Advertisements

What the Hell Happened to Neve Campbell?

neve campbell

Neve Campbell

At the peak of her career, Neve Campbell was starring in a hit TV drama as well as a popular movie franchise.  Scream revitalized the horror genre in 1996.  Campbell continued to star on Party of Five while making Scream sequels.  In between, she tried to make something happen outside of teen soaps and horror movies.  Following the cancellation of Party of Five after a six-season run, Campbell seemed to disappear from mainstream TV and movies.

What the hell happened?

campbell - ballet

Neve Campbell – ballet

Campbell was born in Canada.  At the age of six, she saw a performance of The Nutcracker and decided she wanted to be a ballerina.  At the age of nine, Campbell moved into residence at the National Ballet School of Canada where she appeared in performances of The Nutcracker and Sleeping Beauty.  At the age of fifteen, Campbell had to leave ballet due to several injuries.  Instead, she turned to acting.  In 1991, at the age of eighteen, Campbell appeared in a Coca-Cola commercial featuring Bryan Adams.

That commercial is practically an audition for horror movies.  And Adams is far scarier than Ghostface ever was.

Campbell also appeared in guest appearances on several Canadian TV shows.  In 1991, she appeared opposite Jerry O’Connell on the super hero-themed kids show, My Secret Identity.

In 1992, Campbell appeared on the sketch comedy show, The Kids in the Hall.

She also had a recurring role in the TV show, Catwalk, in which she played a keyboardist in a Canadian rock band.

campbell - are you afraid of the dark

Neve Campbell – Are You Afraid of the Dark? – 1994

 In 1993, Campbell guest starred on Are You Afraid of the Dark, a joint American-Canadian anthology show.  The horror/fantasy show was aimed at kids and aired on Nickelodeon in the US.

In 1994, Campbell appeared in several TV movies and guest appearances including Kung Fu: The Legend Continues.  (Campbell appears as a tennis player at the 6-minute mark in the clip above).  She also appeared in the TV movies I Know My Son Is Alive and The Forget-Me-Not Murders which have to be airing on Lifetime Movie Network.

1994 was also the year Party of Five debuted.  Campbell starred opposite Scott Wolf, Matthew Fox and Lacey Chabert as siblings who are orphaned when their parents are killed by a drunk driver.  The show was not initially a hit.  In fact, Fox considered cancelling it after the first season.

In 1995, Party of Five won the Golden Globe for Best Drama beating out shows like E/R and NYPD Blue.  It was a shocking upset that brought attention to the fledgling drama.  The win brought more viewers and better ratings.  Party of Five ended its run after six seasons in 2000.

Neve Campbell - The Craft - 1996

Neve Campbell – The Craft – 1996

In 1996, Campbell appeared in a horror movie that would turn out to be a surprise hit.  The movie starred several young actors who could potentially go on to be big stars.  But it wasn’t Scream.  It was the witch-themed movie, The Craft.

The Craft is basically Mean Girls as a horror movie or Heathers minus the dark comedy.  Robin Tunney starred as a troubled teen who falls in with the wrong crowd.  Fairuza Balk played the mean girl who pushes the group into darker and darker territory.  Campbell played a follower in the group.

Skeet Ulrich, who would appear opposite Campbell in Scream, had a supporting role.

Portraying a high school clique as a witch’s coven may be a bit too on-the-nose for some.  The movie lacks subtlety, but it did a good job of combining teen drama with the horror genre.  Reviews were mixed, but The Craft opened at number one at the box office.  It was a surprise hit that developed a small but devoted cult following.

Next: Scream

Advertisements

Posted on October 20, 2013, in Movies, What the Hell Happened?, WTHH Actress and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 215 Comments.

  1. I was JUST wondering about Campbell last week!
    I always found her appealing, even though she’s middling as an actress.
    In fact, I even sat through the awful Three to Tango (on TV) and found myself not turning it off because darn it, I really like her and Perry and Oliver Platt and John C McGinley and Bob Balaban. I will watch all kinds of dreck if the actors are good. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t bad. It was.
    Scream still entertains every couple of years in October after I’ve already run through Psycho, The Thing, etc. The stories of how the sequels were made just shows why actors walk away from projects so often. Suits suck.
    I had no idea that she voiced in Lion King II. When I saw the cover, I thought you were making some kind of weird joke about the Wild Things sequels.

    Like

    • One of the things that has kept me from writing about Cambpell for so long is that outside of Scream, she didn’t have much of a movie career. She has been frequently requested because in the 90s she was extremely high profile. And then the new millenium rolls around and Campbell seems to vanish. Although as I have come to find out, no one ever really vanishes completely.

      So I was trying to choose my next subject. I wanted to pick someone who genuinely fit the mission statement of WTHH and not just a career retrospective masquerading as WTHH. I also wanted someone who might legitimately drive some traffic. I didn’t feel like anoyone on the poll really fit that description. And then I remembered Campbell. Bonus: it was October and she’s best known for horror movies. Double bonus: Her time in the spotlight was relatively short. I could crank out the article over the weekend. So that’s how Cambpell came to be my subject.

      I have never seen Three to Tango, but it definitely has a talented cast. In a way, that just makes its sins all the worse. To waste such talent is unforgivable.

      I like the first Scream quite a bit. It was actually a personal favorite for me. I saw it before it was released and was hooked during the opening scene. When it was finally released, it was an underdog and I was pulling for it. I frequently snuck into the back of theaters to watch audience reactions to the opening scene and at the end to see audience’s reactions to the killers’ reveal. I really can’t remember another horror movie that electrified audiences as much as the first Scream did. And I was gratified when it became a success.

      I basically pretend the sequels don’t exist. Scream 2 has its strong points. I credit Craven with most of them. But it’s so uneven. I remember hoping that Scream 3 could make up for the middle film and end the trilogy on a strong note. Didn’t quite work out that way. Scream 4 was just a train wreck. I didn’t think the series could sink lower than Scream 3. I was wrong.

      Sadly, a lot of movies get made with unfinished scripts these days. It’s no wonder movies are in the state they are in.

      At the time Lion King 2 was released, I was vaguely aware of Campbell’s involvement. It makes a certain kind of sense when you remember she ws still on Party of Five. Less so when you think about her R-rated movies. I had forgotten Lion King 2 even existed and was surprised to see it on her filmography. So nope, no weird joke that time.

      Like

      • At the time Lion King 2 was released, I was vaguely aware of Campbell’s involvement. It makes a certain kind of sense when you remember she ws still on Party of Five. Less so when you think about her R-rated movies.

        Is it any weirder than Jeremy Irons being in Lion King 1 though? The man’s hardly a kiddie actor himself…

        Although I will say that I find it weird she’d agree to a direct-to-video movie when she was considered a rising startlet at the time. Maybe she just heard Lion King 2 and did it because Lion King 1 was so successful yet didn’t know they weren’t releasing it to theaters…

        Like

        • Irons as Scar made sense to me. After Reversal of Fortune, he was the go-to Hollywood bad guy. They even included a sly reference to Irons’ Oscar winning role.

          Campbell makes sense too if you view her as the star as Party of Five. But if you think of her as the star of Scream (which is how I see her having never watched the TV series) I would have never thought of her for Lion King 2.

          Like

        • Oh, OK. Sorry, I just get tired of people complaining about actors who do mature stuff doing kids movies sometimes…

          Although I would argue that it’s debatable that Claus is the villain in Reversals of Fortune. The movie doesn’t really make it clear that he killed Sonny and he doesn’t really antagonize the lawyer or his students. But that’s just me…

          Like

        • No need to apologize, Higgins. I promise, I don’t bite. I haven’t really experienced people complaining about actors who do mature material also doing kids stuff. But I can see where that would be annoying.

          I was approaching it from a marketing/casting point of view. If I’m casting The Lion King 2, I don’t think to call the girl from Scream and Wild Things. Most of my target demo hopefully has no idea who she is. But calling the Party of Five girl makes sense to me. I certainly have no objection to the casting on moral grounds or anything like that.

          I completely agree that Irons isn’t the villain in Reversal of Fortune. But he was extremely creepy. Irons also managed to make him sympathetic. But as a result of Reversal, Iron started getting cast as villains in things like Lion King and Die Hard 3. You couldn’t cast him as an action hero, but he made a great Euro villain.

          Like

        • Oh, OK. I understand now…

          Like

        • Actually, now that I think about it, do you think you might do a future WTTH article on Jeremy Irons?

          Like

        • I think he’s certainly a viable candidate. He fits in with guys like Kevin Spacey; character actors with enough charisma to pull off leading man roles. But not quite enough star power to be A-list leading men.

          I doubt I will get to Irons any time soon, but I wouldn’t be surprised to cover him eventually.

          Like

        • OK, Thanks for telling me!

          Like

        • Actually, if you ever do to get Irons, maybe you could do James Earl Jones as well. To be fair, he has had many characters under his belt that people remember and love but, considering the amount of iconic roles he’s had and how popular he is as an actor, you’d think his career would actually be better than it really is (if you look it up on IMDB, he’s done a plethora of TV movies and even some Direct-to-DVD work) (Also, and I hate to say this, but his race might’ve been a factor in how he’s never become a leading man because, when he was around the age of leading man material, African-American actors weren’t really getting big parts in Hollywood Movies, sad to say. Still, it might make an interesting article…)

          Like

        • James Earl Jones would make for an interesting article. He’s had a great career as a character actor. But I don’t see getting to him any time in the foreseeable future. In the distant future, it could happen.

          Now I have “This is CNN” stuck in my head. Great voice.

          Like

        • Speaking of “Star Wars”, I wonder (since I’ve noticed that Harrison Ford’s name has just been taken off of the poll for future WTHHT candidates) if Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker) would make for a good “WTHHT” candidate instead? I know that Hamill reinvented himself as a prolific voice actor (namely his role as the Joker on “Batman: The Animated Series”), but his career as a film star never really went beyond “Star Wars”. Maybe part of Hamill’s problem was his car accident, which he was involved in in-between “A New Hope” and “The Empire Strikes Back”, which (because of the reconstructive surgery that he had to get) pretty much ruined his once matinee idol looks.

          Like

        • I was wondering when some eagle-eyed commenter would notice Ford’s absence from the poll. I decided in light of Ender’s Game to give Ford a stay of execution. He’ll be back eventually. But I felt now was not his time.

          Hamill would make a good candidate. There’s no doubt the car accident and reconstructive surgery played a part.

          Like

      • I don’t mean to repeat what I said before, but I think part of the reason why Neve Campbell’s career fell off is because she (or at least, I immediately get the impression) chose to fall off the radar so to speak. From what I’ve heard on IMDb, she relocated to London so she could pursue theater while starring in indie films (basically, she wanted to branch out more with her roles) and live a more peaceful life?

        Unfortunately, Neve for all intents and purposes, wasted a good deal of her “prime” shying away from more commercial (or things that most people have actually heard of) projects. And now, it seems like Hollywood for the most part, doesn’t have much use for her any more (now that she has aged out of her adolescent/young adult phase). And it’s not like Neve was the type of actress (I’ve read the argument that when you get right down to it, Neve was pretty much, the “Kristen Stewart of the ’90s”), who’s presence or acting talent so to speak, could immediately add “prestige” or make people gravitate towards her lesser known projects.

        Let’s just say hypothetically, Neve actually I suppose embraced her image or reputation as a “scream queen”. Then she maybe would’ve been a bigger star, and thus had more clout or name value to afford to pick or produce projects that she really wanted.

        Like

        • She definitely could have made a bit more money if she had embraced her scream queen image a little more. But then again, she made three Scream movies during the peak of her career. And by Scream 3, horror was changing again. J-horror was on the rise. The Scream-influenced horror movies were already passé. So I don’t know how much more she could have done in that genre either.

          Like

        • Maybe that’s part of the reason why the fourth “Scream” (which came out 11 years after the last one) didn’t perform as well at the domestic box office as the previous ones. “Scream” I suppose, created a brand new horror sub-genre, the post-modern, deconstructive, teen slasher genre. “Scream” in essence is perhaps more of a ’90s franchise so to speak, that didn’t when you get right down to it, didn’t have that much of a long self-life.

          Like

        • The idea behind Scream 4 was that slasher reboots were big, so Scream 4 was kind of spin on that. I actually wonder if they wouldn’t have done better with a straight reboot recasting all the characters.

          Like

        • re: reboots…JEEZ, ya gots to wonder if there are any screenplays in/near Hollywierd that ARE NOT “reboots/re-imaginings” of existing movies! Also, I often found through painstaking scientific research, if a movie title has a number greater than “3” at the end of the title, it’s likely a BAD movie, and it’s CERTAINLY a bad movie if it has “words” after the number, i.e., “The Howling VIII: The Itchy & Scratchy Show.”

          Like

        • Star Trek is the exception to that rule.

          Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country are some of the best of the series.

          That’s part of the appeal of reboots though. Lets you go back to a fresh start.

          Like

        • 10 Film Franchises You Really Should Stop Watching After The First Movie:
          http://whatculture.com/film/10-film-franchises-really-stop-watching-first-movie.php/6

          Scream

          By the mid-90s, the slasher/horror genre, long known for the numerous franchises it spawned, was in decline. Enter 1996’s Scream, written by Kevin Williamson and directed by Wes Craven, a film which helped to reinvigorate the genre, and spawned a series of sequels (and imitators) of its own. The movie was best known for killing off its biggest “name,” Drew Barrymore, in the opening scene, as well as the now iconic quote: “Do you like scary movies?” It was also critically praised for its self-aware meta-commentary about horror movies, including all of the genre’s tropes and stereotypes.

          Riding the success of the origin, Williamson/Craven were back for the sequel a year later, which also retained its main character, Neve Campbell’s Sidney, along with Courtney Cox and David Arquette reprising their roles as Gale Weathers and Deputy Dewey respectively. While Scream 2 was a commercial success and received some positive reviews, it was a total rehash of the original, all the way down to the “twist” ending involving the identity of the main villain, Ghostface.

          By the time Scream 3 was released in 2000, Williamson was gone, and the movie was panned by most critics and was the lowest grossing movie of the series until Scream 4 came out in 2011. The latest movie in the series reunited Williamson and Craven, as well as Campbell, Cox and Arquette, but also revisited the same old ground as its predecessors for a new generation of viewers. Of course, at this point, the horror genre shifted in another new direction, with movies like Saw and Hostel, which made Scream’s snarky meta-commentary come across as being out of touch.

          Like

        • A look back at the Scream franchise part I. Scream: still entertaining, but with a genuine learning curve.

          http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2011/04/look-back-at-scream-franchise-part-i.html

          It remains to be seen whether or Scream 4 can become the first breakout mega-smash of 2011, drawing in nostalgic 20-somethings and 30-somethings while bringing along the next generation who grew up watching the first three films on DVD over the last decade. I was invited to Tuesday night’s press screening but had to decline due to not being allowed to bring guests (IE – my wife). But in the meantime, let us take a moment to both reflect on the original trilogy as well as discuss how well these films have held up over the years. These will hopefully run on Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday, leading up to a review of Scream 4 either Friday or Saturday night, depending on when we can get a sitter (we offered to drop Allison off at Rio while mom and dad were across the hall, but she demanded that we come with her… so clingy!). Needless to say, if you have not seen the first three Scream films, there will be complete and total spoilage in. Consider yourself warned… First up, obviously, is the original Scream.

          Scream (1996): I’m pretty sure that the Wes Craven slasher-film homage still has the smallest wide-release opening weekend ($6.3 million) for a film that eventually reached $100 million. For all intents and purposes, Scream was released in Christmas weekend 1996 and got clobbered by Beavis and Butthead Do America. But the film’s winking acknowledgement of its own cliches, plus a hot young cast and a genuinely classic opening sequence kept the film alive throughout the end of 1996 and the beginning of 1997. But, aside from its status as a cinematic groundbreaker, how does it still hold up as a movie? Not as wonderful as you remember. First of all, let’s be clear, the first Scream picture is still a fun and entertaining piece of high-gloss B-horror. But aside from the opening sequence, it’s not particularly scary, not even all that violent, and not quite as clever as it thinks it is.

          The prologue, in which Drew Barrymore’s Casey Becker is menaced over the phone by a creepy-voiced and movie-obsessed stalker, remains a brutally terrifying and stunningly violent sequence. In an era where most slasher-film deaths were quick and painless, the climax stood out by highlighting the mental anguish and physical suffering that most slasher films shuffled under the carpet. Young Casey Becker doesn’t get a clean spear through the chest or arrow through the head. She is stabbed through the chest and remains alive and crying as she is dragged to the tree where she will be disemboweled and hanged. The grisly details of her slow murder, as well as the painful sight of Casey’s parents arriving just too late and hearing their daughter’s death cries over the open phone line: the opening scene remains a rebuke to an entire generation that had grown up ‘enjoying’ the senseless murders of young teenagers.

          But the first Scream never gets that real again. The rest of the picture is a jokey, almost campy affair, where violence is fun and no one mourns the dead. Part of this is the very structure of the picture. While Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is pretty aware that she is in some kind of danger, the rest of the kids remain oblivious right up to the final revelations. There is no sense of dread or menace in the air. And the allegedly groundbreaking ‘here’s how a horror movie works’ material now feels forced and shoehorned into the narrative for the sake of meaningless comic relief. Besides, there’s actually very little of it. Other than Jamie Kennedy’s big speech at the climactic party about the ‘rules to survive a horror film’, Scream basically plays like a straight-up 1980s slasher picture. What once perhaps played as knowing self-awareness now feels like jarring out-of-left field comic relief to distract from a relatively generic narrative.

          Most of the performers in the first Scream were relative unknowns, and it shows. Arguably the most famous of the bunch, Courtney Cox, tries way too hard to play a generic uber-bitch, as if she’s unsure that audiences will accept Monica Gellar as cold-hearted reporter Gale Weathers. Campbell is fine, but most of the rest of the young cast overacts and mugs whether its called for or not. And, for a Wes Craven film, there is remarkably little violence. After the initial double murder that opens the picture, we have only the relatively tame stabbing death of Henry Winkler, the gruesome but comically-staged garage door-death of Rose McGowen, and the blink-and-you-miss it throat slashing of the cameraman. Yes, the killers meet their violent demises (their self-inflicted injuries are mostly offscreen), but if you edit around the first scene of the picture (and trim the language), it could almost get a PG-13. And the film loses major points for a climax containing no less than FOUR fake-out death scenes (Dewey’s stabbing, Billy Loomis’s staged murder, Gale’s car accident demise, and Randy’s not-so-mortal gunshot wound).

          What makes it work in the end is the actual revelation of who the killers are and why they have decided to shed blood. Matthew Lillard’s rambling psycho is entertaining and gets the film’s very best line (“My mom and dad are going to be SO mad at me!”), but the revelation of Billy Loomis’s genuinely plausible motive gives a real-world grimness to the proceedings (although I never bought Skeet Ulrich suddenly becoming a horror film expert). This isn’t about ghosts from the grave or ancient prophecies or escaped mental patients, it’s all because one suburban mother cheated with another suburban father and caused the latter family to break up. Ironically, the one thing that makes the movie matter is the one thing that gets ret-conned in Scream 3, but we’ll discuss that later. Just over fifteen years later, Wes Craven’s original Scream still holds up as solid entertainment, but it remains an awkward, weightless, and overly campy affair.

          Fortunately, the best was yet to come…

          Like

        • Deader Than Disco: FILM

          Note: Simply having one or two under-performing movies does not make a director or franchise “Deader Than Disco.” There needs to have been irreparable damage done to the director’s career or franchise’s popularity, be it through a tarnished reputation or an inability to adapt to changing cultural tastes.

          http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/DeaderThanDisco/FILM

          The Scream trilogy in the mid-late ’90s helped to revive both the teen horror film and the slasher movie by reconstructing the latter, spawning copycat films like I Know What You Did Last Summer, The Faculty, The Rage: Carrie 2, and Valentine. However, this short-lived boom was brought to a screeching halt on April 20, 1999 by the Columbine High School massacre, which made movies about teens in peril a lot more uncomfortable for both Moral Guardians and for their target audience. Most of the movies in the genre that came out after Columbine were already well into production by then, and most of them suffered from either heavy censorship, disappointing box office returns, or both. It didn’t help when, about one year later, the genre was mercilessly parodied by Scary Movie. While the horror genre in general survived, relatively few horror films (outside the odd remake) have been explicitly oriented towards teenagers, with adult protagonists becoming the norm in the genre to this day.

          Like

        • A look back at the Scream franchise part III. Scream 3: Scared of Columbine’s shadow, a horror film series cuts its own throat.

          http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2011/04/look-back-at-scream-franchise-part-iii.html

          It remains to be seen whether or Scream 4 can become the first breakout mega-smash of 2011, drawing in nostalgic 20-somethings and 30-somethings while bringing along the next generation who grew up watching the first three films on DVD over the last decade. I was invited to Tuesday night’s press screening but had to decline due to not being allowed to bring guests (IE – my wife). But in the meantime, let us take a moment to both reflect on the original trilogy as well as discuss how well these films have held up over the years. Needless to say, if you have not seen the first three Scream films, there will be complete and total spoilage. Consider yourself warned…

          Scream 3 (2000): After the monster opening weekend of the second picture ($33 million, a near-record for an R-rated film at the time), a theoretical Scream 3 seemed like a sure thing. But then, on April 20th, 1999, a year-long mini-wave of school shootings climaxed in the Columbine attacks, leaving twelve people dead and an entire youth-oriented culture under the microscope. Wes Craven had openly discussed the whole ‘do movies make kids into killer?’ shtick in the first two films, with Stu and Mickey copping to taking inspiration while in turn acknowledging their own responsibility in a skewed way (Mickey even pledged to blame the movies at his theoretical trial). So while Scream 3 did eventually become a reality, it was not under the pen of Kevin Williamson (his return-to-Woodsburo idea was scrapped, but apparently formed the basis for Scream 4), and it was in the shadow of Columbine.

          Taken on its own, Scream 3 is a perfectly mediocre slasher film. It’s relatively well acted (especially by Campbell), the chemistry between Courtney Cox and Parker Posey (as the actress playing Gale Weathers in Stab 3), and it has a few amusing moments with Lance Henriksen and Patrick Warburton. But, even taken as a stand-alone picture, it has serious problems. Right from the start, the concept of the killer having a device that makes his voice resemble anyone is a narrative cheat, and implausible to boot (such an invention would be a revolutionary breakthrough, and an absolute nightmare for the legal system as we know it). The first film had the frightening plausibility of a masked killer stalking suburbia, and the sequel had an equally plausible concept of a serial killer stalking a college campus. Scream 3 gives us the far-less relatable idea of a murderer stalking the self-absorbed actors playing characters from the previous films on a movie set that is built to resemble the previous films. So right off the bat, we as viewers are expected to invest in a glorified game of inside baseball. While the first Scream was partially a commentary on horror films while Scream 2 dealt with sequels in general, Scream 3’s biggest target seems to be… the Scream series itself. Without the courage to confront the most-Columbine hysteria head-on, the third picture denies itself a reason for existing, and that uselessness hurts it almost as much as its absurd finale (but more on that below).

          Adding to the problem is the absolute lack of any actual suspense. It’s no secret that Wes Craven felt the fan blowback after Randy’s death in Scream 2, and you can feel that fear in every frame of the film, the fear of truly putting our last remaining heroes (Sydney, Gale, and Dewey) in any real peril. The cast of colorful Hollywood types are completely disposable, with only Emily Mortimer’s terrified would-be movie star registering any compassion on the part of the audience. There is just one moment where you feel any danger, and that’s the mid-film confrontation between Sydney and the killer, which takes place on a stage replica of her childhood home. Since reports had leaked out about Nev Campbell’s reluctance to return, and then her insistence on limited involvement, the scene had an undercurrent of ‘we’re gonna whack Sydney right at the halfway mark!’. But that epic death scene never comes, and the film limps to its haunted-house finale and its jaw-droppingly terrible final twist.

          Oh right, the twist… Remember when I said that Scream 3 taken on its own was an okay slasher film? Well, as a would-be series finale (prior to this week) to the Scream franchise, it is an abject tragedy, with a last-reel reveal that retroactively neuters the grounded realism that the series had tried to establish. A young man killing the woman who slept with his father and caused his mother to leave him, and then going on a killing spree a year later out of deluded spite? That’s frightening and plausible. The bereaved mother of that young man seeking revenge on the young woman who killed her son? Still makes sense. But the long-lost ‘illegitimate’ half-brother, who was born during a rape that took place twenty-odd years ago while said mother was secretly attempting to become a Hollywood starlet, secretly being the mastermind behind the two previous murder sprees and then seeking his personal revenge on his sister? Um… that’s just bad screenwriting. And it takes the entire Scream franchise from a horror series rooted in something as simple as infidelity and divorce and makes it into, well, a bad slasher origin story, which is what it is.

          It was as if screenwriter Ehren Kruger, scared of hitting too close to home in the wake of Columbine, set out to create the least-realistic horror scenario possible without actually straying into the supernatural (although the ghostly visions of Maureen Prescott are never explained). Adding to that fear is the stunning lack of blood and gore. Scream 3 frankly plays like the edited-for-TV version of itself, and the unimaginative death scenes and the lack of old-fashioned bloodshed does hurt a film that has little else going for it. Scream 3, with its unfunny Hollywood jokes (‘oh, it’s Carrie Fisher as someone who looks like Carrie Fisher!’), pointless cameos (Jay and Silent Bob, who take you out of the picture for a good 20 minutes), straight-out-of-Scooby Doo central mystery (what’s the big secret of Sydney’s mom?), and lack of any actual scares or gore-highlights, feels like a movie desperately afraid of its own shadow. Even Sydney’s final declaration to her half-brother that he should man up and take responsibility feels less directed at Scott Foley and more at those who were so quick to blame pop culture for the premeditated murders committed by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

          The moments of poignancy are few: Sydney’s wordless entrance into the police station, the brief appearance of Randy’s sister (Heather Matarazzo, in that brief moment when she was pop-culture cool), the climactic moment when Sydney holds the hand of her brother as he lays dying, although that moment is ruined by one last ‘the killer is still alive!’ gag. In place of the quirky humor of Scream and the fear-drenched pathos of Scream 2 is a silly and inconsequential murder mystery, complete with an arbitrary killer (even Courtney Cox expresses disbelief when Foley unmasks), grand-scale cheating (the only time anyone ever checks a pulse in a Scream film, and it’s a fraud), and attempts at relevance that make no sense (Patrick Dempsey babbling about how his favorite scary movie is ‘my life’).

          Randy does show up briefly on a prerecorded video to warn Sydney about the ‘rules of trilogies’, and that moment sums up much of what doesn’t work about Scream 3. Back in 2000, trilogies were an exceedingly rare thing in the film world (we were a year away from Lord of the Rings). We had Star Wars, The Godfather, Back to the Future, and maybe the Indiana Jones series. Other than those, the few film series made it to part III (Rambo, Die Hard, any given slasher series) were basically just the third film in a series of ever-continuing adventures, which had no real ‘full circle’ or ‘new secrets revealed’ shtick to speak of. The entire ‘rules of trilogies’ was basically a glorified straw-man argument, creating an arbitrary list of rules and then setting out to ‘cleverly’ follow them. But Scream didn’t need a third entry to complete its narrative. And the desperation that oozes out of so much of Scream 3 stems I think from the creators’ realization of that, the fact that there didn’t need to be a third film, especially one completely unwilling to deal with the issues of the day.

          As a standalone film, it barely passes mediocre muster. As a series cap, it’s a counter-intuitive botch. As a relevant piece of social discourse, it fails outright to matter. If Scream 4 indeed restores some of the luster (as early reviews seem to indicate it does), it will be one of the more unlikely comeback stories in franchise history. As someone who refuses to give up on Wes Craven now matter how much the likes of My Soul to Take or My Deadly Friend outnumber the likes of New Nightmare, that would be a glorious thing indeed. Because Scream 3 is no way to end a series.

          Like

        • SCREAM 4 (2011):
          http://cinefilestv.blogspot.com/2014/10/scream-4-2011.html

          Directed By: Wes Craven
          Written By: Kevin Williamson
          Cinematography By: Peter Deming
          Editor: Peter McNulty
          Music By: Marco Beltrami

          Cast: Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courtney Cox, Emma Roberts, Hayden Panittiere, Rory Culkin, Nico Tortorella, Mary McDonell, Marley Shelton, Anthony Anderson, Alison Brie, Adam Brody, Lucy Hale Shenae Grimes, Anna Paquin, Kristen Bell, Aimee Teegarden, Britt Robertson

          Sidney Prescott, now the author of a self-help book, returns home to Woodsboro on the last stop of her book tour. There she reconnects with Sheriff Dewey and Gale, who are now married, as well as her cousin Jill and her Aunt Kate. Unfortunately, Sidney’s appearance also brings about the return of Ghostface, putting Sidney, Gale, and Dewey, along with Jill, her friends, and the whole town of Woodsboro in danger. –With four installments, this landmarks the Scream franchise as being one of the only horror franchises to have its main characters return for all its sequels.

          This film manages to be surprisingly fun despite it being a late entry into what was supposed to be a trilogy now graduated into a saga.

          Now I will admit SCREAM is one of my favorite films. It’s sequel is ok. The third one is horrible and this one makes up for how bad the third one was.

          I have a certain soft spot for the SCREAM series as it made me want to examine films more and become obsessive about details when it comes to cinema. It truly opened my eyes to horror films ad made me see that the possibilities of the genre are endless, though some would more characterize hear films as thrillers.

          This film while fun goes back to the basics as a few scenes feel reminiscent of the original. Predicting who the killer isn’t too hard yet when revealed plays like it was a tough nut to crack. This was one of the most disappointing aspects of the movie.

          The character development of newer characters is poor, but that is most likely to accommodate the large size of the cast and wanting to showcase the original stars over the new stars. Some of the cast come and go so fast they Barely leave a mark do their disposal is never really felt.

          Each of the new central characters is an archetype for one of the characters from the original: Jill (Sidney), Kirby (Tatum), Trevor (Billy), Charlie (Stu), and Robbie (Randy).

          For the first time in the series, a CGI-added knife was used because Wes Craven wanted to avoid using prop knives that are rubber, cardboard and collapsible. Better looking technology wise, but saying goodbye to the old days of effects in a miniscule way is still sad

          In the scene where Jenny explains to Marnie the story about the Stab movies, she says “Stab 5 has time travel, which is by far the worst”. Wes Craven had the idea of time travel in dreams for “A Nightmare on Elm Street 4” but the studio rejected it.

          This film like it predecessors also depends more on scares and surprises than any other scream film. Which at first was shocking to the point of being cruel which also works in the films favor of feeling sorry or at least something when characters die.

          I can see why Wes Craven choose to comeback though supposedly he refused to come back and direct the film unless the script was as good as the first SCREAM. Here the film seems to have plenty of possibilities and ideas. That seem to overcome the actual material.

          While most of the surviving cast are back they seem to be involved but ready to hand over the reins of the series to the newcomers and begin again anew, Then the film seems to change it’s mind and focus on the adults and it becomes a dance throughout the whole film as to the focus of the film and the series. Though by the end the film settles correctly.

          As we have grown to know and love these characters the younger cast never lend themselves to us we really learn barely anything about them so its harder to connect and care about their fates as much as we do the older characters.

          Kevin Williamson, the writer of this film, has expressed a subtle annoyance towards the release of the film. During production, producers Bob Weinstein and Harvey Weinstein brought in Ehren Kruger (the writer of Scream 3) to polish up the script. Wes Craven later stated that the main ideas, story and concept of the movie were written by Williamson, with minor changes made by Kruger.

          Supposedly this was a troubled production like quite a few of the last Wes craven productions (MY SOUL TO TAKE and CURSED) this seemed like it would follow in the set, with drastic last minute rewrites, leading to cast hanged, original series creator and screenwriter Kevin Williamson supposedly walking off the project. Though he still is credited as producer and writer.

          The film comes across as polished but with a certain shallowness at it’s heart. I could see how it could have been overhauled at least it’s better than CURSED. Though it feels more like a slick meta-Hollywood version of a horror film that never feels genuine and real. Though more entertaining than SCREAM 3. At least that film keeps us in that film world and feels natural though misguided. This film looks better and feels smarter and is definitely sharp and funnier, Though feels removed and while it could have started it’s own franchise or at least renewed it. It never feels like it connects to the audience. Like it is too busy trying to think ahead of the audience and catch them of guard and fool them then play by the rules of the story and film. So that you feel continuously disconnected.

          I might seem to be so harsh in my dissection of the film as I was a huge fan of the first SCREAM film and the franchise, No matter how disappointing the sequels might have gotten. After all that was when I first started writing suggestions in which I thought the film could be better and even better ways to make a sequel. Like I was a studio executive. This was when the internet was still new and me being slow to adapt to it. Wrote it on some fan message group page.

          The film seems obsessed with updating itself from technology to the rules for survival, but then it goes old school for it’s heart and themes.

          The film is heavily critical of horror remakes. Notably, director Wes Craven has previously produced a handful of remakes of classic horror films, including CARNIVL OF SOULS (1962),THE HILLS HAVE EYES (1977), and THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (the latter two being remakes of films he’d directed).

          Everyone plays their roles well. I can’t say anyone leaves a mark in this film. Though Hayden Panitierre is at least interesting enough that you want to see more of her character.

          The film is funnier then I expected at times and seems more playful then it should be, but after awhile you get into he mix and start feeling it’s rhythm. Though there is a ending, I feel there is more that can be said in this series The first Scream movie not to include Jamie Kennedy , not feature or even mention Cotton Weary, and not include a main love interest for Sidney.

          The film while good still feels like filler, just as many actors here as big names and should have bigger roles, but are more like cameos here.

          They also spoof and try to keep the spirit of killing a celebrity in the opening scene. The only problem is while the people are recognizable I would hardly call them stars or a star. The film digs Into the problem of modern horror.

          The first entry in the franchise in which Sidney does not witness the killer slit a man’s throat during the final chase scene. Scream 4 is the first film in the franchise not to be edited by ‘Patrick Lussier’, Wes Craven’s long time editor. Since the third movie, Lussier has gone on to a directing career of his own that includes the remake of MY BLOODY VALENTINE which is one of the many horror film remakes mentioned in Scream 4.

          Part of the problem with the film is it feels so glossy and not genuine almost like the story was a after thought.

          I am extra critical since I love these series of films, though I will admit I liked the film more then i thought I would. I went in with low expectations And was pleasantly surprised By how much I enjoyed the film. I even skipped it in theaters. Out of fear of being disappointed. I’m glad I waited as this isn’t a feature I would marvel at on the big screen. It is inventive and entertaining enough for home viewing.

          Despite it all it feels like a cash-in only the cast decides to come back to seemingly pass the torch to a younger generation. Which is nice but ultimately not needed. It gives the film.

          The film suffered two casting changes in quick succession as shooting had begun. Lake Bell had originally been cast as Judy Hicks but was forced to drop out (which she announced via her Twitter account on June 24th 2010) due to “scheduling conflicts.” She was replaced by Marley Shelton. Six days later, Lauren Graham, who was originally cast as Kate Roberts, dropped out also citing “scheduling conflicts” as well as “script changes.” She was replaced by Mary McDonnell.

          According to Wes Craven on the director’s commentary, the original opening would have taken place at a party celebrating Sidney’s completion of her book, during which Ghostface would have attacked and Sidney would’ve been badly stabbed. The rest of the film would have then taken place three years later. However, this opening was vetoed by ‘Bob Weinstien’, who thought the time jump disrupted the flow of the film.

          A certain sheen as it doesn’t feel like a random reboot or straight to DVD material. Though it maintains one of the weaknesses that the series has had since it’s sequels where each film has the central cast but then has hat feels like a guest star cast who don’t really make an impact as they aren’t real characters just targets as victims or suspects to throw off the audience. The supporting cast usually seems to be minor level stars who are gaining heat in their careers. The worst example SCREAM 3 where most seems miscast. It also leads to distraction as we are bombarded with cameos that just make the film overflow with characters and not In a inventive ensemble Robert Altman-esque way.

          Grade: B-

          Like

        • Review: Scream 4 (2011) exists purely to acknowledge its own pointlessness.

          http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2011/04/review-scream-4-2011.html

          Scream 4
          2011
          110 minutes
          rated R

          by Scott Mendelson

          It is rare that a film spends such a large chunk of its running time basically admonishing its own existence. Yet Wes Craven’s return to the world of Scream is not only a relatively unnecessary franchise revival, it wears its uselessness on its sleeve. Call it ‘meta’ or call it a genuine distaste for those who would demand a fourth installment of this particular series, but Scream 4 shouts early and often about the myriad of ways in which it rips itself off. While it delivers the bare essentials (violent murders, copious blood, pretty people being stalked), it becomes, due to a lack of emotional potency and an unwillingness to take itself particularly seriously, a pale imitation of not only itself, but of those that ripped it off over the last fifteen years. Scream 4 is like a the last couple Michael Jackson albums: it’s disheartening seeing the franchise that reinvented the wheel merely doing what its successors did, but at an inferior level.

          There really is no plot per-se to the fourth Scream film. Sydney Prescott (Nev Campbell) has returned to Woodsburo for the first time in ten years. She’s in town to promote her memoirs, which is part self-help book, part testimonial. Since she’s stupid enough to visit her hometown ten years to the day of the original Loomis/Macher massacre, the people of Woodsburo start dying right off the bat. As Sheriff Dewey Riley (David Arquette) attempts to solve the new mystery, Gale Weathers-Riley (Courtney Cox) sees an opportunity to regain her former journalistic glory. Meanwhile, the various young teens at Woodsburo high basically… well, they don’t do much other than occasionally discuss the ‘new rules’ and plan their annual Stab-a-thon, in which they screen all seven of the Stab films.

          On the plus side, unlike the scared-of-its-own-shadow Scream 3, Scream 4 is quite violent and bloody, with a slightly higher body count than the sequels and about as much gore as Scream 2. But with one or two exceptions, the violent murders are unimaginative and visually boring. And the entire picture is so self-referentially jokey that it casts a pall of irreverence over the whole proceedings. Yes, I’ve long complained about the overly campy tone of the first Scream, but was at least partially due to a story structure in which most of the young leads didn’t realize that a killing spree was occurring until right at the climax. Here we have a picture in which one member of a close-knit group of friends is murdered pretty quickly (in arguably the most compelling death of the film), yet most of those friends barely stop to acknowledge said passing.

          This isn’t the Wes Craven who takes his violence seriously and makes you mourn the dead. Nor is this even the Wes Craven who attempts to scare you in any real way, since the film is almost completely lacking in tension or suspense. It is telling that one of the bigger jump scares in the film comes from a scene from the first Stab as its being projected on a barn door. All three of the original trio struggle to get back into character. Arquette feels off a step and Courtney Cox often falls into self-impression (IE – she feels like someone else ‘doing’ Gale Weathers). Nev Campell spends a good 70% of the film in the kitchen of her cousin’s (Emma Roberts) house making tea.

          As for the new kids, the film struggles to give them much to do. Since we have the Sydney/Gale/Dewey scenes, the various scenes of violence, and a needless subplot involving a young deputy (Marley Shelton) who is attempting to woo Dewey away from his wife, the new kids struggle to make an impression. While certain characters do get a big scene or two at the end of the film (no spoilers, although it’s pretty obvious from pretty early on), the new kids basically fall into their one-sentence character description. Emma Roberts is Sydney’s cousin, Hayden Panettiere is the hot film nerd, Rory Culkin is the film-club president, and Erik Knudsen is the resident ‘I film everything because I’m all about new media’ web head. Anthony Anderson and Adam Brody have one great moment where they discuss the mortality rate of movie cops and Alison Bree sure is terrific and adorable on Community. Many of these people will die, and you probably won’t feel a thing when they do.

          Much of the film’s would-be inside baseball involves the last ten years of Asian remakes, 70s/80s revamps, and would-be torture porn (surely Wes Craven knows enough about being demonized not to use that absurd label). The opening scene (which is admittedly kinda brilliant in its gamesmanship) takes a shot at the Saw franchise for lacking character development, but then proceeds to deliver a film with absolutely none whatsoever. There is a climactic bit about the absurd number of horror remakes over the last several years, while ignoring the fact that any number of those remakes (Dawn of the Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Dark Water, etc) are far superior films to Scream 4.

          Despite the references to ‘torture porn’ and Asian remakes, the film makes no real effort to incorporate these genres into the narrative. What would a killing spree modeled after Scream but theoretically committed by someone who grew up watching The Ring or Saw look like? Scream 4 doesn’t even try to explore this idea, as the Ghostface killings are every bit as bland as the killings in Scream 3. The whole remake/reboot trend is the prime target, as much of the current killing spree may or may not be someone trying to ‘remake’ the original murders. While Craven and Kevin Williamson may indeed be taking aim at a generation so raised on revamps that they lack the capacity for original thought, the film becomes a prime example of the very disease that it’s diagnosing. Pointing out that your movie is lazy and unoriginal doesn’t let you off the hook for making a lazy and unoriginal movie. It is every bit as visually uninspired and derivative as those that theoretically deserve Craven’s scorn.

          The picture makes a less-minute attempt at criticizing the instant-gratification/instant-celebrity culture that has made failure (think Rebecca Black or Charlie Sheen) into the new success, but it’s too little too late and fails to honestly confront whether Sydney is an example of said phenomenon (she’s of course famous only because people tried to kill her a decade ago). Worse than that, it finds a perfect pitch-black ending but then proceeds to go on for a needless final scene that brings nothing but tedium. Even the characters admit that it’s pointless, but that again doesn’t excuse its momentum-sapping inclusion.

          Scream 4 is a pinpoint example of the very things it pertains to criticize, yet it hopes that its open acknowledgment of its own vices is enough to excuse itself. It is a tired and lazy reboot that criticizes reboots and a needless cash-grab that criticizes cash-grabs. It’s a desperate rip-off that criticizes rip-offs while failing to acknowledge that it fails to even match the audience-investment of I Know What You Did Last Summer, let alone the clever and emotionally-draining Final Destination. Sure, it’s better than The Final Destination 3D and/or the newer variations on A Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday the 13th, but that’s a pretty low standard. The Scream franchise rewrote the rules of the slasher genre, but now it halfheartedly follows in the footsteps of its alleged inferiors, hoping to earn points purely for pointing out how lame it is.

          Grade: C-

          Like

        • Recent Movies Guaranteed To Age Terribly:
          http://whatculture.com/film/10-recent-movies-guaranteed-to-age-terribly.php/3

          Scream 4

          Wes Craven’s Scream franchise certainly had a lot more legs than many people expected – the postmodern horror series has been running for over 15 years and received critical acclaim over its run. By the fourth installment it was clear though that Scream had run out of steam.

          One of the aspects which made the earlier installments in the franchise so entertaining was the clever plotting – audiences were genuinely engrossed in trying to figure out which character (or characters) were behind the Ghostface mask. By Scream 4, however, not only was it lazily written but the postmodern commentary which had felt so on the ball back in the days of the original release now felt hackneyed and outdated.

          The film industry tends to move from one trend to another very quickly, and while Craven deserves credit for lambasting horror conventions earlier in his career, by Scream 4 the series had turned into an unintentional parody of itself still trapped in a 1990s aesthetic.

          Like

        • Scream gets a full-season order from MTV:
          http://thedissolve.com/news/3782-mtv-scream/

          Like our current Movie Of The Week, The Blair Witch Project, the 1996 slasher satire Scream was so wildly influential and successful that it split the history of horror into two distinct categories: before and after. Scream infected the slasher genre with a winking sense of self-awareness that led to a slew of imitators and knock-offs, including the sequels Scream 2 and Scream 3. For a good two- or three-year stretch, it seemed like every damn horror movie spent as much time winking at viewers as it did disemboweling teenagers for drinking alcohol and smoking the pot and engaging in the extramarital sex. By the end of the decade, audiences were damn near pleading with Hollywood to go ahead and just make a straight-ahead horror movie for once.

          By the time director Wes Craven (who first explored this meta-textual territory with 1994’s Wes Craven’s New Nightmare) and writer Kevin Williamson revisited the material for the franchise’s late-in-the-game third sequel, 2011’s Scream 4, there was a sense that its cultural moment had long since passed. But despite mixed reviews and a tepid domestic box-office of under $40 million, Scream 4 ended up making just under a $100 million worldwide thanks to surprisingly strong international grosses.

          So perhaps it should not be a surprise that MTV, the young people’s network (which doesn’t even play any damn videos anymore, or prominently feature the delightful Martha Quinn), has green-lit a 10-episode adaptation of the zeitgeist-capturing horror landmark. Dimension TV (along with Craven and Bob and Harvey Weinstein) will executive-produce the show; the pilot was directed by Jamie Travis (For A Good Time Call, the MTV show Faking It) and written by Jill Blotevogel, Jay Beattie, and Dan Dworkin. According to an earlier report in TheWrap, the television spinoff will not feature the famous “Ghostface” mask, at least initially, and “will follow a group of teens who dig into their town’s dark past after a viral YouTube video leads to a murder.” It does not say what manner of viral video leads to this bloodshed, but we’re guessing it’s either a kitten playing the piano or something involving Fred.

          Like

        • MTV Releases Trailer for Scream Television Series:
          http://officialfan.proboards.com/thread/521831/releases-trailer-scream-television-series

          Post by tigermaskxxxvii on 55 minutes ago
          I like the Randy Meeks-esque “You can’t do a slasher movie as a TV show” part. On the other hand, it’s kind of funny that MTV let this stay in the script of whatever episode it’s in (I’m guessing the pilot) and use it in the promo. It’s one thing to be meta and self-effacing. But to do in a way that just says “Yeah, this is built to fail”. That line is totally gonna be the rope that the critics hang this show with. Oh, well. At least everyone is gonna cash some checks until this eventually gets cancelled.

          Like

        • She apparently didn’t want to be typecasted as someone who only does Horror films which is why she declines doing so many of them. That said, she hasn’t actually done that many outside of the “Scream” series and “The Craft”, so I don’t think it’d hurt to do another one or two down the line for her.

          Like

  2. re: The movie attempted to raise a mere $50,000 on Kickstarter. In spite of Campbell’s presence, the project raised just over $11,000.

    I dunno ’bout you, but I found this factoid kind of sad. NOT sarcastic/she-deserves-it “sad,” but genuinely sad, as in unfortunate…you’d think Neve fans would pony up a few bucks each. But maybe it’s like with Winona Ryder: The guys (and gals?) that had crushes on Neve C graduated high school and/or college and “moved on,” as someone on these pages so aptly put it…and when you’re (reduced to) co-starring with Val Kilmer, the writing’s on the wall, I think, status-in-Hollywood-wise.

    Also, while she IS very attractive, I think she’s just an OK actress…but Ms. NC displays an aura of sexiness AND intelligence, which is nifty. However, she’s not getting any younger, so look for her on a prime time TV series in the near future. Best of luck to her, I say.

    Like

    • Yeah, I ended the article there because it seemed like an appropriate “O how the mighty have fallen!” kind of factoid. Having said that, I do believe the movie still went forward. I’m assuming they had other backing. $50,000 isn’t even enough money to distribute a movie. So I’m guessing it was meant to cover a fraction of some cost. Still, I doubt the movie will ever be released in theaters.

      I have to admit I have no real opinion one way or another on Campbell’s acting abilities. I never watched Party of Five. I know her from the Scream films, Wild Things and The Craft. I don’t think I have seen her in anything else. None of those films hinged on her acting ability.

      It definitely seems like she has been transitioning to TV. I expect that’s where her future lies.

      Like

      • I think another byproduct of Neve’s slip into irrelevancy if you want to call it that is the overall feeling that “Party of Five” itself has pretty much become a forgotten TV show from the ’90s. Hell, Lacey Chabert for example is if anything, probably more recognized now for “Mean Girls” than “Party of Five”:
        http://www.avclub.com/articles/party-of-five-is-the-great-forgotten-drama-of-the,100492/

        Like

        • Heck, Lacey C is not that “recognized” lately, either — otherwise why would she be posing in her underwear for MAXIM recently? What was the last movie (popular, decent, or good) was she in that WASN’T “Mean Girls”?

          There IS a reason why Fate’s Fickle Finger is called thus.

          Like

        • I thought being a Maxim girl was what Lacey Chabert was best known for.

          I don’t think many people remeber from Party of Five for 2 reasons. One, everyone seems to have forgotten Part of Five and poor, poor Scott Wolf. Two, on Party of Five, Chabert looked like this:

          And now she looks like this:

          Like

        • Well, I guess the Collective We won’t by hearing Ms. Lacey say, “I don’t want people to look at me as a sex object.” Or maybe we will, anyway. Kirsty Dunst said very similar in her ROLLING STONE article…you know the issue, the one where DUNST WORE VICTORIAN UNDERWEAR ON THE COVER.

          Like

        • Anyone who has ever appeared on the cover of Maxim (which includes Dunst) has no business complaining about being objectified.

          Chabert has appeared on the cover twice. Dunst once. Scrolling through a list it appears Bridget Fonda posed for the cover in 99 as did Orse McGowan (Campbell’s Scream co-star). Campbell herself has not been a Maxim girl.

          Campbell’s other Party of Five co-star, Jennifer Love Hewitt, has graced the magazine cover 4 times.

          Not sure who has the record. A quick Google search failed me.

          Like

        • re: Anyone who has ever appeared on the cover of Maxim (which includes Dunst) has no business complaining about being objectified.

          Bleepin’-A right there, daddy-o!

          Personally, I LIKE seeing nearly-naked boss-lookin’ ladies, really…but it’s galling when the gals that pose in the near-altogether get all pseudo-feminist about women being seen as [fill in blank] “in this society.”

          Like

        • re: I guess the Collective We won’t by hearing Ms. Lacey say, “I don’t want people to look at me as a sex object.”

          In her first Maxim she said that bs. Even, she said she wouldn’t do that again because she is shy. Yep, except perhaps her other Maxim and each forgettable movie that she has done.

          Like

        • re: In her first Maxim she said that bs. Even, she said she wouldn’t do that again because she is shy. Yep, except perhaps her other Maxim and each forgettable movie that she has done.

          GOSH, what a surprise! Is typical, and not unique to actors, either: Many of us wish to appear that we have INTEGRITY, standards, convictions, etc., but we’ll do WHATEVER benefits us the most in the long or short run. “Commercials? I’m A SERIOUS ACTOR — such things are beneath my dignity! I mean, I’ll DO commercials, but only where they’ll air in a nation that don’t talk English.” Nudity? “I refuse to be seen as a sex object! That’s why I posed naked on a yacht in Walden’s Pond — it’s a tribute to Don Henley, and VERY empowering to women everywhere.”

          Like

        • It’s funny what people can excuse in their own behavior. You can rationalize anything if you try hard enough.

          Having said that, if I could make a living posing for pictures, I would. Objectification would not be a concern. Sadly, I will never have the chance to profit off of my own objectification.

          Like

        • re: You can rationalize anything if you try hard enough.

          Yup.

          My attitude is: We all need to make a living — I get that. Do WHATEVER you want to make a living, but leave out the holier-than-thou bs.

          Like

        • Sure. But I get that most people aren’t very self aware. Like you say, that isn’t exclusive to actors. Most people excuse their own behavior when they would condemn someone else for doing the same thing. Or will attribute their own actions to a noble cause while assuming someone else didn’t have a good reason to do the same thing. Everyone lies to themselves a little. Everyone is guilty of a bit of hypocrisy. Some more so than others. It becomes really obvious with big stars posing in their underwear on national magazines. Doesn’t leave you a ton of wiggle room to get prudish.

          Like

        • re: Many of us wish to appear that we have INTEGRITY, standards, convictions, etc., but we’ll do WHATEVER benefits us the most in the long or short run.
          re: It becomes really obvious with big stars posing in their underwear on national magazines. Doesn’t leave you a ton of wiggle room to get prudish.

          Many people would do anything for profit.
          Many people want to appear that they are just, straights, moral.
          And people who do both. Or none.

          I would never be a drug dealer, for example. And I’m not saying never that I’m a saint.
          Miley Cyrus and Emily Ratajkowski aren’t saying that they are shy feminists.

          In this case “the bad Disney girls” have merit, they revealing that they’re dirty whores and they aren’t innocent princesses and/or aren’t acting like dirty whores and talking about themselves as innocent princesses.

          re: You can rationalize anything if you try hard enough.

          Fortunately, they cannot hide the scent of bullshit.

          Like

        • Out of sheer curiosity, I searched something with “empowered women” and she and found interesting things.


          I don’t dislike, I’m also agree that the girls should have role models mentors that inspire and teach them there are more opportunities for them to become in professionals and not only be boobs and legs in a magazine.

          Out of sheer curiosity I searched a “tribute to Don Henley” too, and no results, Idk who was the girl.

          Like

        • I mentioned “Don Henley” because Walden’s Pond or whatever was/is his pet charity and because he’s an arrogant celeb that likely has a yacht with lots of pretty things on it…and some of the pretty things don’t want to be seen as “sex objects,” I’ll wager. They sail with Captain Don because of his ecological concerns and his way with a lyric.

          Again, I just think it’s “funny” (in that ironic/oh-come-ON way) when some “actresses” say they don’t want to be viewed in a “sexual” way…especially because if they WERE NOT viewed as such, some of them would have no career. I’ve yet to hear ANYone male come away from seeing a movie starring Michelle Rodriguez saying, “Boy, her acting just gets better and better! She’s really come a long way as an actress!” No, most fellows (me included) say, “Golly, M-Rod sure is HOT, ain’t she?”

          Like

        • I recently watched the most recent Resident Evil movie. Don’t judge. Anyway, M-Rod and crew couldn’t act their way out of a wet paper bag with a hole cut out. But DAMN!

          Like

        • Well, at this rate, Lacey is doing much better than her “Mean Girls” co-star and previous WTHHT subject, Lindsay Lohan. I find it funny that Lacey Chabert has worked w/ several WTHHT alumni. She was of course on “Party of Five” w/ Neve Campbell, she was in “Daddy Daycare” w/ Eddie Murphy, and she was in the remake of “Lost in Space” w/ Heather Graham. I almost forgot that she was in “Not Another Teen Movie” (as a spoof of Jennifer Love Hewitt’s character in “Can’t Hardly Wait”) w/ Molly Ringwald.

          Like

        • I think you have just named every movie Chabert has ever made that was released theatrically.

          She’s doing fine as a sex symbol. And I’m sure she’ll continue to act in direct-to-DVD and Lifetime movies for quite a while. But I don’t see her ever being considered a legit actress the way Lohan once was. Heck, for all her problems, Lohan still has more of an acting career than anyone else in Mean Girls (SNL alumn excluded). Lohan is still a draw as an actress, so she keeps getting work despite being an embarrassment much of the time. Chabert is primarily a covergirl.

          Like

        • I think Ms. Chabert’s under utilization is partly because she chooses it:
          http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000327/board/flat/217670123?p=1

          Like

  3. I think maybe part of Neve Campbell’s problem is that at her peak, she was really more of a “star by association”. What I mean is that stuff like “Party of Five”, “The Craft”, and the “Scream” franchise were hits, but not necessarily because Neve was in them. It’s sort of no different than her “Scream” co-star Courteney Cox and “Three to Tango” co-star Matthew Perry w/ “Friends”. To put things into proper perspective, I would be hard pressed that many people were virtually dying to see the next “Neve Campbell movie” let alone the next “Scream” movie that just so happened to star Neve Campbell.

    I think another problem w/ Neve is that she suffers from the same problem if you will that for example Jason Patric suffered from. Neve Campbell strikes me as somebody who never really pursued whole-heartedly any further stardom. There’s an interview that Neve did a while back in which she’s quoted in saying that she never really wanted to become an actress in the first place. I don’t know if Neve was worried that she was going to become typecast as a “scream queen” and therefore decided to switch gears.

    The projects that she has made post-“Scream 3” seems to suggest this. Unfortunately, when you keep making smaller, more interpersonal, or indy projects (basically movies that Neve wants to make, not what the general public wants to see), then it’s very easy to forget about you. Neve Campbell at the end of the, is just like Alicia Silverstone for example, in that they’re really more of a “’90s starlet” (who has a hard type adjusting past their adolescent/young adult notoriety), who had their time and most of the general public has since moved on.

    Like

    • Definitely agree. Campbell was never really the draw even with her hit TV show and movies. She just happened to be in something that was successful. And clearly, she decided she had enough of that in 2000 when Scream and Party of Five came to an end. Although I do think that movies like Three to Tango and Wild Things show that Campbell did pursue mainstream movie stardom for a while.

      Like

    • They Didn’t Quite Make It Big, But Made Good Nevertheless: 15 Actors Who Barely Missed The A-List:
      http://styleblazer.com/132765/they-didnt-quite-make-it-big-but-made-good-nevertheless-15-actors-who-barely-missed-the-a-list/12/

      Of no relation to Bruce, Neve Campbell rose to prominence in the mid-1990s thanks to a starring role on the prime time soap Party of Five. During her television tenure Campbell took starring roles in horror films like The Craft and the Scream series. Then came Wild Things, a Hot neo noir that paired her with Denise Richards, Kevin Bacon, and Matt Dillion to become a sleeper hit in theaters and a major hit on video. 54 cast her alongside Mike Myers and Ryan Phillipe, but would not be quite find the same success. Still, Campbell seemed poised to overtake Hollywood until the early 2000s, when, like Sarah Polley, she began opting for parts in low-budget independent films like Panic (opposite William H. Macey), When Will I Be Loved, and Robert Altman’s The Company. Unfortunately, her indie endeavors removed her from a chance at Hollywood’s A-list, though the actress enjoyed a brief revival in 2011 reprising her starring role in Scream 4.

      Like

  4. Neve was at her hottest in 54. Like Bridget Fonda in Godfather III, I would’ve liked that film better if she had been in it more.

    Like

    • She actually had the perfect look for that movie. It’s a real shame how 54 turned out. I have a real fondness for the disco era and was really looking forward to 54. But then it turned out to be a limp soap opera. Really disappointing. Thank goodness for The Last Days of Disco which came out three months earlier. I definitely think 54 could have benefitted from more Campbell. But then, it could have benefitted from just about any changes. I’ll have to try and check out the director’s cut some day.

      Like

    • ‘It Girls’ Who Fizzled Out:
      http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/entertainment-itgirlswhofizzledout/6/

      Neve Campbell: Party of One

      Canadian actress Neve Campbell seemed to be the breakout star of TV’s “Party of Five,” but when she tried to translate that success to the big screen, she got roles in movies like “The Craft” and “Wild Things,” in which the most-talked-about aspect of her performance was an infamous lesbian kiss in a pool with Denise Richards. Her most successful film role so far has been as the stubborn survivor of the “Scream” franchise, but her non-“Scream” roles have been mostly forgettable.

      Like

  5. I always liked her, and I always thought she was somewhat under-rated. Pity she’s not been abel to make it outside the “Scream” franchise. Thanks for this post really enjoyed it

    Like

    • http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000024/thread/221159860?d=221194720#221194720

      her following vehicle outside scream franchise failed. it was wild things, with denise richards.

      not sure if the film was a hit or not. but it damaged the career of everyone involved. dunno why, hollywood jinx if you will.

      film is not bad, i saw it when it was new, and it had that “stablished actors trying to do super-sexy roles to show how wide their range is” feel to it.

      same thing happened to, lets say meg ryan, but she was already older. with neve it happened a few years after she broke out.

      Like

      • Wild Things (1998) : Neve Campbell horribly miscast INCLUDES ENDING SPOILERS!!!

        http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120890/board/flat/167211084?p=1

        Like

        • “Horrible miscast?” Because she wasn’t a blonde bimbo type? No. I think she was believebale enough for the world the movie creates. If they had cast someone who seemed more dim in the role, the final reveal may have been more surprising. But also less believable. Not that believability is really a factor when we’re talking about Wild Things. It was a joke, people.

          Like

      • I think a lot of people misunderstood Wild Things. It was a satire. It played things extremely straight so that it could also be enjoyed as a dumb erotic thriller. But underneath, it’s really making fun of those movies. If you watch it on that level, it’s great. I don’t agree that it hurt the careers of everyone involved. I don’t think it did much one way or another for Kevin Bacon or Matt Dillon. But it gave Bill Murray a chance to stretch a little. It helped build Denise Richards into a Bond girl – after which her career imploded. I would say it was a wash for Campbell. Didn’t help or hurt much at all.

        Like

  6. Assessing Neve Campbell: The Reluctant Scream Queen:
    http://www.pajiba.com/career_assessments/neve-campbell-career-assessment-the-reluctant-scream-queen.php

    Subject: Neve Campbell, 37-year old Canadian actress

    Date of Assessment: April 13, 2011

    Positive Buzzwords: Scream queen, television

    Negative Buzzwords: Limited range, ambivalent

    The Case: Ah yes, I vaguely recall an actress named Neve Campbell, who was fortunate enough to strike upon a rather popular franchise and make some quick cash before the world discovered that she possessed the a mere three facial expressions and, well, that was it. In short, Neve Campbell was the Kristen Stewart of the 1990s, albeit with far less lucrative paydays and a chronic head tilt instead of a lip-biting affectation. Now, after fifteen years in Hollywood, Campbell doesn’t have a hell of a lot to show for her time in the so-called spotlight. Interestingly, she herself has declared that “I never wanted to be an actor,” and I can’t help but think that this is one hell of an obvious statement in retrospect, for Campbell has always seemed like appearing in front of the camera was just too much damn work. She never really seemed like she wanted to be working in the first place, so why should we even bother with an assessment?

    That’s a damn good question, but I’m not entirely sure that I have an answer. Let’s just do this, shall we?

    As a teenager, Campbell set her sights on a career as a professional ballet dancer, but a series of injuries forced her to pursue a “Plan B” of sorts. As such, Campbell rose to a modest level of fame with “Party of Five,” wherein she made the Julia Salinger Pensive Race for a total of 143 merciless episodes. However, she’s best known for the role of Sidney Prescott in the Scream trilogy (and soon to be fourth movie). A few other movies also registered on the audience radar, including The Company, The Craft, and Wild Things; but beyond that, very few people have seen the rest of Neve Campbell’s movies. After all, Churchill: The Hollywood Years, Reefer Madness: The Movie Musical, and I Really Hate My Job aren’t exactly the types of films that spark cinematic interest on any sort of level.

    One can easily gather that Campbell, in the slightest of demonstrable ways, has grown slightly nervous about her own career’s steady downward trajectory. Accordingly, she’s shown a recent willingness to disrobe on film (2004’s When Will I Be Loved) whereas she previously adhered to a “no-nudity” clause (see 1998’s Wild Things, in which even Kevin Bacon got into the spirit by going full frontal). So sure, she made the conscious choice to go nude in movies for the sake of reviving her career; unfortunately, she continued to disregard the “acting” part of the job. And that’s the crux of the issue here, for Neve Campbell is no actress and never wanted to be one in the first place.

    Prognosis: At this point, Campbell’s own brand of apathetic desperation has actually reached new heights, for she has resigned herself to returning for the fourth Scream movie. It must be noted that while this sequel wouldn’t have happened without her participation, Campbell also wouldn’t even be on the radar without this sequel. Certainly, she received a nice pay day for returning to the franchise, which wouldn’t have a reason for existing beyond the Sidney Prescott character. She does have a few other movies (The Glass Man; Vivaldi) in various states of production, but the only real hope for career longevity would be for Campbell to land a supporting role in another network television program similar to “Party of Five.” In the grand scheme of things, will Scream 4 do anything to further Campbell’s career? Certainly not.

    Like

    • JEEZ, that Pajiba writer sure gave Neve C both barrels, huh?

      Ironically, Winona Ryder said in an interview — in the early or mid-’90’s? — that there are lots of people in the “acting biz” (my phrase, not hers) that aren’t really actors [I paraphrase] but they’re good-looking humans that want the big paydays and benefits that come with being an actor…or to be more exact, a “Hollywood star.” Ryder, whatever her faults, has always seemed to be serious about acting, whereas performers like Neve C are stars without really being actors. She “never wanted to be an actor”? Then what are you doing in all these movies surrounded by actors and such? I guess she likes the payday. Sorry, Neve, I do like you but as Clay put it: When you have 3 facial expressions (and talk in a virtual monotone, as does Michelle Rodriquez), your shelf-life in fickle Hollyweird is going to be limited.

      Like

      • Sexual Sarah Silverman’s Naturals:

        Sarah shows Dave her eerily accurate Neve Campbell impression (at the 2:04 mark).

        Like

      • Neve Campbell based on some of the interviews that I’ve seen her in kind of struck me as a woman who was slightly pretentious and rather ungrateful. Please note, that I’m not accusing Ms. Campbell of being difficult to work with as a reason for why her career suffered.

        Also please note, that I’m basing this primarily on memory (if I can find the clips on YouTube, than of course, it would help tremendously) and I’m going to paraphrase a bit. When “Party of Five” was canceled in the year 2000, I recall seeing Neve be interviewed on “Entertainment Tonight” saying something to the extent of “Well, I was going to leave the show anyway…” Granted, Neve did add that the news was “sad”, but there’s comes a point in time in which he have to do other things.

        When “Scream 3” came out that same year, I remember Neve being interviewed by Matt Lauer in the “Today” show on NBC. Towards the end of the interview, Lauer asked Neve (since “Scream 3” was at the time, promoted as being the last of the series) if she was somewhat sad about the end of the trilogy. Neve replied in saying something along the lines of “No, because as an artist, you have challenge yourself and grow” and therefore it was time to “move on”.

        Like

  7. PS: I can anticipate what some folks are gonna say: “Yes, but she’s been working steadily since…” Guess what, LOTS of people WORK, but few people have a burning ambition to be in movies that no one that doesn’t visit a Redbox is going to see or a movie that plays in 4 theaters before being exiled to the bin at Walgreen’s. Nevertheless, I wish Ms. NC luck.

    Like

    • 25 A-List Hollywood Actors Who Fell the F Off:
      http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/02/25-a-list-hollywood-actors-who-fell-the-f-off/neve-campbell

      Neve Campbell

      Best Known For: Scream (1996), Wild Things (1998)

      Most Recent Project: The Glass Man (2011)

      Roger Ebert once predicted big things for Neve Campbell. Of her work in Scream II, he said: “The camera loves her. She could become a really big star and then giggle at clips from this film at her AFI tribute.”

      It takes a little more than a ménage à trois in Wild Things and the role of leading lady’s voice in Lion King 2: Simba’s Pride to land that sort of tribute tribute. Still, Campbell has found a home in well-received, but not widely distributed indies, like Robert Altman’s The Company. Yes, she’s off the radar, but she still gets to work with the likes of William H. Macy and Jeremy Irons, so don’t feel too bad.

      Like

      • I previously brought up the notion of Neve perhaps being a female Jason Patric in which it seemed like they didn’t want to fully pursue mega-stardom so to speak. I also think that Neve Campbell has the same problem that another previous WTHHT subject has in Kirsten Dunst (i.e. deciding to narrow your target audience w/ movies the masses more than likely wouldn’t care much about). It seems like that Kirsten had made so much money off of doing the “Spider-Man” movies (similar w/ Neve and “Party of Five” residual checks and the “Scream” movies) that she decided that she from now on was going to do more quirky/off-beat, independent, “art-house” movies. Granted, Kirsten Dunst also had serious personal issues to deal w/ like her apparent alcoholism and depression issues.

        Like

      • Re: Whatever happened to Neve Campbell?

        http://www.lipstickalley.com/showpost.php?p=4633637&postcount=7

        Neve wasn’t your standard Hollywood beauty.

        Scream trilogy ended the little career she had.

        That is my guess.

        Like

        • ’90s movie stars we completely forgot about

          http://www.looper.com/40982/90s-movie-stars-completely-forgot/

          Neve Campbell

          Neve Campbell got her first big break when she was cast as Julia Salinger in the teen drama Party of Five. This led to major film roles, such as her starring appearances in The Craft and the Scream franchise. After the superstardom started to fade, Campbell continued to act on both the big and small screen. She reprised her role as Sidney in 2011’s Scream 4 and most recently appeared on season four of the Netflix original series House of Cards as political consultant and recurring character LeAnn Harvey.

          Like

    • There have been a few revelations since I started this series. One is that no one completely disappears. Steve Guttenberg still works steadily. So do Val Kilmer and Sean Young. Most people don’t know they are still working, but they are. Rick Moranis doesn’t act any more, but he still works in entertainment when it suits him. Once you achieve a certain level of stardom, there is always going to be something available to you.

      As for the “3 facial expressions” comment, that is still more than a lot of actors out there.

      Like

  8. “In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed (wo)man is king (queen).” – Lt. Columbo

    Like

  9. Great article! Glad to see WTTH is back!

    By the way, about a few months ago, I made my own What The Hell Happened? article with Jon Heder as the subject-http://www.manic-expression.com/apps/blog/entries/show/26143845-what-the-hell-happened-to-jon-heder-

    What do you think?

    Like

  10. re: I recently watched the most recent Resident Evil movie. Don’t judge. Anyway, M-Rod and crew couldn’t act their way out of a wet paper bag with a hole cut out. But DAMN!

    I shan’t judge. I saw “MACHETE KILLS” wherein M-Rod and co-star Amber Heard [SLIGHT SPOILER ahead] have a fight scene together, which was so appropriate as both are hot ladies that can’t act to save their lives. (Head, er, Heard recently said in an interview that she doesn’t want to be “a celebrity” because it’d detract from her “art.” HAH!!!)

    Like

    • Well, the lovely Ms. Heard did star in arty projects like Drive Angry in 3-D and The Playboy Club…

      Like

      • “Drive Angry” is one of the WORST of Nic Cage’s the-paycheck-cleared movies…and Heard was at least as expressive as a box of Totino’s Pizza Rolls (defrosted).

        Like

        • Drive Angry was so bad it was awesome. I love that movie. I howl every time I watch it. This is not an endorsement of its quality. William Fitcher is terrific in it. Heard is hot as hell. And Cage is giving one of his fun, goofy trademark performances without really trying. I know it’s crap. But it’s entertaining crap. Heard clearly had bigger things in mind for her future. And for a minute, I though she was on her way.

          Like

        • I hear you — some of “Drive Angry” was close to the so-bad-it’s-weirdly-entertaining zone. Fitchner was the lone touch of class. As for Ms. Amber H, looks will only carry one only so far — maybe Depp will have some influence on her career but she remains a pretty face/body that can’t act for . Otherwise, she’ll likely end-up in the same Dustbin of History as Sherilyn Fenn, Shannon Elizabeth, and other yummy-lookers that think “range” is something on which one might boil water.

          Like

        • I think Heard’s chance at stardom has past. She had a brief window where everything was lined up. She was cast in a ton of movies and none of them caught on. The Playboy Club was her last grasp at the brass ring. She’ll keep working as long as she wants to in low budget/indie/direct-to-video stuff. But she’ll never be A-list.

          Like

        • Dating Johnny Depp might be a good move for her. It could keep her in the public/casting director’s radar – maybe enough to land a lucky role.

          She’s hot- but pretty wooden.

          She might also be an example of someone who SHOULD NOT have come out- could have cost her a role or two.

          Like

        • I honestly had no idea she was bisexual or that she was dating Depp. Yeah, I can see how coming out might have hurt her career and dating Depp could give it a boost.

          I watched a couple episodes of The Playboy Club and that thing was a disaster. It didn’t do anyone any favors. I also so Heard in The Joneses with Demi Moore and David Duchovney. “One-dimensional” was the word I would use to describe her performance.

          Like

        • Star-Derailing Role:
          http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StarDerailingRole

          Amber Heard had a lot of buzz about her movie career, reaching its height when she beat actresses like Scarlett Johansson and Keira Knightley for the role of Johnny Depp’s Love Interest in The Rum Diary, which flopped at the box office. Then she starred in the dreadful flop TV show The Playboy Club, and her buzz was all but killed overnight. Heard’s next film, Paranoia was a critical and box office letdown, and it seems most likely that her career won’t reach new heights after that.

          Like

        • Why Amber Heard Isn’t a Bigger Star: An Investigation:
          http://cmplx.it/1br4wjY

          With “3 Days to Kill,” Amber Heard’s disappointing career in Hollywood continues. What gives?

          Like

    • Michelle Rodriguez vs Amber Heard?
      I need watch Machete Kills!!!

      Like

      • WAIT FOR THE DVD…oh wait, it’s probably not in theaters anymore…it was intermittently entertaining but it’s NOT worth $11~! (Mel Gibson out-Shatners Shatner, though!)

        Like

        • JK, No problem. I’ve never paid anything just for one scene.
          I prefer to watch it on TV or Youtube. Or never, don’t care.

          Like

  11. Neve Campbell “What The Hell Happened” – The Blind Items
    http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2013/12/blind-items-revealed_5031.html

    Like

    • Someone once told me: Every story has THREE sides – his/this; her/that, and THE TRUTH.

      I’m not sticking up for John C, but it does take two to, uh, tango — if Person #1 (regardless of gender/orientation) is “stringing along” Person #2 (ditto), realistically nothing is preventing Person #2 from saying, “You know, I don’t think this is working for me, I’ve waited long enough, so either things change (for the better) or I’m outta here.”

      I’m all for giving relationships “a chance” or 3, but if the same shite happens over & over again, it’s time to re-evaluate and/or tell him/her ta hit th’ road…dig?

      Like

      • 10 Formally Awesome Actors Who Made Us Forget Why They Were Great:
        http://whatculture.com/film/10-formally-awesome-actors-made-us-forget-great.php/5

        7. John Cusack

        Once upon a very many years ago, John Cusack was one of the straight up coolest sonofaguns on the planet. I know that may seem like an alien thought, one that jars uncomfortably with what you know to be true now. But stay the course and consider the evidence, he had films like the seminal “Stand By Me”, the never not cool “Grosse Point Blank””, the utterly haunting “The Thin Red Line” and bonkers film making weirdness at its very finest with “Being John Malkovich”. Indeed, for further evidence consider there exists a photograph where in Mr Cusack is in an open top car alongside Johnny Depp, Hunter S Thompson and an inflatable blow up sex doll.

        No context needed

        The man’s trademark pithy, mumbley, hyper intelligent, vulnerable confidence was equal parts Robert Downey Jr charm and snark as it was Johnny Depps pouting otherworldliness. He was always a pleasure to watch and you’d feel pretty secure in the knowledge that your eyes were in for an enjoyable performance. Then he just decided to stop being good apparently.

        Case in point, like to any recent additions to his filmography – things like “2012″, “The Raven” and “The Number Stations” as tangible evidence that he’s apparently decided a decisive career move would be to become awful and star in terrible movies.

        Nostalgia Rating – The disappointment of seeing a once suave, confident and successful friend pleadingly trying to sell second hand cars to frat boys humming Pitbull remixes of Vampire Weekend.

        Like

        • 10 Ways John Cusack Can Get His Swag Back:
          http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/04/10-ways-john-cusack-can-get-his-swag-back/

          When we first caught a glimpse of the preview for this weekend’s Edgar Allan Poe-inspired thriller, The Raven, not a head in the room was left unshaken. From a premise that reads like a weird rip-off of Urban Legend to a hilarious moment featuring the gun-wielding author crying, “I’ll send you to hell!” from behind a rock, each clip surpasses the last as proof that this flick may take the cake as the most unintentionally funny of the season.

          Stepping into Poe’s shoes is none other than John Cusack, who, in this unforeseen take on the author’s life, has his work cut out for him portraying the troubled wordsmith as a serial killer-chasing action hero, one in the midst of trying to put the kibosh on a series of murders modeled after his own stories. We have a few choice words for the film’s star on the matter. To quote a certain titular raven, “Nevermore.”

          As Cusack fans, it saddens us to see one of Hollywood’s most iconic actors rocking with roles such as these, especially when they feel like such a far cry from the symbol of hope he embodied in Say Anything. John, we know you’re deserving of better. If we could (you know, say anything), we’d advise you to pay special attention, because we’ve got just the Rx for that resume dip: 10 Ways John Cusack Can Get His Swag Back.

          Like

        • The Battle For Relevancy: 15 Stars Struggling To Stay Popular:
          http://styleblazer.com/170465/the-battle-for-relevancy-15-stars-struggling-to-stay-popular/8/

          Middle age has not been kind to John Cusack. The handsome actor has always been perfectly suited for quirky comedies, romances, and the odd action film or two. Unfortunately Cusack has seemed to have a hard time moving past those niche roles. More theatrical turns in films like The Raven, The Paperboy, and The Frozen Ground have failed to resonate with audiences or critics, making us wonder what the future holds for Cusack. At the age of 47, the star can’t quite return to the sorts of lovelorn man-boy archetypes he played in High Fidelity, Grosse Point Blank or Say Anything. This may be why he’s dodging Hot Tub Time Machine 2 in favor of projects like Lee Daniel’s The Butler and the upcoming David Cronenberg feature Maps To the Stars. Said projects reek of Oscar-bait, but also the sort of quirkiness we’ve come to love the actor for. Perhaps the two elements will combine to create a legitimate Cusack comeback.

          Like

        • John Cusack (I) : What did this guy do to destroy his career:
          http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000131/board/flat/231536273?d=233634139#233634139

          Money. It’s as simple as that.

          He did what so many other actors in similar situations have done, instead of being a small fish in a big pond, he decided to become a big fish in a small pond.

          John Cusack never was the kind of a star who could open a $100M movie on his own, in other words he was never a Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Willis, or even a Nic Cage level star, but he was more or less the dependable actor who would do big movies that had ensemble casts, or star in smaller movies.

          I guess those kinds of roles stopped coming in, or they weren’t what he wanted, so he decided to start cashing in and started doing these low budget DTV movies, and why wouldn’t he.

          He is still considered to be an A-list star, and therefore he can make a LOT of money in these DTV productions, just like Cage, Willis or Sam Jackson.

          And these movies don’t have long shooting schedules, most of them are filmed in 3-5 weeks maybe, and they usually hire the bigger stars for a week or two at the most.

          So someone like Cusack can make a couple of million by working a couple of weeks and then go home or go do another movie.

          Whereas if he would do a big movie like 2012, the filming would take months, and in addition he would have to go on these long international promotional tours that can last for weeks, giving out hundreds of interviews etc. etc.

          That is not the case with these smaller movies. They are released straight to VOD or on DVD, and they are already pre-sold based on the names on the poster, so there is minimal promotion. Maybe a talk show appearance and a day of interviews and that’s it.

          It’s an easy and fast paycheck for the star.

          Like

      • You’re right, but some girls are stupid (some guys too, of course).
        It’s psychological too. When a gambler bet and loses much in a game, then keep playing and betting (and often losing more) so they “could” win then the loss wasn’t loss but “a investment”.
        That happen a lot in relationships. Many people are enslaved in relationships with no future, or they are losing their dignity, just because they have spent many and good years.

        Like

    • Interesting rumor. Personally, I don’t buy it. Not for a minute. Campbell and Cusack did have an on-again-off-again relationship. And Cusack behaved badly. But I don’t believe that Campbell ruined her career trying to marry him. Even if she told me that, I wouldn’t believe it. Sounds like the kind of thing a bitter ex might say, but that doesn’t make it true.

      Like

      • The site have good and confirmed rumors, but I also thought what you say at the end.

        However, I have seen many women doing crap that they don’t want, that hurts them and against their selfesteem, just because was asked by a dick. Then later they are complaining and unhappy. So, it don’t seem incredible to me.
        He is a douche and she is compliant without selfrespect. Anything is possible.

        Like

        • I don’t doubt for a minute that Campbell’s relationship with Cusack hurt her career. Or that she blames him for ruining it. Those things seem possible. But the rumor makes Campbell out to be a victim to the extent that she is somehow blameless for her own career. Apparently, Cusack talked Campbell out of a franchise? Who’s to say that was a bad move? Which franchise? He certainly didn’t stop her from making Scream sequels.

          Like

        • The whole Neve Campbell-John Cusack thing somehow reminds me of Kim Basinger’s relationship w/ Alec Baldwin possibly having a negative effect on her career. I’ve posted in Kim Basinger’s WTHHT comment section articles pointing to how Alec Baldwin’s alleged jealousy and overall domineering presence supposedly wrecked havoc w/ Kim’s career.

          Now I don’t know for sure of course, what exactly happened between Neve and John Cusack. I do think however that this “blind item” is too crucial if you want to call it that, to not be overlooked. I would even suggest that it should be added or integrated to Neve Campell’s WTHHT article. I have followed that Crazy Days and Nights blog for sometime. There’s even a rumor out there that Robert Downey, Jr. is a frequent blogger/insider/”tattle-tale” named “Himmmm”.

          Like

        • OR it could just be that fickle Hollywood is tired of Neve’s 2.5 facial expressions and near-monotone delivery…just has it will likely tire of Kristin Stewart, the Neve C of our day (unless KS learns to really act).

          Like

        • http://www.lipstickalley.com/showpost.php?p=19431820&postcount=56

          As for Neve…sorry no sympathy here. She had an obsession with a dude who she knew was banging different girls for years. Bird brain, bye.

          Like

    • Re: Reese Witherspoon: Racist Backstabber?

      http://www.lipstickalley.com/showpost.php?p=11677443&postcount=115

      Wait..did anyone guess Courteney Cox? The actress she backstabbed could be Neve Campbell who took the lead in Scream where Court met her husband David. At the time, Neve had a hit show with Party of Five. Since then…nothing. And Court is from an affluent family from Alabama. And she’s been around for a while…the Springsteen video, Family Tides, Ace Ventura movie.

      Like

    • Re: John Cusack Says Hollywood is a “Whorehouse” & Almost Like Kiddie Porn:
      http://www.lipstickalley.com/showpost.php?p=19421270&postcount=17

      July 17, 2013

      She will talk about it now. Sometimes. She has to be in a good mood and you have to catch her at just the right time. I have known her forever, and even I don’t know everything there is to know. She says it started off great and that she was shocked to be the focus of this guy who at the time seemed to be at the center of the universe. He was A list. He was movies. he was everywhere. He was in everything and people loved him and worshiped him and here he was, dating her. Not just dating her but romancing her and convincing her to leave the guy she was with because he was going to be next to her forever and never leave and everything he said was wonderful. That was the thing though. A lot was words.

      When they started dating, the whole e-mail thing was new, and cell phones were great, but texting was not something you did all the time. He was on sets and word would get back to her about the women he was seeing, but then he would call her every night and they would talk and he would make it right. That is the thing. he would always make it right. When she would actually catch him cheating he would send over huge presents. She used to be almost A list. She trashed her career for him because he would keep telling her they were going to get married and she should prepare for it so she would turn down work during that time period and then he would cancel the wedding a month or two before, just to mess with her. He told her franchises were dumb so she walked away from one and turned down another just because she always did what he said.

      They had a lot of breakups but she would always take him back. She was the one fighting. he was always with someone else or several people and she would have to work to get him back and then he would hurt her again. Even after the split was finally permanent, the scars were there. It took almost a year for every year they were together for her to start feeling normal again. Normal enough to start talking about it. I know there is more, but it comes out very slow. She does enjoy the fact his career has stalled. He has probably dropped to B+ although he usually is the lead in movies he stars in. She has moved back up to B- again and has moved on. She does not know what she will do if she runs into him. Last time she saw him she hid in her car for an hour until she was sure he had gone.

      John Cusack/Neve Campbell

      Like

  12. ok not once did you answer where she is..instead you give her life story..learn write

    Like

    • I think you left off a “to”. 😉 Might want to start using capital letters and punctuation when you are telling someone to (I assume) learn TO write. But thanks for that valuable feedback. I’ll treasure it always.

      Like

  13. Heard that Neve is in talks to star in a legal pilot for TNT…….

    http://tvguide.com/News/Neve-Campbell-TNT-Guilt-By-Association-1077816.aspx

    Like

    • Good luck to Ms. Neve! (And that’s not sarcasm…honest.)

      Like

    • Neve Campbell exits “Guilt by Association”:
      http://www.deadline.com/2014/02/neve-campbell-exits-tnt-pilot-guilt-by-association/

      The “Party of Five” alum had a change of heart about the TNT legal drama pilot.

      Like

      • Why, Neve, WHY?!? And tonight only an hour or so ago I wished you luck!

        The Campbell Curse has struck…again? WTF?

        Like

        • lol – sounds like the Shemp curse to me. You shouldn’t have wished her luck. 😉

          Like

        • re: sounds like the Shemp curse to me.

          Believe me, I considered that too.

          Like

        • I saw. I wonder if we will see her again.

          Either way, it was a pleasant surprise. Now I’ll ask the question I asked on FB. When did Pete become the most well-adjusted character on the show?!?

          Like

        • Neve Campbell on ‘Mad Men,’ ‘90s Nostalgia, and Why the ‘Scream’ Movie Franchise is Over:
          http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/14/neve-campbell-on-mad-men-90s-nostalgia-and-why-the-scream-movie-franchise-is-over.html

          he star of ‘90s favorites ‘Scream,’ ‘The Craft,’ and ‘Party of Five’ discusses her mysterious new role on the AMC series, her film career, and more.
          Now she’s played a big role in two of the coolest decades.

          Sunday night’s Season 7 premiere of Mad Men treated us to a host of familiar faces. There was Don Draper (Jon Hamm), in all his brooding, solipsistic glory; Megan Draper (Jessica Pare) and her delusions of Hollywood stardom, as well as a very Sharon Tate-y pad; Roger Sterling (John Slattery) engaged in a strange ménage-a-trois with a hippie; Peggy Olson’s (Elisabeth Moss) problems with her new boss.
          But there was one recognizable new face: Neve Campbell.
          If you grew up in the ’90s, Campbell was a big part of your formative years with starring roles in Party of Five, The Craft, Scream, Wild Things, and more. On Mad Men, she was transported to a Pan Am flight in ’69, where she just so happened to be seated next to everyone’s favorite ad man, Don Draper. In a strange moment of candor and sincerity, the rakish boozehound opened up to the stunning mystery lady about the pitiable state of his marriage, and even more mysteriously, turned down her not-so-subtle tryst offer.

          Campbell spoke to The Daily Beast about her exciting new Mad Men character and all things ‘90s.

          How were you cast on Mad Men? I understand it’s a very secretive process.

          My manager called and said there was a character on the show that Matt Weiner was considering a few people for, and as a big fan of the show, I said “absolutely.” I did a few scenes that were sent over with Matt. Matt talked to me about the energy of the character in the scene, and that she does possibly represent someone who might be a catalyst for Don, and that there was a vulnerability but he also wanted to feel a strength in her.

          It’s a fascinating character because, although she only has about five minutes of screen time, she has a very rich backstory.

          Considering what she’s experienced in the past year with losing her husband, and then living in the generation she does, finding herself living as a widow, there was a lot to play with as an actress. And the fact that her husband was an alcoholic and that she watched him spiral downward, I thought about that history and what that would do to me, and what kind of person that would make me.

          And here she finds herself attracted to another alcoholic in Don.

          Yeah. [Laughs] That tends to be a pattern with people, anyway.

          The ebb-and-flow of their interaction is fascinating. She initially rejects Don when he goes in for a kiss, saying, “I’m gonna close my eyes now.”

          I think that within the conversation she just hit an emotional peak, and in discussing her husband, she’s suddenly found herself back with him in her mind, so there’s too much melancholy to consider anything physical at that moment.

          She really does bring out some candor in Don, who admits to her, “[Megan] knows I’m a terrible husband…I keep wondering, have I broken the vessel?”

          Don’s suddenly in a very vulnerable place in his life where everything has fallen apart, and since she’s so open and vulnerable in sharing her story, I think it gives him more room to share. Also, her story is something he can relate to, and hear, and he might realize that the effect my character’s husband had on her might echo the damage he’s causing his own family.

          And then Don turns around and rejects her later on with a work excuse. Don wouldn’t have come close to rejecting your character in prior seasons. Why now?

          He is feeling very vulnerable right now and maybe hitting bottom, in a way. When that occurs to a person, you don’t have the confidence—or perceived confidence—you might have had in the past. It’s exciting because it’s an interesting time for Don because he’s a character who people think they know, so it will be fun to see where he goes this season.

          Your character has a great look, with the short bob and the checkered dress. Did you have any say in it?

          Matt has very strong opinions about everything—as he should—which is why the show has been so good for so long, because he’s very obsessive-compulsive about things, but I had some say in the clothes, and there was a picture in an article from the ‘60s that was on the counter in my trailer and they said, “That’s the hairstyle Matt’s chosen.”

          I’m curious why you think the ladies love Don so much. He really is the epitome of the cliché “women want him and men want to be him.”

          [Laughs] There’s something so intriguing about his character and the way that he plays it. He doesn’t wear his emotions on his sleeve. He’s a strong, sexy, intelligent character, but at the same time, you know there’s something else brewing underneath. I think people are attracted to that. And the man can wear a suit.

          Are we going to see more of you this season?

          I’m not allowed to answer that! I’m sorry…

          I grew up with a lot of your films, and movies like Scream still hold up so well. Have you ever received a bad prank phone call?

          No, I haven’t! I haven’t, weirdly. I unfortunately had some stalkers during that time but no weird prank calls. Although Halloween is always fun because I’ll be at the door handing out candy and someone will come by in a Scream mask. It’s just an easy costume, now. I’ll just be Ghostface!

          Are we going to see another Scream film?

          I don’t think we’ll see it again. I know they’re doing a TV show for MTV that I just read about, but originally they’d talked about Scream 4 being the beginning of another trilogy, but once we made it, it was such a challenge to do a good job with it, give the audience what they wanted, have it be fresh, and have it still retain the elements from the older movies people loved so much. I think we did a good job with it, but I don’t know if you can do it again and again and again. We’d be pushing it. So I think they’re smart with just doing a TV show and leaving it alone.

          The Craft is so great as well. There was actually this outdoor screening of it last summer in Brooklyn and people were dressed up and everything. I heard that some strange occurrences went down while filming…is that true?

          I remember us talking about it back then. I think, when we were young and silly, we were like, “It was magic! The ocean came up and took part of the set away!” But I think that was just us being silly. But I’m still really good friends with Rachel True and Robin Tunney. I’ve lost touch with Fairuza [Balk] a bit. They actually did a screening of it at the L.A. Cemetery, and there were 5,000 people there all sitting on blankets and some were in costumes. It really ended up with a cult following, which is fun. It was my first time seeing it since the premiere, and we all had a glass of wine in the trailer and were laughing. You can’t take it too seriously! But it’s a lot of fun.

          Wild Things is really one of those crazy ‘90s, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink movies. How do you feel looking back on the movie?

          Oh, Wild Things. I haven’t seen it since it came out! But you know, it was a fun romp. We had a really good time. John McNaughton was a kooky, dark director, and we shot it in Miami, so it was a fun experience for me when I was 23. Plus my character is a psycho.

          A lot of people seem very nostalgic for the ‘90s these days. Things really seemed to be going well—the economy, TV, movies. What’s your take on the ‘90s?

          Gosh… that’s a big question! I can tell you that, for me, personally, I was working so much so while some may say I was at the forefront of the ‘90s, I didn’t play much. But I think you’re right. I think we’d gotten past a lot of the cheese of the ‘80s and people had settled down a bit. It felt in the ‘90s that people didn’t really know how to identify themselves as clearly as other decades, but now it feels like it was clearer than we knew.

          What are the ‘90s trends you miss the most, or the most regrettable ones?

          I don’t think there’s anything I miss. [Laughs] The grunge thing was a little bit atrocious. “Let’s all put on plaid shirts and be as dirty as possible!”

          Shell necklaces and guys with rings… those I wasn’t so crazy about.

          [Laughs] Oh, absolutely. Brilliant.

          What’s next for you?

          I have an indie I shot with William H. Macy and Virginia Madsen called Walter, but to be honest, I’ve just been very busy enjoying being a mom, and being picky about what I take. I’m not getting much sleep, but I’m working at it! But I’m absolutely loving it. I was offered a TV show on TNT but it was the outright lead, and wasn’t something I wanted to make at the moment. Plus, being the outright lead on a TV show means 15 hours a day, seven days a week, and that means leaving before my son wakes up and returning after he goes to bed, and to me, that’s not being a mother. So I’m just in this new world of navigating what projects are right to me while being a mother.

          Like

  14. I believe becoming a mama in recent times was part of the reason she passed as maybe it
    was a bit too soon to get back to the grind of a weekly show,to be honest!!!

    Like

  15. Heard that Julia Stiles was tapped to replace her…….

    http://vulture.com/2014/03/julia-stiles-gulit-by-association.html

    Like

  16. My thoughts on Neve Campbell are- meh-

    Does she actually have any fans? Almost every other actor here has impressed or touched us in some way- Campbell- at her best- was a placeholder- her worst- a wet blanket.

    I don’t dislike her- I just have achieved almost complete apathy in regards to her career.

    Like

    • She definitely has fans. I’m not one of them personally. I would best describe myself as apathetic same as you. But she was good on Mad Men last night. I always like to see a WTHH subject pop up somewhere. Especially a quality show like MM.

      Like

    • Flopped Actors/Actresses Thread:
      http://forums.boxoffice.com/index.php?/topic/6035-flopped-actorsactresses-thread/page-5#entry472128

      Neve Campbell is a good example of a flopped actress. She was sexy as hell. I fantasized about her so much when I was younger. I had her FHM shoot all over my walls. But anyway, yeah, ummm, she starred in Scream, and she was good, then the 3 sequels over the years, but she never really did anything else apart from rely on that franchise. Apart from her Party of Five days, I’ve not seen her in much else besides knowing she was in Wild Things and Studio 54. A true flop. Courteney Cox went on to do more TV (Cougar Town) and she had Friends, so she was safe from the flop pitfall.

      In fact, a few from Scream could be referred to as flops: Skeet Ulrich, Jamie Kennedy, and David Arquette (best thing he did was marrying Courteney Cox). One that I forgot about until now is Sarah Michelle Gellar, not just a Scream victim, but also an I Know What You Did Last Summer victim. She was supposed to be a big star and apart from on TV with Buffy, she never got there in films. She has done films since that time, but she was supposed to be the next big thing. I don’t know, what do you guys think about SMG?

      Lee Evans could be another one. I remember after Mouse Hunt that he was propelled to be the next comedic star, and that never panned out. I love Lee Evans’ comedy, and while he is still big in the UK, it’s only in stand-up, not in films since 1997. Well, he did do a Jackie Chan team-up movie called The Medallion, but nobody saw it.

      Then there’s Kenan & Kel who had Good Burger then vanished only to be seen again in Snakes on a Plane, though only one of them was present. Big flops.

      Another Scream victim, Matthew Lillard, never hear of him anymore. Wow, and Rose McGowan. Just take a look at Scream’s cast list to answer this thread’s question.

      The only one to escape that curse is Tim Olyphant and Drew Barrymore, and not by that much.

      Like

  17. Fan Rant: Career Killing Crushes:
    http://news.moviefone.com/2010/01/09/fan-rant-career-killing-crushes/

    Last night I finished watching a new straight-to-video comedy called Falling Up. It was pretty mediocre, but I watched it mainly because it had a good cast: Annette O’Toole, Mimi Rogers, Joe Pantoliano and Snoop Dogg. OK. I didn’t watch it for them, entirely, but because of Rachael Leigh Cook. I have had a movie crush on Rachael for years and this will be the fourth straight-to-video movie I have endured just for another glimpse of those amazing eyes. But the question is: why is she in all these straight-to-video movies? If my adoration for her has endured, why has her career not done the same thing? But the scariest thing of all is that Rachael is not the only movie crush of mine that has seen a marked dip in her career. Are my affections somehow cursed? Am I a career killer?

    Rachael first made a splash as the young Jackie O in The House of Yes (1997), and then starred in a genuine hit, She’s All That (1999), as the nerdy girl who gets the question: “do you really need to wear those glasses?” Following that was a flurry of five major films in two years, all of which landed with a giant, collective thud. There was Sylvester Stallone’s remake of Get Carter, the lame comedy Blow Dry, and the tepid Western Texas Rangers. The paranoid thriller Antitrust may well qualify as a guilty pleasure, at least, and Josie and the Pussycats is definitely a guilty pleasure. I loved that film; I loved the punk/pop music and its cheerful parody of the music business. But of course, everyone else hated it.

    I think that small window of releases was Rachael’s big chance. She needed to use that time to establish a screen persona, and couldn’t do it with those five roles. It has nothing to do with her talent or presence, and certainly she has a unique combination of porcelain beauty as well as an adorable, approachable quality, matched with a tough tomboy matter-of-factness. I think she needed either to work with a great director or to score a big hit, or at least a cult classic. After that I saw disease-of-the-week movie Stateside (2004) at a press screening, which then never opened theatrically. The terrific little movie 11:14 was rescued from video oblivion and given a small theatrical release in 2005. And she appeared in Nancy Drew (2007), and that’s about it. Fortunately she works a lot, and her IMDB resume has more than 60 films and TV shows on it over the course of 15 years.

    Another crush I feel bad about is Shannyn Sossamon. She, of course, was discovered in that famous and slightly annoying way at Gwyneth Paltrow’s birthday party (she was helping the D.J.). She made her movie debut in Brian Helgeland’s A Knight’s Tale (2001), which was one of those movies that charms you, even though you should probably know better. I thought she was fine in that film, but I wrote that she looked a little like a second-tier Angelina Jolie. One thing that holds true for my movie crushes is that I tend to like their movies better than most other people; it’s as if the women give me an instant connection to and understanding with the material. I liked Shannyn much better in her second film, 40 Days and 40 Nights (2002), from cult director Michael Lehmann (Heathers), which — of course — most people hated. Shannyn became her own actress in this film, becoming sexy and smart and unique all in one fell swoop. I dare anyone not to be moved by that scene with the feather.

    The Rules of Attraction followed, and — surprise — it was yet another one I liked that no one else did, and I liked Shannyn even better than before. Sadly, that was it. She had been given an even smaller window than Rachael, and her time was up. She re-teamed with director Helgeland and star Heath Ledger for The Order (2003), but everyone knows what happened with that one. She had dinky parts in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005) and The Holiday (2006) and a lead role in another universally hated horror film, One Missed Call (2008). I loved Wristcutters: A Love Story (2006), and hoped that it might catch on as a cult classic, but I’m not sure that has happened yet.

    Besides Rachael and Shannyn, there are a dozen other actresses with the same or similar fates. In the old days, stars were given a chance. Humphrey Bogart and John Wayne were both in films for decades before their screen persona emerged and they became leading men and stars. Nowadays, no one has any patience. We need immediate payoff. If an actor doesn’t deliver in 18 months, that’s it. Of course, though these girls chose their own material and directors, it’s not entirely their fault. How can anyone know how a movie turns out? It’s a rule in Hollywood that no one ever sets out to make a bad movie. And in the case of women, too many roles are passive and uninteresting, and all my movie crushes have been forced to play them at some point.

    Another movie crush of mine is Neve Campbell, who looked like she was on top of the world after leaving “Party of Five” and landing the lead role in the Scream franchise. She starred in Robert Altman’s great, underrated The Company (2003), and even snagged story and producer credits on that film. I interviewed her at the time, and she effortlessly charmed me with her freckled beauty. Later that day, there was some buzz that she might be playing silent star Louise Brooks in a new biopic. I had high hopes, but to this day I have only seen one other Campbell film in the theater: James Toback’s When Will I Be Loved (2004). True to form, I liked it and no one else did.

    It seems as if Neve did everything right; she worked with top directors, appeared in some huge hits and clearly established herself. And then… what happened? Perhaps it’s that all three women came off as smart and self-reliant. Who knows? Perhaps it’s just the turning of the tide. Look at Scarlett Johansson, who may or may not be the greatest actress on the planet, but happened to choose a long string of fascinating projects and became a bankable star. Then look at Penelope Cruz, who was another crush of mine many years ago. Her move from Spanish films to Hollywood films didn’t immediately click and it looked as if she was going to fade away forever. But then, slowly, carefully, she landed the right roles at the right times, and now she’s back in a big way.

    I wish I could see my crushes Rachael, Shannyn and Neve around more often. But I hope they’re happy and working often enough to pay the rent. I hope they’re not too upset about the twist of fate that took them away from the limelight. I hope they don’t take it too personally. They really shouldn’t. And if they don’t take it personally, then I won’t either.

    Like

    • re: Humphrey Bogart and John Wayne were both in films for decades before their screen persona emerged and they became leading men and stars. Nowadays, no one has any patience. We need immediate payoff. If an actor doesn’t deliver in 18 months, that’s it.

      YA KNOW, you bring up a very good point! Heck, look at TV shows — SO many fine/decent shows in the past few years have gone down the terlit ‘coz they weren’t “immediate” hits. Meanwhile, most folk forget (or didn’t know) that neither MAS*H nor ALL IN THE FAMILY were “hits” in their debut seasons.

      As for all these actresses: Heck, Hollyweird has a “tradition” of chewing them up/spitting them out, and let’s face it: No matter how cute/adorable/hot/lovable an actress might be, there are only so many (decent) roles to go ’round and there’s always someone younger/cuter/etc. coming along soon after her. Then, there awaits the Direct-to-DVD Purgatory…and while I know that not “all” d-2-DVD movies are crap, many of them sadly ARE.

      Like

  18. How about Neve Campbell’s “The Craft” co-star Fairuza Balk as a future WTHHT subject:
    http://www.hitfix.com/galleries/overlay/17-career-comebacks-wed-love-to-see/1.js

    Fairuza Balk
    Best known for: “The Craft,” “American History X,” “The Waterboy”
    Last seen in: Straight-to-DVD thriller “Dose of Reality”
    Comeback plan: Balk was one of the most intriguing screen presences of the mid-to-late ’90s, winning mainstream attention with her killer performance in the 1996 teen-witch thriller “The Craft” and following it up most memorably with a genuinely gonzo turn in the Edward Norton Neo-Nazi drama “American History X.” And yet perhaps owing to her left-of-center persona, her career all but dried up by the early noughties, relegating her to supporting roles in a string of little-seen indie dramas. It was only when she popped up in a brief but memorable role in Werner Herzog’s “Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans” that I was reminded of what a strikingly singular talent she is. It’s hard to know exactly where to go from here given how long she’s been out of the mainstream public consciousness, but I’d love to see her hook up with one of her old cinematic collaborators – she’s worked with everyone from Wim Wenders to Cameron Crowe – who can help get her on the comeback trail.
    – Chris Eggertsen

    Like

    • Fairuza Balk : Why is she not a ‘bigger star’?

      http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000103/board/flat/218788659?p=1

      by Sttardust » Sun Aug 25 2013 20:28:38
      Have you seen her/her personality and the roles she’s done? (rhetorical)

      It’s easy to see why she was never a “star”. Similar to why Juliette Lewis couldn’t really become one, despite much better opportunities and greater recognition. Yep, The Craft definitely gives indication that she’d made a great Quinn; and I agree she deserves more, substantial roles.
      Her Dorothy is a sentimental favorite (as is the film).

      by MissAngelCakes » Sat Mar 22 2014 15:50:49
      Fairuza is a hugely talented actress and has been in a lot of great, kinda high profile films.

      I guess from a PR standpoint she’s difficult to market and that’s what it’s all about.

      She doesn’t have that obvious sex-appeal (yet she’s still gorgeous) and she’s not exactly the “Americas sweetheart” type like Julia Roberts or Sandra Bullock.

      I’d love to see her in a high profile role soon! She has a good shot at an Oscar nomination.

      by sandrothenecromancer » Thu May 8 2014 09:18:12
      I think the real problem is she’s mostly famous for playing wild goth girl types and now she’s almost 40. Hopefully at some point she’ll find a way to reinvent her image and start making bigger movies again.

      by Going_Solo » Sat May 10 2014 14:25:45
      because she is not good enough … her acting seems limited to the same sort of roles…and I bet she isn’t very good at accents

      What makes me laugh is how she has posted on her face book, etc, a number of times about how she dislikes the mainstream Hollywood industry… you can bet it is because she isn’t finding any roles in bigger movies and that is her way of letting her steam off about it.

      She is not the main role kind of actress. No one wants to see her in anything that’s the main role…. or even a big role. This is the reason why she is not in many films,,, or many big films so to speak. The audience likes their main actors (the person that is going to take them into this world and will be their eyes and ears into this world). I would say Neve Campbell is a more main role kind kind of actress..I haven’t seen her in many things, but she does seem that type. Fairuza doesn’t…. look who got the bigger roles and better work after the Craft… not Fairuza

      She will just fade away into even more obscurity, carry on making her stupid candles and rely on her fans posts of “I loved you in the Craft, you were awesome” and “Fairuza, you are so beautiful” to keep her going

      Oh yeah and her weird religions/Wiccan rigmarole

      Hollywood is truly a place of nut-cakes

      by Going_Solo » Mon May 12 2014 03:40:28
      I have seen most of them… and bits and pieces of others

      Even when she tries to NOT be the type I said, it seems like she is trying to hard and she ends up looking the same.

      Her range is some what limited

      Like

    • STYLE HEROINE: FAIRUZA BALK:
      http://miista.com/style-heroine-fairuza-balk/

      Remember her?

      Fairuza Balk was a ’90s movie staple. Immediately recognizable, one of those actresses who always seemed to just be playing themselves on screen, she came to fame with the 1996 film The Craft. She played Nancy, HBIC of a high school coven of amateur witches which finds real power with the arrival of the new girl in town, their forth member. Nancy is a black lipstick and combat boots kind of girl, rough around the edges with a penchant for esoteric spirituality — not too far off from Fairuza. Prior to this film she had racked up a good amount of experience; her debut feature film was the Miista HQ favorite Return to Oz, a loosely based, unofficial Wizard of Oz sequel that has come to gain a cult following. As Dorothy she comes back to the magical land of Oz, accompanied by a talking chicken, and meets up with various creatures who collaborate in an effort to save Emerald City. It’s as awesome as it sounds.

      Fairuza’s acting career never really took off; she had a bunch of solid films in that one shining decade and was definitely a known face but once 2000 hit she mainly took on smaller supporting roles. Not overcome by nonstop acting work left her time for other pursuits like singing, writing and candle making. She released a single in 2010 called Stormwinds under the name Armed Love Militia. She grew up with a dancer mother and psychedelic rocker father, so song and dance are in her blood. Vestacha International is her candle company which prides itself on custom blended scents and a hand-poured product. With emphasis on artisanal, anti-mass production the candles are referred to as “products with a soul” and insist on being “the finest candles in the world” according to the mission statement (it’s a doozy). So there’s your recap on where that cool witchy chick from the ’90s went and now let’s continue our stroll down memory lane by checking out her California goth girl style!

      Like

  19. Reading about the portion regarding “Scream”, was Drew Barrymore really considered an established movie star (i.e. “A-list” or somebody who has legitimate box office clout) at the time? Yeah, Drew was pretty much the most famous person in that movie (outside of maybe, Courteney Cox, who was on “Friends” at the and Henry Winkler AKA “The Fonz”) at the time, but I would like to believe that “Scream” was the movie that really made her a “star” so to speak as an adult actress. To give you some perspective:
    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CareerResurrection

    Drew Barrymore in Scream. After starting off as a child actress in the blockbuster ET The Extra Terrestrial as well as Firestarter and Irreconcilable Differences during the 1980s, Barrymore’s pre-adolescent drug and alcohol problems and her Stage Mom overshadowed her career. While she cleaned up by the early 1990s, by that time her career had been reduced to low-budget, independent movies (which most of the time, seemed to typecast her as a promiscuous, rebellious, and/or out-of-control youth) like Doppelgänger, Poison Ivy, and the remake of Gun Crazy, and small roles in major movies like Batman Forever. Her small but memorable role in 1996’s Scream brought her more and more A-list friendly roles (beginning with The Wedding Singer), most often of the Romantic Comedy variety.

    Like

  20. cusack realthsioship with her didnt hurt his career hes always been indie actor at heart with drop blockbuster movies

    Like

  21. Did Kevin Williamson’s 1999 Predictions About Horror and Neve Campbell Come True?

    http://movieline.com/2011/04/14/did-kevin-williamsons-1999-predictions-about-horror-and-neve-campbell-come-true/

    I’m relieved that Kevin Williamson is back in our lives, even tangentially, thanks to Scream 4 (or Scre4m, if you prefer your horror cinema Ke$hified). But while he’s giving fine, diplomatic interviews in 2011, the Kevin Williamson of 1999 who confessed his insecurities to Movieline magazine might be even more entertaining. Did his predictions about teen slashers and Neve Campbell (not to mention the cast of Dawson’s Creek) manifest? Let’s visit the Movieline vault and see.

    In 1999, the world was more than a year away from the release of Scream 3. You’ll be delighted to know that Williamson anticipated a downturn for teen slashers and his relationship with Bob Weinstein.

    “The whole horror movie thing is over,” Williamson asserts. “The best we can hope is that this present cycle will run its course. Let them all die out and, a year from now, let’s hope the curiosity factor about seeing the third part of the Scream trilogy will let it make some money. It’s a departure from the first two. Yes, it’s a horror movie, yes, people will die, but there’s a whole new angle, which I can’t reveal because Bob Weinstein would have a fit.”

    Williamson also sang Neve Campbell’s praises, but even though he correctly identified her grown-up attitude towards moviemaking, he failed to guess that she’d be so choosy about future roles.

    Neve Campbell, heroine of both Scream? “There’s something very ‘Old Hollywood’ about her. Out of all these kids, she has a maturity about her so that she’ll move with ease into adult roles.”

    His estimates for Scream 2’s Sarah Michelle Gellar and Dawson’s Creek stars James Van Der Beek, Joshua Jackson, and Katie Holmes are even more scintillating.

    I Know What You Did Last Summer and Scream 2’s Sarah Michelle Gellar? “A live wire who’s very savvy about the business, who knows when to and when not to smile, and who’s got the talent to back that up. And, like Love [Hewitt], she can nail it in one take.”

    James Van Der Beek, his Dawson’s Creek alter ego? “After 20 seasons on Dawson’s, after having a huge acting career, he’ll be a director. I see it coming already.”

    The same show’s Joshua Jackson? “He’ll be a huge little deal in movies, then he’ll come and go, then reemerge and be Tom Hanks. He’s talented, smart. I love him.”

    Williamson saves his biggest raves for Dawson’s Creek beauty Katie Holmes — whom he chose to star in Killing Mrs. Tingle despite pressure from the studio to hire someone more along the lines of, say, Alicia Silverstone — and with whom he has a close relationship. “She’s like my kid sister — we’re so close, she went with me when I was house shopping.” About her career, he says without hesitation, “There’s an Oscar in Katie’s future. She’s going to become Michelle Pfeiffer. Like Pfeiffer or Jodie Foster, she’s an incredible beauty the camera just eats up. But beyond that, she has amazing raw talent that’s growing by leaps and bounds. A very smart, very practical girl from Ohio who watches the dock tick and thinks, ‘I’d better learn how to act real quick.'”

    “Come and go” Joshua Jackson and James Van Der Beek did! Fringe and (this makes two references in one article) Ke$ha videos thankfully reignited both careers. Of course, the one Creeker Williamson failed to single out in the piece, Michelle Williams, has two Oscar nominations, and seems well on her way to more peer-based plaudits. As for Katie Holmes? There wasn’t as Oscar in her future so much as… the open arms of ReelzChannel.

    Like

  22. Neve Campbell To Recur on “Welcome to Sweden”:
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/welcome-sweden-casts-neve-campbell-769730

    2/3/15
    by Etan Vlessing

    Scream star Neve Campbell has boarded NBC’s “Welcome to Sweden” in a recurring role.

    The four-episode arc will see Campbell play Diane, an American transferred to Stockholm to work as head of marketing at a bank.

    The half-hour comedy, now shooting its 10-episode second season, airs on NBC, TV4 in Sweden and Bell Media in Canada.

    Like

    • Ah, I see that she has been working in 2015, at least. Thanks for the info, Terrence.

      Like

      • Where is the cast of Scream today?

        http://www.looper.com/24432/cast-scream-today/

        Neve Campbell (Sidney Prescott)
        Dimension Films / Getty Images

        Campbell remained with the Scream franchise for all three sequels, including 2011’s Scream 4. She also stuck with the remaining seasons of her hit series Party of Five, which wrapped up its Golden Globe-winning run in 2000. Outside of those hits, however, her career’s been a little patchier. She’s appeared in a handful of movies, including critically acclaimed turns in Robert Altman’s The Company and When Will I Be Loved. Television, though, seems to be where she truly found her footing. After a couple of guest spots and canceled TV shows—among them Medium and The Philanthropist—she’s more recently landed high-profile guest spots on hit shows such as Grey’s Anatomy and Mad Men. You can also currently catch her on the hit Netflix series House of Cards.

        On the personal side, Campbell has divorced twice since Scream came out—first from actor Jeff Colt in 1998, then from another actor, John Light, whom she married in 2007 and divorced in 2011. She and her current partner—yep, another actor, JJ Field—welcomed a son in 2012.

        Like

  23. But…what DID happen to her, and / or her career ? This I would like to know. I was also a big fan of “The Craft” and the “Scream” series!

    Like

  24. http://www.cracked.com/article_22340_5-movie-stars-who-demanded-hilariously-insane-plot-changes.html

    ChunAsperEndao

    05-28-2015 | 7:28 am

    How is Jennifer Love-Hewitt more successful than Neve Campbell? The star of an extremely successful horror franchise and the star of a moderately successful network drama are at least on a par, aren’t they?

    christco

    05-28-2015 | 7:40 am

    My guess is that JLH is way better-looking and probably easier to get along with. Usually when people just fall off the face of the earth after having a bunch of success, it’s because they’re an a*****e.

    Like

    • Future of Movie Stars: Who Will Shine? Who Will Fade Away?

      http://forums.previously.tv/topic/7750-future-of-movie-stars-who-will-shine-who-will-fade-away/page-13#entry1193038

      I do think Neve Campbell seemed REALLY uninterested in superstardom. I think Jennifer Love Hewitt had a problem with being believable as an adult, as well as not picking the best of projects, and I think she’s not not versatile enough as an actress to have re-invented herself, movie-wise. Julia Stiles took time off for school, and I also think that she has this very cerebral way about her that made it hard for audiences to relate to her once she tried to go for the American Sweetheart crown. And Katie Holmes…well, I think the Scientology/Tom Cruise stuff did a LOT of damage, and I think she’s someone that could have benefited from formal training.

      None of the ’90s teen queens really made it over to become legitimate A-list or B-list movie stars. It seems like the ones who were NOT the queen, but worked steadily and without major hype, seemed like they did better, like Michelle Williams or Jennifer Garner.

      Like

  25. Neve Campbell joins House of Cards:
    http://deadline.com/2015/06/neve-campbell-cast-house-of-cards-as-regular-1201464973/

    The Party of Five alum will become a series regular in Season 4, but her role is being kept under wraps.

    Like

  26. What about Neve Campbell and Lacey Chabert’s “Party of Five” co-star, Matthew Fox:
    http://gazettereview.com/2015/06/what-happened-to-matthew-fox-what-is-matthew-fox-doing-now/

    He was an occasional leading man who was never able to stay in the spotlight for more than one or two projects in a row. You know Matthew Fox best from his starring roles in one of two hit television shows: Party of Five and Lost. In the teen drama Party of Five, Matthew Fox played Charlie, the oldest son forced into the role of patriarch for his large family after both of their parents are killed in a car accident. In Lost, Fox played lead Jack Shephard, a doctor who becomes the unwilling leader of a large group of plane crash survivors stranded on a dangerous and mysterious tropical island somewhere in the South Pacific. Both of these television series were greatly acclaimed and Lost in particular was one of the most popular television shows in the history of television shows. Knowing this, it seems very strange that Matthew Fox has not been able to leverage his two big roles into a more robust career. What happened?

    Coming from a background that was equal measures pampered and rugged, Fox had not planned to pursue a career in Hollywood. In fact, he studied Economics at Columbia University in New York City. Fox picked up a variety of small, supporting roles from the age of 25, owing much of his early success to his natural charm and indisputably handsome face. These early roles included a single episode spot on the hit comedy Wings, a poorly reviewed black comedy about a zombie, My Boyfriend’s Back, and a CBS afterschool special about a tragic plane crash, ironically echoing his later success with Lost. Yet, these bit parts and Fox’s winning smile were enough to earn him the role of Charlie Salinger in 1994’s Party of Five.

    Party of Five was largely driven by a cast of teenagers, with Matthew Fox being one of the only exceptions. Fox’s Charlie Salinger was an insecure womanizer and college dropout who returns to his family after the untimely death of the Salinger parents. His costars included Neve Campbell, Scott Wolf, and Lacey Chabert as his siblings, while Jennifer Love Hewitt appeared as a family friend and occasional girlfriend to Scott Wolf’s character. Despite initially poor ratings due to being largely ignored by its target audience, the show won a Golden Globe and a great deal of critical acclaim in its first years. This reinvigorated the show’s audience who came to love the ups and downs of the troubled Salinger family. Party of Five would run for six seasons, almost 150 episodes, and it launched major careers for nearly every cast member in the small ensemble drama. Unfortunately, Fox was also an exception to this rule.

    Despite both the success of Party of Five and Matthew Fox being named by People as one of the most beautiful people in the world during his time on the show, Fox fell back into obscurity until 2004. That year he was cast as Dr. Jack Shephard on NBC’s smash hit, Lost. The story of Lost is simple. A group of roughly seventy survivors crash on a remote island and must struggle to survive. The story was much more than it seemed however, as it blended complicated mysteries, science fiction, unique mythologies, coincidental past encounters, philosophical utopias, and eerie conflicts into the otherwise straightforward survival story. While Fox’s Shephard was undoubtedly the lead for most of the show’s six season run, the show featured a massive ensemble cast unlike anything ever seen on television. The show also broke records for production costs, with the pilot alone costing nearly $15 million dollars, a nearly unheard of price tag. Created by J.J. Abrams and his two cowriters, the mystery of the island and its evil smoke monster captured the imagination of the world, earning hundreds of awards and nominations, tens of millions of viewers each episode, and an endless cult following encouraged by the showrunners that speculated on the true nature of the island. Did the island represent an afterlife, a mass hallucination, or some protracted metaphor for the American dream? The show’s writers never showed their hand, preferring to keep the mystery alive even long after the show’s finale was aired. The show made household names of J.J. Abrams and several other players. Abrams would go on to helm the direction of both the Star Trek reboots and the Star Wars franchise sequel, Episode 7: The Force Awakens. Yet, Matthew Fox was still unable to get a ticket on the gravy train.

    After Lost, Fox repeated his magic act of transforming from a leading man in a well-respected primetime television show, back into a supporting character or bit actor. Fox himself declared that he was “done with television” not long after the finale aired, so perhaps the decision partially falls on his own shoulders. Yet, the actor has mostly struck out on the silver screen as well. In 2012, he appeared in the critically panned Alex Cross as a villain, “The Butcher.” In 2013, he had a walk on cameo role in the more critically and commercially successful Brad Pitt zombie vehicle, World War Z, based on the New York Times Bestselling Book of the same name by Max Brooks. Fox’s total screen time on the big budget hit amounted to less than one minute, however.

    Around this same period, Fox began to find himself in legal trouble after several high profile incidents. In the first, he allegedly punched a woman in the chest and groin after an argument while he was drunk. There were numerous witnesses, but Fox disputes the story. Fox was supposedly trying to get a ride back to his hotel from the woman who was driving a private party bus rented out for a bachelor party. In the second incident, in which information has been more strongly corroborated by police reports, Fox was arrested for a DUI while in the state of Oregon in 2012.

    Despite his reputed disdain for the celebrity lifestyle, Matthew Fox continues to pursue acting. He is slated to appear in two upcoming horror films, Extinction and Bone Tomahawk. Horror films often mark either the beginning or the end of careers for a great many actors. As his commentators have noted that age has begun to take a toll on his boyish good looks, it seems fairly clear which prospect is the case for Matthew Fox.

    Like

    • Why Hollywood won’t cast Matthew Fox anymore

      http://www.looper.com/47214/hollywood-wont-cast-matthew-fox-anymore/

      Matthew Fox was on a major career roll for two decades as he headlined not one but two popular shows in a row, with six seasons of the family drama Party of Five and then six seasons of the sci-fi mystery series phenomenon Lost shortly thereafter. As a result of this pair of beloved series, he had the rare distinction of being both a heartthrob and a guy’s guy, where audiences were concerned, and seemed well-poised to launch from his wild islandic adventures straight into the big time.

      But the 2010s haven’t been quite as kind to Fox, despite some notable big screen efforts on his part. Here are a few theories that explore why Matthew Fox has seemed so … lost lately.

      Like

  27. Manhattan Season 2 trailer reveals new addition Neve Campbell:
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/manhattan-neve-campbell-season-2-816040

    The Party of Five alum will play Kitty Oppenheimer, wife of Manhattan Project director J. Robert Oppenheimer and the first lady of Los Alamos.

    Like

  28. How Wes Craven Freaked Us All Out With That Opening Scene of ‘Scream’:
    https://www.yahoo.com/movies/scream-craven-barrymore-opening-scene-128055594157.html

    Written by screenwriter and Dawson’s Creek creator Kevin Williamson, that unforgettable scene initially gave Craven pause. Best known for A Nightmare on Elm Street, the director was reluctant to return to the slasher genre and turned Scream down — twice. “I read the opening of Scream, and it was just brutal. And I thought, ‘I can’t kill another poor girl!’” Craven said on Fangoria TV’s Screamography in 2006. Eventually, the frightening but irreverent script — which told the story of high school students being stalked by a masked killer, with plenty of meta-commentary and ironic humor about the horror movie genre — won Craven over, and he signed on to the project.

    At that point, the movie already had its lead actress…or so Craven thought. Drew Barrymore had signed on to play Sidney Prescott, the resilient “final girl” ultimately portrayed by Neve Campbell. Barrymore’s participation led directly to Scream getting the green light from Miramax, but after Craven signed on, she called the producers to request a change. “Drew called and was like, ‘I don’t want to be Sidney. I have this great idea: I want to be Casey,’” producer Cathy Konrad recalled in the documentary Still Screaming, released as part of the 2011 Blu-Ray set. Barrymore later told EW that the opening scene was her favorite part of the script, saying, “The first scene was really reminiscent to me of When A Stranger Calls, like these great things that left you wanting more.” Barrymore’s change of heart pleased Williamson, who (according to his DVD commentary) thought that a big-name actress would add shock value to the opening. Indeed, Alfred Hitchcock had used the same trick to famous effect in 1960’s Psycho, stunning audiences when lead actress Janet Leigh’s character was murdered halfway through the film.

    Producers re-cast the role of Sidney with Campbell, and Craven began working with Barrymore to develop the character of Casey. “Casey’s demeanor was very relaxed. She’s barefoot, and I remember the day I came up with that,” Barrymore said in a promotional interview. Though her character was only onscreen for a few minutes, Barrymore said that she and Craven had dinner every week for four months in preparation. “And we really got to know each other,” she said, “because it was really important to me to have a strong relationship with him — and to have that trust, so that I could look him in the eye and tell him my secrets of how to get me to that emotional level.”

    The way that Barrymore reached that “emotional level,” she told EW in 2011, was through a “secret story” she shared only with Craven. “I was like, ‘I never want fake tears, I will come up with a mechanism with which to really make me cry’… He and I had this secret story,” the actress recalled. “We would just talk about it every time because it just made me cry every time I thought about it.” Craven has loosened his lips over the years; he revealed on the DVD commentary that Barrymore’s trigger was a recent newspaper story about a dog being burned by its owner.

    Like

    • Drew Barrymore (I) : Turning down the lead in Scream was the worst mistake of her career

      http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000106/board/flat/248949419?d=248949419#248949419

      She was originally offered the role of Sidney, but she turned it down, going for her usual romantic comedy stuff like Wishful Thinking and Best Men – totally forgettable chick flicks. I know she was in the great opening scene of Scream, but seriously? It was a huge disappointment to see her killed off within the first few minutes. I’d rather she starred in four Scream movies, as the leading character. What a missed opportunity.

      Mon Oct 5 2015 05:32:02

      Neve Campbell always seemed a bit wooden to me, she just lacks charisma and that spark Drew has.

      Like

  29. I just found out that Neve Campbell is on Twitter now:
    https://twitter.com/NeveCampbellO

    Like

  30. Good Bad Flicks: The Craft (1996)

    Exploring the making of The Craft.

    Like

    • The Craft, now 20 years old, is a vicious love letter to teen girl rage

      http://www.vox.com/2016/5/3/11580054/the-craft-20th-anniversary-nancy-fairuza-balk

      How the tale of witches gone wrong smashed teen movie expectations and became a cult classic.

      Like

    • The Craft: The Cast Then And Now

      http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Craft-Cast-Then-Now-128737-p3.html

      Neve Campbell

      Out of the four lead actors in The Craft, it was Neve Campbell that had yet to truly make a name for herself by time the magic started. Though by time Scream came out in December of that same year, Campbell would become a phenomenon that would go on to appear in the rest of the Wes Craven created franchise, as well as Wild Things and 54. But in The Craft, her role of Bonnie was equivalent to one of Nancy’s lackeys, though her personality and performance rose above the fact that her character didn’t have a proper last name, and kind of turned into a bitch once she removed her scars and became the beauty she wished to be. You can see Neve Campbell throughout season 4 of House of Cards, which came after some choice guest spots on Mad Men and Manhattan.

      Like

    • Cast Of The Craft: How Much Are They Worth Now?

      http://www.fame10.com/entertainment/cast-of-the-craft-how-much-are-they-worth-now/?streamview=all

      Neve Campbell

      Estimated Net Worth: $10 Million. Out of all the stars in The Craft, Neve Campbell has arguably had the most success. She began with roles on TV and in some films, but she became well known after starring as Bonnie in The Craft. The role was quickly followed by a starring part in the Scream franchise, and one of her most memorable roles in Wild Things. She is best known, however, for her long-running starring role on Party of Five as Julia Salinger which she held from 1994-2000. In recent years Campbell has made a return to TV and after small parts in Welcome to Sweden and Manhattan she also landed the part of Leann Harvey on the hit series House of Cards. Overall Campbell now has an impressive net worth of $10 million.

      Like

  31. Category: Guilty Pleasures Created on Sunday, 16 December 2012 13:55 Written by George Rother

    http://www.movieguy247.com/iMovies/index.php/blog/guilty-pleasures/1165-drowning-mona

    According to Drowning Mona, the town of Verplank, New York was chosen as the test market for Yugo automobiles in 1985. This explains why everybody in town still drives one even though it disappeared from most Western markets a few years later due to the breakup of Yugoslavia. This isn’t actually true, but it’s a nice touch. The makers of Drowning Mona appear to be going for eccentric and have, in large part, succeeded. For example, everybody in town has a personalized license plate on his/her car. Aside from the vehicle’s color, it’s the only way to tell the cars apart. The Verplank of Drowning Mona appears to be caught in some kind of time warp as everything (hairstyles, clothes, music, home décor) is at least 20 years out of date. Every song on the radio seems to be a Three Dog Night tune. Also, nobody appears to be particularly bright. I get the impression that Police Chief Wyatt Rush (DeVito, Ruthless People) only got his job because he’s the least dim of all the residents. It’s the perfect setting for a comedy murder mystery because it’s not so much a matter of “who did it?” as it is “will anybody figure it out?”. Another relevant question would be this, “Who didn’t want to kill Mona Dearly?”. Hated by everybody, it might just be easier to single out who didn’t have anything to do with her death as everybody seems to have motive.

    Simply put, she was the most horrible person in town and took great pride in making other people’s lives a living hell. Bette Midler is the perfect choice to play this role. Think of her character as a trailer trash version of her character from Ruthless People. In fact, it would be safe to say that anybody in Verplank is a potential Jerry Springer guest.

    As the movie opens, we see dear Mona leaving home and driving off in her son’s car (clue: her keys only fit his car). The brakes fail and she drives right into the Hudson River where she drowns. Nobody seems particularly upset at the news of her sudden demise. Some people are actually ecstatic about it. Like Chief Wyatt’s daughter Ellie (Campbell, the Scream movies) who’s only days away from marrying fiancée Bobby Calzone (Affleck, Gone Baby Gone). Bobby runs a landscaping business with Mona’s son Jeff (Thomas, Kill the Irishman). The Dearly family has always treated Bobby poorly and Jeff’s laziness is running the business right into the ground. Let’s not mince words, Jeff is a complete idiot! Bobby really wants to fire him, but he doesn’t have the guts to stand up to Mona. Husband Phil (Fichtner, Armageddon), sporting a Mike Brady perm, is having an affair with chain-smoking diner waitress Rona (Curtis, A Fish Called Wanda). Wyatt opens an investigation after local mechanic Lucinda (Wilhoite, Murphy’s Law) points out that somebody tampered with the car’s brakes. Like I said, everybody is a potential suspect here. It looks as though Chief Wyatt has his work cut out for him. It doesn’t help that he’s only on the force with any measurable intelligence. One rarely sees such inept cops outside a Police Academy movie. I won’t go into all the details of the subsequent investigation, but let’s just say that if Wyatt cracks the case, it will most likely be by accident.

    I have to admit that I didn’t think much of Drowning Mona the first time I saw it. Maybe I wasn’t in a good mood the night of the screening? I don’t know. I watched it again the following year on cable TV and found myself laughing a lot at this dark comedy. It’s a blend of Fargo, Peyton Place and Rashomon with a trailer park sensibility. Director Nick Gomez (New Jersey Drive) makes great use of the whole POV (point of view) flashback thing as we learn crucial information about Mona and her interactions with various folks. Much of Drowning Mona is in bad taste like the bit about a deputy’s relationship with a local 13-year-old girl that was cut out of the final print. I distinctly remember seeing that scene at the pre-release screening. I was shocked to see that it had been removed by the time it aired on cable TV. It’s on the DVD as a deleted scene. There’s also a funny running gag concerning how Jeff lost his right hand. There are many different versions of that story and every one of them involves him reaching for a beer. The cast appears to be enjoying themselves as they trash it up for the cameras. Midler is always good when she plays a role such as this. I like that nobody overdoes the lack of intelligence notion and turns Drowning Mona into the umpteenth rip-off of Dumb and Dumber. Thankfully, there’s also the complete lack of gags involving bodily functions and fluids. The movie’s tastelessness comes from its overall tone and the décor. I’ve never seen a Wheel of Fortune board game used as a means of sexual foreplay, but that’s part of the movie’s shabby charm. Drowning Mona is definitely unclean, but you won’t emerge from the experience feeling dirty. You might be a little ashamed of yourself for laughing at it, but isn’t that the reason why people tune into Family Guy every week?

    Like

  32. I’m sending out a Happy Birthday to Neve Campbell, one of my favorites for quite a long time. As long as people watch horror films, she will never be completely forgotten.

    Like

  33. Cast Of Scream: How Much Are They Worth Now?

    http://www.fame10.com/entertainment/cast-of-scream-how-much-are-they-worth-now/

    Neve Campbell

    Estimated Net Worth: $8 Million. Neve Campbell was a staple of ’90 pop culture, appearing in major box office hits like Scream and The Craft and in everybody’s favorite, Party of Five. While Neve no longer enjoys the same A-list status she did 20 years ago, she has remained active and consistently appeared in various television series like The Philanthropist, Titanic: Blood and Steel, Welcome to Sweden, and House of Cards. All of Neve’s hard work has paid off and earned her an estimated net worth of $8 million.

    Like

  34. Name Some Of The Worst Hollywood Collapses

    https://www.datalounge.com/thread/16524226-name-some-of-the-worst-hollywood-collapses

    Neve Campbell

    She always got respectable publicity, and seemed like someone who could have been up for many lead actress TV roles, like on The Mentalist, Bones, Medium, or Brothers and Sisters.

    She did the Scream movies, and then just faded away. Never understood that.

    —Anonymous

    reply 381 Last Friday at 7:33 PM

    Like

  35. Neve Campbell Doesn’t Want a “Party of Five” Reboot

    http://www.ew.com/article/2016/03/03/neve-campbell-party-of-five-reboot-scream

    Networks may be crazy for reboots and reunions, but Neve Campbell isn’t interested in seeing “Party of Five” return to the small screen.

    The actress, who first rose to fame as the sensitive Julia Salinger on the popular ’90s family drama, says a reboot with the rest of the original cast isn’t — and shouldn’t be — in the works.

    “I don’t think that would make any sense,” she tells EW, laughing. “We’re all way older! That was a long time ago. We’ve all moved on, we all adore each other, and we’re still friends, but no, I don’t think that would make sense to do a reboot.”

    That said, she isn’t opposed to seeing her other claim to fame return if it’s handled correctly. After starring in four Scream films, Campbell says that she would be open to considering another turn as scream queen Sidney Prescott, but the decision would be “a tough one” after the death of franchise director Wes Craven.

    “Wes was so responsible for the success of it and the brilliance of it, and he was a dear, dear friend and a mentor, and I just don’t know how I would feel at the moment if it came around again,” she explains.

    “It would have to be something really special and really different. They’d have to be really convincing about who they decided to bring on as director, and I’d still have to do a bit of soul-searching on that one.”

    But, Campbell adds, she’s not stopped as often these days for her roles in “Party of Five” and Scream anyway. Instead, fans have been approaching her about her smaller parts.

    “Just by doing shows that people are such fans of, like Manhattan and Mad Men, I’m starting to get recognition for guest spots,” she says. “It’s fun in that sense to know that even if you do something small, you can have that kind of impact.”

    Like

  36. Q. and A. With Neve Campbell: Fiction Eclipsed by Truth http://nyti.ms/1OZOH0q

    Like

  37. 15 Movie Stars Who Peaked in the ’90s

    http://screenrant.com/best-movie-stars-peaked-in-the-90s/?view=all

    NEVE CAMPBELL

    Neve Campbell has been making the guest rounds on TV as of late, with appearances in Mad Men and House of Cards getting pretty warm reception. Much of this fondness, however, dates back to a time when the plucky young star was one of the most notable twenty-somethings in Hollywood. Earning attention on TV’s Party of Five, the cute brunette broke through with surprise hit The Craft (1996) before embarking on what would become her signature role: teen heroine Sidney Prescott. As the long suffering lead of the Scream films, Campbell both embodied and defied slasher movie cliches, with an earthy sensitivity to sell an otherwise outlandish narrative.

    Audiences lapped up this innocent act even when it was anything but in projects like Wild Things (1998) and 54 (1999), revealing her performance potential. Then, the running theme of this list dropped the hammer. Campbell went from in-demand to second-hand in a heartbeat, save for the obligatory Scream sequel that kept her semi-relevant. TV stuff notwithstanding, Campbell goes down as the Kristen Stewart of the ’90s — albeit, with a bit more likability.

    Like

    • 13 TV Actors Who Peaked In The ‘90s

      http://screenrant.com/tv-actors-peaked-90s/?view=all

      NEVE CAMPBELL (PARTY OF FIVE)

      Neve Campbell spent most of the ’90s as Julia Salinger on Party of Five, the middle child who goes through pretty much every kind of teen angst the writers could throw at her. She starred in the show for six years – but somehow managed to work on a whole range of movies at the same time. From the ultimate movie for ‘90s goth kids, The Craft, to three Scream movies and hyper-sexual Wild Things, Campbell was everywhere during this decade – but when the party (of five) ended, her fame took a nosedive.

      Still busy, Campbell ended up on a whole lot of big roles in unsuccessful movies, followed by bit parts in more successful TV shows like Grey’s Anatomy and Mad Men. She’s bouncing back with her current role in House of Cards, but is still no-where near the name that she used to be.

      Like

      • What the cast of Party of Five looks like now

        http://www.nickiswift.com/68709/cast-party-five-looks-like-now/

        Neve Campbell

        Although there’s no question that Neve Campbell’s turn as the sensitive teen Julia Salinger in Party of Five was a big breakthrough for Neve Campbell’s then-young career, she quickly established herself as a ’90s scream queen in flicks like The Craft (1996) and all four Scream films. She also successfully treaded into the raunchy film scene with Wild Things (1998) and Three to Tango (1999), but after her marquee status in movies started to wane, she returned to her original home on the small screen, appearing in cameo roles for shows like Grey’s Anatomy and Mad Men and ultimately scoring a recurring gig on Netflix’s House of Cards. 

        On a personal level, although she’s been through two divorces since her days in the Salinger fam, she’s now the happy mother of one son named Caspian with partner J.J. Feild and says that her days of battling for the box office draw are done. She told The Guardian, “I’m so glad those days are over. I felt I was being forced into being something I wasn’t, all the time. I’ve been very sensible with the money I made, and I did make good money.”

        Like

  38. WHERE IN THE HORROR ARE THEY NOW? NEVE CAMPBELL!

    http://www.joblo.com/horror-movies/news/where-in-the-horror-are-they-now-neve-campbell-793

    THEN: Years ago I had heard of the series “Party of Five” but couldn’t tell you much about it. However, one thing I am aware of is the surprisingly impressive cast – most of them went on and continued to work. You have Jennifer Love Hewitt and Matthew Fox who both did quite well continuing find steady employment on television. You have Lacey Chabert and Scott Wolf – although I do question what he has been up to. Yet what about the pretty but slightly pouty girl next door Neve Campbell? Well one thing is for sure and that is this lovely actress gave horror fans a brand new icon, along with a clever screenwriter and an iconic director, and helped revitalize the slasher film in 1996 with SCREAM.

    While we all know Ms. Campbell as Sydney Prescott – more on that later – a few years before the massive flick, the actress appeared in her first horror film. In 1993’s THE DARK, she starred opposite some character actor heavyweights including Stephen McHattie and Brion James. From the looks of it, her role in this demented looking film appears to be quite small. Yet with a few other genre-esque credits including a TV-movie called “The Forget-Me-Not Murders” in 1994, and the kid friendly series “Are You Afraid of the Dark?” for one episode that same year, it seems that horror fans were waiting patiently for a new kind of scream queen to brighten our hearts.

    When she started working on “Party of Five” in 1994, the actress still seemed very intent on making movies. And then, 1996 happened for her in a big way. First came the cool little witch flick THE CRAFT featuring a fun performance from the actress. And then, something huge happened. A slasher flick made a ton of dough and helped launch Neve Campbell into brand new territory. SCREAM was a massive hit, and she is fantastic as the much put upon Sydney Prescott. As much as the opening sequence with Drew Barrymore blew everybody away, you still couldn’t take away how terrific Campbell was. This was the slasher final girl many a horror fan had been waiting for, and she took that crown and ran with it.

    Following the success of SCREAM, this popular flick soon found itself in what we like to call a trilogy – at least at that time. And thankfully, Neve was back and just as strong and confidant as before. While SCREAM 2 (1997) was a blast with a couple of thrillingly intense sequences, the follow-up to it wasn’t nearly as effective. SCREAM 3 opened in a brand new decade, in the year 2000, and while many appreciate it’s heavily Hollywood meta storyline, it wasn’t nearly as horrifically fun as the first two films. That said, Neve was always a great watch and more than game to kick some Ghostface ass when necessary. In fact, I for one think a big part of the success of the SCREAM franchise is this lovely actress who was the girl we all wanted to save.

    Clearly trying to change her tune a bit, in 1998 she took on some sexy material with WILD THINGS. Sure it may have been Denise Richards who really lit up a few fires, and gave a rise to guy’s pants everywhere, but you can’t deny the two had chemistry when things needed to get hot. This is one of those flicks that I loved when I first witnessed it, yet you can’t help but wonder if it would hold up all these years later. After all, sometimes it is cooler to simply remember how ultra-sexy a flick was then go back and realize that the flame wasn’t all that bright.

    Aside from a couple of light thrillers including LOST JUNCTION in 2003 and WHEN WILL I BE LOVED in 2004, Ms. Campbell seemingly had no interest in returning to horror. And then it happened, something that horror fans had hoped but didn’t think possible. Sidney Prescott returned in SCREAM 4. The 2011 sequel played on the idea that Prescott (Campbell) had tried to rid herself of the horrific goings on, but that old Ghostface Killer kept bringing her back in. While this third sequel didn’t necessarily live up to the first two, I personally thought it was an improvement over 3 and I was more than happy to see Campbell return. Is this the end of Sidney’s story? It’s a safe bet it is, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see a return happen, especially with the upcoming television series.

    NOW: After SCREAM 4, the actress appeared in an independent feature called THE GLASS MAN in 2011, a historical television drama called “Titanic: Blood and Steel” in 2012 and a Lifetime TV-movie called “An Amish Murder” in 2013. With guest appearances on shows like “Grey’s Anatomy” and “Mad Men” it’s great to see this charming talent continue to work. According to the seemingly not-so-reliable IMDB we can next see her in a flick called WALTER scheduled for a 2014 release, as well as BREMEN TOWN MUSICIANS which is an animated feature currently in production.

    One of the most important aspects of her life appears to be her charity work for Tourette Syndrome Foundation of Canada and The Tourette’s Syndrome Association. This is something that she became personally involved in when her brother was diagnosed in 1989 and she continues to stay involved raising awareness. So not only is she an awesome sis, she also happens to be one of the best damn scream queen’s this side of Jamie Lee Curtis. Will she ever return as Sydney Prescott? I’d be game. Hell, I’d love to see her do another horror flick period. Either way, it’s great to see this talented actress continue to work and bring a smile to my face. More Neve Campbell on the big screen please!!

    Like

  39. Actors ruined by one bad movie

    http://www.looper.com/16492/actors-ruined-one-bad-movie/

    Neve Campbell in Wild Things (1998)

    Neve Campbell was inescapable in the late ’90s. A breakout star of the Golden Globe-winning series Party of Five, she almost single-handedly sparked the ’90s horror revival with Scream and Scream 2, earning herself two consecutive Best Female Performance wins at the MTV Movie Awards, the cover of Rolling Stone, and an SNL hosting gig alongside musical guest David Bowie. But Campbell shed her good girl image (and most of her clothes) for the embarrassing erotic thriller Wild Things and although reviews were mixed, she never completely recovered. Campbell clung to the Scream franchise for two more sequels in 2000 and 2011, but otherwise toiled on studio clunkers like Three to Tango and second-rate indie flicks like When Will I Be Loved until resurfacing in 2016 for a part on House of Cards.

    Like

  40. Why Hollywood forgot about Jeremy and Jason London

    http://www.nickiswift.com/21930/hollywood-forgot-jeremy-jason-london/

    Their style died out

    As chaotic and distracting as their private lives have seemed, there are more mundane reasons behind Jeremy and Jason London’s career decline. They were products of the ’90s, and the ’90s are over. Not everyone’s a style chameleon; some stars are so tied up in the trappings of a certain era that when those days pass, they have trouble remaining relevant. Jeremy and Jason’s styles both were so embedded in their time, their hair, their clothes, and the movies and shows they starred in became irrevocably tied to their era. (The same thing sort of happened to Party of Five co-star Neve Campbell.) Some actors have been able to parlay their ’90s icon status into roles steeped in postmodern irony, like James van der Beek playing “James Van der Beek” in Don’t Trust the B—- in Apt. 23. It’s not too late for Jeremy and Jason to mount a career resurgence, but it might require staying out of trouble for a little while before the roles start pouring in again. ‘Til then, there’s always Mallrats.

    Like

  41. Re: How did Mena Suvari not become a bigger star?

    http://forum.dvdtalk.com/12883152-post45.html

    Originally Posted by Count Dooku
    Neve Campbell moved back to Canada and intentionally lowered her profile to pursue a more normal life after having a bad marriage

    I do wonder if they lower their profile because they are not getting the roles, or is it intentional? After Party of Five, Scream, The Craft and Wild Things, she did some real bombs in late 90’s/early 00’s and you wonder if that kills their career? Three To Tango, Drowning Mona and other forgettable movies. She probably made a boatload of money from Party of Five and Scream, and once the good roles dry up, they walk away from the business.

    Like

    • http://forum.dvdtalk.com/12883210-post46.html

      I think she was regarded well enough as an talented actress that she could have maintained good steady movie work even if she was not “the star” and somebody definitely would have cast her in another TV series.

      Look at all the people cling to whatever celebrity they can.

      Going to Canada, picking projects for personal reasons, acting on the stage. That’s a conscious uncoupling from the business, not being run out of town.

      Like

    • Where is the cast of Scream today?

      http://www.looper.com/24432/cast-scream-today/

      Neve Campbell (Sidney Prescott)

      Campbell remained with the Scream franchise for all three sequels, including 2011’s Scream 4. She also stuck with the remaining seasons of her hit series Party of Five, which wrapped up its Golden Globe-winning run in 2000. Outside of those hits, however, her career’s been a little patchier. She’s appeared in a handful of movies, including critically acclaimed turns in Robert Altman’s The Company and When Will I Be Loved. Television, though, seems to be where she truly found her footing. After a couple of guest spots and canceled TV shows—among them Medium and The Philanthropist—she’s more recently landed high-profile guest spots on hit shows such as Grey’s Anatomy and Mad Men. You can also currently catch her on the hit Netflix series House of Cards.

      On the personal side, Campbell has divorced twice since Scream came out—first from actor Jeff Colt in 1998, then from another actor, John Light, whom she married in 2007 and divorced in 2011. She and her current partner—yep, another actor, JJ Field—welcomed a son in 2012.

      Like

  42. Neve Campbell: President Trump ‘my biggest fear’

    https://t.co/e8SVLbUePe

    “House of Cards” actress Neve Campbell is calling a Donald Trump presidency her “biggest fear” and says she’ll hightail it back to Canada if it becomes a reality.

    “It’s really scary,” the “Scream” and “Party of Five” star tells Huffington Post UK in an interview published Tuesday. “My biggest fear is that Trump will triumph.”

    Campbell told ITK at the season-four premiere of “House of Cards” last week in Washington that she’s rooting for Democratic White House hopeful Bernie Sanders, saying, “I’m a fan of Bernie’s.”

    The Ontario-born performer, who is an American citizen and can vote in the 2016 election, says she has a plan if Trump’s GOP bid for the Oval Office is successful. If the real estate mogul wins, she contends, she’ll “move back to Canada.”

    “I cannot believe that he is still in the game. I cannot conceive of how that’s possible,” Campbell, who makes her “House of Cards” debut as a political aide when the new season debuts on Friday, tells the Huffington Post.

    Dubbing Trump “an ideologue” with “extreme ideas,” Campbell, 42, says, “And there is a good amount of ignorance in America, of people who are angry and disappointed but don’t educate themselves in why and how it can be fixed.”

    “They see someone off the cuff and broad, and they think ‘OK, that’s the voice we need, just someone honest.’”

    Campbell added, “But his honesty is terrifying.”

    Like

  43. EXCLUSIVE: ‘Scream’ 20 Years Later — Neve Campbell and Co-Stars Share Untold Stories From the Set

    http://www.etonline.com/features/205294_scream_20_years_later_neve_campbell_and_cast_share_untold_stories/

    Like

    • Besides what has been said in that article (such as Neve not “playing the game”, aging out of her core roles, and being typecast/too closely associated for her “Scream” role), Neve just wasn’t that strong of an actress. Neve Campbell was somebody who peaked rather early in her career with “Party of Five” and the “Scream” franchise, but brought little else to the table in regards to charisma, range or screen presence. It’s probably why she functioned better in ensembles like “Party of Five” and “The Craft”, or genre pictures that didn’t necessarily require heavy duty dramatic/serious acting like “Scream”. I’ve already brought up that YouTube clip of Sarah Silverman making fun of Neve’s trademark style of acting/quirks.

      Like

    • Why Hollywood Won’t Cast Neve Campbell Anymore

      Like

  44. This is only my own thoughts but i guess, like many things happened during filming of movies, she got lost in Fairuza’s show in The Craft. I mean Ru’s character isn’t supposed to be poor since she goes to a private School but Campbell… Wasn’t she really good friends with True? True admitted herself not too long ago that she had been a little scared with Balk.

    But as Neve Campbell went on, she seemed to have imitated Balk in films such as Wild Things (Poor, in drugs, bisexual and a trailer park trash so to speak.) Things that Balk had done before the Craft.

    Like

  45. I was interrupted but could go on between Campbell and the others… Drew Barrymore died in Scream and Played with Adam Sandler. Campbell was Trailer Trash in Wild things and Fairuza Balk was that again in The Waterboy opposite Sandler and Kathy Bates… Which met Campbell with Dany Devito on the Film Relative Strangers later on. Actually, Devito had played with Campbell in Drowning Mona in which Campbell was opposite Jamie Lee Curtis too. Jamie Lee Curtis clearly said in a H20 interview: -I have something to tell Neve Campbell, the new face of slasher. I’m not going anywhere.

    Campbell has also played with Parker Posey (Scream 3) and Kevin Bacon (Wild things). Fairuza Balk actually played with Posey and Bacon’s wife Kira Sedwick later on in Personal Velocity.

    What i’m trying to say is… I think Campbell’s mouth led her to her own demise. Without forgetting that she used to say not long after Wild things that she had never kissed a girl before and that she was a virgin and not an easy girl… Fairuza Balk actually played a virgin in the play Killer Joe in Chicago and New York right after The Waterboy. There’s a lot, but Fairuza, Drew Barrymore, Jamie Lee Curtis, Devito, Kathy Bates were all way more experienced and veterans than Campbell. I think that her ending in movies with Val Kilmer and Christian Slater says something. Maybe not racist or overhyped ego on the spot, but she runs her mouth too much and gossips about peeps that she tried to look like.

    Like

  46. #PartyofFive’s #NeveCampbell and @scottwolf reunited on @BravoWWHLand dished the dirt https://yhoo.it/2u3Ko2T

    Like

  47. Neve Campbell Reflects Back on “Catwalk”

    http://ew.com/tv/2017/07/10/neve-campbell-scream-house-cards-party-five/

    “Catwalk” is one that I usually try to forget (laughs).

    No, it was a fun show and my first series. We shot in Canada and my hair was very high. I wore a lot of vests, tight outfits, and boots… it was ridiculous, but a lot of fun and probably very good for me. (laughs)

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: