'Scream 4' gripping, cliché

Blood, gore, cheesy one-liners and absolutely no nudity in an R-rated movie all perfectly combine to bring you more of the same cliché crap from Wes Craven's fourth installment of the "Scream" franchise.

Okay, now that you have no good expectations of this film, you are now on the same level that I was when I walked into the theater to see "Scream 4." To be fair, this reboot did exceed my expectations, and I did not completely hate it with all my heart.

So, if you absolutely insist on going to see this movie, I would advise that you do not show up until at least 10 minutes in, as there are two false starts. (I would like to explain the false starts but it would take me far too long to describe the movie-within-a-movie-within-a-movie scenarios. So, maybe you should just get there on time.)

The story is pretty much the same: the trio of Neve Campbell, David Arquette and Courtney Cox are back reprising their roles of Sydney, Dewey and Gale from the first three movies. Moving into the roles of "Sydney n' the Gang 2.0" are Emma Roberts as Sydney's cousin, Jill Roberts, "Heroes'" Hayden Panettiere as Kirby, the youngest Culkin, Rory, as horror film buff Charlie Walker, as well as a cadre of other relatively unknown actors filling out the cast of Woodsboro residents.

One of the things I actually did like about this film is the idea that, since it is established that the current killings are intended as a reboot of the original "Scream (1)" killings, everyone in the movie knows what "the rules" are and what not to do in order to survive. The problem, of course, is that nobody puts this knowledge to use and many end up dying in the same, cliché ways as previous films.

Something that has always been nice about the "Scream" films is that they are super suspenseful just because nobody is every really able to best "Ghost face" until the very end. So I was shocked to see that, after only the second killing, Sydney was able to so easily knock him on his ass and nearly end the movie so prematurely.

Another positive is that the film is quite gripping once you get into the thick of it and makes you forget that it is a movie – which is by no means an easy task. Throughout, I found myself laughing at cheesy one-liners and jumping every time "Ghost face" threw a body through a window or off a parking garage. And God help me if I wasn't filled with deep frustration and just a tinge of sadness every time a hot girl was stabbed to death before she was able to get completely undressed.

In each movie, Craven has been able to skillfully cast suspension onto one character and, right when you think you know who the killer is, flip the script and reveal who the real killer is. So, in this instance, I have to give credit where credit is due. Audience members will no doubt form their own theories of who the killer is and have that theory strengthened every step of the way up until the big reveal.

Overall, there are a lot of things in this movie that are different and better than the original trilogy, but none of them make the film look like anything more than a parody of itself.

So, if you are bored, have two hours to kill, and just really, really want to watch Wes Craven take a stab (pun intended; I'm sorry) at rejuvenating his slasher franchise, then by all means go see "Scream 4." Personally, I think your time would be put to better use doing just about anything else for two hours and just waiting for the over-censored version to air on FX in two years.