Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Catherina If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Jerrie It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

austinmoore-61392 For all die-hard Scream fans this was a blessing from above. Just about every horror movie had their remake in the mid to late 2000's and Scream jumped onto the hype train in release Scream 4 in 2011. After the success of the original trilogy 10 years prior this film it was able to attain just about every actor that was hot at the time (and they still are). This in my opinion made the movie not as good as it could have been. Grabbing people from other film genres that don't fit into horror (in my opinion; they are still very talented) ie; Kristen Bell and Anthony Anderson. Glad that they more than likely brought a different audience to see the movie and made the movie more successful. Other that that this film is full of the perfect cliches that the Scream franchise is known for, and something I feel like they did really well in this movie was Kirby Reed (Hayden Panttiere) who was the Cinephile in the movie. In the fourth installment they showed off Kirby towards the end of the movie answering questions from ghostface on the phone and rattling off answers incredibly fast and showing off that she is the movie buff she is supposed to be. Which you didn't really get to see from Randy Meeks in the original trilogy and the TV series hosted by MTV's Noah Foster. Just like a lot of horrors today the film was genuinely fun to watch. There are not many horror movies I can watch two times in a row and not get bored easily. Great movie.

alex-zeppelin It's overall a decent movie throughout, but the stupid killer Jill ends up being portrayed as a goddamn hero because she set up a bunch of murders she committed to look like she was a victim too. And even by the end of the movie she's sfill viewed as a hero. The last 5 minutes of this flick ruined the entire thing for me. Stick to good horror.

adonis98-743-186503 Ten years have passed, and Sidney Prescott, who has put herself back together thanks in part to her writing, is visited by the Ghostface Killer. Scream 4 is once more directed by Wes Craven and stars Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, David Arquette and Emma Roberts and honestly i gotta say this is easily the best one next to the original they basically almost "killed" Sidney and Gale the killer is once more 2 people and it's one big twist that i absolutely loved, there's even more gore but there's also a lot of clever humor and it's just a tone of fun sequel also this film unlike the previous 3 entries it starts with again a murder inside a house but instead of the real world it happens inside a movie which is inside another film which is inside another film and it was pretty weird but it totally worked for me it basically took 12 years for another Scream film and damn it doesn't disappoint not even for a bit. I always wanted to see another one a Scream 5 or even a 6 but since Wes Craven passed away i beg Hollywood not to go on with this just look what they did to Halloween and A Nightmare on Elm Street every sequel after Halloween 2 and Nightmare on Elm Street 3 and New Nghtmare was awful including 2 it self if you want to make another sequel bring back the original cast and find a director who knows how to make a proper sequel for example James Wan but anyways Scre4m is a must see!!

MaximumMadness There is something of a tragedy when it comes to "Scream 4."No, not for the film itself. Nor of the cast.More of the fact that after having been brought back to the big- screen after a decade, this most recent (and presumably final) installment in the beloved franchise was not met with the same wicked praise from critics, nor the adoration of the masses as the previous films had (mostly) attained.No, it came out and was met with a general sense of apathy. A palpable sense of "Oh, look! Another 'Scream' movie. Maybe I'll watch it on cable or Netflix or something." Largely ignored or even occasionally derided by the same audiences that had once ate up the previous films. Looked at as nothing more than just another quasi-reboot in an era filled with such franchise-revivals.Yes, the fact is sadly that compared to prior entries, "Scream 4" was a borderline flop met with mixed reception from critics and the general movie-going audiences.But does it deserve its less-than-stellar reception? Is it really a film that should have flopped?I don't think so. The second it was over, I was warm. Tingling with nostalgia, amused by the jokes and genuinely thrilled by the twists and turns. Especially after the underwhelming experience with the third film that I had, I found myself saying: "Now THAT'S more like it! That was a real 'Scream' movie for the modern era!" And I hope that as time goes by, more people will start to see it that way.Because to me, while far from perfect, "Scream 4" was a welcome return for a beloved horror franchise with just enough creative fun, subversive and postmodern meta-humor poking fun at the horror genre's newest tropes and ideas, and genuine shocks to give me a big, old sense of satisfaction!Upon returning to her hometown of Woodsboro years later to promote a self-help book she authored, Sidney Prescott and her friends are pulled into a new murder-mystery as it appears a new "Ghostface" killer has emerged, keen on creating a real-world "reboot" of the original murders all those years ago. ...and it seems that Sidney and her young niece Jill are the prime targets!The cast is an absolute blast, and really paves the way for the nostalgic sense of wonder that this film literally oozes. Neve Campbell's return is fabulous (especially as she hasn't been doing a ton of big-screen work lately), and her character is a great centerpiece to the story as is always the case. David Arquette is the same lovable oaf we've come to know and love over the past 20 years. Courtney Cox reclaims the sense of fun and shrewdness that made Gale such a great character, but was lost in the misguided third film. And series newcomers such as Emma Roberts, Alison Brie and especially Hayden Panettiere are just a blast and a half! (Especially Panettiere as the absolutely adorable and wickedly smart Kirby.)Perhaps the best aspect of the film, however, is the return of the series creator Kevin Williamson, who famously (or rather, infamously) didn't write the script for the borderline-poorly- received third film. Williamson is back, though... big time. His perfect balancing of wickedly subversive meta-humor and shocking displays of horror and gore is on full-display for much of the film, and its only compounded by the fact that since the last film was released, there have been a lot of changes in the entertainment world.Now, not only does Williamson have a lot of new riffing to do on modern horror conventions (such as the wave of hyper-violent "torture porn" films, although I personally detest the "torture porn" label; and of course the "reboot" phenomenon that plays a central role to the story), but also on the fact that his brand of hilarious postmodern and meta humor has been embraced by the masses. It's genuinely brilliant to see scenes where Williamson is writing a dissection of postmodern meta-humor by using... postmodern meta- humor. The layers of subversion and irony add a lot to the complexity and hard-hitting nature of the jokes that films-nerds like myself will surely adore.However, all this gushing does come with a bit of a trade-off.Wes Craven was a master of horror. And a darned-fine filmmaker. This cannot be denied. And he will always be sorely missed. But this is the one film in the series where I can't help but feel that he was on auto-pilot. His choice in shots is a bit more basic than in previous films, and his compositions and execution of key scenes just aren't as lush or hard-hitting as in previous films. Perhaps he was just bogged down with other things, but I do find this to be the "flattest" looking of the franchise. Not that it's badly directed. Just comparatively underwhelming when viewed next to the other films. So I do have to dock a point for that.And the other point I'm docking is for the same reason I took a point off in my review for "Scream 2"- despite the freshness and pure geek-joy present in Williamson's writing... he does occasionally fall back onto the same clichés in some scenes that he so deliciously deconstructs in other scenes. (Case in point: A scene in a parking garage that had me rolling my eyes in all the wrong ways.) It's pretty subdued and minimal, but it's just enough for me to drop another point.Regardless, "Scream 4" is a wonderful and welcome return for the franchise. It's a true "Scream" movie through-and-through thanks to the return of the entire core creative team. In particular the return of Williamson. And it just makes me happy to have another good "Scream" movie to watch and cherish.It's a very good 8 out of 10. It'll leave you screaming in all the best ways.