Tyler Gillett
36 connections found
Filmography
View:
Connections, in both directions
In the movie’s opening phone call, one that mirrors the call Drew Barrymore received in the original, Tara (Jenna Ortega) — after initially ignoring a strange call on “the landline” — tells the strange voice on the other end (again Roger Jackson, franchise MVP) that she prefers “elevated horror” like “The Babadook,” “Hereditary” and “It Follows.”
A voice on the phone strikes up a conversation about scary movies, but the reference goes over Tara’s head because she’s into “elevated horror,” like 2014’s The Babadook or 2017’s Get Out .
While there are plenty of meta jokes and cool, hip references to The Babadook and It Follows, the film still feels dated.
“I’m more into elevated horror,” she bites back, citing A24 fodder like The Babadook that’s more focused on theme than grisly jump-scares.
So you get the scene where someone explains the rules of being in a horror movie (this time done by the returning David Arquette), along with scenes referencing recent developments in the genre, including “elevated” options like The Babadook and It Follows .
But this movie also understands and references "high-minded" horrors like The Babadook and Hereditary .
“Scream” is hip with the times much in the same way its predecessors were, throwing nods to Rian Johnson, “It Follows” and “Hereditary” and playfully toys with audience expectations.
Scream is hip with the times much in the same way its predecessors were, throwing nods to Rian Johnson, It Follows and Hereditary and playfully toys with audience expectations.
What’s the most impressive about this installment of Scream is how much fun it’s having, poking fun at the horror genre, with characters referencing films such as It Follows or Hereditary , but also riffing on the Stab series in its own Scream universe.
In the movie’s opening phone call, one that mirrors the call Drew Barrymore received in the original, Tara (Jenna Ortega) — after initially ignoring a strange call on “the landline” — tells the strange voice on the other end (again Roger Jackson, franchise MVP) that she prefers “elevated horror” like “The Babadook,” “Hereditary” and “It Follows.”
No more last-century horror shoutouts when the kids have such newbies as "It Follows," "Hereditary" and "The Witch" as reference points.
But this movie also understands and references "high-minded" horrors like The Babadook and Hereditary .
This year’s Scream (not to be confused with 1996’s Scream , of course) contains a moment with a Matryoshka doll of references: a low-angle shot of a showerhead echoes the scene from movie-within-a-movie Stab in 1997’s Scream 2 , which was obviously itself nodding to 1960’s Psycho .
In order to illustrate exactly what’s so wrong with Matt Bettinelli-Olphin and Tyler Gillet’s Scream (from here on referred to as 5cream , because I genuinely think I might have a psychotic break if I keep trying to talk about both the original film and this reboot), I’ll present to you a working theory of mine about the intentions behind Wes Craven’s Scream series and how they slowly changed over time.
The first entry in the franchise without Wes Craven at the helm, Scream combines a fresh cast with legacy characters for a bloody, ruthless whodunnit.
Wes Craven’s Scream franchise pumped fresh blood into the veins of the floundering slasher genre at the end of the 90s and has continued to inspire the horror landscape over two decades later.
When the first Scream released in 1996, the film was instantly iconic among horror fans for its ability to deftly tread the line between homage and parody as it spoke to the rise of slashers.
“Scream” is hip with the times much in the same way its predecessors were, throwing nods to Rian Johnson, “It Follows” and “Hereditary” and playfully toys with audience expectations.
Scream is hip with the times much in the same way its predecessors were, throwing nods to Rian Johnson, It Follows and Hereditary and playfully toys with audience expectations.
What’s the most impressive about this installment of Scream is how much fun it’s having, poking fun at the horror genre, with characters referencing films such as It Follows or Hereditary , but also riffing on the Stab series in its own Scream universe.
In the movie’s opening phone call, one that mirrors the call Drew Barrymore received in the original, Tara (Jenna Ortega) — after initially ignoring a strange call on “the landline” — tells the strange voice on the other end (again Roger Jackson, franchise MVP) that she prefers “elevated horror” like “The Babadook,” “Hereditary” and “It Follows.”
No more last-century horror shoutouts when the kids have such newbies as "It Follows," "Hereditary" and "The Witch" as reference points.
While there are plenty of meta jokes and cool, hip references to The Babadook and It Follows, the film still feels dated.
Confusingly bearing the same title as the 1996 original (a joke, I suppose on the recent “Halloween” and “Shaft”), it follows the format of what critic Matt Singer calls “legacy sequels” – in this picture they’re annoyingly referred to as “requels” – like “The Force Awakens” or “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” that surround a new cast with a few of your favorite old characters and basically re-enact the original picture with enough nostalgic nods to give undiscerning viewers obsessed with their own childhoods quote-unquote “all the feels.”
The movies cited are the recent Halloween films that brought back Jamie Lee Curtis, but a more appropriate reference point may well be The Force Awakens , which brought back beloved Star Wars heroes but made them background players in a younger cast’s story line.
Though it shares a title with the 1996 slasher satire that launched a new era of meta moviemaking (and three sequels), 2022’s Scream actually follows the model of 2015’s Star Wars: The Force Awakens: task beloved characters from the original film with handing off the baton to a younger generation.
They’re pandered to with ‘legacy sequels’, like The Force Awakens , Ghostbusters and, well, this, which give them the nostalgia hit of seeing old characters again, while trying to tempt them with new ones.
Ever since the world flocked to the one-two punch of Jurassic World and Star Wars: The Force Awakens in 2015, major movie studios have been exploiting a whole new way of rehashing beloved franchises.
It is, instead, a “requel,” a half revisiting and half reinvention that brings in older characters to mingle with brand new ones, much as The Force Awakens did for Star Wars in 2015.
This year’s Scream (not to be confused with 1996’s Scream , of course) contains a moment with a Matryoshka doll of references: a low-angle shot of a showerhead echoes the scene from movie-within-a-movie Stab in 1997’s Scream 2 , which was obviously itself nodding to 1960’s Psycho .
Also on the chopping block is the recent obsession with “requels” – ie the sequel that’s really a sly remake à la Jurassic World and Ghostbusters: Afterlife .
Ever since the world flocked to the one-two punch of Jurassic World and Star Wars: The Force Awakens in 2015, major movie studios have been exploiting a whole new way of rehashing beloved franchises.
Whatever you call it, big franchise pictures like Jurassic World , Ghostbusters: Afterlife , or even never-rebooted MCU entries tend to have at least one or two characters who can speak self-referentially about the events of previous installments.
They make fun of “The Witch,” “Jurassic World,” “The Last Jedi,” Jamie Lee Curtis, David Arquette and Courteney Cox’s divorce and on and on.
But as the commercial success of Star Wars: The Force Awakens , Jurassic World , and Ghostbusters: Afterlife makes clear, requels can be big business.
Like Ghostbusters: Afterlife , the 2018 Halloween , and Jurassic World , these films have to offer something new, but not too new.
Instead, we’re reminded of Danny Glover’s immortal line from the Lethal Weapon movies: “I’m too old for this shit.”
The comedy sometimes gets a little too lost in its own self-awareness, but the commentary on fan culture is surprisingly sharp, channeling some of the same sentiments that Lana Wachowski put into the recent The Matrix Resurrections .
It’s hard to not compare 2022’s “Scream” with “The Matrix Resurrections.”
If Scream isn’t quite as successful of a reheat as The Matrix Resurrections, it’s because it doesn’t progress much beyond its self-referential, meta playfulness.
2022’s Scream may cut deep into the issues with legacy reboots, but it ends up being a solid example of how to do one right; it’d honestly make a great double feature with The Matrix Resurrections of all things.
Famed slashers such as Michael Myers of Halloween , Freddy Krueger of A Nightmare on Elm Street , and Jason Voorhees of Friday the 13th are renowned for their immortality—no matter how many times they meet their demise on-screen or a “final chapter” is proclaimed in their saga, they eventually return for more.
Scream is a joyous and triumphant return for one of the most inventive franchises in horror history, arriving at a time when traditional slashers like Halloween Kills are comfortably co-existing with genre mash-ups like the terrific Freaky and Happy Death Day .
Y si ya había un Loomis -uno de los asesinos- en la Scream original, que aquí un personaje se llame Sam Loomis, como el psiquiatra que atendía a Michael Myers en Halloween ...
A voice on the phone strikes up a conversation about scary movies, but the reference goes over Tara’s head because she’s into “elevated horror,” like 2014’s The Babadook or 2017’s Get Out .
“Elevated horror” like The Babadook , Get Out , and Hereditary are shouted out for their thematic depth — and dismissed by Ghostface himself — but they also are doing more with their look than this Scream attempts, to its detriment.
The movie also acknowledges the rise of more elevated horror films like “Get Out” and “The Babadook” as a way of saying, this isn’t going to be that.
It’s fun to listen to a Scream character go to bat for “elevated horror,” the fancy prestige kind of spooky stuff seen recently in films like Hereditary and Get Out .
No more last-century horror shoutouts when the kids have such newbies as "It Follows," "Hereditary" and "The Witch" as reference points.
Ask me about The Witch !” she shrieks as things get more desperate — not long before she’s stabbed to within an inch of her life, with her leg broken for good measure.
They don’t attempt to turn it into “elevated horror” (one character mocks the “Stab” movies, noting her love of “films” like The Babadook and The Witch ) but neither do they devalue the shlock and awe of Scream ‘s very specific brand of “meta slasher whodunnit.”
Later she begs for mercy by hoping he will ask her instead about other arty “elevated horror” like The Witch or any number of A24 releases rather than the popcorn genre stuff like the fictional Stab that stands in for the type of movie Scream actually is.
The younger characters have a meta discussion about how no one likes how the eighth “Stab” movie – the films within the films of the “Scream” movies – was an “elevated horror” project a la "The Witch" and "Hereditary."
They make fun of “The Witch,” “Jurassic World,” “The Last Jedi,” Jamie Lee Curtis, David Arquette and Courteney Cox’s divorce and on and on.
However, thanks to a combination of clever twists on the Craven and Williamson template and the same visceral thrills, tension-building and swagger that marked their last outing Ready or Not , they’ve managed to craft a worthy instalment suitable for a time when smartphones, elevated horror and re-quels (movies that pay homage to their original source, but not all of the sequels) are all the rage.
That it does this rather well while not losing sight of a key ingredient — the guessing game of who is behind the series’ synonymous Ghostface mask — is a tribute to co-writers James Vanderbilt and Guy Busick and co-directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett, all of whom were involved with the highly enjoyable 2019 horror-comedy “Ready or Not.”
Directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett, the duo behind the devilishly entertaining horror comedy “Ready or Not,” take on a “Scream” movie that knowingly tackles the “requel,” Hollywood's favorite new way to freshen up franchises with an installment that’s both reboot and sequel akin to the new “Halloween” and “Star Wars” movies.
Newcomers Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett (who helmed 2019’s enormously entertaining “Ready Or Not”) bring shockingly little brio to the suspense set-pieces, most of which are designed to remind you of better scenes from the earlier films and then just kinda peter out without any big payoffs.
Cut to 2022 and three sequels later, the franchise (on life support after diminishing box office returns and two crummy MTV spinoffs) has been revived with a serrated edge by Radio Silence duo Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett (of “Ready or Not” and “V/H/S” fame) two “Scream” superfans who with the assistance of series creator Kevin Williamson (he’s got an executive producing credit) and writers James Vanderbilt and Guy Busick have crafted a loving homage to the series’ enduring legacy while balancing an appropriate amount of fan service with meta commentary on elevated horror.
Cut to 2022 and three sequels later, the franchise (on life support after diminishing box office returns and two crummy MTV spinoffs) has been revived with a serrated edge by Radio Silence duo Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett (of Ready or Not and V/H/S fame) two Scream superfans who, with the assistance of series creator Kevin Williamson (he’s got an executive producing credit) and writers James Vanderbilt and Guy Busick, have crafted a loving homage to the series’ enduring legacy while balancing an appropriate amount of fan service with meta commentary on elevated horror.
The movie became like something from a Dario Argento film (see “Deep Red”).
This year’s Scream (not to be confused with 1996’s Scream , of course) contains a moment with a Matryoshka doll of references: a low-angle shot of a showerhead echoes the scene from movie-within-a-movie Stab in 1997’s Scream 2 , which was obviously itself nodding to 1960’s Psycho .
Scream and Scream 2 , its superior sequel, are anarchic romps through the slasher subgenre and are, of course, incredibly entertaining.
Scream 2 and Scream 4 were pretty damn great.
As Scream 2 skewers sequels and Scream 4 ravages reboots, 2022’s Scream sets its crosshairs on another franchise milestone using savage horror commentary that once again disrupts prevalent genre patterns.
Scream 2 followed in 1997 and, while solid, it lacked the razor-sharp precision of its predecessor.
One could easily make the argument that for all its ingenuity (including introducing the found-footage format), Ruggero Deodato’s depraved 1980 grindhouse splatterfest Cannibal Holocaust was itself “elevated horror,” despite going about as low as a movie could possibly go.
In 1996, when horror was a bad word and the slasher subsect had been relegated to bargain bins and a straight-to-VHS lifespan, genre maestro Wes Craven ( A Nightmare on Elm Street , The Hills Have Eyes ) and a (then) relatively unknown Kevin Williamson dared to defy the conventions by creating a film that played into the stereotypes whilst simultaneously commenting on them.
They inherit the controls originally operated, respectively, by then-newcomer screenwriting Kevin Williamson — who’s credited as an executive producer here — and veteran horror director Wes Craven (“A Nightmare on Elm Street”), who died in 2015.
And in “Scream (1996),” Craven, who struck gold over a decade earlier with “A Nightmare on Elm Street,” gave us a highly stylized version of suburban America.
Ultimately — and to its unimpeachable credit — the first Scream was, at root, a solid piece of craft, director Wes Craven's third horror classic after 1972's The Last House on the Left and the Reagan-era essential A Nightmare on Elm Street .
The first Scream came onto the scene following a slew of ’80s slashers like Friday the 13th , Child’s Play , and (Craven’s own) A Nightmare on Elm Street , with a jaundiced, critical eye.
One of the true masters of horror, Wes Craven ("The Last House on the Left", "A Nightmare on Elm Street") directed "Scream" and all three of its sequels.
At the risk of sounding like Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep) when she harangues a clueless Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway) in “The Devil Wears Prada” for wearing what she thinks is an unpretentious blue sweater, everything is elevated.
The film starred Neve Campbell (The Craft), Courtney Cox (Friends), and David Arquette (Never Been Kissed), as well as Drew Barrymore (E.T.), Skeet Ulrich (Riverdale), and Rose McGowan (Charmed).
Cut to 2022 and three sequels later, the franchise (on life support after diminishing box office returns and two crummy MTV spinoffs) has been revived with a serrated edge by Radio Silence duo Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett (of Ready or Not and V/H/S fame) two Scream superfans who, with the assistance of series creator Kevin Williamson (he’s got an executive producing credit) and writers James Vanderbilt and Guy Busick, have crafted a loving homage to the series’ enduring legacy while balancing an appropriate amount of fan service with meta commentary on elevated horror.
The film was directed by the team of Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett, who got their start making a segment of the 2012 cult anthology horror film “V/H/S.”
Directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett ("Ready or Not," "V/H/S") stage several daring sequences, gleefully toying with audience expectations of jump scares while ramping up the horror violence and lessening the humorous tone of the previous movies.
Going in, you expect a young, expendable group of future corpses, and co-directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett (part of the scrappy horror collective Radio Silence behind Ready or Not and V/H/S ) have sharp casting instincts, throwing off our urge to pick the killer ahead of time.
This time around directing duties go to Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett, two of the filmmakers behind the Radio Silence filmmaking collective ( V/H/S , Ready or Not ), with a script written by James Vanderbilt and Guy Busick.