I Know What You Did Last Summer
This review contains spoilers
I have a soft spot for the first movie because I remember renting it when I was underage, and the woman at the counter was like, "You're not old enough to rent this, but don't tell anybody." She was such a sweet woman, always remembered me. Different times. So I took it home and I watched it, and I hadn't seen many horror movies up to that point because horror movies weren't really a thing in my house growing up.
- Examples of bad writing. "You know, this could have all been solved if men just went to therapy," despite the fact that, y'know, half of the killers was a woman. And then right after they really hammer needing therapy by making the other character say "I hope she's in therapy" when watching television. We get it. Other examples is when they just shoehorn in some kind of social commentary. Look, I'm no anti-woke person, and think that some people SHOULD try therapy, but even I cringe at some of this.
And that's not even commenting on the uber masculine nonsense that completely undercuts any dread that the movie MIGHT foster otherwise, followed by multiple examples of times when they knock the villain down and could easily just end it there. One especially, with the one dude, who could have just hooked the villain but instead it cuts to him crawling away. He just stood and spat on the villain 3 seconds earlier.
Or when they're making fun of nostalgia, as I don't know, a get out of jail free card that frees them from criticism? No it doesn't. Scream is meta. This is trying to shield your bad writing.
- In terms of the legacy, I mean Ray's character feels crappy and rushed. There's an idea here that could have made this something: the idea that the entire town just ignores/pretends that 1997 didn't happen. But it's shoehorned in, mostly right at the end, though it might touch on it briefly elsewhere, but I feel like had they leaned into the idea more, it might have made the legacy aspects worthwhile. Hewitt's character was kind of unnecessary. But you want to know fully unnecessary? Sarah Michelle Gellar's appearance. Yeah, I get that they were trying to draw a line between the new blonde croaker queen and the old one in a dream sequence, but it was so dumb.
- Also, final note: did anybody else feel like what they did was... not nearly as bad? Like, if I'm remembering correctly, in the first one they actually run over a dude and then pretend it didn't happen. In this one, they're fucking around, a car drives off the road, and they tried to help, and then the one dude got spooked by the hand coming out the window, and the car fell, killing the people inside. Like sure, the situation is not good, and they should have went to the cops, but it's instantly less impactful because they cleaned up the most crucial event in the movie.
- Examples of bad writing. "You know, this could have all been solved if men just went to therapy," despite the fact that, y'know, half of the killers was a woman. And then right after they really hammer needing therapy by making the other character say "I hope she's in therapy" when watching television. We get it. Other examples is when they just shoehorn in some kind of social commentary. Look, I'm no anti-woke person, and think that some people SHOULD try therapy, but even I cringe at some of this.
And that's not even commenting on the uber masculine nonsense that completely undercuts any dread that the movie MIGHT foster otherwise, followed by multiple examples of times when they knock the villain down and could easily just end it there. One especially, with the one dude, who could have just hooked the villain but instead it cuts to him crawling away. He just stood and spat on the villain 3 seconds earlier.
Or when they're making fun of nostalgia, as I don't know, a get out of jail free card that frees them from criticism? No it doesn't. Scream is meta. This is trying to shield your bad writing.
- In terms of the legacy, I mean Ray's character feels crappy and rushed. There's an idea here that could have made this something: the idea that the entire town just ignores/pretends that 1997 didn't happen. But it's shoehorned in, mostly right at the end, though it might touch on it briefly elsewhere, but I feel like had they leaned into the idea more, it might have made the legacy aspects worthwhile. Hewitt's character was kind of unnecessary. But you want to know fully unnecessary? Sarah Michelle Gellar's appearance. Yeah, I get that they were trying to draw a line between the new blonde croaker queen and the old one in a dream sequence, but it was so dumb.
- Also, final note: did anybody else feel like what they did was... not nearly as bad? Like, if I'm remembering correctly, in the first one they actually run over a dude and then pretend it didn't happen. In this one, they're fucking around, a car drives off the road, and they tried to help, and then the one dude got spooked by the hand coming out the window, and the car fell, killing the people inside. Like sure, the situation is not good, and they should have went to the cops, but it's instantly less impactful because they cleaned up the most crucial event in the movie.
Mini Review: I don't think I absolutely hate this, despite the fact that I should. I've seen much worse. But it has no atmosphere and no scares. Writing that goes from serviceable (to be fair, it mostly stays in this lane, or at least somewhat serviceable) to downright disastrous. Attempts to tie in previous characters and play on legacy, but it mostly fails. I like seeing legacy characters too, but damn, this was lazy. I had hopes for this one.