Scream VI (2023)
March 10, 2023 7:55 AM - Subscribe
Following the latest Ghostface killings, the four survivors leave Woodsboro behind and start a fresh chapter in New York City.
Starring Melissa Barrera, Jenna Ortega, Jasmin Savoy Brown, Mason Gooding, Courteney Cox, Hayden Panettiere, Dermot Mulroney, Liana Liberato, Jack Champion, Devyn Nekoda, Josh Segarra, Samara Weaving, Tony Revolori, Henry Czerny, Roger Jackson, Thomas Cadrot, Skeet Ulrich.
Like the preceding film in the series, this one was made by the Radio Silence team of filmmakers. Directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, Tyler Gillett. Written by James Vanderbilt, Guy Busick. Based on characters by Kevin Williamson. Produced by William Sherak, James Vanderbilt, Paul Neinstein. Cinematography by Brett Jutkiewicz. Edited by Jay Prychidny. Music by Brian Tyler, Sven Faulcone.
79% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.
Now playing in US theaters. Presumably heading to Paramount Plus and/or digital rental at some point. JustWatch listing.
Starring Melissa Barrera, Jenna Ortega, Jasmin Savoy Brown, Mason Gooding, Courteney Cox, Hayden Panettiere, Dermot Mulroney, Liana Liberato, Jack Champion, Devyn Nekoda, Josh Segarra, Samara Weaving, Tony Revolori, Henry Czerny, Roger Jackson, Thomas Cadrot, Skeet Ulrich.
Like the preceding film in the series, this one was made by the Radio Silence team of filmmakers. Directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, Tyler Gillett. Written by James Vanderbilt, Guy Busick. Based on characters by Kevin Williamson. Produced by William Sherak, James Vanderbilt, Paul Neinstein. Cinematography by Brett Jutkiewicz. Edited by Jay Prychidny. Music by Brian Tyler, Sven Faulcone.
79% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.
Now playing in US theaters. Presumably heading to Paramount Plus and/or digital rental at some point. JustWatch listing.
On a NYC subway scene in the film:
Gillett and Bettinelli-Olpin do not live in New York, and they admit that their version of the subway owes as much to cinema as it does to real life. That fits with the ethos of the self-referential “Scream” series, in which characters are continually offering meta-commentary on what they are going through. “‘Warriors’ is like my touchstone for subway movies,” Bettinelli-Olpin said, referring to the iconic 1979 action flick about warring gangs in which the subways turn into hide-outs and battlefields. “I just assume it’s still like that all the time.” (It’s not.)posted by brainwane at 8:03 AM on March 10 [2 favorites]
The thing is you can actually map out the trip the Warriors take on the subway. The makers of that film clearly knew the subway system very well so maybe a take a page from their book and actually see what the subway is like now. Not really that big of an ask.
Because I was a NYer for so long, I feel obligated to watch this at some point but that comment does not fill me with optimism.
posted by miss-lapin at 5:56 PM on March 10 [1 favorite]
Because I was a NYer for so long, I feel obligated to watch this at some point but that comment does not fill me with optimism.
posted by miss-lapin at 5:56 PM on March 10 [1 favorite]
Spoiler free quick review: the set pieces in this installment are some of the best in the entire franchise. The head fakes and red herrings are ruthlessly efficient in a way that satisfies. The actual story underneath is meh and the underlying mystery such as it is, is a retread of a retread.
Radio Silence made an entertaining film that will keep the franchise alive. But an even larger subset of viewers than last time are going to lose their patience with the story.
Either you're going to accept the story and be delighted with the set pieces, or you won't and you'll hate this whole thing.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:56 AM on March 12 [3 favorites]
Radio Silence made an entertaining film that will keep the franchise alive. But an even larger subset of viewers than last time are going to lose their patience with the story.
Either you're going to accept the story and be delighted with the set pieces, or you won't and you'll hate this whole thing.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:56 AM on March 12 [3 favorites]
And now with spoilers: they straight up recycled the "parent in disguise mad about what you did to their killer kid" from 2. My kid liked that better than I did as they felt the whole film was a riff on that installment: college, etc.
I think I'm kind of over the plots now, but I'm not mad if they keep giving us cool set pieces.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 6:56 PM on March 13
I think I'm kind of over the plots now, but I'm not mad if they keep giving us cool set pieces.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 6:56 PM on March 13
“‘Warriors’ is like my touchstone for subway movies,” Bettinelli-Olpin said, referring to the iconic 1979 action flick about warring gangs in which the subways turn into hide-outs and battlefields. “I just assume it’s still like that all the time.” (It’s not.)
The thing is you can actually map out the trip the Warriors take on the subway. The makers of that film clearly knew the subway system very well so maybe a take a page from their book and actually see what the subway is like now. Not really that big of an ask.
The funny thing was, when I went to live and work in NYC in the early nineties, I couldn't rent a copy of The Warriors anywhere in Park Slope; I was never sure if it was because of the reputation that the movie had for spawning violence, or because watching a movie about the city in the city itself was considered a deeply uncool thing to do. So, yeah, it was difficult to map the exact route at that point in time, but the subway itself was a lot different (all the graffiti was gone, generally safer) by the early nineties. (And there aren't that many different ways that you can go from Coney Island to Van Cortlandt Park, although at one point on the way back they take a detour through the tunnels on foot, which is of course highly inadvisable.)
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:33 AM on March 14
The thing is you can actually map out the trip the Warriors take on the subway. The makers of that film clearly knew the subway system very well so maybe a take a page from their book and actually see what the subway is like now. Not really that big of an ask.
The funny thing was, when I went to live and work in NYC in the early nineties, I couldn't rent a copy of The Warriors anywhere in Park Slope; I was never sure if it was because of the reputation that the movie had for spawning violence, or because watching a movie about the city in the city itself was considered a deeply uncool thing to do. So, yeah, it was difficult to map the exact route at that point in time, but the subway itself was a lot different (all the graffiti was gone, generally safer) by the early nineties. (And there aren't that many different ways that you can go from Coney Island to Van Cortlandt Park, although at one point on the way back they take a detour through the tunnels on foot, which is of course highly inadvisable.)
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:33 AM on March 14
I'm giving it a solid B+.
I had a heckuva good time, was genuinely thrilled and scared at the action, and the only reason why I don't give an A is because....
SPOILER AHOY - READ ON AT YR OWN RISK
...I love the callback concept of the revenge seeking family, I do, but it felt woolly and unearned. There was something cool the writers were saying with the whole "turn the survivor into the villain" narrative and I wished that had a more significant impact on the climax (Quinn's weak sauce). As it was, the murderous trio didn't fully land for me.
Other observations:
If I think about it, they really were telegraphing who the vengeful parties were from the jump. I was too busy trying to remember if there was anyone from the OG Woodsboro murders who could possibly show up out of nowhere.
Not me yelling at Mindy: Your fucking uncle DIED IN A VAN in the SECOND MOVIE wtf get out you two CHRIST
I could not for the life of me place Josh Segarria for the entirety of the movie--"How do I know him? What do I know him from? I think it's something funny?"--and at the bus stop on the way home, I shouted "She-Hulk!"
Samara Weaving's death was both fantastic and very meta. "Ma'am, you are literally in the dark alley you would warn your Final Girls about going into. Oh, now you are stabbed, ma'am. Sigh."
Melissa Barrera also gives super strong Eliza Dushku vibes.
I thought the in movie reasoning for Sydney's absence was perfect: "She deserves her happy ending." Excellent, no notes, exactly believable for a mass murder survivor multiple times over.
Tara decking Gale as a callback to the OG film? *chef's kiss*
Yeah, I had a fucking great time at this movie.
posted by Kitteh at 12:37 PM on March 15 [1 favorite]
I had a heckuva good time, was genuinely thrilled and scared at the action, and the only reason why I don't give an A is because....
SPOILER AHOY - READ ON AT YR OWN RISK
...I love the callback concept of the revenge seeking family, I do, but it felt woolly and unearned. There was something cool the writers were saying with the whole "turn the survivor into the villain" narrative and I wished that had a more significant impact on the climax (Quinn's weak sauce). As it was, the murderous trio didn't fully land for me.
Other observations:
If I think about it, they really were telegraphing who the vengeful parties were from the jump. I was too busy trying to remember if there was anyone from the OG Woodsboro murders who could possibly show up out of nowhere.
Not me yelling at Mindy: Your fucking uncle DIED IN A VAN in the SECOND MOVIE wtf get out you two CHRIST
I could not for the life of me place Josh Segarria for the entirety of the movie--"How do I know him? What do I know him from? I think it's something funny?"--and at the bus stop on the way home, I shouted "She-Hulk!"
Samara Weaving's death was both fantastic and very meta. "Ma'am, you are literally in the dark alley you would warn your Final Girls about going into. Oh, now you are stabbed, ma'am. Sigh."
Melissa Barrera also gives super strong Eliza Dushku vibes.
I thought the in movie reasoning for Sydney's absence was perfect: "She deserves her happy ending." Excellent, no notes, exactly believable for a mass murder survivor multiple times over.
Tara decking Gale as a callback to the OG film? *chef's kiss*
Yeah, I had a fucking great time at this movie.
posted by Kitteh at 12:37 PM on March 15 [1 favorite]
Do we all kinda figure there was a pre-Neve-opts-out version of this script that didn't have Kirby in it?
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:14 AM on March 16
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:14 AM on March 16
I don't think so. People who really love this franchise to the point of it being their fave horror franchise, apparently they have been team #justiceforkirby since her installment. More than a few Scream fans have been convinced Kirby wasn't killed and should have been brought back well before this entry.
posted by Kitteh at 8:15 AM on March 16
posted by Kitteh at 8:15 AM on March 16
Sure, and I like Kirby too. So it wasn't a swipe against her at all
Neve Campbell wouldn't discuss signing on to Scream (2022) until she saw the script. Probably the same was true here. After she said no, I doubt they just wrote a brand new movie or that Sidney was relegated to a minor plot that was easily cut. If you look for a character who could have been swapped in for Sidney after the fact, Kirby jumps out.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:55 AM on March 16
Neve Campbell wouldn't discuss signing on to Scream (2022) until she saw the script. Probably the same was true here. After she said no, I doubt they just wrote a brand new movie or that Sidney was relegated to a minor plot that was easily cut. If you look for a character who could have been swapped in for Sidney after the fact, Kirby jumps out.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:55 AM on March 16
I guess it would be really weird to get Sydney to New York? Gale is a media figure so it's easy to fit her into the NYC locale, but even if they did get Neve back, I don't know how you could get her character there without it feeling very non-organic. (I mean, I'll be real: I was already stretching my belief for the Core Four all being in New York.)
posted by Kitteh at 9:14 AM on March 16 [1 favorite]
posted by Kitteh at 9:14 AM on March 16 [1 favorite]
Hayden Panettiere was announced as returning several weeks before Neve Campbell announced she was skipping this one. I’d bet that Sidney was killed in the intro.
posted by Etrigan at 7:38 PM on April 25 [2 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 7:38 PM on April 25 [2 favorites]
Ooh, that's an interesting guess.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 5:37 AM on April 26
posted by DirtyOldTown at 5:37 AM on April 26
Okay, I just dashed that off after finally seeing the movie the instant I got the Paramount+ notification that it was available (no, it totally wasn't in an elementary school lobby while I was waiting for a Girl Scout meeting to finish up, that's a damned lie), so I'll expand:
We got the whole Randy-Here-Are-The-Rules speech about how franchises mean legacy characters die. In the context of the first -- and well-known to the audience -- Sidney-free Scream movie, that was supposed to make us think that Gale was going to die and that Kirby might actually be the killer. Then the Core Four and Gale and Kirby all survived. Oh sure, we're told it's a "twist on a twist", but I think that's the first time the RHAR speech was that expressly rebuked, right?
So I figure the original plan was for one of Sidney/Gale to die, leaving only one OG star (which lets them dangle "NOT EVEN GALE/SIDNEY IS SAFE..." for Sc7eam); or possibly even both, to really sell that this ain't a Halloween saga retread and it will go on forever. But then Campbell publicly told them to go fuck themselves, and the studio probably started hemming and hawing about whether they wanted to break ties with the original movies entirely. So they had to punt. If they get Campbell back for the next movie, then they can kill off Gale or even retcon her not-quite-death, or they can kill Sidney off and keep Cox around.
posted by Etrigan at 7:05 AM on April 26 [2 favorites]
We got the whole Randy-Here-Are-The-Rules speech about how franchises mean legacy characters die. In the context of the first -- and well-known to the audience -- Sidney-free Scream movie, that was supposed to make us think that Gale was going to die and that Kirby might actually be the killer. Then the Core Four and Gale and Kirby all survived. Oh sure, we're told it's a "twist on a twist", but I think that's the first time the RHAR speech was that expressly rebuked, right?
So I figure the original plan was for one of Sidney/Gale to die, leaving only one OG star (which lets them dangle "NOT EVEN GALE/SIDNEY IS SAFE..." for Sc7eam); or possibly even both, to really sell that this ain't a Halloween saga retread and it will go on forever. But then Campbell publicly told them to go fuck themselves, and the studio probably started hemming and hawing about whether they wanted to break ties with the original movies entirely. So they had to punt. If they get Campbell back for the next movie, then they can kill off Gale or even retcon her not-quite-death, or they can kill Sidney off and keep Cox around.
posted by Etrigan at 7:05 AM on April 26 [2 favorites]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:57 AM on March 10