Well, 85 weeks later I DID download that cam version, and I NEVER watched it.

So I picked up Scream 4 on Netflix (they sent me the Bluray through the mail)... that was on November 1st, 2012. I was so busy, I didn't watch it until December 9th, 2012. So basically I paid about $13 bucks for Scream 4 to sit on a desk.

Whatta 'ya gonna do?

Why the wait since release? Just lack of interest and other priorities, then forgetting. Why the wait since Netflix sent it to me? Busy, and I wanted to watch the original trilogy before continuing on with Scream 4. It had been YEARS (since original release) that I had seen the others. Although I was more of a Halloween mark, the Scream films were a huge part of my childhood socially. They were insanely popular, major watercooler talk at school, for us grunge heads, girls like Liv Tyler and Neve Campbell was the epitome of beauty in the 90s. Films like Scream made us think, "so that's what high school is like?" That's the kind of effect they had. Well my high school experience was nothing like Scream (more like 21 Jump Street with Miami Vice nihilism thrown in), and re-watching these Scream films, especially the first one at the same time all this 90's music is coming back (Soundgarden/AIC), was a huge flood of memories. I actually cried at one point during Scream. I don't remember the scene, but I teared up a bit (nothing balling), because I flashed back to a time that you thought life would be and turn out one way, and it doesn't and you think of how much time has passed, and... it just got to me. Scream unlocked that memory for whatever reason. Of a time I remember, a time I identified with, that is LONG forgotton.

So on to the movies. Believe it or not, absolutely nothing changed about my opinion in all these years.

Scream (1996)
**** - 4/4 Stars -- Excellent

I still stand by my opinion that Scream should've been a stand-alone movie. The film is still flat out brilliant, and still majorly culturally relevant. In the same way that the original Dawn of the Dead still is a great comment on consumerism, and in a flat out brilliant way that Halloween III actually was a comment on pre-internet social media... Scream still manages to be a great commentary on a society obsessed with violence, where kids are immortalized for their violence. Keep in mind, this was three years before Columbine. Amazing how topical the film remains. Better to die a infamous villian, than a legendary nobody. The cast still in hind sight remains a superb ensemble. Regardless of Party of Five, Neve Campbell's lead remains her calling card for her career, and it's a sad shame she didn't embrace it more. She never had the career that Jamie Lee Curtis had, but that might be because she had an ecclectic taste in film roles, not to mention a few major release flops outside of the Scream franchise. Jamie Kennedy remains a powerhouse, and frankly "the male lead" in the film, regardless of David Arquette or Skeet Ulrich. Kennedy's character should've been the one to go on in hind sight, not Arquette's imo. Although Kennedy did find his way into all three of the original trilogy. The kills are still inventive, but yet tributing (primarily to Friday The 13th, despite the Halloween references). The southern California small town still remains a creepy, yet believeable backdrop with shades of Carpenter, primarily the feel of Halloween I & II. The film STILL holds up, which is a true testament of a horror classic. In hind sight, of the slasher genre... Scream is the ONLY contender for the title of 'classic'. It really was the last of it's kind, before or after. Nothing since has breathed new life into the slasher genre more.

Scream 2 (1997)
**1/2 - 2.5/4 stars -- Fair

First off, it becomes very clear by the last act of this "way too rushed" sequel, I felt in 1997, that Scream, like Psycho, like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre before it, that Scream should've been a stand-alone film. But you gotta love those Weinstein's, they had a cash cow on their hands, and like horror tradition a rushed sequel was inevitable. Shockingly in hind-sight, retaining the entire original cast that was left alive was quite a coup, even then. Something that's bugged me since 1997, and STILL bugs me today... Neve Campbell in that mid-90's grunge cut. It didn't look good on her then, and it looks even more dated now. She looks better with long hair, ala 1 & 4. End rant. Campbell seems to be giving it her all once again in a believeable reprisal of Sidney, much unlike Jamie Lee Curtis phoned-in reprisal of Laurie Strode in Halloween II. All of the principles are solid, but sadly the story isn't. The story just isn't there. Sure it's easy to just throw the Woodsboro survivers in college, but with a lack of interest and frankly boring characters (Jerry O'Connell is legendarily MISCAST), plus a babyfaced pre-Justified/pre-Deadwood Timothy Olyphant who's sorely under developed as a character that by the time the big reveal comes at the end, it's after the fact and it seems Olyphant is doing his best Skeet Ulrich impression. Laurie Metcalf is a fantastic, underrated actress is way underused. Maybe it would've been too obvious? I dunno. The film immediately parodies itself with the Sarah Michelle Gellar kill, that tries to be another Janet Leigh moment, but Craven already did it with Drew Barrymore in the original. Although the film is not bad, the film just reeks of mediocrity, being rushed, and undercooked. The college backdrop is not quite the original Woodsboro either. All these years later, it remains a CAMPY sequel, and just a flat mediocre film, despite Campbell's probably strongest effort as Sidney. Yes, I think this was actually her best performance as the character. She seemed to give it her all emotionally and throw in the kitchen sink. Ironic she didn't save it for Scream 3 & 4, the more worthy entries it could've been rolled out.

Scream 3 (2000)
**1/2 - 2.5/4 stars -- Fair

So this time around, they got three whole years on the porch to try to go back to the drawing board and figure out what exactly went wrong with the rushed, Halloween 5-ish underbaking of Scream 2. Guess what? Time off didn't help matters. Sadly, they got the casting RIGHT. Patrick Dempsey in his first visable role in a major U.S. theatrical release since probably Can't Buy Me Love is absolutely SOLID as a Sidney-obsessed detective. The romantic angle, and obvious chemistry between Campbell and Dempsey is completely underutilized because the script can't figure out what it wants Sidney to be. Closet shut-in "rape victim", Loomis "I knew this would happen" ass kicker, Sidney of Scream 1, girl needs to get laid... what? Dempsey and Campbell could've been played up as a love interest (although I would've preferred Scott Foley--her brother), and the entire movie set concept is a T-TOTAL-RETREAD of Wes Craven's New Nightmare, so much to the point i'm suprised Robert Englund didn't play Lance Henriksen's role, instead of Lance. Which brings me to another point... a fantastic character actor in Henriksen gets brought in, just after Millennium gets cancelled, and you do what with him? Absolutely nothing. He had more to fuckin' do in Hellraiser VIII: Hellworld than this. Absolutely wasted. Carrie Fisher's "Part III in a trilogy" appearence could've been used to better affect, such as an actual kill. Other cameos from Part III's could've been used as well and played up such as Tom Atkins with the Halloween tie-in from the original, or maybe bring Patricia Arquette from Dream Warriors to do some gimmick with David. But that's just fanboyism. Seeing everyone involved in film making, is just unrealistic. The franchise goes FULL ON PARODY at this point, and Campbell is noticably bored, and I don't blame her. Cox & Arquette seem to go more above and beyond on this one, and frankly it's almost a love story of them getting back together (recycled in Part 4). Although the end payoff in more satisfying in this one, and ultimately the reason if someone put a knife to my chest and forced me to chose a DVD of either Scream 2 or 3, i'd take 3, that's really the only preference there is. Like was stated before, it's like chosing between the 8-inch or 10-inch cock you take in the ass. Either way, you're getting fucked. In alot of ways, despite Craven's obviously phoned-in/paycheck prescence in these sequels, in alot of ways at this point they remind me of some of the later Nightmare On Elm Street sequels. NOES 4 & 5 & 6 are not really 'bad' films per say, they're just half-baked and mediocre and ultimately forgettable and self-parodying. That's what Scream has become only by Part 3. It took NOES one more film to get there.

Scream 4 (2011)
*** - 3/4 stars -- Good

Although it's been over a decade since a Scream film, it's eerie the parallels between Scream 4 and 1988's Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers. That film had a seven year break, versus eleven. Still both films acted as part reboot/part sequel that brought back the original cast, or in H4's case -- Donald Pleasence only. Pleasence performance as Loomis in Halloween 4 versus Campbell's reprisal of Sidney in Scream 4 are very comparable. Whether Kevin Williamson's writing, or direction from Craven, or Campbell herself, her fourth turn as Sidney seems VERY reserved, but INTENTIONAL imo, despite popular belief in this thread. I think it was a conscious decision made, not Campbell phoning in her performance. You want that -- check out Scream 3. That's what that looks like. This time around, she looks to be playing it a bit cold. Sadly because the film is so pre-concerned with setting up the new kids, we never really find out beyond "writing a book" what Sidney has been up to. Basically out Gale Weathers-ing Gale? Not really accurate to her character AT ALL, and doesn't correlate to how Campbell plays Sidney in the film, which is odd. Someone was on different pages. Although in the commentary on the deleted scenes on the Bluray, Craven mentions the workprint originally being over 3 hours long and actually never ever dragging they shot so much material. Basically Craven shot enough material for two films... which is exactly what this feels like. Two films worth of material, condensed down to one tightly-packed film. No not alike to Rob Zombie's obvious two film mistake with Halloween 2007, but definitely a film that with more padding and more length, maybe closer to 2-and-a-half hours, and/or just breaking into two films period, could've been either one huge glorious return for the franchise, or a decent Scream 4 & 5 that surpassed 2 & 3. Either way it's the major, if only problem I have with the film.

One of the biggest issues with the film is there are SO many characters (and this was a problem with all of the films), alot of character development is missing and the films are plot heavy because there's too many characters to keep track of. On one hand we need to hear what the hell Sidney, Dewey & Gale have been up to, beyond just a 30-second breeze over, we need to KNOW about the characters. What's their state of mind? How do they FEEL about the ordeal? One of my original ideas even back in the theater in 1997 with Sidney was to develop her into a Loomis-character, with Ellen Ripley-overtones by Scream 3. This was never done, because no character development with her was ever attempted. By Scream 4, and after the events of Scream 3, I think it would've been far more fascinating to have had Sidney because a completely cold, inaccessible character. Think the shut in of Scream 3 times 10,000. Gale's character should've been killed when she was stabbed. It could've created a different tone for the film, rather than the campy Dream Master/Jason Lives-direction Craven decided to take after the original Scream. But all of this is me just second-guessing. The truth is the new cast is the best cast since the original. Craven took extra care to cast the RIGHT people, which he succeeded. The remake meets reality TV angle was also extremely well-done and executed by both Craven and Williamson. Unlike the others watching this, and despite me already knowing... it was obvious Emma Roberts, something was off. What was the shocker for me was Rory Culkin's character. Total left field moment for me, because I over thought myself. I thought Culkin was SO obvious that it couldn't be likely. I assumed Roberts was off, and possibly her mother (Sidney's aunt). That's where I was looking, and then after that the female deputy that seemed a bit obsessed and hateful of Sid & Gale. And I was wrong again, but I think Roberts wasn't "as much" a twist as originally stated, even if I had watched it not knowing.

This is actually a compliment to Emma Roberts doing a bang up job portraying the character. From the very beginning she played the character as un-threatening, but borderline-creepy. Something was off, but you couldn't quite get it. Roberts did this great.

Which brings me back to Campbell. Campbell did a decent job as Sid, but seemed to be making a conscious decision to play the role now with an apprehension of "waiting for it to happen again". I think this was her goal, and for that she succeeded. You could see it through her eyes the torment and fear that she apparently still lives in as the character. This was completely NOT used and was something it seemed Campbell was trying to convey against the script that the script didn't even use, or should've been re-wrote, or maybe changed course in the direction of the character. I don't know if this was her decision or Wes Craven's, but it was the right one, and it was not used to it's fullest potential and that's not her fault. This is the kind of stuff we as an audience could've spent literally and hour dealing with that we didn't. We want to know where Sidney is at, and instead we get a bunch of teenagers obsessed with a Stab marathon, which made me feel cheated.

Best line of the movie, "you forgot one thing about remake... never fuck with the original!" -- pure Freddy line but pure cheesy awesomeness.

Killing Sidney, at this point the whole thing is reminiscent of Loomis getting thrown through that classroom window on Halloween 4 and being seemingly dead and the film over. Keeping her alive was the right decision, but the constant ending on top of ending got a bit overkill for me, but it's something the Scream franchise is none for.

Overall it's definitely the best sequel of the franchise. But at the same time, it's not vastly superior to Scream 2 or 3 either. Some of the overdone, campy parody elements that drove down the initial sequels is still present, although this film tries to take on a darker, more subdued nature to the previous two, it's still very prevalent and something I never cared for.

Either way it's a nice reboot, but like Halloween 4 -- STOP NOW. There's literally nothing left there. Go out on a high note, and look at it as a finale to the franchise. If the decision is made for the franchise to continue, I think at this point it might be time to retire for Craven from the franchise, as well as everyone but Campbell and see the franchise go on in a different vein, like Clue meets Scream. Campbell could easily become Pleasence, come in film maybe 10 minutes of solid scenes in the opening and ending, collect a massive paycheck for a week of work, and leave the film for the rest. I think it could continue in that fashion if they want. But I personally would call it a day and hang up the mask, because this is a franchise that should've never ever had sequels, and luckily slapped together a Part 4 that could at least send it off on a high note.