have denied that the costume choices for the character of Hayley were intended as a reference to the children's story 'Little Red Riding Hood.'
3. Despite the intense emotional and physical content of most rest of the movie, Ellen Page said that one of the hardest scenes to shoot by far was the scene at Nighthawks, where for take after take she had to eat more tiramisu than she could ever want.
4. The final shot of Hayley with the hoody pulled over her head was taken by the DP Jo Willems without Ellen Page knowing. She didn't know about the shot until she saw the final cut.
5. According to actress Ellen Page, the iconic red hooded shirt (which belonged to Ellen Page) used in the movie and on the posters was, in fact, orange. The color was changed in post-production.
6. Because Ellen Page shaved her head for her previous film role, during the audition she was mistaken for a boy. The effect was so off-putting she had to put on a wig, where she then gave a phenomenal reading.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.9Sep 27, 2011Pretty much as brilliant as movies get. Mitchum plays the serial killer preacher(his favorite role he said) with absolutely no morals(except get money). The scene on the porch at night is probably THE most brilliant movie scene in history. Good acting, good story, good movie. this is film making at it's very best. A suspenseful masterpiece. there are moments where i am actually worried that he would catch the kids. An excellent film. I particularly like how he would fool his victims and their friends. He has more or less memorized the basics of Christianity and he uses that for his own ends. He is so evil that you like him a lot. also I like how this was Laughton's first attempt at directing. It was his first time and he came up with this. the only other time that I have seen that is with Citizen Kane. A masterpiece that will never fade into the ages. It has and will continue to stand the test of time.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.9Sep 27, 2011I have been praying for a year that this film would be good. Or should I say, whenever my love of the scream trilogy and my knowledge of #4 coincided. Well, I loved it.
Acting/characters: Well, it had the cast that we all know and love. Plus some additional members like Rory Culkin. The acting was almost as good as it was in the original two for me. Well, at least it was once it all got going. The start of the film went a little too slow and wasn't as well done as the rest of the film but once it got going I highly enjoyed it. The big three lacked a little of the original charm that they all had in the first one, but I still enjoyed their characters. The rest of them were okay. You could kind of tell who was going to get it and when but that's an unavoidable part of the slasher genre. Nothing you can do about that. Unfortunately, they still kind of went for Ken and Barbie with a lot of the characters. But, I wasn't incredibly distracted by that once it all got going. 8/10
Plot: It had what the third one didn't and what the first two nailed: satire. I really loved the satirical elements of the film overall. Like I said earlier, the whole thing had a slow, not very well done start, (past the first 10 minutes or so) but it's kind of the ending that counts because that's what you remember. It had some good jumps in there but it didn't completely rely on them like so many other slashers of the Third Age. But it did very well in satirizing the giant remake and reboot craze that is going on. Well done there. But it was kind of predictable at moments. But like I said, it's nearly impossible to make the whole thing a surprise with a genre like this. But it did well for me overall. 8/10
Screenplay: Like most slashers, this was the weakest part. I did not like some of the lines that Wes Craven put in there. But it wasn't all completely horrible. It just started out that way. I suppose that once the action got going I didn't really care what they were saying because I was engrossed in who Ghostface would butcher next and how. It was overall good and fit with the story nicely. Not perfect though. It needed some tuning. 7.5/10
Likableness: If I had the money, I would go out and see this one again. And again. I loved it. I had a grand time watching this one and while it wasn't quite what the first one was, I would put it roughly on the same level that the second one achieved for me. I had a blast. Good thing I went through that modern slasher phase of my slasher marathon or I wouldn't have gotten a lot of the jokes and references that they made. Of course, there are still a lot of references to the good old original ones. I will buy this film as soon as I can. I really loved it. 9/10
Final Score: 32.5/40 81% (N)
TRIVIA TIME: 1. Scout Taylor-Compton and Shane Dawson auditioned for roles in the movie.
2. At a table read on June 25, 2010, the actors were told to stop reading at page 75 to prevent those already cast in the film from knowing the climax.
3. With four installments, this landmarks the Scream franchise as being one of the only horror franchises to have its main characters return for all its sequels.… Expand
Average User Score: 8.4Sep 27, 2011I saw this film for the first time on Halloween night right after I finished watching Halloween(original) for the first time. Also I saw Nightmare on Elm Street before I watched this movie as well. This is how this movie is intended to be viewed: after NOES and Halloween. THIS IS KEY PEOPLE!!! you MUST see A Nightmare on Elm Street, Psycho, AND Halloween to get the full effect for this one. Friday the 13th and The Silence of the Lambs don't hurt either. If you do not you can never appreciate this movie fully. There are so many little things in this one that you will pick up that make your enjoyment of this film more complete.
All that to say, this film is a very smart and witty comedy/horror film that is as funny as it is suspenseful. you never really know where it is going to go next. I'm not sure what I can say without giving away plot, but I'll do my best. This film is an addition, a parody, and an homage to the Slasher genre. it pulls it off beautifully. it perfects the genre if you will. It...it's very tongue-in-cheek. it is sort of difficult to explain the relationship this film has to the rest of the major slashers. you just have to see it for yourself (READ THE FIRST PARAGRAPH).
One of the major reasons I like this film, is that everyone in this film is HUMAN. In other slasher films, people aren't as human. As characters, you can't relate to them. take Halloween (the first one) for example, Laurie is just a character. you get no backstory from her at all (as far as I remember). she's just a random girl who some killer stalks (keep it in the perspective of the first one). and don't even get me started on her friends. all I can say is: knife fodder. with Scream, all characters are easy to relate to. what I mean is, they are clearly human characters, which brings me to my NEXT point: THE KILLER!!!
The Killer. aaah yes, the killer. Ghostface. let me start of by saying this, in any other slasher film, we'll pick on Friday the 13th this time, it goes like this: Jason could be sitting on the couch flipping channels for 90 minutes doing NOTHING and still make his kill quota for the movie. How? because the characters in his movie are so dumb this is how it would go: Jason would be sitting there and dumb chick #1 would come up to him screaming the "the killer is chasing me" scream. he wouldn't react and so she would take his machete and stab herself still screaming. it would continue like this until Final Girl would bonk him on ht head and he would get up, stretch, and go off to hibernate until the next sequel. It is just that easy for the average slasher film serial killer to kill his victims. you don't believe me? watch some of them. not Ghostface though. ohohoho no not Ghostface. no Ghostface EARNS his kills. I can't tell you what I mean though. you have to see it. this proves though, that under the awesome costume, Ghostface is just an ordinary person with ordinary strengths and skills. It makes the film a lot more believable. none of this "Arnie in his prime hit me over the head with a 100 megaton Hydrogen Bomb that went on to explode sending the sun crashing on me and I picked myself up brushed myself off and went on my way" crap. You get bored of an unkillable killer after a short time.
well, I've written out my confusing rant long enough. I hope you enjoy reading it. this film isn't perfect but I would highly suggest this one. it is certainly my favorite slasher film and it also comes with the bonus feature of a rare (I actually think one of a kind) good sequel. but, I must leave you with one final piece of advice: pay attention to the DIALOGUE. well, yeah. I've ranted long enough. (although if you want, for the people who have seen Scream, I can make a blog about all of the little...well, extra bits of this movie. trivia relations stuff like that. let me know if you want me to). but yeah. it was a great film.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.7Sep 27, 2011Acting: The acting is much like it is in the first one. it isn't Oscar winning but the main actors, and even the supporting characters, do a great job and that helps keep the movie more interesting and fun to watch. The actors really made the characters more likable. I like the characters of this film (Ghostface is my favorite. To me, he is a whole different character than the character under the mask and I like that a lot).
Plot: The plot is more or less the same as the first one. Killer stalking people and ripping them apart. Standard stuff. the only real differences are the setting and the fact that the survivors are dealing with the events of the first one.
Screenplay: not perfect. It was weak in some spots, but there was some good stuff. Like the rules of this one. I applaud the genius who thought of the idea to have the rules of slasher films for this film.
Likeableness: This film, like the first one, is incredibly likable. you just have to love it when you are watching it. There are many reasons for that. One of them is that the killer is human. he trips, he falls, he gets the crap beaten out of him. Long story short, he earns his kills. just like in the first one. a superhuman killer is boring. It is an extremely fun film to watch. good characters, great killer, it's just a blast.
Final Score: 8.85/10.0 (N)
TRIVIA TIME: 1. Not only was the cast not informed who the killer was until the last Day of shooting, they also didn't receive the last 10 pages of the script until it was time to film them. The last 10 pages were also printed on grey paper, therefore making them unable to be illicitly Xeroxed. All cast members had to sign contracts that they would not discuss the movie's outcome or the killer's identity with the media.
2. Though in most films, phone voices are recorded later, director Wes Craven actually had the voice of the killer on set, to heighten the sense of fear for the actors. According to Roger Jackson, who plays the voice, he was kept on set but always out of sight from the actors, so they couldn't picture a face with the voice. He said while watching the monitors, he could see between takes that Heather Graham looked a little scared, whereas Sarah Michelle Gellar would pick up the phone and carry on a conversation with him.
3. The tagline for "Stab" (the movie within the movie) is, "This is Gonna Hurt".
4. The rules for a horror movie sequel - as laid out by Randy in the film - are (1) the body count is always bigger and (2) the death scenes are always much more elaborate with more blood and gore. The third rule to surviving a sequel is cut from the movie, but is shown in the trailer. ""And #3. Never, ever under any circumstance assume that the killer is dead."
5. Any actor auditioning for the part of Derek had to perform the scene in the cafeteria where he sings "I Think I Love You" without accompaniment.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.3Sep 27, 2011Well, the Scream films just keep going down in quality (Please God let the fourth one be good!!!) It had definite glaring flaws but it still was great fun to watch. Ghostface still has to earn his kills which is a nice thing to see, and there is a decent amount of cute comedy. The acting is pretty much the same all around. The screenplay was much weaker. There were some parts that were like "okay really? you could have done better than that." It was simply a good time all around. Nothing too special. I wouldn't rank it as high as the first or even the second. But it was fun. My advice: see it as a completion of the trilogy. Particularly if you are going to see the fourth one.
TRIVIA TIME: 1. Wes Craven filmed three different endings and didn't tell the cast which one he was going to use.
2. The bathroom Sidney finds Angelina in on the set of "Stab 3" is the same bathroom used when Sidney is attacked in the original Scream. You can tell by position of doors and soap dispenser design.
3. Between Scream 2 and Scream 3, David Arquette and Courteney Cox (two of the five actors who feature in all the Scream movies) got married. They met on the set of the first movie, were an item whilst shooting the second and by the third they were married. Courteney added 'Arquette' to the end of her name, as can be seen in the credits. Courteney and David had to cut their honeymoon short to begin filming Scream 3.… Expand
Average User Score: 1.8Sep 27, 2011The second you see the letters U W E B O L L arranged in the dreaded order that spells the name of the horrible German director (Lou Woll) in the opening credits, you know you are in a for a bad film. Wow...my opening joke here sucks.
Acting/characters: Shallow, generic, and underdeveloped that's all I can say about them. I kept hoping that there would be someone in the whole film who I would think "maybe this one will be different and kinda likable" out of the whole cast, no one fit that bill. I can't even remember their names without looking them up with the exception of Kirk. Even as I write this, their names and faces slip from my mind. That is for the best I feel. I just do not care about them whatsoever. Who could? Maybe the 3 or 4 people out there who like this film say 'the characters are so incidental because this is a cheesy action flick and nothing more.' To those 3 or 4 people (including Uwe Boll) I say, if I want this many faceless characters, I'll go play the video game itself. It's a movie so it should have at least one character worth anything. This doesn't. Plus, the character who narrates the film is so dumb. Well, not just him, the whole concept of the character. A narrator is our protagonist. We are seeing the film from his or her eyes. This guy wasn't in the film for the first third of it. Once he was you never got to really know him at all. It's like he was just there and was narrating it in passing later. I dunno maybe the script did have a likable character, well if so, the actors killed it. They all absolutely sucked. I think one of them went on to do something worthwhile after this...how? They were monotonous, blank, and uninteresting. 0/10
Plot: I've read the plot to the original game. This one is supposed to be a prequel to that game in a sense...no matter what angle you look at it from the two are not connected plot-wise at all. This would be fine I suppose but Uwe Boll decided to use a plot that has been circulating on the Slasher Genre for decades: Teenagers at a party in an abandoned location are being killed off. So, not only did he not even try to tie it into the actual source material itself, he decided to use an old, over-used plot to do it. Way to go Uwe! You've sunk to a new low. At least I haven't seen the plot to Alone in the dark 50 times in 50 different movies like this one. You didn't even try. You didn't even try. 0/10
Screenplay: If I asked Uwe Boll what he thought about the script for this film he would give me a blank stare and say 'the what for my film?' an exaggeration to be sure, but not that much of one. Some lines in there just had my head ringing. Which ones?...all of them...yeah, all of them. I don't know who wrote this screenplay or why but they should be banned from ever making a screenplay again. This comes off like some kid wrote it. No offense to kids. Come on people this is a movie1 You get paid to do this! Now I'm not saying it has to be Casablanca but can you please not try to outdo Troll 2 in terms of stupidity? 0/10
Likableness: I add Uwe Boll to my list of directors who love slow-mo too much (move over Michael Bay and Zack Snyder). And he's just friggin' lazy too. There is one shot that he reuses 4 DIFFERENT TIMES!!! I mean come on! Twice is pushing it but 4!?!?! I highly disliked this film and I will probably never watch it again. I would advise everyone who has not seen this to go and watch something better. Like the Garfield movie (oh snap) and leave this alone. It was terrible. I give this one a solid 0/10.
Final Score: 0/40
Tomatometer rating: 4%
Tomatometer rating if my review was added: 4%
TRIVIA TIME: 1. The fisherman with the hook (gaff) at the beginning of the movie is a reference to the killer in I Know What You Did Last Summer.
2. At the beginning of the movie, Greg says, "Who's the U-boat captain?" when he sees Capt. Viktor Kirk. Prochnow was the captain in Das Boot.
3. Jonathan Cherry burned 30% of his hand on the second day of shooting. The scene on the bridge, where he hurts his hand, was shot later, to explain the bandage he had to wear.
4. Reviews were so bad that Danish cinemas refused to buy it.
5. House of the Dead is the last film to use the turn-table technique for 360Â° shots. The risk of actors being hurt or killed by the fast-moving camera was too much.… Expand
Average User Score: 4.8Sep 27, 2011Hannibal Lecter is the greatest character ever committed to both screen and paper. As such, once Harris finished his other Lecter books, people wanted more. so, like an idiot, he made the biggest mistake he could make: He gave Hannibal Lecter a back story. Not Hannibal Lecter is one of the most enigmatic characters ever. Why does he do what he does? Well, now we know. And boy, am I angry that I ever found out. Thomas Harris was stupid to write the book, and I was stupid enough to read it. By giving Hannibal Lecter a back story you take away the enigma of the character and by doing so, you take away a lot of what makes him great. I have learned this lesson over and over again: what you imagine is far more terrifying than reality. If you hear someone being ripped apart piece by piece on film, it is far more terrifying than if you see it happening. **** knew this. he was a master at it. so by giving Lecter a back story, you take away some of the terror. some of what made him great. He is still the greatest character of all time, but some of the mystery is gone. would you give Heath Ledger's Joker a back story? F*** NO! That's why he had different stories for how he got his scars. Imagining how he got them is far more terrifying than if they had told you. It seems obvious. So, why the F*** would you give Hannibal Lecter a F****** back story? A reason for the madness?
Acting: Horrible. And I'm not just saying that because I don't think this movie should exist. It was groan worthy. Gaspard Ulliel tried and failed to get Hannibal Lecter right. see, the character of Hannibal Lecter, emanates an aura of pure evil but at the same time, you are fascinated by him. Ulliel failed to capture that. Also, I didn't like the child actor who played Lecter at age 8. Not that he needed to be evil. He wasn't. He didn't need to be. But he annoyed me quite a lot. I generally don't like child actors that young. with a few exceptions of course. they don't do things right generally. He didn't. 0/10
Plot: I think I've said all I needed to say about the plot for this film. 0/10
Screenplay: it disgusted me at points. I mena come on, in one part, Lady Murisaki calls Hannibal "Han." I hated that. It was cheesy. The author, Thomas Harris, wrote the screenplay. well Mr. Harris, you can write books but you can't write screenplays. 0/10
Likableness: Well, the film has a 0/30 so far from me, I think you know what this is going to get. All I can do is warn you one last time, If you like Hannibal Lecter at all and can appreciate the character. Don't see this movie. Don't read the book. don't look up the plot. if someone is discussing this movie, leave the room. basically, pretend that this movie/book doesn't exist at all.
Final Score: 0/40. 0% (H) This is the Naseby stamp of hatred. I rarely award this. It is easier for a bad film to win a Razzie award then to get this. I don't give it out often.
TRIVIA TIME: Actors screen tested for the role of Hannibal include: Hayden Christensen, Macaulay Culkin, Hugh Dancy, Rupert Friend, Dominic Cooper,Tom Sturridge, and Tom Payne.… Expand
Average User Score: 5.2Sep 27, 2011The Room....I just don't know how to describe this...garbage. The worst part about this film is that the director/star/executive producer/producer/writer Tommy Wiseau thinks he's making a modern masterpiece and I'm sure he is surprised that this didn't get Oscar attention. See this movie only to laugh at how horribly bad it is. If you don't like laughing at bad movies, burn every copy of the film you find.… Expand