--- title: "Scream 4" year: 2011 kind: "film" canonical: "https://film.one/film/scream-4" fi1m_score: 60 critics_score: 53 critics_reviews: 17 published: "2026-09-19T15:55:47.980061+00:00" updated: "2026-09-19T15:55:48.531923+00:00" region: "US" licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Scream 4 (2011) Directed by Wes Craven · 1h 51m · MPA R · Horror, Mystery **Fi1m score: 60** · Critics 53 from 17 reviews *In a sentence:* Everyone in Woodsboro has seen every horror film ever made and still answers the phone > Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson bring the knife back to Woodsboro with the jokes intact and the scares mostly missing. The opening and the last twenty minutes are the sharpest the series has been since the first film; the hour between them is deputies sitting in cars. ## Synopsis Fifteen years after the Woodsboro murders, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) comes back to the town on the last stop of a tour for her memoir. Her cousin Jill Roberts (Emma Roberts) is still at the high school, with her friend Kirby Reed (Hayden Panettiere) and two boys from the cinema club, Charlie Walker (Rory Culkin) and Robbie Mercer (Erik Knudsen), who broadcasts his day from a camera clipped to his head. Dewey Riley (David Arquette) is now sheriff; his wife Gale (Courteney Cox) has stopped writing. The night before Sidney arrives, two girls are stabbed to death in a house across town, and a bloodied knife turns up in the boot of the car she came in. Then the calls start again, from a voice that has seen every Stab picture and wants to know her favourite scary film. ## Review Fifteen years after the first [*Scream*](https://film.one/film/scream), Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson go back to Woodsboro and to the joke that made the original work: everyone in town has seen the films and knows what happens next. This time the target is the remake, and the phones the kids never put down. *Scream 4* runs 111 minutes and the tagline promises new rules. It delivers some of them, in the first fifteen minutes and the last twenty, and spends the hour in between looking for the others. The opening is the best stretch of writing Williamson has done for the series since the first one. It starts with two girls, a phone and a knife, and then it starts again, and the second start turns out to be a film inside the film, with characters complaining about the film they are in. Peter McNulty cuts these false starts fast, the ringtone landing on the edit, and the dialogue is quick and sour. We laughed, properly, several times in the first ten minutes. Then the joke came round once more and we felt it being explained to us, which is a feeling the film produces more than once. Hayden Panettiere’s Kirby Reed is the reason to sit through the middle. She plays a girl who knows every title and every rule and is not nearly frightened enough by either, and she gets the one scene of real suspense in the film. Courteney Cox has the best lines as Gale Weathers-Riley, a writer with nothing to write. Alison Brie, as Sidney’s publicist Rebecca Walters, is funny in her few scenes. Neve Campbell, top-billed, spends a good deal of the running time on her aunt’s stairs (Mary McDonnell is Kate Roberts), being told things, and the film has no idea what to do with a survivor who is now a grown woman with a book. The middle is the problem, and the problem is staging. Peter Deming shoots the interiors bright and flat, like a television pilot, and the night exteriors in a blue-grey murk in which every lawn looks like every other. Craven built the first film’s set pieces on geography: you knew where the garage door was, and where the cat flap was, before either mattered. Here a girl runs down a corridor, a robe appears in a doorway, and we could not have drawn you a plan of any house in the film. Marco Beltrami’s stabbing strings do the work the images will not. Dewey Riley has three deputies, played by Marley Shelton, Anthony Anderson and Adam Brody, and their scenes in patrol cars go nowhere at all. The violence is nastier than before, and this is the one place the film got at us. The knives go in and stay in, and Craven holds on the faces. One killing in a kitchen made us flinch and then feel a little grubby, because the scene before it had been laughing at exactly that kind of death. Adam Stockhausen’s Roberts house is a big suburban box of windows and half-landings, useful for a knife to come through, and Debra McGuire dresses the teenagers in the jeans and hoodies of an American teen network while leaving the robe exactly as it was. That is the right call. The costume is the one thing here nobody thought to update. Emma Roberts, as Sidney’s cousin Jill, is sulky and a little blank, and Rory Culkin and Erik Knudsen, as the two boys who explain the rules of a remake to a room, are given a lecture rather than parts. Knudsen wears a camera on his head and streams his life, which the script treats as the whole of the internet. The film has things to say about fame and about wanting to be the girl in the story, and it says them, in dialogue, more than once. The last stretch takes turns we will not describe, and the reveal has a real idea in it. It is the only part of the film that uses the idea rather than announcing it. Against Craven’s own record it is a middling entry: not the laziness of a studio sequel, since the people who made the first one are plainly still trying, but not the thing itself either. See it if you liked the earlier films and can quote the rules yourself. The 15 certificate is earned. Watch it with someone who will answer the phone halfway through; the film would approve. *Fi1m score 60, published 19 September 2026.* ## What the critics say Most critics land in the middle. The reviews agree the opening sequence is the sharpest stretch and that the jokes about reboots, internet fame and horror conventions still raise a laugh, even from those who tire of them later. Several count the final reveal a strength, and the stabbings are noted as crunchier and crueller than before. Warmer praise goes to Kevin Williamson’s script and to the newer cast members, with Hayden Panettiere and Alison Brie singled out for energy. The reservations gather around the same self-awareness: a good number find it stale after eleven years, the middle stretch a run of red herrings, and the film too long and rarely frightening. The Hollywood Reporter adds that Neve Campbell is underused until the climax. The spread is wide, from Eye for Film calling it the best of the sequels to Collider finding it bitter and resentful. ### Reviews we read (17) - **Los Angeles Times**, Betsy Sharkey (75/100, inferred): The critic praises the return of writer Kevin Williamson for keeping the satire sharp and meta, while noting that the film lives up to its gory past with new terrors enabled by modern media. It values sarcasm alongside scares but delivers jump scares and clever references. [Read](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2011-apr-15-la-et-scream4-20110415-story.html) - **Vulture** (65/100, inferred): The review calls it a pretty fair hall-of-mirrors horror ride that opens wittily with a terrific climax and killer reveal, though much of the middle is a dead zone of red herrings. It singles out the graphic, sadistic violence—crunchy stabbings and one particularly cruel murder—as what keeps viewers engaged despite the campy self-awareness. [Read](https://www.vulture.com/2011/04/movie_review_the_clever_bloody.html) - **Radio Times**, Josh Winning (3/5): The film manages to be more than a mere slasher curtain call with devilishly smart tricks, offering a wickedly entertaining dissection of internet fame and horror reboots. The meta jokes are funny, death scenes deliver post-Saw gore, and the twist is strong, though visuals are soupy and the script struggles with its large cast. [Read](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-vcvr23/scre4m/) - **Screen Daily** (60/100, inferred): Scream 4 mixes murder, mystery and self-awareness to adequate if not exceptional effect as a piece of diversionary puzzlebox entertainment, but doesn’t pack the wallop of the best moments of its forebears. It succeeds on its own terms yet doesn’t really work or hold together as a scary movie in the conventional sense. [Read](https://www.screendaily.com/scream-4/5026215.article) - **Time Out**, Nigel Floyd (3/5): The critic finds the film tries hard to recapture the original's self-referentiality but the over-cooked script fails to properly integrate modern horror trends or technology. It lacks the courage of its potentially subversive convictions and dissipates into a series of stabs in the dark. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/scream-4) - **The Guardian**, Peter Bradshaw (55/100, inferred): The critic finds Scream 4 fun but more clever-clever than fiendishly ingenious. The film descends into familiar territory that circles until the horror-obsessed movie disappears up its own assiduity. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/apr/17/scream-4-wes-craven-scre4m) - **The New York Times**, Mike Hale (45/100, inferred): The critic finds that the meta-joke at the heart of the series has grown stale after eleven years, with the film relying on movie references and chases that feel flatly staged. Some flashes of wit appear in the opening sequence. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/movies/scream-4-movie-review.html) - **The Times** (45/100, inferred): The review notes how meta the film gets and questions if more meta means better. It finds the result far too self-regarding and artificial to cut deep, though Craven’s cat-and-mouse game with expectations elicits a few titters. [Read](https://www.thetimes.com/article/scre4m-l7pjxsftfbr) - **Total Film**, James Mottram (45/100, inferred): The review finds Scream 4 returns to business as usual with tech-savvy elements and a decent twist, but it rarely terrifies and lacks the edge of its predecessors. [Read](https://www.gamesradar.com/scream-4-review/) - **The Hollywood Reporter**, Todd McCarthy (40/100, inferred): The critic finds the film tediously self-referential and overly long, dominated by insular genre gags and a clockwork killing spree that fails to build suspense effectively. He notes some amusing bits and clever twists plus decent final revelations, but criticizes Neve Campbell being underused until the climax. [Read](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/scream-4-review-177968/) - **Empire**, David Hughes (35/100, inferred): The critic sees the film as a redundant studio-driven sequel that fails to recapture the original's postmodern spark. It offers sporadic fun with social media references but ends up predictable and underwhelming. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/scream-4-review/) - **Variety**, Dennis Harvey (35/100, inferred): The critic calls the film overblown, overlong, and overstuffed with tired self-referentialism, lacking credible new characters and memorable scares compared to earlier entries. It delivers expected goods but feels like the series has run out of wit. [Read](https://variety.com/2011/film/reviews/scream-4-1117945018/) - **Eye for Film**, Anton Bitel (75/100, inferred): The critic finds Scream 4 the best of the sequels, praising its self-referential postmodernism, inventive opening sequences, and gripping whodunnit structure while noting it remains focused on the original cast. [Read](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/scream-4-film-review-by-anton-bitel) - **Den of Geek**, Ryan (4 out of 5): The critic finds Scream 4 well-written and well-directed, with a conclusion that stays true to the franchise's spirit while addressing fame and celebrity and playfully mocking remake conventions. They single out the satisfying mystery element and the meta opening sequence for praise, though noting the killings are predictable. [Read](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/scream-4-review/) - **HeyUGuys**, Lisa Giles-Keddie (3/5): The critic calls it a familiar but improved entry with more tech-savvy parody and inventive plotting, crediting new cast members like Hayden Panettiere for fresh energy while retaining the series' signature dread and jump scares. [Read](https://www.heyuguys.com/scream-4-review/) - **The Wrap**, Michael Lee (50/100, inferred): The critic finds the film mixed, praising its timely and provocative ideas about fame but criticizing how the twist undermines suspension of disbelief. They single out the implausible physical feats by the killers as a major flaw. [Read](https://www.thewrap.com/scream-4-it-was-best-screams-it-was-worst-screams-26956/) - **Collider**, Matt Goldberg (D+): The review finds Scream 4 a bitter and resentful entry that fails to deliver quality scares or a compelling mystery while attacking modern youth culture and the franchise's own irrelevance. It singles out the occasional successful humor, particularly from Courteney Cox's Gale and Alison Brie's publicist character, as the film's one bright spot. [Read](https://collider.com/scream-4-review/) ## Details - **Director:** Wes Craven - **Director:** Wes Craven - **Screenplay:** Kevin Williamson - **Cinematography:** Peter Deming - **Editor:** Peter McNulty - **Music:** Marco Beltrami - **Production design:** Adam Stockhausen - **Costume design:** Debra McGuire - **Producer:** Kevin Williamson, Wes Craven, Iya Labunka - **Cast:** Neve Campbell as Sidney Prescott; David Arquette as Dewey Riley; Courteney Cox as Gale Weathers-Riley; Emma Roberts as Jill Roberts; Hayden Panettiere as Kirby Reed; Erik Knudsen as Robbie Mercer; Rory Culkin as Charlie Walker; Marley Shelton as Deputy Judy Hicks - **Runtime:** 1h 51m - **Certificate (MPA):** R - **Release (the US):** 15 April 2011 - **Genres:** Horror, Mystery - **Budget:** $40 million - **Box office:** $97 million - **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvV1WDueIC0 ## Where to watch in the US - Paramount+: streaming, hd, leaving 2026-10-08 - The Roku Channel: free, hd - Amazon Prime Video: add-on - Apple TV: add-on, hd - The Roku Channel: add-on, hd, leaving 2026-10-08 - Apple TV: rent $3.99, hd - Amazon Prime Video: rent $3.99, hd - Amazon Prime Video: buy $4.99, hd - Apple TV: buy $14.99, hd *Checked 2026-09-19.* Also available in: AT, AU, BE, BR, CA, CH, CL, CO, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, GB, HU, ID, IE, IN, IT, JP, MX, NL, NO, NZ, PH, PT, RO, SE, SG, TH, US, VN, ZA. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country. ## If you liked this - *Scream* (1996), Fi1m 86: The original, when the joke was new and Craven knew where every door was. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/scream.md) - *Tenebrae* (1982): Argento’s giallo about a writer whose killer is copying his books; the blood is very red. - *Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon* (2006): A slasher explains his own rules to a documentary crew; sharper than it sounds. - *The Cabin in the Woods* (2011), Fi1m 80: The same year, the same joke, taken somewhere this film never dares. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-cabin-in-the-woods.md) - *Peeping Tom* (1960): Michael Powell’s murderer films his victims; the camera-on-the-head idea, half a century early. --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/scream-4