It’s all come to this...again...until the next time. This week on Forgotten Cinema: Now Showing , we've finally arrived at Scream 7 , the destination after our long Scream Lead Up  journey through the entire franchise. And unlike many critics, we had a great time with this one. Scream 7: Still Better Than Most Slashers Is Scream 7  the best entry in the series? No. Is it the worst? Also no. But as we point out during the episode, even the weakest Scream  film is still leagues above most modern slashers and generic horror fare. The franchise has always had a higher bar thanks to its blend of sharp meta commentary, clever mysteries, and characters audiences actually care about. That formula continues here. Sidney Still Anchors the Franchise One of the film’s biggest strengths remains Sidney Prescott, (Now...Sidney Evans) who continues to serve as the emotional center of the series. Her presence helps ground the chaos of another Ghostface killing spree while reminding audiences why the franchise has endured for nearly three decades. The film also delivers where it counts: the kills. Several sequences stand out as inventive and brutal enough to keep longtime fans satisfied. The Big Talking Points Of course, a Scream  movie isn’t just about the body count, it’s about the conversation around it. We dig into some of the film’s biggest discussion points, including: The return of Stu Macher and whether the story earns it Whether audiences can fully buy Joel McHale as a serious action presence after years of comedy roles How the film handles its Ghostface reveal and whether the mystery ultimately lands Like any Scream  installment, the fun is in debating how well the puzzle pieces fit together. Ranking the Franchise With Scream 7  now in the books, we also revisit our full franchise rankings  after completing our journey through every entry in the series. For anyone jumping into Now Showing  with this episode, we encourage you to go back and check out the entire Scream Lead Up series , where we revisited each film step-by-step before arriving at the newest installment. Spotify  | Apple Podcasts  | Amazon Music  | More Links

This week on Forgotten Cinema, we sit down at the poker table with Rounders , the cult-favorite gambling drama starring Matt Damon, Edward Norton, John Malkovich, Famke Janssen, and John Turturro. The film has built a strong reputation over the years, especially among poker fans, but on this revisit we came away a lot less impressed than its legacy might suggest. The biggest stumbling block for us is Damon’s character, Mike. The movie positions him as a talented player trying to navigate the dangerous world of underground poker, but the reality is that he spends most of the film behaving like a reckless gambler running purely on ego and bravado. Time after time he makes terrible decisions, especially when it comes to helping his unreliable friend Worm. The Worm Problem in Rounders Edward Norton is undeniably entertaining as Worm, bringing his usual charisma and unpredictability to the role. The problem is that the film expects us to buy into the loyalty between these two characters, even as Worm repeatedly drags Mike deeper into bad situations. Their friendship never quite makes emotional sense, and the story keeps asking the audience to sympathize with choices that grow more frustrating as the movie goes on. A World That Feels Closed Off Another hurdle is how heavily the film leans on poker terminology and insider lingo. Instead of guiding viewers into the tension of high-stakes poker, the movie often assumes the audience already understands the mechanics of the game. Rather than immersing us in that world, the constant jargon can create distance from what should be the film’s central hook. A Lucky Break, Not a Real Arc By the time the story reaches its conclusion, Mike’s journey feels hollow. His reckless behavior doesn’t really lead to meaningful reflection or growth. Instead, things fall into place largely thanks to a lucky break, which makes the ending feel less like a hard-earned victory and more like a narrative convenience. While Rounders clearly has its fans, and its influence on the late-90s and early-2000s poker boom can’t be ignored, this rewatch left us questioning whether the film’s cult reputation has more to do with timing than with the strength of the movie itself. . What do you think? Cult classic or a bluff that somehow convinced everyone to go all in? Spotify  | Apple Podcasts  | Amazon Music  | More Links

We have reached the end of our journey through Woodsboro, college campuses, Hollywood backlots, and beyond. This week on Forgotten Cinema: Lead Up , we wrap up our Scream rewatch with Scream VI , the final stop before diving into Scream 7 . Set in New York City and continuing the story of the new generation introduced in the Scream V , Scream VI   moves the franchise into fresh territory. But does the relocation and escalation pay off? We both still like this entry, but we also place it firmly at the bottom of our franchise rankings...so far. Scream VI: A Movie Without Sidney Prescott One of the biggest talking points of this revisit is the absence of Sidney Prescott. For a series so closely tied to her journey, Scream VI  feels noticeably different without her presence. Granted this isn't her story. We're continuing the tale of Tara and Sam Carpenter, the new targets of Ghotsface. The film does give Gale Weathers, the lone legacy character, a larger role in the chaos. However, we agree that Gale’s involvement feels a bit awkward at times, as if she’s being shoehorned into the story rather than organically woven into it. Without Sidney anchoring the emotional core, some of the film’s big moments don’t land with the same impact. Where the Meta Commentary Falls Short One of the defining traits of the Scream franchise has always been its sharp meta commentary, on slashers, sequels, trilogies, remakes, and “requels.” In Scream VI , that edge is noticeably duller. While the film gestures toward commentary on franchises and escalation, it rarely goes as deep or as clever as earlier entries. The rules feel more like a checklist than a thesis this time around, and the finale leans heavily into goofiness rather than tension. The villain reveal, in particular, trades thematic weight for broad theatrics, making it fun in the moment but less satisfying in hindsight. Set Pieces, Kills, and Standout Moments Even with those criticisms, Scream VI  is far from a failure. But...as a piece of crowd-pleasing horror cinema, it still delivers. The kills are strong and often brutal. The New York setting allows for inventive, memorable set pieces, and several moments genuinely stand out. The tense Halloween subway sequence, crammed with costumed strangers and potential Ghostfaces, is a highlight, as is the Gale versus Ghostface showdown, which gives Courtney Cox some of her best material in the new era. Melissa Barrera also continues to grow into the role of Sam, bringing a grounded intensity to the character. Her performance in the movie is one of the stronger elements of this phase of the franchise and a good sign for where the series could've gone from here...if, in fact, it ever did get to end the Sam storyline. The Weakest Entry… But Still Entertaining In our rankings, Scream VI  lands at the bottom, not because it’s a bad movie, but because the franchise bar is so high. It lacks the razor-sharp commentary of the early films and leans into a finale that feels more cartoonish than chilling. The absence of Sidney is felt, and the attempt to compensate doesn’t always fully work. That said, the film is never boring. It’s energetic, bloody, fast-paced, and packed with enough strong sequences to keep fans engaged. It’s the kind of movie that plays well in the moment, even if it doesn’t linger as powerfully as the series’ best entries. Wrapping Up the Scream Lead Up Series With Scream VI  revisited, we close out our Scream Lead Up series and take a step back to look at the franchise as a whole. We rank the films, reflect on how the tone and themes have evolved from the 90s to today, and consider where the story might go next as Scream 7  approaches. (Stay tuned for our Now Showing episode!) Even if Scream VI  doesn’t reach the heights of its predecessors, it proves the franchise still knows how to entertain and that there’s still life (and death) left in the Ghostface mask.

Field embarks on a solo journey, and invites you to join him. The Forgotten Cinema Universe, FCU in some circles mainly containing Butler and Field, has grown to include their latest adventure, a YouTube exclusive show called the Last Four! Let's let Field explain it... Welcome to Last Four! My new solo series where I break down the last four movies I watched. I discuss what works, what doesn't work, and who each film is for. No ranking. No hot takes for the sake of hot takes. Just my honest reaction. Field watches so many movies, a show where he talks about it made sense, which is why the FCU is growing! For those who don't know...we have Now Showing, Lead Up and the Look Back series (Patreon exclusive). This first episode finds Field sharing his thoughts on... Anaconda | The 2025 reboot starring Jack Black, Paul Rudd, Steve Zahn and Thandiwe Newton The Lost Bus | The Paul Greengrass action/drama about the 2018 Camp Fire The Housemaid | Sydney Sweeney and Amanda Seyfried facing off...or are they? The Wrecking Crew | Dave Bautista and Jason Momoa fighting bad guys and each other So, if you're interested, check out the first episode. Just be nice. Don't make Field cry if you don't like his takes. Or do. It's all engagement. Spotify  | Apple Podcasts  | Amazon Music  | More Links

This week on Forgotten Cinema , we’re revisiting The Way of the Gun , Christopher McQuarrie’s sharp, character-driven crime thriller and his first time in the director’s chair. We both really enjoy this one. From the start, the film makes it clear what kind of story it wants to tell: this is not about misunderstood antiheroes or “bad guys with a heart of gold.” Benicio Del Toro and Ryan Phillippe play two genuinely bad men. Criminals who are unapologetically who they are. The movie doesn’t try to redeem them or smooth them out for audience comfort, and that commitment to morally compromised leads gives the film a harder edge than most crime thrillers of its era. Performances with Real Teeth Del Toro and Phillippe bring a weary, lived-in quality to their characters that makes them compelling even when you don’t like them. And then there’s James Caan, who walks into the movie and immediately brings a level of gravitas and menace that elevates every scene he’s in. He doesn’t need big speeches, only his presence, his posture, and a few carefully chosen lines. It’s a film full of people who feel dangerous without ever slipping into cartoonish territory. McQuarrie Behind the Camera As a directorial debut, The Way of the Gun  is remarkably confident. McQuarrie’s script is tight and deliberate, with sharp dialogue that never feels like it’s showing off, and action that’s grounded, messy, and tense. The characters always feel true to themselves, even when they’re making terrible decisions, which are quite a few. Butler suspects that younger him would have absolutely loved this movie, and honestly, he probably would have quoted it relentlessly. Field finds himself appreciating it even more now; the film’s maturity, restraint, and refusal to spoon-feed the audience make it more compelling with age. The Way of the Gun: A Dark, Adult Crime Story The Way of the Gun  is dark, deliberate, and unapologetically adult. It’s not trying to be cool for the sake of it. It’s interested in what happens when bad people collide with each other, with desperate people, and with situations that have no clean outcomes. In a sea of crime thrillers that soften their edges or rush toward redemption, this one stands out for staying true to its characters all the way through. It’s easily one of the stronger crime films of the early 2000s and a reminder of just how effective simple, character-focused storytelling can be when you trust the audience to keep up. Spotify  | Apple Podcasts  | Amazon Music  | More Links

We're nearly at the end of our journey toward Scream 7 , and this week on Forgotten Cinema: Lead Up , we tackle the first entry in the franchise not directed by Wes Craven: Scream — or as we argue...just call it Scream 5 ! With a new creative team, a new generation of characters, and a legacy to uphold, this film had a daunting task. Fortunately, we agree that the team at Radio Silence delivers a sequel that respects the franchise’s past while carving a path forward. A New Era Without Wes Craven Scream (2022)  is the franchise’s first film directed without Craven at the helm, and the shift in creative vision could have spelled disaster. Instead, we applaud Radio Silence for honoring the tone, style, and meta sensibilities that define the series. The film’s kills are brutal and smartly staged, the pacing is tight, and the blending of legacy characters with a new cast feels far more seamless than many modern “requels.” It’s a careful balancing act, and this installment pulls it off with surprising confidence. Legacy Characters, New Blood, and a Major Death That Works One of Scream 5’s  greatest strengths is the way it handles legacy characters. We agree that the film gives returning icons meaningful roles without turning them into parodies of their former selves. And when the film does make the bold decision to kill a major returning character, the moment lands with emotional weight. It isn’t played for shock value alone, it feels carefully considered and deeply respectful of the character’s place in the franchise. The new cast also benefits from strong writing and performances, grounding them in Woodsboro mythology without forcing connections. The Billy Loomis Twist and Other Rough Spots in Scream 5 While we both enjoy the film, the movie isn't without criticism. We struggle with the Billy Loomis twist , finding it a bit hard to swallow even within the meta, self-aware framework of the Scream  universe. Additionally, some of the logic surrounding Ghostface’s kills doesn’t hold up under careful scrutiny. These moments don’t derail the movie, but they do prevent it from reaching the heights of the franchise’s best entries. A Confident Revival That Proves the Franchise Can Grow Despite those flaws, Scream 5   is a clear reminder that the series can survive, and even thrive, beyond its original creator. The people behind this movie prove they understand the DNA of the franchise while also being willing to evolve it for modern audiences. It’s energetic, brutal, clever, and ultimately a reassuring sign that the Scream  saga has room left to explore. Spotify  | Apple Podcasts  | Amazon Music  | More Links

This week on Forgotten Cinema , we revisit Yesterday , the musical romantic fantasy built around one irresistible question: What if The Beatles never existed? For Butler, this one hits especially hard. Growing up a Beatles fan, he not only loves hearing those iconic songs reintroduced in a new context, but also watching how powerful they remain, even in a world that has somehow forgotten the band. It’s a concept that could have easily become gimmicky, but the film leans into the emotional and artistic implications instead. The Music Still Works (Of Course It Does) Himesh Patel anchors the film with a sincere and surprisingly strong performance, both as an actor and as a vocalist. He brings a grounded vulnerability to the role that makes the premise easier to buy. And Lily James shines as his longtime friend and love interest, delivering warmth and charm that make the central romance genuinely compelling. That said, both of us agree it’s more than a little frustrating that Patel’s character can’t see what’s so clearly in front of him. The film leans heavily into the “oblivious romantic lead” trope, and while it works structurally, it does test your patience at times. Fame, Industry, and the Satire Layer Kate McKinnon is a blast as the sharp-edged manager once fame takes hold. She injects a layer of industry satire into the story, poking at the absurdity of marketing, branding, and the machine that often swallows artists whole. Her performance adds just enough bite to balance the sweetness of the love story. No Explaining the Magic in Yesterday (And That’s a Good Thing) One of the things we both really appreciate is that the film never over-explains or tries to undo the unexplained “magic” behind The Beatles not existing. There’s no convoluted sci-fi twist or third-act reset. The movie simply accepts the premise and moves on, focusing instead on bigger ideas about art, authenticity, love, and what it means to create in a world obsessed with fame. At its heart, Yesterday  isn’t really about a glitch in the universe. It’s about what art means, who it belongs to, and whether success is worth sacrificing who you are. A Sweet, Sincere Crowd-Pleaser With timeless music, a charming love story, and relatable creative themes, Yesterday  remains an easy recommendation. It’s heartfelt, funny, and surprisingly thoughtful and it will almost certainly have you queuing up The Beatles long after the credits roll. What would you  do if the greatest songs ever written suddenly belonged to you? Interested in hearing us butcher through a song? Check out our short film we did when we covered the movie, Oliver & Company . Spotify  | Apple Podcasts  | Amazon Music  | More Links

A Prescient Horror Sequel The road to  Scream 7  continues, and this week on  Forgotten Cinema: Lead Up , as we revisit  Scream 4 , Wes Craven’s return to Woodsboro more than a decade after the original trilogy. Originally released in 2011,  Scream 4   arrived at a cultural turning point, where what once felt like exaggerated satire now feels eerily prophetic. Why  Scream 4  Feels More Relevant Today It's not a shocking revelation that this film is ahead of its time. Long before streaming culture and influencer fame fully dominated the internet,  Scream 4  was already dissecting: The obsession with going viral Violence performed for an audience Fame as a form of currency Identity shaped by online perception In 1996, the original Scream  deconstructed slasher rules. In 2011,  Scream 4  deconstructed internet culture, years before it became unavoidable. That thematic foresight makes this sequel far stronger today than it was initially given credit for. Does the Third Act Stick the Landing? While we both enjoy the film, Butler feels the third act slightly undercuts its bold ambitions. The movie flirts with doing something genuinely daring but ultimately settles for a more convenient resolution. There’s a lingering sense that the Ghostface reveal could have pushed the franchise into darker, riskier territory. Instead, the climax reins things in just when it should have escalated. Field shares some of that frustration, though he still finds the execution confident and effective overall. Compared to  Scream 3 , this entry feels sharper, more aggressive, and thematically focused, even if it doesn’t fully commit to its most provocative ideas. Could Kirby Have Been the New Final Girl? One of the most compelling discussions in this Lead Up episode centers on Kirby, played by Hayden Panettiere. We agree she had all the makings of the franchise’s next great Final Girl. With her horror expertise, charisma, and emotional depth, Kirby could have served as a fascinating long-term foil to Ghostface. Instead,  Scream 4   stops just short of fully passing the torch, another example of a film that almost reinvents the franchise, but hesitates at the last moment. The Rumored Original Ending and the “Killer Gets Away” Trilogy The Mikes also revisit the long-standing rumor that  Scream 4  was intended to launch a new trilogy centered around a killer who gets away with it, only to be hunted by future Ghostfaces. If true, that direction would have fundamentally reshaped the franchise and aligned perfectly with the film’s themes of fame and legacy. Knowing that possibility makes the existing ending feel like a missed opportunity, a safe landing for a movie built on bold ideas. Is  Scream 4  Underrated? Despite its flaws,  Scream 4   remains sharp, brutal, and thematically ambitious. Its kills are strong, its satire feels increasingly relevant, and Wes Craven’s direction gives the film energy and purpose. It may not be perfect, but it stands as one of the most culturally aware entries in the  Scream  franchise and a crucial chapter in the journey toward  Scream 7 . Continue the Scream Lead Up Series We've been revisiting every film in the  Scream  saga leading up to  Scream 7 . Catch up on: Scream (1996) Scream 2 (1997) Scream 3 (2000) Spotify  | Apple Podcasts  | Amazon Music  | More Links

A Rom-Com With Heart (Literally) This week on Forgotten Cinema, we revisit Return to Me , the romantic comedy starring David Duchovny and Minnie Driver that somehow manages to begin with tragedy and still turn into one of the sweetest, warmest films of its era. Field has always had a soft spot for this one, and while Butler came in fresh, we both walked away thoroughly charmed. The movie opens with the sudden death of Duchovny’s wife and the emotional weight of a heart transplant, yet what follows never sinks into melodrama. Instead, Return to Me stays surprisingly light on its feet, filled with humor, tenderness, and a genuine warmth that a lot of modern rom-coms tend to forget. A Cast That Makes the Movie Sing A huge reason the film works as well as it does is its ensemble. Jim Belushi and Bonnie Hunt (who also wrote and directed the film) bring so much natural humor and lived-in chemistry that they practically steal the movie. Robert Loggia and Carroll O’Connor add a comforting, old-school charm as the Irish-Italian pair who treat everyone like family, whether they want it or not. The whole cast feels like real people you’d want to spend time with, which goes a long way in making the romance feel grounded and genuinely sweet. Classic Rom-Com Energy from Return to Me More than anything, Return to Me captures that late-90s/early-2000s romantic comedy magic, gentle pacing, earnest emotions, breezy humor, and just a touch of schmaltz (the good kind). It reminds you why this genre used to feel so effortless and joyful. Check out our full conversation on the episode, where we break down what makes the film work, why it holds up, and which moments hit us right in the feelings. Spotify  | Apple Podcasts  | Amazon Music  | More Links

Lights, Camera… Ghostface? Our journey toward Scream 7  continues, and this week as we revisit the most divisive installment in the franchise: Scream 3 . A sequel with big ideas, messy execution, and a unique place in the saga’s history. Following the critically beloved Scream 2 , this third film arrives with the unfortunate reputation of being the worst-reviewed entry in the original trilogy. But does it deserve that title? We break down the film’s strengths, weaknesses, production changes, and the “what could’ve been” lurking beneath its final cut. Field’s Take: Fun, But the Weakest So Far Field still enjoys  Scream 3 , but it stands as his least favorite of the franchise up to this point. His biggest issue being the killer reveal. He digs into why the third-act twist feels underwhelming: The original draft promised something darker and more layered The last-minute shift to a single killer weakened the film’s structure Several sequences are clearly staged for two Ghostfaces, making the final reveal feel inconsistent The thematic resolution lacks the punch of the first two films He still finds the movie entertaining, but admits that the climax and the compromised script prevent it from hitting the same highs as the first two films in the franchise. Butler’s Take: Gale & Dewey Shine, the Climax Doesn’t Butler also enjoys revisiting the movie, and he especially loves the Gale and Dewey relationship, which continues to evolve in meaningful and heartfelt ways. However, his biggest disappointments (not including Gale's bangs) include: The shift from the Hollywood studio setting (rich with meta potential) to a mansion finale that feels more like Scooby-Doo  than Scream A killer reveal that feels thematically thin The feeling that a different twist would’ve worked far better In Butler’s view, Patrick Dempsey’s character being revealed as the killer, and Sidney’s half-brother, would’ve made more narrative and thematic sense. It's a take many fans have shared for years, and we dig into why it would’ve been the stronger choice. Where Scream 3  Still Works Despite its flaws and behind-the-scenes compromises, Scream 3  remains fun, meta, and memorable: Hollywood Satire The film’s exploration of sleazy producers, exploitation, and the absurdity of the movie business hits harder today than when it premiered. Inventive Kills The explosions, the voice changer, the chase scenes. Ghostface gets creative this time, albeit we're adding the nuance of mimicking voices of characters in the movie. Parker Posey Steals Her Scenes Her performance as Jennifer Jolie, the actress playing Gale Weathers in the Stab  films, is a comedic and chaotic highlight. She brings energy, humor, and a standout meta performance that elevates every scene she’s in. Meta Evolution The movie-within-the-movie-within-the-movie format continues, deepening the Stab  satire and expanding Scream’s   commentary on Hollywood and storytelling. Scream 3  may be messy, but it still understands the spirit of the franchise, and it remains entertaining even when it misses the mark. With Scream 7  on the way, each revisit helps us trace the franchise’s evolution, from brilliance to chaos to reinvention, and Scream 3  plays an essential part in that journey. Catch Up on the Lead Up Series Scream | Do You Like Scary Movies? – Where the horror revolution began Scream 2 | I Think I Love You   – The rare sequel that heightens the original Spotify  | Apple Podcasts  | Amazon Music  | More Links