Un an après le meurtre de sa mère, une adolescente est terrorisée par un nouveau meurtrier qui la cible, ainsi que ses amis, en utilisant des films d'horreur dans le cadre d'un jeu meurtrier... Tout lireUn an après le meurtre de sa mère, une adolescente est terrorisée par un nouveau meurtrier qui la cible, ainsi que ses amis, en utilisant des films d'horreur dans le cadre d'un jeu meurtrier.Un an après le meurtre de sa mère, une adolescente est terrorisée par un nouveau meurtrier qui la cible, ainsi que ses amis, en utilisant des films d'horreur dans le cadre d'un jeu meurtrier.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 12 victoires et 11 nominations au total
Roger Jackson
- Phone Voice
- (voix)
Avis à la une
Watching this film for the first time in the basement of a four story house, with no-one else in was the perfect setting for this film. From the very first scene I was gripped and I could not wait for the climax to discover the murderer and his motives. The script was extremely original, as they had purposely set out to parodie the typical slasher style movie.
It was written in a way that deceived and tricked and had you jumping out of your seats but also laughing at the paradoxical black humour. For anyone looking for a good horror film with a twist, you won't find a better one than Scream.
Overall I give it 9.5/10
It was written in a way that deceived and tricked and had you jumping out of your seats but also laughing at the paradoxical black humour. For anyone looking for a good horror film with a twist, you won't find a better one than Scream.
Overall I give it 9.5/10
Making a brilliant, original horror film is pretty hard these days, since practically everything has already been told, and more than once. Using that premise, director Wes Craven and screenwriter Kevin Williamson came up with Scream, whose cleverness derives from the fact that it knows every single stereotype of the genre and satirizes them.
Take the opening sequence, for example: a young girl (Drew Barrymore) is making popcorn and waiting for her boyfriend when she suddenly receives a phone call. Normally, this would be a huge clichè, only this time the killer decides to play a little game (horror film quiz, naturally) with his victim. In fact, the only reason why he kills her is that she gave the wrong answer to one of his questions (those who haven't seen Friday 13th might want to skip that bit, as it spoils said movie's ending). That scene is both very scary (the murder is quite graphic and disturbing) and at the same time funny (it tests the characters', and the audience's, knowledge of the horror genre), and the rest of the film continues in the same vein: after the first killing, the masked psychopath starts disposing of other teenagers in the town of Woodsboro using the same technique. One of the targets is Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), whose mother was raped and killed the year before. This implies the killer might be the same, but who could it be? Sidney's distant father? Her mother's lover (Liev Schreiber)? Or some random guy, with no motive at all?
Fortunately, it is not the last category: this murderer has a motive and a plausible identity as well. But it isn't the payoff that makes Scream interesting; it's how Craven and Williamson get to it, by outlining the genre's conventions (some of which were actually invented by the director himself) and using them in a clever, if self-referential, way. The point of the movie is, the more you know of this kind of films (pay attention to the rules, stated by geeky film buff Randy), the more chances you have to survive (although you must take into account that the killer has seen the same movies). The in-jokes that would ruin other films are the very cause of Scream's success, with memorable scenes such as the villain mimicking the movie his victims are watching or Craven's unmissable cameo as a janitor wearing Freddy Krueger's outfit (not to mention priceless lines like "Movies don't create psychos, movies make psychos more creative!").
In other words, Scream is a smart, effective horror film, which manages to amuse and scare in equal measures. Definitely worth watching, even if the two sequels (especially Scream 3) don't really match the original's intelligence and, forgive the expression, originality.
Take the opening sequence, for example: a young girl (Drew Barrymore) is making popcorn and waiting for her boyfriend when she suddenly receives a phone call. Normally, this would be a huge clichè, only this time the killer decides to play a little game (horror film quiz, naturally) with his victim. In fact, the only reason why he kills her is that she gave the wrong answer to one of his questions (those who haven't seen Friday 13th might want to skip that bit, as it spoils said movie's ending). That scene is both very scary (the murder is quite graphic and disturbing) and at the same time funny (it tests the characters', and the audience's, knowledge of the horror genre), and the rest of the film continues in the same vein: after the first killing, the masked psychopath starts disposing of other teenagers in the town of Woodsboro using the same technique. One of the targets is Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), whose mother was raped and killed the year before. This implies the killer might be the same, but who could it be? Sidney's distant father? Her mother's lover (Liev Schreiber)? Or some random guy, with no motive at all?
Fortunately, it is not the last category: this murderer has a motive and a plausible identity as well. But it isn't the payoff that makes Scream interesting; it's how Craven and Williamson get to it, by outlining the genre's conventions (some of which were actually invented by the director himself) and using them in a clever, if self-referential, way. The point of the movie is, the more you know of this kind of films (pay attention to the rules, stated by geeky film buff Randy), the more chances you have to survive (although you must take into account that the killer has seen the same movies). The in-jokes that would ruin other films are the very cause of Scream's success, with memorable scenes such as the villain mimicking the movie his victims are watching or Craven's unmissable cameo as a janitor wearing Freddy Krueger's outfit (not to mention priceless lines like "Movies don't create psychos, movies make psychos more creative!").
In other words, Scream is a smart, effective horror film, which manages to amuse and scare in equal measures. Definitely worth watching, even if the two sequels (especially Scream 3) don't really match the original's intelligence and, forgive the expression, originality.
There's more than a few reasons to hate `Scream'; the main reason would be that the film single-handedly resurrected the teen-slasher genre, a movie category that had long been beaten to death. Because of the success of `Scream', witless horror crap like `I Know What You Did Last Summer' and `Urban Legend' got greenlighted, half the teenage casts of various WB television shows got summer acting jobs, and some awful scripts that should've been left dead and buried `Teaching Mrs. Tingle' got to see the light of day. `Scream' is responsible for a lot of garbage. But the truth of the matter is, `Scream' is also a phenomenal movie.
The plot of `Scream' is very simple: a masked knife-wielding maniac is busy stalking the students of High, killing them off one by one. The killer's inordinately obsessed with one girl, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), who of course gets involved in the quest to unmask the killer. The catch (in case you don't already know it), though, is brilliant. Everyone in the film is familiar with all the slasher film conventions. They know that you shouldn't walk in the woods alone at night. They know that having wild sex is an unwritten invitation to be hacked to pieces. They know not to say things to each other like `I'm going outside for a cigarette; I'll be right back.' -- such statements are virtual death warrants. One of the best examples (and best characters) of this is Randy (Jamie Kennedy), the film-obsessed nut of the film, who actually goes so far as to muse what `real' actors and actresses should play the other characters in the film, going so far as to joke about who gets to be Tori Spelling. All the dumb conventions of slasher films are pulled out of the shadows, exposed for what they really are . . . and then, some of them get used anyway, because the characters willingly choose to ignore those conventions. Some cliches are thrown away, while others are embraced. `Scream' really turned the horror/slasher film genre on its ear, becoming the first truly suspenseful and exciting slasher film in many, many years simply because it suddenly had a million new avenues to explore. The film's self-awareness allowed to move in brand-new directions . . . and suddenly, scenes that used to be predictable in other slasher films suddenly become incredibly intense in `Scream'.
Director Wes Craven was perfect for this film -- as director of slasher classics like `Nightmare On Elm Street', he easily sets the visual feels and style of film to perfect evoke all the slasher films of yore . . . and then, much like `Scream's' script, chooses to either faithfully follow the tried and true, or to go off in competely unexpected directions. Either way, Craven manages to create a lot of absolutely nail-biting, thrilling scenes. He also doesn't hold back with the gore, which is always a plus in great slasher films. The acting ranges from barely mediocre to good -- Neve Campbell's okay as Sidney; Courtney Cox is pretty good as tart-tongued reporter Gail Weathers; Jamie Kennedy rules as Randy the film geek; and David Arquette is utterly bland and forgettable as Deputy Dewey Riley, the sad-sack policeman. But casts in slasher films don't particularly matter anyway; the good ones are all about suspense, terror, and gore. And in `Scream', Wes Craven provides massive amounts of all three of those criteria.
The irony is, `Scream' spawned dozens of imitators, and by spawning imitators, all the new avenues opened up by `Scream' quickly got old and boring once more. Still, purely on its own merit, it's an excellent film. The best slasher film of all time is still John Carpenter's `Halloween', without question, but `Scream' actually runs a close second. It's well worth watching. Grade: A-
The plot of `Scream' is very simple: a masked knife-wielding maniac is busy stalking the students of High, killing them off one by one. The killer's inordinately obsessed with one girl, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), who of course gets involved in the quest to unmask the killer. The catch (in case you don't already know it), though, is brilliant. Everyone in the film is familiar with all the slasher film conventions. They know that you shouldn't walk in the woods alone at night. They know that having wild sex is an unwritten invitation to be hacked to pieces. They know not to say things to each other like `I'm going outside for a cigarette; I'll be right back.' -- such statements are virtual death warrants. One of the best examples (and best characters) of this is Randy (Jamie Kennedy), the film-obsessed nut of the film, who actually goes so far as to muse what `real' actors and actresses should play the other characters in the film, going so far as to joke about who gets to be Tori Spelling. All the dumb conventions of slasher films are pulled out of the shadows, exposed for what they really are . . . and then, some of them get used anyway, because the characters willingly choose to ignore those conventions. Some cliches are thrown away, while others are embraced. `Scream' really turned the horror/slasher film genre on its ear, becoming the first truly suspenseful and exciting slasher film in many, many years simply because it suddenly had a million new avenues to explore. The film's self-awareness allowed to move in brand-new directions . . . and suddenly, scenes that used to be predictable in other slasher films suddenly become incredibly intense in `Scream'.
Director Wes Craven was perfect for this film -- as director of slasher classics like `Nightmare On Elm Street', he easily sets the visual feels and style of film to perfect evoke all the slasher films of yore . . . and then, much like `Scream's' script, chooses to either faithfully follow the tried and true, or to go off in competely unexpected directions. Either way, Craven manages to create a lot of absolutely nail-biting, thrilling scenes. He also doesn't hold back with the gore, which is always a plus in great slasher films. The acting ranges from barely mediocre to good -- Neve Campbell's okay as Sidney; Courtney Cox is pretty good as tart-tongued reporter Gail Weathers; Jamie Kennedy rules as Randy the film geek; and David Arquette is utterly bland and forgettable as Deputy Dewey Riley, the sad-sack policeman. But casts in slasher films don't particularly matter anyway; the good ones are all about suspense, terror, and gore. And in `Scream', Wes Craven provides massive amounts of all three of those criteria.
The irony is, `Scream' spawned dozens of imitators, and by spawning imitators, all the new avenues opened up by `Scream' quickly got old and boring once more. Still, purely on its own merit, it's an excellent film. The best slasher film of all time is still John Carpenter's `Halloween', without question, but `Scream' actually runs a close second. It's well worth watching. Grade: A-
I thoroughly enjoyed SCREAM. I haven't seen too many horror movies that struck me as great, especially since most of them are the same. I like THE SIXTH SENSE, THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and SCREAM for the same reason, they are more original than the default horror flick.
Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is still mourning the death of her mother, who died nearly one year ago. She seems very distant, even from her best friend Tatum Riley (Rose McGowan) and her boyfriend Billy Loomis (Skeet Ulrich). She, and most everyone else, thought that the killer was already behind bars. But when people close to Sidney start to get killed, Sidney realizes the the killer is still at large. Deputy Dewey Riley (David Arquette) is there to protect Sidney and reporter Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox) is there to get the scoop.
I think the plot of this movie is very interesting and fun. The best part of it is that the killer does his murders in the style of horror movies. The rules of horror movies are often referred to and horror movies are even spoofed fairly often as well.
The actors do a very good job. Neve Campbell is excellent as the primary target/victim and main character of this movie. David Arquette does a fair job as the inexperienced cop (but not as good as in the sequel) and Courtney Cox does a great job as the bitch reporter. Drew Barrymore did very good in her very brief part as Casey Becker. Jamie Kennedy does an OK job as Randy Meeks, the movie expert (but again, not as good as in the sequel). Roger Jackson is the best possible choice for the phone voice and Henry Winkler had a great cameo.
The character development in this movie is good. You'll probably often yell "Look behind you, moron" or "Get out of the room, idiot" at your TV, which this movie is probably going for. Sidney is the most interesting character, with Dewey and and Gale at a close second.
I was surprised that I found Scream 2 to be even better than Scream was. But both are really good. Go out and buy them.
Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is still mourning the death of her mother, who died nearly one year ago. She seems very distant, even from her best friend Tatum Riley (Rose McGowan) and her boyfriend Billy Loomis (Skeet Ulrich). She, and most everyone else, thought that the killer was already behind bars. But when people close to Sidney start to get killed, Sidney realizes the the killer is still at large. Deputy Dewey Riley (David Arquette) is there to protect Sidney and reporter Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox) is there to get the scoop.
I think the plot of this movie is very interesting and fun. The best part of it is that the killer does his murders in the style of horror movies. The rules of horror movies are often referred to and horror movies are even spoofed fairly often as well.
The actors do a very good job. Neve Campbell is excellent as the primary target/victim and main character of this movie. David Arquette does a fair job as the inexperienced cop (but not as good as in the sequel) and Courtney Cox does a great job as the bitch reporter. Drew Barrymore did very good in her very brief part as Casey Becker. Jamie Kennedy does an OK job as Randy Meeks, the movie expert (but again, not as good as in the sequel). Roger Jackson is the best possible choice for the phone voice and Henry Winkler had a great cameo.
The character development in this movie is good. You'll probably often yell "Look behind you, moron" or "Get out of the room, idiot" at your TV, which this movie is probably going for. Sidney is the most interesting character, with Dewey and and Gale at a close second.
I was surprised that I found Scream 2 to be even better than Scream was. But both are really good. Go out and buy them.
10reeceicy
Scream single-handedly revitalized the slasher genre, which was beyond dead as of 1996, and inspired countless spin-offs and attempted remakes in its wake. Wes Craven creates yet another horror masterpiece, and does so in an original and unique way. Add in the witty, self aware, reference-filled script by Kevin Williamson, which was rumored to have taken influence from Friday the 13th Pt 6, and you have one of the most iconic slashers ever made. Arguably the greatest opening scene to a horror movie ever, along with so many more iconic lines and scenes (Randy watching Halloween on the couch). The acting is next level by horror/slasher standards and has a very likable cast. Skeet Ulrich giving his best performance of his career, Matthew Lillard, Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, Drew Barrymore ... do i need to go on? The influence and impact Scream had on the late 90's is undeniable, simply one of the best scary movies of all time.
Who Almost Starred in 'Scream'?
Who Almost Starred in 'Scream'?
Can you picture Molly Ringwald as Sidney Prescott? Or Ben Affleck as Billy Loomis? We go through all the young Hollywood stars who were almost cast in this horror classic.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe party scene near the end of the film runs forty-two minutes long. It was shot over the course of twenty-one days from the time the sun set to the time it rose. After it wrapped, the crew had t-shirts made that read "I SURVIVED SCENE 118" (which was the name of the scene during shooting). The cast and crew jokingly called it "The longest night in horror history."
- Gaffes(at around 34 mins) When Gale is attempting to enter the police station with Kenny the cameraman, she is stopped by a police officer and is heard saying "Hey watch the hand, do you know who you're dealing with here?!" But her mouth isn't moving.
- Citations
Stu: Did you really call the police?
Sidney Prescott: You bet your sorry ass I did.
Stu: [starting to cry] My mom and dad are gonna be so mad at me!
- Crédits fousHenry Winkler, who played Principal Himbry, was asked to go uncredited because the producers did not want to detract any attention from the younger, lesser known actors.
- Versions alternativesGerman DVD/VHS releases by VCL/MAWA were offered in two versions: the uncut 'Not under 18' version and a cut version which misses 4 minutes and has a 'Not under 16' rating.
- ConnexionsEdited into What Happened to Her (2016)
- Bandes originalesDon't Fear The Reaper
Performed by Gus Black (as Gus)
Written by Donald Roeser
Courtesy of Sony/ATV Tunes LLC
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Hurlement
- Lieux de tournage
- 1820 Calistoga Road, Santa Rosa, Californie, États-Unis(Sidney's house)
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 14 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 103 046 663 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 6 354 586 $US
- 22 déc. 1996
- Montant brut mondial
- 173 046 663 $US
- Durée1 heure 51 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant