THE RETURN

 

THE RETURN:  D+ 

While many films have suffered from too much exposition, The Return suffered from a lack of it. It was a very difficult story to follow. Show, don't tell is the language of film, but in this case the visuals didn't make up for a lack of dialog. While they were appealing, they did not help to tell the story, fill in the gaps or answer the questions. Instead if anything, they left us more confused. The one saving grace this film did have is strong performances. Sarah Michelle Gellar, Adam Scott, Sam Shepard, Peter O'Brien, I saw no flaws within the cast who did their best despite a screenplay that spun its wheels just shy of two hours. This film asked a lot out of its audience. You had to do a lot of guessing. What's happening? Why is it happening? How is it happening? There are times when films hold your hand throughout the entire experience. In this case they blindfolded you, dropped you off in downtown Manhattan, deprived you of GPS or a map & wished you the best of luck.  Film had potential to be good, but sacrificed what could have been a good story in an effort to be edgy.  It did not pay off. 

DREAMHOUSE NIGHTMARE

 

DREAM HOUSE NIGHTMARE : C 

Although it was not a Lifetime Movie Network film, it could have easily passed as one. Based on a true story, this film would have benefited sticking to the actualities of the real life situation & would have been better off to have omitted the made up parts. What really happened was already interesting enough, it didn't need all of the doctoring up that it received. The old saying "Sometimes less is more" really applies here as DREAM HOUSE NIGHTMARE illustrates exactly what that is countless times throughout the entire film. 

Not that there weren't elements of the film that deserve praise. For one the opening was extremely gripping & uniquely clever.  We are at first introduced to the antagonist set up as if she is the protagonist. We are immediately introduced to her situation as we empathize with the struggles she has endured. Her house was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, her husband suffered a bad injury & is addicted to pills & she has the burden of raising an autistic daughter.  Then suddenly when the other couple shows up, it dawns on you that THEY are the protagonist and that she is the antagonist. It was a very well done reversal & it deserves to be recognized for how well it was shot. Unfortunately it's also the highlight of the entire film. 

I appreciate how the character of Madison portrayed by Terese Aiello was multi-dimensional.  While you don't empathize with her sociopathic behavior & all of the horrible things she does to the Wade family, you at least get to dive into her psyche and understand what drove her to the point of insanity.  Aiello did a great job of portraying the character & giving a realistic portrayal of such a person in a situation. 

Also props to Tenea Intriago. Playing someone with a mental disability is perhaps one of the hardest roles an actor can be given. I've seen some very well known, talented actors struggle with it in the past. Even some that just plain weren't able to do it. Juliette Lewis couldn't pull it off in THE OTHER SISTER & for that matter neither could Giovanni Ribisi. Intriago's performance was every bit as good as was Sean Penn's in I AM SAM or John Malkovich in OF MICE AND MEN. She nailed a very difficult part & she should be recognized for it. 

As to Rachel Whittle, her performance as Theresa Wade was 100% Lifetime Movie Network award winning worthy. She felt very unrealistic, written to the page and unnatural. Not sure if that was the way the character was written or if that was just the way she played the part. While blame wonders where exactly to be placed, the fact is, the performance felt odd and abnormal.  

Where this film really suffered was within the last 20 minutes. Had the film ended where Madison had gotten arrested & the credits rolled upon her being placed in the back of the squad car, the film might have earned a C+ or even a B-.   The film's focus was on Madison and the horrors she put the Wade family through. That was the entire focus of the film & then suddenly the last 20 minutes shifted to Madison's husband & her daughter. I think what the film was trying to go for, was to show how Autistic individuals can be heroes. While I appreciate the sentiment, it was out of place here & it robbed us from the reward of seeing Madison get her due. Furthermore it cheapened the heroic save made by her daughter.  Subplots should be woven into the main plot of a story and that wasn't done here. Instead it felt like two different films. The one ending definitively & the other rushed to be told in the last 20 minutes. 

It could have been worse though & that fact isn't lost on me.  It wasn't good, it wasn't all that bad, it was in many ways just ok.  If you're hard up for something to watch, you could do a lot worse. 

SHARK BAIT

 

SHARK BAIT 
C-

This flick felt like a student film through and through & I was actually surprised to see the seniority involved within the project. Screenwriter Nick Saltrese has been in the business for over 30 years, yet the screenplay felt uncomfortably simplistic and formulaic. Director James Nunn has been honing his craft for nearly 15 years & yet the film's direction felt so guarded and played safe that you would have thought this was his first project.  It was predictable from start to finish. One of those once you've seen one, you've seen em' all experiences. You saw the scenes unfold in your head long before they ever happened. You could hear the dialog word for word before it was spoken. It was painfully obvious from the start that Nat would be the sole survivor.  If anyone were to call "SPOILERS!!" in return I ask the following question:  Will the sun rise tomorrow morning? That's how blatantly obvious the film is. 

Nat is immediately established as the one likeable character. While Tyler matches Tom, Milly & Greg in terms of carelessness and stupidity, he's at least not as unsympathetic as the other three characters.  The screenplay gives you little reason to root for Tyler or hope for his survival but at the same time you don't enjoy the Shark's devouring of him in the way you do Greg or Milly. There is an attempt to salvage Tom's deplorable behavior, but we're cheated out of a true act of pure selflessness due to the fact that he's already wounded beyond repair. 

SHARK BAIT could easily be summed up as a film of a group of irresponsible knotheads served up one by one as a smorgasbord for a hungry shark. It absolutely astounds me that as nitpicky as audiences can be in terms of accuracy and honest depiction, you can literally get everything about shark behavior and what a shark would actually do in such a situation W-R-O-N-G, yet nobody bats an eye. 10 minutes on google, you'd quickly find the answer to be "No" in 9/10's of the questions you'd ask in response to this film.  "Would a Shark really?" No.  "Does sharks actually?" No.  No, no, no.  Doesn't matter, because while dramas, comedies, and even pornos are held to a standard, thrillers and horrors obviously aren't. 

There's nothing all that reprehensible about the film. It's sitthroughable. You're not going to run to the video store to obtain a copy to put in your DVD collection but you're not going to turn the film off in disgust either. There are a ton of films way better but this is far from the worst thing I've ever seen either. Slightly below average and you have a very fair grade.  

THE MURDER OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON

 

THE MURDER OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON: D- 

Stupidity has hit a whole new level. I feel somewhat bad for saying that as I once met the director, Daniel Farrands at a convention in St. Louis years ago. It's funny because when I met him all those years ago we talked of how a director had more or less butchered one of his screenplays. Nevetheless this film was just bad. Bad in about everyway a film can be bad. 

Why a D- instead of an F? Well I have to give credit where credit is due. Mena Suvari and Nick Stahl despite what they had to work with still gave convincing performances for the most part. When actors do their best, despite everything else, I have to give them props for effort. 

This film is tasteless. Plain and simple, absolutely tasteless. I remember first hearing of the plausible connection to Glen Rogers over 20 years ago. I thought it was a farfetched, damn near 0% plausibility theory back then and I think the same thing now.  To entertain such an improbable postulation makes a mockery of a very real tragedy where loved ones lost their lives in a very real heinous event. To treat  a matter of this magnitude as a novelty is rather shameful. 

It absolutely astounds me the filth that can get green lit when so many good, solid ideas lay dormant. This film hooked it's audience in with a clever title making them think that they were getting into a depiction of real life events and then unabashedly pulled a bait and switch into this ridiculous circus of obvious sensationalism and fiction.   

It's hard to even evaluate this film in any other area as that cardinal sin forever cements it into pipes that carry our sewage. Flush it down the toilet where it belongs.  This film was pure waste. 

BLACK PHONE

 

BLACK PHONE - A 


Well written. Well acted. Well directed. Well scored. Just a damn good film. With all of the rubbish we've been shown as of late in terms of thrillers society had a right to give up on them. Black Phone was a redemption. A few unanswered questions and a few areas that could have used a bit more explanation or at least exploration, the cons are few and the pros are plentiful.  The story was gripping and grasping. Well paced with smooth transitions. So good that unless you're about to explode, the bathroom can wait. 

The performances were exceptionally good, especially for the child actors. I was impressed with Mason Thames as Finney but I was blown away by Madeleine McGraw as Gwen. What a little Dean Stockwell in the making she is. Only 14 years old and already owns the screen as a poised and experienced veteran. I was also impressed with Jeremy Davies. It was nice to see him play a character so much different than the stereotypical spineless nerds that he is usually cast as. Then of course there was Ethan Hawke, who despite not having many lines also gave an outstanding performance. 

 I think some have forgotten that the basic formula for a good mystery/suspense is simple yet very effective. You don't need to overcomplicate things. Story should never be sacrificed in favor of twist, turn or shock. Story & the characters within that story should always be front and center, the focus of the film. Black Phone remembered that and it capitalized upon it. 

Thank you Scott Derrickson & C Robert Cargill for showing the world that these types of films can be fun and that these types of films can be good. 

ROOM FOR RENT

 

ROOM FOR RENT: D 

This awkward, nonsensical, frankly stupid film had but one saving grace, a respectable & dedicated cast. I've always wondered what it was like as an actor to get such a poorly written script & be obligated to do your best to give a solid & worthy performance in spite of it. Now I know.  The characters in this film were somewhat interesting, but the backgrounds and exposition to explain them, especially the main character were so off base & illogical that it made the film nearly unwatchable.  

What drove Joyce to insanity? Her husband's death? Codependency? Being forced to have an abortion against her will?  Let's give these questions examination.  If her husband's death led her to eventually being homicidal then it begs the question as to if he was the one stability in her life that initially kept her from these urges prior in her life. Having studied serial killers most of my life, her transition was irrational and non realistic. Codependency wouldn't lead to premeditated murder. The abortion she had would have been years prior, at least a decade and a half if not even longer ago. The killings of both her neighbor and Bob in a realistic setting would have been unplanned & in the third degree. It made absolutely no sense for it to be in the first degree & honestly it wouldn't have made sense to have been in the second degree either.  The creation and development of the character was virtually nonexistent and what was given to us as an audience was so impractical and unfeasible that it hurts to try and make any sense of it. 

I don't understand why drama, action, adventure, romance and even comedy are held to such a high standards but thrillers and horrors aren't. We expect Hemmingway's best work when the screenplay for a drama is submitted & anything less than GONE WITH THE WIND won't do. Yet when it comes to horror put a group of mentally challenged bonobos next to a computer and whatever turns out gets green lit into the garbage I just watched.  Thank Gawd Lin Shaye is such a gifted performer & that this film had other decent actors. Without them, I'd have enjoyed my last root canal more. 

THE GIRL WHO GOT AWAY

 

THE GIRL WHO GOT AWAY : B- 

THE GIRL WHO GOT AWAY could have been a straight forward film told in that of 90 minutes that would have given its audience a satisfying conclusion. Instead it threw on an extra 30 minutes of unnecessary twists and turns that as a result hurt the film's overall presentation. Had it been a straight up victim Vs torturer narrative, it would have eliminated the ambiguity and confusion while adding a sense of vengeance from a heroine that so many claim Hollywood lacks and is in desperate need of.  The story was strong & I just can't help but think that in this particular case revision may have been more of a burden than it was an attribute. The twists and turns seemed added and contrived, like that from a producer more so than that of a writer or a director. To reiterate, the film just did not need all of the extras. Had the story went with the one twist involving the older sheriff & stopped trying to top it with ridiculous twists for nothing more than "shock value" the story would have benefited. 

The performances were good. Lexi Johnson did a good of playing a straight up schizophrenic damaged from years of abuse and torture.  Chukwudi Iwuji as the investigative police officer also did a very good job. Overall all of the performances were fairly top notch. Nothing to complain about here.  

There were scenes that made no sense and left you with nothing but questions. These didn't help the film at all either. 

A story was here and furthermore a good story, but unfortunately as the old saying goes, "Don't try to fix something that isn't broken."  Nothing was broken here & they took the hammer, the nails and screw gun and "fixed" the ever lovin' Hell out of it. 

TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (2022)

 

TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE = C- 

I'm not even sure why I bother anymore. I'm beginning to think I got lucky in 2014 with OCULUS & it'll be the last truly great horror film I will ever see. Without a doubt TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSCRE (2022) had it's strengths. It wasn't without it's good moments. It's simply that the weaknesses far outweighed those strengths. For every pro there were multiple cons. For everything that was done right, multiple things were done wrong. 

Upon first glance, the film draws you in making you think that you're about to witness a story of epic revenge unfold from a woman who has been piling up a rage of vengeance for the last 48 years. You're looking forward to seeing Sally Hardesty go through the process of discovery, investigation & ultimate retribution, but instead discover her to be a minor character at best.  You'd think 48 years of preparation might have led to her making wiser decisions, but she seemed to fair better flying by the seat of her pants through pure improvisation in 1974 than what she did here. I'd like to give the character as well as the script points for redemption based on her cool save, but when only a few moments later it's all for not, those points quickly get stripped away. 

The characters in the story were interesting, but they were treated as if they were not. Many were built up as if they'd have meaning to the centralized plot, but they were so easily killed off and dismembered that you would have thought they were senseless bodies simply there so that the special effects department could make a bloody mess of their deaths. 

Very little of this film made sense & that isn't so much the problem as is the fact that there was little reason for the film not to make sense. There was a story here that could have easily been developed into something good, but instead they felt that being ambiguous and cryptic would be a better way to go. 

Of all the TCM films, & yes I've seen them all, this was far from the worst, yet it wasn't the best either. 

Props for a good cast that gave some solid performances. Props for the special effects team that made the kills one of the elements that made this film watchable. But a few cool kills doesn't make up for a lazy, nonsensical plot. This film had the blueprints to easily be a B, maybe even an A but instead settles for an apathetic C-.  

Extra points off for trying to be clever with the right wing propaganda with guns. I believe in gun rights myself. Responsible gun ownership is something I stand for, but if you're gonna throw in a political stance into your film do so with a bit more conviction and courage. Don't be so prissy thinking you're doing eruditely. It comes off as ostentatious.  

NOT WITHOUT MY DAUGHTER

 

NOT WITHOUT MY DAUGHTER: A 

First off it is important to note that as I review this film, I separate the film from the story it was based upon & review the film for its merits alone.  

The writing was very well done & presented the story in an extremely realistic light. Normally when tackling such an issue, things can become exceptionally one sided, but I felt the film did a good job of presenting views from both sides. Perhaps one side more than the other, but at least it didn't completely favor one side while burying the other.  That was the result of good writing. 

The directing here was very good too. While I question the realism of the events themselves, the sequence & pacing in which they were laid out done in an easy to follow transitional structure.  What was happening, why it was happening and how it was happening was clear and concise.   

The acting on behalf of Sally Field, Alfred Molina and the supporting cast was also very well done. Writing, directing and acting woven together to display characters in a realistic light of shades of gray.  This film could have easily painted a scenario of black and white, but instead chose to portray the circumstances and characters within those circumstances as multilayered rather than one dimensional.   

That's my over all review of this well put together film. 

NOW....

As to the actual story.  I question the authenticity and actuality of what really transpired. I know that there are other films & pieces of information out there that confirm Betty's story & others that nullify it. I dare not want to call anyone a liar & I know from personal experience that sometimes the most unrealistic of scenarios are in fact exactly what went down.  Yet I can't help but question some of her claims or in the least wonder if their wasn't some drastic embellishment to generate interest in order to generate sales. Some of the story just plain doesn't add up. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen that way. It very well might have, but when given rational and logical thought, it doesn't seem likely.  Digging into her past & finding out some of the details of her life, I'm not sure if she's the saintly heroine that the media tried to depict her as for such a long time. I'm also not sold that Moody was the turned into a monster over night villain that he was made out to be either.  I know that Mahtob has since written a book of her experiences that back up and confirm her mother's story.  Yet, I can't help but question that as well.  She was very, very young when all of this took place. I have a difficult time remembering in explicit detail the events of my life when I was 4, 5, 6 & 7 years old. I'm an extremely nostalgic person, deeply infatuated with my past & on top of it I'm a writer.  For me it's easier to believe that as a result of never seeing her father again, she grew up with her mother's consistent reinforcement and based her memories of the events more so on being conditioned than what she actually recalls.  

I think there are many truths to what happened, but I don't think we're bowling a 300 here either.  I think we have Betty's side of what happened and Moody's side of what happened, and somewhere in between lies the truth.   

Which again circles me back around to the film.  I do feel that the film in at least a subtle way tried to depict a bit of that within the film. Perhaps not in the fairest of ways, but at least in a way.   I remember my mother reading this book when I was very little & then renting and watching the film.  I did not watch it with her and I'm glad I didn't, because at the time I wouldn't have been able to have seen it in the way I do now.   Not sure if I needed to wait until I was 36, but nevertheless, this is a film that needed to be seen later in life, so I'm glad I waited. 

THE CLOVEHITCH KILLER

 

THE CLOVEHITCH KILLER: C 


Loosely inspired by the killings of serial killer Dennis "BTK" Rader, The CLOVEHITCH KILLER follows the story of Tyler Burnside, who after discovering a disturbing image in his father's pickup one night, comes to suspect that his father may be responsible for the mass murder of 13 women from 10 years prior.  While captivating and intriguing, the story is not paced well & the transitions are far from smooth.  

The writing's non-linear approach at times can be difficult to follow & while actor Charlie Plummer seemed to be dedicated & committed to the role, it also seemed that it was above his current level. You could see the desire as well as the effort, which was much appreciated, but the inexperience was also painfully obvious.  His character seemed to have no arch. He didn't seem effected enough by the information that he discovered. Finding out such a horrid thing about a loved one, would be psychologically damaging. His character seemed to shrug it off as a mild surprise, rather than the huge shock that it should have been. 

There were so many elements of this film that could have been explored into great depths but were barely touched upon. Instead of the long drawn out, weird and uncomfortable ending, we could have instead hit these points to a level of satisfaction. The father being involved in the Church, how he was able to hide it from his wife, the community.  So many more elements that could have been explored.   

I never was quite sure what the film was trying to imply at the end. Was Tyler simply trying to save his mother and his sister as well as himself from the shame and embarrassment? Was he afraid of what might be assumed of him because he was related to this monster?  Or was the film trying to imply that like his father he had the ability to do something such as murder, keep it a well kept secret and go on with life all honky dory?  The film was not clear in its depiction. 

Again one of those films with better writing could have been better.  Had some strong elements throughout but there were too many missed opportunities to give this film anything better than an average rating. 

THE STEPFATHER II: Make Room For Daddy

 

The STEPFATHER II: Make Room For Daddy = B 

While still a B, STEPFATHER II actually slightly surpasses THE STEPFATHER as an overall suspense thriller of the 80's. The film was better directed, with a better flow and pace than the first film.  While the previous film seemed to slow down with unnecessary plot points, everything weaved together in this sequel to come together better as a collective.  It was also clear that Terry O'Quinn committed to the role more so here than he did in the original. Seemed more comfortable and natural in the part. Seasoned and experienced.  The synopsis was a bit misleading as the Jonathan Brandis character was not the investigator, making the relationship between Step-parent and Stepchild much different than the relationship was in the first film.  Which leads me to my only criticism of the film.  Jerry didn't seem as clever or sly in this film as he did in the last. It would only stand to reason that he would get better at his craft, not worse. Yet it did seem that way. 

The film was a bit tongue in cheek, which with such a plot you would almost have to be, but it took itself seriously enough to at least attempt some serious thrills and chills. Not much more to say about this other than Meg Ryan is such a fascinating woman.  As a kid she scared the bejeezus out of me.  Those eyes of her and that voice.  I was scared to death of her.  Now I find her intriguing. Attractive, mystical and mysterious.  It's amazing how our perceptions change over the years. 

THE STEPFATHER

 

THE STEPFATHER = B 

For a late 1980's suspense thriller this was pretty good. It had its ups and its downs, but overall it was an enjoyable film with more pros than cons. Loosely based on the murders of John List, the plot followed a believable enough story, even if some of the scenes within it were rather far fetched.  Terry O'Quinn played a schizophrenic psychopath with a fair amount of conviction.  

The film itself had two major flaws that kept it from being an A.  First and foremost the opening was so strong & so powerful that it was impossible for the rest of the film to match up.  The opening gave itself an unfair expectation to live up to. As an audience member you kept on waiting for the film to reach that height again, but it never does.  

The other flaw was in the brother-in-law character Jim. He was set up and developed so well, that it was inevitable that he would be a part of a dramatic, final showdown ending. Instead his demise was disappointingly anticlimactic. So anticlimactic that it makes you question his existence. I understand that the film wanted the Stepdaughter to come out the heroine at the end, but in the least he could have aided in her prevail or maybe even gotten in the way of it.  He did neither and that missed opportunity hurt the film. 

I also question what in the world the film makers were thinking by having a nude scene with Jill Schoelen.  Granted she was 24 at the time, but she was playing a 16 year old girl.  Was it really appropriate to show her in the nude? There's no way a film would get away with that today and I'm surprised that it got away with it then.   

O'Quinn's performance already mentioned, Schoelen did a good job of playing a confused, frustrated high school kid. Well into her mid-20's, I bought that she was still a young girl, transitioning into adulthood.  Charles Lanyer as Dr. Bondurant also did a very fine job in the film as well. I think more could have been done with his character as well, but it's not as much of a criticism as it is a simple matter of preference.  Stephen Shellen as Jim was a very interesting character, well played, that deserved a better ending than what he got. 

Revision could have done this film some good. The elements for an A film were there, they just weren't used properly. 

 

SCREAM 5

 

SCREAM 5 - C+ 

Sometimes films just don't need to be made. They serve no purpose. They have no meaning. They're simply cash grabs, looking to bank on a marketable concept while they sit back and reap the financial benefits of reliability that diehard fans always provide.  By George there's a new SCREAM film, "I just HAVE to see it." 

By this point there was nothing left to do. Nothing fresh to add. The other four films had already peaked at every level. There was nothing left to top. Nothing left to outdo.  All loose ends had been tied up. All questions had been answered. It was inevitable that this film was going to be tongue in cheek. That it would laugh at itself. It was the only direction to go. Part II was the clever, ultimate reveal. Part III was the what we missed, more to it than what we thought revelation. Part IV was the oh wow, never saw that coming.  In many ways SCREAM V reflects TOY STORY 4. Did it need to be made? No.  Was it sorta fun anyway? Yes. 

SCREAM V is the 5th best film in the SCREAM franchise. While two tried to out do one, and then after a bit of a letdown with three, four tried top everything, five didn't try and outdo anything. It knew its place as the ROCKY V of the series, and rather than try and dye its red hair, displayed it proudly as the stepson.  There's something admirable about that.   

In about everyway SCREAM V ranks 5th in comparison to its predecessors, but that doesn't mean that it didn't do some things right.  It did a lot of things right.  

HALLOWEEN 2018 & HALLOWEEN KILLS for example like to claim that they illustrated female empowerment, but in both of those films it was extremely contrived and didactically stated. SCREAM V displayed female empowerment and it did so naturally.  Female heroines should be focused on their courage, tenacity, selflessness and strength, with their sex being secondary. Not the other way around.  This is something that the two most recent HALLOWEEN films failed miserably upon, and SCREAM V capitalized upon. 

I must also give the film praise of how it handled the passing of the torch. It's clear that  Sydney Prescott is no longer the centralized protagonist of the film. The transition to making Sam the focus, was done very well.  It wasn't abrupt. It wasn't ambiguous. It was smooth and transitional. Not many films do that well, SCREAM V did. 

What impressed me most about this film was the duality of the Billy Loomis character. For one it was freaking awesome seeing Skeet Ulrich back. To see how in a round about, odd, can't put my finger on it way they sorta, kinda but not really made him a hero of the film was painstakingly clever.  To see how Sam was able to use her inherited psychopathy for good, was a direction that obviously took a lot of time and thought. 

Those were the pros.  

As to the cons....

The reveal was weak. People often complain about the reveal in SCREAM 3, but it was a masterpiece compared to the reveal here. It was extremely convenient and in a lot of ways, made little sense.  It was predictable that the reveal would be cheesy and lame, but I wasn't expecting it to be as cheesy and lame as it was.  And maybe as an old school horror fan I should appreciate that more. Throughout the film I kept on eliminating obvious choices, thinking that there was no way it could be something so obvious. Then it turned out to be exceptionally obvious.  Again, a tongue in cheek maneuver.  Films today try so hard to shock you, that the film pulled a complete reversal with having the true shock being how simple and straightforward it was. 

Dewey's death was cheap and uneventful. After all that he went through and all that he survived to see him go out in such lackluster way was disappointing. As I watched him die on screen, I thought of Steve Irwin. A guy that wrestled alligators and handled the world's most venomous snakes, being killed by a relatively harmless stingray.  It felt much the same way.  Like the war hero that survived WWII, Korea and Vietnam, only to get shot by a drunk in a bar one night.  It just didn't feel right. Probably because it wasn't.  Felt the same about Judy's death. 

This movie lacked on the build up and suspense that made the others so good.  Way too much focus on the kills themselves. Way too much gore, way to much violence. Not near enough build up. Not near enough cat and mouse. The film could have used much more chase and much less stabs. 

The connections and relationships between the characters seemed tiresome and forced. The genuineness and sincerity that made the other four films so strong seemed to lack a great deal in this film.  It was still there in some ways and very much not in others. 


While I felt that SCREAM IV was about perfect in every way, with little to fix or change, there is so much about SCREAM V that I would have changed. That I would have fixed.  A tweak here and a tweak there, I could have walked out of this film feeling like I watched a masterpiece.  Instead, I walked out feeling like I watched something just a hair above average. That's all. 

C+ through and through.