Steveo1986 Reviews

Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (1964)

Ut-ter Rub-bish

[1/10 · 31 December 2006]

Seeing as it's Christmas time (still just), I thought why not a have a crap Christmas film to be the latest entry into the Steveo1986 file of movie stinkers? "But then, why did you - and every other reviewer for that matter - watch this festive drivel?" I hear you ask. And a good question, from all this:

Santa Claus Conquers The Martians; despite the title, there is more chance of this crap conquering your mentality. In fact, if anything, the martians conquer Santa Claus in some ways. The story is that a Martian couple on Mars are concerned about the children of the planet being depressed, so they travel to Earth and kidnap Father Christmas to introduce Christmas to the children in order to cheer them up. But, oh jeez...oh jeez oh jeez oh jeeeeeeez...um, yeah, they also kidnap to two children with acting that I can probably only describe as the most pathetic ever. I mean, for crying out, it's so shockingly cringefully...-?-..., it's not even rehearsal quality! They act out their lines by ev-er-y b-leed-ing syl-la-ble. Quite frankly, I hope to hell they both have eternal bans from acting.

Tne others aren't much better, the parent Martians are kind of OK. The other Martians are just quite stupid, they can't tell the the retarded Martian isn't the real Santa. And Santa finding cold dinner funny. Wow! Billy Collony should make a time machine and say to his child "eat it now or it will go cold and that'll be so f***ing hilarious!!!". I don't think so. In other words, if you want a good sane Chrimbo, avoid this like the plague.

Signs (2002)

The Scary Movie 3 parody version is less dumb. Seriously.

[3/10 · 29 October 2006]

Scary Movie 3 is also funny and a lot more entertaining, so just watch it instead of Signs. Why? Because Signs doesn't quite make a great deal of sense.

It has great cinematography, and quite a lot of the acting is good, but it's boring delivery and plot-hole plagued "storyline" makes it a real chore to watch. I was barely able to finish it because it was quite a boring piece of drivel. It was like they came up with the various events of the film and squeezed it all in together. Yeah, that'll do for a film. Here are some *SPOILER* examples:

"Let's make the aliens be able to travel to earth but unable break through wood" (This is one point that Tom Logan in Scary Movie 3 says)

"We'll write the aliens to attack humans even though they are composed of water, even though that kills the aliens" (The human body is composed 90-ish% of water)

"Let's have an alien just suddenly stand around at one point whilst being attacked" (An obviously carelessly ultra-clear continuity mistake for what excuse...?!)

"Let's have a kid killing a vicious dog whilst it's brutally trying to attack him without any noise being made from it. No barks, no growls. No screams. Just the quiet rural air" (Perhaps a drugged common sense failure?)

"We'll write that special space sensory machine can't pick up alien signals but that a baby monitor can" (Hell why not have an Orange Cinema Advert moment with you're future ideas!! "So what, then, what next? A mobile phone? An MP3 player? A microphone! Or maybe even a laptop!")

Yeah, those are extremely excellent ideas! No, they really are. For a pot-smoker. I mean come ON guys! A primary school kid could write a better plot. No wonder Scary Movie 3 p***-took it. Really SM3 should've done more to take the p***, using those plot-holes I mentioned above. I thought they over-did the whole religious faith thing, too. I think that ruined the film, too. By the way, I was joking about the sequels, because...well, from those plot-holes, don't bother. Or write it drug-free.

All in all, this film is rather boring and a madly mixed together breakfast and dinner. Seriously, you're not missing anything if you haven't watched, so don't bother.

The Good Girl (2002)

About as funny as 9/11

[2/10 · 3 September 2006]

This "comedy" is another huge rip I experienced from a visit to Blockbuster after taking positive quotes' word for it. Why this film is receiving so much credit I'll never know. It's far too boring, disturbing and depressing to be funny. They must have supplied insanely strong substances to the people who liked this film. I honestly can't think another reasonable explanation to why people put with up with this dull depressing drivel, let alone like it.

Jennifer Aniston plays a lying whore who is utterly miserable in her marriage and life. She starts a fling with a young guy (Gyllenhaal)where she works who has had an even more gloomy life. Her husband's friend discovers this affair. The friend threatens to tell her husband if he doesn't rape her. Enough, Enough, ENOUGH! That really was enough for me and turned it off just after that. I would've felt suicidal had I continued watching it. I won't believe for a second that no-one felt disturbed during that part. I mean, PLEASE!

The acting is OK but rather lifeless and quite far from having spark. Pretty much all of the characters are so shallow and 1D that it wouldn't really be different if the characters were cardboard cutouts. The only remotely entertaining parts were with the woman who dies of food poisoning.

All in all, if you're looking for a good Jennifer Aniston comedy film then this is totally not the film. In fact, EVERYONE just avoid this disappointing dull pathetic piece of s***e like the plague.

House of the Dead (2003)

Film Of The Dead Insanely Careless Director

[1/10 · 14 August 2006]

House Of The Dead has got to be crappiest boring horror film ever. Troll 2 is an abysmal horror film, but at least in some parts it's so bad it's somewhat entertaining to an extent. HOTD was just tediously.awful; a bit of a demeaning title, badly careless directing, bad no-name actors who can't act whose performances were so wooden that ventriloquist dolls would've been more convincing, action sequences that tediously dragged on and on like a bloody English lesson, and a stupid plot of what there was of it.

Before I go further into the details (i.e. faults) of the film, this was directed by Uwe Boll, the man responsible for last year's disaster-piece Alone In The Dark (I haven't seen it, but with an IMDb rating of 2.2 and having watched HOTD I'm very sure I don't need to in order to know it's rubbish). He also has some other piles of pure film manure on his CV. It's clear that the only thing about the audience he cares about is their money (or ripping it from them, rather). It just looked as though he got all of the actors/actresses and said "Read the script, and act it out, using the cue cards all the way through, and that's it". It's seems that he wouldn't care about directing his actors/actresses out of a wet paper bag properly in any film he directs.

As I mentioned above the title is a bit demeaning, this because it's House Of The Dead yet zombies appear all over the bleeding island. The mundane plot is that a group of 20-somethings want to go an island to go to a rave (which just has few tents, a stage, a port-a-john and non-rave music), but they miss the boat so they blow $1,000 to two craggy boatmen to get them to take them there. When they get there, they find that nobody's there and the "rave" area has blooded T-Shirts. They shelter themselves in a house, (which is a shed on the outside but the diameter of a barn on the inside), where the king zombie was created. They do eventually find some of the rave attack survivors, and they spend the rest of the film tediously killing all of the zombies until the end before killing the king zombie. The action sequences also had flashes of the game –why?! Probably because not many people have heard of the game. But there's another point: why make a film based on a game that not many people have even heard off? If you're going do it, Mr. Boll, then at least do it properly. Also on the fact that this film was an adaptation from a computer game, it joins the rather long string of films of this kind to suck.

I.went through the tedious torment of watching this so you don't have to. Watch it to see some shockingly careless directing, except, actually, DON'T BOTHER. Listen to all negative reviews and avoid, avoid, AVOID LIKE A PROSTITUTE WITH THE PLAGUE AND LEPROSY.

Troll 2 (1990)

They scraped this s*** out of the Nil-BOG

[1/10 · 7 July 2006]

Well what can I say about this load of unbelievable ultra-corny horror film. Like Silent Hill, the genuine horror was amount of time I lost through watching this rubbish. This must have been thought up of whilst under the influence of mind-destructing substances.

Where shall I start? I'm not sure if this film could be any more corny if one of the goblins said "you're about to watch a nice corn-fest movie" and throw fake corn and mutate into one of corny effect goblin plants.

The plot is the film's best ingredient, but even for that there's not very much to tell. A family, which includes a boy with the world's weirdest hallucinations, goes on vacation to Nilbog which is a Goblin-infested town, as do some guys, one of which can only date the daughter if he stops hanging around with his friends. Everyone in the town is trying to turn these people into plants by tempting them into eating food with green gunk on them (now if you found this green gunky stuff on a cob of corn, in a glass of water and then on every food you'd at least wonder the hell why) and drinking stale milk. O-KAAAY. What's more, despite the title, there ISN'T A SINGLE GODDAMN TROLL in the film! In fact, there is NO MENTION OF Trolls nor does it HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH Trolls. You're more likely to find one in around the corner.

Instead of wandering if there's a hospital, how about the family-or I should say everyone in the film-asks if there's an acting school in Nilbog, because is this possibly the worst acting I've ever encountered along with the acting in Going Overboard. I rather much agree with Justin Michels' comment about the acting. Unsurprisingly, I researched the actors in this have appeared in only a few at most or no other films. That's really all I need to say about the "acting".

One really strange part of the film that'll stick in my head for eternity is where of the teenagers is with the green-plant-mutating-paint woman in the trailer holding a cob of corn with her mouth seducing the guy, and the guy says "I'd like popcorn" or something like that and then suddenly a load of popcorn comes in at them because of the woman's spell. RRRRRRIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHHHT……

This film is extremely crap, corny, stupid, crap, and hardly makes sense.

You should really Troll 2 avoid this film, or watch it if you want to see the weirdest and worst horror film ever.

Silent Hill (2006)

Silent With Confusing Boredom Hill

[2/10 · 12 May 2006]

Silent Hill joins films such as Street Fighter and Tomb Raider 1 in the "crap-films-based-on-computer-games" hell bucket. Now, this is a horror film, but I feel that the real horror is that I wasted two hours and £5.80 on this.

It felt quite like forever before it got going, and the middle of it is OK. But the end...Christ. The ending really put the nails back in the coffin. Possibly the worst ending to a film ever. It truly does suck. The film generally is just boring with some weird freaky/grotesque images and gore. I very nearly fell asleep twice during this. I only watched it to the end merely in the surprisingly false hope that it would get better. OK, it kind of did in the middle. I even said to the friends I watched it with "Tell me what that was we just saw for the past two hours" during the end credits. I had to go to work after watching this but I actually quite couldn't wait for it during. It's really that boring.

The film consists of a woman looking around an abandoned derelict town after her daughter runs for a long long time before finding clues for a sometimes confusing storyline.

The acting in this is quite good despite being over-the-top at times, and does suit the film well, which is a real shame. The effects are good as well; another sympathy point. Production and direction are very good; yet another sympathy point. Yep, you've guessed what I'm saying: this could've way so much better.

For those who like the game, you might just like this. Otherwise, this isn't worth your precious time or money.

Going Overboard (1989)

Semi-classic novelty trash

[2/10 · 11 May 2006]

To say that Adam Sandler had a lucky escape after this is quite an understatement. For those who have seen his recent comedy treats such as 50 First Dates and Anger Management, you'll have to watch Going Overboard to believe how lucky he is. Maybe directors felt sorry for him, I don't know. What I do know is his performance in this was pretty damn awful, even taking into account that this was his debut. Seriously, he looked as though was doing as part of an apprenticeship or something, also because he looked about 15 in this. There were parts in the film where I ALMOST felt for his character. It just feels as though his character didn't achieve anything real. He tried too hard to be funny but pretty much all of his jokes were desperately unfunny and cringefully lame.

But another reason is because everyone else...well...you couldn't give a dead monkey about them to say the least. Their acting is awfully awful AWFUL. That's right Dickie Diamond, nobody gives a flying f*** about you either. He is a jerk who sticks his finger up at literally everything he resents. Miss Australia is annoying and weird because she hates Shecky yet she falls to Shecky's best friend despite only speaking to him for two seconds. She is a spoilt brat. And that general/cat litter hermit who plays the film. Jesus...............................

His character hardly looks like he's left that office in his entire life. Or possibly that desk even. Burt Young's acting in this is astonishingly crap. One scene that'll stick in my head for the rest of my life is the scene where he orders his inept terrorists to kill Miss Australia. Not the particularly the fact they set to kill her, but the "reason" why they do so. Those terrorists have some awful lines in this film. And from that killing scene, here is a *SPOILER* piece of the "script":

NORIEGA: She says I smell like like an old pizza TERRORIST 1:(sniffs Noriega) Like an old, um...cheese pizza? TERRORIST 2: (Sniffs Noriega with really cheesy face) With anchovies? TERRORIST 1: What kind of crust? NORIEGA: What does that matter? I want her killed. TERRORIST 2: A round circle-shaped pizza?

Oh boy does it get worse: "Who is she? Star of the video-tapes?!". JEEEEEEEEEEEEZ. And then that song Noriega mumble-sings afterwards. "It's a sad world when your head looks like a pizza". WTF?!!???!!!?! I'm surprised if anyone's looked that a pizza in the same way after watching that. If you have one while watching this, you'll very probably throw it the TV.

Also the plot, apart from Shecky's story, is random and don't make sense. Like Miss Australia getting together with Shecky's pal as I mentioned above, and the terrorists becoming the ships star comedians. What the hell?! For crying out loud, the script writers obviously didn't realise that they aren't THOSE type of jokers. They're jokes are worse than Shecky's.

All in all, even people who like this film have got to admit IT'S SO AWFUL THAT it's good. Well some parts anyhow are classic so bad-it's-good. Other parts are just painfully plain bad. You should only see this film if you like Adam Sandler and not feeling depressed. And even then you might want to kill something. Possibly yourself. I can't quite emphasise enough what a piece of novelty crap this film is. Even if it is a no-budget.

Addams Family Reunion (1998 TV Movie)

Addams Family Crack-up, more like

[1/10 · 18 April 2006]

The third Addams Family installment is an complete and utter insult to the Addams Family Name. I have no idea what batch of crap the people behind this rubbish were smoking while doing this, but it was certainly very strong. It's not at all a genuine Addams Family film, and definitely one to forget. It was all just so wrong.

Pretty much of all the actors don't suit their roles. Tim Curry is a good actor, but is better at playing gimpy and swotty roles like his character in Home Alone 2. He made Gomez look like a humble poncy lord butler in this, it didn't suit him at all. Daryl Hannah tried too hard to be the part but just was too glittery and luscious to suit her role. The guy plays Fester over-does his character even more, but he just looks like a laughably drugged retard. And others lack the scary creepy Gothic characteristic ability-that Christina Ricci, John Workman, etc-had. Their acting generally was forgettable. and they looked quite like they didn't want to be there.

The plot was lame. The humour hardly helped at all. It was slapstick, stupid, corny and to an extent grotesque. The Addams Family house itself didn't look very scary and Gothic, and they went to a lot bright pink places. I mean, huh? What the hell...?!....? It was more like Addams Family in Barbie World or something. They were definitely smoking something strong to come up with that idea. It was about as Gothic and scary as a flower field. It was just WRONG. It's like the Cheeky Girls attempting to do a Metallica song. It's seriously that badly combined. In fact, all in all, the only genuinely dark thing about this film is the mere shadow that is it to it's two classic predecessors.

Me and my friend, against the other friend's will, demanded this off about halfway through because it was so bad and wrong. Even hardcore Addam Family fans will probably be insulted by this. This film really is a messed up breakfast and lunch together, and a half-done insulting joke. I think the real excuse for this film was to get money (i.e. cash in on the two previous Addams Family films and thereby robbing people of their precious hard-earned money). Don't be the next to suffer this scam; steer well clear and stick with the other two films and the cartoons.

Churchill: The Hollywood Years (2004)

The real Churchill must be shuddering in his grave

[2/10 · 5 April 2006]

I thought that this film was VERY disappointing and rather boring. How the holy hell could it have turned out so badly? With a truck load of well-known and competent actors, there's absolutely no excuse. What I got out it was a human ventriloquist dolls show about Churchill. Well a fair bit of the "acting" was that of ventriloquist dolls anyway. Was this really their intention? That beats me, but what I DO know is that the people behind this film are a load of dummies for letting this film be 100 times worse than it should be. You'd think they would've thought about it. But no, for some inexcusable stupid reason that I'll never know they edited and released it as the boring disgraceful cringe-worthy limousine wreck that it is.

Harry Enfield's, Christian Slater's and Anthony Sher's performances were quite good. But Neve Campbell, of all actresses, ought to be ashamed of her performance as it was a fairly lacklustre and a one to forget (even though she deserves better than these type of films as I wrote in my review of Scream 3, it was still dismal for her normally competent level of acting). John Culshaw is better at impersonations/sketches. As the others, well...they were barely or even hardly noticeable.

The film looked like it was directed, and a fair number of parts written, by a primary school kid. Execution was even more dismal. There were very disappointingly few funny and well-written parts in it all about Britain in World War 2 and an American Churchill. It's just a stupid concernedly largely flawed spoof. For example, Christian Slater plays Churchill but keeps his native American accent for the character (even though in fact the real Churchill was British), but Neve Campbell (also American) still manages to deliver a fairly good English accent. I was wondering why this film wasn't mentioned very much. It does look very good, and has a good cast. It is very deceiving. I just can't get over how awful and lacklustre this film really is with all the big name actors/actresses.

If you want a badly-directed celebrity World War 2 human ventriloquist dolls show, this is the film for you. Otherwise don't ever bother because it's EXTREMELY disappointing as I've said and load of stupid boring drivel. Definitely one of the most disappointing films ever. Don't even show it for history class because just a Churchill era badly twisted and may even put people off learning about Churchill.

Not to mention an absolute disgrace to Britain and the real Churchill himself.

Grease 2 (1982)

Grease Poo

[3/10 · 24 March 2006]

Grease 2 should almost have never been made. Unlike it's "older brother" Grease 1, it failed to shine and doesn't have the spark. It's not the worst film overall I've seen, but definitely the one of the worst musical films (out of the very few musical films I've seen).

A vast majority of the cast are obscure actors/actresses and the acting is cheesy, very average, uncool and nothing special. Quite a lot of the actors just went over the top in trying to act cool, especially the T-Birds. They went WAY over the top in trying to act cool but it really just came out in such an unimpressive and pathetic way it was almost funny. Although having said that, they did do a bit more than the G1 T-Birds, and they did do one or two things they did that were funny, but of course I laughing at their pitiful expense. They are a bit like 1950's chavs in leather coats. And The Pink Ladies were just way too humble and were a bit bland. Even Michelle Pfeiffer's performance lacked spark albeit pretty good, and Maxwell Caufield was OK from what I remember(it's been a fair few years since I saw this film), and the people who returned from G1. Those twins have to be the most irritating characters of the film. Ugh! Thinking about them almost makes me want to throw up. They also have to be at least two of the most irritating characters in film history. And that song they do. Yuck! Sweet sugary gooey puke!

And the music. God help me, the music! Most of the songs are cheesy, irritating, stupid, cringe-worthy, easily forgettable, tasteless, lack charm/emotional power/likable element, and no or pretty much no meaning to them whatsoever.

The storyline is cheesy, fairly weak , it's typical, nothing special a bit sleazy and very unoriginal; they switched personalities with genders with the characters. It tried to do better than the original, but failed rather miserably. Grease and musical film fans who haven't seen this, rent this first because you might be disappointed.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)

Amazing...

[1/10 · 24 March 2006]

... but not at all in a good way. It was a pointless action movie with barely a plot to it at all. But the really amazing was that not even the "special" effects could lift this big mess of a film. I'm genuinely not surprised if even the most hardcore Tomb Raider/Lara Croft fans were disappointed at this film. Luckily I saw this on TV so I didn't have to pay watch this disaster, seeing as I'd already seen its rather average sequel Cradle Of Life.

All that was in this was Angelina Jolie trying to make her character sexy but somehow just wasn't, somersaulting, swinging and jumping around and away from robots and gunmen. Also something about recovering a clock puzzle. Boring. I mean, come on! What were the people behind this on or thinking? They didn't try anywhere near hard enough and it just turned out a boring mess. It definitely has to be the worst and most disappointing action movie ever. All the characters were bland, even Angelina Jolie. The performances were unimpressive, forgettable and rather cringe-worthy.

Don't bother with this crap, because it's very disappointing and boring. Rent Cardle Of Life or just stick to the games because they are much better and have meaning to them. If you are a Tomb Raider/Lara Croft fan, rent it or try to watch it via a method where you don't have to pay for it.

The Faculty (1998)

Storyline a bit short, but good for a horror sci-fi film

[7/10 · 12 February 2006]

I'm not exactly a hardcore fan of horror films, but I liked this film. The special effects in it were old, not too corny. The film is quite Goosebumps-like.

The only real disappointment in this film is that I think a bit more could have happened. Basically, aliens start to infest Herrington High School starting with the faculty, and then spreading into the students. Casey and everyone start to notice the weird behaviour, and realise that a species of alien has infested the school. The unaffected people in alien invasion stick together and set out to kill the 'queen' alien I quite liked the films' typical lighthearted and goofy humour. The film is also basically cover of some films, including the ones referenced (The Puppet Masters and Invasion Of The Body Snatchers).

But it's also like The Breakfast Club, because the students left over are the most unlikely mix off characters who don't normally get along at all (A druggie-intellect-waster, a nerd, a goth loner, a jock star-quarterback, a new girl, and the school newsletter chief-editor b****).

It's not a special horror film, but a good teen/horror/sci-fi film. I'd rent this film first to see what you think because this isn't a film for everyone.

Evicted (1999)

If you said there was a film worse than this, then you'd be making a sad insulting joke

[1/10 · 10 February 2006]

I rented this so-called film just today from Blockbuster because there's a quote on it reads that it's a cult-classic. I was badly mugged.

Cult-classic?! Yeah, if you happen to be part a cult of drugged low-life zombie-like slackers. The idea for the film seemed OK, and that intent was to make like fireworks. But the film ended up an atomic bomb.

This is the worst film that's it's ever been my displeasure to see, and I'd have to be dead to watch it again. It just looks like the makers of this cheap trash got drugged, got a camcorder, dragged Shannon Elizabeth and filmed a couple of typical stoner-slackers around exposing their pitiful existences, and other idiots they encounter; including the father of the non-crippled slacker who has a more irritating voice than Steve McFadden.

Basically the two main characters have no life; no job and basically no money. All they do is smoke, take drugs, drink beer and milk (of which the label design just have "Beer" and "Milk", which looks like they raised the money for the film by going round picking money up from the ground), go around meeting other slackers, and speak like drugged zombies . Their speechlessly mad landlord evicts them from their apartment, so the two idiots decide to throw a party in the flat on their last night there by trashing it and being really noisy in the intention of annoying the landlord. That's it, really.

I couldn't finish this film because I got so bored and repulsed watching it, so I don't know how it ends, and frankly I couldn't give a bleeding crap. Practically no script which lacks progression, very deadbeat and pretty poor acting (Shannon Elizabeth was OK) and no entertainment. In fact, you'll get more entertainment by twiddling your thumbs over and over. Yes, it's seriously that bad! The people behind this "film" should receive a life ban on making films.

Don't ever consider watching this, even if you really like Shannon Elizabeth (she only appears briefly in a few scenes, anyway). And that brings me to the fact that she is on the front cover, this is obviously very misleading and deceiving, and that they've done it just to lure people into watching this long load of rubbish. Take absolutely no notice of positive reviews or quotes made about this film to save yourself 100 minutes; even though you'll most probably give up on this film before the end, if you ever pluck up the courage to watch it as a frightful joke (and even then I'm concerned for your sanity).

WORST. MOVIE. EVER.

Scream 3 (2000)

More good acting talent would've made this a better scream

[4/10 · 12 January 2006]

The Scream franchise bowed out rather badly after it could've done so in a good way after a not-exactly-brilliant but still fairly good series and humour which suited it surprisingly well in some parts. Yeah it was corny in places but at the end of the day, what horror film doesn't have at least a certain amount of corniness in it?

Anyway, to the film; a great horror film idea that was marred by mediocre/unexperienced actors. The acting and script for me was a bit too sleazy. In fact, the only of the very good acting came from Neve Campbell as her heroine character Sydney Prescott, although David Arquette and Courtney Cox were alright. Fortunately Neve Campbell turned down her role for Scream 4 (great decision; she deserves better than the likes of this and Churchill:Hollywood Years).

One person sadly missed from this film is Jaime Kennedy, and his video appearance in this film was one of very few good parts of it. They made a near-grave mistake by killing Randy off in the second film. I felt that he would've bought more light to this film. He and Matthew Lillard were brilliant in providing pretty much all of the comedy in Scream 1. Some good comedy moments and quotes came from him in Scream 2, helping to keep it above average until his murder.

The best thing about this film was the plot. It had more of than the first two Screams (which were pretty much same, even though the murders in Scream 2 were a bit more random). Although even that had a couple or so flaws, like the part where Billy may not have killed Sydney's mother, which was a fairly misleading and confusing. The whole Gale-Dewey affair was typically sleazy and fairly unoriginal, so tying those ends would've made a basically flawless script. The special-voice changer was a great idea and good twist to the storyline. The way that the 'Stab 3' characters get literally killed off in the order they're supposed to on the script. Another good thing was that the killer was someone of the least of people you'd expect it to be.

All in all, too much mediocre acting, a fairly sleazy script and no Randy brought this film down and Scream 4 shouldn't be put into the question. Only if Neve Campbell and Jaime Kennedy was in it, but they haven't so on the realistic side the Scream franchise should remain cancelled off here.