theendisnear1985 Reviews

Jaws (1975)

Great characterization but predictable story.

[5/10 · 6 May 2010]

If "Jaws" succeeds at anything, it's in making the viewer really start to question what's in the water with them. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that wouldn't give this movie some thought before ever heading into the ocean again. This story is essentially a man versus nature tale, and serves as a reminder that although we are the most intelligent species on the planet, there are forces of nature bigger than we are.

"Jaws" succeeds in establishing a dynamic group of characters whose interactions with one another are interesting to watch. The war veteran turned fisherman gets his rocks off by teasing the intellectual scientist, the chief just tries to keep peace to save his community...the dynamics of the relationships were interesting enough. Where I feel "Jaws" fails is in the story department, because although we have some interesting multi-faceted characters, the plot is still that of a B-movie. The story of a shark terrorizing a coastal community could easily have been a Roger Corman production. Spielberg manages to elevate the material to A-level status with his use of great actors and a script that fleshes the characters out more than any B-movie would attempt, and his direction produces some genuine moments of suspense, but it's predictable fare. There are few surprises for the viewer, and anyone that believes the movie will end with the shark still alive hasn't seen enough Hollywood films.

I commend Spielberg for making entire generations afraid to go into the water. But nevertheless let's not forget this is a popcorn film, elevated slightly by a good set of characters.

Scream 2 (1997)

Even worse the second time around.

[2/10 · 6 May 2010]

"Scream 2" is a movie that asks you to believe another serial killer has targeted young Sidney Prescott (survivor of the first film, and now a college student). If this weren't enough to swallow, her high school friend and fellow survivor from the first film, Randy, conveniently goes to the same university. And wouldn't you know it, along come the other remaining survivors, so now everyone can play along in another round of the same old game. How convenient, eh? Once again, the killer is able to accomplish many things by seemingly pure, blind luck (only in the movies). The opening of the film is a laughable exercise of a series of implausible events that lead to the first deaths in the movie, kick-starting an entire series of conveniences for the killer to do his work aided as if by the gods of Hollywood themselves. Characters manage to get into situations that would only happen in the movies, and the killer is presented with opportunities to chase our poor survivors down school corridors and alleys, all making great scenes that belong right in a movie, yet ironically the characters are self-aware of all the clichés even when they are a part of them.

Scream 3 (2000)

Only in Hollywood.

[1/10 · 6 May 2010]

A killer donning a ghost outfit once again targets Sidney Prescott and the other survivors of the previous films. Only in a Hollywood movie would this ever be remotely plausible. Once again, the audience is subjected to another guessing game as to who is under that costume. I guess in the reality of this film, being targeted by a serial killer every couple of years is normal. The FBI believes there are at least 20 and as much as 50 active serial killers in the country today. How unfortunate for Ms. Prescott that she would defy the odds to be the focus of them three times. The girl should seriously be playing the lottery a lot more with luck like that.

Don't bother with this.

Scream (1996)

"This isn't a movie. This is life." Really? You wouldn't know it by the script.

[3/10 · 6 May 2010]

Tell me, if you're a writer who writes a cliché, predictable story, can you excuse your bad writing by having your characters state, within the movie, that they know it is cliché and predictable? This is my problem with Kevin Williamson's script, and this movie in general. You can't excuse a tired plot by having your "hipster" characters acknowledge every cliché from previous movies in the genre. It really is for five year-olds, there's nothing subtle about it at all. The viewer is beaten over the head in this film with constant references to other films in the genre. This self-awareness has been called new and edgy, instead of what it really is: a total cop-out. Why write characters so self-aware of all the genre pitfalls, only to have them execute the same bad decisions in their own reality? Such a waste.

"Scream" was heralded for being different from the pack because it was the first mainstream horror movie to parody the characters' situations and point out the flaws in the genre, but really, the idea was very simplistic. "Scream" differs from other genre films only in the fact the characters talk as if they're in a horror movie, while the rest of the film is just as predictable as any other movie in the genre. Changing one small ingredient in the recipe doesn't affect the end result that much. A child could have conceived the idea.

The characters exist in a world where horror movies can happen just like in the fantasy of motion pictures--the killer can seemingly be everywhere at once, the heroine can elude her pursuer until the film's finale, and other characters conveniently find themselves in situations where they are far too easy for the killer to pick off. Of course, real life is a bit different, which ironically the main character says at one point in the film, right before we get treated to every horror cliché in the book before the grand "finale", which plays out just like a movie. Such a shame more of an effort wasn't made to create a better movie that sent a more believable message about the genre as a whole: that the killers aren't superhuman, not everything will go according to plan, the heroine will not always survive, and not everything plays out like a scene from a movie. That would have been a far better message than what we ultimately get here.