“Scream” (2022) is the fifth installment in the horror franchise, the first film without Wes Craven, and starts twenty-five years after the original. Another copycat killer stalks and kills a new group of Woodsboro, California residents, which gets the attention of Sam (Melissa Barrera), a young woman with a link to the original murders. She accepts the help of the original survivors: Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), Dewey Riley (David Arquette) and Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox). Why did the killings start again, and who will survive this time?
“Scream” is no “Halloween H20: 20 Years Later” (1998) and relies heavily on the new ensemble to get viewers invested in the story. While the filmmakers believe there is a protagonist, Sam, no single new character is independently interesting outside of the original story. The closest thing that we have to a final girl throughout the entire film is Tara (Jenna Ortega), Sam’s sister, and while rooting for her, I was equally laughing hard at the absurdity that after her sister, she was the most effective at defending herself in hand-to-hand combat against the killer. If you are familiar with the trope of the slow-moving killer still catching up to the running victim, reverse it, and you will get a sense of how unintentionally funny one stalking scene is. Also, with the licks that Tara and others were getting in, the Ghostface Killer needs to be supernatural to come back stronger than ever without needing to lie down.
Only hard core completist fans should return to the franchise because it was over with “Scream 4” (2011), which at least had the smarts when introducing new characters to cast recognizable actors who later went on and continued to have amazing careers. While this new ensemble may have great careers and famous parents and are engaging, they are not recognizable enough or have the right chemistry to win our empathy. When the original cast returns, they anchor “Scream,” but are ultimately disappointing and are no Laurie Strode or Dr. Loomis. Viewers will find themselves wondering how they made it this far.
Part of the pleasure of the original was the meta commentary about horror movies and how it influenced the narrative, but “Scream” introduces the concept of the requel and the franchise’s place in the horror genre with the emergence of elevated horror. Do people use the word requel to refer to anything? Am I old? Let’s not make this term a thing. The film defines requel to introduce new characters by continuing the story and bringing back old cast as supporting actors, but a quick Google search suggests other alternatives such as a movie which revisits the subject, but is not a remake or linear continuation. “Scream” is a linear continuation though it does not resume where “Scream 4” last left off. Please abandon this meta narrative device if you cannot find a term that resonates with everyone. I kind of hate that everyone is going to use “Scream” definition going forward. It is very Rachel Dolezal redefining transracial.
If “Scream” has anything going for it, it is humor. There is a bit with hand sanitizer though the pandemic does not exist in this movie, and the preference for elevated horror over this franchise. The writers made a lot of fun of this sequel, which I appreciated, but I am laughing at you, not with you. There are nice moments of suspense and tension. The directing is at its best when a person is alone in their house and the camera frames the scene still and wide then gradually follows the person’s movements thus making the viewer anticipate that the killer will jump out behind a door and makes us peer around corners. The film was messing with us, and I enjoyed that element. Richie (Jack Quaid, yes, that Quaid), Sam’s boyfriend, got the best one-liners.
“Scream” gets demerits for trafficking in stupid horror movie tropes. The film made the identity of the Ghost Faced Killer obvious during the opening scene although I briefly got misdirected and thought there were three. Also, horror films need to stop using empty hospitals. They are never empty. The recovery from injuries varies dramatically. One person who gets stabbed in the gut and another who gets shot just need blankets to recover whereas others need a gurney. One person who should have been dead—who had a slashed femoral artery and got stabbed repeatedly—survived and was conscious! No! How?!? Do not let your mouth write checks that your ass cannot catch. All these characters talked tough, but no one could fight. Just a lot of flailing and panicking. Also if you own a gun, do not pick up a knife or look for the killer without brandishing anything. If you do have a weapon and get one hit, do not drop the weapon. You can hold the weapon and run. If you successfully knock out the killer, take the mask off!
“Scream” had one nugget of potential that it squandered.
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
Either Skeet Ulrch found the fountain of youth, or the filmmakers pulled an “Ocean’s Eleven” on Marvel and stole their de-aging CGI technology because he reprises his role as a hallucination of Billy Loomis that appears to his secret love child. I concede that the film is problematic for popularizing the inherent dangerousness of people who have mental health disabilities or the idea that criminal proclivities are genetic. For a horror film, the film was on the right track with the idea that Billy had a kid who fights the urge to kill, but the film was afraid of creating an unlikable character and just tossed it out there instead of exploring and committing to it throughout the entire narrative.
If “Scream” had committed to this concept, it could have worked. Give us a kid who inexplicably has been fighting homicidal urges forever then finds out the truth about their lineage. It would be like “Dexter” when Billy’s kid finds out about the Ghostface Killer resuming and can finally give in to their urges. Finally this person has the freedom to indulge instead of a one and done vibe. The denouement permits this person to let loose yet refused to build up to it throughout the narrative in terms of physicality and acting style in conveying an excitement at the prospect of getting permission to be violent. This character received a lot of random hate for being a troublemaker without showing this person being unsettling. The filmmakers want us to empathize with this character being the town scapegoat instead of embracing the idea that maybe they have a point and distinguishing them from Ghostface’s other targets. There should also be a fear that Billy’s kid won’t be able to stop and may take up their father’s mantle. If being a serial killer’s kid is going to be equated with having superpowers, develop that concept throughout the film. What a missed opportunity!
The Scream franchise sems to love the idea of the killer gloating over being the victim’s lover, and the victim being tricked, but in this scenario, suppose Billy’s kid’s intuition was sharp and was just seeing how far the killer was willing to go instead of constantly feeling betrayed. It would have been transgressive and fun. Instead the movie feels as if it was tacitly rebuking people for trusting the wrong people instead of the wrong people hurting those who trust them.
While earlier, I rebuke the movie for the uneven consequences to physical injuries, I do appreciate that the filmmakers said, “We are not killing the black or people of color characters. Nope. I do not care how injured they are. We do not need those problems.” Ha! Fair enough.
